I don't think Fox is in danger of going bankrupt or anything, but they definitely could have had a much better year. They released some movies that had definite potential to break out and none of them did. The fact that there highest grosser this year is from a franchise that they took over, after Disney dropped it, is pretty telling. Now whether it was a great discision for Disney to drop Narnia is another debate entirely.

It wasn't a huge hit, but it made 190 on a 100 budget. And as I just said Narnia's profits alone paid for 3 films like thats budgets. so the 190 would be pure profit for Fox in that situation.

The point is when Fox now has a series of films that each entry will make 250-350 alone overseas, it'll keep churning it out, because then it pays for 5 smaller films that do in the 100-250 WW range. So Narnia even disappointing in the long run brings Fox almost 800 million WW and they don't have to pay for them. It's a question of the big Picture. Fox should be happy its got another franchise that it can make for less and it stop the bleeding of the franchise despite no marketing, and the least interestng characters returning.

Fox really only has the X-Men films now which has most likely steered its course.

As far as I remember A-Team bombed in the US. And it actually made $177 m on $110 m budget. You can juggle the numbers here, but a fact is that the A-Team franchise is dead. And this says everything.

I actually think this turned out as a mild hit overall. I had no idea this movie was reasonably budgeted ($155m based on BOM). It looked very expensive. Much moreso than the Prince Caspian which had a $225m budget according to BOM. Now I'm pleasantly surprised by the cost/earning ratio.

With another reasonable budget I don't think Fox and Walden would risk too much on another Narnia movie. Though they really do need to speed their development. The time between the movies definitely hurts their BO prospects.

LOL, The A-Team was a clear flop. $77 million domestically, of which the studio got a bit more than half. And then around $100 million overseas of which the studio gets less than half. Add marketing costs...

It hardly bombed. Noone ever really expected it to do over 100 million, it opened soft, but had decent legs. It had a Tax Break of 20 million (And how many other million shaved off by merchandising and promotional tie ins), and made an additional 20 million in US DVD sales. WW DVD sales numbers are tough to come by, but usually about the same. TV Rights will be pretty solid as well, usually TV Properties get a good price. Its budget ended up being closer to 90 million, and it overall made made about 220-250 million when all is said and done.

Again Lector, you have no proof of how much the studios get from overseas grosses. You've been saying it for years, like a broken record. Some are higher than 55%, others are lower, the average is still in the 50-55% though. And PS, I'll say it again. A-team did below expectations, maybe on here anyway, but the film was already completely paid for by Avatar, and it will even more than break even in the end. It gets about 42 from US, and about 50-55 from Overseas. Its budget was 90 million after taxes (Less after other deals.)

And as I said, it doesn't matter. Avatar payed for every film to be made this year. Whatever the A-Team and other films grossed is pure profit for them.

That is some RIDICULOUS hindsight bias and renders everything else you say pretty much void. Freakin' ridiculous.

Ummmmm. Yeah...

I don't think the point of everything is to have 1 out of 10 movies breaking out significantly in order to pay for eventual losses of the others. It's not like they're focused on making masterpieces so it's OK to act risky. This is a money game and you'd want to earn at least a little on every movie you make. Otherwise it's a total gamble business if you think you need one breakout every once in a while and you're good to go. What if the breakout never happens?

The A-Team was obviously planned as a franchise starter. But no one will ever think to greenlight a sequel because its earnings don't warrant that. It's not a complete bomb, but it ain't a success story either.

Yeah, that sounds very delusional, like putting lipstick on a pig. You know, like BKB trying to prove that the Incredible Hulk was a hit.
There is a proof that studios get less from overseas. Theaters still get half, then there's always a local distributor getting about 10-15%. And in many countries a studio just sells rights for a fee.
And everyone expected A-team to be a huge hit. I think we should end the discussion here as the guy's trying to cook the facts the way he likes them. I'm not playing this game.

Plus, it has been in development hell for years, stakes were high. The movie crashed and burned. We'll never ever see another A-team. End of story.

I remember a good amount of people here thought the film would do over 100 million, i think most predicted it would do over 100 million domestic.

And don't forget about local taxes in every country that apply to every ticket sold. Probably 40% overseas is the most accurate guesstimate for rough calcullations.

