Author Topic: Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance  (Read 172421 times)

Paranoid Android
Oct 25, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
Reply #1620 on: Oct 25, 2017, 08:46:35 AM
Q
Covenant was expected to do better than Blade Runner 2049. It's the sixth film in an iconic, well established and profitable franchise. 2049 is the sequel nobody asked for to a 35 year old flop. If Covenant would've done worse than Blade Runner 2049, it would've been embarrassing.


Prez
Oct 25, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Reply #1621 on: Oct 25, 2017, 10:21:59 AM
Q
Reality is both underperformed for various reasons.

Of the two though I (strongly) suspect Blade Runner 2049 will have substantial more longevity and respect in the minds of fans, critics and the general sci-fi community.


Ingwar
Oct 25, 2017, 10:38:17 PM
Reply #1622 on: Oct 25, 2017, 10:38:17 PM
Q
Of the two though I (strongly) suspect Blade Runner 2049 will have substantial more longevity and respect in the minds of fans, critics and the general sci-fi community.

Without doubt. It's masterfully made movie. It grows on me and even despite the fact that I've got some issues with it I still cannot stop thinking about it. BR 2049 it's addictive piece of art.


Prez
Oct 25, 2017, 11:00:04 PM
Reply #1623 on: Oct 25, 2017, 11:00:04 PM
Q
Of the two though I (strongly) suspect Blade Runner 2049 will have substantial more longevity and respect in the minds of fans, critics and the general sci-fi community.

Without doubt. It's masterfully made movie. It grows on me and even despite the fact that I've got some issues with it I still cannot stop thinking about it. BR 2049 it's addictive piece of art.

For me it's the best film I've seen in a decade.


Corporal Hicks
Oct 26, 2017, 08:03:17 AM
Reply #1624 on: Oct 26, 2017, 08:03:17 AM
Q
That reads like someone trying to convince themselves that Covenant wasn’t a huge commercial disappointment.

I don’t like it either, but it disappointed. Studios don’t greenlight movies based on their ability to help bump sales of the older movies. Especially expensive ones.

The CEO of Fox greenlit a sequel with Scott directing.

I wouldn't go as far as to say it's been greenlit but what she said definitely indicated they're open to more if Scott can find a direction that Fox is happy with.

Quote
That reads like someone trying to convince themselves that Covenant wasn’t a huge commercial disappointment.

"Huge" is churching things up a tad.



Scott and some Fox executives have already said it was a money earner for them. It under-performed. There's no denying that but to call it a huge commercial disappointment is hyperbole.


monkeylove
Oct 26, 2017, 08:55:58 AM
Reply #1625 on: Oct 26, 2017, 08:55:58 AM
Q

Collectively? I would agree. But some of the films of the franchise did not warrant blockbuster budget. Compared to many of today's big budget films in the range of 250 million, the Alien franchise has continued with films that fall well under that watermark. 

From what I'm understanding what you are saying, you think studios approve projects as, "either this project OR that project near the same time frame." The point I'm making is they may "approve this project AND that project in the same time frame, regardless if one project is a major project and the other a minor project...or near same level budget.

The fact that Fox released Alien Covenant within one month of releasing War for the Planet of the Apes, the latter costing over 50 million dollars more to produce, should be your clue studios approve multiple projects in the same time frame. This recent history should show you this is more than just an axiom that they approved both projects in the same time frame, with Covenant getting the lesser budget.

Why do you use $250 million as a cutoff to define whether or not a project is major? Movies like Deadpool had much smaller budgets but they are not seen as minor.

Of course a studio will choose between one project or another if it does not have enough funds or resources to proceed with both or if funds for the first can be used to support other projects in the pipeline that it believes it can earn more.

Ultimately, your point that as long as a movie breaks even then any sequels or prequels will proceed, is questionable because that's not how for-profit businesses work.


Covenant was R-rated and skewed towards adults. It would never get a tent-pole budget because there was never a chance to make tent-pole money. Even if it was a huge hit, it would make Mad Max money, not Marvel money ("It" was a fluke and that's why its budget was a very modest $35 million).

Having said that, there's no formula for green-lighting a sequel. No magic benchmark (2.5x budget, 3x budget, etc). It's more complex than that. Especially on established franchises, in which every new installment is judged according to the value it brings to the franchise as a whole.

Covenant (probably) broke even or made a little profit. We have no idea how it affected sales of older entries in the franchise, merchandising deals, etc. It certainly didn't poison the well since it was well-received by critics and people generally liked it (but didn't go crazy about it).

Fox will (should?) definitely try to shake things up, moving forward, but they are not going to let a franchise that's grossed close to $2 billion, die.

It will not let a franchise die only if it knows that future films will make a significant profit. Otherwise, why continue with something that will only break even or make a small profit each time?

