Madame Web

[Frostbiter]

Just now, Ghost said:

Yes - a studio doesn’t spend almost 200mill on a throwaway movie.  They do it on a movie they believe will make them money.

 

They also don’t heavily promote a movie that think will bomb.  They quietly release them without wasting tons on advertising, or sell them to streaming services in order to recoup some of the money.

 

Seems like they did to me.

[Lightslinger]

10 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

 

So why did they make a failing movie then?

 

The MCU Spider-Man movies are still Sony movies in partnership with Disney/Marvel, so they count toward using the IP clause. They would need a filler movie every now and then in-between MCU Spidey movies to keep it going I guess.

 

I think Sony legitimately thinks each of these movies have a chance at launching a super lucrative Sony Spider-verse of movies. Also maybe money laundering? I'm with you on being bewildered at the WHY?! of it all. Venom makes sense, popular character, movies turned out OK, did OK financially. So they immediately pivot to Madame Web, El Muerto and Kraven?

[Frostbiter]

Just now, Lightslinger said:

 

The MCU Spider-Man movies are still Sony movies in partnership with Disney/Marvel, so they count toward using the IP clause. They would need a filler movie every now and then in-between MCU Spidey movies to keep it going I guess.

 

I think Sony legitimately thinks each of these movies have a chance at launching a super lucrative Sony Spider-verse of movies. Also maybe money laundering? I'm with you on being bewildered at the WHY?! of it all. Venom makes sense, popular character, movies turned out OK, did OK financially. So they immediately pivot to Madame Web, El Muerto and Kraven?

 

Venom and Kraven are strong enough characters to carry a movie. Morbius and Madame Webb?

 

[Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

 

Seems like they did to me.

Because they believed they had a hit

Happens all the time.

Marvel thought The Eternals was going to win them all kinds of awards and set the new standard for superhero movies - how’d that work out?

 

[Frostbiter]

Just now, Ghost said:

Because they believed they had a hit

Happens all the time.

Marvel thought The Eternals was going to win them all kinds of awards and set the new standard for superhero movies - how’d that work out?

 

 

I wouldn't know. I never saw it.

[Ghost]

1 minute ago, Frostbiter said:

 

I wouldn't know. I never saw it.

Cost 236mill to make

plus another 200mill in advertising.

Worldwide gross of 402mill.

0 Oscars.

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

Madame Web has made $80 million over the last two weekends.

 

[Frostbiter]

2 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Madame Web has made $80 million over the last two weekends.

 

 

IMDB has it's estimated budget at $80 million so it'll break even with Streaming and .... do they still sell physical mediums anymore?

[Ghost]

4 hours ago, Frostbiter said:

 

IMDB has it's estimated budget at $80 million so it'll break even with Streaming and .... do they still sell physical mediums anymore?

Gotta add in promotions/advertising- estimated break even is 200mill theatrically

 

and yes, Sony still does physical media - but that will just add to the break even total

 

 

Edited February 27 by Ghost

[Frostbiter]

8 hours ago, Ghost said:

Gotta add in promotions/advertising- estimated break even is 200mill theatrically

 

and yes, Sony still does physical media - but that will just add to the break even total

 

 

 

Who estimated they spent 150% more promoting Madame Webb than they did making it?

[Ghost]

4 hours ago, Frostbiter said:

 

Who estimated they spent 150% more promoting Madame Webb than they did making it?

You have to take everything into account when determining break even on a movie.

Theaters get around 50% of ticket sales.  Plus marketing usually falls around 1.5-2x budget.

All estimates I’ve seen said they need 200-225mill in ticket sales to break even on this movie.

 

MSN

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/madame-web-box-office-how-much-did-it-make-did-it-flop/ar-BB1iwXrk

Screenrant

https://screenrant.com/how-much-madame-web-cost-budget-box-office/

 

Variety

https://variety.com/2024/film/box-office/box-office-bob-marley-wins-demon-slayer-surprises-1235922000/

 

 

 

[Frostbiter]

14 minutes ago, Ghost said:

You have to take everything into account when determining break even on a movie.

Theaters get around 50% of ticket sales.  Plus marketing usually falls around 1.5-2x budget.

All estimates I’ve seen said they need 200-225mill in ticket sales to break even on this movie.

 

MSN

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/madame-web-box-office-how-much-did-it-make-did-it-flop/ar-BB1iwXrk

Screenrant

https://screenrant.com/how-much-madame-web-cost-budget-box-office/

 

Variety

https://variety.com/2024/film/box-office/box-office-bob-marley-wins-demon-slayer-surprises-1235922000/

 

 

 

 

None of those referenced what Madame Webb's advertising and promotion budget was. If you can't cite a source, it's ok to admit you just made it up.

