User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance  (Read 161267 times)

bb-15
Oct 19, 2017, 08:47:55 PM
Reply #1605 on: Oct 19, 2017, 08:47:55 PM
Q
In following box office from Japan and worldwide, it looks like "Alien Covenant" will end up at about $241 million.
The delay in the theatrical release in Japan took its toll imo.
"Covenant" has been available on disk and downloads since mid August.

Blu rays for sale in Hong Kong / Taiwan had both English and "traditional Chinese" (I assume Mandarin) subtitles which gave a legal outlet for Japanese customers (who could read those languages) to get the film since mid August. 
http://www.yesasia.com/us/alien-covenant-2017-blu-ray-steelbook-taiwan-version/1061453135-0-0-0-en/info.html

And available pirated downloaded copies of the movie (with Japanese subtitles) also lead to a lower performance.

* 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.

;)


Biomechanoid
Oct 22, 2017, 12:58:55 AM
Reply #1606 on: Oct 22, 2017, 12:58:55 AM
Q
* 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.

No example comes to mind at the moment, but I think studios have approved a continuation of a given film universe for less profit than that, sometime in the past. That could be bad recollection on my part without researching it. I would also speculate profits from the home market - discs, streaming, are taken in consideration in their decision making.


monkeylove
Oct 22, 2017, 05:40:08 PM
Reply #1607 on: Oct 22, 2017, 05:40:08 PM
Q
The other point to consider is that for-profit businesses do not operate on making sure earnings are good enough. Rather, they seek to maximize profits, especially given competition. Given that, it's not enough for a movie to simply make 2.5 times more its production cost.


Biomechanoid
Oct 23, 2017, 02:44:49 AM
Reply #1608 on: Oct 23, 2017, 02:44:49 AM
Q
The other point to consider is that for-profit businesses do not operate on making sure earnings are good enough. Rather, they seek to maximize profits, especially given competition. Given that, it's not enough for a movie to simply make 2.5 times more its production cost.

Not being in the profession, I really don't follow that train of thought.

If I was a studio executive in a conference room and a co-worker brings forth a project where their market research showed there's high probability they will collect a one million-plus net profit return, I would endorse the suggestion. But wait, another co-worker interrupts, "yes, we may gain a one million-plus net profit return, but I just found out that Acme Studios approved a project that will likely garner them a two million-plus net profit return."

Are you suggesting that executives would reject a project that would result in a one million-plus net profit return simply on the reason they discovered another studio may gain a higher net profit return? I don't follow, please explain.


BishopShouldGo
Oct 23, 2017, 02:53:45 AM
Reply #1609 on: Oct 23, 2017, 02:53:45 AM
Q
All businesses are “for-profit.”

It’s really not that difficult. If your movie makes $400 million, and you make a sequel that makes $170 million less, you’re going to rethink your game plan. I mean especially since the sequel was meant to be a crowd pleaser, bringing back everyone’s favorite alien.

So the whole 2.5x fascination is strange. That’s a bad multiple compared to the predecessor. Ok on its own I guess. But disappointing per Fox. This IS a franchise, and how this one does will affect their future Alien decisions. That’s really just it.


monkeylove
Oct 23, 2017, 12:34:19 PM
Reply #1610 on: Oct 23, 2017, 12:34:19 PM
Q

Not being in the profession, I really don't follow that train of thought.

If I was a studio executive in a conference room and a co-worker brings forth a project where their market research showed there's high probability they will collect a one million-plus net profit return, I would endorse the suggestion. But wait, another co-worker interrupts, "yes, we may gain a one million-plus net profit return, but I just found out that Acme Studios approved a project that will likely garner them a two million-plus net profit return."

Are you suggesting that executives would reject a project that would result in a one million-plus net profit return simply on the reason they discovered another studio may gain a higher net profit return? I don't follow, please explain.

Executives will reject or set aside a project if they believe that they can make more money from another. Of course, that assumes that the studio has more than one project to consider.



