[RDavidson]

Pacific Rim is a must see for anyone who loved giant robots (Voltron, Transformers, Robotech, Gundam, etc.)  and monsters as a kid, or is into anime. Of course the dialog and acting and story line lack depth, but that's not the point. It's OK to just let loose and be entertained by cool visuals and crazy action every now and then. To me, this movie fits that bill better than anything since The Avengers. And I totally agree, if you're going to see it, go see it on the biggest screen possible. Some of the visuals are epic. Loved it, especially because I loved robots and monsters as a kid. Thank you, Guillermo! You obviously made this movie for the fans.........unlike anything Hollywood's hooker, Michael Bay, could ever do.

[North Star]

Huge fan of Guillermo del Toro here; I won't miss it for a moose!

[Rob Babcock]

Yeah, it sucks to see a cool flick like this neglected while dreck like Grownups 2 rakes in the cash.   I've all but given up on the movie going public.

[wushuliu]

Yeah, it sucks to see a cool flick like this neglected while dreck like Grownups 2 rakes in the cash.   I've all but given up on the movie going public.

Well the public is not to blame. On the one hand Hollywood has banked more and more on tentpoles and international sales of known franchises one the other the success of Marvel and Nolan have raised the bar REALLY high (yeah, yeah we all know you're a comic book fan with quibbles about movie adaptations, but I'm talking, you know, everyone else). Pacific Rim's marketing wasn't clear to most folks as what made it worth spending up to $18-20+. It's a vicious cycle. The ticket prices keep going up and audiences in turn will only risk spending that much on a known quantity. Adam Sandler and his dumb @ss movies are a known quantity. This is why both Spielberg and Lucas said recently at a USC seminar that going to the movies will become more and more ultra expensive and a 'premium' experience: huge budget efx movies will begin to bottom out forcing the studios to make even more expensive and even more 'value-added' movie experience. Contrary to the post above Pacific Rim is NOT in the black. Unless they got massive tax incentives somehow it will need to hit $500-600 million to break even.

The possible upside is that if Pacific Rim does well on video/Blu-ray etc. then TA-DA it become s 'known quantity' and any sequel can potentially make much more than the original, which I think is what the studio/prod. co. is hoping will happen.

[ajzepp]

Contrary to the post above Pacific Rim is NOT in the black. Unless they got massive tax incentives somehow it will need to hit $500-600 million to break even.

Okay, I'll bite...what is the basis for saying it would need to hit half billion to break even...

[wushuliu]

Okay, I'll bite...what is the basis for saying it would need to hit half billion to break even...

Budget estimated between $190-220 million (that's assuming their being honest). Add at least $75 million for marketing (and that's being VERY conservative). That's $265-295 million. Studios get about half the gross (very simplified but thereabouts). So a film has to be make roughly double the budget before profit is seen. That's $530-580 million. Granted there are many loopholes and creative accounting and tax incentivex and product placement etc., but that's the dirty math. This is what Soderbergh was talking about in his recent lecture about Hollywood getting out of control - I think he also confirmed similar budget structure. This is why it's mega tentpoles on one side and super cheap (Paranormal Activity, etc) on the other. No matter how small the movie once all the costs are tabulated you're likely to still have to hit $100 million before any kind of profit is seen.

[ajzepp]

Budget estimated between $190-220 million (that's assuming their being honest). Add at least $75 million for marketing (and that's being VERY conservative). That's $265-290 million. Studios get about half the gross (very simplified but thereabouts). So a film has to be make roughly double the budget before profit is seen. That's $530-580 million. Granted there are many loopholes and creative accounting and tax incentivex and product placement etc., but that's the dirty math. This is what Soderbergh was talking about in his recent lecture about Hollywood getting out of control - I think he also confirmed similar budget structure.

This would be the first time I've heard that post-production expenses, including marketing, is external to the production budget. Typically marketing (and everything else, for that matter) is inclusive of the production budget. I find it very hard to believe that a film would have to gross 300% of production budget just to get into the black...if you have links or something that support this, please share them...not sayign you're incorrect, I just would like to see more info about this.


EDIT: Just a quick Google search before I flip over to Big Brother, but this is a site owned by "The Discovery Channel" people, so seems to be somewhat credible...

"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! "

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

I know one of JJ Abrams writers...I'll see if he's around and can offer some "insider" feedback on this. I doubt he knows many specifics about Pacific Rim, but he'll likely know about JJ's movies.

[wushuliu]

From BoxOfficeMojo:

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

Production Budget for Pacific Rim (Boxofficemojo): $190 million

Variety also confirmed $200 million but did not say whether marketing is included.

I would find it VERY hard to believe Pacific Rim's $190 million includes marketing...

Look forward to your friend's input.

[Rob Babcock]

Well the public is not to blame. On the one hand Hollywood has banked more and more on tentpoles and international sales of known franchises one the other the success of Marvel and Nolan have raised the bar REALLY high (yeah, yeah we all know you're a comic book fan with quibbles about movie adaptations, but I'm talking, you know, everyone else). Pacific Rim's marketing wasn't clear to most folks as what made it worth spending up to $18-20+. It's a vicious cycle. The ticket prices keep going up and audiences in turn will only risk spending that much on a known quantity. Adam Sandler and his dumb @ss movies are a known quantity.

If people are throwing money at movies they know in advance are shitty, well- even more reason to blame the public!   I dunno about the trend towards $50 tickets and all movies being mega-blockbusters.  Some industry watchers think this "Summer of Bombs" may change/dismantle the blockbuster culture.  At any rate, films rake in less than half of their money in US box office (depending on the type of film).  Foreign viewers and home sales account for around half.  Pacific Rim will probably do well when it hits Blu-Ray.

