Great find!

And look at the top spenders 2014:
http://variety.com/2015/data/news/godzi ... 201389114/

Especially WINTER'S TALE is shocking...
And WB sure likes to spend a lot of money in TV...

yeah, WB had the top 4. That makes Edge of Tomorrow's performance look even worse. That's an absurd amount of money for Winter's Tale and The Judge.

I wonder where Guardians and Mockingjay fit into all this.

That's straight up ineptitude from Warner.

Can they not see the correlation or rather the lack of correlation between spending and box office?

Guardians, Captain America, Mockingjay, TMNT, TASM2, HTTYD2, 22JS, Interstellar, BH6, Maleficent, TF4 are all not on there having spent less than the Judge and Winter's Tale.

I mean, really, is it wise in any scenario to spend $42m in TV ads for Winter's Tale? Talk about a waste of money.

That's pretty crazy. So all of that $61.8m for Godzilla in TV advertisements goes into the marketing budget, which then includes all the other stuff. They must be looking at a $200m marketing spend. Jesus. I guess TV advertisements are the most costly thing, but still, $61.8m, and for only one country. Crazy. How can any movie make a profit ever?? I guess they don't add it to a film's profit/loss, but instead to the studio's as a "marketing expense", then when all is said and done it somehow adds up, and if they need to add it back in order to not pay out to named-stars that have a 10%-20% share-of-the-profits deals, they can just add it back. Hollywood accounting. Fun stuff.

Actually, thinking about it more, it probably pays for itself. Spending $62m on TV ads, then when they option it for TV, they get that (or some/most of it) back from whoever buys the rights to air it.

Let's not forget: Fox, WB, Universal, Disney & Paramount own TV stations and cable networks. So a great amount of money stays within the company...

Whaa that's huge budget for Mortdecai. Very nice for TBND.

That's the only catch I thought of as well, but perhaps it is counted since they could have used that airtime to actually make money, if you know what I mean. So it's not like they paid that much to air the ad, but that they could have earned the same amount from something else, but then we're not so concerned about that since it doesn't actually count as expense on the film as it does for the company.

Here there are zero ads for movies. There might have been 1-2 I have remembered over the last decade, but generally no films are advertised here over TV.

Mostly tickets being given away on the radio and YouTube.

she didn't get a paycheck no one did apparently not even the director so they'll get paid if the film makes money

50 Shades of Grey - $40 million

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/b ... rey-765688

You live in China too?

$120m+ Home
$120m Trolls

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/cutba ... 201412230/

Not heard of Trolls. But Home being that much is normal I guess for CGI animations. Good computer animation isn't cheap yet, and then there's Rihanna, Jim Parsons, Jennifer Lopez, and Steve Martin, that's $20m alone. Plus the delays. I wonder if that figure includes the album that Rihanna recorded for it.

Anyway, Home looks shit. I think Parsons' voice is too recognizable to seamlessly fit into animation.

It should draw in at least some fans of the Big Bang Theory. I know his involvement makes me more interested. Probably will still wait for the DVD.

THR:

$14m The Loft
$12m Project Almanac
$9m Black or White

That looks good for all. Even The Loft should break even.

http://variety.com/2015/data/news/kings ... 201422643/

Jupiter Ascending already at $30 million on advertising. WB probably spent a lot on it for this week too.

Should one adjust this number, given how long it has been sitting on the shelf?

From Variety :

“Jupiter Ascending” cost $175 million.

“Seventh Son” cost $95 million.

From Deadline :

Spongebob movie budget ..... $74 million.

Well no wonder it had a Superbowl spot. WB obviously thought "ah, what's another $5m when we've already wasted $175m? We need to get some return here, and $5m to show 100m people our spot is worth it". But yeah, it's still going to bomb. I really do not understand how the Wachowski's keep getting budgets over, say, $25m.

Seventh Son, the same applies. So much was spent on production that they needed to take more risks to secure a marginal return, but it won't. Marketing cannot make hits the way it used to.

Some WB executive must have fucked Lana/Larry Wachowski and now there are compromising pics. This is my only explanation.

Ever since 1999, they have been desperately trying to recreate the industry-changing impact that The Matrix gave them, but they've failed time and time again. Sticking with the science-fiction genre every time was the worst thing they could have done. Every film will always be, in some way, compared to The Matrix. Just had a thought... perhaps The Matrix and its huge success is the reason that WB (or whoever the investors are) keeping giving them the budgets. Eventually that goodwill will dry up, but perhaps it hasn't yet.

Personally I think they are one-trick ponies, not visionaries. They got lucky with The Matrix and so they made two more because the pressure was too much. Now they are trying so hard to make their sci-fi adventures weird and unique that we get the stupid creations like Channing Tatum with a golden goatee and stupid Spock ears (and that's one of the more normal-looking things).

Um, Jupiter didn't get an SB spot Algren.

I agree with you. It's sad that a $175m budget is there for sci-fi and it is wasted on the Wachowski's B-grade soap opera.