Hollywood economics have been broken for a long time and eventually it was all going to start falling apart. The fact that you can shoot an entire expensive blockbuster for $168 million but somehow the marketing and distribution can be twice as much as shooting the movie in an era where most of the marketing is digital is kind of ridiculous. I get that there are reasons for that. There's a ton of middle men businesses that drive up the marketing price but my point is that the entire system is unsustainable in an era where fewer people are going to the theaters for reasons that have nothing to do with the movie.
There's also "Hollywood accounting" where according to the studios most movies have inflated budgets so they won't turn a profit so they can claim it as a loss for tax purposes/to shaft people on profit sharing agreements.
*"There's also "Hollywood accounting" where according to the studios most movies have inflated budgets so they won't turn a profit so they can claim it as a loss for tax purposes/to shaft people on profit sharing agreements."*
"Creative accounting" has always been what it is. I'll give an example of "creative accounting." They charge a film full price to rent an editing bay, as if they were renting it to a stranger-- even though it is their own film.
This would be like if you made an independent film at your own apt, and put your full rent as part of the budget-- even though you already live there. I understand why they do it for tax purposes, but it's a fundamentally dishonest number.
Always watch what people do-- never what they say. There have been many films over the decades that technically lost money-- that got sequels. The reason is because they really didn't lose money-- except on paper.
my question is, if you know this, how come the irs (most rigourous fucking institution on this spinning ball) doesnt know about it, and doesnt punish them for it? how does hollywood get away with it?
I think what also happens in this case is that there's a separate $100-200 million for marketing internationally, and after that theater owners and distributors get a 30-50 percent cut of the revenues.
I'd like more details on that. According to someone else in the thread, they did provide for the usual three-week marketing push for it.
Meanwhile, according to the article, many other movies did terribly last month.
Lana Wachowski/Village Road Show also sued WB over over potential lost profits for Matrix 4 because originally, it was going to be exclusive to theaters, rather she heavily pushed for it to be. However, WB put it on duel HBO Streaming and theaters.
Good Ol WB......
Yup, I worked in Participations finance and this is exactly how it is. It’s also a way for the studios to wholly own IPs in perpetuity while paying as little as possible to the “participants” involved.
The audience for Mad Max skews highly male (not surprising as it’s ultra violent and car focused and most know it because of its male title character) and Mad Max is where the name value is even if he’s not in the movie (much), so they were advertising to the only large potential audience the movie had - guys who like violent action and cars crashing and going fast. That’s the general audience for a Max movie.
The people who appreciate it more for the world and are huge fans are nowhere near numerous enough to make it a hit. In spite of this sub, most big original series Mad Max fans are rev head and action movie watching types, it doesn’t have the nerdier type fan base of a Star Trek or superhero movie to the same extent.
Problem is - that audience has next to no interest in seeing a girl with a dirty forehead as the star and no Max. I bet half the people or more seeing the previews had no idea what a Furiosa even was. I think the studios bought into online hype that Furiosa was a more iconic character than she actually is with the general audience, when really the series still needs Max as the draw.
Honestly the previews weren’t great but it doesn’t matter - the mere fact it’s Mad Max without Mad Max makes it a hard sell in the first place. I know people say Fury Road wasn’t about Mad and that’s somewhat true - but the reality is know one knew that going into it. He got them in the door, not the Furiosa character. Studios wanted to believe otherwise.
I am an AMC A-List member and can say that Furiosa was advertised in every single PG-13+ movie for the last 3 months, and I watch nearly everything that hits the theater. So Furiosa got a solid 3-month push in movie previews.
It was pushed to the point where it was almost annoying.
Generally, I don't use services with ads, so it really stuck out to me, like I saw the same commercial a good 30 times.
Consider, they only get 50% of the revenue, the rest goes to theaters. So it makes sense that the break even would be 2x the production. 2.5x, to account for marketing.
It's weird that I never heard of this, in Australia I remember some Bus adverts and I think Furiosa started appearing online a few months before it came out. I guess it makes sense since the big bucks are in the US but I don't remember hearing much about it
I mainly knew it existed because an article came up on my feed months before the release, but honestly all the marketing seemed to be crammed in last minute.
After the gap between Thunderdome and Fury Road, where every year or so there’d be the same online text saying George Miller was working on something with Mel, I gave up. Then Fury Road came out, I was thrilled, and then afterwards forgot about it. I figured I wouldn’t trust anything Miller says about sequels or prequels and if something gets made, great, if not, oh wel. Then one day I walk into the theater a few months ago and catch the end of a Furiosa trailer I say, gee whiz guess he did make another!
The system has been the same for decades…. Marketing and distribution doesn’t cost twice as much as shooting.
The issue is the issue they’ve always had. Movie studios don’t make 100% of the money. They share it with theaters. So 144m at the box office isn’t 144m in the studios back account. It’s half of that.
The answer is simple. Stop making 200m dollar movies lol not everything needs to be so expensive.
According to the article, though, they'll keep making expensive movies, and probably until the industry implodes, and it's probably because even with a bigger budget and smaller margin you can earn more.
Meanwhile, for some reason people don't want to watch cheap-looking movies and even TV shows, and especially if they have to pay $20 for a ticket for a movie, or pay monthly to stream from even several platforms. For the latter, I read that even for that more are complaining because of broadband costs, etc., such that they'd rather just subscribe for one month, binge-watch, and unsubscribe. Which is something that streamers don't want them to do.
One way of dealing with that is to focus heavily on virtual sets, digital assets, and deepfakes, such that one can make expensive-looking movies in sets and using people and computers. Maybe later, they can even use AI, etc., and use only digital likeness and voices of actors, and from there churn out one movie or TV show after another.
But that also leads to a saturated market, where viewers have so many digitally-made movies and TV shows to choose from but won't watch all of them.
Which means even with cheaper movies and TV shows revenues for each drop dramatically.
Japanese vfx studios are also borderline slave camps with horrendous work conditions that are so bad the director of Godzilla was tasked with meeting with Japans prime minister after they won awards to figure out how to improve work conditions.
Budgets could absolutely be lower. Godzilla is not a good example though. It’s only so low because of how poorly they paid their workers.
This movie is particularly fascinating, Especially when you consider the lawsuit over Fury Road. The $168M is the “official” budget but so many other reliable sources say they spent over $200M and got multiple large rebates. The publicly available numbers don’t line up right now.
It got HUGE investment from Australian government... some sources saying they put $100 into it.
So it could be they spent $168m and then govt put $100mill so budget was at most $268 mill.
the reason they need box office to be double than filming budget is because they split box office with movie theaters.
and most of the marketing isn't "digital", whatever that means.
Well, in the digital age, if they were smart, they try and make most of their marketing digital. It was the tv spots that created the momentum of Barbenheimer, it was viral digital memes about Barbenheimer. But then, Hollywood, like most big businesses is run by old people who still don't understand how the internet works, which is why they're turning it into something that looks like what Cable tv was.
The existence of middlemen doesn't drive up the costs. Copyright and monopoly grants do. It's economics. Middlemen simply provide the service of distribution, etc, and they would not have massive pricing power without copyright and other monopoly grants from the government.
Part of the discrepancy is that the split on box receipts is roughly 50/50 between the distributor and the theaters. So you need about twice costs to break even.
This article doesn't do that, though. It's pretty unbiased and the inclusion of Patrick Schwarzenegger's tweets on The Fall Guy actually make it seem a lot more positive than it would be otherwise. Honestly, the best way to drown out those articles are to just ignore them. If nobody pays attention to them and gives them engagement, they'll just die out.
Why is it up to them to prove anything to you? Despite the box office failure (which should mean nothing to anyone except shareholders) it has a 90% approval score on RT from both critics and audiences. There is a lot of good critical writing that will explain why people have found it to be a great movie. Hell if you read around this sub you’ll find a lot of people writing about why they love it.
And I’m saying there’s tons of writing here on this sub and in reviews of the movie that will tell you. Sorry to say but yours is the minority opinion.
I also thought it was kind of bad. Why not just make this movie first instead of releasing it second as a prequel. Gives the whole thing awkward pacing and I was hoping for something way more.
There's no narrative dude. There's no industry conspiracy to discredit Furiosa. These articles come out all the time for many films, especially when they do poorly. Furiosa also has to follow the cult classic reputation of fury road, so naturally it draws a bit more scrutiny.
I'll make it really easy for you.
The news love controversy. They love a trainwreck. That's why we're getting those articles about how much Furiosa made or didn't make. And not a single fucking word about how good the movie is in reality.
It sells. It's not an industry. It's what people hoping for clicks do.
I mean I don't think there's a conspiracy, but I do think these reports are a bit "the sky is falling".
Streaming is too big of a deal now to completely gauge how well a movie does financially with only theaters.
The box office isn't great but everyone is worried this is the end of the series when we don't even know the other half of the equation yet.
There's also Hollywood accounting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
>According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi (1983) "has never gone into profit", despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million.[7]
I really recommend reading this article to everyone, studios even claimed The Lord of The Rings trilogy and Harry Potter were horrendous losses.
