Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance

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

Author
Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance (Read 273,341 times)

NickisSmart

Quote from: Spidey3121 on May 29, 2017, 10:32:57 PM
LOL at the people taking shots at the Fast & Furious franchise. Yes, some of the movies are terrible, but others are undeniably awesome.

The same could be said of the Alien franchise.

PierreVW

Quote from: NickisSmart on May 29, 2017, 11:33:54 PM
Quote from: Spidey3121 on May 29, 2017, 10:32:57 PM
LOL at the people taking shots at the Fast & Furious franchise. Yes, some of the movies are terrible, but others are undeniably awesome.

The same could be said of the Alien franchise.

I disagree.

ALIEN and ALIENS are masterpieces and 2 of the greatest movies of all time.

The 8 Fast & Furious movies are FAR from masterpieces.

Robopadna

Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 29, 2017, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: Kerrod33 on May 29, 2017, 02:24:01 PM
I may sound really stupid in saying this (but I haven't been one to follow box office ratings),  but wasn't the budget for this film $97mil? And from what I have seen it has earnt in the region of $150mil, isn't that a profit? Doesn't seem like a bomb to me... and I quite enjoyed the film. If I don't leave the cinema and ask questions or talk about the film, then it's a failure in my book

It's weird, man. That does seem like a solid profit, but studios usually need a considerably high margin for their films to be considered a commercial success.

Also, in addition to the $97 mil production cost, the cost of marketing was most likely substantial, so in that regard, I'm not sure the film did much better than break even yet, if that.

We are in a strange cinematic era where the only films that seem to do well (outside animated or live action kids' movies like "Beauty and the Beast" or "Boss Baby") are monster budget comic book films that flood the market and appeal to a massively large audience demographic, or micro budget genre movies like "The Purge" franchise, "Get Out," "Don't Breathe" or "Split," which are made on such a cheap budget that even a ~$100 mil worldwide box office haul is considered successful on a $5-$20 mil budget.

Blumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

First, you are REALLY underestimating how well those movies did.  You said they can make a profit on 100 million WW..   they can, but they make far more than that.

Split = 280 million WW (138 domestic)
Get Out = 240 million WW (astounding 170+ domestic)
Don't Breathe = 157 million WW (90 domestic)

All of those will outpace Covenant's domestic take (where the studio keeps the majority of the money).

Quoteor micro budget genre movies

A majority of those fail (at the box office).  You only remember the ones that succeeded.

QuoteBlumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

Finally, it would make no difference if it isn't a good movie.  An 'indie' movie doesn't make it better by default.  If you threw Covenant on a 10 million dollar budget you would have to have an entirely different vision for the film (and it would be far more restricted).  Good luck seeing Paradise...  they can't afford it.  You can say that it would be a good thing to make it more character driven but that only works if it is well written and being 'indie' (I think you really just mean smaller budget) doesn't guarantee that.

Lol, I'm sorry dude I was just trying to get the point across that those 3 smaller films were successful. I don't live on or spend the majority of my day on Box Office Mojo so I'm just making a broad statement without the numbers in front of me.

I did not simply mean "smaller budget." Of course it would be restricted and big effects pieces would be out of the question, going to Paradise included, but the whole point would be to, as you said, make it more character driven. That means new script, new concept, the works.

The thing about successful indie films is that they require much more attention to the script, character interactions, etc. because they don't have the big pretty set pieces to fall back on. Therefore much more energy is spent perfecting the actual storytelling. I'm not suggesting they re-stage an indie version of A:C where the Covenant is made out of cardboard.

The requirement for any good film is attention to detail and usually believable characters and motivations.

I don't think there is anything in Prometheus and covenant that ever relied on the set pieces to carry it. I think both movies felt they were establishing characters well and that they had interesting interactions.  Essentially you would get the same thing but without the amazing visuals.

I don't think alien lends itself well to a small budget anyway. Some of the best aspects of Prometheus as covenant were in the visuals that would be absent in a 10 million dollar budgeted movie.

Noah

Quote from: marrerom on May 29, 2017, 03:37:16 PM
Quote from: 900SL on May 29, 2017, 07:56:33 AM
It was shit. Gore is not a big draw. The script and plot were borderline idiotic. It wasn't failures in marketing, the whole planet has been bombarded with advance hype. Stop trying to offload the blame elsewhere.

The fault lies with the Studio, and possibly the Director.

It was shit? Personal preferences aside the majority of the reviews are positive.

The real problem was the release date. An October or August release date would have been much better as the film would have had no real competition. Instead they bumped up the release date to May...A hard R-rated horror film was never going to do well against two pg-13 family friendly blockbuster franchises (GOTG2 and Pirates 5).
This. August was perfect. It would have probably performed like Prometheus in terms of drops (Prometheus was froantloaded too),but it could have had some legs. Now it doesn't even have the opportunity to keep people interested.. It's a dark,gory R-rated horror movie that is competing with family-friendly movies. GoTG2 is still doing money. Pirates is underperforming but a 70+M opening is not bad.. Next week there's WW too. Tickets are expensive,not many people can afford to pay for two movies,or go to watch movies every week. Even if they're interested,it's more likely that those who have children choose kid-friendly movies.

AsapJockey

The word of mouth killed this movie, I personally told all my friends to wait for it on blu ray or rental. so its my fault honestly.

Denton Smalls

Quote from: Robopadna on May 30, 2017, 12:16:22 AM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 29, 2017, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: Kerrod33 on May 29, 2017, 02:24:01 PM
I may sound really stupid in saying this (but I haven't been one to follow box office ratings),  but wasn't the budget for this film $97mil? And from what I have seen it has earnt in the region of $150mil, isn't that a profit? Doesn't seem like a bomb to me... and I quite enjoyed the film. If I don't leave the cinema and ask questions or talk about the film, then it's a failure in my book

It's weird, man. That does seem like a solid profit, but studios usually need a considerably high margin for their films to be considered a commercial success.

Also, in addition to the $97 mil production cost, the cost of marketing was most likely substantial, so in that regard, I'm not sure the film did much better than break even yet, if that.

We are in a strange cinematic era where the only films that seem to do well (outside animated or live action kids' movies like "Beauty and the Beast" or "Boss Baby") are monster budget comic book films that flood the market and appeal to a massively large audience demographic, or micro budget genre movies like "The Purge" franchise, "Get Out," "Don't Breathe" or "Split," which are made on such a cheap budget that even a ~$100 mil worldwide box office haul is considered successful on a $5-$20 mil budget.

Blumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

First, you are REALLY underestimating how well those movies did.  You said they can make a profit on 100 million WW..   they can, but they make far more than that.

Split = 280 million WW (138 domestic)
Get Out = 240 million WW (astounding 170+ domestic)
Don't Breathe = 157 million WW (90 domestic)

All of those will outpace Covenant's domestic take (where the studio keeps the majority of the money).

Quoteor micro budget genre movies

A majority of those fail (at the box office).  You only remember the ones that succeeded.

QuoteBlumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

Finally, it would make no difference if it isn't a good movie.  An 'indie' movie doesn't make it better by default.  If you threw Covenant on a 10 million dollar budget you would have to have an entirely different vision for the film (and it would be far more restricted).  Good luck seeing Paradise...  they can't afford it.  You can say that it would be a good thing to make it more character driven but that only works if it is well written and being 'indie' (I think you really just mean smaller budget) doesn't guarantee that.

Lol, I'm sorry dude I was just trying to get the point across that those 3 smaller films were successful. I don't live on or spend the majority of my day on Box Office Mojo so I'm just making a broad statement without the numbers in front of me.

I did not simply mean "smaller budget." Of course it would be restricted and big effects pieces would be out of the question, going to Paradise included, but the whole point would be to, as you said, make it more character driven. That means new script, new concept, the works.

The thing about successful indie films is that they require much more attention to the script, character interactions, etc. because they don't have the big pretty set pieces to fall back on. Therefore much more energy is spent perfecting the actual storytelling. I'm not suggesting they re-stage an indie version of A:C where the Covenant is made out of cardboard.

The requirement for any good film is attention to detail and usually believable characters and motivations.

I don't think there is anything in Prometheus and covenant that ever relied on the set pieces to carry it. I think both movies felt they were establishing characters well and that they had interesting interactions.  Essentially you would get the same thing but without the amazing visuals.

I don't think alien lends itself well to a small budget anyway. Some of the best aspects of Prometheus as covenant were in the visuals that would be absent in a 10 million dollar budgeted movie.

