Marvel Studios is ‘Committing’ to a Black Widow solo movie!

[Optimus Prime]

Why not:mjshrug1:

Give me a good standalone mission impossible type movie with Sam Jackson, Anita Hill and Hawkeye

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

I'm not even mad....I feel like she's paid her dues


Gone and get yours BW

 

[FlyRy]

EoT is a flop, didn't make its money back.
Revanant didn't break even at the theater.

Yeah Inception did big money, but while I dislike the movie, I think it had more to do with the Nolan brand, just like Intersteller, than Leo.

EoT is getting a sequel.

And how did Revenant not make its money back. It did over 500 million worldwide breh.

No one else has the star power to pull that off

 

[Vandelay]

I'd check for it.

Tie in Black Panther and/or Punisher on some international spy thriller/La Femme Nikita type of deal and it'll be golden.

 

[David_TheMan]

EoT is getting a sequel.

And how did Revenant not make its money back. It did over 500 million worldwide breh.

No one else has the star power to pull that off

EoT got 178 mil to make, 150 mil to market
Total of 328 mil, it had to make atleast 656 mil to breakeven in theater.
It made 370 mil worldwide. It lost money and was also seen as a flop.

If its getting a sequel its more do to positive word of mouth about the film, than it being a financial success.

---
Revanant
didn't hit the breakeven point

140 mil production
150 mil market
290 mil total, needed 580 mil to break even at box office.
Made 526 mil, it lost money in theater

---
Nobody else could pull that off.
Matthew McCounaghey pulled that off with Intersteller.

 

[TheGodling]

EoT got 178 mil to make, 150 mil to market
Total of 328 mil, it had to make atleast 656 mil to breakeven in theater.
It made 370 mil worldwide. It lost money and was also seen as a flop.

If its getting a sequel its more do to positive word of mouth about the film, than it being a financial success.

---
Revanant
didn't hit the breakeven point

140 mil production
150 mil market
290 mil total, needed 580 mil to break even at box office.
Made 526 mil, it lost money in theater

---
Nobody else could pull that off.
Matthew McCounaghey pulled that off with Intersteller.

Hold up! Is your ass really trying to claim they spent 150 million on the marketing of The Revenant?

 

[obarth]

I think this could be an intriguing movie if it was an origin movie (never thought I'd say that). Delve into the past she is trying to erase and show how she meets Nick Fury. The Marvel movies are so advanced at this point that you can't make a present day movie with Black Widow as the lead. I watched y'all fight Thanos and now I'm gonna watch Scarlett fight some random goons

 

[David_TheMan]

Hold up! Is your ass really trying to claim they spent 150 million on the marketing of The Revenant?

Might want to brush up on the business of movies. if a studio spends 140 mil on a movie they are going to spend 150 on marketing the movie to get a good RoI.
close to 150 mil budget 150 in P&A, under 100 mil, marketing will usually be the same amount spent on the movie. 40 mil movies will usually have 40 mil marketing plans 80 production movie 80 mil in marketing.

 

[FlyRy]

EoT got 178 mil to make, 150 mil to market
Total of 328 mil, it had to make atleast 656 mil to breakeven in theater.
It made 370 mil worldwide. It lost money and was also seen as a flop.

If its getting a sequel its more do to positive word of mouth about the film, than it being a financial success.

---
Revanant
didn't hit the breakeven point

140 mil production
150 mil market
290 mil total, needed 580 mil to break even at box office.
Made 526 mil, it lost money in theater

---
Nobody else could pull that off.
Matthew McCounaghey pulled that off with Intersteller.

Breh you're pulling these #s out your ass.

you claim they spent 150 million marketing the Revenant?

Breh it didn't even fukking open wide. It had a limited staggered release.

And you cant discredit inception crediting it to the "nolan brand" in one breath and then use interstellar as a way of saying Mcounaghey has more pull than dicaprio.

If you believe that breh...

 

[FlyRy]

Double

 

[FlyRy]

Edit:server

 

[FlyRy]

Edit: Server smh

 

[TheGodling]

Might want to brush up on the business of movies. if a studio spends 140 mil on a movie they are going to spend 150 on marketing the movie to get a good RoI.
close to 150 mil budget 150 in P&A, under 100 mil, marketing will usually be the same amount spent on the movie. 40 mil movies will usually have 40 mil marketing plans 80 production movie 80 mil in marketing.

No, they fukking don't. Commonly the marketing budget of a movie is set at half its production budget and anything higher is considered a high risk. Event blockbusters are a beast of a different nature because they're not just marketing a movie but a brand that consists of millions/billions worth of commercial merchandise. That's why movies like Civil War come with a marketing budget as high as its production budget, because they're not selling you a movie, they're selling you a movie and toys and action figures and comics and posters and soundtrack cd's and of course the other movies in the same franchise, and advertising for those products are directly included into the movie's marketing budget.

