Die Another Day Vs Harry Potter and percieved profitability by studios

Potter's budget is not $42 million.

I always thought that a studio got back about 55% of the gross box-office (domestically at least). I'm not sure about Bond, but Harry Potter has a world-wide appeal, so I'm sure the studio did not license away their foreign distribution rights. So if Harry Potter were to make 800 Million world-wide, the studio would get back over 400 Million. Plus the merchandising, DVDs, product placement (if any in Harry Potter; Bond is saturated) and the studio is looking at a hefty profit. I'm probably off with all of this, but this is how it was explained to me in Entertainment Law.

This analysis may not be accurate with franchises such as Harry Potter. I think this stuff is interesting, if only so I can figure out what a disaster Pluto Nash was.

Domestic boxoffice isnt the only thing, especially on a Bond film. It will most likely make more abroad overall than it does here, so say it has a 300-350 million worldwide gross. Now factor in video and dvd sales. And all other tie-ins and whatnot. Plus, like you said, the money that MGM gets from all of the advertisers. It will be profitable, otherwise they wouldn't keep raising the budget on them.

The way that I look at this is as follows:

Potter costs $100 million and $45 million for prints and advertising. We can all add.

Anyways, I cannot finish this equation until I see the FINAL domestic figures for Potter. Then I'll divide by 2 and whatever that number is, it'd better be close to $145 million dollars. Also, let's figure in the lucrative back-end deals made and who knows. Potter has to at least make $290 million DOMESTICALLY/Internationally before it'll even come close to making it's money back.

Potter will make back its money, plain and simple. I don't think it'll even reach the heights on the global take of the first (but will come close), domestically it might have a tough time reaching the $300 million area of the previous film, as the second week numbers show. A 52% drop off from your previous week spells BAD. Does it have enough life as the last one?

Die Another Day on the other hand works the same way. With it's $180 million (prod costs/prints&ads)it has to clear at least $360 domestically/Internationally. It don't think it has a shot. Then again, I'll come back and edit in Bond's Week two to see if it's drop off has sustained and it's numbers are showing promise. However, there is no way that Die Another Day will clear that $360 million domestically. No Way. Ever.

The funny thing thrown into all of these equations is DVD/VHS/DVHS/Whatever... And how much they make on the final take.

Everyone's got their hands in these Blockbuster pies and after they come out on DVD/VHS, it'd be really interesting to see how much the filmmakers/studios reaped from the profits and if they actually made their money back.

I'm still a little surprised that Potter dropped 52% from week one to week two (I was expecting around 30-40% drop off, which is adequate). Have audiences had enough?

It might; Bond's all about the worldwide market, and the last three have made close to two dollars overseas for every dollar here:

<a href="http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html" target="_blank">James Bond Films at the Boxoffice since 1962</a>

Also of interest is the fact that Fox distributes the Bond movies overseas because MGM has no apparatus for it. I don't know how much their take cuts into the gross, but it's probably pretty substantial.

Slightly OT, but is it true that New Line sold off the international distribution rights to LotR for a flat sum? I heard that sometime last year right after FotR came out....

Just so ye know, $40 million of "Die Another Day" came from product placement, not from the studio.

So, ironically, the product placement covers the advertising budget....

Overseas BO (50-75% of total) + DVD/VHS sales + Cable/TV sales + Merchandising + Product Placement = movies making a profit.

Oh, and Hugh Jackman would make a great Bond. Clive Owen is too thuggish for my taste.

Mick,

From what I understand most major studio films earn around 10% of their money at the domestic box-office. The rest comes from foreign box-office, video/DVD sales, TV rights, merchandising tie-ins, etc. Make no mistake about it, at a $47 million opening Bond is set to earn quite a bit of dough.

"The World is Not Enough" earned only around $126 million domestically so even if 'Die' falls short of $150 million it'll still be the most rofitable film of the franchise yet. Bond goes HUGE overseas, around three times its domestic takings, and is a BIG earner through video and luxury merchandise.

A film like "Deep Blue Sea" for example cost around a little over $100 million to make and market. Yet despite only earning $73 million at the domestic box-office its entire taking from all other ancilliaries incl. TV, video, foreign, etc. has ended up in approximately the $400-500 million range. Is that a flop? Hardly.

Of course that 10% ratio doesn't apply across the board but the bigger the film and the higher the opening the more accurate it is. The first 2-3 "Batman" movies may have made a little over half a billion at the boxoffice but have made Warners SEVERAL billion in terms of cash.

This is a big money business remember despite all the moaning about cutting costs.

Didn't you just mention him two posts back?

Anyway, no Oceanians for Bond. Not enough class. /kidding

If you use the formula that a movie will ultimately make 3 times it's opening week take then this new bond should make aroun $150 million domestically and $350 to $400 worlwide. Worldwide tv and dvd sales should at least equal that amount. This flick will be profitable and bond WILL be back.