I see your point and disagree. Outside of Fassbender's performance in both movies, none of the characters were 3 dimensional. That isn't just me saying this. Plenty of reviews back this up and a lot of people here would likely agree. But to each his own.

Basically all Prometheus had going for it was the visuals. There were character plot holes galore in that film. Hell, they even show actors driving off in a transport in the Fifield scene, only to show them perfectly fine tending to old man Weyland in the next.

About 1/4 of the actors in the film had names outside of "mercenary 1" or "mechanic." How lazy is that to not develop any characterizations when there's only like 17 people in the film?

The same for A:C. Did we learn, beyond what we know from interviews that Rosenthal had a mate in cryo? No. Did we learn who her lover was? Maybe Ankor from the one brief interaction they had. Outside of the brief shot where Lope cradles Hallet's hand in his showing off the matching wedding bands, it wasn't even established that they were married! The only interaction they had besides standing close by to each other was "that's why you should do yoga."

I could go all day but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

I thought both movies were visually stunning but lacked in other areas that a smaller budget, smaller cast film would capitalize on.

Mr. Forest

Quote from: AsapJockey on May 30, 2017, 12:50:43 AM
The word of mouth killed this movie, I personally told all my friends to wait for it on blu ray or rental. so its my fault honestly.
I told four friends if they were interested to go ahead and see it, but it I still recommended against it in case they were on the fence.

Richman678

Say what you will about the fast and furious movies or the transformers movies. Both franchises pump out billion dollar performances. So your points are already moot. If a movie makes a billion dollars then that movie is gonna get a sequel unless it's a biopic (like titanic or Ray)

Robopadna

Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 30, 2017, 12:51:22 AM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 30, 2017, 12:16:22 AM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 07:21:52 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 29, 2017, 03:47:03 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on May 29, 2017, 02:45:12 PM
Quote from: Kerrod33 on May 29, 2017, 02:24:01 PM
I may sound really stupid in saying this (but I haven't been one to follow box office ratings),  but wasn't the budget for this film $97mil? And from what I have seen it has earnt in the region of $150mil, isn't that a profit? Doesn't seem like a bomb to me... and I quite enjoyed the film. If I don't leave the cinema and ask questions or talk about the film, then it's a failure in my book

It's weird, man. That does seem like a solid profit, but studios usually need a considerably high margin for their films to be considered a commercial success.

Also, in addition to the $97 mil production cost, the cost of marketing was most likely substantial, so in that regard, I'm not sure the film did much better than break even yet, if that.

We are in a strange cinematic era where the only films that seem to do well (outside animated or live action kids' movies like "Beauty and the Beast" or "Boss Baby") are monster budget comic book films that flood the market and appeal to a massively large audience demographic, or micro budget genre movies like "The Purge" franchise, "Get Out," "Don't Breathe" or "Split," which are made on such a cheap budget that even a ~$100 mil worldwide box office haul is considered successful on a $5-$20 mil budget.

Blumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

First, you are REALLY underestimating how well those movies did.  You said they can make a profit on 100 million WW..   they can, but they make far more than that.

Split = 280 million WW (138 domestic)
Get Out = 240 million WW (astounding 170+ domestic)
Don't Breathe = 157 million WW (90 domestic)

All of those will outpace Covenant's domestic take (where the studio keeps the majority of the money).

Quoteor micro budget genre movies

A majority of those fail (at the box office).  You only remember the ones that succeeded.

QuoteBlumhouse is an example of a studio that churns these lower budget films out regularly. It makes me wonder if Alien might do better if it were made as more of an independent movie.

Finally, it would make no difference if it isn't a good movie.  An 'indie' movie doesn't make it better by default.  If you threw Covenant on a 10 million dollar budget you would have to have an entirely different vision for the film (and it would be far more restricted).  Good luck seeing Paradise...  they can't afford it.  You can say that it would be a good thing to make it more character driven but that only works if it is well written and being 'indie' (I think you really just mean smaller budget) doesn't guarantee that.

Lol, I'm sorry dude I was just trying to get the point across that those 3 smaller films were successful. I don't live on or spend the majority of my day on Box Office Mojo so I'm just making a broad statement without the numbers in front of me.

I did not simply mean "smaller budget." Of course it would be restricted and big effects pieces would be out of the question, going to Paradise included, but the whole point would be to, as you said, make it more character driven. That means new script, new concept, the works.