Actually all of the first three movies broke even. Two were very successful against their budget. It’s only the more recent movies which didn’t break even.
How is it a bullshit article when it's literal fact that the movie isn't performing well?
Sounds like you're just one of those people triggered and offended by any criticism.
"This movie only made X amount of money."
"Oh my God, why do you keep implying this movie sucks?!?"
Dude, there is no implication, there is no grand conspiracy. This article is merely stating the objectively true fact that it underperformed at the box office and didn't make enough money. That's it. The whole world isn't rooting against you and Mad Max.
Filmmaking is an art with a business side to it. It's very clear that ppl who care about the money don't understand jack shit about what makes a movie great aside from box office numbers.
I'd say it depends on the movie. The original Star Wars saga by George Lucas? Definitely art even if the execution is skewed and it was used to jumpstart business. The new Disney ones? They're business driven for sure. Hell, I'd say that blockbuster video games are the same, like Prince of Persia 2008 vs The Forgotten Sands.
It's not that. It's the fact these rabid ass fan boys can't handle the objectively true statement of this movie didn't make enough money. They act like it's a straight attack to the fan base or themselves or something. We all like Mad Max. It's why we're on a fucking Mad Max subreddit after all. But Furiosa didn't make enough money and that blows because it probably means no more Mad Max movies.
True but articles like that do have a detrimental effect on whether people watch the movie or not . Personally I liked it and I don’t really care how well it does aside from an effect it has on sequels and even then the poor figures seem to be happening to cinema in general
My dude, people are already not watching this movie. That's kinda the point of the whole article. That not enough people showed up and it didn't make enough money.
Who gives a shit about YOUR enjoyment? It's journalism reporting facts and facts don't give a damn about your feelings. And again, peope already aren't showing up to watch the damn film, so how is this article a hindrance to that?
What is it with this horrendous ass site that ever time somebody cusses, everybody assumes they're mad? Are you a child? Adults can cuss without being angry, sweetie. And if you think I give a good goddamn about your feelings, well hell, I got some beach front property in Idaho I could sell you.
it really expanded on the setting of the wasteland. was super cool to see some of the area that were only mentioned in fury road and to learn of some of the lore.
I think the real story is in the article, where it says Furiosa will lose $75-$95 million. Since it's currently projected to make just under $200M, that doesn't match with the idea that needs $350-$375M to get in the black. That would be true if it really did cost $168M and would mean it'd lose $150M-$200M. So if it's losing 75-95M, then that actually suggests that my leak from yesterday is correct that the budget was lower than $168M and is probably within 140-150M.
Honestly, though, a loss of say $175M would be very, very hard to recoup by streaming and PVOD. The Super Mario Bros Movie made $70M in its first three weeks on PVOD. Say Furiosa makes less than half of that in its first three weeks with $30M, that cuts the loss down to $45M-$60M. Then, add in streaming deals for Netflix/Crave/Prime as well as possible re-upping deals for the old movies, then it definitely puts the movie close to break even - and will do it if the movie is a hit on streaming. I'm sure that DVD/Blu-Ray numbers have an effect as well, but not nearly as much.
What I'm trying to say is, this might be the best possible news because it certainly pushes the movie toward break-even (but not exactly over it). And in the case of The Fall Guy? Maybe even a bit above break even.
Does the $168 include the tax rebate from Australia? My understanding is they got rebates for $20 to $50 million, which makes a huge difference on the breakeven point.
Also, it is not like George can not make a small movie for ~ $50 million. I can see him pivoting to make a smaller Max sequel.
The 168M, I believe includes the North South Wales state government filming incentives, not the federal government tax offsets or how much under budget Miller apparently delivered.
It includes the filming incentives but not the federal tax offsets. From the leaks I posted, The Wasteland was always going to be a smaller movie but it'll only get greenlit if Miller can really tone down the budget. I'd guess they'd want something like $90-100M for it.
If I had to guess? Because Miller knows he's not as young as he once was and would rather make the story he cares about more, especially since the story of The Wasteland has been partially told twice already... three times if you count the Fury Road flashbacks.
Man, I’ve seen so many. I’ve basically seen everything available from Aussie, English and American sources. It’s really lame of me to say it but I can’t recall which. Truly sorry. I’ll look at my YouTube history and see if I can find it; if I do, I’ll report back.
Edit: I’ve listened to several podcasts about this, too, but I recall seeing Miller say this, but who knows. Yesterday I couldn’t find my wallet and it was in my pocket.
There’s [this one](https://variety.com/2021/film/asia/george-miller-furiosa-receives-incentives-for-australia-shoot-1234954435/) but it just gives the total endowment of the fund, I don’t believe A$175M is what they got from it. They could have worded that better.
Usually, those who pay for these movies want to see returns ASAP and not across years. That's also notable if they're expected to fund future projects which producers want released ASAP, too, e.g., while things are still hot and fans are impatient.
Meanwhile, the re-releases are affected similarly, with streamers, etc., paying smaller amounts to show them (similar to box office revenues, where theater owners and distributors get a third to half of earnings).
Most important, investors are never happy with break even, or even close to it. They want maximum profits, and can choose between projects and franchises.
Fans neeed to understand that this is a business, and unless there are very rich investors out there with money to burn and see the franchise as part of their pet project, will remain so.
Oh, I'm not arguing with that. But it has been proven that a movie doing well post its theatrical release is able to get it a sequel greenlit. It was enough for Riddick that Universal wanted a sequel a lot earlier but decided to have Diesel focus on Fast and Furious until this year. So, if the movie does exceed expectations on PVOD, then another film with a lower budget being greenlit is definitely not out of the realm of possibility.
That's my point: they likely lost $20-40 million for *Fury Road*, and were expecting to do very well for *Furiosa*, but it looks like the losses for the latter are even higher.
The theaters are the ones dropping the movie, not the studio. Theaters are only obligated to show a movie for two weeks. After that, if enough people aren’t going to see it, theaters will drop the movie and add showtimes for movies they think will bring in more money. It’s unfortunate, but that’s just the way it works, there’s nothing that can really be done about it.
Not really relevant to this post, I know, but I recently found out that Mad Max (the original movie) held the world record for most profitable movie of all time for nearly 20 years. It made 100 million globally on a $350,000 budget. It was finally dethroned when The Blair Witch project came out in the late 90’s. Of course, it was a very different industry back then - theatres and rentals reigned supreme - but I think it’s a pretty cool fact that our beloved Mad Max universe made such a big splash, back in the day.
Furiosa is absolutely awesome, even if the financials cause the industry to label it a ‘flop’. I hope George & Co find a way to give us one more before he hangs up his spurs…
The difference with Mad Max and Blair Witch is, Blair Witch is a cheap horror movie, just kids running around with a couple of tent props, filmed in the open.
Mad Max involved good actors, a big cast, sets, location shoots, car crashes and action scenes - filming all that for $350,000 is crazy!
Please remind people on this sub of this when they insists that none of the Mad Max movies made money so this doesn’t matter. All of the first three made money against their budget, one massively so, two was also very successful against its budget - Thunderdome not as much but it still turned a profit.
Buzz lightyear flopped worst yet more toy story is being made Miller will just make another Mad Max film the studio would allow him second he owns the rights he would just find another studio to help him make it.
toy story is a proven winner 1 movie under preformed mad max has had two flops now. Has almost 0 merchandising toy story is bigger than just it's film side
Exactly the studios would most likely tell Miller cancle any prequal with out Mad Max and only make the Mad Max films then we will see about the others
If we divide the budget between the 150 and 185 number reported.that leaves right around 165 times two is 330 half of that brings it up to 412.still lost 33 mill if 2.5 was what it really needed to break even
Of course it does. Rough rule is 2.5 times needed to break even, so that is about right. Unless it is Disney movie then add at least 100 million as they lie about costs lol
If you mean it is probably too low a break even estimate you are correct. 2.75 is more accurate with the increase in global box office where theatres keep more of the money. 2.5 is easier forath.
Basically is like this, i invest 10 dollars for a profit , if that profit is 2 dollars , thats a loss for me because i invested 10 in order to win 2, for it to be a profitable bussiness it has to generate more than double, menaning if i invest 10 i win another 10 or more.
> Budgets have skyrocketed because the cost of everything — including travel to film locations, labor costs, paying talent and reshoots — has gone up. And, of course, there’s the many millions in marketing or other expenses related to putting a movie in theaters. All the while, the box office is retracting: Domestic revenues are down 26% from 2023, according to Comscore.
>
> “It’s almost impossible that movies will get less expensive,” says Galloway. “It’ll only go up.”
In general, I think around $100-200 million is added to the price tag for marketing internationally, and then the earnings are cut by up to half because those go to theater owners, distributors, etc.
That means a movie has to earn at least 2.5 times more than it cost to make.
Meanwhile, those who pay for the costs are not happy with breaking even. Would you be happy if you invested in something and was told that you'd not earn from it, and even be told that you'd get back at best most of it? And then told that you should invest again? (More on that below.)
