Interesting article on this summer’s movies…

Basically built around the question of which were successful enough to prompt sequels. But there are signs of Hollywood’s ongoing structural problems here. As noted in the article, Universal had three successful movies (successful enough to prompt sequels).

However, the failure of Battleship* ate up a lot of those profits, just as John Carter ate up a lot of Disney’s profits from The Avengers. Admittedly, the profitable movies might have made up for the failures, but that’s not exactly a road map to success.* Of course, who knows who that works? Marvel is now owned by Disney, so the money Marvel makes ultimately accrues to them, as with Pixar. But how directly? Only their accountants know…maybe.

[Battleship only made $65 million domestically? Ouch!]

One shocking fact? The very mildly successful Snow White and the Huntsman cost a whopping $170 million to make! Yikes. That’s more than Thor cost. They’re going to either have to make the sequel for significantly less or have the second make a lot more money.

That’s possible, but not a slam dunk by any means. Clash of the Titans cost $125 million and made $500m worldwide. That’s profitable. Wrath of the Titans, the sequel, cost $150 million, and made $300m worldwide. At best, that’s just barely hitting the break even point.  Toss in advertising and whatnot, and it might even have lost a small amount of money.

Universal fared a LOT better (for good or ill) with Seth McFarlane’s raunchy Ted. That cost a reasonable (these days, anyway) $50m, and grossed $240m worldwide. Nearly all domestic, because comedies tend not to travel well. Still, that’s significant money. Whether another trip to the well will made as much is another question, but there’s a lot of room for error there, whereas there isn’t with the Snow White sequel. (On the other hand, McFarlane has Universal by the short and curlies regarding a sequel.)

[Hmm, for some reason the rest of the article has been eaten. I hate that. I have less trouble writing something than trying to remember something I already wrote. Anyway….]

One comedy that *did* travel well was American Reunion, the fifth film in the American Pie franchise. The numbers are nearly identical to Ted’s, expect that about 75% of AR’s box office was overseas, while only 18% was for Ted. That means Ted‘s eggs are all in one basket. I expect a Ted sequel won’t make as much money (and will cost a lot more, because again McFarlane can demand a lot more), but surely will make some.

Universal still has one bullet left this summer, the reboot picture for the Bourne franchise. They have to be pleased that Jeremy Renner’s profile has been significantly raised by his having costarred in The Avengers. Indeed, Chris Helmsdale starred in Snow White and the Huntsman, along with Kristen Stewart, so Universal might be pursuing a strategy of getting actors who are familiar to audiences but who don’t command superstar wages.

Bourne Legacy will largely tell the tale for Universal’s summer, and maybe the year. If it hits big (it reportedly had a $150-160m budget, so the rough breakeven point would be about $300m worldwide), it will basically be box office gravy. If it tanks for some reason, it could push Universal into the red for the summer, or at least wipe out nearly all the profits from U’s other movies, in conjunction with Battleship.

Anyway, lots more good stuff in that article. Check it out.

  • Beckoning Chasm

    MacFarlane has uni – what?

    Is that the article from the Hollywood Reporter?  Some of the sequel-ready properties surprised me (Prometheus? Men in Black 3?) while others (MacFarlane said he’s open to a Ted 2) didn’t.

    I kind of wish Ted had bombed.  Now MacFarlane will have a huge presence in movies as well as most of television.  The guy’s a very talented voice artist but his writing leaves a lot to be desired.

  • Ken_Begg

    Yeah, I’m pretty tired of McFarlane’s schtick too, but the public wants what it wants. (Until it doesn’t anymore.)

    I agree on Prometheus and particularly Men in Black. If I had to guess, I’d say the latter particularly never gets made. You almost can’t make a profit on it (and this one actually grossed a great deal) because Smith and Spielberg have such rich first dollar deals. So to save face, you say, “Yeah, they were great moneymakers and we’ll definitely do more” and then let them die in the pre-production process.

  • Toby Clark

    Kinda disappointing about Battleship, it wasn’t all that bad – there’s nothing particularly groundbreaking about it, but it delivered what it promised and didn’t wear out its welcome compared to some directors. Plus, I gotta love a movie that does a shot-for-shot homage to a viral video of a bungled liquor store burglary and sets it to “The Pink Panther” theme.

  • Ken_Begg

    I didn’t see either, but John Carter was reportedly a pretty good movie. I think studios / networks often take more heat for failures than they deserve, but in this case, I do think Disney’s marketing team majorly screwed the pooch.

    So did the filmmakers, perhaps. Despite most people who saw it liking it, Carter was apparently the latest dour protagonist, when he should have been a light-hearted swashbuckler / joyful warrior type.

  • zombiewhacker

    What bums me about the new Bourne movie is that supposedly Renner’s character is “genetically enhanced” or something.  (That’s the impression the trailer leaves anyway.  Gosh I hope I’m wrong on this.)  He can’t just be a superspy on the run, now he has to be a superhuman superspy on the run.

