Box Office: 'Warcraft' Is A $430 Million Flop

[elvor0]

Its got a bad plot, but I am way to lazy at the moment to bother going through everything about it that is weaksauce.

Well I'm not so much arguing with you about whether or not the plot is bad(even if I do disagree with you), as I am criticizing the way you've presented your argument and that if you can't defend the point you've made, don't make it. Even if I did agree with you, the way you've presented your argument is still deliberately misrepresentative.

It's pretty much just a rehash of starcrafts plot and everything they add to it just makes it more convoluted.

No, it isn't. There /are/ similarities between Starcraft 2(which came later) and Warcraft 3, but not the other way around. Don't blame your own lack of paying attention or non recollection on the plot being convoluted, when you self admittedly don't remember it properly. Obviously here I am defending the plot itself as an entity(but not the quality, which if you're not willing to go into we'll have to agree to disagree), but it isn't convoluted, you've just chosen to purposefully present your own non recollection as proof of the plot being convoluted.

See the tentacle face people who I am to lazy to look up the name of at the moment. I don't feel the need to spent an hour refreshing myself on the plot just to argue on the internet.

Who...bear no similarity to anything in Starcraft 1. You could argue the Old Gods are similar to the Xel'naga from SC2, but again that came after Warcraft, not the other way around. You even admit here that you don't really remember anything about them, and again are presenting your own non recollection as an argument.

Ugh, dude, they took the plot of diablo 2, made it the plot of warcraft then made the plot of starcraft. They have just been recycling almost the same plot between all of their games... minus overwatch.

Also, as I said before, for me to make a really coherent argument, I would have to refresh myself on the plots, which would take much too much time and effort. So this is what you get, enjoy.

"ugh dude" you just displayed you don't even vaguely know what the plot of D2 or Warcraft is, let alone be in a position to argue its similarities. You might as well be arguing Fight Club has the same plot as Lord of the Rings at this point just because Gollum and Tyler Durden are split personalities. You're not even having an argument here or touting a point, you're just making stuff up.

If you don't like the plots of the games fine, that's your right, but don't try and argue the toss when you self admittedly and demonstratively don't know even the basic story outlines. At this point, one could suspect you haven't even played some of these games.

 

[Fox12]

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Box Office numbers and rotten tomatoes disagrees:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/

Box office numbers?

Michael Bay best director confirmed. Citizen Kane worst movie. Also, weren't you the one defending the director, saying his dad died of cancer? And I thought this film made money?

Honestly, it's hard enough to adapt a game, much less an MMO, to film. It was about as bad as I thought it would be, and while I think any story can potentially be good, at least part of the blame lies with the source material, which isn't really suited for film.

I think another problem was that the movie had the lore of a game that really should have been skipped over as its basis. The first Warcraft game was very light on story and background, and it was retcons from later games and the expansion of lore by books that actually made it relevant to the rest of the cannon.

They should have just hired Peter Jackson to direct

I disagree. Jackson in my eyes has lost his touch, which was why while the LotR trilogy was a masterpiece, the Hobbit trilogy was a train-wreak. I actually enjoyed Warcraft more then the Hobbit movies despite all its faults and problems.

Had I watched the film after LotR, I would have hated it. However, I was able to enjoy both this and Snow White by comparing them to The Hobbit. People should embrace Warcraft for the pulpy nonsense it is. I suspect it may build a cult following in the coming years.

It can be with the right direction and the right vision.

I can imagine a better movie than Duncan Jones.

Most of us can, but actually putting it on screen tends to be pretty difficult.

I don't know. I can't blame you for being upset. I was pretty irate after Jackson butchered The Hobbit. Hiring a young, idealistic, art director is actually a pretty good idea. It just didn't work out this time. Hopefully they'll improve the sequel, so that fans will be satisfied. I feel your pain.

*shudders at the thought of the CG Berserk films*

Peter Jackson did the Hobbit movie better justice and I have read the book before hand. And I geniuenely enjoy the Hobbit movies and book equally.

I mean scenes like this tells me this is not a bad movie:

Peter Jackson butchered the source material. He created new plot holes in his own fiction that didn't exist in the books. He shoehorned in his own fan fiction characters and scenes. Hell, he didn't even enjoy making the movie. Ian Mckellen hated it so much that he broke down crying, and said he wanted to quit acting. I'm not sure by what standard you're measuring quality, but that film trilogy was awful. Awful, and I'm sorry to say, very disrespectful. The Hobbit films were amongst the worse I've ever seen.

Good acting, good set pieces, memroable charcaters, a story that is compelling, good immersive athmosphere, I can go on.

The Hobbit movies succeeds on those fronts for me. And I also like the book aswell (heck I own ALL the Tolkien books)



Another thing I want to mention I thought there was a thing called "Art from Adversity" heck Plinkett and his fans says the Original Star Wars movies were great because it was a pain to make, so they had to fight through the pain to make the movie as best as possible. And the Prequals suck because Lucas had full control to make it.

