So then tell me why it's unreasonable to assume that when Fox approved such a big budget they weren't expecting 100 million in profit simply from the box office and they knew that X3 was one of the few films this year which had mutiple other routes of income. Why is that really so unreasonable? I'll counter with your argument. Are you a Fox executive who knows how much Fox was expecting?

All I know is that is it moronic to say that $235 million domestically is not a good gross. You think WB expected way over $200 million for Batman Begins? You think Universal expected $200+ million for Van Helsing? You think the expected gross for Alexander was $200 million?

Hell, I suppose none of the recent James Bond films did too well, eh? Die Another Day cost $142 million and made $165 million, World is Not Enough cost $135 million and made $126 million. Heck, how stupid of the studio, they just keep expecting those $180+ million grosses for James Bond and it never happens:

Um, you realize you're throwing out things you have no idea about, right? Fox expected 300 million, fox is dissapointed, etc. The thing is, what I'm throwing out is actually true . X3 DID break even worldwide, and now everything else is gravy. You've got to be insane to think that a studio is going to be upset over a film that has already made about 20 million dollars profit before even leaving theaters.

Also, another thing you're not taking into account is that studios get a higher percentage of the gross in the first two weeks. The average is 55%, but you can bet that over X3's very inflated first two weeks, they got a much better deal.

But dont you understand those other sources of income cost money to? So bringing up figures we have absolutely no idea about is kinda dumb imo.

Again, I dont know how much they expected, but im pretty sure when you put a budget on a film over 210m you expect some huge numbers. I remember how so many people called Kong a bust because of it's domestic take and that movie cost about the same amount as Last Stand, now tell me how come people are the total opposite in this situation? Plus Kong did much more overseas. How come expectations were so high on that film with a 200m budget but expectations were so much lower for Last Stand and it's 210m budget.

Kong did well, disappointment was ONLY because the director was coming off three $300+ million grossers. Is that hard to comprehend?!

They expected more, I dont know how much they expected, but all those films could be considered dissapointing, except BB which could be considered underwhelming, just like Last Stand.

And listen, I never said Last Stand's gross sucked, I said it wasnt GREAT, it did what it did. Underwhelming.

First of all, I'm going to ask you the same question again. Are you a Fox executive? You seem to just be assuming Fox expected 300 million. 235 million is a good gross for this and ensures a profit before it even leaves the theaters.

Second of all, the expectations on King Kong are pretty easy to explain. It was made by Peter Jackson, director of the LOTR movies. Most expectations were silly, but it was mainly because LOTR fantatics were expecting a LOTR gross. I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything though. Kong did well at the box office.

Anybody who thinks Kong was a bust compared to its budget is dead wrong. Fact. Also, you keep on saying these ancillary methods cost money but, seriously, compared to 210 million, the cost is minimal. Television rights can bring in 50 million for zero cost. DVDs cost, what, maybe like a dollar, if even, to make? The way toys work is that store marks them up about 2 times what it costs to buy them from the company, and the company usually makes them for about half that (I work at a toy/book store).

Honestly, that argument holds about as much water a sieve, or a hot fire.

But it IS great. This movie is going to be making money for years to come, from myriad sources. All this money will be profit. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of profit. Savvy?

Oh gawd, more of that accounting and crystal ball predictions.

Uh, seriously you need to stop with that bullshit. It's plainly easy to see, even with minimal effort that it will make at least 100 million of DVD, 50 million of rentals and TV, and 100 million off of toys/increased comic book sales/other stuff we don't even know about. I mean, seriously, that's pretty basic. Those are conservative, too, and total cost would be minimal. Give it up.

Heh. Kill, as much as you're saying that Speevy and Lecter are working for Fox because they're saying that Fox didn't expect $300 million, you're making the big assumption that the studio expected big profit from the theatrical gross alone. I really don't think studios are that idiotic to expect a film like Poseidon to make $250 million total. I think most studios go into a film's run with hopes that it'll do well enough to make profit eventually. Obviously, there's always that little hope that the film will do MUCH better than expected and make huge profit for them (Liongates enjoys that a lot). But, that doesn't happen often. Also, you said earlier that "with a budget like that, they should be expecting Spider-Man numbers." Do you really think that Fox expected X3 to double the second's gross? You're kind of saying that studios SHOULD expect that, but I'm pretty sure that they're a little bit more knowledgable about box-office than that.

