-
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.
A Look at the Top 20 Most Profitable Films of 2016 (according to Deadline)
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
- Status
Not that it would change the results much, but I sort of wonder if Deadline is underestimating the marketing costs for Sing and SLOP. Those seemed to be everywhere for many months prior to release.
I remember seeing SLOP merchandise in stores as early as Dory merchandise. It usually had as much if not more shelf space than Dory (outside of Disney stores).
tearsintherain
Member
"Marketing costs" is the hidden dirty secret of Hollywood. Take a Disney movie for example. They will blow an extraordinary amount of money on marketing, but a ton of it is going to get directed at ABC Television, ESPN, and Walt Disney World/Studios - all places owned by Disney. They are different subsidiaries though so while its a "cost" to Touchstone Pictures its extra revenue for ESPN which all contributes to Disney's bottom line. The marketing fees get insane too, like distribution costs get tacked on to send prints and stuff but the charges are exorbitant, something that may cost $5m gets charged $30m and very few executive producers have the clout (or desire) to fight that, all to make it look like most movies rarely make a profit.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
The old personal version for working stiffs used to be charging lavish lunches and drinking sprees as "business expenses" but the IRS long ago made it much harder for most people, but not for corporations.
Also interesting that almost all the films made most of their money due to world-wide revenues which generally were bigger than domestic, its definitely going to have a bigger and bigger impact on casting and tent-pole movies as time goes on.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
The old personal version for working stiffs used to be charging lavish lunches and drinking sprees as "business expenses" but the IRS long ago made it much harder for most people, but not for corporations.
Also interesting that almost all the films made most of their money due to world-wide revenues which generally were bigger than domestic, its definitely going to have a bigger and bigger impact on casting and tent-pole movies as time goes on.
hodayathink
Member
Jeez. You aren't kidding. And now it makes perfect sense why Ryan wanted to go the low budget route for Deadpool 2 as opposed to let Tim Miller inflate the budget to prove he could make a better big-budget superhero movie.
andythinkpad
Member
Half of them are talking animals. Basically people just want comfort food movies.
Looking at this I don't get why Marvel Studios isn't more interested in trying to make more smaller scale and budgeted affairs in the vein of Deadpool or even Logan. Something like Heroes for Hire or even Black Widow can be comfortably made along similar lines.
Or children will be children, and parents will take their spawn to whatever they show the most interest in, often making it a family evening event in the process.
Or children will be children, and parents will take their spawn to whatever they show the most interest in, often making it a family evening event in the process.
Because Deadpool and Logan are movies that happened after the lineup up until 2020 was mapped out and now they cant move around because they have to set a couple of things up.
I think we will something smaller scale after Infinity War 2.
hodayathink
Member
Don't Breathe cost less, probably had a similar marketing budget (if not a little smaller), had a higher gross ($157 million) and it barely made the list. If there's one thing this list will show you, it's that wide releases aren't cheap, no matter what the budget for the movie is. Next year's list with Split/Get Out will probably hammer this home.
What I meant was why haven't they even tried it yet. It was part of their plan before Iron Man blew up and they got started on the Avengers. Although I guess that answers it.
Let's hope you are right and they do try some smaller scale movies in phase 4.
It's not all bad. There's a few original movies in there, a couple about minorities and non-white ethnicities, and it includes two horror movies and several musicals (including a live action one).
And people have been saying that last thing forever. It might still happen, but I think thanks to WW and emerging markets potential saturation points got an extension.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
A few things to point out.
1) You might notice that the revenue sheet for La La Land is a bit strange. This is due to the fact that Lionsgate sells off the majority of the international distribution rights for its films. This allows them to offset the risks of their productions (and avoid losing big money on their bombs), but it is to their detriment when a film blows up like La La Land. So, while the film made quite a bit overseas, Lionsgate only directly profits from the UK gross (where they distributed). I would guess that the remaining $30M or so in that overseas studio cut comes from profit sharing clauses in territories where La La Land overperformed. The proceeds of the international rights sales for La La Land are listed under foreign contributions ($55M).
Selling the foreign rights also means that Lionsgate misses out on international TV and home video profits. I'm not really sure why Deadline left the WW Home Media figure blank though. Presumably, Lionsgate makes money off domestic home video.
2) There are two categories for Prints and Advertising under the Expenses chart. If the studio handled worldwide distribution (with some exceptions in most cases), the total marketing and distribution costs (domestic + international) are listed under WW Prints and Ads. In La La Land's case, Lionsgate is only paying for the domestic distribution and ads, so the expense is listed in the domestic column.
3) The participation expense estimates money distributed in the various gross participation deals in the contracts of a film's actors, director, producers, etc. I assume that the residuals come from TV and Home video profits (and also go to the talent involved in the film).
4) Don't Breathe is a good case study in why studios don't just release 50 low budget films a year even if they typically gross 3-20x their production budgets. When you factor in the other expenses, production budget is almost negligible.
This thread started when we only had #11-20. I have been updating the thread as new data was added. If you are joining late, many of the posts before #47 are talking about an then incomplete list of films.
Where would Marvel's pecentage of Deadpools BO go? Residuals or participation? Or is it just not accounted for?
Should be both if they accounted for it. I'm not sure if they accounted for it though.
SchrodingerC
Member
Sing, SLoP and Finding Dory are in the top ten? Well, not too surprised by FD(even though it was a boring rehash), but Sing and SLoP cracking the top 10 is unbelievable.
Illumination found its formula, I guess.
Illumination found its formula, I guess.
I had fun with SLoP and my daughter loved it. Haven't seen sing yet.
- Status