[Ghost]

6 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

 

None of those referenced what Madame Webb's advertising and promotion budget was. If you can't cite a source, it's ok to admit you just made it up.

Thought you might be a troll - now I know it.

I said you had to add in advertising cost and that the total estimate to break even was 200mill

Then I used the word “usually” to estimate the costs.

 

If you want to believe this movie is a success - go right ahead. 
I don’t feed trolls, so you and I are done.

Edited February 27 by Ghost

[PeregrineFalcon]

8 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

None of those referenced what Madame Webb's advertising and promotion budget was. If you can't cite a source, it's ok to admit you just made it up.

I recommend trying this service called Google. You can literally use Google to find that everything Ghost said is correct.

 

If you don't know how to find Google on the internet just let me know and I'll send you a link.

[ZacKing]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:01 PM, Frostbiter said:

So why did they make a failing movie then?

 

I've no idea, I don't work at the studio.  I could make any number of guesses why... contractual obligations, vanity project for someone, tax write offs, not understanding the audience... the speculations can go on endlessly.  Who knows what the deal was? 

 

23 hours ago, Ghost said:

Yes - a studio doesn’t spend almost 200mill on a throwaway movie.  They do it on a movie they believe will make them money.

 

I'm not so sure about that.  The Roger Corman Fantastic Four films come to mind, although I doubt it cost anywhere near that much.  There's an amazing amount of people out there who don't understand the concept of the sunk cost fallacy.  From the sound of it, Captain America NWO is shaping up to be another turd and is going to be the next super expensive flop.

 

Honestly, I just can't believe some studio executives in charge of Madame Web really thought this movie was going to be a smash hit for them and would make tons of money.  If they did, they probably shouldn't be in the positions they're in.

[Ghost]

2 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

I've no idea, I don't work at the studio.  I could make any number of guesses why... contractual obligations, vanity project for someone, tax write offs, not understanding the audience... the speculations can go on endlessly.  Who knows what the deal was? 

 

 

I'm not so sure about that.  The Roger Corman Fantastic Four films come to mind, although I doubt it cost anywhere near that much.  There's an amazing amount of people out there who don't understand the concept of the sunk cost fallacy.  From the sound of it, Captain America NWO is shaping up to be another turd and is going to be the next super expensive flop.

 

Honestly, I just can't believe some studio executives in charge of Madame Web really thought this movie was going to be a smash hit for them and would make tons of money.  If they did, they probably shouldn't be in the positions they're in.

The Corman film was only made to keep the rights, with no plans to release.  It’s budget was 1mill.

Huge difference between that and Madame Web.

 

Unfortunately you may be right about Cap 4 - sounds like they are reshooting damn near the whole movie after seeing it.

 

I was honestly interested in Madame Web when it was announced.

Despite the first trailer, I was still planning on seeing it.

Then I heard why it was bad…

[Frostbiter]

38 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I recommend trying this service called Google. You can literally use Google to find that everything Ghost said is correct.

 

If you don't know how to find Google on the internet just let me know and I'll send you a link.

 

If I plan on making a claim, I will. I refuse to do others homework or verify claims they won't verify themselves.

[ZacKing]

28 minutes ago, Ghost said:

The Corman film was only made to keep the rights, with no plans to release.  It’s budget was 1mill.

Huge difference between that and Madame Web.

 

Yes, I know.  I even said I didn't think it cost nearly as much as Madame Web.  It's an example of a studio spending lots of money on a movie on a movie they know won't make them any money, which is something you said studios don't do.

 

29 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Unfortunately you may be right about Cap 4 - sounds like they are reshooting damn near the whole movie after seeing it.

 

Yeah from what I've read, they're doing anywhere from 4 to 6 months worth of reshoots.  That's basically redoing the entire movie, and that's a very bad sign.

[Ghost]

11 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

Yes, I know.  I even said I didn't think it cost nearly as much as Madame Web.  It's an example of a studio spending lots of money on a movie on a movie they know won't make them any money, which is something you said studios don't do.

 

 

 

Ehh, guess we disagree on what is a lot of money to a studio.

 

To me - a studio only dropping 1 million on a movie says it has no expectations and would be able to recoup that money regardless.

Dropping 80 million to make a movie to me says they have expectations of it being successful.  Which imo is why they continued pumping money into it even.

 

For an example of a studio dropping money and realizing it was a mistake, just look at Batgirl.  Once they realized the mess they had, they didn’t spend one more dime and shelved it.  Hoping to recoup some of it in tax write offs.

[ZacKing]

7 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Ehh, guess we disagree on what is a lot of money to a studio.

