Box-Office Analysis: 'Warcraft' Avoids "Utter Failure" But Will Still Lose Money

[Auxora]

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, and at least our local showing I went to was quite packed. But obviously overall that wasn't the norm. What really was surprising was that so few wow players went, and virtually no non-wow players went to see it in the West. Obviously it was much better marketed and had a wider audience than just wow gamers in the East.

As for the movie, I read the books and follow the lore so it all made sense to me. But I could see where even wow players who don't read quest text could have been lost. The casting was ok except for Khadgar and Medivh who left something to be desired. There were also some scenes cut from what I understand to keep the movie from being too long, and that likely added to confusion for viewers that didn't know the lore well.

I'm hoping for a sequel but I'd understand based how badly it did in the West if they don't. It would be even crazier if they did an only-Chinese version of a sequel.

[Post]

What is so fantastically amazing about Fellowship of the Ring? I also never said it sucked.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, I was just saying there will always be people who have complete opposite opinions because it's subjective.

Well you're wrong, I honestly dont like being so divisive but the acting was Grade B garbage, the story was not enjoyable especially as someone who is familiar with the source material. I was literally LOL-ing in the theater especially when Lothar's son died, it was laughable as showcased by my friend who is not familiar with the source material but has a brain. The only thing good about this movie (from any standpoint but specifically technical) was the CGI

You're just basically saying "no", and that isn't convincing. The problem is it's subjective.

[Chickat]

Could they save money by reusing props and orc models? if so maybe a sequel could be made for around 100m. And DO NOT use the same Western marketing team for Gods sake.

[Aori]

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, I was just saying there will always be people who have complete opposite opinions because it's subjective.

Gotcha, was just pointing out why its pointless to compare. They just are different fantasy stories, it is a shame Warcraft got smashed before it was given a shot because it wasn't LOTR.

- - - Updated - - -

Could they save money by reusing props and orc models? if so maybe a sequel could be made for around 100m. And DO NOT use the same Western marketing team for Gods sake.

Marketing was pretty rough. My theaters didn't even have poster up, they still had Civil War posters up though.

[Tempguy]

Gotcha, was just pointing out why its pointless to compare. They just are different fantasy stories, it is a shame Warcraft got smashed before it was given a shot because it wasn't LOTR.

- - - Updated - - -



Marketing was pretty rough. My theaters didn't even have poster up, they still had Civil War posters up though.

As I said. I have no idea where all that marketing money went, but it did not go to a good marketing campaign in America.

Maybe whatever advertisers they paid used the money on blow and hookers.


( my opinion)

Warcraft got shit on cause of two reasons.

1: marketing sucked dick. They marketed ( lol if you call it that) as an Orc v human film. I like the lore and even I am sick of that trope. It seems lazy , cliche ridden and downright dull. If I knew nothing at all about the film or franchise beyond what advertising showed, I'd steer clear.


2: all the love and attention was give to orcs. Almost everything with humans came off as cheap, fake, and not even good cosplay level. I found many things that ripped me right from the enjoyment of the film on first viewing that even die hard supporters admitted they noticed after their third.

When you don't have the bias of being a die hard fan clouding your view, you notice so many faults with anything that involves humans. The whole movie basically shows that all their attention was focused on making you relate to orcs and humans were an afterthought.

I kept getting dungeons and dragons vibes.

[Kellorion]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting


And mind you. I'm not in any way obligated to cite shit. I'm not the one making the claim that anything is Hollywood accounting. All I did was google what it was since people claiming shit can't even be arsed to do that little.

Yes you are, you claimed he didnt provide citations, and then you stated something, and didnt back it up.

[Tempguy]

Yes you are, you claimed he didnt provide citations, and then you stated something, and didnt back it up.

Oh bull fucking shit!

I asked a simple fucking question. For someone who claims Warcraft is using Hollywood accounting to cite their source.


Then on my own, I went and looked up some stuff on what Hollywood accounting was. I then shared what I found and explained that it doesn't provide what I asked for. Citation of Warcraft doing it.

So if you think I am obligated to cite shit, your flat out wrong and I have nothing to say to someone of your level.


And ps. The citation is in the fucking quote you copied.I have already gone beyond what people making that tinfoil hat claim have.

[Post]

Gotcha, was just pointing out why its pointless to compare. They just are different fantasy stories, it is a shame Warcraft got smashed before it was given a shot because it wasn't LOTR.

I agree, I knew people were going to hate it before it even came out, no matter how good it was.

[Raldazzar]

Right, someone will have to explain this to me then.

£160 mil. I heard somewhere that they spent 100 mil on marketing etc which seems high but hey oh. so even with that figure.. thats 260 million.. of 400+.. where the hell is the rest of these expenses going to make it a loss?!

[zorkuus]

Right, someone will have to explain this to me then.

£160 mil. I heard somewhere that they spent 100 mil on marketing etc which seems high but hey oh. so even with that figure.. thats 260 million.. of 400+.. where the hell is the rest of these expenses going to make it a loss?!