    That’s all and fine for another genre, but that’s not what the original Bourne films were about. 

  • John Bohlke

    Am I being a little thick, or is the article never actually linked to or even stated where it is from?
     

  • Ken_Begg

    Arggh, the link must have gotten eaten when the second half of the piece was. Thanks for pointing that out. The initial line is now (again) a link to the article.

  • Tim

    The problem I have with all these “hollywood is going to go bust in a very short time!” sky-is-falling commentaries is that they’re usually made by the same people who’ll say “hollywood is being run by uncreative accountants who only care about the next big franchise to grind more dollars out of”. So if your argument is that hollywood is run by business types, are you then saying that those business types are horrible at business and can’t/won’t/don’t recognize basic profit and loss strategies? I think it’s deceptive to only count in box office totals and say a movie is a failure. That doesn’t account for dvd/bluray sales, merchandising, ad placements within the movies, cable rights, tv rights, foreign tv rights, and probably a million other things they make money on that we don’t know about. I think the movie industry is making a ton of money and will continue to do so.

  • Look at it this way, McFarlane was hired to develop a new primetime network reboot of The Flintstones. Ted’s success will keep him very busy with big screen projects which will hopefully mean he’ll have less time to soil a classic series.

  • John Carter is a decent movie that’s biggest flaws are that it suffers from a weak leading man and a very generic villain and nearly every aspect of the story and production design makes it seem like a complete knock-off of other more famous science fiction properties that all borrowed in some way from Carter’s source material. Oh, and that Disney spent a zillion dollars making a movie that feels like an also-ran right out of the starting gate.

    As for Battleship, I’ll just repeat what I wrote on Twitter immediately after seeing the movie.

    “Battleship is the movie that helped me to realize that even as a fan of bad movies I still have standards.”

    The worst thing about Battleship is seeing how much money they spent on it and knowing that if they had just let Peter Berg make a big budget World War 2 naval warfare movie the likes of which hasn’t graced the big screen in ages (Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor does not count for a variety of reasons) it would most likely would have been a big hit. Couldn’t possibly have lost less money.

  • kgb_san_diego

     Ummmmm…  Was this posted by a net bot?  Did you read the article above?  Other things on this site?  What I read above is a commentary on the weird Hollywood machination that decide what gets sequels and what does not.  I did not read any sky is falling argument at all…  Thanks, Ken!

  • Ken_Begg

    To be fair, I *do* think the sky is falling in Hollywood. Not because Hollywood is run by uncreative accountants, though. Or that’s part of the problem, in some aspects. Another part of the problem, however, is the opposite. People who work in the film industry are so invested in the ‘romance’ of filmmaking and the ‘glamor’ of it, that they refuse to do things they should do, like abandon the star system. Denzil Washington makes $20 million dollars a picture. That’s pretty much crazy. There’s no rational reason for it.

    Some of what Tim says about additional revenues is valid, but it cuts the other way too. There are other revenue streams (shrinking ones; see below), but there are also many more costs associated with a film than just the production budget.

    P&A for a big film can be a hundred million right there, meaning the film has to gross another two hundred million to make up for that. That’s how a single film like John Carter can lose three hundred million dollars. Indeed, most films lose money, which has been true forever. The idea is to make up for it by having the occasional mega-hit. That’s an inherently unstable business model, and one ripe for disaster.

    The main reason Hollywood as currently configured is doomed, as are network TV and the big publishing houses, is because they are operating under business models created decades ago when there was a mass culture, which there isn’t anymore. The pie is being split more by many more entertainment options, such as video games.

    Hollywood’s basically been kept afloat by ancillary monies, the lion’s share of which came from DVD sales. There was a good decade or more there where the studios literally made more money from DVD sales than they did from box office takes. Those sales are now *way* down, and no other income stream comes close to replacing it. Their margin of error is hence far less, and sooner are later there’s going to be quite a reorganization of some sort. I expect in the next ten years we’ll see a big studio or two go under (or be bought out by a competitor), at least as a filmmaking operation.

  • Gamera977

    Yeah, can’t argue with the main flaw being Carter being turned from a badass into a mopey whiner. When Dejah Thoris has to tell Carter to stop whining and act like a man you know you’ve got problems! 
    Plus ‘A Princess of Mars’ isn’t that complex a novel – basically ‘boy meets girl’ then ‘boy fights his way though an army of bad guys and mutant hell beasts to win the girl’s heart.’ I’ve seen plenty of movies dumbed down but this one added so much stuff from that later novels to the basic plot that I’m sure many who hadn’t read them couldn’t make heads or tails of it and those who had read the Barsoom novels were really ticked off. 
    Not sure what you could have done about the material that’s been done to death in other movies though.

