Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance

[PRI. HUDSON]

It's not box office related, but AC is #1 for sci-fi sales on Amazon.

Also, thank the ENGINEERS (jk), for the sole fact there will be multiple cover designs. The main one is God awful, but the Best Buy exclusive one is very nice indeed. It's a steel book cover with the baby alien that Oram gave us. Much better design than the main one put out.

Also, Japan is a pretty big movie market. Beauty and the Beast took in a crushing 109 mill. Now, I am not saying AC will close close to that, but 20-40 million isn't out of the question, which puts it at 254-274 total. That, is a solid total. Not a flop.

[bb-15]

It's not box office related, but AC is #1 for sci-fi sales on Amazon.

That's good news for those who want a sequel to "Covenant". The more disk/streaming sales the higher the total income will be for the film.
I'll be getting "Covenant" on Blu-ray.

Also, Japan is a pretty big movie market... I am ... saying AC ... 20-40 million isn't out of the question, which puts it at 254-274 total. That, is a solid total. Not a flop.

Agreed.
* And box office which is about 2.6 x the production budget (or even below that) has gotten a sequel for several movies in the past.
- I've found over 20 movies where that happened for diffferent genres, budgets and several kinds of stories.
Here's the list;

- 2004 Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Production Budget: $50,000,000, world box office: $125,168,734, ratio box office/budget = 2.5

- 2002 Red Dragon (Hannibal Lecter), Production Budget: $78,000,000, world box office: $206,455,420, ratio box office/budget = 2.6
 
- 2008 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Production Budget: $225,000,000, world box office: $417,341,288, ratio box office/budget = 1.9

- 2009 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, Production Budget: $150,000,000, world box office: $402,231,063, ratio box office/budget = 2.68

- 2002 The Santa Clause 2, Production Budget: $65,000,000, world box office: $172,825,854, ratio box office/budget = 2.65
 
- 2002 Halloween: Resurrection, Production Budget: $15,000,000, world box office: $37,659,652, ratio box office/budget = 2.47

- 2009 I Can Do Bad All By Myself, Production Budget: $19,000,000, world box office: $51,733,921, ratio box office/budget = 2.68
- 2011 Madea's Big Happy Family, Production Budget: $25,000,000, world box office: $53,345,287, ratio box office/budget = 2.12
- 2013 Tyler Perry's A Madea Christmas, Production Budget: $25,000,000, world box office: $52,543,354, ratio box office/budget = 2.1

- 1998 "Star Trek: Insurrection", Production Budget: $58 million. World box office = $112,587,658. ratio box office/budget = 1.93

- 2009 Star Trek, Production Budget: $150 million, World box office: $385,680,446. ratio box office/budget = 2.57
- 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness, Production Budget: $190 million, World box office: 467,381,469. ratio box office/budget = 2.46

- 1999 Analyze This, Production Budget: $80 million, World box office: $176,885,658, ratio box office/budget = 2.2           

- 2006 X-Men: The Last Stand, production budget: $210,000,000, world box office:   $459,359,555, ratio box office/budget = 2.19
- 2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine, production budget: $150,000,000, world box office: $374,825,760, ratio box office/budget = 2.49
- 2011 X-Men: First Class, production budget: $160,000,000 world box office $355,408,305, ratio box office/budget = 2.22   

- 2005 Batman Begins, Production Budget: $150 million, world box office: $374,218,241. ratio box office/budget = 2.49

- 2006 Underworld: Evolution, production budget: $45,000,000, world box office:   $113,417,762,   ratio box office/budget = 2.5
- 2009 Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans, production budget: $35,000,000, world box office: $89,102,315, ratio box office/budget = 2.5
- 2012 Underworld: Awakening, production budget: $70,000,000, world box office: $160,379,930, ratio box office/budget = 2.3

- 2015 The Divergent Series: Insurgent; production budget: $110,000,000, world box office: $295,279,072, ratio box office/budget = 2.68

- As for the Alien/AVP franchise "AVP" is not far from the box office/budget numbers of "Covenant".
- "AVP" Production Budget: $60 million. World Box office: $172,544,654. ratio box office/budget = 2.86
"AVP" got a sequel.

- And for the origin story topic; "Covenant" has a reboot of the origin of the Alien/xenomorph. It's also trying to begin a new timeline which leads to "Alien" and then goes beyond that.

[kwisatz]

If Covenant has a reboot of the origin of the Alien then SW Episode I sure has a reboot of the origin of Anakin Skywalker.

[bb-15]

If Covenant has a reboot of the origin of the Alien then SW Episode I sure has a reboot of the origin of Anakin Skywalker.

