800 MILLION!!
EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION!!!!
MOM'S GONNA F R E A K !!!!!!!!!
>Even on the day of the premiere, one insider fretted about whether Suicide Squad would mirror BvS' huge opening and weak legs. Another veteran says the goal is survival: "The movie's got to do $750 million, $800 million to break even.
hollywoodreporter.com
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH FREAK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Other urls found in this thread:
stitcher.com
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
nytimes.com
pajiba.com
twitter.com
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHHHHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>dude, let's keep moving the goalposts until people think this film flopped LMAO
they'll probably earn a billion. no problem
>moving the goalposts until people think this film flopped LMAO
The article was written on August 3rd which was before the official release date in the US and before it got "BIGGEST August opening in history" which DCfans love to proclaim.
This is NO moving of goalposts but stating a simple fact from the Hollywood Reporter. Of course box office =/= the only revenue a movie gets but represents the largest chunk as other factors like promo tie-ins, toys, etc need to be included.
2 billion at least
>budget 175 million
>needs 800 million to break even
Lol
That being said ...hollywoodn says every movie "just broke even" to avoid taxes
I bet official Civil War lost money
I liked it but I am glad they're falling behind after cutting out 40 minutes of Joker. This might force their hand.
pretty sure return of the king ended up "losing" money so they studio didn't have to pay some guys for gross percentage
Worldwide $477,277,319, so far so good.
>he thinks they're suddenly going to get 200 to 300 million more in the 3rd week despite a 70% drop off from week 1 to 2
lol
>he thinks production budget is all studios spend on movies
>he doesn't realize up to or over 500% of that gets spent on marketing
This is DCuck delusion in action.
Reminder that they still think BvS was financially successful because "i-it made back its production budget!"
>500%
>not a trillion per YouTube click
>Every movie needs a billion dollars to break even
I mean just thinking logically, why would anyone think, when only 26 films in history have ever made a billion dollars, that film companies would constantly make projects where the only way they can make a profit is by making a billion dollars.
They'll just recover with 20 generic cheap haunted house movies.
It's DCU. Sony is so desperate for it to become another big cinematic universe like Marvel and Star Wars have they're willing to market it out their ass.
>He doesn't know studios own most of the media they advertise in.
Keep fighting the company wars while they keep laundering money and evading taxes with their "bombs" that make millions at the box office.
A lot of people think they can make a billion dollars easy. I remember reading those leaked Sony emails where they said a Sinister Six movie would make 2 billion.
>Sony
???
Are you implying they own YouTube, billboards and poster space in major metropolitans, every single TV channel, and Sup Forums's Sup Forums?
Brainfart, meant warnerbros. Sony's another one bad about that tho
>not understanding the concept of a loss leader
>not realizing DC is about to usher in the greatest era of capekino ever filmed
It's at $477 million currently and has been experiencing massive drops and word of mouth is poison. $550 million is probably the best they can hope for at this point as it's not getting a China release.
>Another veteran says the goal is survival: "The movie's got to do $750 million, $800 million to break even.
>Another veteran
>not even a warner bros insider
Remind me why anyone's giving this old-ass article attention again?
And people say there's no bias against DC
A single kid could say he didn't enjoy SS and people would be reposting it all the internet as proof that DC can't capture the kids' market
What happens with the paychecks of actors when movies don't break even? Are they already paid before release or do they get some portion later, how does it work?
It got 57 % of it's gross in USA during first day, needs another 200 millions to overtake Man of Steel
>Hollywood
>accounting
Actors are normally paid before release and don't tend to make money based on how well the film does unless they're also a producer or it's an indie film
>implying it didn't clear 3 billion just on Harley Quinn shirts
I love everything about this image
I'd love to see the bullshit expenditure breakdowns the accountants came up with for each of these ten films.
Would've thought they would have had to supply them for audit at some point with Prowse and the Gump writer both suing for unpaid income.
Their pay depends on the size of the film, usually. Normally they just get a flat paycheck, on small independant films they're sometimes given a percentage of the film revenue to keep the budget low.
The film flopping isn't really going to effect the actors, aside from cancelled sequels of course. Leto isn't going to turn into Brendan Fraiser 2.0 any time soon.
Here's another for ya. Really makes you think
Percentage points are generally only ever offered to actors on ultra low budget films where the base wage they're offering is so low they want to show some faith to the actor that their work will be rewarded if the project is successful, and mega stars the studios need like Downey Jr in the Avengers films.
