I KNEW the movie would flop

[Tackhisis]

Garona is the worst of them, because you can also easily tell that she's not on par with the other orcs as she's actually portrayed by a real[ a]ctress, rather then also CGI.

But they could not make it CGI as that character is constantly interacting with humans, and a CGI one would look very out-of-place.

[Feeline10]

What??

What is your basis for saying this? What numbers are you looking at?

- - - Updated - - -



Cause and effect are the reverse - they make a sequel (or prequel or whatever) *if* (they think that) there are tons of people interested in watching it.

- - - Updated - - -



What untruths? That the movie is not a success financially? I think that's the truth.

boxofficemojo.com

More specifically, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm
Budget: 160 million
Worldwide Gross to date: 412,303,890

Again, I'm US. I didn't even like the movie. I'm just providing facts amongst a sea of uneducated posts.

[Osmeric]

boxofficemojo.com

More specifically, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm
Budget: 160 million
Worldwide Gross to date: 412,303,890

Again, I'm US. I didn't even like the movie. I'm just providing facts amongst a sea of uneducated posts.

Legendary teamed up with a wide variety of Chinese partners to get the film marketed there. It's not clear how much of the China box office ended up leaving that country. Of course, Legendary itself is now has Chinese owners, so maybe that doesn't matter.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-...ies-1467103836

(if that comes up behind a paywall, search Google for a link which will evade the wall)

[Deleted]

boxofficemojo.com

More specifically, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm
Budget: 160 million
Worldwide Gross to date: 412,303,890

Again, I'm US. I didn't even like the movie. I'm just providing facts amongst a sea of uneducated posts.

160 million is (apparently) what it took to make the movie, that doesn't take into account marketing or anything else.
412 million is what the cinemas took as a whole, after they take a cut what does that leave?

This article here says:

the movie’s break-even point is rumored to be $500 million

http://www.ibtimes.com/warcraft-us-b...-movie-2380914

So it's not profitable yet.

Just some context around this from another source around the marketing of a film:

“I started thinking about the math,” Smith explains. Red State is a $4 million dollar movie. So if the film makes 5 or 6 million, Kevin’s team will see a profit. If a distributor picked up the film, they would want to spend $20 million for advertising. Now a $4 million dollar film must make $26 million before the creators see any profit. Smith reveals that there’s even more red tape involved. “You essentially have to make $50 million in order to just get into the profit line.”

http://www.beatdownboogie.com/2011/0...-distribution/

[Feeline10]

160 million is (apparently) what it took to make the movie, that doesn't take into account marketing or anything else.
412 million is what the cinemas took as a whole, after they take a cut what does that leave?

This article here says:

the movie’s break-even point is rumored to be $500 million

http://www.ibtimes.com/warcraft-us-b...-movie-2380914

So it's not profitable yet.

Just some context around this from another source around the marketing of a film:

“I started thinking about the math,” Smith explains. Red State is a $4 million dollar movie. So if the film makes 5 or 6 million, Kevin’s team will see a profit. If a distributor picked up the film, they would want to spend $20 million for advertising. Now a $4 million dollar film must make $26 million before the creators see any profit. Smith reveals that there’s even more red tape involved. “You essentially have to make $50 million in order to just get into the profit line.”

http://www.beatdownboogie.com/2011/0...-distribution/

So we're under the assumption that once the movie clears 500 million.. and the budget was 160 million, they spent 340 million on marketing? lol..

I don't have a dog in this fight.. I so don't care if the movie flops. But to say the movie hasn't made a profit is kind of silly, no?

[Pann]

So we're under the assumption that once the movie clears 500 million.. and the budget was 160 million, they spent 340 million on marketing? lol..

I don't have a dog in this fight.. I so don't care if the movie flops. But to say the movie hasn't made a profit is kind of silly, no?

The extra $360million not only includes marketing but the cut for the cinemas showing the movie, this is repeated pretty much every other page.

[Feeline10]

The extra $360million not only includes marketing but the cut for the cinemas showing the movie, this is repeated pretty much every other page.

So, again, Warcraft is unique to any other movie created in the sense of what constitutes a profit and what doesn't? I'm not concerned at teenagers upset that the movie made money "every other page" trying to put it down. Again, I must repeat.. I thought the movie sucked dick. It was terrible. But to say it hasn't turned a profit is kind of retarded. The numbers are public.

[Pann]

So, again, Warcraft is unique to any other movie created in the sense of what constitutes a profit and what doesn't? I'm not concerned at teenagers upset that the movie made money "every other page" trying to put it down. Again, I must repeat.. I thought the movie sucked dick. It was terrible. But to say it hasn't turned a profit is kind of retarded. The numbers are public.

