SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 3:13am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    General Boards    Questions or Comments  ›  Box office failure
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: 1, 2 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    Box office failure   (currently 2977 views)
INTS
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 3:20pm Report to Moderator
New


Someday we all gona DIE !!!

Location
London, UK
Posts
57
Posts Per Day
0.01

Hi.  What happens if movie fails in box office?  I mean like really fails. I don't remember the movie. But it costed 80 mil.  and revenue was 2 mil.  Who is blamed ? Director,  writer,  producer,  marketing,  studio,  but maybe analysts?  And what happens with money? Is it really gone for ever or you can insure the movie project if you believe it may be unsuccessful.  And why the hell there are many A list directors who previously made really financially unsuccessful movies but studious keeps to give them money?

Logged Offline
Private Message
Forgive
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 4:54pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Let The Sky Fall

Location
Various, exotic.
Posts
1373
Posts Per Day
0.27
'A Sound of Thunder' (2005) had an allocated budget of $80m, and took domestic (US) revenue of $2m, and foreign revenue of approx $4m, for a total of $6m.

The backers originally allocated $80m, but due to bankruptcy, the film was only ever given a budget of $30m, and was not able to allocate enough funds toward promotion, and thus flopped.

Reasons for failure are rarely to do with one person.

'Cutthroat Island' (1995) cost $92m and saw a return of approx $18 million, and bankrupted Carolco Pictures. RKO Pictures' bankruptcy is generally blamed on the failure of 'The Conquerer' (1956), even though it earned $4.5m on a budget of $6m.

'John Carter' (2012) is pretty much consider the biggest loser to the tune of approx $172m, with 'All the Queen's Men' (2002) giving the lowest return on an investment, taking just approx $22k on a $15m budget.

One system for protecting potential loses is to 'sell' the profits or production rights, and thus recoup all or part of the budget that you think you'll lose. This can backfire though, as happened to Disney when they sold the rights to 'Sixth Sense' which then went on to be a huge success.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 1 - 19
dogglebe
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 5:08pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I can't imagine insuring movies; it would be too expensive.

You'd also have to define what a loss is.   Winston Groom, author of the novel Forrest Gump, was supposed to get 3% of the movie's gross.  Thanks to H'wood accounting, the movie did not make a profit and he didn't get anything in the back end.


Phil
Logged
e-mail Reply: 2 - 19
KAlbers
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 5:17pm Report to Moderator
New


What is light, without the dark?

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
84
Posts Per Day
0.02
In my opinion, it's a numbers game... no studio sets out to make a flop, but if you are able to put out enough films, one will likely be a hit, and the others, hopefully will recoup at least the cost of production. My thoughts are its not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.  But if anyone is interested in how films do financially in the box offices then you should check out Box Office Mojo... it tracks pretty much all films that go to the cinemas in the U.S. The articles written there are a good insight as to the business side of how and why the films do well or not in theaters. http://www.boxofficemojo.com

Advertising is a big big big factor in the success of a film though. Take the Purge as an example. I'm sure the advertising budget was way more than the actual production budget. And it did really well, because they knew how to market it. The movie from what I know of it, probably sucks, and I thought the premise was weak but they snagged enough popcorn poppin' wallets to make it a success (relatively speaking) and it was large in part because of marketing. Same with Paranormal Activity. That's one thing I wish Box Office Mojo offered, was the marketing budgets for these films, because I believe there is a direct correlation between box office dollars and advertising.

All the best,
Kev


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 3 - 19
Forgive
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 5:32pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Let The Sky Fall

Location
Various, exotic.
Posts
1373
Posts Per Day
0.27

Quoted from dogglebe
You'd also have to define what a loss is.


... indeed.

Paramount, I believe funded the film -- and like is often the case, they distributed it too. Once it became apparent that the film was going to be a major hit, there was a huge hike in the distribution fees - obviously going to hit the return to the budget, but going right back into their own pockets. They also upped the prints budget (doubled it) - but like all these things, the budget is the allocated amount, not the spend. Gump is recorded as having lost $60m+, but you can be sure that Paramount is all the richer for it.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 4 - 19
KAlbers
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 5:39pm Report to Moderator
New


What is light, without the dark?

Location
Los Angeles
Posts
84
Posts Per Day
0.02
I want to add... once upon a time when DVD's were all the rage... putting a film in the theaters, was a way of boosting DVD rentals/sales. (if it was in the theaters, it must be good, right?) Even if it didn't do well in the theaters, they could make their money on DVD sales and rentals... not sure how much they can count on that for revenue theses days however.


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 5 - 19
Forgive
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 7:22pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Let The Sky Fall

Location
Various, exotic.
Posts
1373
Posts Per Day
0.27
You're right of course ... but netflix and the like is killing the dvd market, which really can't be relied on any more - therefore they have to look for other income streams - MOS apparently made its budget in merchandising before hitting the box office, and there's a lot of comment now that merchandising is the key market that is replacing the dvd market instead of being an additional market -- so if you can't put the argument forward that (when pitching) you can guarantee additional revenues, you're automatically down-grading your work - more so for major releases.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 6 - 19
Dreamscale
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 9:10pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Here's how you track DVD sales.  I don't think this includes Blu-Ray, though.  Don't ever think there's not a HUGE backend on DVD, Blu_ray, and rentals.

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/thisweek.php

Logged
e-mail Reply: 7 - 19
Ledbetter
Posted: June 30th, 2013, 9:18pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Not to morph the thread but what then is the better option for a writer?

