this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
194 points (94.9% liked)

movies

1733 readers
803 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

πŸ”Ž Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Disney made an estimated $296.4 million loss at the box office on just two of its Marvel superhero movies in 2023 according to analysis of recently-released financial statements.

They reveal that the cost of making The Marvels and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania came to a staggering $762.4 million (Β£609.3 million) before Disney banked $124.9 million (Β£99.4 million) in government incentives bringing its net spending on the movies down to $637.5 million. They both bombed at the box office.

According to industry analyst Box Office Mojo, the movies grossed a combined $682.2 million with theaters typically retaining 50% of the takings and the remainder going to the studio. This reflects the findings of film industry consultant Stephen Follows who interviewed 1,235 film professionals in 2014 and concluded that, according to studios, theaters keep 49% of the takings on average. It would give Disney just $341.1 million from The Marvels and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. No expense was spared on them.

...

Disney does not publicly discuss how much it spends on specific productions and did not respond to a request for comment. Budgets are usually a closely-guarded secret. This is because studios combine the costs of individual pictures in their overall expenses and their filings don't itemize how much was spent on each one. Films made in the UK are exceptions and both The Marvels and Quantumania fall into this category.

Studios shoot in the UK to benefit from its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.

To qualify for the reimbursement, at least 10% of the production costs need to relate to activities in the UK. In order to demonstrate this to the UK government, studios tend to set up a separate production company in the country for each movie they make there.

The companies have to file financial statements which shine a spotlight on their budgets. They reveal everything from the headcount and salaries to the level of reimbursement and the total costs. Studios directly receive the revenue from theater tickets, streaming and Blu-ray sales and carry the costs of marketing as the function of the UK companies is purely making the movies.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 131 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m sorry, did I just read that DISNEY received $125 Million in government incentives to make a comic book movie?

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Studios shoot in the UK to benefit from its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.

It's not like they were handed a blank check, they spent hundreds of millions more paying people and buying stuff in the UK to get that rebate

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"As the CEO, if I pay myself $100 million for making this movie, I will get $25 million of that back from government reimbursement."

No big budget movie will ever make a profit because they make sure the big wigs get paid the amount the profit would have been. It is intentional.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It goes into more detail in the article about how they qualify for that rebate, and no, that's not how it works.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Easy. I'm the new CEO of the company we set up there. Employee salary is an expenditure, and being a company in that country, it qualifies for that rebate unless there's more details I'm missing. I was also grossly over-simplifying in my original comment, I'm sure it's more complicated than that. I also just attribute Hollywood Accounting (see other commenter's post) to anything listed as a box office loss.

[–] MrScottyTay 9 points 1 month ago

In the UK things like that get checked when it comes to grants, they will usually only be valid purchases if spent with approved companies.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wait till you find out the literal billions Georgia (USA) gives away to filmmakers via a tax credit that's been proven to not be more effective than social programs by a significant margin at generating community wealth...

(https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/28730)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's because trickle down-style policies give more wealth and social power to those at the top while allowing the argument that the economic activity that results from that wealth benefits everyone down the pyramid (which also creates a dependency on more instances of these transfers as businesses grow to accommodate the extra demand).

Social programs do that without giving more wealth or social power to people at the top.

The effectiveness that they care about isn't the economic benefit or allowing people to become more independent, it's about funneling money to the rich in the hopes that they will funnel some of it back in a way that won't look so much like corruption.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 month ago

"I lost $100 million dollars making this movie. Coincidentally, I also paid myself $100 million to make this movie."

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago (1 children)

this only accounts for box office take. when you add in streaming, tv and other broadcast rights, home video, merchandising. they won't be 'losing money' on these two 'bombs'.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Yeah when the ant man Halloween costume numbers come in at the end of the month I'm sure they'll be in the black.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Even though this includes the Ant Man film, they put Brie Larson on the thumbnail, they know what they are doing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I took it as the image looks vaguely like she's looking at a piece of mail or a paycheck with a concerned expression on her face, befitting of the general content of the article.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This analysis isn't acknowledging the important fact that The Marvel's was dogwater in its best moments and pure cringe at all other times.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I didn't mind the Marvels. I thought it had problems, and parts were cringy if you're not into it. But the biggest flaw was the writing. It's like they had these ideas for set pieces, and then tried to bring it all together as an afterthought. It wasn't as bad as certain people wanted it to be.

Quantumania was unfinished. It was like they ran out of money and time and just submitted the minimally viable movie. Paul Rudd is always charming, and the actress playing Cassie/Stature is going to be a net plus to the Young Avengers. I think Michelle Pfeiffer was poorly utilized, and of course Kang became a PR problem. But the writing had some high points. The story was engaging, the stakes were real, and the characters all had arcs. The CG was shit, and the Giant Goof schtick is overplayed. Letting go of the physics is a prerequisite for any Superhero movie.

They did poorly because Disney was rushing. They wanted to generate energy and enthusiasm by deliberately releasing each new movie before the last one was available on streaming. But instead of creating fomo, they fostered indifference because the product wasn't good enough. Nothing post-endgame felt like must-watch content. The tie-ins were half-assed, because the studio clearly did not have faith that they would ever get to wrap up each dangling plot thread.

