 | | |
| timark_uk wrote: | |
| | |
Fascinating isn't it, and with Hollywood accounting it's entirely possible it never even cost $200m to make... There's all sorts of relative but important factors too apparently:
$43-5m worldwide box office to go with the alleged direct $261m take, though as the article states it'll be a little less than that because cinemas need paying. Another question is how long does it stay at the $30 point with people buying into it, is it like weekend box office type results where things on average have 'a long tail' or drop like a stone?
When we see a supposed budget for a movie where is that information actually coming from, and does it include post production costs like editing? As I understand it, the cost of cinema distribution and promotion is claimed at millions alone. But again, could be a tax dodge lol, you always see 'after costs it only broke even' and then no sequel.
Speaking of a sequel, Disney would likely be hard pushed to pull the same trick again after the middling reviews, but then maybe the movie isn't suited for one or they don't do live action sequels.
They'll be looking at all the subscriber data to see things like was it watched again, did people not even finish it (does Plus have a rating system?), how it did in certain territories... Going forward, is it a draw for the wider service?
Of course the big deal is do we need cinemas any more? The owners can't even argue Disney didn't give them an opportunity with it, but that $40+m is absolutely propping up that movie's school report, and headline box office and red carpets are needed for the sort of money Disney are used to making. One single flop at home is deadly even with similar margins to this.
Gotta say I think Disney will treat it like a fluke for now, as Black Widow presumably didn't cost as much (haven't checked) but got delayed again, and also has all the expectation as a Marvel movie. Plus it's position in the MCU timeline seems to have bearing on other releases?
I find it all fascinating!