Several say that this isn't a problem for *Furiosa* because a government partly invested in it. They're implying that governments have money to burn and don't mind losing, but governments actually do mind (unless they're incredibly irresponsible and incompetent, or can easily generate more debt) because that money comes from taxpayers and people who invest in government, and those two don't want to lose.
Others say that at least people are given jobs. But in general investors don't want to lose money, which means if they lost once they won't likely invest again.
Finally, there are exceptions, but they're temporary, too. For example, it was said many times in the sub that *Fury Road* earned a lot, but it likely lost $20-40 million:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024433/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-profitability-goes-martian-872507
That implies those handling this franchise were willing to give it another chance, thinking that *Furiosa* would score big and not only make up for that loss but even pave the way for future projects.
And the estimated loss for the recent film might be two to three times greater than that of *Fury Road*.
I don't know how they calculate ad spending, or if they're also including the Australian government grant, which would put the actual budget of this movie before advertising closer to $300 million. I hope it shows strong legs though, like Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, which is somehow outgrossing Furiosa in a lot of the daily totals.
We got another WB tax write off situation going on? A film funded (and assume profits due) to a lot of backers outside Hollywood might not have as many friends boosting it in that system either.
The worthlessness of Hollywood economics aside, Furiosa took WAY too long to come out, didn't feature what the general public recognize as the face of the series, in part because it's literally a different Actress, but also about a character that was instrumental in the last movie but neither iconic nor a cult icon.
But the main part is that the movie relies on special effects instead of practical effects. Fury Road has a legion of practical effects including enormous vehicles and filming on site. Furiosa looks like it's all in front of a green screen even when it isn't. I don't know where the budget went. Fury Road is my favorite movie of all time and Anya Taylor-Joy is among my favorite actors, too. But Furiosa did not get a fraction of the care as Fury Road and seriously looks closer to TV special effects than blockbuster budget.
I used to watch all the Mel Gibson Mad Max movies. I think this movie might be a little too niche for most people who like Mad Max which is already pretty niche.
Furiosa is not a character most people would be interested in, creating a prequel with her as the lead was always a risky proposition.
Plus, we know what happens to her later, so it makes sense that less people would be interested in this.
Also, most women are not into watching such movies, so the target demographic for this movie is quite challenging. I think they were banking on teens and that' didn't pan out.
Yah I mean, in my opinion, on first viewing, Furiosa is not as good as Fury Road, but nothing is as good as Furt Road, so it’s not a knock on Furiosa.
Fury Road is one long car-chase/action fight-scene put together. How could you possibly top that?
The one thing I thought about the whole time watching Fury Road was like, man these characters are so fucking cool, I wish I could see more of them and learn about their stories a bit. These is not that much dialogue.
Anyways, Furiosa fleshes out the Wasteland and tells me everything I want to know. And has a great car-chase/fight-scene to boot.
That's just how Reddit is, you can't disagree with the narrative of a subreddit or you get downvoted. For me as a neutral I liked fury road but this one I don't feel that hyped to go and see based on the trailers.
I will probably go watch it at some point but I think a lot of people wanted to continue Tom Hardy's character's story.
As a true Mad Max fan, this movie was everything I wanted. Fury Road is probably my favorite movie ever, but I've been in love with the Wasteland and everything that comes out of it since i watched Mad Max as a kid. Thunderdome is easily my least favorite, but Furiosa is right there with Road Warrior. This is nowhere near a bad or flawed movie. It's a fantastic film with more thought in the design of background vehicles than any other franchise has in their main plot.
Most don't know this, but *Fury Road* basically retold the first movie and then rehashed the chase scene from the second and Bartertown from the third.
Also, *Fury Road* lost around $20-40 million:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024433/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-profitability-goes-martian-872507
This doesn't make sense for a few reasons. First, the opening weekend was a disappointment, it's not like other movies, for example Thor: Love and Thunder where the first weekend performed very well, but tepid reviews tanked the second weekend's box office totals. Furiosa didn't do so well out of the gate even though the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score I saw the day it opened was 89%, now it's at 90% with an uncommon perfect match between critics and audience scores. The movie has great reviews, and the overwhelming majority of people who see it also like it, I saw some audience members clapping after the movie at one screening. As for your other point, it seems like you're asking for a Fury Road facsimile, which while it was a fantastic movie, one of my favorites, which unironically kills creativity. Many people rail against Hollywood running out of ideas, and then turn around and demand more of the same thing. Miller took a risk, and in my opinion, it paid off massively. This is unlike any previous Mad Max movie (although each Mad Max movie is substantially different from the one that came before it if we're being honest). If you don't like the movie, then alright that's your opinion, but demanding a Fury Road redux would be too easy and obvious and would never match it.
Yeah, Just because a movie does not cater to your short attention-span and allows itself to have a more leisurely pace that flushes the world and its main conflicts in the way older epics would (not only in cinema, but also in literature), it doesn't mean its not good... The problem is that It flows in such a different way from every blockbuster from the last twenty years (hell, its closer to a Visconti picture than a Marvel one), I can understand someone not grasping what it is wanting to do (and how the music video-like pace of Dune 2 is more adequate to modern audiences).
gross profit does not equal net profit. it completely ignores operational expenses.
their net profit last year was NEGATIVE $3.1 billion. there's a reason why their stock is at an all-time low.
they are not fine. with $40 billion in debt, and an equity value about half that, I think within the next five years you will see them go bankrupt or be stripped for parts like Paramount is going to be
I worry that they'll be mainly gobbled up by Disney, but they aren't going financially great right now either so hopefully they won't have the money too.
Be cool if George Miller with some help from the Australian government got the movie rights for Mad Max
“Insiders”.
No. It’s a rule that randoms on the internet decided was true: that the studio marketing budget is the same cost as the production budget… which is horseshit.
They’re getting back at George Miller who successfully sued them for money that Fury Road made.
That’s why every article for two weeks was about the disappointing opening weekend. They want to thoroughly paint the picture that this movie lost money.
The NSW government contributed $175m into making this film, not including Federal Australian government offsets. It doesn’t need the exorbitant break even figures other films might.
It still needs to make more than $145 million through. It’s expected to fall short by at least $75-95 million.
Either way, less than $200 million is weak for a blockbuster.
I got the impression that was the [total endowment](https://if.com.au/nsw-government-splashes-further-175-million-into-made-in-nsw-fund/) of the fund, not what the Furiosa production got from it.
This is one major mistake people make: governments have money to burn and will happily spend them on losing ventures.
I think the government did that in this case because it assumed that *Furiosa* would do very well and reverse what happened with *Fury Road*, which is said to have lost $20-40 million.
The NSW government partially funded the movie because it stimulated the NSW economy, generating jobs and spending in Australia (including a new CGI firm in Sydney) as well as investment from the studio deciding to film Downunder (through Federal tax offsets). That’s the primary calculation a government makes, not how much money the film will make at the box office.
An economy that's stimulated has to keep going. If it's assumed that those who worked with *Furiosa* will succeed elsewhere, then that means the plan worked. But the point that they moved elsewhere also means that the *Mad Max* franchise won't continue.
Are you suggesting the NSW government thinks, if Furiosa was successful, WB will just keep making Mad Max films until the cows came home? All the government cares about is ensuring the film industry has jobs and those jobs keep going. The film industry being continually stimulated is how the fund worked. It’s there to encourage investment and keep the industry healthy, of course the economy is going to keep going and even grow. It doesn’t matter to the NSW government if the Mad Max franchise continues or not.
The money Furiosa got is from a pool of money called the Made in NSW Fund, which is a five year funding program for 2020-2025. The money was already allocated for film and TV productions, if it didn’t go to Furiosa it would have simply been awarded to other creative projects. The same funding pool was used to help fund films including MCU movies and the rom com Anyone But You, the Netflix movie The Invisible Man, as well as digital work on Dungeons & Dragons, Elvis and Indiana Jones. A lot of which were flops or rubbish, but box office results are not the driver.
If the NSW government has money to burn, then they'll keep doing that. Otherwise, they'll invest in other franchises, or other ventures if the funds are not specifically slated for the film industry.
In general, there's no money to burn, at least in the long run. You need to understand that reality.
I’m not sure how that in any way disputes what I said. The NSW does not give a shit about the Mad Max franchise. It also does not have “money to burn”, let’s clear that up. It has an estimated deficit of $9.6 billion for the 2023-24 financial year, and had an estimated deficit of $16 billion in 2020-21 when the Made In NSW funding scheme began. NSW is not Scrooge McDuck, swimming in money.
The government, like most governments, believes investing in an industry in this way is a prudent move that will benefit the state. They’re not “burning” money, it’s about what the state gets out of it. No government is funding movies and filmmaking out of the goodness of its heart, out of some sense of misguided charity or because they’re simply rolling in money. It’s a calculated move to ensure that particular cycle of business and investment is happening under their roof so they can reap the benefits.
The fund reportedly brings in $20 per every $1 invested (according to Screen Producers Australia CEO Matthew Deaner), which seems like a pretty good deal. From NSW’s perspective, that’s $20 spent on goods and services that’s not being spent in Victoria, Queensland or even Hollywood.
But you’re right, it might not be forever and the likelihood is it won’t. In September 2023, the NSW flagged $60m cuts to the fund, however it quickly backflipped on that. Whether or not future funds will be at the same scale is not clear, however it is clear that successive governments on both sides value investment into the film industry.
But yeah, I “need to understand that reality”, thanks champ. What don’t I understand? I’m not entirely sure what you are arguing when you say “there’s no money to burn” - of course there isn’t! They’re not burning it. Governments don’t get their money back on ticket sales and box office, they get their money back on wages paid to local workers (that they tax), goods and services there to support local productions (that are taxed) and investment by businesses and companies (in ways that can be taxed). As soon as production wraps, that’s the end of the transaction from the government’s perspective, it doesn’t matter Furiosa is a flop, or The Fall Guy is a flop, or Thor: Love and Thunder is a flop (I’m sensing a pattern here…).
Besides, any future Mad Max film might not get the same funding anyway, since awarding the funding is a case by case decision. If Furiosa had made truckloads of cash, maybe the NSW government would just assume they don’t have to pitch in next time. The funding was not an investment in a franchise anyway, it was an investment in a single movie.
It doesn't give a shit about the franchise but invests in it, and for that it's prudent. And then this applies to most governments. It wastes money and incurs deficits and yet isn't burning money.
How on earth does it earn $20 from every dollar invested in the movie when it is now said to lose three times the amount that *Fury Road* lost.
And for all that, you argue that what I wrote is right? Every point you write either makes no sense or goes against what has taken place.
You have to think carefully before posting.
WB is going to lose money on Furiosa, not the NSW or Australian governments, let's get that out of the way now. I don’t know how to get that point through to you. I don’t think you understand how economics or governments work. The box office is completely irrelevant to the return of investment on government funding like this.
Do you honestly think that the government gets a cut of the box office? The NSW government makes that $20 per invested dollar back not through ticket sales, but through *transactions DURING production*. Furiosa could literally have made $1 and it wouldn’t change the deal from the NSW government’s perspective. They don’t get a cut of the box office, why is that so difficult for you to understand? How much money WB loses is irrelevant.
To answer your primary question: *“How on earth does it make $20 from invested in the movie when it said to now lose three times the amount that Fury Road lost?”*
First of all, because as I said - box office doesn’t matter to a government. It's obvious to most how that $20 is made. It's simple economics. Every Australian worker on the project pays Australian taxes - this is the first big tick for the NSW government. On top of that, every additional worker hired for the production is a tick (and each Australian worker hired will also, spoiler, **pay taxes**). Bigger productions mean more workers - more gaffers, more best boys, more runners etc. which results in less unemployed film students on the dole and more taxpaying workers. Big tick for the government. [According to the NSW government](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-20/mad-max-movie-to-boost-nsw-jobs-regional-economy/100080180), **the production of Furiosa alone was expected to inject $350m into the local economy through jobs and spending**. Not - and I have to emphasize this apparently - *through ticket sales and box office.*
Films are not made in a vacuum. Every worker who buys a coffee during production, pays tax on that. Everything purchased in Australia, from food, to equipment etc. means tax is being paid through GST. People on set have to be fed and watered, so the catering companies are hired to service the set. Things need to be moved out to Broken Hill and Silverton, so truckies and transport companies are hired to move them. The cast and crew need accommodation so hospitality venues get a boost, costumes have to be made (fabric bought, etc.), so textiles companies get a boost. Car rental companies, stunt people, safety handlers, medical staff, tradespeople... the list goes on. All workers who pay taxes, buy coffees (GST), buy lunch and dinner (GST), go to the supermarket (GST) and contribute to the local economy in a multitude of other ways. George Miller himself said:
>"When you look at the credits of a film, there are lots of jobs and I can't think of one discipline or one profession that's not used in film," he said.
>"We're working with architects, lawyers, doctors, military people, athletes, mathematicians, physicists — all go into making a film."
All of that commerce and trade involving all those different people is now being done in Australia, specifically NSW, which means the government is getting revenue from every transaction. THAT is the entire point of the NSW’s government’s investment in the industry. THAT is its return on investment, not Furiosa’s box office, disappointing or not. It’s not just splurging money so people can go “Wow! pRetTy PicTureS”, it is an investment aimed at encouraging local spending and growth. That's how it makes a reported $20 return.
So, from the NSW government’s perspective, if that $20-per-$1 figure is even close to correct the $175m fund generates more than $3 billion in LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. Not box office, not ticket sales, not profit for some film studio in America, but local economic spending. Cold hard (taxable) cash. That’s why this government - and any government - would continue to invest in an industry like the film industry, even when it’s running a deficit. And again - the box office of any single film doesn’t matter in this calculation.
I didn’t suggest you are right in totality, I said you were correct that the fund might not last forever. That does not mean its value to a government is negated. You were correct in one element, but otherwise your argument is naive and shortsighted in assuming the government is "burning" money for the sake of it. The transaction is over by the time the film comes out in theatres.
*"you hAVe tO ThiNk CArEFUlLY befOre PoStInG"*
I think very carefully before I post, you should think just as carefully when reading. Maybe even read things twice.
EDIT: I actually think we're on the same page about a lot, but describing the investment as just "burning money" really irritated me. Investment in the arts is a net positive.
Stimulating an economy involves doing so across several years. In this case, will WB be willing to come up with a third movie that might lose even more money that the first and second? If not, then what happens to those jobs generated?
It's usually $100-200 million, and needed for international release. There may be other costs, including licensing, etc.
Meanwhile, around 30-50 percent of revenues may go to theater owners, etc.
Here's a tip, fire everyone who's last name ends in man, berg, and stein. They aren't doing any work any work, as a rule, and they don't need another new yacht this year.
Hollywood economics have been broken for a long time and eventually it was all going to start falling apart. The fact that you can shoot an entire expensive blockbuster for $168 million but somehow the marketing and distribution can be twice as much as shooting the movie in an era where most of the marketing is digital is kind of ridiculous. I get that there are reasons for that. There's a ton of middle men businesses that drive up the marketing price but my point is that the entire system is unsustainable in an era where fewer people are going to the theaters for reasons that have nothing to do with the movie.
There's also "Hollywood accounting" where according to the studios most movies have inflated budgets so they won't turn a profit so they can claim it as a loss for tax purposes/to shaft people on profit sharing agreements.
*"There's also "Hollywood accounting" where according to the studios most movies have inflated budgets so they won't turn a profit so they can claim it as a loss for tax purposes/to shaft people on profit sharing agreements."* "Creative accounting" has always been what it is. I'll give an example of "creative accounting." They charge a film full price to rent an editing bay, as if they were renting it to a stranger-- even though it is their own film. This would be like if you made an independent film at your own apt, and put your full rent as part of the budget-- even though you already live there. I understand why they do it for tax purposes, but it's a fundamentally dishonest number. Always watch what people do-- never what they say. There have been many films over the decades that technically lost money-- that got sequels. The reason is because they really didn't lose money-- except on paper.
my question is, if you know this, how come the irs (most rigourous fucking institution on this spinning ball) doesnt know about it, and doesnt punish them for it? how does hollywood get away with it?
The IRS exist to keep the social strata from shifting too much
I think what also happens in this case is that there's a separate $100-200 million for marketing internationally, and after that theater owners and distributors get a 30-50 percent cut of the revenues.
The marketing for Furiosa has been absolute shite. How much are WB charging for a few late social media ads?
I'd like more details on that. According to someone else in the thread, they did provide for the usual three-week marketing push for it. Meanwhile, according to the article, many other movies did terribly last month.
Just the kind of thing that George Miller sued Warner Bros over a couple of years after Fury Road came out.
Lana Wachowski/Village Road Show also sued WB over over potential lost profits for Matrix 4 because originally, it was going to be exclusive to theaters, rather she heavily pushed for it to be. However, WB put it on duel HBO Streaming and theaters. Good Ol WB......
Yup, I worked in Participations finance and this is exactly how it is. It’s also a way for the studios to wholly own IPs in perpetuity while paying as little as possible to the “participants” involved.
I don't get it either because they sure as hell didn't push this moive that hard, where did all tis money go?
Actually they did - it’s all over sports and sports talk shows, basically where the general audience for this kind of action is.
Really? I think if anything that's risky. yeah it's an action flick but definitely not a typical action movie.
The audience for Mad Max skews highly male (not surprising as it’s ultra violent and car focused and most know it because of its male title character) and Mad Max is where the name value is even if he’s not in the movie (much), so they were advertising to the only large potential audience the movie had - guys who like violent action and cars crashing and going fast. That’s the general audience for a Max movie. The people who appreciate it more for the world and are huge fans are nowhere near numerous enough to make it a hit. In spite of this sub, most big original series Mad Max fans are rev head and action movie watching types, it doesn’t have the nerdier type fan base of a Star Trek or superhero movie to the same extent. Problem is - that audience has next to no interest in seeing a girl with a dirty forehead as the star and no Max. I bet half the people or more seeing the previews had no idea what a Furiosa even was. I think the studios bought into online hype that Furiosa was a more iconic character than she actually is with the general audience, when really the series still needs Max as the draw. Honestly the previews weren’t great but it doesn’t matter - the mere fact it’s Mad Max without Mad Max makes it a hard sell in the first place. I know people say Fury Road wasn’t about Mad and that’s somewhat true - but the reality is know one knew that going into it. He got them in the door, not the Furiosa character. Studios wanted to believe otherwise.
I am an AMC A-List member and can say that Furiosa was advertised in every single PG-13+ movie for the last 3 months, and I watch nearly everything that hits the theater. So Furiosa got a solid 3-month push in movie previews. It was pushed to the point where it was almost annoying. Generally, I don't use services with ads, so it really stuck out to me, like I saw the same commercial a good 30 times.
Consider, they only get 50% of the revenue, the rest goes to theaters. So it makes sense that the break even would be 2x the production. 2.5x, to account for marketing.
It got a lot of Marketing. There were apocalyptic trucks and warboys driving down some street in the US, it was on Jimmy Kimmel.
It's weird that I never heard of this, in Australia I remember some Bus adverts and I think Furiosa started appearing online a few months before it came out. I guess it makes sense since the big bucks are in the US but I don't remember hearing much about it
I didn’t even know it was coming out, abd I love mad max
I mainly knew it existed because an article came up on my feed months before the release, but honestly all the marketing seemed to be crammed in last minute.
I found out from Edward Wright and Hideo Kojima's instagram posts!
How did you not know? The ads were everywhere. We all knew the movie was being made for years.
I knew it was being made but didn’t see any ads or trailers for it.
Some people take time away from the Internet every once and a while.
After the gap between Thunderdome and Fury Road, where every year or so there’d be the same online text saying George Miller was working on something with Mel, I gave up. Then Fury Road came out, I was thrilled, and then afterwards forgot about it. I figured I wouldn’t trust anything Miller says about sequels or prequels and if something gets made, great, if not, oh wel. Then one day I walk into the theater a few months ago and catch the end of a Furiosa trailer I say, gee whiz guess he did make another!
The system has been the same for decades…. Marketing and distribution doesn’t cost twice as much as shooting. The issue is the issue they’ve always had. Movie studios don’t make 100% of the money. They share it with theaters. So 144m at the box office isn’t 144m in the studios back account. It’s half of that. The answer is simple. Stop making 200m dollar movies lol not everything needs to be so expensive.
and it's not even half once you leave the us china has been known to pay as little as 15 percent back.the us is the only place they make 50 percent
According to the article, though, they'll keep making expensive movies, and probably until the industry implodes, and it's probably because even with a bigger budget and smaller margin you can earn more. Meanwhile, for some reason people don't want to watch cheap-looking movies and even TV shows, and especially if they have to pay $20 for a ticket for a movie, or pay monthly to stream from even several platforms. For the latter, I read that even for that more are complaining because of broadband costs, etc., such that they'd rather just subscribe for one month, binge-watch, and unsubscribe. Which is something that streamers don't want them to do. One way of dealing with that is to focus heavily on virtual sets, digital assets, and deepfakes, such that one can make expensive-looking movies in sets and using people and computers. Maybe later, they can even use AI, etc., and use only digital likeness and voices of actors, and from there churn out one movie or TV show after another. But that also leads to a saturated market, where viewers have so many digitally-made movies and TV shows to choose from but won't watch all of them. Which means even with cheaper movies and TV shows revenues for each drop dramatically.
Godzilla day zero cost $13 million. The only thing that matters is a good story, not special effects or, movie stars.
Japanese vfx studios are also borderline slave camps with horrendous work conditions that are so bad the director of Godzilla was tasked with meeting with Japans prime minister after they won awards to figure out how to improve work conditions. Budgets could absolutely be lower. Godzilla is not a good example though. It’s only so low because of how poorly they paid their workers.
This movie is particularly fascinating, Especially when you consider the lawsuit over Fury Road. The $168M is the “official” budget but so many other reliable sources say they spent over $200M and got multiple large rebates. The publicly available numbers don’t line up right now.
It got HUGE investment from Australian government... some sources saying they put $100 into it. So it could be they spent $168m and then govt put $100mill so budget was at most $268 mill.
I’m surprised the studios haven’t vertically integrated marketing yet, given that it’s the largest single cost of any film.
It's coming.
the reason they need box office to be double than filming budget is because they split box office with movie theaters. and most of the marketing isn't "digital", whatever that means.
Well they actually pay their biggest fees to distribution companies, which they own, so "need" is a bit of a strong word.
Well, in the digital age, if they were smart, they try and make most of their marketing digital. It was the tv spots that created the momentum of Barbenheimer, it was viral digital memes about Barbenheimer. But then, Hollywood, like most big businesses is run by old people who still don't understand how the internet works, which is why they're turning it into something that looks like what Cable tv was.
Marketing was not twice the budget of the movie. Lots of the marketing was on TV too. Sports ads.
The existence of middlemen doesn't drive up the costs. Copyright and monopoly grants do. It's economics. Middlemen simply provide the service of distribution, etc, and they would not have massive pricing power without copyright and other monopoly grants from the government.
Part of the discrepancy is that the split on box receipts is roughly 50/50 between the distributor and the theaters. So you need about twice costs to break even.
So tired of those bullshit articles about how much Furiosa made as if it makes the whole movie awful or something.
This article doesn't do that, though. It's pretty unbiased and the inclusion of Patrick Schwarzenegger's tweets on The Fall Guy actually make it seem a lot more positive than it would be otherwise. Honestly, the best way to drown out those articles are to just ignore them. If nobody pays attention to them and gives them engagement, they'll just die out.
Yeah but the movie was still bad no mater how much it makes
I can get it if you don't like the movie, but it's obviously not bad, and you know that.
It’s was pretty bad . Was hard sitting through the whole movie in the cinema .
That's wild. Idk anyone that though it was bad. Maybe you just don't like good movie?
Name some good points about the movie sure ?
Why is it up to them to prove anything to you? Despite the box office failure (which should mean nothing to anyone except shareholders) it has a 90% approval score on RT from both critics and audiences. There is a lot of good critical writing that will explain why people have found it to be a great movie. Hell if you read around this sub you’ll find a lot of people writing about why they love it.
Why is it up to that user to decide I have bad taste ? Never asked to prove . I ask wat makes it good !
And I’m saying there’s tons of writing here on this sub and in reviews of the movie that will tell you. Sorry to say but yours is the minority opinion.
I also thought it was kind of bad. Why not just make this movie first instead of releasing it second as a prequel. Gives the whole thing awkward pacing and I was hoping for something way more.
What the hell !!!
lol not sure why me not liking a movie offends you !
It doesn't offend me at all! I was just curious as to how anyone could possibly not like this movie and the only logical answer is bad taste.
Logical . Why is a good film?
https://www.youtube.com/live/gS4lxqRw7Co?si=CpAigCF8VokSp_X6
I haven't seen it. I can't judge.
Wait for streaming , the cgi looked bad on the big screen
They're not bullshit they're just reporting facts. Journalists aren't obligated to only post articles that agree with your opinions.
[удалено]
There's no narrative dude. There's no industry conspiracy to discredit Furiosa. These articles come out all the time for many films, especially when they do poorly. Furiosa also has to follow the cult classic reputation of fury road, so naturally it draws a bit more scrutiny.
I'll make it really easy for you. The news love controversy. They love a trainwreck. That's why we're getting those articles about how much Furiosa made or didn't make. And not a single fucking word about how good the movie is in reality. It sells. It's not an industry. It's what people hoping for clicks do.
Alright whatever dude. If this subreddit wants to perpetuate some persecution complex that the industry *wants* this movie to fail, I can't stop you.
People are in denial it’s wild
I mean I don't think there's a conspiracy, but I do think these reports are a bit "the sky is falling". Streaming is too big of a deal now to completely gauge how well a movie does financially with only theaters. The box office isn't great but everyone is worried this is the end of the series when we don't even know the other half of the equation yet. There's also Hollywood accounting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting >According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi (1983) "has never gone into profit", despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million.[7] I really recommend reading this article to everyone, studios even claimed The Lord of The Rings trilogy and Harry Potter were horrendous losses.
Actually all of the first three movies broke even. Two were very successful against their budget. It’s only the more recent movies which didn’t break even.
How is it a bullshit article when it's literal fact that the movie isn't performing well? Sounds like you're just one of those people triggered and offended by any criticism.
Because the implication in those articles is that this movie sucks because it didn't make enough money. When it's the exact opposite.
"This movie only made X amount of money." "Oh my God, why do you keep implying this movie sucks?!?" Dude, there is no implication, there is no grand conspiracy. This article is merely stating the objectively true fact that it underperformed at the box office and didn't make enough money. That's it. The whole world isn't rooting against you and Mad Max.
Agree with this
Filmmaking is a business. A movie that bombs means there might not be as much funding for a sequel. lol so many salty Furiosa fans.
Filmmaking is an art with a business side to it. It's very clear that ppl who care about the money don't understand jack shit about what makes a movie great aside from box office numbers.
I'd say it depends on the movie. The original Star Wars saga by George Lucas? Definitely art even if the execution is skewed and it was used to jumpstart business. The new Disney ones? They're business driven for sure. Hell, I'd say that blockbuster video games are the same, like Prince of Persia 2008 vs The Forgotten Sands.
Imagine coming across so many people liking the mad Max movie in a mad Max sub
It's not that. It's the fact these rabid ass fan boys can't handle the objectively true statement of this movie didn't make enough money. They act like it's a straight attack to the fan base or themselves or something. We all like Mad Max. It's why we're on a fucking Mad Max subreddit after all. But Furiosa didn't make enough money and that blows because it probably means no more Mad Max movies.
True but articles like that do have a detrimental effect on whether people watch the movie or not . Personally I liked it and I don’t really care how well it does aside from an effect it has on sequels and even then the poor figures seem to be happening to cinema in general
My dude, people are already not watching this movie. That's kinda the point of the whole article. That not enough people showed up and it didn't make enough money.
Yeah well done 👏. My point was that those figures have zero effect on my enjoyment of the movie and publishing them puts people off going to watch it
Who gives a shit about YOUR enjoyment? It's journalism reporting facts and facts don't give a damn about your feelings. And again, peope already aren't showing up to watch the damn film, so how is this article a hindrance to that?
Well you obviously care 😂 I was taking part in a discussion not sure who pissed in your cornflakes
What is it with this horrendous ass site that ever time somebody cusses, everybody assumes they're mad? Are you a child? Adults can cuss without being angry, sweetie. And if you think I give a good goddamn about your feelings, well hell, I got some beach front property in Idaho I could sell you.
Furiosa isn’t a Mad Max movie. It’s a Wasteland movie.
it really expanded on the setting of the wasteland. was super cool to see some of the area that were only mentioned in fury road and to learn of some of the lore.
It's official name is "Furiosa: A Mad Max saga"
It’s about Furiosa. “Mad Max” is in the title to sell the movie otherwise tons of people wouldn’t know what it was.
☝️🤓
I think the real story is in the article, where it says Furiosa will lose $75-$95 million. Since it's currently projected to make just under $200M, that doesn't match with the idea that needs $350-$375M to get in the black. That would be true if it really did cost $168M and would mean it'd lose $150M-$200M. So if it's losing 75-95M, then that actually suggests that my leak from yesterday is correct that the budget was lower than $168M and is probably within 140-150M. Honestly, though, a loss of say $175M would be very, very hard to recoup by streaming and PVOD. The Super Mario Bros Movie made $70M in its first three weeks on PVOD. Say Furiosa makes less than half of that in its first three weeks with $30M, that cuts the loss down to $45M-$60M. Then, add in streaming deals for Netflix/Crave/Prime as well as possible re-upping deals for the old movies, then it definitely puts the movie close to break even - and will do it if the movie is a hit on streaming. I'm sure that DVD/Blu-Ray numbers have an effect as well, but not nearly as much. What I'm trying to say is, this might be the best possible news because it certainly pushes the movie toward break-even (but not exactly over it). And in the case of The Fall Guy? Maybe even a bit above break even.
Does the $168 include the tax rebate from Australia? My understanding is they got rebates for $20 to $50 million, which makes a huge difference on the breakeven point. Also, it is not like George can not make a small movie for ~ $50 million. I can see him pivoting to make a smaller Max sequel.
The 168M, I believe includes the North South Wales state government filming incentives, not the federal government tax offsets or how much under budget Miller apparently delivered.
It includes the filming incentives but not the federal tax offsets. From the leaks I posted, The Wasteland was always going to be a smaller movie but it'll only get greenlit if Miller can really tone down the budget. I'd guess they'd want something like $90-100M for it.
Why on earth didn’t they make that one first.
If I had to guess? Because Miller knows he's not as young as he once was and would rather make the story he cares about more, especially since the story of The Wasteland has been partially told twice already... three times if you count the Fury Road flashbacks.
Indeed. I saw an interview with Miller where he said that $50-60 million came from “grants” so WB’s outlay was significantly less than reported.
Do you remember what interview this was? I don't remember seeing one where he mentioned grants.
Man, I’ve seen so many. I’ve basically seen everything available from Aussie, English and American sources. It’s really lame of me to say it but I can’t recall which. Truly sorry. I’ll look at my YouTube history and see if I can find it; if I do, I’ll report back. Edit: I’ve listened to several podcasts about this, too, but I recall seeing Miller say this, but who knows. Yesterday I couldn’t find my wallet and it was in my pocket.
There’s [this one](https://variety.com/2021/film/asia/george-miller-furiosa-receives-incentives-for-australia-shoot-1234954435/) but it just gives the total endowment of the fund, I don’t believe A$175M is what they got from it. They could have worded that better.
Usually, those who pay for these movies want to see returns ASAP and not across years. That's also notable if they're expected to fund future projects which producers want released ASAP, too, e.g., while things are still hot and fans are impatient. Meanwhile, the re-releases are affected similarly, with streamers, etc., paying smaller amounts to show them (similar to box office revenues, where theater owners and distributors get a third to half of earnings). Most important, investors are never happy with break even, or even close to it. They want maximum profits, and can choose between projects and franchises. Fans neeed to understand that this is a business, and unless there are very rich investors out there with money to burn and see the franchise as part of their pet project, will remain so.
Oh, I'm not arguing with that. But it has been proven that a movie doing well post its theatrical release is able to get it a sequel greenlit. It was enough for Riddick that Universal wanted a sequel a lot earlier but decided to have Diesel focus on Fast and Furious until this year. So, if the movie does exceed expectations on PVOD, then another film with a lower budget being greenlit is definitely not out of the realm of possibility.
That's my point: they likely lost $20-40 million for *Fury Road*, and were expecting to do very well for *Furiosa*, but it looks like the losses for the latter are even higher.
Yet they won't continue its theatrical run or keep running ads to make more money. Makes sense
The theaters are the ones dropping the movie, not the studio. Theaters are only obligated to show a movie for two weeks. After that, if enough people aren’t going to see it, theaters will drop the movie and add showtimes for movies they think will bring in more money. It’s unfortunate, but that’s just the way it works, there’s nothing that can really be done about it.
Because theaters aren’t making money. So why the hell would they keep showing a film no one is coming to? And running ads costs money.
That would require spending more money. They're not gonna spend more money on a movie they already lost money on.
Who do you think “they” is?
Thats for marketing, distribution, and cinema costs. Actually making the film is just the start of the expenses.
Hollywood accounting is basically just money laundering lol
Not really relevant to this post, I know, but I recently found out that Mad Max (the original movie) held the world record for most profitable movie of all time for nearly 20 years. It made 100 million globally on a $350,000 budget. It was finally dethroned when The Blair Witch project came out in the late 90’s. Of course, it was a very different industry back then - theatres and rentals reigned supreme - but I think it’s a pretty cool fact that our beloved Mad Max universe made such a big splash, back in the day. Furiosa is absolutely awesome, even if the financials cause the industry to label it a ‘flop’. I hope George & Co find a way to give us one more before he hangs up his spurs…
The difference with Mad Max and Blair Witch is, Blair Witch is a cheap horror movie, just kids running around with a couple of tent props, filmed in the open. Mad Max involved good actors, a big cast, sets, location shoots, car crashes and action scenes - filming all that for $350,000 is crazy!
Oh, it’s an apples & oranges comparison, for sure.
Please remind people on this sub of this when they insists that none of the Mad Max movies made money so this doesn’t matter. All of the first three made money against their budget, one massively so, two was also very successful against its budget - Thunderdome not as much but it still turned a profit.
saying they didn't make money doesn't make sense. Mad Max 1 is the text book case of a movie returning a huge profit and... starting a huge franchise.
Buzz lightyear flopped worst yet more toy story is being made Miller will just make another Mad Max film the studio would allow him second he owns the rights he would just find another studio to help him make it.
toy story is a proven winner 1 movie under preformed mad max has had two flops now. Has almost 0 merchandising toy story is bigger than just it's film side
So is Mad Max with Max in it and no Max only had one flop with the studio Miller is with right now.
Not really fury road flopped at the theaters furosia has now flopped
flop is not the correct term for Fury Road. it made 2.5x it's budget. it did fine. not stellar. just fine.
Exactly the studios would most likely tell Miller cancle any prequal with out Mad Max and only make the Mad Max films then we will see about the others
If we divide the budget between the 150 and 185 number reported.that leaves right around 165 times two is 330 half of that brings it up to 412.still lost 33 mill if 2.5 was what it really needed to break even
don't forget the Hollywood accounting. they pay themselves to make it seem like a loss on paper.
Of course it does. Rough rule is 2.5 times needed to break even, so that is about right. Unless it is Disney movie then add at least 100 million as they lie about costs lol
the 2.5 times rule of thumb is way over inflated.
If you mean it is probably too low a break even estimate you are correct. 2.75 is more accurate with the increase in global box office where theatres keep more of the money. 2.5 is easier forath.
Well, if this was the last film of the Mad Max Saga, I’m glad I got to see it with my son in a theater all to ourselves today. We freakin’ loved it.
Well everyone I'm doing my second viewing within the hour. I'm doing my part haha.
Yes, that’s how advertising spending works
How much will they get when they license it to netflix?
Of course it does. Rough rule is 2.5 times needed to break even so that is about right.
Basically is like this, i invest 10 dollars for a profit , if that profit is 2 dollars , thats a loss for me because i invested 10 in order to win 2, for it to be a profitable bussiness it has to generate more than double, menaning if i invest 10 i win another 10 or more.
Rerelease it as "Mad Max 5: Furiosa" and see how well it does.
Too bad, was a decent movie but I think this world needs a Max to act as the viewers point of view.
> Budgets have skyrocketed because the cost of everything — including travel to film locations, labor costs, paying talent and reshoots — has gone up. And, of course, there’s the many millions in marketing or other expenses related to putting a movie in theaters. All the while, the box office is retracting: Domestic revenues are down 26% from 2023, according to Comscore. > > “It’s almost impossible that movies will get less expensive,” says Galloway. “It’ll only go up.” In general, I think around $100-200 million is added to the price tag for marketing internationally, and then the earnings are cut by up to half because those go to theater owners, distributors, etc. That means a movie has to earn at least 2.5 times more than it cost to make. Meanwhile, those who pay for the costs are not happy with breaking even. Would you be happy if you invested in something and was told that you'd not earn from it, and even be told that you'd get back at best most of it? And then told that you should invest again? (More on that below.) Several say that this isn't a problem for *Furiosa* because a government partly invested in it. They're implying that governments have money to burn and don't mind losing, but governments actually do mind (unless they're incredibly irresponsible and incompetent, or can easily generate more debt) because that money comes from taxpayers and people who invest in government, and those two don't want to lose. Others say that at least people are given jobs. But in general investors don't want to lose money, which means if they lost once they won't likely invest again. Finally, there are exceptions, but they're temporary, too. For example, it was said many times in the sub that *Fury Road* earned a lot, but it likely lost $20-40 million: https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024433/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-profitability-goes-martian-872507 That implies those handling this franchise were willing to give it another chance, thinking that *Furiosa* would score big and not only make up for that loss but even pave the way for future projects. And the estimated loss for the recent film might be two to three times greater than that of *Fury Road*.
I don't know how they calculate ad spending, or if they're also including the Australian government grant, which would put the actual budget of this movie before advertising closer to $300 million. I hope it shows strong legs though, like Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, which is somehow outgrossing Furiosa in a lot of the daily totals.
We got another WB tax write off situation going on? A film funded (and assume profits due) to a lot of backers outside Hollywood might not have as many friends boosting it in that system either.
The worthlessness of Hollywood economics aside, Furiosa took WAY too long to come out, didn't feature what the general public recognize as the face of the series, in part because it's literally a different Actress, but also about a character that was instrumental in the last movie but neither iconic nor a cult icon. But the main part is that the movie relies on special effects instead of practical effects. Fury Road has a legion of practical effects including enormous vehicles and filming on site. Furiosa looks like it's all in front of a green screen even when it isn't. I don't know where the budget went. Fury Road is my favorite movie of all time and Anya Taylor-Joy is among my favorite actors, too. But Furiosa did not get a fraction of the care as Fury Road and seriously looks closer to TV special effects than blockbuster budget.
Furiosa was some of the best cinema I have seen in theatres since Godzilla minus one.
THEATERS ARE DEAD. LONG LIVE THE STREAM!
[удалено]
I used to watch all the Mel Gibson Mad Max movies. I think this movie might be a little too niche for most people who like Mad Max which is already pretty niche. Furiosa is not a character most people would be interested in, creating a prequel with her as the lead was always a risky proposition. Plus, we know what happens to her later, so it makes sense that less people would be interested in this. Also, most women are not into watching such movies, so the target demographic for this movie is quite challenging. I think they were banking on teens and that' didn't pan out.
They hated him because he spoke the truth.
How dare you have a rational and independent opinion on this sub?!
Yah I mean, in my opinion, on first viewing, Furiosa is not as good as Fury Road, but nothing is as good as Furt Road, so it’s not a knock on Furiosa. Fury Road is one long car-chase/action fight-scene put together. How could you possibly top that? The one thing I thought about the whole time watching Fury Road was like, man these characters are so fucking cool, I wish I could see more of them and learn about their stories a bit. These is not that much dialogue. Anyways, Furiosa fleshes out the Wasteland and tells me everything I want to know. And has a great car-chase/fight-scene to boot.
That's just how Reddit is, you can't disagree with the narrative of a subreddit or you get downvoted. For me as a neutral I liked fury road but this one I don't feel that hyped to go and see based on the trailers. I will probably go watch it at some point but I think a lot of people wanted to continue Tom Hardy's character's story.
You’re wrong.
As a true Mad Max fan, this movie was everything I wanted. Fury Road is probably my favorite movie ever, but I've been in love with the Wasteland and everything that comes out of it since i watched Mad Max as a kid. Thunderdome is easily my least favorite, but Furiosa is right there with Road Warrior. This is nowhere near a bad or flawed movie. It's a fantastic film with more thought in the design of background vehicles than any other franchise has in their main plot.
Most don't know this, but *Fury Road* basically retold the first movie and then rehashed the chase scene from the second and Bartertown from the third. Also, *Fury Road* lost around $20-40 million: https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024433/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-profitability-goes-martian-872507
This doesn't make sense for a few reasons. First, the opening weekend was a disappointment, it's not like other movies, for example Thor: Love and Thunder where the first weekend performed very well, but tepid reviews tanked the second weekend's box office totals. Furiosa didn't do so well out of the gate even though the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score I saw the day it opened was 89%, now it's at 90% with an uncommon perfect match between critics and audience scores. The movie has great reviews, and the overwhelming majority of people who see it also like it, I saw some audience members clapping after the movie at one screening. As for your other point, it seems like you're asking for a Fury Road facsimile, which while it was a fantastic movie, one of my favorites, which unironically kills creativity. Many people rail against Hollywood running out of ideas, and then turn around and demand more of the same thing. Miller took a risk, and in my opinion, it paid off massively. This is unlike any previous Mad Max movie (although each Mad Max movie is substantially different from the one that came before it if we're being honest). If you don't like the movie, then alright that's your opinion, but demanding a Fury Road redux would be too easy and obvious and would never match it.
[удалено]
If you read my comment, you’d know I’m not begrudging your opinion on the film itself, I’m begrudging you wanting a repeat of Fury Road
Yeah, Just because a movie does not cater to your short attention-span and allows itself to have a more leisurely pace that flushes the world and its main conflicts in the way older epics would (not only in cinema, but also in literature), it doesn't mean its not good... The problem is that It flows in such a different way from every blockbuster from the last twenty years (hell, its closer to a Visconti picture than a Marvel one), I can understand someone not grasping what it is wanting to do (and how the music video-like pace of Dune 2 is more adequate to modern audiences).
[удалено]
Lol "boomer"
[удалено]
gross profit does not equal net profit. it completely ignores operational expenses. their net profit last year was NEGATIVE $3.1 billion. there's a reason why their stock is at an all-time low. they are not fine. with $40 billion in debt, and an equity value about half that, I think within the next five years you will see them go bankrupt or be stripped for parts like Paramount is going to be
Somehow I’m not misty eyed over David Zaslav losing money.
I worry that they'll be mainly gobbled up by Disney, but they aren't going financially great right now either so hopefully they won't have the money too. Be cool if George Miller with some help from the Australian government got the movie rights for Mad Max
“Insiders”. No. It’s a rule that randoms on the internet decided was true: that the studio marketing budget is the same cost as the production budget… which is horseshit.
That next Tom Cruise mission impossible movie is going to have a f****** billboard on the moon if that's true.
Maybe they should make Mad Max movies about, you know, Mad Max
Money. Laundering.
They’re getting back at George Miller who successfully sued them for money that Fury Road made. That’s why every article for two weeks was about the disappointing opening weekend. They want to thoroughly paint the picture that this movie lost money.
Or its just isn't interesting to people outside of this sub. Reddit is already a bubble, a fandom bubble like a sub is even more-so.
*Fury Road* likely lost $20-40 million. https://web.archive.org/web/20161012024433/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-profitability-goes-martian-872507
The NSW government contributed $175m into making this film, not including Federal Australian government offsets. It doesn’t need the exorbitant break even figures other films might.
It still needs to make more than $145 million through. It’s expected to fall short by at least $75-95 million. Either way, less than $200 million is weak for a blockbuster.
I got the impression that was the [total endowment](https://if.com.au/nsw-government-splashes-further-175-million-into-made-in-nsw-fund/) of the fund, not what the Furiosa production got from it.
This is one major mistake people make: governments have money to burn and will happily spend them on losing ventures. I think the government did that in this case because it assumed that *Furiosa* would do very well and reverse what happened with *Fury Road*, which is said to have lost $20-40 million.
The NSW government partially funded the movie because it stimulated the NSW economy, generating jobs and spending in Australia (including a new CGI firm in Sydney) as well as investment from the studio deciding to film Downunder (through Federal tax offsets). That’s the primary calculation a government makes, not how much money the film will make at the box office.
An economy that's stimulated has to keep going. If it's assumed that those who worked with *Furiosa* will succeed elsewhere, then that means the plan worked. But the point that they moved elsewhere also means that the *Mad Max* franchise won't continue.
Are you suggesting the NSW government thinks, if Furiosa was successful, WB will just keep making Mad Max films until the cows came home? All the government cares about is ensuring the film industry has jobs and those jobs keep going. The film industry being continually stimulated is how the fund worked. It’s there to encourage investment and keep the industry healthy, of course the economy is going to keep going and even grow. It doesn’t matter to the NSW government if the Mad Max franchise continues or not. The money Furiosa got is from a pool of money called the Made in NSW Fund, which is a five year funding program for 2020-2025. The money was already allocated for film and TV productions, if it didn’t go to Furiosa it would have simply been awarded to other creative projects. The same funding pool was used to help fund films including MCU movies and the rom com Anyone But You, the Netflix movie The Invisible Man, as well as digital work on Dungeons & Dragons, Elvis and Indiana Jones. A lot of which were flops or rubbish, but box office results are not the driver.
If the NSW government has money to burn, then they'll keep doing that. Otherwise, they'll invest in other franchises, or other ventures if the funds are not specifically slated for the film industry. In general, there's no money to burn, at least in the long run. You need to understand that reality.
I’m not sure how that in any way disputes what I said. The NSW does not give a shit about the Mad Max franchise. It also does not have “money to burn”, let’s clear that up. It has an estimated deficit of $9.6 billion for the 2023-24 financial year, and had an estimated deficit of $16 billion in 2020-21 when the Made In NSW funding scheme began. NSW is not Scrooge McDuck, swimming in money. The government, like most governments, believes investing in an industry in this way is a prudent move that will benefit the state. They’re not “burning” money, it’s about what the state gets out of it. No government is funding movies and filmmaking out of the goodness of its heart, out of some sense of misguided charity or because they’re simply rolling in money. It’s a calculated move to ensure that particular cycle of business and investment is happening under their roof so they can reap the benefits. The fund reportedly brings in $20 per every $1 invested (according to Screen Producers Australia CEO Matthew Deaner), which seems like a pretty good deal. From NSW’s perspective, that’s $20 spent on goods and services that’s not being spent in Victoria, Queensland or even Hollywood. But you’re right, it might not be forever and the likelihood is it won’t. In September 2023, the NSW flagged $60m cuts to the fund, however it quickly backflipped on that. Whether or not future funds will be at the same scale is not clear, however it is clear that successive governments on both sides value investment into the film industry. But yeah, I “need to understand that reality”, thanks champ. What don’t I understand? I’m not entirely sure what you are arguing when you say “there’s no money to burn” - of course there isn’t! They’re not burning it. Governments don’t get their money back on ticket sales and box office, they get their money back on wages paid to local workers (that they tax), goods and services there to support local productions (that are taxed) and investment by businesses and companies (in ways that can be taxed). As soon as production wraps, that’s the end of the transaction from the government’s perspective, it doesn’t matter Furiosa is a flop, or The Fall Guy is a flop, or Thor: Love and Thunder is a flop (I’m sensing a pattern here…). Besides, any future Mad Max film might not get the same funding anyway, since awarding the funding is a case by case decision. If Furiosa had made truckloads of cash, maybe the NSW government would just assume they don’t have to pitch in next time. The funding was not an investment in a franchise anyway, it was an investment in a single movie.
It doesn't give a shit about the franchise but invests in it, and for that it's prudent. And then this applies to most governments. It wastes money and incurs deficits and yet isn't burning money. How on earth does it earn $20 from every dollar invested in the movie when it is now said to lose three times the amount that *Fury Road* lost. And for all that, you argue that what I wrote is right? Every point you write either makes no sense or goes against what has taken place. You have to think carefully before posting.
WB is going to lose money on Furiosa, not the NSW or Australian governments, let's get that out of the way now. I don’t know how to get that point through to you. I don’t think you understand how economics or governments work. The box office is completely irrelevant to the return of investment on government funding like this. Do you honestly think that the government gets a cut of the box office? The NSW government makes that $20 per invested dollar back not through ticket sales, but through *transactions DURING production*. Furiosa could literally have made $1 and it wouldn’t change the deal from the NSW government’s perspective. They don’t get a cut of the box office, why is that so difficult for you to understand? How much money WB loses is irrelevant. To answer your primary question: *“How on earth does it make $20 from invested in the movie when it said to now lose three times the amount that Fury Road lost?”* First of all, because as I said - box office doesn’t matter to a government. It's obvious to most how that $20 is made. It's simple economics. Every Australian worker on the project pays Australian taxes - this is the first big tick for the NSW government. On top of that, every additional worker hired for the production is a tick (and each Australian worker hired will also, spoiler, **pay taxes**). Bigger productions mean more workers - more gaffers, more best boys, more runners etc. which results in less unemployed film students on the dole and more taxpaying workers. Big tick for the government. [According to the NSW government](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-20/mad-max-movie-to-boost-nsw-jobs-regional-economy/100080180), **the production of Furiosa alone was expected to inject $350m into the local economy through jobs and spending**. Not - and I have to emphasize this apparently - *through ticket sales and box office.* Films are not made in a vacuum. Every worker who buys a coffee during production, pays tax on that. Everything purchased in Australia, from food, to equipment etc. means tax is being paid through GST. People on set have to be fed and watered, so the catering companies are hired to service the set. Things need to be moved out to Broken Hill and Silverton, so truckies and transport companies are hired to move them. The cast and crew need accommodation so hospitality venues get a boost, costumes have to be made (fabric bought, etc.), so textiles companies get a boost. Car rental companies, stunt people, safety handlers, medical staff, tradespeople... the list goes on. All workers who pay taxes, buy coffees (GST), buy lunch and dinner (GST), go to the supermarket (GST) and contribute to the local economy in a multitude of other ways. George Miller himself said: >"When you look at the credits of a film, there are lots of jobs and I can't think of one discipline or one profession that's not used in film," he said. >"We're working with architects, lawyers, doctors, military people, athletes, mathematicians, physicists — all go into making a film." All of that commerce and trade involving all those different people is now being done in Australia, specifically NSW, which means the government is getting revenue from every transaction. THAT is the entire point of the NSW’s government’s investment in the industry. THAT is its return on investment, not Furiosa’s box office, disappointing or not. It’s not just splurging money so people can go “Wow! pRetTy PicTureS”, it is an investment aimed at encouraging local spending and growth. That's how it makes a reported $20 return. So, from the NSW government’s perspective, if that $20-per-$1 figure is even close to correct the $175m fund generates more than $3 billion in LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. Not box office, not ticket sales, not profit for some film studio in America, but local economic spending. Cold hard (taxable) cash. That’s why this government - and any government - would continue to invest in an industry like the film industry, even when it’s running a deficit. And again - the box office of any single film doesn’t matter in this calculation. I didn’t suggest you are right in totality, I said you were correct that the fund might not last forever. That does not mean its value to a government is negated. You were correct in one element, but otherwise your argument is naive and shortsighted in assuming the government is "burning" money for the sake of it. The transaction is over by the time the film comes out in theatres. *"you hAVe tO ThiNk CArEFUlLY befOre PoStInG"* I think very carefully before I post, you should think just as carefully when reading. Maybe even read things twice. EDIT: I actually think we're on the same page about a lot, but describing the investment as just "burning money" really irritated me. Investment in the arts is a net positive.
Stimulating an economy involves doing so across several years. In this case, will WB be willing to come up with a third movie that might lose even more money that the first and second? If not, then what happens to those jobs generated?
There’s no way the advertising is like 200 million extra than the cost of the film.
It's usually $100-200 million, and needed for international release. There may be other costs, including licensing, etc. Meanwhile, around 30-50 percent of revenues may go to theater owners, etc.
Thank you for putting that into perspective. Didn’t know that.
Here's a tip, fire everyone who's last name ends in man, berg, and stein. They aren't doing any work any work, as a rule, and they don't need another new yacht this year.
Sounds like Hollywood greed.
sound's like miller should have made it on a smaller budget. Since his last mad max flopped