Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Despite Oscar Nominations and Box Office Buzz, Benjamin Button May Not Be Profitable

Posted on Friday, January 23rd, 2009 by David Chen

Anyone watching The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will know that the film was not a cheap one to make. Paramount chose to co-finance the film’s production with Warner Brothers (who will release the film worldwide) for $150 million, and you really see every dollar of it on screen. Lavish production design and incredible aging effects led Fincher’s film to a bunch of technical nominations at the Oscars this year. But with an already-existing domestic box office take north of $100 million, plus a wave of publicity from its Oscar nominations, plus international distribution and DVD sales still in the future, the film has got to make a profit for Paramount, right? Maybe not.

The LATimes has an interesting breakdown of the costs associated with making and marketing the film. Among some of the interesting statistics:

  • Paramount and Warner Brothers will be spending a whopping $135 million to market and distribute the film worldwide. That’s in addition to the $150 million already spent on production.
  • An estimated $10 million will go towards Button’s Oscar campaign alone. That is around the actual budget of many smaller movies (Slumdog Millionaire was filmed for $14 million).
  • Since movie theaters colllect half of ticket proceeds, new Oscar-slanted Button advertising will need to earn $2 for every $1 that is spent in order to make it worthwhile.
  • The movie’s supposed break even point is when the film makes $300 million worldwide and performs at projected levels on DVD and TV.

[Make sure to check out the whole article for the full details.] What makes the situation comparatively worse for Paramount is that Slumdog Millionaire cost a fraction of the amount of Benjamin Button, and yet it’s still putting up big numbers (not to mention its 10 Oscar noms. I’m also betting it’s the current favorite to win Best Picture and Best Director). While Slumdog is sure to make a profit, Paramount is simultaneously and rapidly spending itself into the red.

The sad part in all of this is that with costs like these, it’s looking like studios might be less willing to try films like Button in the future, and that’s a shame. Even though my feelings for Button weren’t all that hot, I was grateful that such a film had at least been attempted. It’s not every day you can see what an auteur director can do behind the camera for a period epic. If they can’t make the economics work, in the future, we may witness a sea change in the types (and the budgets) of movies we see in theaters come summertime and winter.

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Paramount Pictures, , ,

  • considering Slumdog cost 10% of Button's budget it makes sense that it's going to make more profits...it was a big gamble to spend that kind of money on a 3 hour movie
  • considering Slumdog cost 10% of Button's budget it makes sense that it's going to make more profits...it was a big gamble to spend that kind of money on a 3 hour movie..although it could equal Oscars instead of profits...I'm sure would help DVD sales
  • seanovan
    I have to agree. I won't be giving this great word of mouth, while the premise was good, it was like a longer, boring version of Forrest Gump.
  • That really is sad. Benjamin Button was one of the best movies I've seen in recent memory. They deserve every Oscar they were nominated for. But to not even make a profit off of this film... that's horrible.
  • Alex
    I have major questions about this specific bullet point:

    Since movie theaters colllect half of ticket proceeds, new Oscar-slanted Button advertising will need to earn $2 for every $1 that is spent in order to make it worthwhile.

    In my research, each and every movie has a different split. This comment feels like a throw away (as if this is just a FACT). I am sure Paramount knew that Button was going to be in theaters for quite a while and planned the split to insure they made a bit more $ than normal on the split. Maybe the asked for 90 on opening and 70 for the rest of the run.
  • B33
    "Since movie theaters colllect half of ticket proceeds, new Oscar-slanted Button advertising will need to earn $2 for every $1 that is spent in order to make it worthwhile."

    Did you verify this? I've worked in theaters before that only collected a very small portion of the ticket prices. The studios typically take a majority of the profit, hence why many theaters must charge outrageous prices for snack and what not.
  • So that explains the 5 dollar hotdogs...
  • I agree! I have worked in cinemas and was told they only get around a $1 for a whopping $10 ticket...hence the $5 dollar hot dogs...
  • Brian from OR
    Im sure over time the movie will make money after DVD, Blu-Ray, and rentals. I think what hurt the film and it is not a bad thing either was the fact that younger audiences did not go to the movie. When my girlfriend and I went to go see it, the audience was all made up of older audiences. The reaction I got was that the older audience enjoyed the movie while the teenagers I saw looked bored with the movie.
  • That's because it was boring. And kind of sick, by the way
  • This is quite the kick in the teeth for both Paramount and Warner Brothers, I haven't seen 'Benjamin Button' yet as I am a UK resident, but a lot of my friends who have seen the film 'by other means' said they will definitely see the film in the cinema as well.
  • BB was worth the theater experience, but wasn't a GREAT movie to myself by any means. good luck to it huh
  • David
    Lesson? You can make dumb, shallow, and commercially exploitative movies for a lot less money and maybe turn a nice profit.
  • Captain Molotov
    Maybe if movies didn't cost an arm and leg to go to these days...
  • David
    (I was not referring to Slumdog Millionaire as the counterpoint to the expensive, but dumb, shallow, and commerically exploitative Forrest ... I mean Benjamin Button. I haven't seen SM yet.)
  • Maybe this is a good thing. Setting the technical achievements of Button aside, maybe studios will turn to more inexpensive movies that focus more on character development and story than on big-budget, special effects. I, for one, would like to see more inde movies like Slumdog, and less of the overblown Transformers-Fantastic 4-Crystal Skull-type movies.
  • David
    Frankly, I think that studios love the big, bloated budget movies -- and probably don't give a damn if the make a cent in the end. As long as they break even. Those big budgets pay for the crazy lifestyles of the producers, directors, and actors. It's like a big fundraising bash with caviar and champagne at the Ritz that results in a $20,000 donation after all is said and done.
  • Ben
    Am I the only one who things that Slumdog is over-rated? It's a really good movie, but is it really the best movie of the year?
  • Weyland_Yutani
    Slumdog Millionaire is a very nice film...and completely overrated. It, apparently, emotionally engages some people way further than I can understand. Once again, it's a nice film but I don't see how it transcends to the tier of films associated with the Best Picture stamp.

