Most of the films in the Best Picture race are still playing in theaters and still making money. Several of them are available on streaming, including Parasite most recently, but also Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, obviously Marriage Story and The Irishman, but also Joker.
A film that didn’t make the Best Picture cut is Knives Out, which sits at a whopping $146 million right now.
1917 opened small then exploded when it opened wide on January 10 and has made most of its money in the past few weeks. Likewise, Little Women is still going strong and probably will cross the $100 million mark soon. Can Parasite and Jojo Rabbit make more money with Oscar buzz to take them closer to $100 mil?
How are the Best Picture nominees doing box office-wise (domestically)? Here is the order:
- Joker — $334 million
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood — $141 million
- Ford v Ferrari — $113 million and counting
- Little Women — $86 million and counting
- 1917 — $81 million and counting
- Parasite — $28 million
- Jojo Rabbit — $23 million
- The Irishman — n/a
- Marriage Story — n/a
For what it’s worth. We’ll check back in next week.
The Joker stunning achievement is how a dark disturbing movie can draw so o many people it a game changer win or lose at the Oscars make no mistake really ought win few more Oscars at minimum than just acting
IT IS A COMIC BOOK MOVIE just like MCU
Pfft You obviously have no idea the huge difference between joker and mcu movies
Joker is crude moviemaking.
AMPAS is inching towards awarding a mega blockbuster but it won’t be this year. still, Joker scoring 11 noms is encouraging for the future. If WB’s Dune breaks out in a big way, it could be that movie. Based on a literally classic helped LOTR be taken more seriously than a blockbuster based on a comic book would be.
I think it is all down to profitability.
1. Joker takes the crown in this regard, no question about it. 1B on a 50M production budget so even if the marketing spend was massive, the film still turned several hundred million dollars of profit during its theatrical run.
2. Parasite cost 11M to produce and is already at roughly 150M worldwide and that before the Oscars where it could still get a big boost for all we know. Highly profitable theatrical run.
3. Little Women cost 40M to produce and probably around the same to market and is looking at 200M+ worldwide so it will be also in the green zone by the end of its theatrical run.
4. Jojo Rabbit may not have delivered big numbers and also doesn’t look like it could get more than 30M when all is said and done in the US even if it wins something, but it has just started its international rollout and on that front it is looking good. Cost 14M to produce, marketing spend didn’t seem to be a priority for Disney (they inherited the film after the Fox acquisition and were reportedly not that sold on its potential) so even its current worldwide take of 44M would be a decent finish but with many markets still to come, my guess would be a final number in the 60-80M range, maybe even more. Green zone.
5. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the tricky one here. 373M worldwide is an excellent number for a studio original however due to its price tag (90M + marketing) and talent deals (the Tarantino-DiCaprio-Pitt trio all get backend), its reported breakeven point was 400M. Close enough and will definitely turn profit when all is said and done (digital / dvd sales, tv rights, streaming rights etc.) but probably hasn’t yet.
6. 1917 is still a question mark. Same 90M price tag (+ marketing) so I can only assume the breakeven point is somewhere similar, probably a bit lower due to the lack of massive talent deals. I think it will need 350M to break even and will start turning profit after it reached that milestone. Could happen, looks good for now but it isn’t a guarantee.
7. We collectively gave a pass to Ford v Ferrari since delivering the numbers it did, especially in the US, was very impressive for a studio original. However the setup is essentially identical to OUATIH : 97M production budget (+ marketing) and probably massive talent deals for the two movie stars who headlined it. Long story short it would have needed at least 350M, probably closer to 400M to turn profit by the end of its theatrical run and it is looking at somewhere around 230M. Not a bad result at all. If not for the price tag.
8. Marriage Story should be probably higher up considering it seemed to be a big hit for Netflix (trended worldwide on Twitter for days after its debut, 130K IMDB votes that seems a lot for such a low-key drama with no flashy hook or angle) and only cost 18M to produce but that’s just it with unreported Box Office. We just don’t know if it was worth it for Netflix or not. Considering that 18M is basically their weekly toilet paper budget, I’m guessing they are happy with all the acclaim and attention it brought them.
9. The Irishman. Tale as old as time. 160M production budget. Unreported Box Office. In their defense, this was the only way this film was ever going to get made so who cares about turning profit. Netflix clearly didn’t, they ponied up for the prestige of working with a legend who delivered them a film with 10 Oscar nominations. I’m fairly certain that’s all they wanted in the first place anyway.
My two cents.
I’m wondering where you got the number 400M for OUATIH? It seems awfully high given that the average marketing budget for big tent pole movies is 65M in the US (last I read) so even if it was above that, say 100M, that would be 190M. Then I assume backend deals would be based on profit so I don’t understand how it would be more than 200-250M to break even. Do they consider that all movies are responsible for certain amounts of sunk costs (like paying the CEO and general costs of running a movie studio that don’t belong to individual movies?) or is there something else I’m missing? I’m not saying your wrong btw just that I don’t understand where that is coming from.
The Hollywood Reporter :
The movie cost $90 million to produce after tax incentives and rebates, making it the maverick filmmaker’s most expensive film to date (that doesn’t include marketing). By some estimates, it will have to gross $400 million worldwide to turn a profit after production, marketing and talent deals.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/once-a-time-hollywood-debut-doesnt-guarantee-a-happy-ending-1227512
Yes, you know your stuff. Ford v Ferrari is the only one from the nominees that we KNOW will not make its money back theatrically. There is no way that it will add another 150M because it has already been released everywhere (incl. China).
The last country it opened in was Japan. January 10th… and it is already out of their Top 10. Guess what is Currently #1 there? A little film called Parasite which also opened on January 10th.
it didn’t release in china yet and show me the books where it needs to make 400 millions to be a profit ? your “you know your stuff” is nonsense because you just want someone to agree with your wrongful notion. Go lick parasite if you want. your argument is based on wrong facts and pure hatred…go somewhere else with this non-sense
Hatred? Ford v Ferrari was a GOOD movie.
You honestly think that at 216M the movie is making profit? I wish it was, because we need them adult big budget films too. They are mostly gone.
i am factually true that this movie is making profit. The movie already sold its international rights for the movie. You dont know the economics of business and are just talking out of your ass
Okay so 400M is a high estimate to be fair, just reading into it estimates vary from 250M to 400M with the 400M is the estimate that says everyone will agree it absolutely will have made money by this value but it probably will have made money before this… So it has very likely already broken even (especially considering many estimates put it as low as 250M). These are all highly speculative because the studio doesn’t actually release what the deals are and what the actual marketing budget is. It’s funny I can’t even figure out how people are making these predictions – part of me wonders whether they are solely intuition… I wish there was more information about this stuff!
It does really annoy me how magazines just write by some estimates x may be true without any discussion of who made the estimates or how! Then everyone copies that article and the headlines go from well it might be x to it is x.
But at the same time they are not really speculating all that much. They know the production budget, they can ballpark the marketing spend and the talent deals rather accurately based on precedent and that’s about all they need to have a ballpark number for breakeven point. Look, I’m not saying OUATIH isn’t a successful film because it is, I’m saying the perception of its success is slightly inaccurate.
So I’m not arguing specifically about OUATIH (it is just the one you gave a number for) and whether it is successful I’m just warning that I don’t think they can ballpark that as accurately as you think they can… And if they can I’d want to see the data they used before I believed them.
I think she had the 90M for production budget, ballparked the marketing spend at 70M (plus-minus 10); added the two together; and applied that age-old industry method of multiplying the number of total costs with 2.5 for breakeven point since the rest goes to the cinemas and local distributors. And that number is exactly 400M.
Where did you see the 250M number ? Because that sounds highly unrealistic to me. No studio film with a 90M production budget + marketing spend enough to support a worldwide release, would ever break even at 250M.
Article in vulture “Due to prints and advertising costs, the film needs to hit about $250 million to break even.” I don’t know how accurate that is but I don’t think I’m any less confident in it than THR given that neither state any methods or where the numbers came from. In general there are lots of articles stating lots of different numbers indicating to me that nobody actually has any clue.
Why does it seem unrealistic though? The only thing I know is that there was a study a few years ago showing the average marketing spend for a tent pole was 65M so I would’ve thought add 100M on to the budget and that must be close to the breaking even point… Back end pay is generally related to profits after breaking even so that shouldn’t change things much… But all of that is highly speculative because we really know nothing.
I think the discrepancy here is the estimate for the marketing spend. I highly doubt Sony only spent 65M, taking it to Cannes with all the stars and private soirees alone had to be low 8 figures, then the cast went on a month(s)-long worldwide tour on several continents and all that before print and tv. The marketing push was more similar to what a superhero film gets than any studio original. That’s why I think PR costs were closer to 80-90M and Pamela McClintock (THR), an established BO expert, probably knew that. So if she says 400M, I believe her.
But her post didn’t even say that she came up with that number just that generically “some estimates ” put it that high. It definitely reads like these are the highest estimates and some are lower… It definitely doesn’t read like “the breaking even point is 400M”. And yes she is established and has been around a while but that doesn’t necessarily mean she or anyone else can accurately calculate this. I would say it is probably very innacurate – it would be hard even for the studio with all the data to do it let alone someone without it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the accuracy of these sorts of estimates is more than pm 100M. I dunno, until I see some sort of data or someone saying how they do that analysis (I see you gave an explanation below but I have seen nothing to back up whether that actually works and how accurately it works) I will choose to ignore those sorts of estimates because they seem to be relatively flimsy speculation. Though I tend to not care too much about box office anyway, I’d rather measure quality and reaction. If I think too hard about box office it makes me sad because I’d have to consider transformers and other films like it in the higher conversation.
One final thought the reason why box office can be more useful than profitability is it shows (inaccurately and indirectly but still) how many people have seen the movie. That is useful for discussing how the films fit into culture at large… I don’t really care if some big company made a bunch of money but I do care how people are reacting to a piece of art I like.
To be honest in this context I only care about BO in terms of profitability simply because I’ve seen way too many excellent films get the cold shoulder from awards voters after failing to turn profit. It happened with Ad Astra this season, First Man last year and the list goes on. The numbers these films delivered weren’t horrible but they were underwhelming once their price tag was factored in. That’s why I’m not a big fan of giving certain films passes in this department because I am painfully aware how quickly others get written off just as easily.
So if you care about it in that context (and that makes a lot of sense though it tends to matter more for nominations than for wins) it isn’t actually the profitability that is important but the impression of profitability. For example as you state Ford v Ferrari probably isn’t a massive success but it definitely has the impression of being a massive success which really did help it finally landing the picture nomination (even if it did ultimately underperform slightly)
Exactly. Ford v Ferrari is a film that I genuinely loved and I was happy to see it exceed expectations in the US on its opening weekend but the fact remains that it failed to deliver the legs and international grosses it needed for a profitable theatrical run. BUT for all intents and purposes, it is deemed a hit, the industry headlines everywhere about its BO were all overwhelmingly positive.
And that would be fine if the other side of the coin wouldn’t be the fact that in 2019 some of the most profitable standalone films (low-to-midrange budget / 100M+ domestic earners), were films headlined not only by women but women of colour (Constance Wu, Jennifer Lopez, Lupita Nyong’O, Ana de Armas) accompanied by the first Irish actress to headline what is bound to be also a 100M+ domestic earner (Saoirse Ronan).
And yet the year-end headlines and think pieces were all about how OUATIH, Ford v Ferrari and 1917 saved studio originals even though none of the three are nearly as profitable as Hustlers, Us, Knives Out and the unoriginal but similarly standalone studio film, Little Women.
I don’t want credit given when it isn’t earned but I find it problematic that for men it is given even when it isn’t really earned yet and women can barely get it even when they had already more than earned it.
Oh, yeah we can disagree about how profitable certain films are and the accuracy of various numbers but yeah comparatively there I have to completely agree. It is unfortunate that so often box office is more about perception than reality… But it is the fact that male driven films tend to get given the big budgets and big pushes which, regardless of how relatively successful they are tends to lead to big box office numbers meaning unfortunately the very successful female driven films don’t get the same headlines… Hopefully that will change in the future but unfortunately we aren’t there yet.
I may have misunderstood the reason for your post. I thought you were talking from the perspective of here is how films did and that impacts the race. I get now that the point you were making was in fact the opposite of that. I completely agree that if you are going to elevate films based on their box office you should definitely be fair given their budgets and profitability! Even if I do still believe it is hard to know for sure how profitable different films are.
At an average of 60% box office retention (no China release and most of the money was made in markets where studios are favored by a high cut of receipts, but even then it might be high to go at 60, but let’s go with that), we’re looking at just under 230 million back. Which, assuming a total net spend of under 200 million (marketing will have been high, but it’s not a 200 million level production), means a healthy profit after the theatrical run.
Though one spanner in the works could be Tarantino’s participation deal. He is known for his first dollar gross participation and, considering that OUATIH was auctioned off to studios and Sony won cause they literally dropped trou and took all his conditions, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re talking a 20% first dollar participation. In which case… Yeah, the movie’s in the red post theatrical.
It’s hard to know 100% without another leak/hack and even then there is a lot of creative accounting going around in Hollywood. Unless we’re talking massive hits or obvious bombs, it’s difficult to tell for sure how profitable most movies actually are.
For Once, that’s an insanely high break even point for profitability. Wasn’t Tarantino’s secret weapon in his career keeping budgets low and profits high. Wasn’t Hateful the only one to really LOSE money in his portfolio?
Pamela McClintock (THR Box Office expert) clearly knows some things about this that we don’t.
Difference between marketing costs of Sony vs Disney is that…Disney already has a marketing machine set up for their BIG movies…its like building a rail track. You dont need to spend money on building tracks for every train after you laid it first. Same with their movies. So I can bet that the marketing costs for ford v ferrari is much less than once upon. Sony has not taken movies to cannes or lauched an international campaign like it did for once upon. So I am pretty sure once upon break even could be 350-400 but ford v ferrari will be much less.
Worldwide (according to BOM):
1. Joker – 1.069B
2. Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood – 373M
3. Ford v Ferrari – 216M
4. 1917 – 143M
5. Parasite – 140M
6. Little Women – 131M
7. Jojo Rabbit – 44M
These are not very up to date though. For example in Japan Parasite has made 6M (it was #1 movie there yesterday), but at BOM it is still at 2M. We go with what we have.
The real impact…
Joker, 1917, Parasite, overperformed.
Little Women, Once upon a Time… in Hollywood are having the accurate b.o. that they probably expected
Jojo Rabbit, Ford v Ferrari are probably underperforming for the expectations by some… I do not think so.
Irishman and Marriage Story… well, who knows.
I think Jojo is saving face worldwide and Little Women over performed. I mean when was the last time a film about women based on a classic, oft-adapted novel made 100M in the US ?
umm…previous version of little women adjusted to inflation ? little women is a brand IP…its not an original movie.
I feel like Little Women is probably at least a bit of an overperformance; this sort of female-centric classic lit adaptation hasn’t been a projected $100 million domestic success in a while.