The thing about successful indie films is that they require much more attention to the script, character interactions, etc. because they don't have the big pretty set pieces to fall back on. Therefore much more energy is spent perfecting the actual storytelling. I'm not suggesting they re-stage an indie version of A:C where the Covenant is made out of cardboard.

The requirement for any good film is attention to detail and usually believable characters and motivations.

I don't think there is anything in Prometheus and covenant that ever relied on the set pieces to carry it. I think both movies felt they were establishing characters well and that they had interesting interactions.  Essentially you would get the same thing but without the amazing visuals.

I don't think alien lends itself well to a small budget anyway. Some of the best aspects of Prometheus as covenant were in the visuals that would be absent in a 10 million dollar budgeted movie.

I see your point and disagree. Outside of Fassbender's performance in both movies, none of the characters were 3 dimensional. That isn't just me saying this. Plenty of reviews back this up and a lot of people here would likely agree. But to each his own.

Basically all Prometheus had going for it was the visuals. There were character plot holes galore in that film. Hell, they even show actors driving off in a transport in the Fifield scene, only to show them perfectly fine tending to old man Weyland in the next.

About 1/4 of the actors in the film had names outside of "mercenary 1" or "mechanic." How lazy is that to not develop any characterizations when there's only like 17 people in the film?

The same for A:C. Did we learn, beyond what we know from interviews that Rosenthal had a mate in cryo? No. Did we learn who her lover was? Maybe Ankor from the one brief interaction they had. Outside of the brief shot where Lope cradles Hallet's hand in his showing off the matching wedding bands, it wasn't even established that they were married! The only interaction they had besides standing close by to each other was "that's why you should do yoga."

I could go all day but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

I thought both movies were visually stunning but lacked in other areas that a smaller budget, smaller cast film would capitalize on.

It all comes down to a quality script. They felt they had it. You can disagree but nothing would have changed with the characters. In the end Ridley doesn't work with those small budgets anyway so it's moot.

I don't think the series would be inherently helped in anyway by a reduced budget. Yeah it could be good but it could just as equally suck. The budget isn't the problem in the resulting quality of movie and I think you would sacrifice a lot as a result.

Sure make it for 10 million and you'll make money but nothing at all inherently means it will be any better.

Aquarius8

Aquarius8

#714
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $59,972,181      37.3%
+ Foreign:    $101,009,281      62.7%
= Worldwide:    $160,981,462   


Globally will save this movie overall.  I think this proves how polarizing "Prometheus" really was.   I'm sorry but you can't make an Alien movie without the Alien and this is coming from someone that liked the film.   If the Deacon had a bigger role, maybe people wouldn't be so on the fence with "Covenant".   I think us diehards forget general/causal audiences really complained about the lack of "Alien" in the last film.   Now they may be on the fence for this one.  With all that said I don't think it' doing that bad.   "Prometheus" and "Covenant" = 560+ Million Globally is not bad so Ridley shouldn't feel he failed bringing the franchise back.  I think "Awakening" should come quicker and not be a 5 year wait again.   

Protozoid

Quote from: Aquarius8 on May 30, 2017, 01:50:42 AM
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $59,972,181      37.3%
+ Foreign:    $101,009,281      62.7%
= Worldwide:    $160,981,462   


Globally will save this movie overall.  I think this proves how polarizing "Prometheus" really was.   I'm sorry but you can't make an Alien movie without the Alien and this is coming from someone that liked the film.   If the Deacon had a bigger role, maybe people wouldn't be so on the fence with "Covenant".   I think us diehards forget general/causal audiences really complained about the lack of "Alien" in the last film.   Now they may be on the fence for this one.
The general public liked Prometheus.  It ranked higher for home video sales than theatrical, which means interest went up over time.  It's still a discussed movie.  Prometheus was significantly more successful financially and got slightly better scores from critics and audiences.  You can't blame Prometheus for Covenant.

