I’m kinda glad. It takes more than big names to sell a animation.
Well I guess we should take in account the huge boost Shrek 2 may of given the movie
From Box Office Mojo:
Production Budget: $75 million
Domestic: $56,019,976
Overseas: $10,122,607
Total to date: $66,142,583
A scant 9 million away from breaking even. They’ll make at least that much this weekend, and rake in a profit with the DVD sales.
I hate Hollywood, I really do.
I don’t think that figure includes advertising
Right you are. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s another $75 million for marketing, for a total cost of $150 million altogether.
Worldwide, it’s made $97 million so far. I think it’s still gonna make a profit.
Well, Box Office Mojo estimates that the marketing costs for Spiderman 2 and Shrek 2 to be around $50 million each, so that seems to be a more reasonable figure, rather than $75 million. Shark Tale will make a nice profit. That $10 million overseas gross mentioned above comes almost entirely from Australia and NZ, so once it’s released in the rest of the world the international numbers should be impressive.
Both SM2 and Shrek 2 had massive marketing budgets. Isn’t “same as the production budget” the rule of thumb for estimating marketing budgets?
Well since someone brought it up.
I always thought Martin was one of the more disappointing TV series because it was so good and one day it just hit the wall and pretty much sucked until it was cut off. Living Single was similar as well … good to a point and then pretty much unwatchable.
Do they just run out of things to write about?
No, but they run out of the starring comedian-turned-actor’s standup material.
Both SM2 and Shrek 2 had massive marketing budgets. Isn’t “same as the production budget” the rule of thumb for estimating marketing budgets?[/quote]
I’m not sure. For movies that cost less than $20-$30 million to produce, it is often the case that marketing costs can equal or exceed the production budget, but once budgets hit upwards of $80-$100 million, the marketing costs seem to settle around the $40-50 million range for domestic releases. For example, Spiderman 2 is listed as having a $200 million production cost and $50 million in marketing costs. Harry Potter 3 is listed as $130 million/$50 million. I, Robot is $120 million/$45 million. Of course, once you factor in international marketing, the two budgets might be the same, but it’s hard to say.
Will Smith is the best Uncle Tom since Cuba Gooding Jr.
There i said it.
No, but they run out of the starring comedian-turned-actor’s standup material.[/quote]
What’s the point of having writers then?
Kaena: The Prophecy says, “Scoreboard!”:
4% (1 of 27)
Then there’s CGI stuff no one made time for, save animatophilic completists, like Ali Baba. That Indian CGI film never made it out of Los Angeles two years ago. Thank Jerry Beck (of Cartoon Research) for lettting us know the film existed.
BTW, screw those Rotten Tomatoes percentages. They are binary, so a C+ film ranks just as low as a D+ film.
Please note that studios only receive about 50-65% of box office receipts, the rest goes to the theater. Throw in advertising and distribution costs and as a rule of thumb a movie needs to make at least double the production cost of the film in box office receipts before it breaks even. It’s unusual these days for a movie to break even on box office alone, of course studios still have DVD sales, broadcast rights, licensing ect. to make more off them. That is where the studios are making their profits these days.
It’ll make at least $150 million in North America before The Incredibles buries it.
It’ll make another $200 million overseas just for showing up.
It’ll make another $200 million on video for the same reason.
It’ll get $40-50 million bids for TV rights in two years.
It’ll be just fine.