ID 4: Resurgence question

[happyninja42]

So for those who saw the movie:

Do they make any mention of Randy Quaid's character and what he did? Do any of his kids have a role in the sequel? Just curious and thought about them.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'm afraid I can't add to the topic.

I would, however, like to ask an additional question - What in the fuck happened to this movie? I wanted to go see it as a cheap popcorn flick, but it was down to one 9:30 PM showing a night less then two weeks after release.

What... In the hell. Was it that bad?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

His name appears front and center in a memorial wall. Just a nice little nod. His kids don't show up.

What... In the hell. Was it that bad?

It's the first movie all over again, without the benefit of 90s Will Smith, interesting FX or campy over-the-topness.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

So for those who saw the movie:

Do they make any mention of Randy Quaid's character and what he did? Do any of his kids have a role in the sequel? Just curious and thought about them.

Took me a second to remember who that is. Yeah...there's really not mention of him. But hey, at least we get to see his name on the wall, which is more than we can say for Dave's ex-and-then-not-exactly-ex wife. She isn't mentioned at all, and he suddenly has a new love interest.

I'm afraid I can't add to the topic.

I would, however, like to ask an additional question - What in the fuck happened to this movie? I wanted to go see it as a cheap popcorn flick, but it was down to one 9:30 PM showing a night less then two weeks after release.

What... In the hell. Was it that bad?

Bad? No. Generic and really, truly, honestly just a rehash of the first film, but without the feeling of "magic" that made the first one so great? Yes. If you could have caught a cheap showing, I would say it's worth it. But full price? Eh...

The beginning is a slog to get through. The film feels like it HAS to show you want every single person has been up to (save for the few people who just disappear) and introduce its brand new cast--who, I might add, are all in their early twenties or maybe even teenagers. As such, they all quickly fall into tired stereotypes. Chinese girl is hot but distant. Goofy sidekick boy, who is more annoying than actually funny, is immediately smitten with her and tries to act cool but comes across as "Ugh, this again?". White guy is engaged to the President's daughter, but he's busy brooding on the moon base because he had to go and pull a hotshot move that almost got Captain Hiller (Smith's son, grown up now) killed in a training exercise, which means we then have to suffer through a whole, "Yeah, things are rocky between us two male leads because one of us is a jerk and the other is a by-the-book soldier, but it's cools because we'll be friends again once the aliens show up" segment.
And that is about the first forty-five minutes to an hour of the movie. After that, the aliens finally show up, but the movie just doesn't have that feeling of magic that so many enjoyed from the first film. My biggest complaint (besides that above paragraph) is that, if you've seen the trailers, you've seen about eight seven percent of the action of the movie. I wanted dogfights, but what you see in the trailer is pretty much it.
Oh, and the ending is such sequel bait that it feels out of place.

 

[Saelune]

What is ID4?

 

[happyninja42]

Darn, sorry to hear that, he was actually my favorite part of that whole movie.

Though it does crack me up, hearing why people hated this movie so, it being a tired rehash of the original. All I can think of is XCOM 2, and a few people on this site who kept saying they should've just had the invasion happen again....well guess what, you would get ID4: Resurgence, the video game if XCOM 2 was that way. Bigger, dumber, duller.

Sigh, poor Mr. Quaid, he had the best parts in the movie for me. Like when he was giving his flying credentials to the two military guys, and then adds the last note "Oh, and as a side note, I was abducted by aliens 20 years ago, and I'm looking for some payback, so, I won't let you down!" and how all of them have to just sit there and take it, because they're fighting aliens, so maybe he really was abducted. xD Just priceless to me.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

No not really. Its a pretty crap movie...

 

[Jingle Fett]

Was it that bad?

Financially it was. Only Alice 2 and TMNT 2 flopped harder than it, as of now. Verdicts still out on Ghostbusters. Star Trek 3 and Ice Age 5 are going to bury that one, hard.

What is ID4?

Independence Day. (4th of July. Fucking stupid title.)

Except financially it hasn't flopped? It's made $338 million at the boxoffice so far from a $165 million budget

 

[Jingle Fett]

Was it that bad?

Financially it was. Only Alice 2 and TMNT 2 flopped harder than it, as of now. Verdicts still out on Ghostbusters. Star Trek 3 and Ice Age 5 are going to bury that one, hard.

What is ID4?

Independence Day. (4th of July. Fucking stupid title.)

