re: Suicide Squad Has Apparently Passed $600 Million at the Global Box Office

quote:

---

The number comes from a Hollywood Reporter article (I think). No possible way to tell if it's true or not.

---

quote:

---

They are making money but not enough to cover the losses of their other films

---

quote:

---

quote:
They are making money but not enough to cover the losses of their other films which is what they depend on the blockbusters for.

hot damn

---

quote:

---

So, all of the box office numbers so far look great. How does this stack up against the film’s costs? Well, first of all I can tell you that these $800 million “break-even point” claims floating around are false. The film needs to do about $600 million in global ticket sales to cover the shooting budget (including reshoots) plus marketing costs, since the studio will only get about half of the box office receipts to cover the combined costs that total roughly $300 million. Claims in the press of marketing exceeding $150-200 million are gross exaggerations, as are rumors of costly reshoots that pushed the filming budget closer toward the $200 million range.

Warner’s financial risks on the film are mitigated — as it is for every studio that makes pictures — via financing partners who shared some of the costs, by tie-in promotions and product placement deals, by presales, by tax credits from shooting locations, and by other means typical of these sorts of big-budget Hollywood productions. It’s also true that many costs associated with production and marketing are really associated with internal expenses, where money is paid by one part of the parent company to another part of the company for certain work — such expenses are listed as costs on one spreadsheet and revenue on another, but it’s all ultimately in-house and flows into a series of coffers belonging to the same top organization.

---

quote:

---

The production budget was 175 mill and marketing was 50 mill. So a net profit of 375 mill.

---

quote:

---

Box office flops are going to come up from time to time, but your big bets, and especially the ones with IP backing them, should be enough to cover them. And that's why you're seeing studios move towards IP and franchise films like the Harry Potter series, where you had eight films that generated $7.7 billion over the full run. Those big hits will be able to absorb the losses from the John Carter s. Today, more than ever we're seeing this blockbuster strategy at studios where they rely on really big, tent-pole films – like the Star Wars movies – to generate sufficient profits that cover all of the misses and make the overall slate profitable.

---

quote:

---

if you don't think wb needs films like bvs and ss to do well to do REALLY well to cover keep the lights on you are dreaming. that is why their success is related to other films wb puts out.

Bvs didn't make what Wb wanted it to. When that happened the pressure shifted to ss to pick up the slack. Thus the reshoots and meddling. I think if bvs had made more Wb might have left Ayer alone. But they needed it to be more Mainstream.

---