183
submitted 1 day ago by Emperor@feddit.uk to c/movies@lemm.ee

Disney made an estimated $296.4 million loss at the box office on just two of its Marvel superhero movies in 2023 according to analysis of recently-released financial statements.

They reveal that the cost of making The Marvels and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania came to a staggering $762.4 million (£609.3 million) before Disney banked $124.9 million (£99.4 million) in government incentives bringing its net spending on the movies down to $637.5 million. They both bombed at the box office.

According to industry analyst Box Office Mojo, the movies grossed a combined $682.2 million with theaters typically retaining 50% of the takings and the remainder going to the studio. This reflects the findings of film industry consultant Stephen Follows who interviewed 1,235 film professionals in 2014 and concluded that, according to studios, theaters keep 49% of the takings on average. It would give Disney just $341.1 million from The Marvels and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. No expense was spared on them.

...

Disney does not publicly discuss how much it spends on specific productions and did not respond to a request for comment. Budgets are usually a closely-guarded secret. This is because studios combine the costs of individual pictures in their overall expenses and their filings don't itemize how much was spent on each one. Films made in the UK are exceptions and both The Marvels and Quantumania fall into this category.

Studios shoot in the UK to benefit from its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.

To qualify for the reimbursement, at least 10% of the production costs need to relate to activities in the UK. In order to demonstrate this to the UK government, studios tend to set up a separate production company in the country for each movie they make there.

The companies have to file financial statements which shine a spotlight on their budgets. They reveal everything from the headcount and salaries to the level of reimbursement and the total costs. Studios directly receive the revenue from theater tickets, streaming and Blu-ray sales and carry the costs of marketing as the function of the UK companies is purely making the movies.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Less than 333 mil isn't even close to a billion. I really get tired of click bate headlines.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago

They've apparently got like $6 billion in cash reserves so they can afford the odd stinker.

Those losses won't be real losses, because they'll just pay everyone less on the next movie. They'll be tax man losses. We haven't made any money, oh poor us...

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 3 hours ago

Genuinely suspect that the people in charge of the money on these projects are stealing a good chunk of it.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago

"Stealing"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYYOUC10aM

Much of the budget is megabucks wages for the stars and director and then enormous amounts on "distribution" aka adverts.

[-] lohky@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago

You know, this is kind of a feel good story to me. That money didn't just vanish into the ether. Disney lost that money to the people working on the movies. Not counting the massively overpaid actors and shit, but that "loss" was just regular people taking money from Disney and I like that quite a bit.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 13 points 14 hours ago

Who knew over saturating tired IP would result in a loss of profit?

[-] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 20 points 16 hours ago

Wow! That's like a sixth of two billion!

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

No shit. What a bullshit manipulation of numbers by people thrusting their hate boners. “Almost $300m” would have sufficed.

God they had to dig so deep to get these numbers. Looking up tax records? Like Jesus Christ let it go.

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago

This analysis isn't acknowledging the important fact that The Marvel's was dogwater in its best moments and pure cringe at all other times.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

Sounds like most of the marvel movies

[-] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago

I liked the Marvels =(

Meanwhile, I've heard such bad things about Quantumania that I haven't watched it yet lol.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I’m a 40 year old dude and thought it was fun. Not my favourite, but it clearly wasn’t made for me. I feel like it’s the kind of thing that will really connect with young girls and later on it will be looked back on fondly.

Dads, watch it with your daughters. You won’t regret it.

Quantumania was fun too. Could’ve been better, but don’t believe all the hate.

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 minutes ago

I agree on quantamania, it's a fun turn your brain off movie. Introduces some cool concepts to the universe and has some interesting visuals. Marvel movies aren't meant to be your forest gumps, people seem to forget that sometimes.

[-] Emperor@feddit.uk 5 points 12 hours ago

I enjoyed the Marvels but I rate the Captain Marvel highly.

I thought Quantumania was pretty pointless, doubly now Kang has been dropped.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

I liked Quantumania. Sometimes you just want something fun and it delivered.

[-] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I also liked Quantumania. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't "Thor 4" level of bad either.

[-] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Hm... Maybe I'll give it a try sometime then.

That's kind of how I felt about The Marvels and the other Ant-Man movies. They weren't mind-blowing, but they were mostly a fun time. Not too long, well paced, pretty light hearts with some creative action scenes that didn't hit Shang Chi or Winter Soldier heights, but we're entertaining enough.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The bad guy in Marvels was 100% forgettable. I can’t tell you who it was or what their motives were.

But the main cast had great chemistry.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

I didn't mind the Marvels. I thought it had problems, and parts were cringy if you're not into it. But the biggest flaw was the writing. It's like they had these ideas for set pieces, and then tried to bring it all together as an afterthought. It wasn't as bad as certain people wanted it to be.

Quantumania was unfinished. It was like they ran out of money and time and just submitted the minimally viable movie. Paul Rudd is always charming, and the actress playing Cassie/Stature is going to be a net plus to the Young Avengers. I think Michelle Pfeiffer was poorly utilized, and of course Kang became a PR problem. But the writing had some high points. The story was engaging, the stakes were real, and the characters all had arcs. The CG was shit, and the Giant Goof schtick is overplayed. Letting go of the physics is a prerequisite for any Superhero movie.

They did poorly because Disney was rushing. They wanted to generate energy and enthusiasm by deliberately releasing each new movie before the last one was available on streaming. But instead of creating fomo, they fostered indifference because the product wasn't good enough. Nothing post-endgame felt like must-watch content. The tie-ins were half-assed, because the studio clearly did not have faith that they would ever get to wrap up each dangling plot thread.

The Marvels was better than Eternals. Quantumania was better than Wakanda Forever. None of them are great movies, but none are as bad as anti-woke or anti-superhero critics suggest.

