Skip to main content
17 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 11, 2020 at 20:51 comment added BCdotWEB It's not so much Disney banking on this one movie, it's that even the likes of Disney cannot spend hundreds of millions on several movies and then only one of them becoming a sizable hit. Plus, there's the expectations. See also: ew.com/movies/star-wars-movies-box-office-comparison
Aug 11, 2020 at 13:29 history edited RLH CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 1 character in body
Jun 30, 2018 at 3:32 history tweeted twitter.com/StackMovies/status/1012901632303038464
Jun 23, 2018 at 16:26 vote accept RLH
Jun 21, 2018 at 17:37 comment added Oliver_C Related: Why is the break-even point for movies usually twice the budget?
Jun 21, 2018 at 17:01 answer added iandotkelly timeline score: 7
Jun 21, 2018 at 16:01 comment added M. A. Golding IMHO a studio's income from theater showings is its net income, while the total amount of box office receipts is the gross income ( $343,297,558 in this case), which is shared by the theaters and the studio. Thus Disney's net income from solo so far might be only $ 200,000,000.00 or something, which would be a loss of tens of millions of dollars so far.
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:24 review Close votes
Jun 22, 2018 at 7:17
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:23 comment added iandotkelly It is indeed strange that marketing is usually not reported in the production cost. Possibly its because the number is more fluid and not fully accounted for than the production cost, which often happened in the past, the production taking place over the last couple of years. I guess if a movie gets a lot of natural hype and word of mouth, they may decide to spend less on marketing.
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:22 comment added RLH All ^^ points well made and received. As the old saying goes, "don't put all of your eggs in one basket", it sounds like Disney may have expected significant profits from Solo to subsidize the less-profitable films of this year, and their bet was wrong. Also, I had no clue that marketing wasn't counted in the expense numbers. I know it's not the cost of "making" but if you don't advertise a film, few people will go see it. I would personally just assumed it would have been part of the cost.
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:18 comment added iandotkelly As @Paulie_D says, its a question of risk ... making 10% on an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars is a huge risk. Also, your expectation that the "hidden expenses" is only $50m is probably an underestimate. Rule of thumb for marketing expenses is around 50% of the production costs, expensive blockbusters get more money spent on the marketing. So we may be looking at $125m in marketing budget, meaning they have to make $375 to break even. They will want to bring in double that before they start to consider the movie to have been worth the investment risk.
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:13 comment added BCdotWEB If you expect to make $500 million and you make only $300 million, some would regard that as a flop. Assume a studio makes ten movies a year: most of them will lose money, a couple will do OK, and one will provide you with a massive profit. If that one movie that's supposed to be doing that underperforms, you're suddenly in a lot of trouble.
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:11 comment added Paulie_D And this might even be a dupe - movies.stackexchange.com/questions/12372/…
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:10 comment added Paulie_D This is kinda related - movies.stackexchange.com/a/87562/34317
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:08 comment added Paulie_D It's a matter of relative risk. Do you spend $300m and hope to make $301m...sure it's profit but was it worth risking it?
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:07 history edited Paulie_D CC BY-SA 4.0
edited title
Jun 21, 2018 at 15:00 history asked RLH CC BY-SA 4.0