What's new
By:

The Dark Knight Rises

Don't forget those are only production costs. Marketing and distribution adds a hefty chunk to the bottom line. Additionally, actors, producers, and directors for big movies negotiate points into their deals which takes away from the profit margin. So what financiers need to recoup goes well beyond the figures reported on IMDB, though rarely exceed half the production cost.
 
billyshelby said:
Don't forget those are only production costs. Marketing and distribution adds a hefty chunk to the bottom line. Additionally, actors, producers, and directors for big movies negotiate points into their deals which takes away from the profit margin. So what financiers need to recoup goes well beyond the figures reported on IMDB, though rarely exceed half the production cost.
Click to expand...

How do you know that isn't included in the budget?
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
How do you know that isn't included in the budget?
Click to expand...

This is my line of work. A rule of thumb is a movie has to do 150% of its production cost before it breaks even. That's a very rough estimation as all movies are different and scales vary greatly. But if that sort of thing interests anyone, boxofficemojo is a decent public site that lists budgets and covers the financial end of the industry. Pick a movie you like, check the production cost (if listed), tack on 50%, and compare that number to the worldwide gross.
 
I am having a hard time getting too excited about this new Batman movie. The last one was so good, and Ledger's performance so epic, that I have no hope this will be as good. I just have a hard time seeing them coming close to the level of The Dark Knight. I will go see it, and I sure hope they continue with the excellent movies in this most recent iteration of this franchise, but I don't have a lot of hope for it.




I also think the addition of Catwoman ups the lameness-factor by about 5. Anne Hathaway in that role makes that 15.
 
billyshelby said:
This is my line of work. A rule of thumb is a movie has to do 150% of its production cost before it breaks even. That's a very rough estimation as all movies are different and scales vary greatly. But if that sort of thing interests anyone, boxofficemojo is a decent public site that lists budgets and covers the financial end of the industry. Pick a movie you like, check the production cost (if listed), tack on 50%, and compare that number to the worldwide gross.
Click to expand...

What's your job?
 
LogGrad98 said:
I also think the addition of Catwoman ups the lameness-factor by about 5. Anne Hathaway in that role makes that 15.
Click to expand...
same was said for the joker
world was going insane how could he take leadger for joker why not johny depp(lamest actor ever) or even adrien bodry was preferred by the public. same for 2face.
everybody keeps questioning the cast, and the villains.
and they always come through

believe me i don't want cat woman. but i wont doubt Nolan even if he cast the now un-retired Arnold Schwarzenegger as freeze. i will not doubt him.
 
Chad Feldheimer said:
Nah it's cool. Interesting insight.
Click to expand...

Just to further explain: The cost of a movie can very roughly be broken into 3 pieces: production cost, distribution, and promotion (marketing.)

Production cost can be simplistically defined as all expenses to get a movie in the can (salaries across the spectrum, overhead (permits and the like), and often cost overruns.)

Distribution is too complex to explain, but for the layperson it's not marketing. The easiest way to think about it there are costs to put EVERY movie into theaters. It doesn't cost up front, but it takes away from profit. Distribution is exceedingly important in the movie business. You can't show your movie in theaters without a distribution deal.

Promotion/marketing is what a studio/production company spends above the line after the movie is made. Anecdotally, you've probably seen stories of disgruntled producers/directors/actors angry that a movie wasn't sufficiently promoted. In those cases, a decision was invariably made that spending more wasn't worth it and that whatever the movie was going to make with minimal publicity was the better risk than pouring more money into a dog.

Points literally can't be factored into the cost and make everything hazier. On Indie movies (that generally have trouble securing financing), an actor/director/producer will take a percentage off the net just to lower the production cost and get the movie made (the quintessential "passion project") On big movies, those guys often take money off the gross in their contracts. Like, Johnny Depp undoubtedly has points on PIRATES. And those points are on gross. So he gets 20 million (hypothetical) for just showing up, and then he gets a percentage of gross receipts. It's a risk a studio will take since they believe they're going to make a fortune anyway. Sometimes they lose, and lose big.

I could say a lot more about these components, but that's the gist. On the outside, just use the 150% rule and you'll get a basic idea of whether a movie was a successful business venture or not.
 
billyshelby said:
Just to further explain: The cost of a movie can very roughly be broken into 3 pieces: production cost, distribution, and promotion (marketing.)

Production cost can be simplistically defined as all expenses to get a movie in the can (salaries across the spectrum, overhead (permits and the like), and often cost overruns.)

Distribution is too complex to explain, but for the layperson it's not marketing. The easiest way to think about it there are costs to put EVERY movie into theaters. It doesn't cost up front, but it takes away from profit. Distribution is exceedingly important in the movie business. You can't show your movie in theaters without a distribution deal.

Promotion/marketing is what a studio/production company spends above the line after the movie is made. Anecdotally, you've probably seen stories of disgruntled producers/directors/actors angry that a movie wasn't sufficiently promoted. In those cases, a decision was invariably made that spending more wasn't worth it and that whatever the movie was going to make with minimal publicity was the better risk than pouring more money into a dog.