FYI; the xenomorph is in "Covenant" along with David's claim that he created it.
In addition in interviews Ridley has said that David created the xenomorph and the Engineers didn't do that.
A:C in several ways is a change from what was canon in "Alien".

As for "The Phantom Menace", it is just adding to the SW timeline and isn't drastically changing it.
Notice the difference between that and "Covenant".



Edit; to take out a mistaken mention of Luke Skywalker.

[kwisatz]

Oh ja? So tell me, who created the Alien in Alien (1979) and how that was altered by Covenant.

FYI; Luke Skywalker ≠ Anakin Skywalker.

FYI; Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader (LOL sorry!).

[bb-15]

As for my mentioning Luke Skywalker, that was a mistake of reading and typing my comment too quickly. 
I've edited my previous post to correct that.

Oh ja? So tell me, who created the Alien in Alien (1979) and how that was altered by Covenant.

How old were the xenomorph eggs in the derelict in "Alien"?
Previous "Alien" canon confirmed by Ridley at the time, was that the Space Jockey was fossilized.
It takes thousands of years for something to become a fossil.
So, the SJ is thousands of years old but the derelict ship seems undisturbed and so the eggs in that ship were also thousands of years old.
The xenomorphs being ancient weapons was confirmed by Scott in the "Alien" DVD commentary.

In an interview before "Prometheus" Ridley again supported this "Alien" canon. Ridley said the derelict ship left the base at LV-223 and crashed on LV-426. The date when the base on LV-223 was operational was up until about 2,000 years ago. Ridley said the derelict ship left the base on LV-223 a few hundred years before the disaster at the base.
Again, the eggs on that ship would be over 2000 years old.

* "Covenant" and Ridley's explanation of it states that xenomorph eggs did not exist before David.
David only exists in the future. And David created the first xenomorph eggs. Therefore the xenomorph eggs in the derelict were either created by David or were descendants of the creatures created by David.

"Covenant" changes several things in previous "Alien" canon.
1. While Ridley said in the "Alien" DVD commentary that xenomorphs were weapons used by the Space Jockeys in ancient wars.
This is no longer canon.
2. Even though Ridley said that the Space Jockey was fossilized. This can no longer be true since the filmmakers say that the SJ was killed by a xenomorph chestburster and those did not exist until David who is from the future.

[kwisatz]

Ja, have fun watching the Alien prequels leading directly into Alien (1979) and Ridley explaining it to you on the BD commentary.

[bb-15]

Ja, have fun watching the Alien prequels leading directly into Alien (1979) and Ridley explaining it to you on the BD commentary.


https://lecinemaavecungranda.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jedighosts-rotj.png?w=330&h=142

Will do.
I've also listened to a lot of commentaries by Lucas (and read interviews by him) including about why he put Hayden in the ghost moment in ROTJ.

[kwisatz]

Yes and im sure you didnt wonder why a guy is looking like this in one moment and totally different in the next.

Just like you wont wonder when a Jockey is said to be fossilized in one moment, and then all of a sudden isnt any longer in the next. In this case they dont even need to alter the picture. Maybe they will beep Dallas though? 

[bb-15]

Yes and im sure you didnt wonder why a guy is looking like this in one moment and totally different in the next.

Just like you wont wonder when a Jockey is said to be fossilized in one moment, and then all of a sudden isnt any longer in the next. In this case they dont even need to alter the picture. Maybe they will beep Dallas though? 

With Star Wars it's a change of actor in the last ghost scene. Irritating but I can easily ignore it and I don't worry that the original version of the original SW trilogy is obsolete.
With Rogue One there is more retconning with Vader in his spa and so on but it's tolerable and not a complete change.
Still not a reboot.

* With the ideas in "Covenant" the derelict crashed only a few years before the Nostromo showed up as I explained.
- And just as important, there is no Alien Queen with David's creating of the xenomorphs.
Ridley had played with the idea of xenomorph eggs being created out of some parasite goop with the "Alien: Director's Cut" .
If Scott has David create the derelict eggs with no Queen, then this undermines the Queen idea in "Aliens", "Alien 3" and "Resurrection".
Ridley seems to be going for a new no Queen franchise timeline and that's a reboot imo.

[windebieste]

It also takes something to be buried for it to become 'fossilised'.  So no.  It's not a fossil.  Mummified and preserved in a dry environment after it died, yes.  More likely.   Such a process can occur naturally in just a few weeks under the right conditions.

Besides, Scott is in a position to change his mind should he wish to.  If anyone has a right to renegotiate on what was said on old DVD commentaries, its the Director.   

There's no evidence that says how old the Space Jockey actually is.  It could be 10 years old.  Or it could 10,000 years old.  We'll find out in an upcoming movie.  Dallas says it's 'fossilised' sure, but he obviously knows f**k all about the process and is making a best guess due to lack of information on his part.   Once again, his job is to fly the Nostromo - not evaluate extra terrestrial archeological finds.  That's outside his area of expertise - flying and landing M Class freighters.