Lecter's saying that Fox didn't expect $300 million. You're saying they did (and/or they should). Both assumptions.

Can't believe I'm the first person to mention the nice pta for Little Miss SUnshine.



8,000 pta after such an insane weekend, and the additional earlier Wednesday opening, is excellent. I see big things in this movie's future. It should expand to 50 theatres next weekend while there is no competition, imo.

I just saw that a little bit earlier, absolutely fantastic. I was honestly worried with the vast amount of pre-screenings that the film would lose some steam but they look to have only helped it dramatically.

Kill is laughable.

that or studios care about how much money they get period, not only profit.

fox usually cheaps out though so its funy. fantastic four and its 90 million budget. LOL!

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Pirates will pass Miami Vice for the
top spot on Tuesday.

Tuesday may be a little early. I think Wednesday is the earliest possiblity with Thursday a more likely day.

I find this whole topic rather sad an ironic being that in the Xbox 360 thread you reacted to a press release or Microsoft employee interview about the profitability of the Xbox 360 and that you doubted its validity. Like these companies can go around spending money and making financial statements which will impact stock price without reprisal from their lawyers and accountants.

You have shown that compared to the people on this website, in multiple topics that you know shit about accounting or budgeting in general and even when something comes up that contradicts your "logic" you ignore it anyway. Yeah, we don't work for Fox, but a lot of us manipulate money and budgets in the real world. It's not rocket science, and it's not hard to make that leap.

Box Office, like any money making enterprise, is not a black and white, money in money out calculation.

Exactly.

It's also important to note that Warner Bros. (like any other company) just doesn't give the producers a credit card and say "go for it". A film like X3's budget was probably spread over a few fiscal years, 2004, 2005 and 2006 and therefore the money that they spent on that film must be balanced out by the idea that the film will make money this year (obviously), next FY on DVD, and with the X-Men franchise, for maybe up to 20 or 30 years.

Add to that all the misc. garbage like endorsements, overruns, savings, marketing, etc. and you have a truly complex web of money that is no only individual to the budget but ALSO impacts other Fox films currently in production and on the ropes to be produced.

We have a tendency to make weird proclaimations on this site about "success" and "failure" and for the most part we are making these assumptions (I hope) but the picture is far more interesting and complicated than any of us have ever seen, but at the end of the day some accountant somewhere projects the future for a movie like X3 and I have a difficult time believing any accountant would project something in the $300 million range. In fact, I would not be surprised if the Disney estimates for Pirates ranged from the high 200 millions to the mid 300 millions, with 400 million being a bit of a dream.

I think that Little Miss Sunshine will hit 50million. or even 75m..........I might make a club.

You make some good points, but when you are spending about 500 mill on three pics...they are assuming that they are going to get an immediate return on their investment. Maybe not in the first few months, but by the end of it's run, I'm sure they are hoping to recoup most of their costs. With DVD being so huge these days, I would imagine that this is taken into consideration when funding a film, but if you are spending that much on a film, like say 125 mill, and your first film grossed 600 WW, i don't think they were expecting a return of 200 mill. I'm sure they were expecting it to make at least 600 mill again. I know films make money hand over fist for most studios, and that revenue comes from many soruces, but their theatrical release is probably their first priority.

You need to realize that several movies nowadays make more money on DVD than in theatres. Just more. A movie like Lord of War made $25 million in theatres and over $60 million on DVD sales (USA alone). Big movies like Narnia make way over $200 million in DVD sales.

Really (the way I see it) is that the studio basically uses it's theatrical gross to approach breaking even. The thing people don't really think about is rights. Even a mediocre James Bond film will sell to TBS, on TV, and in massive James Bond retrospectives for the rest of movie history. And it differs for every picture.

Let's not forget, Blockbuster Home Video stores make so much in rentals that they can churn out tons of straight to video releases.

Lecter pointed out to me that Harry Potter made 50 million (I guess from ABC) in just the rights to show it on national television in the United States.

While theatrical gross is important it's not really the most important part of the equasion when determining overall "success" of a picture.