Everyone else just gets a flat rate worked out in advance by their agent.
They make money from trailers on YouTube too. I heard somewhere you get about 1 dollar per 1000 views. All those different suicide squad trailers easily have 30 million views.
That should cover a bit of money
How do Merchants keep getting away with it?
Here's an example. Some user posted this before
I have a monetized video up on YT with almost 15k views, it hasn't generated $0.02 yet.
I am drinking Pepsi at 2am MOMS GONNA FREAK!
Iktf
I think you're being screwed cause most youtubers earn a decent living on 2 or 3 videos a week each with 200-600k views
doubtful that you get the DC ad rate tho. Not defending it, just devils advocate.
>Distribution fee $211 million
Here's what I don't get:
Surely people are still buying its DVD and tv channels are still paying to air it on tv
So it must still be making money
How can its net still be 0?
stitcher.com
Interesting podcast on current DCFilms stuff from Mark Hughes, who is part of Forbes and covers movies and entertainment. Basically:
>Joker is in the Batman script Affleck is writing. Doesn't know how big his role will be. The film will have something to do with Arkham Asylum and will have multiple villains.
>Katana's mask was one of the factors for the movie not being shown in China (it's the Japanese flag). Violence and content are other factors.
And perhaps the most interesting:
>One of the reasons they may have cut Joker's scenes in Suicide Squad was due to the abusive relationship with Harley Quinn. It's different seeing it in the comic versus seeing it on the movie screen. It wouldn't have helped DC's situation and just added another controversial element. One of the hosts mentioned the Joker/Batgirl Killing Joke reference cover and how that was a controversial thing at the time.
Didn't feel like making a new thread
The only numbers there that haven't been grossly over-inflated are the ones in the cumulative gross.
Don't they need to provide substantial receipts to the IRS to prove these expense or do they just take them at their word that it cost them $5 million to edit and dub a cut and $211 million to distribute it without anything coming back from foreign distributors?
It never was 0 in the first place and positive the only reason it's remained at 0 is because no one is putting any pressure on them to continue providing financial details after a film's release period. They fudge the initial numbers then no one ever looks at it again so they can virtually do as they wish.
No wonder Jews were so drawn to Hollywood.
techdirt.com
The studios are basically "paying" themselves (media and distribution companies they own) as a loophole to get away from obligations that involve paying cast and crew money stated in their contracts that kick in when there is a net profit. So in the end it doesn't really matter how much money the movie makes, lol
Not him, but they own most of the floorspace, equipment, marketing studios and virtually everything else needed to make a movie happen. The "actual cost" of production is often MUCH lower than the reported budget which deliberately inflated for tax fraud and other shady business reasons. Hollywood Accounting at its finest
The IRS probably allow it to happen due the studios' influence on the masses and politics.
yeah
We need more informative threads like this on Sup Forums. I love learning about what actually happens in the industry.
Have you ever noticed all the shit with the tiny writing that says "A Time/Warner Company"?
Hahahahaha
>katana' mask is a jap flag
>China won't show it
I assume Disney has a chink to "quality control" their flicks but I wonder if they will let Dr Strange be shown because of his magic ?
(I know they removed Tibetans from the movie)
No. We need more threads where we argue of movie companies like sports fans over hand egg teams.
>THIS jew company is better than THAT jew company
>repeat ad nauseum
I couldn't put my finger on why I keep going back to this place, until now
So, these days you need to hire an expert to make sure CHINKS WON'T FREAK?
I second this, but I want all the informative post to be accompanied by pictures of bears.
Doubt the government is that generous. They'd be missing out in billions of dollars worth of taxes over the years.
I want blow by blow and insant replay. I want ads in between shitposting. I want to know which accountant is the MVP. I want countdowns to the Summer Pop Corn Bowl. I want gossip of movie companies poaching directors from another.
>Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, had a contract awarding him 10% of the net profits of anything based on his characters. The film Spider-Man (2002) made more than $800 million in revenue, but the producers claim that it did not make any profit as defined in Lee's contract, and Lee received nothing. In 2002 he filed a lawsuit against Marvel Comics.[14]
>Katana's mask was one of the factors for the movie not being shown in China (it's the Japanese flag).
I thought it was chiefly because of El Diablo's edgelord tattoos.