The jury is still out on this issue as far as I am concerned.   We'll need to wait and see what the next installment has to offer on this topic. 

-Windebieste.

[bb-15]

Besides, Scott is in a position to change his mind should he wish to.  If anyone has a right to renegotiate on what was said on old DVD commentaries, its the Director.

I am not saying that Ridley and the studio don't have the right to change canon. They can.
All I'm saying is that is what is happening with "Covenant" as explained by Ridley and if it plays out with a sequel(s).

"Covenant" is an origin story and if it plays out as Ridley has described it, it will be a reboot of the franchise.   

[kwisatz]

They may leave it all unclear in the end. I doubt we have more than one film ahead considering the performance of AC and i also doubt this film will come that close to Alien (1979) timewise.

I dont think Scott (as a director or producer) wants to further mess with one of the few films the public considers to be truly great and therefore he will just leave things ambiguous and get out of this mess while he still can without losing whats left of his reputation completely (like Lucas kinda did, thanks to these internetkids). Ridley isnt Lucas though, i doubt he will go fullforce Prequel like Episode III (with David crashing the derelict and whatnot). I have still faith that he wont, then again hes already talking about Ripleys Mum...

In a few years it will be FOXs problem to deal with whats left of the public interest in the Alien franchise.

[monkeylove]

But as I explained to you earlier, I was not making any theories about sequels.

Earlier, you speculated about why a studio would choose to release a sequel to a film which had box office which was about 2.5 times its production budget. 

From me;

Other films that did about 2.5 times the production budget at the box office?
"Batsman Begins"
"Star Trek (2009)"

Both those films got sequels. They were not flops.
If Japan's box office is about $20 million, there is still hope imo that "Covenant" will get a low budget sequel.

Your reply with emphasis by me.

The catch is that studios need most revenues right away to cover operating costs and investors' returns. Given that, if they find better projects, then they may choose to shelve those that are riskier, or as you put it resort to lower budgets.

About the two examples, I'm guessing that they represent more attractive franchises compared to Alien.

What is being discussed here to me is the decision by the studio to release a sequel (or not to release one).
I have found several films which got sequels that performed at the box office (compared to the production budget) at about the same level to where "Covenant" should end up after its Japan release.
- I have taken the known public financial information which could be part of the studio's decision.

In terms of testing a film theory about what a studio "may choose" to decide about a sequel release, I think that's the best I can do.

Rather, I explained how studios profit.

You gave expense / income calculations. I already knew about that.
Still presenting a thought experiment/film theory about studio finances doesn't bring much clarity imo to when studios will approve of sequels.

For the examples you gave above, you need to include marketing cost...

Not really.
1. Marketing costs / total film expenses are very hard to find and are almost always unknown to the public.
2. If I did have the total movie expenses, I could give a more accurate measure (using formulas) of whether a film lost money or made money.
http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/movie-profits-december-snl-kagan/

* But even if I had the total film expense information (and almost always, none of us have it), that still doesn't give an answer to the question of when a studio may approve a sequel for a particular movie or not.
- I don't work for the company where those decisions are made.
- What I have looked for is the cut off area, using numbers available to the public, of when studios may approve a sequel.
It seems again to be when box office is about 2.5 x the production budget.
- Here's another example (from the-numbers.com);

2015   The Divergent Series: Insurgent; production budget:   $110,000,000, worldwide box office:   $295,279,072, ratio box office/budget = 2.68
Sequel approved.

Given that, there are many reasons why sequels are approved even if studios did not earn as much. Read my previous post for details.

I understand. Those are your theories about why sequels are approved or are not approved.
Again, it's our privilege to bring up film theories/thought experiments.
- What I have done is to find the cut off area between box office and production budgets to determine the zone of where roughly there is a chance for a sequel to be approved.

To find out why sequels are approved, you need to look at the other revenue streams of the studio.

- That information is not available.
* To recap what is not available to the public;
1. Total film expenses.
2. All revenue streams for a studio.
3. The effects of arcane Hollywood Accounting which tries to hide film profits.
4. Studio executive discussions about sequel decisions. 

* What is known?
- Box office numbers and production budgets.
- Therefore a ratio between those two numbers can be figured out to find about where studios are approving sequels based on that.

Here's another article to consider:

"How is a cinema's box office income distributed?"

https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/

Thanks for the link.
I have read several articles about that topic including one by the author you posted, Stephen Fellows.