Except financially it hasn't flopped? It's made $338 million at the boxoffice so far from a $165 million budget

I've had to explain this like 8 different times in the last 4 days. No, the number you see on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio making the movie gets. Theaters (as if this wasn't obvious), distributors and whatever other parties involved all get a cut from gross ticket sales. The studio at best gets half the money it made in ticket sales, usually less, and there are a lot of regional factors and other circumstances involved with how much money studios make off of each movie. The budget on BoxOfficeMojo also does not include marketing costs, which, for blockbusters, can easily be upwards of a 100 million dollars on top of production costs.

Suffice to say, a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit. Yes, you read that right. the thing would need close to 500 mill just to break even. It's also nearing the end of its run in theaters, it's already down to only a couple of showings in most places, and it has opened in all of its major regions already, so it'll have no legs whatsoever. As it stands, it's a flop.

I disagree. For a movie to be considered a success, the rule of thumb is that it has to make back its budget twice over. Meaning if the budget was $165 million, if it's able to make over $330 million then it's generally speaking considered a success. Maybe not as big a success as other movies that make more obviously, but certainly nowhere near a flop. And the budget shown DOES include marketing, generally speaking about 25-30% of the budget of a movie is allocated to marketing.

 

[twistedmic]

Suffice to say, a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit. Yes, you read that right. the thing would need close to 500 mill just to break even. It's also nearing the end of its run in theaters, it's already down to only a couple of showings in most places, and it has opened in all of its major regions already, so it'll have no legs whatsoever. As it stands, it's a flop.

Going by that logic, that a movie has to make three times it's budget to get into the black, then every movie in the MCU, 'Titanic', 'The Force Awakens' and the prequel 'Star Wars' trilogy and Nolan-led 'Dark Knight' Trilogy were all colossal domestic flops (not a single one earned over three times it's budget in the U.S.). And considering American movie companies almost certainly get less of a cut from the overseas theaters, they could all be considered flops globally as well.

I'm not saying that Independence Day: Resurgence was a massive success, but, I think you are over-estimating how much a movie needs to earn to start making a profit.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Was it that bad?

Financially it was. Only Alice 2 and TMNT 2 flopped harder than it, as of now. Verdicts still out on Ghostbusters. Star Trek 3 and Ice Age 5 are going to bury that one, hard.

What is ID4?

Independence Day. (4th of July. Fucking stupid title.)

Except financially it hasn't flopped? It's made $338 million at the boxoffice so far from a $165 million budget

I've had to explain this like 8 different times in the last 4 days. No, the number you see on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio making the movie gets. Theaters (as if this wasn't obvious), distributors and whatever other parties involved all get a cut from gross ticket sales. The studio at best gets half the money it made in ticket sales, usually less, and there are a lot of regional factors and other circumstances involved with how much money studios make off of each movie. The budget on BoxOfficeMojo also does not include marketing costs, which, for blockbusters, can easily be upwards of a 100 million dollars on top of production costs.

Suffice to say, a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit. Yes, you read that right. the thing would need close to 500 mill just to break even. It's also nearing the end of its run in theaters, it's already down to only a couple of showings in most places, and it has opened in all of its major regions already, so it'll have no legs whatsoever. As it stands, it's a flop.

Wrong. For a movie to be considered a success, the rule of thumb is that it has to make back its budget twice over. Meaning if the budget was $165 million, if it's able to make over $330 million then it's generally speaking considered a success. Maybe not as big a success as other movies that make more obviously, but certainly nowhere near a flop. And the budget shown DOES include marketing, generally speaking about 25-30% of the budget of a movie is allocated to marketing.

Nope. Every 'correction' you listed is horribly inaccurate. To the point where you don't actually seem to have a clue 'bout any of it. Maybe read the first paragraph of my comment again to see something that is in the ballpark of reflecting reality.

Let me break it down for you so that it's easily digestible, you seem to have ignored it the first time 'round:
- No, the number on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio makes, it is gross ticket sales, meaning it is the amount money people spent buying tickets
- No, the studio doesn't get all of it, theaters (and distribution partners in other regions, etc.) get atleast half the money listed, usually, it's even more than that
- No, the budget on BoxOfficeMojo doesn't include marketing budget. It is only the production budget. And yes, marketing for blockbusters numbers in the 100 million dollar sphere. On top of production costs. Movies are fucking expensive.

If you somehow can't parse these three, I'm sorry, but you won't be anywhere close to being correct about this. Atleast I'd like to ask you to stop spreading misinformation.

