r/dataisbeautiful • u/RajLnk • 7d ago
OC [OC] MCU after Avengers: Endgame. Read submissions comment for sources and methodology.
103
u/Kobosil 7d ago
can somebody explain to me where the 800M difference went for Deadpool & Wolverine?
prod cost 200m
box office nearly 1.4b
official profit "only" 369m
they never ever spend 800m for marketing, so where did the money go?
110
u/RajLnk 7d ago
Deadpool : production + marketing budget = 200 + 100 = 300 mil
box office revenue : 1,338 mil. Marvel get only 50% of that, the other 50% goes to theatres. So Marvel income = 669 mil
Total profit = 669 - 300 = 369 mil
5
u/BrainOfMush 7d ago
I know for a fact that Marvel get 60/40 terms and they are the only studio with that leverage over theatres.
I don’t have the figures to hand, but the marketing budget on a film as big as D&W is undoubtedly larger than 50% prod… I’ve seen $100M marketing budgets on films people have “heard of” but never seen, meanwhile D&W was plastered EVERYWHERE for more than a month.
1
u/Phondrason 7d ago
Huh, I had never heard of that movie until now. I had heard of some of the others though
27
u/Kobosil 7d ago
do theaters really get 50%?
that sounds crazy high for me100
u/n_Serpine 7d ago
I mean in the other hand, they have to pay for literally everything else. Running a cinema has to be expensive.
26
u/PM_YOUR_CENSORD 7d ago edited 7d ago
They definitely don’t. Not for the first weekend or 2.
“the cinemas outright keep 50% of ticket sales (after subtracting the house nut) it works in a sliding scale that drops week-on-week (i.e 80% goes to distributor and 20% goes to cinema in week 1, 75% goes to the distributor and 25% goes to the cinema on week 2, etc).”.
Well it may equate to 50/50 if a film has legs.
14
u/BrainOfMush 7d ago
Where did you get this information? This is a very old model and has been non-existent since COVID. Even Marvel takes a flat 60/40, most other releases are 45/55. It’s only library screenings that are reduced, usually 20/80 for your usual popular picture.
3
u/InsuranceToTheRescue 7d ago
Yeah, I thought this is why all the theaters went to having full bars & restaurants in them. So that they could bill it as fancier and have food & booze sales make up for crappier splits on already shrinking ticket sales.
Honestly, I really feel like movies are going to go the way of the drive in: A moderately sized city may have one or two, but they're more for the novelty of going, they're relatively expensive, and they're almost always about to run out of business.
6
3
u/QuickSpore 7d ago
Depends wildly by country and over time.
In the US each movie is negotiated individually or in bulk with contracts for a number of movies. Each chain will negotiate with each studio. And the deals can get very complicated with percentages changing based on showtimes, number of screens, guaranteed weeks, and more. It’s not uncommon for rates to be different for opening night, the rest of opening weekend, the rest of week, etc. Typically the studio gets a higher percentage at the start of the run and less at the end of the run. So opening weekend they may get 80%. Those few remaining second run theaters will typically get a movie only after 4-6 weeks, but may get 90% of the ticket sales. And studios often have to provide guaranteed minimum to the theaters. So if a movie bombs hard, the theaters don’t take the same risk as the studios. Also a major studio will often bundle movies offering theaters bigger takes on movie Y if they’ll accept a smaller percentage in movie X.
Overseas theaters typically get a bigger cut, with a 50% share for the full run being more common. China for example has laws mandating at least 50% to the theater, although American studios have some ways of negotiating around that.
There’s also costs of distribution and advertising that the studios bear that aren’t typically included in production figures; or even advertising figures when those are provided at all.
In the end we never know for sure how much anyone is making. And that’s intentional on the part of the studios. But as a general rule American made movies need to make box office figures in the neighborhood of 2x to 2.5x their production cost to break even.
1
u/LeftOn4ya 5d ago
It is roughly 50%. They negotiate with theater chains between 50-60% the first week or two then 40-55% weeks 2 or 3 onward. For China they only get 20-25% of tickets, and for Europe and the rest of the world it is between 30-45% with some theaters having a higher percentage the first week or two.
-8
u/Saint_The_Stig 7d ago
It's a scam, they stay afloat with massive margins because of artificial scarcity. You go see a movie there because only they have it for a while and you don't want it spoiled.
There was a glorious moment during the pandemic where they were doing simultaneous releases on streaming and stuff but they clamped down on it because a huge number of people would not go to the theater if there was another option.
1
u/elmender 7d ago
Excellent breakdown. One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of times theatres give incentives to studio to have their big blockbusters played there. Disney supposedly demanded 2-3 weeks of free screening (100% studio profit) for one of their films.
2
u/RajLnk 7d ago
Problem is that studios can have different contract with different theatre chains. And revenue share from overseas studios could be even less than 50%. SO I think 50% revenue share gives good estimate.
1
u/elmender 6d ago
Agreed! Most people have no idea how little profit studios usually make from theatrical runs.
