If you believe Wikipedia has incorrect information and the budget of the film was actually $120 Million then I encourage you to find a source and edit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Web_(film)
You’re missing a few bits of knowledge that will help make sense of their comment:
BO numbers are the total takings, and of course the exhibitors take a cut of that. For a big tentpole it starts maybe a 70/30 split in favour of the distributor, but by the end of the run it will be much less. As a rough rule of thumb, we divide the box office by two to get roughly how much gets back to the studio.
When media and fans (and Wikipedia) quote a film’s “budget” they’re actually referring to the negative cost. This is the cost incurred in development, production and post-production, up to the point that the film exists in a full version ready for distribution (the negative). It does not include marketing and distribution costs (prints & advertising), such as posters, premieres, trailers, junkets, billboards, media campaigns, but also dubbing, subtitles and getting the files to the Theater (usually via costly satellite time). The rule of thumb for a major release is to say they spent at least the same again as the negative cost on P&A.
So if Madame Web had a budget around $100m, it cost the studio at least $200m. if it made $100m BO, then the studio got back $50m. So its a loss of around $150m.
Well, whatever metric you’re using isn’t what this article is using because the budget and box office earnings of Kraven on Wikipedia match. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraven_the_Hunter_(film%29 it doesn’t seem right to use a different metric just for Madame Web.
Wikipedia seems to imply Madame Web (which is indeed an early 2024 movie) made $500k.
No way. It made 100 million worldwide on an 80 million budget. Advertising would have been 40 to 80 million.
It lost at least 20 million.
If you believe Wikipedia has incorrect information and the budget of the film was actually $120 Million then I encourage you to find a source and edit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Web_(film)
You’re missing a few bits of knowledge that will help make sense of their comment:
BO numbers are the total takings, and of course the exhibitors take a cut of that. For a big tentpole it starts maybe a 70/30 split in favour of the distributor, but by the end of the run it will be much less. As a rough rule of thumb, we divide the box office by two to get roughly how much gets back to the studio.
When media and fans (and Wikipedia) quote a film’s “budget” they’re actually referring to the negative cost. This is the cost incurred in development, production and post-production, up to the point that the film exists in a full version ready for distribution (the negative). It does not include marketing and distribution costs (prints & advertising), such as posters, premieres, trailers, junkets, billboards, media campaigns, but also dubbing, subtitles and getting the files to the Theater (usually via costly satellite time). The rule of thumb for a major release is to say they spent at least the same again as the negative cost on P&A.
So if Madame Web had a budget around $100m, it cost the studio at least $200m. if it made $100m BO, then the studio got back $50m. So its a loss of around $150m.
Well, whatever metric you’re using isn’t what this article is using because the budget and box office earnings of Kraven on Wikipedia match. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraven_the_Hunter_(film%29 it doesn’t seem right to use a different metric just for Madame Web.
Again, those figures are the negative cost.
So you think they should include Madame Web in their list and use a different metric for it than the others? Or what?