Points literally can't be factored into the cost and make everything hazier. On Indie movies (that generally have trouble securing financing), an actor/director/producer will take a percentage off the net just to lower the production cost and get the movie made (the quintessential "passion project") On big movies, those guys often take money off the gross in their contracts. Like, Johnny Depp undoubtedly has points on PIRATES. And those points are on gross. So he gets 20 million (hypothetical) for just showing up, and then he gets a percentage of gross receipts. It's a risk a studio will take since they believe they're going to make a fortune anyway. Sometimes they lose, and lose big.

I could say a lot more about these components, but that's the gist. On the outside, just use the 150% rule and you'll get a basic idea of whether a movie was a successful business venture or not.
Click to expand...

so distrubtion and marketing is like the maffia. thats why there are no indepent movies in the theather.

with all the technology couldnt people just send and independent movie digitally to lets say a couple of theathersand they could play it.

what i mena to say technology is so good. but these movie and music bosses try to keep us in the stone age
 
DutchJazzer said:
so distrubtion and marketing is like the maffia. thats why there are no indepent movies in the theather.

with all the technology couldnt people just send and independent movie digitally to lets say a couple of theathersand they could play it.

what i mena to say technology is so good. but these movie and music bosses try to keep us in the stone age
Click to expand...

2 Points:

Independent Movies do make the theaters. They just don't get the same wide releases. Your mafia/corporate slant isn't totally off the mark, distribution companies (often affiliated with studios) control what theaters can screen. Theater chains make deals with them. There are tens of thousands of production companies but less than 20 distribution companies (for US markets.) Like I said, distribution could take hours to explain.

There may be a future where distribution companies lose their power. Like the music industry, the net is changing the landscape. I couldn't guess how that will work. The difference is moviemakers are less inclined to want to release a movie over the net for very obvious reasons -- cutting out the distributor for theatrical release has never happened, and it isn't likely it will produce a profit that would match what theatergoers pay. At least for now.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am having a hard time getting too excited about this new Batman movie. The last one was so good, and Ledger's performance so epic, that I have no hope this will be as good. I just have a hard time seeing them coming close to the level of The Dark Knight. I will go see it, and I sure hope they continue with the excellent movies in this most recent iteration of this franchise, but I don't have a lot of hope for it.




I also think the addition of Catwoman ups the lameness-factor by about 5. Anne Hathaway in that role makes that 15.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd agree with you. But I personally felt Hardy stole the show so to speak in Inception. I had never seen him before and almost instantaneously was like, "Who is this guy?" He has a screen presence (and acting chops) that is undeniable. I then saw the trailer for Warrior which opens this winter and am stoked to see it. Watch the trailer for it if you can. And a few weeks ago, I watched him as Bronson, one of the most notorious serial killers (?) in England's history and he was very good. He's also playing Max in the remake of Mad Max that will be coming out in the next year or two. In short, I guess my point was I don't think they could have chosen a better actor. Most of the public doesn't know him well yet he may be the biggest it guy right now, obviously because of his projects he has coming out but also because of his performances in some of the work he has done. A stud in my opinion.

Regarding Hathaway, I agreed with another poster (and you) originally on that but I'm sort of have the same feeling as Dutch on this. Nolan is good at making things work, I think primarily because he chooses strong actors and actresses. Hathaway has been strong in most of her work that I can remember (Brokeback stands out in my mind) and so it wouldn't surprise me the more I think about it for her to pull off the role and pull it off exceptionally well.
 
Nolans strength hasn't ever been hiring female leads in his movies.

Juno in inception, the Katie Holmes/Maggie gyllenhall debacle, the woman in memento, johansenn in the prestige. All were solid, but completely out shadowed by the work of pearce, bale, Jackman, jgl, etc.

Even the inferior male roles have been better than the women he's chosen, Murphy, Bowie, hardy, Freeman, oldman Caine, they have all been more memorable than the women.
 
bat said:
Nolans strength hasn't ever been hiring female leads in his movies.

Juno in inception, the Katie Holmes/Maggie gyllenhall debacle, the woman in memento, johansenn in the prestige. All were solid, but completely out shadowed by the work of pearce, bale, Jackman, jgl, etc.

Even the inferior male roles have been better than the women he's chosen, Murphy, Bowie, hardy, Freeman, oldman Caine, they have all been more memorable than the women.
Click to expand...

I agree. Holmes/Gyllenhall could not have been worse choices for that role. Makes me even less excited about a Catwoman character. Ugh.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I agree. Holmes/Gyllenhall could not have been worse choices for that role. Makes me even less excited about a Catwoman character. Ugh.
Click to expand...

For everything great that Nolan has done, he has always had a hard time delivering when it comes to prominent female characters in his films. It's been one of the few things that has eluded his repertoire to date, but I think he absolutely delivered when he brought in Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard for Inception. He's clearly grown as a director so I'm really excited to see what he and Hathaway can do together, and to see what she does with a role that's so far out of her comfort zone. Nolan is going old school with the Catwoman character and I think that fits his decision to go with Hathaway perfectly. Plus, Cotillard is back as one of the main supporting actresses and they clearly work well together. I'm really excited to see everything come together.
 
And for the record, Anne Hathaway is a very good actress, this is just an entirely new direction and challenge for her, and I'm pretty excited to see how she steps up to it.
 
Log i'm wondering. what women would you rather have in those nolan movies? name a couple to replace kattie holmes or maggie for example.
jsut some examples
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top