Uhm, no. Do you think that the cinemas show this or any movie for free?

[Feeline10]

Uhm, no. Do you think that the cinemas show this or any movie for free?

Nope. Not at all. Do you think that out of 340million (again, that's AFTER the budget has ALREADY been met.. lol) the company isn't turning a profit? You think that the cinemas are taking 340million out of 340million?

This is a silly conversation.

[Pann]

Nope. Not at all. Do you think that out of 340million (again, that's AFTER the budget has ALREADY been met.. lol) the company isn't turning a profit? You think that the cinemas are taking 340million out of 340million?

This is a silly conversation.

You are confusing the production costs, which do not include marketing, with the income at the retailer's (in this case the cinemas) tills. No, I do not think the cinemas are taking 340million, this figure will be made up of marketing and the cinema's cut amongst other things.

[Feeline10]

You are confusing the production costs, which do not include marketing, with the income at the retailer's (in this case the cinemas) tills. No, I do not think the cinemas are taking 340million, this figure will be made up of marketing and the cinema's cut amongst other things.

Ok. I mean it bears repeating.. I so don't care if there's another sequel and I hated the movie. It was just garbage. But any normal person who sees that the budget of a film is 160 million but takes in 500 million usually can see that they made a profit. It's not like they spent 100s of millions on marketing or your "production" costs, or whatever. And the cut the cinemas take, again, is not astronomical to the point where 160million budget 500million gross ISN'T a profit.

[Kalimonde]

I did like the movie, the only problem I see on it its the cut of the extra 30 min. Marvel sucessfully releases long movies, so its ok to be extra long, not doing so here was a terrible choice, pàrticularly with so much need of character dev, but apart from that the movie is fine enough

[Osmeric]

Ok. I mean it bears repeating.. I so don't care if there's another sequel and I hated the movie. It was just garbage. But any normal person who sees that the budget of a film is 160 million but takes in 500 million usually can see that they made a profit. It's not like they spent 100s of millions on marketing or your "production" costs, or whatever. And the cut the cinemas take, again, is not astronomical to the point where 160million budget 500million gross ISN'T a profit.

Not all the money that moviegoers hand to the cinema to buy their tickets flows to the studio. On average, about half of it does for a typical movie.

What that means is that if the gross box office is $500M, about $250M will go to the studio. Add marketing costs to the $160M production cost and the total cost to the studio could easily reach $250M.

This is all complicated by the international situation. On the one hand, US studios typically get a smaller cut of overseas box office, particularly in China. In some countries the cut can be as low as 15%. On the other hand, Legendary has Chinese owners now, so maybe it will work out better for them.

[Pann]

Ok. I mean it bears repeating.. I so don't care if there's another sequel and I hated the movie. It was just garbage. But any normal person who sees that the budget of a film is 160 million but takes in 500 million usually can see that they made a profit. It's not like they spent 100s of millions on marketing or your "production" costs, or whatever. And the cut the cinemas take, again, is not astronomical to the point where 160million budget 500million gross ISN'T a profit.

I am not sure why you need to keep repeating that you did not like the film, your opinion of it has nothing to do with whether it is profitable or not. If the film takes $500 million at the box office, the cinemas will need to take their cut, after they have taken their cut what is left goes to the production companies. Just for argument's sake say the cinema's take a 50% cut, at $500million this would leave $250million for the production companies of which $160million are the production costs. If the marketing cost less than $90million they have made a profit.

[Deleted]

It's not like they spent 100s of millions on marketing

Actually it's EXACTLY like that:

In 1980, the average cost of marketing a studio movie in the U.S. was $4.3 million ($12.4 million in today's dollars). By 2007, it had shot up to nearly $36 million. If the MPAA still tracked spending on P&A, that number would be north of $40 million today for medium-size films like The Fault in Our Stars or Tammy.

Hollywood continues to wrestle with rising marketing costs, particularly overseas, which can make up 70 percent of a film's gross thanks to booming markets in Russia, Latin America and Asia. Two years ago, the cost had crept up to $175 million globally. Now, studios say it has hit the $200 million mark per picture -- a 33 percent increase from the $150 million spent in 2007 on the first Transformers.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ruggles-721818

Although it's worth noting that the article says it was cheaper to market in China:

In only a few weeks, Paramount's Transformers: Age of Extinction has become the top-grossing film of all time in China, earning north of $300 million. What's more impressive is that Age of Extinction cost no more than $3 million to $5 million to market to Chinese moviegoers

But given the huge amount of advertising I saw in the UK across every platform / media type, this wasn't a cheap film to sell.

