When can we expect news about Alien: Covenant sequel?

[SM]

A flop is something that doesn't make back its production budget and promotional costs.  Costs can be very fluid with Hollywood accounting and it's rare we ever find out exact promotion costs.

However, Fox said it will be profitable.  Ergo, not a flop.

But how much did it make in profits?

Also, shouldn't it be "was" profitable? Or are they referring to merchandising?

The film made money.  Not a flop.

[TWJones]

I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.

How much money does a studio have to make in profit to consider a film "successful?" Covenant may not have been a massive blockbuster, but for the sake of argument, a single investment that produces 30 million dollars of profit would be considered successful by almost any metric. Maybe not compared to movies like the Avengers, but for business minded executives, 30 million (again, just using my random 100 million on publicity argument) is not nothing.

[Paranoid Android]

Covenant turned a profit and is not a flop, there's no real question there. That said, in order for a film to be successful, it needs to meet specific profit projections. Nobody is expecting an Alien film to make Star Wars money, but it is expected to do better than "slightly more than breaking even". The Alien franchise is an established and profitable franchise.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.

You're not factoring in the theaters cut which is typically 50% in the US and even higher overseas (eg. 75% in China).

If the marketing was indeed as high as $100 million (as many have speculated) then the film can be considered a box office bomb. A flop.

It should however make a profit when you factor in streaming, home video, broadcasting rights, public screening rights etc.

[TWJones]

I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.

You're not factoring in the theaters cut which is typically 50% in the US and even higher overseas (eg. 75% in China).

If the marketing was indeed as high as $100 million (as many have speculated) then the film can be considered a box office bomb. A flop.

It should however make a profit when you factor in streaming, home video, broadcasting rights, public screening rights etc.

Interesting...I had no idea theaters took that much.

[Baron Von Marlon]

On my local movie website it was listed as a movie who didn't do that well, but not as a flop.
Gods Of Egypt got listed as a flop in the past and more recently that weather disaster movie Geostorm or something.

[monkeylove]

The film made money.  Not a flop.

You do realize that a movie that made only a dollar in profits made money?

I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.

How much money does a studio have to make in profit to consider a film "successful?" Covenant may not have been a massive blockbuster, but for the sake of argument, a single investment that produces 30 million dollars of profit would be considered successful by almost any metric. Maybe not compared to movies like the Avengers, but for business minded executives, 30 million (again, just using my random 100 million on publicity argument) is not nothing.

You have to remember to deduct the gross by 30 to 50 percent for the distributors' cut, and include other costs mentioned here:

https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/

plus the investors' cut from what remains.

There are also other revenue streams from which it can make a profit.

[Denton Smalls]

Whether it made a profit or not, Ridley is one of those directors who gets as many mulligans as is needed due to his prior contributions and overall status as a legend in the industry.

I'm not saying it's fair, but the reality is that while many other directors might have lost future projects after the performance of Covenant, no studio or producer is going to say no to Ridley Scott unless his budget requests are ridiculous. That's never the case, though, as the guy's productions are a well-oiled machine at this point in terms of staying on budget and schedule.

C'mon guys, if A Good Year didn't Rid the world of Riddles, nothing will 

*Edit: Throwing in Robin Hood and the Moses movie in there too.

[SM]

You do realize that a movie that made only a dollar in profits made money?

Yeah.  So what?

[Scorpio]

Fairly certain they work on profit margins, not dollar amounts.

1 dollar would be miniscule in profit margins.

[SM]

A profit is a profit and it didn't make just one dollar so it's a silly argument.

[Paranoid Android]

It is indeed a silly argument because the very notion of making a profit automatically disqualifies a film from being a flop. The fact that the profit is marginal, as in the case of a single dollar, is irrelevant.

[monkeylove]

It is indeed a silly argument because the very notion of making a profit automatically disqualifies a film from being a flop. The fact that the profit is marginal, as in the case of a single dollar, is irrelevant.

A profit is a profit and it didn't make just one dollar so it's a silly argument.

That doesn't make sense because for-profit businesses want to maximize profits for many reasons, including employees wanting bonuses, promotions, etc., money needed to expand operations, investors wanting the best return on their investments, and more.

[SM]

It's simple maths.

When the box office reaches a certain amount it means everything has been paid for and the movie starts making a profit.

What part of it doesn't make sense?

I can't help but think you're just trolling now because you keep disputing a very basic and straightforward concept.

[Stitch]

It can be classed as a flop if it's not made enough money. If you invest X amount into something and then only make the same amount or a little more in return then you've wasted time which could have been used doing something else which could have brought you 2X in returns.
We'll never know the final amount, but AC could be classed as a flop, regardless of whether it actually makes money or not. It's the return on investment that is important.
As far as we know, the sequel is already in pre-production, so whether it has or hasn't flopped is moot, anyway.