Oh, I almost forgot:
- Yes, Independence Day 2 is a flop. Not the biggest one this year(or season), but a big one nonetheless.

1- Show me where I said otherwise
2- Show me where I said otherwise
3- You're wrong. It does include the marketing budget. This is why blockbuster movies have gotten so expensive. Independent films might often list the P&A (Print and Advertising) separately or not at all because they rely on 3rd party distribution (hence independent). Hollywood studios on the other hand generally distribute their movies themselves so when they list the budget, it's the whole deal. If an indie studio was paying for its own P&A, it would be included as part of the budget.

As to the accuracy of my information, my dad has worked in the film industry for over 20 years both in the US and abroad and that's where I get my info from. Furthermore here's a separate source:

"A film's production budget includes all costs incurred during pre-production, filming, post-production and promotion. That includes buying the rights to the script, actor's salaries, production staff salaries, set construction, special effects, wardrobe, craft services, marketing, dog training -- everything!"

"When calculating a marketing budget, the rule of thumb is to spend 50 percent of the rest of the production costs (pre-production, filming and post-production) [source: Vogel]. So if a movie costs $100 million to make, you'll need an additional $50 million to sell it."

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-cost1.htm

But whatever man, you're clearly an expert so I defer to your authority.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Was it that bad?

Financially it was. Only Alice 2 and TMNT 2 flopped harder than it, as of now. Verdicts still out on Ghostbusters. Star Trek 3 and Ice Age 5 are going to bury that one, hard.

What is ID4?

Independence Day. (4th of July. Fucking stupid title.)

Except financially it hasn't flopped? It's made $338 million at the boxoffice so far from a $165 million budget

I've had to explain this like 8 different times in the last 4 days. No, the number you see on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio making the movie gets. Theaters (as if this wasn't obvious), distributors and whatever other parties involved all get a cut from gross ticket sales. The studio at best gets half the money it made in ticket sales, usually less, and there are a lot of regional factors and other circumstances involved with how much money studios make off of each movie. The budget on BoxOfficeMojo also does not include marketing costs, which, for blockbusters, can easily be upwards of a 100 million dollars on top of production costs.

Suffice to say, a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit. Yes, you read that right. the thing would need close to 500 mill just to break even. It's also nearing the end of its run in theaters, it's already down to only a couple of showings in most places, and it has opened in all of its major regions already, so it'll have no legs whatsoever. As it stands, it's a flop.

Wrong. For a movie to be considered a success, the rule of thumb is that it has to make back its budget twice over. Meaning if the budget was $165 million, if it's able to make over $330 million then it's generally speaking considered a success. Maybe not as big a success as other movies that make more obviously, but certainly nowhere near a flop. And the budget shown DOES include marketing, generally speaking about 25-30% of the budget of a movie is allocated to marketing.

Nope. Every 'correction' you listed is horribly inaccurate. To the point where you don't actually seem to have a clue 'bout any of it. Maybe read the first paragraph of my comment again to see something that is in the ballpark of reflecting reality.

Let me break it down for you so that it's easily digestible, you seem to have ignored it the first time 'round:
- No, the number on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio makes, it is gross ticket sales, meaning it is the amount money people spent buying tickets
- No, the studio doesn't get all of it, theaters (and distribution partners in other regions, etc.) get atleast half the money listed, usually, it's even more than that
- No, the budget on BoxOfficeMojo doesn't include marketing budget. It is only the production budget. And yes, marketing for blockbusters numbers in the 100 million dollar sphere. On top of production costs. Movies are fucking expensive.

If you somehow can't parse these three, I'm sorry, but you won't be anywhere close to being correct about this. Atleast I'd like to ask you to stop spreading misinformation.

Oh, I almost forgot:
- Yes, Independence Day 2 is a flop. Not the biggest one this year(or season), but a big one nonetheless.

1- Show me where I said otherwise
2- Show me where I said otherwise
3- You're wrong. It does include the marketing budget. This is why blockbuster movies have gotten so expensive. Independent films might often list the P&A (Print and Advertising) separately or not at all because they rely on 3rd party distribution (hence independent). Hollywood studios on the other hand generally distribute their movies themselves so when they list the budget, it's the whole deal. If an indie studio was paying for its own P&A, it would be included as part of the budget.