Money up front or look for backend cash and hope it shows a profit?

As Phil mentioned Forrest Gump was huge...

But netted the writer nothing.


Shawn.....><
Logged
e-mail Reply: 8 - 19
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 1:29am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63

Quoted from Ledbetter
Not to morph the thread but what then is the better option for a writer?

Money up front or look for backend cash and hope it shows a profit?

As Phil mentioned Forrest Gump was huge...

But netted the writer nothing.


Shawn.....><


A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Generally speaking...

Sometimes you get a Star Wars or a Full Monty though...where the points are worth a fortune.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 9 - 19
Andrew
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 2:38am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

Quoted from Forgive
You're right of course ... but netflix and the like is killing the dvd market, which really can't be relied on any more - therefore they have to look for other income streams - MOS apparently made its budget in merchandising before hitting the box office, and there's a lot of comment now that merchandising is the key market that is replacing the dvd market instead of being an additional market -- so if you can't put the argument forward that (when pitching) you can guarantee additional revenues, you're automatically down-grading your work - more so for major releases.


Spot on regards merchandising. One of the reasons comic book movies are so in vogue right now and why studios are looking to develop every property they can.

Netflix really does have an opportunity to develop and create an incredibly powerful distribution platform - and considering their content, they're looking to push that angle hard. Said it before and will say it again... I'm surprised at how reluctant Facebook is to properly integrate a VOD service, and Google don't really seem to push the monetisaion of YouTube as hard as they could. Both are so well placed to take a large share of that market. That said, I don't YouTube is really the platform for vod, because it's considered a free to use service from inception and therefore people are not conditioned to pay for content.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 10 - 19
Dreamscale
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 10:10am Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Ledbetter
Not to morph the thread but what then is the better option for a writer?

Money up front or look for backend cash and hope it shows a profit?

As Phil mentioned Forrest Gump was huge...

But netted the writer nothing.Shawn.....><


Alot of it is "Hollywood Accounting", which turns profits into losses like magic.

You can't count on any movie making what Hollywood calls a profit, but the bottom line is even when you read about this movie or that movie tanking, don't start feeling badly for those whose money was invested.

"We" don't see all the actual revenues that the film industry generates, nor do we know the actual costs of making movies.

Bottom line is that I highly doubt movies are being made to lose money on purpose.

Logged
e-mail Reply: 11 - 19
nawazm11
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 10:21am Report to Moderator
Been Around



Posts
945
Posts Per Day
0.21
Yeah, it's a huge reason why indie directors struggle to get funding for their second films. Shane Carruth spent 10 years trying to get funding for A Topiary after Primer, but nothing came out of it so he decided to make Upstream Color at the supposed budget of 50k. Soderbergh even claimed that if this was the 70s, he would've easily found the funding for A Topiary.

And recently, this sci-fi flick called Upside Down with a semi-famous cast comes out at a budget of 60 million. Nobody knows shit about it and although the trailers look cool, it gains only 100k at the US box office. Quite laughable actually. But one thing is certain, poor marketing almost always leads to poor gross.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...
Logged
Private Message Reply: 12 - 19
Eoin
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 10:32am Report to Moderator
Been Around


just another ego maniac with low self esteem

Location
Ireland
Posts
638
Posts Per Day
0.12

Quoted from Andrew


Google don't really seem to push the monetisaion of YouTube as hard as they could. Both are so well placed to take a large share of that market. That said, I don't YouTube is really the platform for vod, because it's considered a free to use service from inception and therefore people are not conditioned to pay for content.


Google have a few things in the works - firstly, they have a multi platform OS that most people have heard of, if not used, Android.

Google already have Android TV in the works and are planning a TV/Games console based on this OS to rival the X Box and Playstation.

Games generate far more revenue and return than films. Along with games, a VOD service is also expected.

They are also developing the Google Glass technology.

I wouldn't rule out the Google plans for world domination just yet
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 13 - 19
Andrew
Posted: July 1st, 2013, 10:53am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

Quoted from Eoin


Google have a few things in the works - firstly, they have a multi platform OS that most people have heard of, if not used, Android.

Google already have Android TV in the works and are planning a TV/Games console based on this OS to rival the X Box and Playstation.

Games generate far more revenue and return than films. Along with games, a VOD service is also expected.

They are also developing the Google Glass technology.

I wouldn't rule out the Google plans for world domination just yet


Google is a mightily impressive company, but I think even they would admit they've made very little progress on VOD services. Games aside (and it's ambitious to think they're anywhere near ready to tackle Xbox and PS in their field - mobile gaming, sure), they embraced the wrong method on YouTube VOD (pay-per-view as opposed to a subscription model a la Netflix). They would have hoped to do more in making YouTube a bigger revenue stream, no doubt. And Android TV as a VOD service will be competing in a heavily crowded market, and until I see the proposition, I'm not convinced they would be able to create something so fresh or impressive that it changes existing behaviours.

In terms of the impact of Andrioid... yes, by sheer volume it's number 1, but it still lags iOS in terms of developers releasing the big hitters first - and in the world of apps, that's a big problem. iOS has classic first mover advantage - just look at Instagram. It was an age before Android got it on the platform. Google have closed the gap, but it still exists. Same with both phone and tablets. So in terms of an intergrated solution whereby Andriod dominates, it's still a long way off.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 14 - 19
 Pages: 1, 2 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Questions or Comments  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006