Does every movie seem to "flop" these days

B.A._Baracus

Or at least according to online news articles.
Just seen this on twitter news feed:

Disney‘s Jack London adaptation The Call of the Wild, starring Harrison Ford, is predicted to make a loss of $50m (£39m) after a disappointing box office opening.

Any time a new movie is released you see nothing but "XXX is a flop" videos on youtube from the likes of the Looper channel etc etc. Is this all BS? :pac: or are movie box office returns really suffering these days?

is_that_so

It's all the extra marketing costs they fail to cover, that and a poor concept to start with. Too many films these days are colour by numbers templates.

gmisk

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Or at leastaccording to online news articles.
Just seen this on twitter:



Any time a new movie is released you see nothing but "XXX is a flop" videos on youtube from the likes of the Looper channel etc etc. Is this all BS? :pac: or are movies box office returns really suffering these days?

People seem to just like headlines like that.
The majority of films seem to make money given enough time.
The 2.5 rule is a good indicator

s7ryf3925pivug

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Or at least according to online news articles.
Just seen this on twitter news feed:



Any time a new movie is released you see nothing but "XXX is a flop" videos on youtube from the likes of the Looper channel etc etc. Is this all BS? :pac: or are movie box office returns really suffering these days?

XXX made a profit of almost 190 million, despite bad reviews.

Peregrinus

Yes, most films lose money.

Gmisk's point that "the majority of films seem to make money given enough time" doesn't really change things. There's a time-cost to money; If I spend $50 million on making a film and, after 10 years, it has earned 50 million taking account of the royalties I get from Netflix every time someone views it, I'm still seriously in the red, because I've been paying interest on the 50 million I borrowed to make the film in the first place (or, if I had the 50 million sitting around, I have lost the interest that I would have earned, if I hadn't blown in on that damn film). If a film doesn't earn enough money, early enough, it's in the red permanently. And this is the fate of the majority of films that are made.

gmisk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, most films lose money.

Gmisk's point that "the majority of films seem to make money given enough time" doesn't really change things. There's a time-cost to money; If I spend $50 million on making a film and, after 10 years, it has earned 50 million taking account of the royalties I get from Netflix every time someone views it, I'm still seriously in the red, because I've been paying interest on the 50 million I borrowed to make the film in the first place (or, if I had the 50 million sitting around, I have lost the interest that I would have earned, if I hadn't blown in on that damn film). If a film doesn't earn enough money, early enough, it's in the red permanently. And this is the fate of the majority of films that are made.

I suppose in that case it would depend how it was funded.
Blumhouse seem to have an amazing track record for films making back massive multiples of their budgets.

Unearthly

Just seen the budget was from $125 million to $150 million not including marketing costs which seems crazy for a film that's not a super hero film, a banker of a director (Christopher Nolan) or a modern box office draw (Dwayne Johnson)

It was always going to flop imo

Peregrinus

gmisk wrote: »

I suppose in that case it would depend how it was funded.

Not really. Just on how much it costs.

gmisk wrote: »

Blumhouse seem to have an amazing track record for films making back massive multiples of their budgets.

All (solvent) film production companies produce some films that make back massive multiples of their budgets; that's how they sustain all the films that don't, without becoming insolvent. For most production companies, that's still a minority of the films they produce. What matters is not the number of films that make back more than they cost, but the ratio of those films to the films that don't.

Probably worth pointing out that I think in movie accounting there is a distinction between the "budget" - what it costs to make the film - and the production cost, which is the budget plus the cost of financing, distributing, promoting, etc the film. The production cost can be a multiple of the budget several times over, and the film is not in the black until revenues have exceeded the production cost.

And the other point worth making is that production companies sometimes have a perverse incentive to prevent films from being profitable. This is because some of the investors/participants in the film are repaid with a percentage share of the profits. The more you inflate the costs, the lower the profits, the less has to be paid to these people. So there are all kinds of dark accounting tricks to keep films in the red.