As to the accuracy of my information, my dad has worked in the film industry for over 20 years both in the US and abroad and that's where I get my info from. Furthermore here's a separate source:

"A film's production budget includes all costs incurred during pre-production, filming, post-production and promotion. That includes buying the rights to the script, actor's salaries, production staff salaries, set construction, special effects, wardrobe, craft services, marketing, dog training -- everything!"

"When calculating a marketing budget, the rule of thumb is to spend 50 percent of the rest of the production costs (pre-production, filming and post-production) [source: Vogel]. So if a movie costs $100 million to make, you'll need an additional $50 million to sell it."

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-cost1.htm

But whatever man, you're clearly an expert so I defer to your authority.

Guy, I'm really happy for your dad. That doesn't make you not wrong. Here is the literal quote from BoxOfficeMojo:

Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm

Case closed, shut.

It's not as simple as that. Let me tell you about the movie Pixels and maybe you'll understand. Box Office Mojo lists the budget as $88 million. Wikipedia and the leaked Sony emails however list it as $129 million. So right off the bat, the Box Office Mojo stats aren't as clear cut as they seem.

But wait, $129 million was the gross budget, not the net budget. The net budget was $111 million. This is because the other $18 million came from a rebate from the Canadian government. Depending on where a movie was filmed, studios get grants, tax incentives, rebates, and more. Free money essentially, money that the studio doesn't have to pay back and can do whatever they want with. Product placements are another example, showing a Coca-cola logo in the movie gives a big chunk of free money right there.

The point is, while a studio may pay millions in advertising, they don't need to make it all back for the movie to make a profit. As far as the studio is concerned, the main number that matters when determining whether it flopped or not is the budget they publish. If it makes double its budget, it likely broke even--not a flop. In fact, sometimes studios actually want movies to flop because of all the free money, they can write it off as a "loss".
Box Office Mojo says it doesn't include it to play it safe because unless they're explicitly told the details they don't actually know (like whether it's the net or gross budget for example), even though other definitions say it is included.

 

[Jingle Fett]

Was it that bad?

Financially it was. Only Alice 2 and TMNT 2 flopped harder than it, as of now. Verdicts still out on Ghostbusters. Star Trek 3 and Ice Age 5 are going to bury that one, hard.

What is ID4?

Independence Day. (4th of July. Fucking stupid title.)

Except financially it hasn't flopped? It's made $338 million at the boxoffice so far from a $165 million budget

I've had to explain this like 8 different times in the last 4 days. No, the number you see on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio making the movie gets. Theaters (as if this wasn't obvious), distributors and whatever other parties involved all get a cut from gross ticket sales. The studio at best gets half the money it made in ticket sales, usually less, and there are a lot of regional factors and other circumstances involved with how much money studios make off of each movie. The budget on BoxOfficeMojo also does not include marketing costs, which, for blockbusters, can easily be upwards of a 100 million dollars on top of production costs.

Suffice to say, a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit. Yes, you read that right. the thing would need close to 500 mill just to break even. It's also nearing the end of its run in theaters, it's already down to only a couple of showings in most places, and it has opened in all of its major regions already, so it'll have no legs whatsoever. As it stands, it's a flop.

Wrong. For a movie to be considered a success, the rule of thumb is that it has to make back its budget twice over. Meaning if the budget was $165 million, if it's able to make over $330 million then it's generally speaking considered a success. Maybe not as big a success as other movies that make more obviously, but certainly nowhere near a flop. And the budget shown DOES include marketing, generally speaking about 25-30% of the budget of a movie is allocated to marketing.

Nope. Every 'correction' you listed is horribly inaccurate. To the point where you don't actually seem to have a clue 'bout any of it. Maybe read the first paragraph of my comment again to see something that is in the ballpark of reflecting reality.

Let me break it down for you so that it's easily digestible, you seem to have ignored it the first time 'round:
- No, the number on BoxOfficeMojo is not the amount of money the studio makes, it is gross ticket sales, meaning it is the amount money people spent buying tickets
- No, the studio doesn't get all of it, theaters (and distribution partners in other regions, etc.) get atleast half the money listed, usually, it's even more than that
- No, the budget on BoxOfficeMojo doesn't include marketing budget. It is only the production budget. And yes, marketing for blockbusters numbers in the 100 million dollar sphere. On top of production costs. Movies are fucking expensive.

If you somehow can't parse these three, I'm sorry, but you won't be anywhere close to being correct about this. Atleast I'd like to ask you to stop spreading misinformation.

Oh, I almost forgot:
- Yes, Independence Day 2 is a flop. Not the biggest one this year(or season), but a big one nonetheless.

