Remember: only a fraction of that money goes to the studio, esp. since most of the “total” you list is overseas. Plus they have to pay for marketing which isn’t part of the production budget.
I don’t see them making money on it, even with streaming and such.
(Note that China isn’t yet showing it. So the worldwide total will really pass $100M by a significant margin. Shoot, even if it doesn’t make another dime overseas it will still pass $100M. For a movie that was initially budgeted at $80M and reshoots sent it over $100M, this is nowhere near enough box office.)
What happens when we attempt to go To the Stars?
I think the movie tried to present these 3 sub-points:
spoilerSpending time in space tends to mentally degrade people and animals. Everyone goes through those very frequent psych evaluations to assess emotional problems. There was a sign or two on the moon reminding people to get help if they are thinking of suicide. We saw the astronaut who froze during the problematic landing, which McBride handled. Everyone was aware of it…. McBride said something like “We know why you had a problem, and I won’t report you.” The baboons on the research lab went crazy. And finally, highly accomplished and regarded astronaut Tommy Lee Jones killed the rest of his crew.
(2) **As humans venture to the stars, we just take our ordinary human attributes with us. **Subway restaurant on the Moon. Criminals (pirates) chasing you to take your stuff. The loneliness people feel when they are away from home.
(3) The Lima project apparently showed conclusively that there is no other life in the observable universe. [/spoiler]
These points all coalesce into what I think is the main point of the story…
… that the lofty pursuit of going “Ad Astra” (To the Stars) is pointless, because all we really need is back on earth. ** There are no other great intelligences we can possibly meet which will help advance mankind. Brad Pitt finally realized this when talking with his dad and said something like “All we have is each other”**. He understood that his adventures in space were not important as his relationships with people.
These are IMDb numbers 14 days after first released, before the third week begins:
Budget:$87,500,000 (estimated)
Gross USA: $37,664,716
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $92,305,664
So is there still a doubt in anyone’s mind this is already or will become a profitable venture? So now it’s just not profitable enough?
Oh OK, we have no way of knowing how much they spent of marketing or what “fraction” (1/3? 999/1000?) of foreign box office goes to the owners of the property. There’s probably good reasons why business people don’t really open their books to the public, guess there’s no way to rationally discuss this then…
What percentage of a Hollywood film’s revenue is box office anyway? Is is even near half anymore? How many more subscribers does Netflix have than in 2015 when The Martian’s final worldwide gross topped $600,000,000?
Are there other projects that might have been stronger investments? Ooooh, now we’re really speculating…
Domestically, about 55% of the box office goes to the movie distributor in the first week, and that slides down to under 50%. Roughly, you can assume 50% for a movie that’s been in the box office a couple of months.
For non US films, the distributor keeps a much smaller number, typically closer to 25%. It does vary a lot by market, but last I saw 25% was good for China.
Thanks gizmodo entertainment news, the question doesn’t seem so cut-and-dried as Maserschmidt would have us believe.
So I’ll ask again: So is there still a doubt in anyone’s mind this is already or will become a profitable venture? So now it’s just not profitable enough?
That article is eight years old, and some things have changed since then. It talks about DVD revenues, for example, and I’ll bet that’s a much smaller number today. Given that this was a Disney production, I expect it to end up on their streaming service, so there’s probably very little in revenues from that.
Those “What do you think?” constructions are also popular in modern journalism, because it’s not so much trying to highlight any truth or fighting any ignorance anymore, more just speculating on what people are capable of believing. So I’ll answer with a few more things I’m capable of believing, but still have only one question in the end.
Am I for original screenplays? Yes.
Am I for hard sci-fi? Yes.
Did I enjoy Ad Astra? No. Six plex-type theatre visits in September, it’s the movie I enjoyed the least. (It would be even more damning by including a few repertory or “arthouse” theater visits.)
Are plex-type theaters in North America dying? Probably, based on my city. The busiest in September was Official Secrets on a Friday with around 75% vacant seats.
Would North American plex-type theaters dying be the end of moviemaking? No way.
Are Hollywood distributor business deals a matter of public record? No.
Would movie business people likely lie about accounting? Yes.
Could past distributor deals be similar to ones made for Ad Astra? Maybe.
Is the fact that Academy Award nominee Capernaum (2018) made $54,315,149 or 32.7 times U.S. box office in China be reason to expect Ad Astra will make two billion dollars of box office in China? Probably not.
Will Ad Astra be more profitable than 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Contact (1997), Moon (2009), Gravity (2013), Interstellar (2014), The Martian (2015), and Lucy in the Sky (2019)? Some yes, some no.
Is putting a Hollywood star in a spacesuit and easy $100,000,000? Yes.
In these type movies, is which director more important than which star? Seemingly.
Again, my only question:
Are we still pretending making this movie was in any way a financial risk?
It was really interesting to listen to the debate over this film on the /Filmcast podcast. The host of the podcast, David Chen, started out by saying he just did not like the movie, although it had good elements. He proceeded to say that the ideas were good, and the world building was excellent, and there were really cool action scenes, but that the execution of the ideas and the basic father-son plot was really cringey. This is exactly the same thing I think about the movie, but those positive elements were enough for me to give it a thumbs up overall.
One of the positive remarks made was something I agree with but hadn’t specifically thought about before. That is that the fight scenes were presented as realistic, gritty, desperate, rather than stylized.
Yeah, she is not the type of actor who is cast because she is a chameleon, but because she has a big personality that “pops” on the screen. That’s OK, I still like her—although I’m glad we also have talented actors with more range.
So, you’re just ignoring every post I’ve made. Well, okay then.
The chances of it making net money are very small.
Taking the original budget, the reshoots and the promotion budget together the studio is out at least $150M. It won’t make half that back in the theaters. And a movie like this, with it’s lack of buzz and CinemaScore isn’t going to do well on video.
OTOH, it isn’t an outright “bomb”, it’s only an ordinary big-ish budget movie that didn’t do all that well.
Which is the time most wide-release movies make the majority of their money.