Only two of eight major movies released last month are clearly destined to make a profit — and one of them is, surprise!, Marvel’s The Avengers — according to SNL Kagan’s latest monthly tally. The firm says that The Avengers is likely to generate more than $2B in revenues from all sources (excluding merchandise sales) on total costs of $473.2M. The 4.24 ratio of expected revenues over costs is well above the 1.75 threshold that Kagan says establishes a film as clearly profitable. To account for revenue splits, expenses and variables that analysts can’t determine, the firm classifies films with a ratio of less than 1.75 but more than 1.40 as being in a gray area while those below 1.40 are deemed probably unprofitable. By that measure, Fox Searchlight’s The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel fared well, with a ratio of 2.60 ($169.6M in revenues on $65.2M in costs). Columbia’s Men In Black 3 is on the bubble with 1.53 ($687.2M over $450.0M). Films likely to spill red ink include include Universal’s Battleship ($450M over $401.8M), Paramount’s The Dictator ($171.6M over $176.1M), Warner Bros’ Dark Shadows ($279.3M over $293.4M), Warner Bros’ Chernobyl Diaries ($59.4M over $87.4M), and Lionsgate’s What To Expect When You’re Expecting ($66.8M over $121.5M).


Let’s hope the MIB franchise is done.
why? it was a fun movie… does it really hurt you when others enjoy themselves?
MIB3 was great!
i dont buy this for a second… studios make tons of money outside of theatrical… they are sneaky… dont report a lot of it… why do you think no one reports actual official dvd sales or blu ray or downloads? worldwide as well… you really think it’s difficult to know how many dvds are sold? if they can do it for albums and ticket sales they can do it for that. they hide and pretend they have losses.
With traditional studio accounting, this film will Never be in profit. I offer the Harry Potter series in evidence – still in the red…
Yes, it’s what they call creative accounting.
Also the ‘Batman’ movies.. I remember reading a piece from a couple of years ago where WB (with a straight face mind you) commented that 1989 Tim Burton ‘Batman’ still hadn’t made a penny of profit for them.
Gotta love creative accounting.
I paid my $10 and got more than my investment returned in laughs and entertainment. Tommy Lee and Will Smith are good together. That’s all I care about.
The money that keeps studios afloat year after year is outside box office – consumer products, (DMan’s point is a great, great story – in the heyday of Billboard we would know what’s up – imagine Epic Records not reporting units sold – although the record companies played around plenty; or a book publisher not reporting units sold on a royalty statement) – licensing, etc. Unlike theatrical no expiration date whatsoever. This is why the overwhelming effort at the studios is to push and establish franchises. Back-loading the long-range profit potential that can be finessed in net profit accounting by front-loading the originating property in theaters almost like a commercial for their own eventual accounting treachery. Mike you must live in the midwest or go to Mommy Matinees if you paid ten bucks to see “MIB : 3.”
My favorite line in the whole story was “variables that analysts can’t determine” – even they have zilch idea what Hollywood expenses are for.
What did they expect w/ Chernobyl Diaries after lying about the movie being found-footage? That’s the only thing worse than being an inept example of your genre (see: Apollo 18).