WHY WOULD SUISAI SKWA NOT GET A CHINA RELEASE
ITS WB'S SUMMER TENTPOLE WHAT ARE THEY DUMB
>le box office is all a movie earns meme.
Stan the Man does not take shit.
No, but it's a good way to gauge rough earnings. It will make money from the film but not a particularly impressive sum, I doubt merchandising will be huge for it and DVD is not the crutch it once was.
>800 million to break even!
>After we've paid ourselves 250 million of course :^)
>which DCfans love to proclaim.
I love your autistic assumption that "DC fans" all love this movie. It was garbage. Plain, straight-up fucking shit. BvS and Man of Steel were sub-par as fuck too, and I say that as a "DC fan."
End your life for forcing this polarizing marvel vs. dc meme.
nytimes.com
>Marvel Enterprises said yesterday that it had settled its legal battle with Stan Lee, its chairman emeritus and a co-creator of Marvel characters like Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four.
>Mr. Lee sued the company in November 2002, arguing that it had failed to honor a contract promising 10 percent of profits from television and film productions like "Spider-Man," "X-Men" and "Hulk" as well as from some related merchandise.
>This January, a federal judge in Manhattan sided with Mr. Lee but the judge also said he could not resolve some issues, suggesting that parts of the case could go before a jury. Under the settlement, Marvel dropped its plan to appeal the ruling.
>"They had effectively sold off these brands to the likes of Sony and News," said Anthony DiClemente, an entertainment analyst at Lehman Brothers. With much of the box-office and DVD revenues flowing to others, Marvel's benefit from movies like "Spider-Man" was largely limited to what it got from licensing deals, he said.
...
"The company also said yesterday that it would begin producing movies using financing from Merrill Lynch and an exclusive distribution and promotion deal with the Paramount Pictures division of Viacom. Its first releases under the new arrangement will include movies based on Captain America and Nick Fury. They are expected to reach theaters in 2007 or 2008.
"
"Now Marvel is in a position where it will control its own destiny," Mr. DiClemente said. "If these movies underperform, it is going to impact the stock. But that's true of any of their movies."
>Hollywood Accounting is the reason we got MCU and the current capeshit wave
>I want 10% of profits
>Sell all profits to another agency to license
>Sorry we have no profits!
Fucking legal how?
>DCfans love to proclaim.
It's clearly not even DC fans. It's just Sup Forums and Sup Forums cross posters trying to bring their corporate brand wars style shit posting on here.
Over 500%? Do you not know math? If the budget is a certain amount, it will be 100% still. Fucking tard
this film is going to be a real CHINK OUT FREAK OUT
>already grossed 500 million
>marvelcucks still trying to say it will fail
WONG'S GONNA FREAK!
Just like BvS am i right fellow DCuck? :^)
>870 million gross
>it failed! xD
How the fuck does a movie need 800M$ to "break even"? Like did they build sets of pure gold?
Amazing Spider-Man 2 made 700 million and Sony thought it was a shitty enough return they canceled all the spin offs and gave Marvel control of the character again.
These companies have retarded expectations and if you don't think WB was expecting at least 1 billion out of BvS, the first crossover between the two biggest comic book characters ever, you're an idiot
This, Avengers 2 made $1.4 BILLION and Disney chimped out and fired the director. Granted, I don't think anyone ever liked Joss Whedon at Marvel studios.
>LE HONKA HONKA MEME
>pajiba
...
That's because their domestic barely hit 200 million and they had terrible DVD sales.
This isnt true.
It doesnt need that much to break even.
How indeed
>IRS
>allowing itself to get fucked
pick one. The IRS being more relentless than the CIA and the FBI combined is not a meme
>LE FANNY gifs strewn about through the article
>random mentions of donald trump
>"But I promised I’d return to motivations. DC manboys (get it? Like “fanboys,” but instead of using “fan” I used “man” because they’re grown adults acting like teething infants in three-day-old Pampers. I am hilarious)"
>Bigots, Trolls & MRAs Are Not Welcome in the Comments
The truth is really not as outlandish as that. The studios simply use different accounting methods than the IRS (GAAP rules for accounting vs. tax accounting), and what the IRS considers to be taxable can be legally adjusted by studios.
>MCUcks this desperate
Pretty sure Sony doesn't make any money on toy sales or anything for their movies- they just make money on BO. It's not really the same thing.
Skwad has toys shipping up through next year and a slew of merchandise.
Oh fuck, you just solved the Hollywood accounting problem