Table of contents:
when Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny It entered the box office track to open to an estimated $60-65 million, and highlighted a larger problem studios face with some of their support releases. The opening wouldn’t look so lackluster if Indy’s fifth outing didn’t cost much, let alone market.
The film’s budget is $300M and does not include the $100M+ spent on marketing the project. This means that the film would have to earn around $800 million globally to simply break even, so it begs the question: Why are studios pumping so much into their movie budgets when the break-even cost is so high?
A typical break-even point is about 2.5 times a movie’s budget. Split it up a bit just in case Destiny askedLucasfilm’s release would have to earn $400 million to break even, but movie theaters often take half the money from movies which is why a movie needs about $800 million to get that far.
final installment of the franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skullgrossed $790 million worldwide in 2008, which was considered a win given the polarized response the film received from fans.
The film had an arguably more modest budget of $185 million, and the work to its advantage is that it’s been nearly twenty years since. The last crusade issued. There was quite a buzz in the place when I saw Harrison Ford don a fedora again and Steven Spielberg return to the director’s chair.
Given all of that, Kingdom of the crystal skull It was able to open to $100 million before Memorial Day weekend of 2008. To say that consumer interest has changed in 15 years would be an understatement, leaving the audience to wonder if the folks at Disney should have thought more about cashing in 300 Million dollar for this latest entry.
Movie budgets continue to rise in 2023
with Destiny asked Projected to open in the $60-65 million range, the film will have to rely heavily on international earnings doing a lot of the heavy lifting. In the age of ballooning movie budgets, this is a common occurrence and not just a problem for Indiana Jones.
X is fast It entered the market in early summer carrying a reported budget of $340M which did not include the $100M+ spent on marketing. the fast The franchise is a huge cash cow for Universal Pictures, with a couple of entries taking in billions of dollars worldwide, so it makes sense that they wouldn’t mind spending a lot of money making the movie. However, it is also a franchise that has seen diminishing returns with its previous entry.
2021 fast 9, which cost between $200-225 million to produce, was understandably affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the movie only made $726.2 million worldwide. This is a significant drop from $1.2 billion The fate of the angryEven with COVID in mind.
It’s even more disturbing when you look at the domestic picture of the last two films. fast 9 It took in $173 million domestically, which means that $553.2 million came from overseas markets. X is fast It’s $144.8 million domestically to date and $545.6 million internationally, which points to another sign of declining revenue.
If these films had to rely solely on domestic revenue to turn a profit, these studios would be in a lot of trouble. It is as if they are putting themselves in an almost impossible position to win in this current market.
Seeing all these headlines about how much a major studio release could lose would make you think there would be more to keep budgets in check. Studios can’t assume they’re going to lose out before releasing a big-budget movie, but you can be confident without being reckless.
Given the discovery of Warner Bros. and its version the light It highlights another problem with distributing large budgets. Despite being billed earlier this year as “one of the best comic book movies ever made,” the movie only grossed $214.9 million worldwide, and it doesn’t have much gas in its tank life.
Reportedly made in excess of $200 million on a $100 million marketing budget, it has even been reported that the film could lose out to Warner Bros. Pictures. Discovery is about $200 million when all is said and done.
It’s likely that before all of the behind-the-scenes woes that plagued the film, the studio thought they were in a win-win situation with the light, But was this a project worth spending $200 million on? The character was introduced to moviegoers in 2017 Justice Leaguethe film, which was met with dismal reaction until the launch of HBO Max Zack Snyder’s Justice League Correct things a little.
However, the studio should have been more modest with its budget the light Because this was not a proven IP that is guaranteed to win huge money. It’s like they consider future dollar signs before evaluating whether it’s worth pumping the budget to astronomical heights.
Movies can be done for a modest price
Some examples of modest budget films are cutting edge and much more expensive than they seem. Spider-Man: Through the Spider-Versewhich features some of the best animation ever thrown into a movie, only cost $100 million to make, and it looks like more money was invested in it.
The end result of that was a staggering total of $566.7 million worldwide to date, a number that might have Sony Pictures very happy given the film’s budget.
There are more examples of this trend of spending huge numbers on making movies, and while there are sometimes clear payoffs nonetheless, we’re seeing more cases of studios struggling to get that money back. Visual effects are getting pricier and big stars are still getting paid big, but there has to be a way for studios to find more economical ways to make their movies.
Do moviegoers even see $340 million on screen when they watch these movies? Budgets seemed to be determined more by vanity and arrogance than by the long-term bottom line.