Tl;dr: never ever ever invest in film production.

is_that_so

OK just had a look at the trailer for this- God it's terrible. That's a better explanation for its failure. Whatever happened to Disney's ability to trot out family films?

s7ryf3925pivug

is_that_so wrote: »

OK just had a look at the trailer for this- God it's terrible. That's a better explanation for its failure. Whatever happened to Disney's ability to trot out family films?

Unless you count Star Wars movies, I can't think of a non-animated Disney film that was not terrible.

gmisk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. Just on how much it costs.


All (solvent) film production companies produce some films that make back massive multiples of their budgets; that's how they sustain all the films that don't, without becoming insolvent. For most production companies, that's still a minority of the films they produce. What matters is not the number of films that make back more than they cost, but the ratio of those films to the films that don't.

Probably worth pointing out that I think in movie accounting there is a distinction between the "budget" - what it costs to make the film - and the production cost, which is the budget plus the cost of financing, distributing, promoting, etc the film. The production cost can be a multiple of the budget several times over, and the film is not in the black until revenues have exceeded the production cost.

And the other point worth making is that production companies sometimes have a perverse incentive to prevent films from being profitable. This is because some of the investors/participants in the film are repaid with a percentage share of the profits. The more you inflate the costs, the lower the profits, the less has to be paid to these people. So there are all kinds of dark accounting tricks to keep films in the red.

Tl;dr: never ever ever invest in film production.

Don't worry I wouldn't.
Yes is that not the 2.5 rule?
A film has to make 2.5 times it's budget to likely break even

gmisk

Skylar Scruffy Weekday wrote: »

Unless you count Star Wars movies, I can't think of a non-animated Disney film that was not terrible.

I will stand up for enchanted!

Effects

Doesn't look that bad. I wouldn't go see it though. Maybe if I had kids.

OptimusTractor

Skylar Scruffy Weekday wrote: »

Unless you count Star Wars movies, I can't think of a non-animated Disney film that was not terrible.

But the Star Wars movies are terrible it's just they have the fandom to make a profit hence not a flop.

CrankyHaus

While it may not be as relevant to The Call of the Wild the loss of the Chinese Box Office as a result of Coronavirus is a big problem for a lot of recent releases like Birds of Prey.

Also accounting to show a loss on films for tax avoidance is known to happen, again I doubt it applies to films on the budget of Call of The Wild though.

Harry Palmr

1 in 10 films (be it a Star Wars/Transformers or an IT/Get Out) pay for the other 9. It was always thus.

There has been narrowing of the product base due to a preponderance of very expensive or very cheap films with a squeezed middle budget cohort (which used to be the studio's bread and butter).

I see Sonic the Hedgehog is doing quite well so all isn't lost!

Tired Gardener

Given the budget that a lot of these big films have, it seems that they are destined to fail from the get go.

That is before we add in marketing, that just compounds the issue.

I remember reading somewhere, that unless a film makes back 150% of its budget, it is deemed a flop. Films are essentially a gamble investment, sometimes they do well and pay out a lot of money, mostly they don't.

s7ryf3925pivug

Looking at a list of the biggest flops, apparently Dark Phoenix made a loss of about 100 million. That's mad. I thought it was good and preferred it greatly to Avengers Endgame and Infinity War.

El Duda

In one of Kermode's books he says that there used to be formula;

Take a known historical event or a known property + A budget so big that it is a headline in itself + a bankable movie star = profit

This fell apart years ago. Look at films like The Mummy as proof.

pixelburp

"Call of the Wild" had a budget of $135 million??? Good god. For what was, in effect, a "one man and his dog" movie, an ancient genre. That's an insane budget for what presumably went into the needless CGI on the dog itself. Feels like this was someone's vanity project that so much money was spent on something more easily done with a couple of real dogs & their handlers. That film was always destined to fail with those numbers, when if it was produced with more sanity could have done just fine.

Hollywood economics are a basket-case these days anyway. Their laws of scale seem out of step with any other major industry, operating with a weird mentality that one throws more money at a problem, rather than less. Blockbusters in particular suffer from these out of control budgets; any production that needs to make a minimum of $1 billion is ludicrous.