    As far as the rest of this conversation goes, it makes sense that Benjamin Button plays better to people that have lived a little more life and/or struggled down a longer "love line". In it's creative parts, the film is deserving of the recognition it has gotten. The pacing Fincher has chosen works great as a character study, but ends up being difficult to sell to a theater audience, however, it's a trade-off that may pay off in the end. If they have to sweat the profits a little, I'm glad that they took that chance and allowed Fincher to make the type of film he wanted to make.
  • JohnM
    This is the most irritating kind of post -- suggesting that Benjamin Button is so deep, experiential, and meaningful that it can't be appreciated except by those who've drunk deeply of life. What a crock of jam. The truth is, this movie is so empty headed and pointless, that it's true appeal is to those who don't really think much and get caught up in its useless gimmick. It's for third-rate college philosophizers who think that the shallow end of the pool is deep.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    John - I think you are looking too deeply into my comment. I was merely suggesting that the romance portrayed in the film would be better appreciated by an older audience - as indicated by ticket sales. Nobody is suggesting anything profound and deep about that. Take your misguided jam and put it in someone else's crock.
  • JohnM
    When you respond to criticism by pretending you wrote something else, you become even more irritating.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    Hey, wait a sec. Are you my ex-wife?
  • JohnM
    I was going to ask you the same thing. Never wrong.
  • David
    The nomination of BB, and the win by No Country for Old Men last year, have helped drive me to extreme skepticism about Academy Award nominees -- at least for best picture. Most of my friends have said Slumdog was a good movie, but not great. I hope to see it soon.
  • And Ben Button is such a good film. If any of you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you do, it is a very good film.
  • Yeah I loved Benjamin Button, I didn't think it was great but I still really liked it. My only problem was that there were a little too many familiarities to Forrest Gump. I think people hate on Benjamin Button, because so many love it. Like can't you enjoy it on a technical level?
  • A movie like this shouldn't cost $150 million, folks, so in this case, serves them right. Movies like this don't traditionally break the bank at the box office anyway, so it was pretty fiscally irresponsible to let the budget get that high.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    I pretty much agree with you, however, I do believe that Benjamin Button has at least managed to get a lot of that money on the screen. The film has a lot of sets and some first class art direction. It may not turn a profit, but it's always nice to see that sort of production money being spent on something outside of a tentpole action film. It would be a shame if these attempts were not made.
  • O.J.
    unless you work at warner bros. or paramount why care if this film makes a profit? it is a decent film, but overrated and 13 oscar nods? not surprising really... i mean fincher is awesome, but this was a disappointment for me, zodiac deserves the attention that this film is getting.
  • Fred
    A beautiful looking, but empty and idiotic movie.
  • compared to films like Bride Wars and The Spirit..it's a masterpiece...calling it idiotic and empty means you might have totally ignored the character actors....I have to admit Pitt's performance was lacking when he actually showed up on set...but considering all the disappointing films I've watched in 2008 it was nice to see Fincher pushing cinematic boundaries...Fincher doesn't make acting films he makes visual masterpieces while telling a story as best he can....I understand where you're coming from...Panic Room was an empty beautiful movie...but I wouldn't put this one in that category
  • Well I gave my opinion of the movie, you have given yours.
  • This movie would have been better with 100 million less in the budget. Spend more time with the story and less with the effects.
  • Benjamin Boring isn't worth the hype...so sick of this movie.
  • Erik U
    There is no way this movie doesn't make a profit.
  • I think Benjamin Button was a fantastic film and beautifully looking and they certainly put theit 150 mil to use!
  • Fred
    It's amazing how many people got duped by this shiny piece of dung.
  • Not a fan of Button and neither are all the people I saw it with. Long and bloated and un-engaging.
    A great looking movie, yes but left us very cold.
    Was hoping for a movie about life and death but all I got was an empty mindless Hollywood soap opera.
  • They should make a profit with DVD sales.
  • heidi
    I'm glad to see not everyone was won over by the cinematography and special effects. This film was huge disappointment to me, I agree that Zodiac was superior and Pitt, IMO, was a waste of time. The way the nominations were bought, was so cynical. it worked, but if I bet many of those who filed in after the nominations were announced were polled they would have found a lot of unhappy campers. My parents and older relatives also found the film boring, however their interest didn't flag until after the war scenes, so perhaps there is merit to the opinion that the demographics for this film were the age group that doesn't go to as many films. Only the ladies made it to the end, and they were also offended with the message of the film, which I can not find heartwarming or meaningful. Just like in real life, Pitt gets on his bike and takes off, supposedly justifying years travelling while his wife raises their child alone. The rationale, that she shouldn't have to raise two children alone.


    However, Pitt's character had years to go before that scenario took place, and Blanchett was given no choice in the matter, yet still got the burden of caring for him at the real end of his life. I would love to know how much influence Pitt had on the script, as his character repeats many of the cliches he utters in real life. The script was also a virtual copy of Forrest Gump, but without the humor. Now that the Oscars are over, it seems the majority of the Academy felt the same way. I didn't think this film had a chance of breaking even, but the marketing overseas, which implied far better reviews and the added punch of too many nominations, brought in a larger audience than I would have thought. I will still look forward to Fincher's next film, this one was more romanticized and preachy than I would have expected, it really made me wonder if he had been pushed in that direction in hopes of larger profits. It could also have been cut in many places, IMO, while I did not find Zodiac long, and would still like to see the scenes that were cut!
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.