Since they have taxes in the US, I wouldn't consider it to be an issue. Value added tax is reimbursed in most countries, so it's not actually a loss.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, I'm not disputing the fact that A-Team disappointed for fox. But it did look like shit from the start and had a lot going against it. Calling the A-team a bomb is pure stupidity though as it broke even. Sure people expected to be huge and be a franchise. Thats the point of almost every action film for the last 25 years. It's not a point of 1 out of 10 films happening. Its the point that they continue to pay for films they make with the films they make before. Avatar pays for this year, because that film payed for everything. 6 films this year make the same amount of profit Avatar did this year, that rolls over to the next year. That's basic business. Its easy to say a huge film disappoints, but A-Team while expected by some to be huge, anyone with any grasp of reality new the marketing was bad, the series was held in high respects, and it was never going to do huge numbers. For those that truly high expectations for the A-team then I'm sure it disappointed to your standards.

I love that we're talking about this because I said Fox this year 'almost' every film was a good size hit. Almost being the oportune word. A-team did the worst of their films this year, and it still will turn a profit in the end. Fox is very smart with their investments, despite only one film over 100 million this year.

So nothing about the statement that no one expected The A-Team to make more than $100 million? Because that is still ridiculous.

Like with Gulliver.

Looking back, the average prediction of 30 predictors before the summer for The A-Team was $130 million in the Summer Box Office Game.

Another person just pulling a number out of their ass. And I love not paying taxes in the US.

Most of the countries like the US that actually give good box office numbers have similiar taxes. And some are even lower and higher at times. The problem is there are so many eastern european and third world countries (That do so much for the box office ) the number gets jacked.

It's like that old myth that most people in the middle ages everyone died by their 30s. NOOOO. The reason the life expectency was so low is that so many high rates of children died at birth.

What's your point? Every studio has a few misfires, Except Paramount, pretty flawless year for them. Gulliver is having pretty good overseas numbers, so it can still break even as well.

WB had Edge of Darkness, Legend of the Owls, Jonah Hex, and Hereafter,
Disney had Tangled (Needs 500 WW to break even) Prince of Persia, and Tron still needs quite a bit to break even as well.
Sony had How Do you Know and the Tourist
Universal I need not mention

I don't think that they made money with A-Team's theatrical run, but with DVD sales they might have got even or maybe earned a little.

What I feel that one movie breakout does not mean that others can do all bad as they want. No Doubt Avatar paid for the bills of rest of their movies but that does not mean A-Team as a movie should have that as a plus point or Fox for that matter.

The point of making movies or any sequel is that the movie makes money and not just break even. What I think is that A-Team would have had actually broke even for the studios but that is not what they would have thought while investing money in it.

Finally if every studio just thinks of breaking even then GOD save box office. Fox is having one of the worst years and no one can deny it even with the breakout of Avatar.

I'm not arguing with village idiots and Fox fanboys. Strangely enough, you happen to be both.

Let's say 100 million budget (and this is with tax breaks) and conservatively 50-70 million for marketing expenses
77 mln US = 50 mln at very best
100 mln overseas = 40-45 mln at very best
According to the-numbers only 16 mln dvd sales in US
Let's put half of that number for Blue-Ray = 8 mln
Assume that studio get around 3/4 of DVD/Blue-Ray sales so around 17-18 million for both formats
12% of US box office for TV rights = 10 mln
We don't know anything about foreign dvd sales but for sure it wasn't a huge moneymaker either.

So far we only got around 125 mln. To be more or less comfortably even it should gross around 100 mln in US and 130-150 mln overseas. And please don't start all over again that rubbish about Avatar or that US studio can get more than 50% from foreign box office.

So according to your calculations it is somewhere around 125m without foreign DVD sales (which I too will not be huge but should have added another 25m or so).

Right till the end with your assumptions you were correct but what does this mean "To be more or less comfortably even it should gross around 100 mln in US and 130-150 mln overseas" The total money earned is what is called even right ? If you invest 100m and in the end get 125m it is a small profit of 25m.

I have no idea about the distribution of DVD income, but there's no fucking way the studio gets 3/4. There are intermediaries like store chains and online stores. Also, you should have production and marketing costs for DVD/Blues as well.
Considering all the costs, production and marketing, and all possible income sources, it's clearly a loss.

Almost 85-90m with theatrical run including OS. There is no way it was a loss with DVD sales. It is definitely not a money maker for them but it should definitely break even in the end for them