You'd think studios would aim for more Jumanjis or Jokers: small ~$50 million budget productions that have huge profit margins, precisely because the budgets were sensible, and the creatives given enough wriggle room to make the movie they want (good publicity also helps mind, the former from good word of mouth, the latter too, albeit hysterical "Ban this filth" kind of mentality)

Homelander

gmisk wrote: »

Blumhouse seem to have an amazing track record for films making back massive multiples of their budgets.

It's smart choices. Most of their films are very "low budget" in the context of cinema releases and relatively simple premises with good market appeal without having to spend hugely on overly lavish productions/marketing/stars.

They usally tend to easily cover themselves at the box office if not turn a very decent profit, and then probably clean up on streaming/media sales.

I mean Upgrade, Happy Death Day and The Invisible Man only cost something like €15m to make between all 3....all great cinema experiences too.

Considering almost all their films make a healthy profit on average, and their low cost to begin with, the fact they land major box office hits with fair frequency that make 20x their budget means they could sustain the model forever really.

It's similar to how that production company The Asylum makes those god-awful, completely unwatchable rip-off movies of the big blockbusters.

Like, you'd have a €200m movie like Transformers, and they'd make a €500K copy called 'Transmorphers" - literally 1/400th the budget with the same premise.

You can imagine what the results are like, but up until very recently they'd always turned a healthy profit on each load-of-crap. And they're not just 'bad' movies, they're literally completely unwatchable and beyond cringe.

They've got a few good 'so bad it's good' ones though you'd watch with friends, like Sharknado...but 98% of them are utter garbage.

El Duda

Skylar Scruffy Weekday wrote: »

I thought it was good and preferred it greatly to Avengers Endgame and Infinity War.

Now THAT'S mad.

PsychoPete

pixelburp wrote: »

"Call of the Wild" had a budget of $135 million??? Good god. For what was, in effect, a "one man and his dog" movie, an ancient genre.

90% of the budget probably went to Harrison Ford

El Duda

With a budget of $135M, they could've funded loads of up and coming filmmakers to make 45 $3M budgeted films instead.

But no. The world needed a terrible looking CGI dog film apparently.

the_pen_turner

A lot of it is down to them all being repeats of films done already.
Make a new film with a new story and people will want to see it

cian68

the_pen_turner wrote: »

A lot of it is down to them all being repeats of films done already.
Make a new film with a new story and people will want to see it

Lion King and Beauty and the Beast made about a gajilllion dollars. That's why they make remakes because they make money

jill_valentine

I do have to wonder if some of it is down to the effect of Youtube etc on how entertainment headlines are written.

Zeek12

PsychoPete wrote: »

90% of the budget probably went to Harrison Ford

Speaking of Mr. Ford, I read recently Blade Runner 2049 was considered a real flop too. Apparently lost the studio about $80 million.

You could say it's a real spiritual follow up to the original so - which also "bombed" at the box office in 1982.
Though years later it came close to breaking even with DVD/Blu-ray and it's growing cult following.

CastorTroy

I watched Kubo and the 2 Strings recently and while looking up how it did at the cinema, I see Laika films don't do well. surprised they're still going. They make great movies, in my opinion.
Although I still need to watch The Missing Link, I was happy to see them win the Golden Globe and get nominated for an Oscar at least.
The Missing Link had a budget of $100 million, according to Wikipedia and had box office of only $26.2 million

Wedwood

Haven’t seen Call of the Wild yet, but from the trailers it looks more like a $50m movie. They were asking for trouble spending that sort of money on basically a Lassie movie.

On those online video reviews, I don’t take any of them seriously. They spend most of their time in angry troll mode, lecturing about everything that’s wrong about every aspect of the movie.

How can you give serious consideration to a movie review by some middle aged bloke sitting in his bedroom with his toys on display behind him?