[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago

Werewolf by night was lit. I loved that one. Man thing character aside, it was fun and suspenseful.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Even though this includes the Ant Man film, they put Brie Larson on the thumbnail, they know what they are doing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wrig9547@lemm.ee 125 points 1 day ago

I’m sorry, did I just read that DISNEY received $125 Million in government incentives to make a comic book movie?

[-] Ptsf@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Wait till you find out the literal billions Georgia (USA) gives away to filmmakers via a tax credit that's been proven to not be more effective than social programs by a significant margin at generating community wealth...

(https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/28730)

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

It's because trickle down-style policies give more wealth and social power to those at the top while allowing the argument that the economic activity that results from that wealth benefits everyone down the pyramid (which also creates a dependency on more instances of these transfers as businesses grow to accommodate the extra demand).

Social programs do that without giving more wealth or social power to people at the top.

The effectiveness that they care about isn't the economic benefit or allowing people to become more independent, it's about funneling money to the rich in the hopes that they will funnel some of it back in a way that won't look so much like corruption.

[-] Ptsf@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Indeed. You'd be shocked the amount of people I've spoken with that believe otherwise. They see the positive side of the numbers and don't think about the long term implications for even a moment it seems.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 62 points 1 day ago

Studios shoot in the UK to benefit from its Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.

It's not like they were handed a blank check, they spent hundreds of millions more paying people and buying stuff in the UK to get that rebate

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 12 hours ago

That's just gouvernement incentives with extra steps.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] credo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

A) Ant man is such a stupid movie. “He keeps his same inertia even though he’s tiny”

B) Never trust Hollywood accounting

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

The physics never make sense. Iron Man should be a pink smoothie in a can. Hulk generates mass from nothing and sheds it back to nothing when he changes. Spiderman should be pulling drywall off the studs. Vibranium makes zero sense, either as a shield or as a suit or really any other time. 90% of the fighting Hawkeye and Black Widow do is absurd and would leave their bones shattered.

Thor is all magic, so that gets a pass, but you can't throw a hammer and the get dragged behind it, and then change directions midair. Thor is flying because magic, let's just leave it at that.

And it's not just the MCU. Superman can't catch a plane by the nose. Batman can't launch a grapple hook while he's falling and prevent his death.

Aragorn can't toss Gimli that far. Luke's X-Wing doesn't bank through air in space. The USS Enterprise wouldn't always be oriented to be upright with everything. James Bond can't just recover from all those concussions and venereal diseases without brain damage. Indy can't ride out a nuclear explosion in a fridge.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

One thing I like about space fights is you'll often see them use the 3 dimensions and that they aren't just upright. But they really are upright to everything almost all of the time otherwise.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not that the physics doesn't match reality, it's that the physics doesn't match THEIR OWN rules.

It'd be like if the Hulk was crushing cars with his steps in one scene, but then calmly sitting in a flimsy plastic lawn chair in the next. It's discongruent within their OWN rules. It doesn't match THEIR OWN reality.

It'd be like if Superman is suddenly unable to shrug off bullets. It's dumb.

Stories do not have to be realistic, but they MUST be congruent in order to be taken seriously. It's much, MUCH harder to suspend disbelief if there are no rules and the good guy magically wins.

If you say, "but that's Disney Marvel, though", then perhaps that has something to do with the waning popularity!?

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Sure, but also Pym is dumbing down his explanations for Scott, because he thinks Scott is a moron. The exact functioning of Pym particles isn't at all clear.

It would be like if Superman could tear his S emblem off his chest and throw it at bad guys like a giant cellophane net. Or if Superman could fly fast enough to spin the Earth backwards and reverse time.

Or like if Hulk could be stopped by some crazy loud directional speakers.

Super powers and weaknesses are, and always have been, entirely plot dependent. Vision can phase because he can phase. The explanation that Vision can control his own density makes zero sense. That could make him float, but it wouldn't make him fly sideways, and it certainly wouldn't allow him to pass through solid matter. Air is not very dense, but it doesn't pass through solid stone. The physics of Starlord and Gamora in space make no sense. Groot makes no sense. Yondu's arrow makes no sense.

Ant-Man can shrink and punch a dude because he can shrink and punch a dude. The only problem is they tried to explain it like it's science.

[-] TomAwsm@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

All of these great examples, and we haven't even mentioned The Flash yet.

[-] orbitz@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

Sometimes there's nothing wrong with enjoying your favourite comic book characters on screen, like watching a live action cartoon. Comics don't make sense all the time, or cartoons, comic book movies don't have to either.

If that's not for you, than to each their own.

I'll also say I haven't enjoyed many DC / Marvel movies for awhile but not because they don't follow their rules. That's their secret... They have no rules.

Okay I may be wrong there but I don't know offhand one rule a comic story hasn't broken at a new point. I also don't read a ton of them but I know they change their mind a whole lot. Also physics goes out the window when you take into account many comic characters. Sure ant man said this, who says ant man was correct?

[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

There's a great comic panel where ant man is shrunk down to atomic size with another character. Molecules are floating by. He asks "Hey, how are we breathing anyway if we're the same size as the molecules". He answered, "don't worry about it" and continued the discussion.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gamoc@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

You're right, it's bad because the movie about a man that can shrink to the size of an ant is unrealistic, rather than because it was very badly written.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PineRune@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago

"I lost $100 million dollars making this movie. Coincidentally, I also paid myself $100 million to make this movie."

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 day ago

this only accounts for box office take. when you add in streaming, tv and other broadcast rights, home video, merchandising. they won't be 'losing money' on these two 'bombs'.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dumbass@leminal.space 16 points 1 day ago

Awww no, poor thing... Does Disney need a hug?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
183 points (94.2% liked)

movies

1603 readers
873 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS