[Movie] DCEU: Black Adam

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don’t track any box office stuff are these numbers good or bad?

I’d hope good so dc gives us more movies like this and the second SS and not overly dramatic crap like MoS and BVS.

Well, the Production budget for Black Adam was supposedly ~200 million. Plus whatever they spent on marketing. So after splitting with the theaters, if that $250m Wordwide number is accurate, Black Adam has not made back it's budget yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Its only been eleven days since release.

11 days can be a long time in box terms. It don't look like it's gonna have Aquaman's legs.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Well, the Production budget for Black Adam was supposedly ~200 million. Plus whatever they spent on marketing. So after splitting with the theaters, if that $250m Wordwide number is accurate, Black Adam has not made back it's budget yet.

Ah that seems like a shame then,.

[exochaft]

Well, the Production budget for Black Adam was supposedly ~200 million. Plus whatever they spent on marketing. So after splitting with the theaters, if that $250m Wordwide number is accurate, Black Adam has not made back it's budget yet.

- - - Updated - - -



11 days can be a long time in box terms. It don't look like it's gonna have Aquaman's legs.

To put a finer point on this, if we're assuming a roughly $200mil production budget, it neededs to make roughly 2-3 times that when factoring in theater cuts, advertising, taxes, etc. The number leans more towards tripling the budget if more money comes from overseas than domestic as foreign currency conversion, duties, and theater cuts can be pretty massive. More recent Hollywood bean counters now lean towards using the 3 times method than they used to as the incidental costs have been increasing relative to the production costs (as well as the higher production cuts closer to release not being the standard anymore), but we can estimate roughly 2.5 times due to the split since the sales are higher internationally. So the film probably needs to make roughly $500mil in ticket sales to break even.

Unfortunately, we can only guess because these production budget numbers are insanely unreliable. It's not uncommon that these values are underestimates because production companies don't want egg on their faces when it comes to how the public views their movie ticket sales. There's a bunch of examples of large franchise movies that people saw a huge box office number but behind-the-scenes the movies still didn't turn a profit. What rarely gets talked about is that there can be interest payments for loans to make these movies that get extremely high the longer between the loan origination date and the cash flow from the movie. The last Bond movie was a classic case of a movie being put off for a couple years while racking up years of interest that made the real production costs skyrocket.

In the past there were large considerations for DVD/Blu-ray sales, but those values have less of a factor over time since people are moving to streaming services versus physical media. Merchandising can also offset costs, but that's a down-the-road sort of gain which may not help with deciding whether a movie is a success if it's not large enough.

Furthermore, just breaking even isn't good enough: production companies want to make a certain amount of profit off their films. This is how you can get films (or any media) that technically makes money, but if it doesn't make enough money it's considered a failure by the production company. It's not just about pure profit motivations, as these companies need to keep the lights on while having capital on hand to invest into future films.

So yeah, realistically we'll likely never know if Black Adam is actually profitable other than estimating on a number that may or may not be accurate. I wouldn't even trust if the production company came out and said they were profitable, as they're more often than not going to spin their situation into a positive for good PR. A lot of the access media is complicit in these sorts of games, so don't expect any deep dives into the reality of the situation.

When it comes to where Black Adam has legs... it probably doesn't. Current Black Adam is performing below expected projections. While Aquaman had legs, over 2/3's of its gross revenue came from international audiences which is way more than the roughly 50/50 split Black Adam. If they both made the exact same gross revenue while continuing those splits, Black Adam would be considered to have been more profitable by a sizable margin due to more money coming from the domestic box office.

[JDL49]

Its only been eleven days since release.

True but in 8 days the roof caves in. It will lose a large percentage of it's premium
screens (Imax et al) which will hurt and the number of screens in all but the larger
venues (10+ screens) will shrink. Then on 11/18 there are a crap ton of releases
that will push it out even more. This was a bad time to open. Summer would have
been better. Hell Sept. would have been better.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

True but in 8 days the roof caves in. It will lose a large percentage of it's premium
screens (Imax et al) which will hurt and the number of screens in all but the larger
venues (10+ screens) will shrink. Then on 11/18 there are a crap ton of releases
that will push it out even more. This was a bad time to open. Summer would have
been better. Hell Sept. would have been better.

I don't think timing is really the problem... it opened without any real competition and basically tied with Aquaman for opening weekend ticket sales. Even with the drop in the second week...it's still the biggest movie in theaters... but that's pretty much where the good news ends. The bad news is that it really doesn't seem to be generating that much positive buzz.. which is what it would need if it wanted to stretch itself to a billion dollar Box office the way Aquaman did.

[Fencers]

huh, considering the hype machine and how amped it SEEMED other people were I'm really surprised its already done poorly at the Box Office!

It didn't meet initial projections and there was an adjustment based on Thursday's turn out in week 1. The second week had a big drop off (45% down), while Smile and Ticket to Paradise held strong. BA only made 250m with global accounting. Which is bad.

US Domestic is the only industry standard of merit. When a film or show has to report non-Domestic gross it is a fallback.

I don’t track any box office stuff are these numbers good or bad?

I’d hope good so dc gives us more movies like this and the second SS and not overly dramatic crap like MoS and BVS.

Marginal. The bad part is the projection. Johnson was given this a 'prove it' move as DSCWB is priming the sale of the company for next year.

Johnson did almost all the heavy lifting to promote the movie with WB not having a stake in the film after Hamada's exit. Zas is about to trim the fat for the coming sale.

They tried to position this as Uni did Fast & Furious but in that sense, it failed big time and really had more of a Hobbs & Shaw impact. The week-to-week was bad for BA and now Johnson and Cavil have withdrawn support for the film.

Nothing will survive Black Panther. That will be an easy billion in all likelihood and wipe the floor with everything at the box office.

The standard market cost for a blockbuster at BA's level is about 100-120m. Stuff like Endgame and the Star Wars films is closer to 180 but that is rarified air of the true giants of media; Disney and (old) Viacom.

This goes fast too. A PRL Focus would be like 1 million per market during pre-alone and anything post would be almost double. I know Adler-Weiner did post-production work for the film and racked up like 12 million in 5 markets.

[Jotaux]

I don’t track any box office stuff are these numbers good or bad?

I’d hope good so dc gives us more movies like this and the second SS and not overly dramatic crap like MoS and BVS.

For a movie this size its not good. The bigger issue is the drop off weekend 1 to 2. If it did amazing the first weekend then a 50% drop off is fine but it didn't so it needed less than 30% to have staying power. However it was Halloween weekend which usually doesn't do well but Black Panther 2 is just around the corner.

[Fencers]

For a movie this size its not good. The bigger issue is the drop off weekend 1 to 2. If it did amazing the first weekend then a 50% drop off is fine but it didn't so it needed less than 30% to have staying power. However it was Halloween weekend which usually doesn't do well but Black Panther 2 is just around the corner.

You're right about Halloween weekend but Smile really held strong. That is an over-performer even without the genre tie-in to the holiday. 90m domestic for 17? I think it's close to 190m overall and the ancillary will be NUTS for Smile. Incredible ROI.

[everydaygamer]

I imagine it's a combination of critic reviews and word of mouth. Despite what Rotten Tomatoes may have you believe I imagine most people who see this in theaters will generally say the movie is OK but not worth the price of the ticket, especially with Black Panther right around the corner.

[Biomega]

I imagine it's a combination of critic reviews and word of mouth. Despite what Rotten Tomatoes may have you believe I imagine most people who see this in theaters will generally say the movie is OK but not worth the price of the ticket, especially with Black Panther right around the corner.

That's really DC's big problem - they just haven't had a marquee, standout hit for their DCEU. Unless you count Joker, but I'm pretty sure that's not exactly in-universe (or is it?) and went beyond the franchise in its appeal. The "heavy hitters" Batman and Superman didn't really produce a spike so far, and though Aquaman was a surprise success, it wasn't exactly franchise-carrying. And then you have stuff like WW84 which just cratered the whole operation.

If this was intended to be the posterchild film for a cinematic universe, it failed spectacularly regardless of whether or not it'll actually make money.

[Koriani]

And numbers like this - for movies with big production costs like this - are why I believe, firmly, that "Theaters are NOT Dead" -

Because the fact is - if we, the viewers, want to continue to SEE big production costs up on the big screen - whether that means 'big stars' (with big paycheck requirements) or 'expensive big effects' (practical or cgi), then the Studios HAVE TO MAKE THAT BACK at the theater in order to continue to provide such type movies for us, the viewers.

The idea some people have that we can have both "big blockbuster" (cost $$$) movies and keep it to only streaming distributions (the idea that "Theaters are Dead) is a fantasy. That's not how money works in reality. We either give up expensive blockbusters to settle for whatever streamer-profits-only-movies can afford to do, or we turn up back at the theaters and PAY for those $$$ movies.

The fact that HBOWB "direct to stream movies only" for a year is considered a FAILED experiment means the viewers at least know where Hollywood wants to keep this. But if people continue to NOT show up to the theaters and paying for these blockbusters, we will see the Death of the Blockbuster, also.

[Biomega]

And numbers like this - for movies with big production costs like this - are why I believe, firmly, that "Theaters are NOT Dead" -

Because the fact is - if we, the viewers, want to continue to SEE big production costs up on the big screen - whether that means 'big stars' (with big paycheck requirements) or 'expensive big effects' (practical or cgi), then the Studios HAVE TO MAKE THAT BACK at the theater in order to continue to provide such type movies for us, the viewers.

The idea some people have that we can have both "big blockbuster" (cost $$$) movies and keep it to only streaming distributions (the idea that "Theaters are Dead) is a fantasy. That's not how money works in reality. We either give up expensive blockbusters to settle for whatever streamer-profits-only-movies can afford to do, or we turn up back at the theaters and PAY for those $$$ movies.

The fact that HBOWB "direct to stream movies only" for a year is considered a FAILED experiment means the viewers at least know where Hollywood wants to keep this. But if people continue to NOT show up to the theaters and paying for these blockbusters, we will see the Death of the Blockbuster, also.

You make some good points, but there's a flipside to consider as well.

Like people who DON'T make the switch from stream to theater because it's no longer available online on release - but who instead just say okay, I'll wait a few months until it comes out on streaming. Theaters ARE in trouble. It's not an immediate they're-all-going-to-die-next-year kind of trouble, I agree; and there'll be a long death throe to come. But it's going to happen. Theaters will become event venues instead of the default, offering something you can't find at home, for the people who want that. But for most people, on-demand will become the way to consume content. And studios will adapt. It'll take years, maybe decades, but it'll happen.

For me personally, the death of the CGI-fest blockbuster movie cannot come soon enough. Already I find myself fast-forwarding the explosion-laden chase sequences and whatnot, because they bore me to tears. I want story, and I want writing; not special-effects vomit grafted onto a barebones narrative that makes less sense than a Flat Earther on amphetamines. If streaming means they scale back on the spectacle, all the better.

[loras]

Global. This is spin. A property only reports global gross and viewership when coming under projections for the Thursday through Sunday tracking.

US domestic box office is the standard across the whole industry. BA underperformed when people were thinking it was gonna lead with 70, then was downgraded to 60-65 on the THR-S tracking not doing as well.

Nothing matters but the US box office and viewership. It is the only way they authorize talent and revenue packaging.

...Isn't that a bit foolish navel-staring?
The US is hardly the centre of the world almost regardless of which way you're looking at it.

[Jotaux]

...Isn't that a bit foolish navel-staring?
The US is hardly the centre of the world almost regardless of which way you're looking at it.

I believe it’s because the studio gets a larger share of the box office

[Fencers]

...Isn't that a bit foolish navel-staring?
The US is hardly the centre of the world almost regardless of which way you're looking at it.

No. In the entertainment and consumer product industry, the US box office is the respective industry standard. It is what all US-based media sets, packages, and positions their offerings. There are not enough moviegoers or revenue-sharing abroad for media creators to market and position films for foreign markets expressly.

If a movie (or media product in general) is a success domestically in the US that is what the industry based all projections on for future projects typically.

Also, all talent is packaged and represented by US firms as well.

[Koriani]

You make some good points, but there's a flipside to consider as well.

Like people who DON'T make the switch from stream to theater because it's no longer available online on release - but who instead just say okay, I'll wait a few months until it comes out on streaming. Theaters ARE in trouble. It's not an immediate they're-all-going-to-die-next-year kind of trouble, I agree; and there'll be a long death throe to come. But it's going to happen. Theaters will become event venues instead of the default, offering something you can't find at home, for the people who want that. But for most people, on-demand will become the way to consume content. And studios will adapt. It'll take years, maybe decades, but it'll happen.

For me personally, the death of the CGI-fest blockbuster movie cannot come soon enough. Already I find myself fast-forwarding the explosion-laden chase sequences and whatnot, because they bore me to tears. I want story, and I want writing; not special-effects vomit grafted onto a barebones narrative that makes less sense than a Flat Earther on amphetamines. If streaming means they scale back on the spectacle, all the better.

See, that's where I think we agree/disagree - on the "Bound to Happen" inevitability of the death of Theaters, and yes with it, the Death of Blockbusters. As much as you, or I, may not appreciate /all/ the CGI-fest blockbusters out there the fact is they HAVE Drawn, before the pandemic, more and more $$$ to the movies on a consistent basis. For DECADES Before Streaming became "the thing" you could wait a few months and get it on DVD/VHS/Rental - streaming wasn't the first way to get movies at home - but people still showed up to theaters and movies made billions.

As much as a 'bigger' chunk Streaming takes from that profit in the theaters post-pandemic - there has always been a portion of the population who never were big theater-goers. They existed when Cable hit (and movies took 1-2 years but eventually got on tv with commercials), they existed when VHS hit, when DVD hit - there is always that portion willing to wait. That hasn't changed. Of course now, post-pandemic, movies get *faster* to the Streaming Providers (who own them) but that is on THEIR schedule, not the movie-viewers. None of those other ways of watching movies at home "killed" theaters - only the pandemic caused that. And as much as the viewing audience may have gotten 'use to' getting theater-movies super-fast - if Studios decide this isn't the reality of production they want, they will change it back.

If the Studio/Streaming Networks decided (or found) they make more profit holding that theater-released-movie out of their streaming network for 6 months after release - you better betcha- they will. The "coming to your house in weeks after release" trend will STOP if the studios don't want to give up blockbuster profits; or if everyone dosen't adjust down their pay/profit expectations.

WB/HBO found that 'straight to stream' cost them blockbuster profits, so they shut that down. Disney+ plays around with trying to charge theater prices for watching theater movies at home (for simultaneous release) and I have no idea if that is making it 'worth it' to them to stick with that idea vs. just releasing in theaters. As much as the Streaming Networks feel providing theater releases within weeks after release helps their profits right now - if the overall trend for theater profits continues to go down then I think you're going to see this change to help "Save the Theater" (Save Our Profits).

I do agree it may take decades to normalize out - to really know where Theaters and Blockbuster-theatrical-releases will really stand when it shakes all out. But what doesn't take decades is the immediate hits to blockbuster profits now - that in reality - effect the cost per hour on the very next movie, and the next. That in the next 5 years we could see a HUGE upending of expected cost/payments per hour of work on every level - from big billed actor to floor sweeper. (And huge ramifications for the economy of not just Hollywood but California and anywhere else dependent on this particular money machine) Because there isn't just "corporate greed" behind why these movies cost so much - but its also because Actors are being paid 20-30+ million dollars each and the CGI studio is being paid XYZ for its work per hour etc.etc. If those profits aren't there - everyone gets a forced pay cut. And when everyone's forced a paycut in the next 5 years - you're going to see a shift in the entire paradigm. The blockbuster itself, that "scale of expense" Will be forced to go down as well. The former 150 million dollar movie will be made for less or it doesn't get made at all.

What an odd social experiment to observe - if in the year 2050 we're talking about that 2-3 decade span of time when movies went from costing 40 million on average to 200 million on average to back to 60 million on average. When we talk about "that time actors were paid 30 million dollars for a movie! Now they make 4 for the same thing!"

Now why you think that means we get better quality in writing just because the movie's not a blockbuster, I'm not sure. There's nothing here that means just because people spend less on the spectacle results in better quality anything at all for anyone. Great writing doesn't cost that much now - but people still don't show up to see it and, because the profits aren't there, they also don't get made. The people who pay out for the blockbuster are not all the same people who pay out to see (or even watch at all) the 90 minute, well written, drama - else movies would never have gone this direction in this first place. heh. I mean I wish that could be true - if there were less blockbusters we'd get better quality elsewhere - but I don't see how that correlates. Unless you just mean that when the industry expects less profits, by default, the 40 million made by the 'well written' movie is just as 'valuable' as the 40 million made by the "spectacle". (?)

[Biomega]

Now why you think that means we get better quality in writing just because the movie's not a blockbuster, I'm not sure.

That's not what I said.

What I said is I WANT better story/writing, and I'm entirely fine if that comes at the expense of CGI-spectacle blockbusters. That in no way, shape, or form implies that simply by removing the "blockbusteriness" from a film it'll magically make for better writing. Nor does any blockbuster necessarily have to have bad writing, either.

