WRONG... i knew something sounded funny with that much money being raked in
transformers tanking saved this movie.. it was projected to LOSE 95 million when it was at 293... it then kept on trucking to 409.. so did it make much?? nope.. but it didn't lose a dollar
The movie is projected to lose $95 million, according to
Deadline, when factoring in the movie's bloated production and marketing costs,
which total around $345 million ($195 million production budget, $150 million for distribution and advertising).
The film will have a projected total revenue of $250 million, which is a combination of what the studio gets back from theatrical release, global TV deals, and home entertainment.
Universal's saving grace has been the overseas revenue for "The Mummy." To date, the movie has taken in over $236 million in other countries compared to an extremely disappointing $57.1 million in the US. But things are likely going to change dramatically for the movie this weekend with Paramount's release of "Transformers: The Last Knight."
No. They lost money.
Making money overseas does not automatically save your film if it bombs domestically. You need an extremely high worldwide number to offset failing in your home territory.
Those 50/50 and 60/40 splits that a studio can get from a ticket sold, that relationship only exists for domestic releases. Internationally, the splits are way more profitable for the foreign exhibitors.
For instance.
"
Currently, Hollywood receives 25% of the box office on its films in China..."
China Lowballed Hollywood Box Office By 9% In 2016, Audit Finds – Report
So
The Mummy made $91 million in China. But Universal's take is only $22 million, which might be nearly as much as they put into marketing the film in that region.
Those uneven splits are the standard in foreign markets.
"According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number."
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable
So even if you take the high end of 40% (I've read that 30/70 is the average international split for the studio, the studios get a larger share in Western Europe but much smaller in Asia), that means
of the $240 million The Mummy made internationally (sans China, which is locked in at 25% and as already determined, brought Universal about $22 million),
Universal only took in about $100 million of it.
So all in all, being generous and rounding up, that's about
$125 million internationally (rounded up to $25m for China and 100m for other markets), and
$40 million domestic on an even 50/50 split, for a
worldwide total of $165 million that Universal brought in on the theatrical run.
And when you factor in that they were
estimated to spend $30 million on domestic TV ads alone...
There is no way they didn't lose money.
But that is what happens when 80% of your box office revenue comes from overseas markets that snatch up 60-75% of every dollar your film made.
Deadline estimated a loss of about $95 million if The Mummy made around $375 m's worldwide. That means the magic break even number, according to their estimates, would have been $470 million.
The Mummy didn't come close to reaching that.
(Now Hollywood has crazy ass accounting practices that help keep their studios afloat even when they do lose money, which is too complicated and too secretive for internet rando's like me to know, and of course they generate revenue through rentals, home video, and streaming but that money can take years to actually make it to the studio which limits what films they are able to greenlight and put into production now. The Mummy was a tentpole film meant to start a franchise and make up for the losses or lack of profitability on smaller films for Universal's portfolio. The fact that it lost money itself on the initial run puts their entire schedule of releases in a state of uncertainty.)