Either I'm horribly out of touch what constitutes a good film or America is off its collective rocker.  Several of the "huge flops" were actually pretty decent films.  I've yet to meet someone that saw White House Down that didn't enjoy it and find it a well made movie.  The Lone Ranger wasn't a bad film at all, either.  Probably didn't help that few people under age 60 know the character!  My brother and I saw the much maligned R.I.P.D. too and we both enjoyed it immensely.  I suppose Man of Steel is also a bomb if it didn't make a billion dollars yet but it's the only Superman movie I can even stand.

EDIT:  spelling

[ajzepp]

  I suppose Man of Steel is also a bomb if it didn't make a billion dollars yet but it's the old Superman movie I can even stand.

Surprisingly it didn't even come close to a billion...I really expected it to do better than it did.

[wushuliu]

Surprisingly it didn't even come close to a billion...I really expected it to do better than it did.

Kind of pedantic but using Man of Steel as an example of how movie profits are so tricky. Man of Steel got $170 million from promotional tie-ins so that covers a chunk of the budget, but then on the flip side the Chicago Tribune estimated the marketing budget to be $150 million (on top of the $200+ million production, so ~$350 million total). So it's possible it's already in the black. This is assuming the numbers are accurate, which I'm sure they're not. No one ever tells the real cost of these big movies.

It's the sheer size of the budgets that astound me. The idea that a movie has to make such huge sums of money to profit. Just for a couple hours of entertainment.

[BobC]

My 8 year old boy wants to see it.  Safe for kids?

[Rob Babcock]

I should think it's pretty kid friendly.  Not much if any swearing, nothing overtly sexual, etc.  The Kaiju are kind of "scary" but nothing a little kid can't handle.  I think it's a good kid's film since it's about bravery, duty and love.

[ajzepp]

From BoxOfficeMojo:

Production Budget for Pacific Rim (Boxofficemojo): $190 million

Variety also confirmed $200 million but did not say whether marketing is included.

I would find it VERY hard to believe Pacific Rim's $190 million includes marketing...

Look forward to your friend's input.

Okay, he wrote me back today so I'll try and paraphrase his response below since I know he doesn't want me to mention the specific project examples he used to illustrate his answer:

- Studios keep their books uber tight, and basically all production budgets are estimates.  He uses a specific example of a film that generated significant revenue but actually claims to this day that it lost money so as (allegedly) to avoid or reduce the amount of royalties it has to pay out. I wish I could say more about this cause it's an aspect of film making I never even thought of lol.
- Studio marketing execs are higher up on the totem pole than studio development execs, which can sometimes result in marketing expense decisions being made/altered after the fact. He mentioned a specific film he was very involved with where the production budget was well over 100 million, which included the marketing that was designed in large part to be viral in nature. The marketing execs later decided to blow the whole thing wide open and dumped an amount nearly equal to the entire production budget into further marketing efforts. He notes that in this type of situation, unless you're actually involved in the meetings/discussions (which he was), it's not something a studio would ever admit to doing in the first place, let alone disclosing the actual amount that was spent.
-For the big budget films, the production budget numbers will usually factor in an estimate of the marketing budget, but typically the marketing will be equal to the "shooting budget". He said that when he sees production budget numbers listed, such as what we find on a site like boxofficemojo.com, he adds a mark-up of approx 50-75% and feels this is a closer estimate as to what the movie would need to bring in in order to get into the black.
-He concludes by saying that he has a lot of respect for how good the marketing execs are at their jobs, but that the creatives/development guys and gals are becoming marginalized as a result of their influence/power.

So anyway, take from that what you guys will, but that's as close to the horse's mouth as my rolodex will get me lol.

[wushuliu]

Deadline says that it just opened huge in China so a sequel is looking more likely. Japan comes after that, so if it, er, stomps all over Japan which is a suprisingly huge market for movies then yay sequel!

[Folsom]

Yes but whenever movies get huge "international" appeal (China), they make the dialog aimed for it. That's why the dialog of The Hobbit wasn't up to par with Lord of The Rings.

[wushuliu]

Yes but whenever movies get huge "international" appeal (China), they make the dialog aimed for it. That's why the dialog of The Hobbit wasn't up to par with Lord of The Rings.

I think this explains the hokey dialogue in Pacific Rim, they hedged their bets on stuff that was as basic as possible to have cross appeal. Cause it's not like it's bad per se it's just incredibly generic.

The problem with the Hobbitt is that Del Toro was originally supposed to direct but dropped out when they took too long to start shooting. I think he would have been much better for that material than Jackson.

[James Romeyn]

Yes but whenever movies get huge "international" appeal (China), they make the dialog aimed for it. That's why the dialog of The Hobbit wasn't up to par with Lord of The Rings.

Strangely, I preferred The Hobbit vs. LOTR, especially preferring Martin Freeman's acting over Elijah Woods' (who has what I call "David Janssen" syndrome...only one facial expression).  "Mariah Carey Syndrome" is when an actor prohibits camera persons to photograph the "bad side" of their face. 

[North Star]

'Pacific Rim'; better than 'The Hobbit'?

* Me prefer LOTR trilogy one billion times better than 'The Hobbit'. ...Even the 3D version.
'The Hobbit' was long and boring, except for the funny parts (in the kitchen).

[Rob Babcock]

Ugghhhh!  I wanted to claw my eyes and ears during the kitchen scene.   That was the longest 90 minutes of the film!