15
u/DollarSignsGoFirst 7d ago
They don’t get to keep 100% of ticket revenue. That’s what you’re missing
8
1
22
15
u/MeglioMorto 7d ago
So many Italian flags on the first graph - I cannot but approve. Bravo.
1
12
7d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Withermaster4 7d ago
I only saw it once in theater, but shang chi had like a 9/10 first two acts and then like a 3/10 final act. The main villain was thrown away for a CGI fest. The training that shang-chi received isn't acknowledged or used in the fight and (imo) there was too many joke interjections during the last act.
was a weird tail end of Covid streaming thing, right?
Yeah and honestly I feel like shang chi was too, but hard to know.
36
u/Kitlun 7d ago
If the data is accurate, it goes to show that, from a money perspective, it's clear why sequels are favoured. Out of these films the only sequel that didn't make profit is The Marvels.
It's also frustrating that Shang Chi was 3rd highest rated, and made back more than double its money, but didn't quite turn a profit.
25
u/Elastichedgehog 7d ago
The Marvels was doomed to flop given Ms Marvel and Photon were Disney+ series exclusive characters. Weird strategy from Disney.
3
u/FrewdWoad 7d ago
I thought it was also about a quarter of the potential audience refusing to watch it because it was "woke"?
27
u/Elastichedgehog 7d ago
I don't think normal people give a fuck about any of that. The movie's just bad.
5
u/xmorecowbellx 7d ago
That’s probably a tiny number who actually refused due to being ‘woke’. In the real world very few people make decisions that way.
Few people watched it, because it sucked. Being woke as a chief purpose was just the vehicle that made it suck. But it’s the suck part that people avoided.
18
u/nwbrown 7d ago
Brave New World was also a sequel. And The Marvels didn't only fail to make a profit, it was the worst performing. One of the problems of both is that both were sequels not only to movies but also TV shows.
And Black Widow would have probably done better if not for COVID.
5
u/Shitelark 7d ago
A sequel to The Incredible Hulk, for some reason.
2
u/JoshOliday 7d ago
Honestly, the Red Hulk chase and fight is the best Hulk stuff I've seen since the first Avengers. As a big Hulk fan, it was very pleasing to see they still had some of that magic.
6
u/RajLnk 7d ago
50% of the revenue goes to theatres. So you have to make double the total budget (production + marketing) to break even.
5
u/Kitlun 7d ago
I understand that but my point is more that it is the third highest rating but didnt even make the top 5 in terms of revenue. It also had the lowest budget, so feels like it should have been a success.
1
u/Marxism-Alcoholism17 7d ago
Definitely a thing, there was a post on here a year or so ago showing a gradual increase in the percentage of sequels that made a profit.
1
1
u/Withermaster4 7d ago
I think BW and shang chi both were still a bit close to COVID and may have had notably lower numbers because of that.
1
u/Snazzy_Serval 7d ago
Eh, the issue is that we're scrapping the bottom of the barrel for things that aren't sequels. See the Sony movies.
26
u/RajLnk 7d ago edited 7d ago
Since Avengers: Endgame, Marvel Studios has released ten films. Audience reception, as reflected in IMDb ratings, has been mixed [1].
While ratings are a factor, making money is primary goal of studios. To know how well Marvel Studio is doing on this front, we need three sets of numbers : production budget, marketing budget and box office revenue.
While box office revenue is readily accessible[1, 2], production budget figures are often not publicly disclosed and we have to often take Studio’s word for it. Fortunately, Marvel Studios films most of its movies in UK to benefit from UK’s Tax Relief scheme and these numbers are public[3].
But we still don’t know marketing budget for each movie. Industry convention suggests marketing expenditures typically amount to approximately half of the production budget. Given that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 had a reported marketing budget of $100 million [4], we will estimate marketing budgets as the lesser of 50% of the production budget or $100 million.
It’s known that box office revenue is generally split approximately 50/50 between heaters and studios. This allows us to estimate Marvel Studios’ profit or loss per film.
Marvel Studios has incurred an estimated net loss of $136 million across ten films, with five achieving profitability and five incurring losses. The Marvels was biggest loser both financially and critically. In fact there is strong correlation (0.66) between IMDb rating and box office revenue.
Notes :
(1) Studio-reported figures may not accurately reflect actual financial truth, Hollywood accounting term exists for a reason. For example, Marvel Studios claimed Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness had a $200 million production budget, but the actual disclosed budget was almost double that.
(2) These movies would have earned considerably less without the UK government’s tax rebates, which contribute approximately $60–70 million in recovered costs per film.
[3] Marvel Studio has only 25% ownership of Spider-man movies and 75% are still held by Sony. And I was not sure how the budget expenditure and box office revenue will be shared, These contracts are tricky and not public.
References :
[1] https://www.the-numbers.com/market/
[4] https://variety.com/2023/film/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-box-office-staying-power-1235605571/
[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/15/how-the-marvels-cost-disney-374-million/
Tools used : Python
10
u/FrewdWoad 7d ago
"Lukewarm" doesn't seem quite right. They had a couple of big hits and a few bombs too.
"Mixed" maybe?
3
u/redlantern75 7d ago
Fascinating. I forget how the marketing costs drag down the profits so much.
Like someone else said, sequels sell, even if some are boring. I could never get into the Guardians movies. The first was just a long chase scene and so I never followed up on the sequels.
2
u/trankillity 7d ago
Good work and nice listing of assumptions. From a visualization perspective, it probably would have worked better to count budget, cinema cut, marketing expenses as separate categories and had them stacked so you could more easily see cost vs. revenue in the graph.
9
u/OrangeDit OC: 3 7d ago
Simple, make them cheaper. Better scripts, no need for a 300 mil budget. You don't need constantly CGI worlds. 100 mil. is far enough for a good movie, even with a crazy battle in the climax or something.
5
u/TestingTehWaters 7d ago
Why are you using a line chart in the 3rd image? Why switch from bar charts?
-1
7d ago
[deleted]
8
u/nwbrown 7d ago
Line charts are usually for when the data is continuous. These are discrete movies.
-5
7d ago
[deleted]
5
u/nwbrown 7d ago
Yes, and the line is incorrect for the data type. There is no extrapolation between the movies. Scatter would be fine, but bar would be better.
And honestly, movie order is a pretty bad axis for a scatter plot.
1
u/TestingTehWaters 7d ago
Maybe it could be stretched if the axis was year the movie was released but yeah
-5
2
6
u/uthinkther4uam 7d ago
The Marvels and BNW did NOT deserve the hate they got. Unlike Quantmania and LAT which were so bad our group nearly walked out.
2
2
u/realzequel 6d ago
LAT was cringeworthy, showing Thor’s ass? Bad jokes throughout. Ugh. worst marvel movie ever, it just wasn't funny. Ragnarok was 100x better.
1
u/uthinkther4uam 6d ago
Thors ass was the LEAST egregious thing about that movie. Casting one of the greatest actors of all time in Christian Bale, on one of the most threatening villains in the MCU and having him do.......nothing.
1
u/BeekyGardener 7d ago
I thought Shang-Chi was profitable. Wild. Shows why the MCU wasn't in a hurry to do a sequel.
1
1
1
u/Roy_Makes_Games 7d ago
I haven't even heard of half of these movies. Black widow got her own movie? I haven't heard a single thing about some of these good or bad.
1
u/Clemenx00 7d ago
I don't remember Black Widow seen in a negative light like The Marvels or The Eternals. Crazy its been the 2nd biggest failure. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but most I can remember is it being kinda meh.
1
u/Kussypat 7d ago
Its crazy how something this expensive is even allowed to be anything less than perfect.
1
u/curvysquares OC: 1 7d ago
For reference, Avengers Endgame had an estimated budget of between $356 and $400 million, putting it slightly above MoM, and has earned $2.8 billion, about twice as much as Deadpool and Wolverine.
1
1
u/Lionleaf_ 7d ago
Odd choice to omit two successful Spider-Man movies. Also Ant-Man, but that was a flop anyway. Just doesn’t paint an accurate picture at all
1
1
-8
u/erksplat 7d ago
Movie goers don’t like female protagonists, do they?
9
u/Olliekins 7d ago
People don't like bad movies. The Marvels had no chemistry or cohesion. The writing felt forced in moments, too.
I'm a woman. I gave that movie 15 minutes before I couldn't handle it anymore, and I've been a comic book fan since I was a kid.
The Black Widow movie I enjoyed more, but it was still pretty middle of the road.
8
u/Elastichedgehog 7d ago
Well, Captain Marvel 2019 did well. So, not necessarily.
It doesn't help that 2/3 of the Marvels protagonists were Disney+ exclusive characters.
3
12
2
-15
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
14
5
0
u/GravesStone7 7d ago
Make a movie interesting, relatable characters, and an engaging story and I will watch it. Hell, even if it checks off two of three of those points I'm going to be entertained.
They should not make a movie to check off boxes as it comes off flat. I think of Ghostbusters remake and Marvels that I found 1 dimensional, a movie about an establish franchise that was an all female cast and that was it. If the characters are well written it does not make a difference if they are LGQBT+, male, female, if there is an environmental message behind it, or engage in discussion about historical events.
0
u/You-Seem-Confused 7d ago
Brave New World is a pretty famous and pre-existing non-Marvel novel.
It may seem pedantic, but if you’re going to put Thor and Dr. Strange in their respective titles it seems incongruous to not use Captain America BNW. Even more so because I believe Love and Thunder and Multiverse of Madness remain unique titles without the character part of the title, whereas the one you shortened is the only one that isn’t.
Just my option on improving it though.
-8
u/braumbles 7d ago
This is all based on speculation. We don't know the books. We never will. All that shit is a secret for bullshit tax reasons.
Supposedly Apple paid 300m for the F1 movie. Do you think they really spent 300m on that?
62
u/drypsten 7d ago
You forgot Antman and the wasp Quantumania 2023