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

- Here are a couple more articles about studio finances;

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

I don't think studios make decisions based on production budget and box office receipts, i.e., following the articles at the end of your post. Rather, they make decisions based on the ff. plus other factors:

total cost = production budget + marketing cost

box office share = box office receipts - distributors' cut - taxes

profits = investors' share + producers' share

studio profits = revenues from different projects (box office share) + other revenues - total cost of projects - other costs - other taxes

It's not box office related, but AC is #1 for sci-fi sales on Amazon.

That's good news for those who want a sequel to "Covenant". The more disk/streaming sales the higher the total income will be for the film.
I'll be getting "Covenant" on Blu-ray.

Also, Japan is a pretty big movie market... I am ... saying AC ... 20-40 million isn't out of the question, which puts it at 254-274 total. That, is a solid total. Not a flop.

Agreed.
* And box office which is about 2.6 x the production budget (or even below that) has gotten a sequel for several movies in the past.
- I've found over 20 movies where that happened for diffferent genres, budgets and several kinds of stories.
Here's the list;

- 2004 Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Production Budget: $50,000,000, world box office: $125,168,734, ratio box office/budget = 2.5

- 2002 Red Dragon (Hannibal Lecter), Production Budget: $78,000,000, world box office: $206,455,420, ratio box office/budget = 2.6

- 2008 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Production Budget: $225,000,000, world box office: $417,341,288, ratio box office/budget = 1.9

- 2009 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, Production Budget: $150,000,000, world box office: $402,231,063, ratio box office/budget = 2.68

- 2002 The Santa Clause 2, Production Budget: $65,000,000, world box office: $172,825,854, ratio box office/budget = 2.65

- 2002 Halloween: Resurrection, Production Budget: $15,000,000, world box office: $37,659,652, ratio box office/budget = 2.47

- 2009 I Can Do Bad All By Myself, Production Budget: $19,000,000, world box office: $51,733,921, ratio box office/budget = 2.68
- 2011 Madea's Big Happy Family, Production Budget: $25,000,000, world box office: $53,345,287, ratio box office/budget = 2.12
- 2013 Tyler Perry's A Madea Christmas, Production Budget: $25,000,000, world box office: $52,543,354, ratio box office/budget = 2.1

- 1998 "Star Trek: Insurrection", Production Budget: $58 million. World box office = $112,587,658. ratio box office/budget = 1.93

- 2009 Star Trek, Production Budget: $150 million, World box office: $385,680,446. ratio box office/budget = 2.57
- 2013 Star Trek Into Darkness, Production Budget: $190 million, World box office: 467,381,469. ratio box office/budget = 2.46

- 1999 Analyze This, Production Budget: $80 million, World box office: $176,885,658, ratio box office/budget = 2.2           

- 2006 X-Men: The Last Stand, production budget: $210,000,000, world box office:   $459,359,555, ratio box office/budget = 2.19
- 2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine, production budget: $150,000,000, world box office: $374,825,760, ratio box office/budget = 2.49
- 2011 X-Men: First Class, production budget: $160,000,000 world box office $355,408,305, ratio box office/budget = 2.22   

- 2005 Batman Begins, Production Budget: $150 million, world box office: $374,218,241. ratio box office/budget = 2.49

- 2006 Underworld: Evolution, production budget: $45,000,000, world box office:   $113,417,762,   ratio box office/budget = 2.5
- 2009 Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans, production budget: $35,000,000, world box office: $89,102,315, ratio box office/budget = 2.5
- 2012 Underworld: Awakening, production budget: $70,000,000, world box office: $160,379,930, ratio box office/budget = 2.3

- 2015 The Divergent Series: Insurgent; production budget: $110,000,000, world box office: $295,279,072, ratio box office/budget = 2.68

- As for the Alien/AVP franchise "AVP" is not far from the box office/budget numbers of "Covenant".
- "AVP" Production Budget: $60 million. World Box office: $172,544,654. ratio box office/budget = 2.86
"AVP" got a sequel.

- And for the origin story topic; "Covenant" has a reboot of the origin of the Alien/xenomorph. It's also trying to begin a new timeline which leads to "Alien" and then goes beyond that.

As explained earlier, you have to include marketing cost and then deduct distributors' cut from the box office revenues.

Ultimately, you have to figure out what returns investors and producers got from the film, and what they think they'll get from merchandising. I think that's what determines whether or not a project is funded.

[NickisSmart]

There's no evidence that says how old the Space Jockey actually is.  It could be 10 years old.  Or it could 10,000 years old.  We'll find out in an upcoming movie.  Dallas says it's 'fossilised' sure, but he obviously knows f**k all about the process and is making a best guess due to lack of information on his part.   Once again, his job is to fly the Nostromo - not evaluate extra terrestrial archeological finds.  That's outside his area of expertise - flying and landing M Class freighters.

Damn, where's Fifield when you need him? That man loved rocks!