Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance

Started by John73, May 14, 2017, 05:51:54 PM

Author
Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance (Read 275,838 times)

Ingwar

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
It's definitely getting somewhere.

It will stop here. Nothing will change till Chinese and Japanese releases. China is an enigma. It might be between 20 to 50 millions or maybe even more. Hard to say. Japan probably 15-20. Covenant will reach 220+.

Protozoid

Quote from: Ingwar on Jun 12, 2017, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
It's definitely getting somewhere.

It will stop here. Nothing will change till Chinese and Japanese releases. China is an enigma. It might be between 20 to 50 millions or maybe even more. Hard to say. Japan probably 15-20. Covenant will reach 220+.
One publication sad the Covenant needs up to $450m to break even. I wonder what the minimum it needs is.

kwisatz

kwisatz

#1022
Another BO bomb for the Fassbender show. Hackwood was unusually lenient with this one but now its time to say byebye big budget career --

Alionic

Quote from: kwisatz on Jun 12, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Another BO bomb for the Fassbender show. Hackwood was unusually lenient with this one but now its time to say byebye big budget career --

What an interesting post. You should be proud of yourself.

Scorpio

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 10:09:23 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jun 12, 2017, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
It's definitely getting somewhere.

It will stop here. Nothing will change till Chinese and Japanese releases. China is an enigma. It might be between 20 to 50 millions or maybe even more. Hard to say. Japan probably 15-20. Covenant will reach 220+.
One publication sad the Covenant needs up to $450m to break even. I wonder what the minimum it needs is.

How could that be when Prometheus made less, yet cost more, and we still got a sequel.

IMO the movie is a success.

kwisatz

kwisatz

#1025
Quote from: Alionic on Jun 12, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jun 12, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Another BO bomb for the Fassbender show. Hackwood was unusually lenient with this one but now its time to say byebye big budget career --

What an interesting post. You should be proud of yourself.

Thanks. Welcome to the internet!

Does anybody know why the viral spots for Covenant are extra listed as short movies on imdb? Does that maybe implicate that marketing for AC might have been a bit more expensive than for Prometheus in this area? I mean Prometheus had viral marketing too but no 'Last supper' etc.

edit: ah actually the Weyland TED is listed.. but for example the David viral is not. :confused: Is there a system for these things?
edit2: nevermind, its listed too///


Still ACs viral campaign looked a bit more ambitious to me. Weylands TED is some one man green screen video short, Prometheus' David spot doesnt even have a director listed etc.

Protozoid

Quote from: Scorpio on Jun 12, 2017, 11:54:35 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 10:09:23 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jun 12, 2017, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
It's definitely getting somewhere.

It will stop here. Nothing will change till Chinese and Japanese releases. China is an enigma. It might be between 20 to 50 millions or maybe even more. Hard to say. Japan probably 15-20. Covenant will reach 220+.
One publication sad the Covenant needs up to $450m to break even. I wonder what the minimum it needs is.

How could that be when Prometheus made less, yet cost more, and we still got a sequel.

IMO the movie is a success.
That's a good point, but the publication I was citing said "as much as $450m", or something like that, which means there must be a low end, a number that the movie could make "as little as" and break even. The budget plus prints and ads multiplied by two is probably closer to $300m. Covenant will still probably fall tens of millions short of that figure, I imagine.

SM

SM

#1027
The $450m break even number sounds ridiculously high.

BishopShouldGo

It's probably closer to $291-330mm, if we 3x multiply the reported $97mm or $110mm budget.

Protozoid

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 13, 2017, 03:25:42 AM
It's probably closer to $291-330mm, if we 3x multiply the reported $97mm or $110mm budget.
The cost of prints and advertising need to be included, as well. Prints still cost something and there was plenty of advertising. Maybe it's somewhere in the $300-400m range.

Stolen

No way.
$ 250M would be enough to make it a success!

The Fox wouldn't lose money with this BO:
-> 75M$ Domestic
-> 120M$ Foreign
-> 40M$ China

You don't have to take into account the promo budget, this one is refunded by the extras (domestic and foreign home Entertainment, domestic vod, domestic pay tv, domestic network tv, foreign pay tv) 
Home Entertainment +/- 100M$
Pay TV (Vod+Network) +/- 150M$
And the Alien franchise is a huge business, so a significant merchandise revenue. And relaunch all sales of previous episodes!

NickisSmart

Quote from: SM on Jun 13, 2017, 02:26:50 AM
The $450m break even number sounds ridiculously high.

I am inclined to agree.

bb-15

bb-15

#1032
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 10:09:23 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jun 12, 2017, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 12, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
It's definitely getting somewhere.

It will stop here. Nothing will change till Chinese and Japanese releases. China is an enigma. It might be between 20 to 50 millions or maybe even more. Hard to say. Japan probably 15-20. Covenant will reach 220+.
One publication sad the Covenant needs up to $450m to break even. I wonder what the minimum it needs is.

Elijah; it's hard for me to believe that a movie has to make 4.5 times its production budget to break even.
If this was true, then most big budget Hollywood films should be money losers where some might earn a little profit years later after video/streaming.
- Using the 4.5 times its production budget formula just to break even, the first two new Star Trek movies were flops. Why would Paramount make a sequel to "Star Trek" (2009) if it lost hundreds of millions of dollars?
- Same with "Prometheus". Why would Fox do a sequel if that was a money loser?
- Look at Disney / Marvel. Using this 4.5 production budget formula; the first two Iron Man movies were flops.

** Yet the studios keep making sequels to movies which have box office about 3 times the production budget.
- What is going on with these 4.5 times production budget estimates?
Imo one thing has to do with notorious Hollywood accounting.
- Basically the studios set up shell companies to produce a movie and this company takes a loss while the studio gets the money.
Then the studio company can claim a loss to pay lower fees, But in reality the studio is making money. 

- From Wikipedia about Hollywood accounting;

QuoteExpenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit...

A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper.[22] This is especially unusual, given that, without inflation adjustment, the Harry Potter film series is the second highest-grossing film series of all time...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

* Imo one measure of box office success of a movie is whether the studio makes an immediate sequel.
"Star Trek" (2009) was a hit which led to "Star Trek Into Darkness". That was a hit which led to "Star Trek Beyond".
But "Star Trek Beyond" was clearly a flop because it did not make 2 x its production budget in theaters.
- Same with "Iron Man". It was a hit which led to "Iron Man 2" which also was a hit.

* Successful films in theaters (which get sequels) keep coming back to movies which have box office about 3+ times the production budget.
- This is the problem with "Covenant". It will probably crawl above 2x its production budget but it needed to be over $300 million to be a clear box office winner.

;)

juxtapose

juxtapose

#1033
in 2016 their was this word they invented. .sequelitis. .like a disease that are attached to sequels. .i kept reading articles about new releases and i am a little facinated by the numbers. .a good example of a movie that suffered from that was ninja turtles: out of the shadows. .first movie was aparently not great, but it was a reboot and everyone wanted to go watch it. .few were impressed, but it was a box office success. .then came the sequel. .it got a better critical reception and was a way better movie in every regard. .yet audiences was so put of by the first movie that they never bothered to watch the sequel. .  It did not even double it's budget and their is no current plans for a sequel. .i think covenant might have a slight case of sequalites. .not everyone loved prom like i did or most people on here did. .it might have effected covenants BO performance. .just a theory?

Kane's other son

The economics of franchise pictures are more complex than that (and no movie needs to earn 4 times its budget to break even).

You have to take into account the boost they provide to the brand: Rentals of older movies in the franchise, merchandising sales and deals, etc. The original Alien is still a huge seller because the franchise is kept alive and relevant by newer movies, for example.

Covenant is definitely a huge disappointment, ending up with just over half the gross of Prometheus, but don't be so quick to write the franchise off. There will be huge re-adjustments for sure, though. Expect to hear more later in the year.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News