1- Show me where I said otherwise
2- Show me where I said otherwise
3- You're wrong. It does include the marketing budget. This is why blockbuster movies have gotten so expensive. Independent films might often list the P&A (Print and Advertising) separately or not at all because they rely on 3rd party distribution (hence independent). Hollywood studios on the other hand generally distribute their movies themselves so when they list the budget, it's the whole deal. If an indie studio was paying for its own P&A, it would be included as part of the budget.

As to the accuracy of my information, my dad has worked in the film industry for over 20 years both in the US and abroad and that's where I get my info from. Furthermore here's a separate source:

"A film's production budget includes all costs incurred during pre-production, filming, post-production and promotion. That includes buying the rights to the script, actor's salaries, production staff salaries, set construction, special effects, wardrobe, craft services, marketing, dog training -- everything!"

"When calculating a marketing budget, the rule of thumb is to spend 50 percent of the rest of the production costs (pre-production, filming and post-production) [source: Vogel]. So if a movie costs $100 million to make, you'll need an additional $50 million to sell it."

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-cost1.htm

But whatever man, you're clearly an expert so I defer to your authority.

Guy, I'm really happy for your dad. That doesn't make you not wrong. Here is the literal quote from BoxOfficeMojo:

Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm

Case closed, shut.

It's not as simple as that. Let me tell you about the movie Pixels and maybe you'll understand. Box Office Mojo lists the budget as $88 million. Wikipedia and the leaked Sony emails however list it as $129 million. So right off the bat, the Box Office Mojo stats aren't as clear cut as they seem.

But wait, $129 million was the gross budget, not the net budget. The net budget was $111 million. This is because the other $18 million came from a rebate from the Canadian government. Depending on where a movie was filmed, studios get grants, tax incentives, rebates, and more. Free money essentially, money that the studio doesn't have to pay back and can do whatever they want with. Product placements are another example, showing a Coca-cola logo in the movie gives a big chunk of free money right there.

The point is, while a studio may pay millions in advertising, they don't need to make it all back for the movie to make a profit. As far as the studio is concerned, the main number that matters when determining whether it flopped or not is the budget they publish. If it makes double its budget, it likely broke even--not a flop. In fact, sometimes studios actually want movies to flop because of all the free money, they can write it off as a "loss".
Box Office Mojo says it doesn't include it to play it safe because unless they're explicitly told the details they don't actually know (like whether it's the net or gross budget for example), even though other definitions say it is included.

Don't sell me that short, I know that each movie has several (well known) ways to mitigate costs/receive additional funds.

You're arguing semantics about the definition of 'production budget'. Since we are referencing BoxOfficeMojo numbers, we can assume their numbers don't include marketing costs, according to them.

Now, whether when any places that talk about budget include marketing in it or not is completely irrelevant to the current discussion, which pertains only to BoxOfficeMojo's reported numbers.

Well it seemed like you didn't know because you argued in your other posts that a movie has make triple its budget or more to break even and begin making a profit when that is simply not the case due to those factors. Specifically you said:

a movie like Independence Day: Resurgence would need to make around 500 million dollars at the box office, before it starts making profit.

Because of the free money they get, they likely don't have to make that much to make a profit. Unless you know whether the $165 million budget was the gross budget or net budget, you don't know how much of that money was free money or not. This is also why the rule of thumb is to stick to whatever the published budget is when determining whether it flopped or not. It might be $165 million + invisible free money (in which case it needs to double $165m to break even), or it might be $165 million including free money (in which case it makes a profit with less than double $165m).

It's also relevant because IMDB/BOM generally report the same numbers as wikipedia but not always. Problem is we don't always know if the listed number is the net budget or gross budget or something else entirely. It's whatever the studio chooses to say (or not say). Again, Pixels shows up as $88 million in both IMDB and BOM, but $129 million is the budget on its wikipedia page (while the net budget was $111 million). But on the other hand if you look at Force Awakens, IMDB and BOM show the production budget as $245 million (which is the net budget on wikipedia), but the gross budget was $306 million (meaning at least $61 million in free money).

It's inconsistent is what I'm saying and why BOM might say that it doesn't include advertising even though that's not necessarily true--because they might literally not know. They don't know if (for example) the studio planned 10% of the net budget allocated to advertising and then covered the rest using the free money. But since the majority of the relevant marketing money might come from the free money, it's relatively safe and easier to just say it doesn't include the advertising, even though it actually might include some (and usually does).