But if you dislike the Hobbit movies than that proves "Art from Adversity" is bullshit

You act like Art From Adversity is some kind of scientific law. Sometimes great pieces of art come out of adversity, because they can force the team to get creative. Other times it just leads to a steaming pile. Kubrick famously enjoyed total control over his films, and he's considered one of the greatest directors of all time. Besides, the only adversity the hobbit cast faces was the fact that none of them wanted to make that movie, and the ones that did quickly had their spirits crushed.

In any case, I don't consider a plot hole ridden, poorly paced film series with bad CGI and directing to be good. Peter Jackson could have relieved himself on Tolkiens novels, and it would have been more respectful then The Hobbit trilogy.

OK explain to me the plot holes and I will fill them up for you.

In The Lord of the Rings films, everyone assumes Sauron is dead. He hasn't been seen in thousands of years, since he was defeated by Isuldur. In The Hobbit, however, not only do the most powerful people in Middle Earth meet him, and fight him, they make it very clear that they know it's Sauron. These two facts do not fit one another.

When Bilbo meets Gollum, Bilbo tells him his name his Baggins, but not that he's from the Shire. Later, Gollum knows this information, and tells it to Sauron, which is the entire impetus of the Fellowship film. This is never explained in the film.

In The Hobbit, the dwarves are able to escape Mirkwood inside barrels because the Elven guards are drunk. In The Return of the King film, Legolas beats Gimli in a drinking game, doesn't get drunk, and treats drunkeness as a kind of strange foreign concept.

At the end of the last Hobbit film, Legolas is told about a ranger named strider. This is Aragorn. Legolas leaves in search for him. Except that Aragorn is only known as Strider in the area around Bree, and more importantly, during the events of the Hobbit he wouldn't be a ranger yet, since he'd be ten years old...

In the Lord of the Rings books and films, Mirkwood is labeled on all the maps as Mirkwood. It has been a dark and dangerous place for an enormous amount of time. However, in the Hobbit films it's implied that Mirkwood had another name, and only turned evil recently, presumably as a result of the Necromancer (Sauron). This evil would have presumably disappeared after Saurons defeat.

Also, stupid things that happen:

*Legolas being able to jump up falling rocks.

*Legolas jumping across floating barrels during an elongated fight scene

*Any scene with Legolas

*The implied romantic interest between Galadriel, who is married, and Gandalf, who is basically an angel and shouldn't be feeling romantic love for anyone.

*At the end of Desolation, Bilbo and several of the dwarves are separated from the army by several hundred orcs. Their response? No problem! Kills dramatic tension.

*Why didn't Sauron just kill Gandalf, instead of capture him?

And that's off the top of my head.

Gollum: I would say let us assume Gollum still remembers the Shire because he was a Hobbit himself and seeing Bilbo might have resurfaced his memories.

We shouldn't have to make assumptions, the film should clear this up for us. The book actually bothered to answer this question, but the movies should be able to stand on their own merits. You shouldn't need knowledge from the book. Furthermore, the shire wouldn't have existed in the time of Gollum. We don't know exactly where he lived, and we don't even know for a certainty if he was a Hobbit.

Dwarves escaping because of drunk elves, Nitpicky. Since it's only Legolas, We don't know if all Elves are immune to Drunkness.

Call it whatever you want, it's still a silly inconsistency. I'm not sure why Legolas would treat alcohol and drunkeness like some strange foreign concept when his people drink it, brew it, and export it.

Legolas has done bullshit things in the Lord of the Rings movie as well.

Those were, incidentally, the worst parts of their respective films. Still, it wasn't really bad until Return of the King. The Hobbit simply took the worst excesses of TLotR and hyped them up, while also removing the good parts.

Galadriel acted that way with Frodo as well

Debatable, I suppose, but I would argue that there was a definite romantic aspect to her behavior towards Gandalf that certainly wasn't there with Frodo.

Bilbo and Dwarves seperated by army of orcs at desolation? What do you mean?

The finale of the film? I can't blame you for forgetting it. It was quite bad. The Dwarves definitely mentioned killing a hundred orcs each as if they were strolling through the park.

If I have to assume he captured Gandalf to draw out the other members of the White Council like Gandalf's capture sealed Saruman's fate of being corrupted as implied when Saruman mentions "Leave Sauron to me"

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

 

[wizzy555]

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

He didn't reveal himself, his cover was already blown. You can ask why didn't he just kill Gandalf, there could be a few reasons for this. He may have wanted to corrupt him, he may have thought it futile (after all gandalf comes back anyway). It may have been some aspect of respect from Maiar to Maiar.

 

[Fox12]

Again, you shouldn't have to make blind assumptions in order to try and fill plot holes. There's absolutely no advantage to Sauron revealing himself to the most powerful people in Middle Earth while he's at his absolute weakest, and supposedly in hiding. He couldn't even defeat Galadriel, let alone the whole council. Besides, Sauron didn't need an excuse to meet Saroman. He was manipulating him through the palantir, the same way he was manipulating Denethor. There's no explanation for why they didn't just gut Gandalf when they had the chance.