I assume theaters aren't running a movie out of charity, they need their cut too. But hey, what do I know...

[Tempguy]

Right, someone will have to explain this to me then.

£160 mil. I heard somewhere that they spent 100 mil on marketing etc which seems high but hey oh. so even with that figure.. thats 260 million.. of 400+.. where the hell is the rest of these expenses going to make it a loss?!

I too would like to know. But the other bit you are missing is that the theaters don't give 100% of the ticket sales to the studio. Otherwise, theaters go out of business.

And foreign sales take a bigger chunk than US sales.

Still doesn't explain the details, but I recal marketing costing a bit over 100 million.

[Lynseyvw]

Film would have done waaaaaay better had it released 10 years ago.

They basically missed the boat.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, someone will have to explain this to me then.

£160 mil. I heard somewhere that they spent 100 mil on marketing etc which seems high but hey oh. so even with that figure.. thats 260 million.. of 400+.. where the hell is the rest of these expenses going to make it a loss?!

Salaries make up a big chunk.

[Aori]

I assume theaters aren't running a movie out of charity, they need their cut too. But hey, what do I know...

They made more money on 5 tubs of popcorn then all tickets sold (might be a slight exaggeration but pretty close).

[Tackhisis]

When you are trying to make a blockbuster starring T. Fimmel ("who looks like he's walked in in the wrong set") and P. Patton ("cannot act but nice"), you know you won't make it.

And for those who are spreading "corrupted critics" nonsense: The new Ghostbusters will make more money in the opening weekend than Warcraft in 1,5 months.

[skannerz22]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warcraft.htm

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $46,771,605 10.9%
+ Foreign: $383,500,000 89.1%
= Worldwide: $430,271,605

it cost them $160mill to make the movie
and before any mouth breather starts raging at me about advertising budget..
160mill is the only official evidence of a total budget so it obviously includes advertising within that 160mill

[Tackhisis]

Total Lifetime Grosses

Revenues (calculating Chinese as if it was a foreign country): 46,7*51%+383,5*40%=177.
Expenses: 160+110=270

Total loss: 93

[Demona3]

Honestly, I think the movie would of made a lot more money if it came out like... 6-7 years ago - during the height of the game. Like, Vanilla, BC, and Wrath era. I think WoD did it in for a lot of people, and with the constant disappointment they were shitting out in the video game world, it's possible it may have left enough of a bad taste that people decided to not go to the movie.

Hell, I regret spending $40 to take my family to go see Angry Birds. Definite redbox movie, but the kids were bored, so we went. Thankfully The Secret Life of Pets was free for us, since my kiddos were invited to a birthday party at the movie theater. That's another redbox movie too.

To edit: It's not that we can't afford movies. I just have a hard time justifying seeing any movie in a theater. $7-10 a pop for tickets (or more) depending on time (or hell, even type of movie theater now), then popcorn / drinks / snacks. The majority of the movies out now are all either repeats or are so freaking predictable, it's pathetic.
Also, Hollywood is so out of ideas at this point. I mean hell, they keep remaking Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Tarzan, Peter Pan (big one), now Ghostbusters. Word has it either they are going to remake Beetlejuice or there is a sequel (finally) in the works.

The majority of the time, you can wait about 2-3 months and it hits redbox, then soon after, netflix.

[Jotaux]

And how much did they spend in advertising? And how much of the theater revenue does the studio get?

It's a bit above basic math but I hope you can handle it.

Advertising is one of the ways they siphon money out from the profits. Probably to avoid paying blizzard royalties.

[skannerz22]

Revenues (calculating Chinese as if it was a foreign country): 46,7*51%+383,5*40%=177.
Expenses: 160+110=270

Total loss: 93

there you go with that made up imaginary advertising cost..there is no evidence of it existing..

160000000 was and is the only official numbers of total budget

[Tempguy]

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $46,771,605 10.9%
+ Foreign: $383,500,000 89.1%
= Worldwide: $430,271,605

it cost them $160mill to make the movie
and before any mouth breather starts raging at me about advertising budget..
160mill is the only official evidence of a total budget so it obviously includes advertising within that 160mill

Why call us mouth breathers because we acknowledge a cost you don't? You're defensive so let's put another film in its place. Batman v superman made like 800 mil or some shit. It's budget was far less than that for production. Yet the studio does not see it as a mega huge success. Why is that? How do you explain that?

The answe is because the production cost /= total costs and to boot, theaters are in the business to make money.

When a business makes 100 million for the hear income, they can still be in the red cause income /= total profit. You have to take into account expenses. Sure, it may only cost them 10 million in raw material, but people don't work for free and if they advertise, that counts too. So that shirt may only cost x to produce, and they may have sold y dollars worth of shirts. But they can still be in the red when all the numbers get factored.


It's really basic accounting man.

A movie may cost 160 to make. But if you pay 3% royalties, then the theaters take 50% of sales, then it cost you x to advertise, it is reasonable to see how a film can make many times its base value and be a flop financially.


Not my fault if you don't get it. It applies to all movies.