    Hmmmm, would love to see a big budget WWII in the Pacific movie. I was watching Midway and thinking it’d be great to replace some of the awful stock footage with models or CGI. As one fellow military history buff pointed out Heston takes off in a Wildcat, flies to the Japanese fleet in a Devastator, bombs them in an Avenger, and then gets shoot down in a Hellcat. Please at least find some stock footage of the SAME FRIGGIN’ PLANE!!!! 

  • Gamera977

    I’m expecting the way things are going to see a government bail-out of Hollywood the same as GM and Chrysler. 

  • Ericb

    Thinking of World War films the time is right for a historically accurate WW1 film with modern production standards.  Wthl the 100th anniversary coming soon I hope someone will be inspired to make one.

  • Petoht

    Eh.  It’s not that far from the Bourne movies, sadly.  They just changed the magic spell from “brainwashing” to “genetic manipulation”.  Even Damon’s Bourne wasn’t just a secret agent, he was a brainwashed killing machine run amuck.

    Also, is this a reboot?  The ads feel more like it’s a continuation that follows a different character.

  • Grumpypants

    Meanwhile, Quentin Tarantino will continue to make (mostly) decent to very good movies for $20mil that will always at least make some money and occasionally make huge piles of it and all will be right with the world.

  • zombiewhacker

    Thanks to foreign box office, Snow White looks like it will turn a decent profit after all.  But a “decent profit” isn’t why a studio sinks $170M into a project in the first place.  For the same dime, they could make five modestly priced rom-coms and generate the same level of revenue.

  • You have that right. They’d probably be better off, in fact, because of the five movies one might hit it big.

    Sequels used to make less money than the originals, so there was a sort of formula involved in how much a sequel would cost; could you make the second one profitable based on it drawing, say, 65% of what the original made. Now sequels often make more than the originals (not always, clearly, but regularly enough to justify a second bite at the apple in many cases–literally, in Snow White’s case).

  • Terrahawk

    Could Hollywood survive if it returns to more of a studio system?  While you have more fixed costs, you also have more controllable costs.  Instead of having to hire an FX house to do your CGI where you have to pay more because they don’t have constant work and have to build that into the cost, the in-house staff does yeoman work and is busy on your various projects.  You can also build up a stable of B-list stars who can actually act and provide the character actors that people actually like.  It might even make Sci-Fi network films watchable if they had people who could act.  Same goes with getting a stable of writers, directors, etc.  

    You’re still going to have stars and top-level talent in all of these fields.  But if you can churn out a steady stream of $20-$60 million pictures that are competently made, you can hit a lot of the niche markets and I believe make money. 

  • Terrahawk

    It looks like a continuation.  The last film left me cold and not really caring to watch another film.

  • Terrahawk

    Combine Gamera and your ideas and there can be only one conclusion….JUTLAND!!!!

    Sadly, I don’t think Hollywood has it in its heart to make these films anymore.

  • Gamera977

    Giant battleships slugging it out with biplanes zipping around? Hell yeah!!! Toss in a zeppelin and it’d be perfect! That’s the movie ‘Battleship’ should have been.

    Probably still would crash and burn at the box office though!

  • Ken_Begg

    TH — Sadly, I don’t see how you could reassemble that model. Part of the thing is that the studios used to churn out far more movies than they do now. The present model is to make fewer films, but with much bigger budgets (especially the would-be tentpole pictures) and shooting schedules. I don’t think they’d have enough work to support a roster of character actors.

  • Ken_Begg

    Tarrantino (like Woody Allen), has the advantage of drawing casts of star actors–by today’s standards, anyway–who want to work with him and don’t get nearly the
    money they normally would. That certainly helps to keep his budgets down.

    That said, he is among a *very* select handful of filmmakers who actually write quality scripts for his films. That might be his mysterious secret.

  • OpenUReyes

     Ken, you’ve got to do your homework before you blog on this page, your comments on Ted were completely incorrect; “One comedy that *did* travel well was American Reunion, … The numbers are nearly
    identical to Ted’s, expect that about 75% of AR’s box office was
    overseas, while only 18% was for Ted. That means Ted‘s eggs are all in one basket…” In case you didn’t know it, your 18% gross from overseas for “Ted” was based originally on one small country, Australia, where it broke national records, it is now tying or breaking records in a few more countries overseas, where it is still in limited release. As for your blind support for that “piece of crap” American Reunion, which will never approach the success of a quality comedy like “Ted”.

  • Ken_Begg

    “Blind support”? Really? Thanks for the update / correction, such stuff is always welcome. But man, if you take this level of umbrage over my (overwhelmingly positive) comments on Ted’s success, well, you might want to step outside and catch your breath for a moment. Count to ten. Don’t worry, I won’t kick your cat while you’re out.

    Also, I can’t help noticing the quotation marks around the phrase “piece of crap” in your note. Who are you quoting? As far as I can tell, none of the rest of us used that phrase anywhere.