The Marvels was better than Eternals. Quantumania was better than Wakanda Forever. None of them are great movies, but none are as bad as anti-woke or anti-superhero critics suggest.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Werewolf by night was lit. I loved that one. Man thing character aside, it was fun and suspenseful.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I liked the Marvels =(

Meanwhile, I've heard such bad things about Quantumania that I haven't watched it yet lol.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I liked Quantumania. Sometimes you just want something fun and it delivered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I also liked Quantumania. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't "Thor 4" level of bad either.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m a 40 year old dude and thought it was fun. Not my favourite, but it clearly wasn’t made for me. I feel like it’s the kind of thing that will really connect with young girls and later on it will be looked back on fondly.

Dads, watch it with your daughters. You won’t regret it.

Quantumania was fun too. Could’ve been better, but don’t believe all the hate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

I enjoyed the Marvels but I rate the Captain Marvel highly.

I thought Quantumania was pretty pointless, doubly now Kang has been dropped.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Sounds like most of the marvel movies

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow! That's like a sixth of two billion!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No shit. What a bullshit manipulation of numbers by people thrusting their hate boners. β€œAlmost $300m” would have sufficed.

God they had to dig so deep to get these numbers. Looking up tax records? Like Jesus Christ let it go.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

A) Ant man is such a stupid movie. β€œHe keeps his same inertia even though he’s tiny”

B) Never trust Hollywood accounting

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The physics never make sense. Iron Man should be a pink smoothie in a can. Hulk generates mass from nothing and sheds it back to nothing when he changes. Spiderman should be pulling drywall off the studs. Vibranium makes zero sense, either as a shield or as a suit or really any other time. 90% of the fighting Hawkeye and Black Widow do is absurd and would leave their bones shattered.

Thor is all magic, so that gets a pass, but you can't throw a hammer and the get dragged behind it, and then change directions midair. Thor is flying because magic, let's just leave it at that.

And it's not just the MCU. Superman can't catch a plane by the nose. Batman can't launch a grapple hook while he's falling and prevent his death.

Aragorn can't toss Gimli that far. Luke's X-Wing doesn't bank through air in space. The USS Enterprise wouldn't always be oriented to be upright with everything. James Bond can't just recover from all those concussions and venereal diseases without brain damage. Indy can't ride out a nuclear explosion in a fridge.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

It's not that the physics doesn't match reality, it's that the physics doesn't match THEIR OWN rules.

It'd be like if the Hulk was crushing cars with his steps in one scene, but then calmly sitting in a flimsy plastic lawn chair in the next. It's discongruent within their OWN rules. It doesn't match THEIR OWN reality.

It'd be like if Superman is suddenly unable to shrug off bullets. It's dumb.

Stories do not have to be realistic, but they MUST be congruent in order to be taken seriously. It's much, MUCH harder to suspend disbelief if there are no rules and the good guy magically wins.

If you say, "but that's Disney Marvel, though", then perhaps that has something to do with the waning popularity!?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure, but also Pym is dumbing down his explanations for Scott, because he thinks Scott is a moron. The exact functioning of Pym particles isn't at all clear.

It would be like if Superman could tear his S emblem off his chest and throw it at bad guys like a giant cellophane net. Or if Superman could fly fast enough to spin the Earth backwards and reverse time.

Or like if Hulk could be stopped by some crazy loud directional speakers.

Super powers and weaknesses are, and always have been, entirely plot dependent. Vision can phase because he can phase. The explanation that Vision can control his own density makes zero sense. That could make him float, but it wouldn't make him fly sideways, and it certainly wouldn't allow him to pass through solid matter. Air is not very dense, but it doesn't pass through solid stone. The physics of Starlord and Gamora in space make no sense. Groot makes no sense. Yondu's arrow makes no sense.

Ant-Man can shrink and punch a dude because he can shrink and punch a dude. The only problem is they tried to explain it like it's science.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're right, it's bad because the movie about a man that can shrink to the size of an ant is unrealistic, rather than because it was very badly written.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

Who knew over saturating tired IP would result in a loss of profit?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Awww no, poor thing... Does Disney need a hug?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

You know, this is kind of a feel good story to me. That money didn't just vanish into the ether. Disney lost that money to the people working on the movies. Not counting the massively overpaid actors and shit, but that "loss" was just regular people taking money from Disney and I like that quite a bit.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A third of a billion dollars... so far

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Less than 333 mil isn't even close to a billion. I really get tired of click bate headlines.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It also doesn't take into account how Disney actually uses these movies.

Disney makes the bulk of their pure profit in the theme parks.

They just announced that they were dropping $50billion to upgrade the parks, with an expectation of making that back completely within 2-3 years.

The movies, are seen as giant commercials for new merch and Disney parks.

As long as the movie is seen favorably by the target age group (children who will want to go to Disney world) then it's seen as a success.

Then scenes from the movie can be used in the theme parks.

As a note, the scenes used in the park, may have been made years before the movie was filmed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Keep it up!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Genuinely suspect that the people in charge of the money on these projects are stealing a good chunk of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

They've apparently got like $6 billion in cash reserves so they can afford the odd stinker.

Those losses won't be real losses, because they'll just pay everyone less on the next movie. They'll be tax man losses. We haven't made any money, oh poor us...

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί