Discotheque
Banned
that's not how the math works though. i'm not sure but I think it has to at least double production budget or something.
It's a BOMBA
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wkd BO 0407-0917 - Baby & the Beast still Going In Style, auds con. to Ghost ScarJo
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
that's not how the math works though. i'm not sure but I think it has to at least double production budget or something.
It's a BOMBA
Do you even math bro.
I think that most people joining box office discussion make the "WW gross - (reported) production budget = profit" mistake at least once, because we correct it at least a dozen times a year. I guess I can see why people make that mistake.
Roughly speaking
Studio Revenue = Dom_Gross*0.55 + OS_Gross*0.40 + China_Gross*0.25
That is not perfect for every film, but it is close enough for a rough idea of how a film is making out. Especially if we are talking about projects with >$75M budgets. Marketing costs are more important to low budget films than production costs.
Also, in general, if you are reading something from Variety or Hollywood Reporter, you can assume that they have at least some idea of what they are talking about.
Roughly speaking
Studio Revenue = Dom_Gross*0.55 + OS_Gross*0.40 + China_Gross*0.25
That is not perfect for every film, but it is close enough for a rough idea of how a film is making out. Especially if we are talking about projects with >$75M budgets. Marketing costs are more important to low budget films than production costs.
Also, in general, if you are reading something from Variety or Hollywood Reporter, you can assume that they have at least some idea of what they are talking about.
GitS probably has made <$50M for the studio thus far.
It's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50M.
DryEyeRelief
Member
safe to say GitS isn't getting a sequel?
Gentleman Jack
Member
Not a live-action one, anyway.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It may come within striking distance of breaking even before the end of its run depending on how severe the drop off continues to be. After it does the home video and streaming circuit it might have been profitable. I would not expect them to drop a 100+ million budget on a sequel, but I also don't think it's impossible that we'll get one at some point. They have a built-in excuse for why the lead actor can change between films so they wouldn't need to bring ScarJo back.
BronsonLee
Member
I think they'd bring her back just so they don't get Aquaman 2'd
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
Dash_Riprock
Member
Someone just embarrassed themselves...
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
On one hand it's a story that most people are already familiar with (read: beaten over the head with as a child, even though most people like the beating), it has strong characters that are fairly malleable to fit whatever direction you want to go in, it's exciting with swordplay at the very least, and there's a metric ton of material you can pull from, most of it in public domain. To your average studio exec, that looks very appealing.
And because so many different takes have already been done, you can mix and match pieces to your desire, or throw them all in one giant "stew." You've got the aforementioned action, and can take that even further and make it a "boy's film," or even take that further and throw in some Ho Yay for a twist - the show Merlin leaned into this a bit. Or you could include the love angle with the Courtly Love that old France loved, the forbidden Arthur/Morgan love for some extra kink, the questionable passionate inferno of Uther Pendragon, or at the very least the old Gwen/Lancelot affair (rape of Gwen by Maleagant and/or Lancelot by Elaine can be thrown in as well). You could play it as a child's tale, or a straight fairy tale (Once And Future King style), or purely historical (Hint: don't ever do this), or political intrigue, or satire, or high fantasy, or a superhero story (some of the earliest Welsh stories are basically this), or a war story, or a comedy (time travel is usually involved here), or even a straight up god epic, but whoever does it will probably do a mixture of all of these things to varying degrees.
From there you can include various themes. You've got: religion (Christianity, Paganism, Druidism - you've got extra leeway here because not only are the last two not widely practiced, but the Christians' mission to completely obliterate all traces of them from the British Isles was so thoroughly successful that we still have to take broad guesses at even the basic aspects of them means that nobody can even attack you for inaccuracy - take that, nerds!), family (bonus points if you go the Arthur is Mordred's daddy route), feminism, might = right, chivalry, them vs us (for realism go with the Saxons, for fantasy go with some combination of Fair Folk/giants/trolls/evil wizards, for craziness go with the Holy Roman Empire), treachery, brain vs brawn, matters of state... the list goes on and on. Depending on how heavily you're leaning into the fantasy aspect, you've got everything from dragons to magic to griffins to Fair Folk to Queen Mab, who doesn't even make any sense but fuck it throw her in too. You don't even have to do it from Arthur's perspective. We've got stories about Merlin, Morgan, Gawain, Gwen, Lancelot, Mordred, Mordred's fucking dog. You could just go nuts and make it a story all about Pellinore and his dragon who may or may not be real, with special guest stars Lancelot and Arthur. We've got prequels, sequels, after-the-end stories, stories that sound like acid trips, pages of text about jousting tournaments, random adventures that inexplicably contain sets of colors for some reason. If you want you can throw in the goddamn Holy Grail. No, it doesn't make sense. Mallory and the French didn't care, so why should you? Or, throw it in but make it not that Grail. Just a Grail. Throw in all the winks and nods you want.
Now you can step back and say "Damn, that's a lot of good shit you can do." And you're right. There's a lot of good shit in those hills. And writers, and directors, and producers and studio execs know it too. But there's a problem that most don't immediately see, or ever see. Instead of reading those last couple paragraphs I've typed up and looking at the possibilities, look at what I've used as supporting arguments. All of those things I've listed aren't me brainstorming or throwing ideas at the wall - they're specific references. All of those takes and themes and ideas have been done. Some of them have been done multiple times. At this point, this isn't a well-trodden path. This is a carefully cataloged and documented city park disguised as a wilderness. You already know your favorite aspects, which paths you want to go down, your favorite views. Even if you do something unusual, you know you're still in the same park that everyone else is in. Different views, same basic structures.