However, if the big spectacle isn't there anymore to draw in audiences, they'll have to be drawn in by SOMETHING. It doesn't automatically make the writing better, but it sure increases the chances of them paying more attention to it.

[Koriani]

That's not what I said.

What I said is I WANT better story/writing, and I'm entirely fine if that comes at the expense of CGI-spectacle blockbusters. That in no way, shape, or form implies that simply by removing the "blockbusteriness" from a film it'll magically make for better writing. Nor does any blockbuster necessarily have to have bad writing, either.

However, if the big spectacle isn't there anymore to draw in audiences, they'll have to be drawn in by SOMETHING. It doesn't automatically make the writing better, but it sure increases the chances of them paying more attention to it.

Ahh okey gotcha!

I gotta say, I have to try real hard not to fall into the 'old fogey' stereotype of - "When I was younger they seem to have move movies with better writing than they do now..." =D But it does seem that way!

I get your point though - the movies being made for whatever cost, because the 'big spectacle explosion/cgi fest' isn't there (being too expensive, assuming it is too expensive and not just cost-adjusted down), then they'll have to bring /something/ into the movie itself to get people to watch. And I agree with that.

But as a child of the 80s, I don't quite have as much hope as you do that it means the action movies will be written better, for lack of spectacle. I love 80s action movies but I would never claim they were well written (as a whole, anyway), no matter how much the special effect quality didn't matter. But at the same time - its this 'campy writing' that makes all these movies beloved classics people still defend as 'awesome' to this day and are held up as 'better' than their remakes! =D

But I will be hopeful with you friend! Maybe, as we trend away from 100+ million dollar special-effect-movie-fests we WILL see better writing overall, get supported more. *Crosses fingers*

(p.s. just using 'action movie genre' as an example because most of the 100+ million dollar blockbusters are, basically, action movies.)

[Malkiah]

I gotta say, I have to try real hard not to fall into the 'old fogey' stereotype of - "When I was younger they seem to have move movies with better writing than they do now..." =D But it does seem that way!

two quick things here, and i make this reply not to slag you but just to share thoughts on that points of view.

1. you need to understand context... when you were younger, as a child of the 80s, the movie studio system had just gone through a massive systemic collapse.
it's interesting because of how much the current state of things mirrors the late 60s and early 70s - basically what happened is that the movie studios got it into their heads that giant historical dramas were the big thing, they kept making these huge bloated insanely expensive epics that constantly needed to top the last one and make gigantic returns at the box office to break even, and it eventually got to the point where several major studios went bankrupt because they had a mega-budget gamble that flopped.

2. this lead to what is considered a film renaissance, where in desperation the studios threw some money at a new crop of film school grads to make low budget movies to try and keep the business afloat, leading to people like stephen spielberg and george lucas and that james cameron getting a shot at a big-studio-backed film distribution which would have been inconceivable just a few years prior.

3. these were young idealistic people hungry to put out their visions of film, and more often than not that vision was nostalgic for the 50s and early 60s and the action serials they watched as kids themselves, from the time before the bloat of the studio system churned out nothing but carbon-copies of the same overstuffed formula and the "back in my day movies were good" mentality.

4. cocaine. just.... so god damn much cocaine.

these movies connected with audiences in a big way and revitalized the film industry, creating what we understand these days to be 'blockbuster' type films.
it's perhaps ironic that these young directors were only given mainstream distribution because of a studio system that crawled so far up its own ass it collapsed in on itself, only to create a paradigm in popular movies that is leading to the same conclusion.

anyways.

when you were younger there was a very specific situation going on where genres of film were being exposure in a way that was atypical up to that point (and after that point, honestly).
those types of 'better written' films existed before then, and they still exist now, it's just that they don't get pushed for mainstream hype.

[JDL49]

snip

Actually your points were really good, especially about the "huge bloated insanely expensive epics". I went back and looked at the B.O. since 1950 and imo those whales sank about 1967. There were some big movies after that but they were not standalones as a rule which imo, is what separates the 1950-66 era from what followed.

But do not make the error of assuming that things will return to previous norms. There are massive changes happening in the audience. Stuff that used to work fine no longer does in the way it did before. Mostly it's that streaming has changed the business side. Things (non blockbusters) that that the audience used to be very willing to go to a theater to see no longer make that cut. That revenue may seem minor but it is the difference between making a profit or not in in a normal year or going broke in a run of abnormal ones like now. YMMV.