CinemaGuy45

is_that_so wrote: »

OK just had a look at the trailer for this- God it's terrible. That's a better explanation for its failure. Whatever happened to Disney's ability to trot out family films?

Jesus bad CGI.

This is not a dragon or a dinosaur we all know what a dog should look like.

Sad Professor

It may have been said already, but streaming deals and blu-ray sales are figured into the profitability of a film. It's not all about box office anymore. The studios keep making these box office "flops" so they are obviously making money somewhere along the line.

As for why they don't make more smaller mid-budget films, such films still have to be marketed and the marketing would probably end up costing more than the film. In such situations the studios may decide it's not worth the risk and just shelve the film or send it straight to Netflix. It's seemingly only when a ridiculous amount of money is on the line and/or the fate of the whole studio is hanging in the balance that films get the marketing they need to be a success. As a result there seems to be an incentive to spend as much money as possible on the film in order to ensure it gets the release it needs or gets made in the first place.

Dodge

Very specifically with Disney, the film isn’t produced in isolation. There’s merchandise, theme park tie ins and all sorts of inter connected segments of their business

They may have the odd flop but in 2019 the film part of the business reported over 11 billion dollars in revenue. The Disney company. And of course, they have Disney Plus to provide content for now too

The theme parks bring in most revenue fwiw https://www.statista.com/statistics/193140/revenue-of-the-walt-disney-company-by-operating-segment/

fryup

95% of films is the same ol same ol ....there's only about half a dozen a year that stand out (imo)

vriesmays

Charlton Heston was on the Late Late years ago and Gaybo asked him which movie did he regret doing. Answer: Call of the wild.

Tony EH

No. But a lot of the flops are simply symptomatic of the problems with modern capitalism. Rampant, unreasonable, greed has caused everything to spiral out of control and the costs of things have gotten away from any kind of realistic parameter or measure.

$150 million for a story about a guy and a dog. Just think about that for a second and how bloody absurd it is. Movies don't need to be made for that kind of silly money, especially for such a twee concept. There are plenty of good story driven films that have been produced for a fraction of that. In fact, 'Call of the Wild' has been made several times for much, much, less money than this Harrison Ford outing.

However, the major problem with these super budgeted movies is that they have to make back so much money to just break even, that the risk is extremely dangerous. Anyone with any kind of risk aversion in project management would touch these things with a barge pole.

And sure, art should have an element of risk and all that. But, the amount of actual art involved in these Hollywood movies is minimal, at best.

It has to go pop at some point.

fritzelly

Maybe if Hollywood stopped remaking the same films over and over again and actually brought to screen some new story they wouldn't be as big a flop
It's like some guy says hey this film did amazing 10 years ago lets remake it and throw loads of money at it and then someone else wonders why it lost money

Flesh Gorden

As a very rough guide, films need to be breaking the $1 billion mark to be considered successful and the $2 billion mark to be blockbusters.

Good example being the Charlie's Angels film from last year, which had an estimated budget of about $50m and grossed $72m.

Which sounds good, but the studio were probably hoping for it to make 10-20x times as much.

Plus, there's no way to know if it actually did make any money due to...


Hollywood Accounting

In a nutshell, studios use similar tricks that the tech companies use to avoid paying taxes and residuals, with shell companies and inflated licensing and distribution fees, to ensure it never turns a profit.

Even though studios design films to lose money, they don't want them losing too much money.

A nice little list to look at: List of Biggest Box Office Bombs



Decent video here explaining how the Harry Potter films have technically never turned a profit and neither has The Return of the Jedi.

(Skip to 1:35 to get to the point, as he has a lot of filler in his videos.)

Homelander

Saying a movie has to make $2bn to be a blockbuster is a bit silly as 99% of movies don't reach that, even the literal blockbusters.

Harry Potter and ROTJ made tonnes of money, it was just clever Hollywood accounting means they "didn't"

The more correct rule of thumb is probably that a movie has to make double its budget to break even, anything after that is profit (though obviously in some cases, double budget is a healthy profit, in others, nada, but in general)