« Last Edit: Oct 26, 2017, 08:58:25 AM by monkeylove »

Biomechanoid
Oct 28, 2017, 08:07:55 AM
Reply #1626 on: Oct 28, 2017, 08:07:55 AM
Q
Of course a studio will choose between one project or another if it does not have enough funds or resources to proceed with both or if funds for the first can be used to support other projects in the pipeline that it believes it can earn more.
Understood, but as I provided for you the Alien Covenant/War for the Planet of the Apes example, that was not the case in this instance, now was it?


Ultimately, your point that as long as a movie breaks even then any sequels or prequels will proceed, is questionable because that's not how for-profit businesses work.
Well now you're just putting words in my mouth so you can venture off on an irrelevant counterpoint. You say my point was as long as a movie "breaks even?"......... The only one interjecting the term "break even," is you.


tleilaxu
Oct 28, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Reply #1627 on: Oct 28, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Q
I'm still surprised that Blade Runner 2049 is underperforming. I thought it was a well established classic, but apparently it isn't outside the internet.


monkeylove
Oct 30, 2017, 02:46:14 AM
Reply #1628 on: Oct 30, 2017, 02:46:14 AM
Q
Understood, but as I provided for you the Alien Covenant/War for the Planet of the Apes example, that was not the case in this instance, now was it?

As I explained earlier, if there is another project that may earn more, then a studio can choose to focus on that and shelve the one that will make less, but that in turn is based on many other factors, such as availability of funding. In this case, it proceeded with both projects, likely hoping for a worst-case scenario where gains from one tent pole will make up for the other. Other options may involve continuing a franchise with lower budgets, trying something like a TV series, etc.

In any event, the belief that studios will continue making projects for a franchise as long as they break even is questionable.

Quote
Well now you're just putting words in my mouth so you can venture off on an irrelevant counterpoint. You say my point was as long as a movie "breaks even?"......... The only one interjecting the term "break even," is you.

Sorry, I was referring to the original point of this discussion, which was raised by another forum member:

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57436.msg2254624#msg2254624

Quote
* Still "Covent" ends up with a box office of 2.48 times its production budget.
Considering that, we will see what Fox decides to do with the Alien franchise.

Notice that BishopShouldGo also gave a response that is similar to mine.

For me, the implication of the statement is that as long as a movie makes around 2.5 its production budget, then a franchise may continue.

As we explained earlier, these businesses are for-profit, and in competition with each other, they want to maximize profits, and more so if investors are involved.

« Last Edit: Oct 30, 2017, 03:06:01 AM by monkeylove »


monkeylove
Oct 31, 2017, 02:50:30 PM
Reply #1630 on: Oct 31, 2017, 02:50:30 PM
Q
Apology accepted and false accusation forgiven.

But that was the main point of the discussion. To recap, the implication is that as long as the studio breaks even, then it will continue the franchise. Two of us argued that FWIW that's not how a for-profit business operates. Rather, it may postpone making a sequel if there is another project that will be more profitable, or may continue a sequel if it has assurances that the next movie will make more. Whatever it does, it will do so to maximize profits.

For some reason, you found our arguments perplexing, and came up with the following arguments:

1. That it will shelve a project if it finds out that a rival company has something better.

Actually, that's not what we argued. Rather, it may work on another project first if that will guarantee more profits.

2. A studio may work on several minor project and may continue them even if they provide a small gain, as the cumulative gains may make up the annual income of the studio.

I don't think Covenant is a minor project.

I also forgot to add that I don't understand this point: if a company has, say, 100 such projects and has a profit margin of only 1 percent for each one, then its profit margin is still 1 percent, right? Shouldn't it consider projects that can earn more, especially if it has investors who are expecting better returns, not to mention rivals who can do better?

3. Studios may work on more than one project.

If it does so, it's because it has a good reason, and very likely connected to maximizing profitability. In this case, it assumes that a sequel to Covenant will not simply break even or provide a small gain. Or that one tent pole will provide funds to support another in case the latter is expected to gain slowly.




monkeylove
Nov 01, 2017, 02:42:08 AM
Reply #1632 on: Nov 01, 2017, 02:42:08 AM
Q
Once again you make a false assumption of me. On the contrary, I find your argument borderline jejune. You're tainting your graceful apology, just let it go.

But the assumption made for this discussion isn't only about breaking even but also making a small profit, and your reasons refer to that. In fact, that's clearly seen in the second reason you gave, i.e., it can work on numerous, low-earning minor projects and still make an accumulative gain for its annual income (which is illogical because percentage-wise the accumulated profit is still low).

I won't discuss the first reason because it is obviously illogical, but the third also supports our arguments. If a studio continues developing for two franchises, it will do so only because it expects to earn more from both in the long run or because it has no other projects to consider. Otherwise, it will earn only a small profit with an accumulative gain or one will keep pulling down the other.

Finally, one more point to consider: the profit is usually shared between the studio and investors, and the former usually competes with other studios over the latter. And investors want the best return on their investments, which is one reason why studios want to maximize profits. Given that, breaking even or making small gains won't be good enough.




 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed