Female action movies from a Males's perspective only

[TriggerWarning]

People always come out with this estimate calculation (marketing doubles the cost to the studio etc), but to me this seems to hugely oversimplify the value of a movie over time. Movies always get a second life on rental, DVD, TV and streaming, and some continue to bring in revenue for decades. Obviously you get cult hits like the orgiinal Austin Powers and Blade Runner that made far more money in home formats than they ever did at the box office - enough to get sequels exploit that cultural cachet.

DVD sales are a pittance next box office, especially in today's market.

For example the movie Titanic. One of the biggest movies ever in history and one that came out in the height of the VHS / DVD era. Lifetime its brought in a grand total of about $33 million in VHS / DVD / Blue Ray sales. And thats before you take out store cut and production costs.

DVD sales and cable can popularize a movie after release and thus get a movie that flopped first time around a sequel. Austin Powers is a good example. But they won't ever be enough to make or break a film. Especially now. If Titanic only made $33 million how much do you think a movie that comes out today in the streaming era makes?

[Immortal Weapon]

DVD sales are a pittance next box office, especially in today's market.

For example the movie Titanic. One of the biggest movies ever in history and one that came out in the height of the VHS / DVD era. Lifetime its brought in a grand total of about $33 million in VHS / DVD / Blue Ray sales. And thats before you take out store cut and production costs.

DVD sales and cable can popularize a movie after release and thus get a movie that flopped first time around a sequel. Austin Powers is a good example. But they won't ever be enough to make or break a film. Especially now. If Titanic only made $33 million how much do you think a movie that comes out today in the streaming era makes?

It's hard to judge what's a success in the streaming era because the numbers ain't publicly available. We only have the word of those involved and top x most viewed as the only metrics available.

[Gaelforce]

A movie usually has to make around 3 times it's budget to break even (the studios get only 50%-60% of the box office and the budget doesn't include marking cost).

Meaning that Electra flopped and that Birds of Prey at best broke even (but more likely was a small loss).

I have never heard triple. If that's the case, Iron Man 2 barely eked out a profit, and Thor and Captain America were flops.

Thor - cost $150,000,000 x 3 = $450,000,000. Box Office take - $449,326,618
Captain America - cost $140,000,000 x 3 = $420,000,000. Box Office take - $370,569,774

So Captain America lost almost 50 million dollars and they still gambled on sequels?

That doesn't make any sense.

Generally speaking, marketing runs from $20,000,000 for smaller releases and up to $150,000,000 for the big tent pole movies, not double the budget. A lot also depends upon how invested the production company is in the film.

Elektra was rushed to capitalize on Daredevil, and marketing has been estimated at $13 to $25 million. At the low end, it breaks even. At the high end, it was a loss of 7-8 million.

At the very least it made back it's production budget, but was (a) a poorly written and edited film and (b) a flop, though not one of monumental stature.

For that, you have to look at male led comic book adaptations:

RIPD lost 52 million based on just its production costs, likewise Jonah Hex was down 36 million, and Punisher War Zone was 25 million under production costs.

And I forgot another female led flop - Tank Girl, which came in 21 million under production. Not that it would have helped much, but unlike the above three male led films, it did not get an international release (RIPD made more overseas than in the US)

I should also add the following for DC (and how little faith they had in Wonder Woman)

Budgets:

Man of Steel - $225 million (another loss if you triple that as it took in 668 mil)
BvS - $250 million (made $873 million)
WW - $149 million (made $821 million)
Aquaman - $200 million (made 1.15 billion)

And despite this?

Wonder Woman 1984 - $175 million

Their top ranked critically acclaimed movie that made them a ton of money and it *still* doesn't get the budget of the male led films for the sequel.

Where are you getting the double the production budget for marketing costs?

[Starter Set]

Fear of romantic male leads

That one is funny.

Are there really guys who wouldn't go and watch a movie just cause they are afraid that the main character could end up in a relationship with a romantic dude?

I mean, ok, we are all psychotic apes, i know, but damn, that's a pretty random reason to avoid a movie.

[Zero Hunter]

Studios and directors always want to blame the audience when a female led movie fails. In most cases it fails because it is just not a good movie. The female Ghostbusters movie had the director coming out even before the movie released saying anyone who didn't go and see his movie was a sexist, and that made me say screw you and your movie. When an action movie is done well it does not matter who is the lead. One of my favorites from the past is The Long Kiss Goodnight with Geena Davis in the lead. She played the hell out of that part and made it real.

[Powerboy]

This is really another subject but I believe it was the late '80s and early '90s that the "hundred million dollar movie" started becoming a thing.

I was at a sci fi convention where Richard Hatch gave a speech and question and answer session. This is during the time he was involved in the remake of Battlestar Galactica. He said that he still had many friends and connections in the movie business and almost all of them said that they could not see where some of these "hundred million dollar movies" were costing even close to that much. Their suspicion was it had something to do with the nature of the business and executives. At that point, he made the gesture of putting something into his pocket over and over, implying a lot of that money was just going into exec pockets and also outright said that a lot of that is just the PR of proclaiming something cost a hundred million dollars so we should go see it because it will clearly be great.

At the very least, I would question the validity of some of these claimed production costs. There are also stories of writers who took a share of the profits over a larger paycheck only to be told a movie that made a fortune technically didn't make a profit and therefore they were not owed anything from the profits. Supposedly, one writer when asked to write a sequel proclaimed sarcastically that he could not, in good faith, write a sequel to a movie that was such a dismal failure (ie. actually made a fortune).

If true, that just makes the real profit margin even greater.

[Aahz]

Where are you getting the double the production budget for marketing costs?

I never claimed that the markting cost was that high.

What you are missing is that the studio only gets 50%-60% of the money the movie made, the rest goes fore example to the theatres.

So even if you ignore marketing a movie would needs to make roughly twice it's budget at the Box Office to break even.

I have never heard triple. If that's the case, Iron Man 2 barely eked out a profit, and Thor and Captain America were flops.

That's a rough estimate. It depends on the movie in some cases it might be more in the region of 2.5.

Elektra was rushed to capitalize on Daredevil, and marketing has been estimated at $13 to $25 million. At the low end, it breaks even. At the high end, it was a loss of 7-8 million.

If we go with the $13 million for Marketing, the movie would have coset 56 Million.

It had a box office of 57 Million, 60% of that would be 34.2 Million.

So based on that Electra would have lost roughly 21.8 Million.

[Username taken]

Most current female action movies starting with Ghostbusters 2016 are unwatchable. Furthermore they insult and demean men. Why would men want to watch a movie with constant male mockery?

What a nonsense argument.

Insult and demean men..give me a break.

Which major action movie did this? What kind of man comes out of a movie thinking "this movie hurt my feelings?

[RockyHorror]

So even if you ignore marketing a movie would needs to make roughly twice it's budget at the Box Office to break even.

Of course you ignore marketing. That is not part of the movie budget, it is part of the distribution company's budget. As such, it is not a factor when considering profit and loss, or a movie's or return on investment.

[Zero Hunter]

Of course you ignore marketing. That is not part of the movie budget, it is part of the distribution company's budget. As such, it is not a factor when considering profit and loss, or a movie's or return on investment.

Not even close to correct. Marketing is definitely figured in. The studio still has to pay for the marketing hence why it is figured in to the overall cost.

[RockyHorror]

Not even close to correct. Marketing is definitely figured in. The studio still has to pay for the marketing hence why it is figured in to the overall cost.

A very popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. Hence why studios never include the marketing costs when saying how much a movie cost. It's not because it makes them look better. It's because it would be illegal to do so (and for the record, if marketing was part of the budget, it would be illegal not to include it).

[Scott Taylor]

The premise is one of those myths that Hollywood seems to believe, but that gets proven wrong time and again. Similar to how they are afraid to do movies with Asian leads and reticent to take a lot of chances with African American leads. Its an old white boy club and they don't get out much.

The fans, however, love diversity and don't even care if its diversity as long as its a good film. This is the Ghostbusters 2016 argument all over again. And it was wrong then because that movie truly sucked ass in a thousand different ways.

[Immortal Weapon]

What a nonsense argument.

Insult and demean men..give me a break.

Which major action movie did this? What kind of man comes out of a movie thinking "this movie hurt my feelings?

I've never seen it but not wanting men to see the movie was apart of Elizabeth Banks marketing campaign for Charlie's Angels. Then got mad that men didn't come see it when it flopped.

[Username taken]

I've never seen it but not wanting men to see the movie was apart of Elizabeth Banks marketing campaign for Charlie's Angels. Then got mad that men didn't come see it when it flopped.

The point the guy was making was the movies "insult and demean" men. Certain movies have strong feminist themes, that doesnt mean they are disparaging men.

The Elizabeth Banks thing is odd to me, I never even heard her say she didn't want guys to see Charlie's Angels.

[Scott Taylor]

The point the guy was making was the movies "insult and demean" men. Certain movies have strong feminist themes, that doesnt mean they are disparaging men.

The Elizabeth Banks thing is odd to me, I never even heard her say she didn't want guys to see Charlie's Angels.

I can't say a female-led film has ever felt disparaging to me, but sometimes they oversell that fact that its women. Like they need to make sure we know what we can already see with our eyes and knew going into the film. And then you get stuff like the all-woman scene in Endgame where its just a hammy bone tossed out to the audience.