He didn't reveal himself, his cover was already blown. You can ask why didn't he just kill Gandalf, there could be a few reasons for this. He may have wanted to corrupt him, he may have thought it futile (after all gandalf comes back anyway). It may have been some aspect of respect from Maiar to Maiar.

I mean, he could have wanted to play poker on Saturday, but we'll never know because they don't even attempt to give a reason. We know why sauroman took Gandalf hostage in LotR, because there are scenes showing them talk. We aren't given any explanation in Hobbit other then plot convenience.

 

[wizzy555]

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Mabye the Forbes and Hollywood Reporter articles

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

OT; Is it too late to hope that Blizzards in-house team will make a short animated movie of their own?

 

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

But they never reveal marketing budget which is sometimes even more expensive than the Budget for making the movie.

 

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

But they never reveal marketing budget which is sometimes even more expensive than the Budget for making the movie.

I don't know. I don't even know why people hate on the movie. It is so unclear who hates what and why.

 

[Mangod]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

But they never reveal marketing budget which is sometimes even more expensive than the Budget for making the movie.

I don't know. I don't even know why people hate on the movie. It is so unclear who hates what and why.

It's not that we hate the film (I haven't even seen it), but the movie's made 430mill, which they only get half of (theaters get the other half), minus the cost of production and marketing (the latter we don't know, but it's probably at least 50mill).

At that Point, assuming that the movie's a flop isn't that farfetched. Like I wrote earlier, if we assume it had the same marketing as Megamind, it'd leave Universal 10million in the red.

 

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

As disturbing as that is, its nothing to the prospect of Hollywood making a Pokemon GO movie.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop.

Hollywood operates according to common sense now?

 

[jklinders]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

 

[Saelune]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

 

[jklinders]

It earned over twice it cost to make...that...doesn't sound like a flop. A flop is well, a movie that doesn't make back its earnings.

According to Hollywood, if it doesn't make MCU money, it's a flop.

According to common sense, if it doesn't even break even, it's a flop. Exhibit A: Warcraft. This has been said like 8 different times in this thread already.

I advise reading the article in the OP. And the one it is based on.

Anyway on Warcraft. It is currently 10th on the World wide box office charts. IF this is under-profit, then they must have simply ludicrous exceptions.

Nothing ridiculous. It's just the reality of how much money big budget movies need to make before the studio even manages to profit off of them. As it stands, Warcraft is 15 million dollars shy of breaking even.

430mill(earnings) - 160mill(cost) = 270mill (profit).

That is literally not how it works. 430 mill is gross ticket sales. Every party involved with the movie gets paid from that. Currently, the amount of money the studio made from it resulted in them being 15 million dollars short of breaking even. Ie, they lost 15 million dollars on the project. (Production budget for it was 160 mill, with an undisclosed marketing budget that could range from 50 to 100 mill, which is the standard range for most summer blockbusters.)

What I don't understand, and this isn't unique to you, is why people keep making this mistake. I'm not saying people should be aware of the exact distribution of box office takes per country, but they should atleast understand that the theaters showing the movie make money off of showing said movies. I mean, seriously, do people think theater chains are doing favours for Disney, Warner, etc.? And on top of this, these misinformed (uninformed(?), it's not like this train of thought is based on something factual, otherwise it wouldn't exist) people are usually those who are the condescendingly snarky ones waxing lyrical about how studios are unreasonable and greedy when in actuality movies like Warcraft literally result in them losing money.

When businesses don't make it clear how they work, people don't know it. All we hear is how much it cost and how much was earned. If that's all we get, it is not my fault that that is the info I use.

Can we be fair here? When they are talking about box office earnings that is what the ticket take at the door is. That is no different than when you pay 10.00 for a burger the restaurant does not pocket 10.00 in profit. People need to be paid. This burger is cooked by people who need to be paid, it is made from food purchased from someone who needs to be paid and done at a site that has utilities that need to be paid and maintained by people who need to be paid. Sensible people know that a businesses gross revenue is not their profit so my question now is as follows. Why even after the formula has been explained multiple times in this thread is it not understood that costs have exceeded revenue here? At least 8 times it has been explained in this thread and very very clearly explained in the article the OP cited.

I enjoyed Warcraft as a good popcorn movie. But it's a flop that will only make money if it does well in home video sales. the math is irrefutable.

Because I didn't read every post here, I don't generally follow movie profits, and I also don't think its unreasonable to assume the "cost" of a film might actually include...the whole cost of the film.

I'm not an idiot. I know that more than the film makers get the profit, but I'm not a film accountant, nor do I really care to be. Just because I may be unfamiliar with such specifics doesn't mean you should be so arrogant about it.

Fair enough, but did you not care enough about the topic to read the article included in the OP? Actually getting sufficient context from the OP strikes me as good policy when replying to a topic. It cuts down on a lot of meaningless blather. So instead of saving time for yourself you actually wasted it.

I was not being arrogant. you were however being ignorant. That is not an insult. just a statement that you were posting without so much as bothering to learn about it first.