 

Most studios aren't in a financial position to be throwing money away.  Big studios in general aren't doing well, not to mention the Roger Corman FF movie was a million plus back in 1994.  That's a lot and even more in today's money.  Hollywood way overspends in my opinion. 

 

Like I said, there can be a whole host of reasons why the studio went ahead and released a film that's a huge steaming turd. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

25 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

If I plan on making a claim, I will. I refuse to do others homework or verify claims they won't verify themselves.

It's still not ok to say that someone's just making stuff up simply because they didn't cite a source. In conversations, both IRL and online, people don't generally act like they're posting to Wikipedia. But ok, you want sources, fine.

 

According to my sources, cited below, Madame Web cost at least $100 million, this means it will have to make at least $250 million just in order to break even. So far it's made about $80 million, and I've rounded up. I'm ignoring advertising spending since I can't find that anywhere. So this means that, even completely ignoring advertising spending, it still needs to make at least another $150 million just to break even. Not going to happen.

 

https://www.cbr.com/madame-web-budget-bigger-sony-marvel/

 

"While the budget for the Dakota Johnson-starring Marvel movie was previously reported to be in the vicinity of $80 million, The Hollywood Reporter recently revealed that the budget for the latest entry in Sony's Spider-Man Universe was actually "in the low $100 million range, according to several sources." While still not as expensive as most Marvel Studios productions, which typically cost $200M+, the higher budget will still hurt Madame Web in the long run as the movie has so far been unsuccessful at the box office."

 

And IMDB says this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64144588/

 

"The typical break-even point is around 2.5x the budget of the movie."

 

Bottom line: Madame Web lost money.

[Ghost]

1 minute ago, ZacKing said:

 

Most studios aren't in a financial position to be throwing money away.  Big studios in general aren't doing well, not to mention the Roger Corman FF movie was a million plus back in 1994.  That's a lot and even more in today's money.  Hollywood way overspends in my opinion. 

 

Like I said, there can be a whole host of reasons why the studio went ahead and released a film that's a huge steaming turd. 

Studios were in better shape back in 94 then now.

For the record, a million in 94 would be 2.1 now.  Still a tiny budget for a movie (imo)

Hollywood definitely overspends.  Just look what Tojo was able to do with 20mill (Godzilla Minus One) compared to what Hollywood does with 20mill.

I look at studios releasing huge turds, the same way as new parents telling everyone their ugly newborn is beautiful.  They are just too close to see the truth.

[Frostbiter]

5 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

It's still not ok to say that someone's just making stuff up simply because they didn't cite a source. In conversations, both IRL and online, people don't generally act like they're posting to Wikipedia. But ok, you want sources, fine.

 

According to my sources, cited below, Madame Web cost at least $100 million, this means it will have to make at least $250 million just in order to break even. So far it's made about $80 million, and I've rounded up. I'm ignoring advertising spending since I can't find that anywhere. So this means that, even completely ignoring advertising spending, it still needs to make at least another $150 million just to break even. Not going to happen.

 

https://www.cbr.com/madame-web-budget-bigger-sony-marvel/

 

"While the budget for the Dakota Johnson-starring Marvel movie was previously reported to be in the vicinity of $80 million, The Hollywood Reporter recently revealed that the budget for the latest entry in Sony's Spider-Man Universe was actually "in the low $100 million range, according to several sources." While still not as expensive as most Marvel Studios productions, which typically cost $200M+, the higher budget will still hurt Madame Web in the long run as the movie has so far been unsuccessful at the box office."

 

And IMDB says this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64144588/

 

"The typical break-even point is around 2.5x the budget of the movie."

 

Bottom line: Madame Web lost money.

 

I've broken no rules of this forum so spare me your lectures.

[PeregrineFalcon]

2 minutes ago, Frostbiter said:

I've broken no rules of this forum so spare me your lectures.

Not a lecture, just my opinion. What you did was imply that he was lying. Something that you could have proven to yourself wasn't true by spending 60 seconds with Google. So spare me your outrage.

 

Here's another source:

 

https://www.gruvi.tv/post/movie-marketing-budget/#:~:text=The average movie marketing budget,them is no picnic%2C either.

 

"The average movie marketing budget is at least 50% of the production costs."

 

So if the studio spent at least $100 million making Madame Web then they likely also spent around $50 million in advertising and marketing. I say likely because the exact figure isn't public as far as I can tell. This means that overall the studio spent around $150 million on this movie.

 

And it's only made around $80 million. According to the sources the studio has lost money on this movie.

 

[Ghost]

@PeregrineFalcon

Don’t spend time on him.  He’s just a troll.

I do find it odd that the first Madame Web thread was locked because someone came in and started arguing semantics, and now it’s starting in this Madame Web thread.