And since you're so "well-educated" in the movie business I'm sure you're also keeping into account that studios do not subtract sponsorship deals, subsidies and other income from their budget, meaning the actual money they spend on a film is generally far less than what they report. That's of course before Hollywood accounting comes into play and a large part of the budget are fees paid for services provided by (daughter) companies controlled/owned by the studio itself, thus they're just swapping money around their different departments, all for the purpose of raising costs on paper so they can claim a lower net profit (or even a net loss) to prevent paying actors/companies who are contracted to get paid by net point alongside being able to do bigger tax write-offs.

All of this btw only refers to the box office, so once you start including dvd/blu-ray sales, distribution deals/tv broadcast rights, streaming sales and all that other post-theater income the idea that movies don't make any money is really just ludicrous. Unless you of course completely fukk up like Relativity Media did when they had to file for bankruptcy last year, and even they ended up getting bailed out despite their horrid reputation.

 

[David_TheMan]

Breh you're pulling these #s out your ass.

you claim they spent 150 million marketing the Revenant?

Breh it didn't even fukking open wide. It had a limited staggered release.

And you cant discredit inception crediting it to the "nolan brand" in one breath and then use interstellar as a way of saying Mcounaghey has more pull than dicaprio.

If you believe that breh...

Yes they spent 150 mil on a movie that cost 140 mil to make.
they movie only had a initial limited release to get it in before the oscars due to rules, but it was released wide on thousands of screens and they aren't doing that without advertising.

My point about Intersteller is that you claimed only Leo could open a movie and get 500 mil, that is clearly not the case. What he didn't isn't super exceptional in the grand scheme seeing that the movie had a lot of hype, was coming from the previous years oscar winner, and etc. Typically DiCaprio doesnt have blockbusters and doesn't drive money. Just a fact.

Now again please educate about the business of movies before you get emotional and start crying about me posting facts.

The Skinny On Film Financing: Investors Pull Back The Curtain | FINalternatives

Still another component of film financing is print and advertising financing—prints need to be made for theatrical distribution, but the main part of the tab is advertising. The typical P&A budget today, says the hedge fund manager, is equal to the film budget, if not higher. He gives the example, from his own experience, of a $16 million film with a $20 million P&A budget. The financiers offered to provide $8 million senior debt at 20%, which, he says, is a very common interest rate range for P&A financing. “What’s distinct about P&A,” he says, “[is] it has no security. The rights in the film itself are not the security, but it is senior by virtue of the order of payment, which is effectively like being senior secured in that the revenue from the film—after the distributor is paid—pays P&A first. Last in, first out.”

This is commonly known in the financial sectors of those who invest in films.

 

[David_TheMan]

No, they fukking don't. Commonly the marketing budget of a movie is set at half its production budget and anything higher is considered a high risk. Event blockbusters are a beast of a different nature because they're not just marketing a movie but a brand that consists of millions/billions worth of commercial merchandise. That's why movies like Civil War come with a marketing budget as high as its production budget, because they're not selling you a movie, they're selling you a movie and toys and action figures and comics and posters and soundtrack cd's and of course the other movies in the same franchise, and advertising for those products are directly included into the movie's marketing budget.

And since you're so "well-educated" in the movie business I'm sure you're also keeping into account that studios do not subtract sponsorship deals, subsidies and other income from their budget, meaning the actual money they spend on a film is generally far less than what they report. That's of course before Hollywood accounting comes into play and a large part of the budget are fees paid for services provided by (daughter) companies controlled/owned by the studio itself, thus they're just swapping money around their different departments, all for the purpose of raising costs on paper so they can claim a lower net profit (or even a net loss) to prevent paying actors/companies who are contracted to get paid by net point alongside being able to do bigger tax write-offs.

All of this btw only refers to the box office, so once you start including dvd/blu-ray sales, distribution deals/tv broadcast rights, streaming sales and all that other post-theater income the idea that movies don't make any money is really just ludicrous. Unless you of course completely fukk up like Relativity Media did when they had to file for bankruptcy last year, and even they ended up getting bailed out despite their horrid reputation.

As I showed earlier about P&A you are wrong. As for tent pole films, over 100 mil, and you will typically have a P&A budget of 150 mil.
As for sponsorship deals, they actually do play a part in budgeting, they did in MoS, or as the industry called it Man of Deals, where they were able to sell enough sponsorships to cover all of their P&A costs.
As for Hollywood accounting, it is what it is, I'm simply stating the general guide to a movie being profitable, getting offended at me won't change the system the way it is.
As for revenue streams after theater release, off course they continue, I'm talking about financial value obtained in theater though, not sleeper hits that catch on later, and you've yet to actually disprove the general contention and soundness of anything I posted, just ranting and being angry.

So when you can respond to what I've said feel free to start.