[rda]

Ok. I mean it bears repeating.. I so don't care if there's another sequel and I hated the movie. It was just garbage. But any normal person who sees that the budget of a film is 160 million but takes in 500 million usually can see that they made a profit. It's not like they spent 100s of millions on marketing or your "production" costs, or whatever. And the cut the cinemas take, again, is not astronomical to the point where 160million budget 500million gross ISN'T a profit.

Man, you spent 5 (FIVE!) posts repeating that you are stating basic facts in the sea of unknowledgeable idiots, all five times you made the same error of assuming that 160 mil production and let's say 500 mil of total earnings mean big profits (no, these numbers would mean that the movie just paid for itself, give or take), and it still took 6 (SIX!) replies pointing you to that error to make you finally see it.

It is downright comical.

Here, sit with us and watch another guy ride into the thread on the same horse of "it made much more than 160 mil already, so it's vastly profitable [and you all are just haters]". It will only take a page, I promise.

:-)

---
Just in case you still don't see it, this last phrase of yours -- "And the cut the cinemas take, again, is not astronomical to the point where 160million budget 500million gross ISN'T a profit." -- the cut the cinemas (and all other middlemen) take is big enough to reduce 500 mil to ~250 mil, and after you subtract advertisement (~100 mil in this case up to this moment), what's left is barely enough to cover ~160 mil production (perhaps not enough yet). And 500 mil didn't happen yet, and since the money are mostly from overseas, the middlemen might take more than half (which is just the rule of thumb), etc.

[Mystrome]

107 pages discussing something that's way too complex to get an accurate estimate of.

There are way too many variables involved for anyone here to make an accurate claim. Nobody knows exactly how much money was poured into the project on top of production costs. Only the 160M number is known. And we will never know down to the penny what was poured in either. There're simply too many people, stakeholders, companies etc. involved. Plus, most people seem to completely forget there's a thing called taxes. For a movie ticket at the cinema, here in the Netherlands 6% is the tax fee. I'm sure other countries around the world have taxes that need to be paid too.

Here is what we do know:

Movie budget = $160M

Tickets sold world wide add up to $400M + and taxes are the first thing that get paid from that income.

That's it. Anything else is speculation. Is it enough to cover all costs? Probably somewhat close. But now we're back to guessing.

[rda]

(merged into previous post)

[Thetruth1400]

Here is what we do know:

Movie budget = $160M

Tickets sold world wide add up to $400M + and taxes are the first thing that get paid from that income.

That's it. Anything else is speculation. Is it enough to cover all costs? Probably somewhat close. But now we're back to guessing.

Actually, we know they've said they need to make between $450 - $500 million to break even. That's total cost of everything and that isn't speculation, it's fact. A quick google search is all that takes to find that out. Right now, they're on the cusp of that around $412 million, but sales are slowing, especially in China, which was their biggest market by far.

Overall, the movie is / was a flop. At this point, all they can hope for is to make back their money on the movie, and hope to get a little bit more, but that's looking less and less likely as time goes on from release and ticket sales drop off fairly steadily. There's a 95% chance we won't see another Warcraft movie because this one proved that there's no money to be made from it.

[Mystrome]

Actually, we know they've said they need to make between $450 - $500 million to break even. That's total cost of everything and that isn't speculation, it's fact. A quick google search is all that takes to find that out. Right now, they're on the cusp of that around $412 million, but sales are slowing, especially in China, which was their biggest market by far.

Overall, the movie is / was a flop. At this point, all they can hope for is to make back their money on the movie, and hope to get a little bit more, but that's looking less and less likely as time goes on from release and ticket sales drop off fairly steadily. There's a 95% chance we won't see another Warcraft movie because this one proved that there's no money to be made from it.

Yeah that's not how things work in the real world.

450-500M. I've seen the number. It's an educated guess, nothing more. Certainly not the absolute you claim it to be, let alone be enough to declare flop or not. There are still a lot of untapped sources of money for the film to go trough, rent/pay per view/DVD/TV (obviously none as lucrative as cinema). You might be right that the revenue won't cover the expenses. But at this point in time, it's way too early to tell.

As for your second claim, a high probability there won't be any sequels, that's based on early/faulty assumptions. We simply don't know. There is plenty of material to make additional movies. We all know that. We also know the movie we've seen wasn't perfect, mostly due to pacing. There's a lot of room to improve if/when a sequel is made. It'll be a numbers game in the end, and right now the numbers haven't been added up (nor can they be).