Aquarius8

Quote from: Protozoid on May 30, 2017, 01:53:52 AM
Quote from: Aquarius8 on May 30, 2017, 01:50:42 AM
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $59,972,181      37.3%
+ Foreign:    $101,009,281      62.7%
= Worldwide:    $160,981,462   


Globally will save this movie overall.  I think this proves how polarizing "Prometheus" really was.   I'm sorry but you can't make an Alien movie without the Alien and this is coming from someone that liked the film.   If the Deacon had a bigger role, maybe people wouldn't be so on the fence with "Covenant".   I think us diehards forget general/causal audiences really complained about the lack of "Alien" in the last film.   Now they may be on the fence for this one.
The general public liked Prometheus.  It ranked higher for home video sales than theatrical, which means interest went up over time.  It's still a discussed movie.  Prometheus was significantly more successful financially and got slightly better scores from critics and audiences.  You can't blame Prometheus for Covenant.

I don't know if I was blaming it as much as I saying it was slightly polarizing.   I think their critical scores are about even (Prometheus critics 72/audience 68, Covenant critics 71/ audience 61 RT).  There were audiences asking about the more Alien though and Ridley even admitted that.  "Covenant" numbers are definitely a lot of factors technically it's the 2nd film of the Prequel Trilogy even though it's the 8th Alien appearance on the big screen and 6th film.  A majority o the time Sequels do drop from their predessors in the box office but notice with "Guardians of the Galaxy", Part 2 increased over the first film and it's not getting better reviews than the original.  I think Time played a role, 5 years was probably too long.  Also I agree with people that maybe August would be a better release date.  "Covenant" is the 3rd May release (Alien, Alien 3).  Hopefully "Awakening" can come out sooner. 

BishopShouldGo

Quote from: Aquarius8 on May 30, 2017, 01:50:42 AM
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $59,972,181      37.3%
+ Foreign:    $101,009,281      62.7%
= Worldwide:    $160,981,462   


Globally will save this movie overall.  I think this proves how polarizing "Prometheus" really was.   I'm sorry but you can't make an Alien movie without the Alien and this is coming from someone that liked the film.   If the Deacon had a bigger role, maybe people wouldn't be so on the fence with "Covenant".   I think us diehards forget general/causal audiences really complained about the lack of "Alien" in the last film.   Now they may be on the fence for this one.  With all that said I don't think it' doing that bad.   "Prometheus" and "Covenant" = 560+ Million Globally is not bad so Ridley shouldn't feel he failed bringing the franchise back.  I think "Awakening" should come quicker and not be a 5 year wait again.

You have to lump Covenant in with the vastly superior Prometheus in order to reconcile Covenant's failure. Come on man. And people complained about the lack of aliens in Prometheus, but weren't sure about ALIEN: Covenant? Come ooooooon.

And don't be so confident about Awakening coming out sooner rather than later, if at all.

Alionic

Fox is clearly waiting on the Chinese box office returns before publicly announcing a decision on the sequel, which makes all the adamant assertions from many of you here that "hurr the franchise is dead kthxbye' that much more eye-rolling and pathetic.  If something as bad as Resident Evil: The Final Chapter made $160 million in China, then Covenant has a solid chance of making $100 million there at the very least.

dookie

dookie

#719
Quote from: Aquarius8 on May 30, 2017, 01:50:42 AM
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $59,972,181      37.3%
+ Foreign:    $101,009,281      62.7%
= Worldwide:    $160,981,462   


Globally will save this movie overall.  I think this proves how polarizing "Prometheus" really was.   I'm sorry but you can't make an Alien movie without the Alien and this is coming from someone that liked the film.   If the Deacon had a bigger role, maybe people wouldn't be so on the fence with "Covenant".   I think us diehards forget general/causal audiences really complained about the lack of "Alien" in the last film.   Now they may be on the fence for this one.  With all that said I don't think it' doing that bad.   "Prometheus" and "Covenant" = 560+ Million Globally is not bad so Ridley shouldn't feel he failed bringing the franchise back.  I think "Awakening" should come quicker and not be a 5 year wait again.

I came from that "general audience." The only Alien film that interests me is original. The rest all trash, especially the pathetic Alien vs Predator iterations.

Prometheus brought me back to the alien franchise. Finally, Ridley returns and delivers something new, refreshing, and thought-provoking. But then everything went awry with A:C. The reason A:C fell on its face is because they completely discarded and butchered the only compelling aspects they had cultivated in Prometheus. The third act of A:C was one of the worst movie segments I've ever seen, and I hope Ridley and Fox realize nobody wants to see mind-numbing, stalk-and-kill sci-fi movies anymore.

This movie needed less xenomorph, not more.

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