I'm not saying nobody else should take a stab at an Arthur story. There's been plenty of good ones, and there will be plenty more. But it is something that requires some thought and creativity to grab an audience's attention and not seem old hat.
Which is why it's baffling to me that someone looked at the King Arthur legend and decided that 2017 needs a darker and edgier action film version. The action genre is already packed as it is, and with stories that can provide greater degrees of it than this looks capable of. The dark and edgy aspects look mild, with aesthetics that look like they're from 10 years ago, and the dark nature of films from 20 years ago. I'm not sure who this film is supposed to interest in 2017. Even more confusing is the fact that they wanted to make this a multi-film universe at one point. Like, on what basis? On the off chance everyone decides to skip Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and see this instead, justifying more of these?
Good fucking luck.
Someone will try a direct to video one
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
No it didn't. Studios get a fraction of the ticket sales, from 55% domestically to 25% in China.
Edit: whelp, didn't realize that wasn't the last page lol. Been covered haha
RandomHopeInc
Member
C L I C K B A I T Y so I don't think they mean it
The Horror the horror
Banned
Another few weeks and Ghost will be Swayze.
MHWilliams
Member
I feel like you think you're making a point, but you're really not and the entire premise of this post is frankly odd.
1. Why Ant-Man? Ant-Man had a stronger start. It had better legs. It had no expectations outside of the Marvel brand. Ant-Man had a domestic gross of $180 million and an international take of $519 million. GITS will be lucky to hit $50 million domestic and international will be dropping off real quick, with most estimates putting the take at somewhere between $150-180 million. It's a bomb on its own, it's dire compared to Ant-Man.
2. Power Rangers the IP is built for a much younger demographic than the film. There is no tie between Power Rangers and Power Rangers: Ninja Steel. 50% of PR's audience was over-25. It was made for Hunger Games/Divergent-watching young adults and nostalgia fans. Power Rangers the TV show is for kids 2-11 at its oldest.
3. Power Rangers is also a bomb! Who has said otherwise?
You seem to be searching for a reason GITS isn't a bomb. It is. That has nothing to do with whether you liked or disliked the film. I've liked films that have bombed before. I literally mentioned that PR was dead in this very thread. GITS bombed. It's going to lose money. There will be no sequel. And there's no real dodging around that with comparisons to other films.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Yup,
the problem actually comes from the fact that many people see/hear "Power Rangers" and they think its that 2-10 year old stuff and won't even give it a chance.
However unlike GITS this movie could be somewhat successful for the simple fact of brand recognition/merchandise.
Deadline estimated a $60M loss for GitS factoring all of that stuff in. They were basing their conclusion on a $200M WW gross, which is about where the film is heading.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Beauty and the Beast might end up being the 2nd highest grossing movie of the year.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Is that including like marketing and such? 60m net loss off just production budget would be about where it's at this week I thought.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Ehrlich & IndieWire
Clickbaity.
Sure.
(read)
I had gotten the impression this wasn't that out of bounds a prediction for the year.
MHWilliams
Member
airmangataosenai
Member
The movie still has a good shot of making that amount actually, but that math will still likely leave it in the red.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Not record breaking, but ouch.
Minor point, it was the still-pagan Romans who annihilated the druids.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I thought Ghost in the Shell would disappoint. I did not think it would perform like Ghost Dad in the Shell
The Power Ranger should've had a lower budget at around 50 mil. Would be doable too, if they had someone like Sakamoto (director) do the movie, he's already done both Power Rangers and Sentai eps/movies at a significantly lower budget. Cut the mediocre CG for real toys being use for the Zord fights, would be a nice throw back to the OG series. I think it would've done about the same as it is doing right now, the only difference it would be making a good profit. Oh well.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Discotheque
Banned
BobbyBomba
BombaRoberts
BombaRoberts
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You'll get there someday
broncobuster
Banned
King Arthur. It is foreseen.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
They killed a lot of them, sure. They did not wipe nearly all traces of their existence from the land, though. That was definitely the Christians. The Romans were content with letting the people they conquered practice and believe in whatever they want as long as they didn't take up arms against them. Well, as a general rule, anyways.
Discotheque
Banned
yep. I hope it's a John Carter/Lone Ranger/Speed Racer bomb though where I end up really enjoying it despite the inevitable poor reviews and financial failure.
trailers look a lot cooler than I expected when it was announced. Its about time they brought back this high fantasy cheese to the king arthur tale.
Guess I'll depend if they'll be willing to lower the budget significantly for the sequel, they still have the Green Ranger on deck for the sequel.
LordOfLore
Banned
Camelot 3000. WB has the rights, right?
100% truth. I was looking forward to this, but I wanted the orignal Power Ranger designs - which still work IMO - of course they can modernize the Zords and have to take the enemies that resemble ordinary animals or household items away - when I want to watch a movie that only use a bit similar designs I can watch one of the tv shows.
- Status