Biomechanoid
Oct 23, 2017, 09:52:00 PM
Reply #1612 on: Oct 23, 2017, 09:52:00 PM
Q
All businesses are “for-profit.” It’s really not that difficult. If your movie makes $400 million, and you make a sequel that makes $170 million less, you’re going to rethink your game plan.

Executives will reject or set aside a project if they believe that they can make more money from another. Of course, that assumes that the studio has more than one project to consider.

Unless you two are in the studio executive profession, I assume you are speculating as I am.

I worked for a major pharmaceutical headquarters prior to early retirement and I was a part of the IT team on several drug marketing projects. Over the years I was involved in maybe close to a dozen monster huge projects involving multi-million dollar gains. Those mega-projects were the stars of the show.

But....I was also involved in hundreds of minor projects. Small profit gain projects, but in reality, their accumulative return as a whole, was the bulk of the corporation's annual income. From mini-projects that required less than a week of work, to mid-size projects requiring more time....and various levels of minor projects in between.

Other corporations I worked for were also geared with the same platform. Never did I see corporate management turn their nose up to a project that would potentially result in small gain, unless all their teams were already locked in other projects.

Just like cinema, there's no guaranteed return, there were risks.  I can't imagine studio corporations being the exception to how most other corporations operate in regards to collecting revenue. Nor can I imagine studio corporations are built as a singular team project. Like most corporations, I would imagine there are multiple teams working on various projects (feature films, straight-to-video, tv series, commercials, etc.).

My point to all this is I find it unlikely they are solely deciding for or against a given film project on the size of their estimated profit return. It was really the small projects in the corporations I worked for that kept the paychecks coming.


monkeylove
Oct 24, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
Reply #1613 on: Oct 24, 2017, 07:09:27 AM
Q

Unless you two are in the studio executive profession, I assume you are speculating as I am.

I worked for a major pharmaceutical headquarters prior to early retirement and I was a part of the IT team on several drug marketing projects. Over the years I was involved in maybe close to a dozen monster huge projects involving multi-million dollar gains. Those mega-projects were the stars of the show.

But....I was also involved in hundreds of minor projects. Small profit gain projects, but in reality, their accumulative return as a whole, was the bulk of the corporation's annual income. From mini-projects that required less than a week of work, to mid-size projects requiring more time....and various levels of minor projects in between.

Other corporations I worked for were also geared with the same platform. Never did I see corporate management turn their nose up to a project that would potentially result in small gain, unless all their teams were already locked in other projects.

Just like cinema, there's no guaranteed return, there were risks.  I can't imagine studio corporations being the exception to how most other corporations operate in regards to collecting revenue. Nor can I imagine studio corporations are built as a singular team project. Like most corporations, I would imagine there are multiple teams working on various projects (feature films, straight-to-video, tv series, commercials, etc.).

My point to all this is I find it unlikely they are solely deciding for or against a given film project on the size of their estimated profit return. It was really the small projects in the corporations I worked for that kept the paychecks coming.

The Alien franchise is not a minor project.


Biomechanoid
Oct 24, 2017, 01:09:39 PM
Reply #1614 on: Oct 24, 2017, 01:09:39 PM
Q
The Alien franchise is not a minor project.

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. 


Kane's other son
Oct 24, 2017, 02:44:09 PM
Reply #1615 on: Oct 24, 2017, 02:44:09 PM
Q
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.


BishopShouldGo
Oct 24, 2017, 03:55:53 PM
Reply #1616 on: Oct 24, 2017, 03:55:53 PM
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.


Alionic
Oct 25, 2017, 03:00:29 AM
Reply #1617 on: Oct 25, 2017, 03:00:29 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.


SM
Oct 25, 2017, 03:21:16 AM
Reply #1618 on: Oct 25, 2017, 03:21:16 AM
Q
Quote
That reads like someone trying to convince themselves that Covenant wasn’t a huge commercial disappointment.

"Huge" is churching things up a tad.



 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed