Well, it made $337,000,000 in its first 3 days. That's pretty good for a flop.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr629756421/?ref_=bo_rl_su

@bratface said:

Well, it made $337,000,000 in its first 3 days. That's pretty good for a flop.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr629756421/?ref_=bo_rl_su

Wow! It only needed opening weekend to paying $2.32 And it's still got the rest of its theatrical run to go.

Based on the "facts" of its critical reviews, audience reviews, opening night box office, and opening weekend box office, be it resolved, this movie is officially NOT a flop.

The end.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Wow! It only needed opening weekend to paying $2.32 And it's still got the rest of its theatrical run to go.

Based on the "facts" of its critical reviews, audience reviews, opening night box office, and opening weekend box office, be it resolved, this movie is officially NOT a flop.

Unlike many other movies, its marketing budget is huge: estimated at $150 million. That means it still needs to make ((2.5 x $145 million) + $150 million) - $377 million = $135.5 million more, before it can begin making a profit.

Of course if Mattel is picking up the marketing tab, then the movie is already making money.

I am awaiting to see what the drop is this second weekend to know if the opening box office was front loaded or the start of Barbiemania.

@wonder2wonder said:

Unlike many other movies, its marketing budget is huge: estimated at $150 million. That means it still needs to make ((2.5 x $145 million) + $150 million) - $377 million = $135.5 million more, before it can begin making a profit.

How did you cook up that formula of 2.5 x budget + Marketing & Advertising ("M&A") ?

The standard Insider's Formula is (G/2 - budget) to get to profit dollars, that factor of 2 already in place to cover M&A.

You know I support whatever methods people cook up, I myself having cooked up what I call "ReelROI(tm)" of the most basic G/B which sets $2 to cover budget and M&A before getting to profit rate (even though some movies can be profitable below $2 if they spent little on M&A which happens).

Of course if Mattel is picking up the marketing tab, then the movie is already making money.

I am awaiting to see what the drop is this second weekend to know if the opening box office was front loaded or the start of Barbiemania.

I'm going to see it in the couple of weeks - it's not unreasonable to expect it to maintain momentum towards ultimately paying $3 ($435M)? $4 ($580M)?

I saw on the news that Mattel is due to (or have they already?) put out a line of Barbie-movie tie-in dolls and items. So Barbie-movie buzz (and ticket sales helped by all the doll and products promotion) is no doubt going to remain big for a long time to come, and the profits will keep rolling in.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

How did you cook up that formula of 2.5 x budget + Marketing & Advertising ("M&A") ?

The standard Insider's Formula is (G/2 - budget) to get to profit dollars, that factor of 2 already in place to cover M&A.

You know I support whatever methods people cook up, I myself having cooked up what I call "ReelROI(tm)" of the most basic G/B which sets $2 to cover budget and M&A before getting to profit rate (even though some movies can be profitable below $2 if they spent little on M&A which happens).

Yes, I know that formula. The factor 2 is ok, but I use a simple formula and might include the marketing budget later. Why? Because I like to see what alternative results I get when I change the formula or the variables.

P1 = G- Br

P2 = G- Br - M

P1: Profit (exclude M)
P2: Profit (include M)
G: Gross box office (Domestic + International)
Br: Break even point (mxB)
m: multiplying factor
B: Production budget
M: Marketing budget

Calculation for "Barbie (2023)" on 24 July 2023:

Production budget: $145 million
Marketing budget: $150 million

I used m=2.5 instead of 2, and the worldwide box office has been corrected from $377 million to $356 million.

P1 = $356 million - (2.5x$145 million) = $-6.5 million

P2 = $356 million - (2.5x$145 million) - $150 million = $-156.5 million

If I use m=2, the results are:

P1 = $356 million - (2x$145 million) = $66 million

P2 = $356 million - (2x$145 million) - $150 million = $-84 million

General formula: P = (G/2) - B

P = ($356 million/2) - $145 million = $33 million

"Math class is tough!"

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

How did you cook up that formula of 2.5 x budget + Marketing & Advertising ("M&A") ?

Yes, I know that formula. The factor 2 is ok, but I use a simple formula and might include the marketing budget later. Why? Because I like to see what alternative results I get when I change the formula or the variables.

Groovy!

Calculation for "Barbie (2023)" on 24 July 2023:

Production budget: $145 million
Marketing budget: $150 million

Note that this M&A spend of $150 million is rival studio executives' estimates! Again, not only do we not know definitively just how much was spent, the "rival execs" would love to inflate that number which puts more pressure on box office performance to look like they did okay. The lack of certainty when it comes to marketing spend is what allows all of us to slice and dice the numbers in whatever reasonable way we can, knowing it will only ever be an educated guess.

I used m=2.5 instead of 2, and the worldwide box office has been corrected from $377 million to $356 million.

P1 = $356 million - (2.5x$145 million) = $-6.5 million

P2 = $356 million - (2.5x$145 million) - $150 million = $-156.5 million

If I use m=2, the results are:

P1 = $356 million - (2x$145 million) = $66 million

P2 = $356 million - (2x$145 million) - $150 million = $-84 million

General formula: P = (G/2) - B

P = ($356 million/2) - $145 million = $33 million

And, yes, the general formula lands on a raw dollars amount, which I've always not liked a lot. $33 million on its own doesn't tell me a full story because it doesn't reflect how much investment it took to generate that $33M. The Hollywood Insiders like it, and they know more about the movie-making business than I ever will, so we're likely stuck with it. That said, of course I like my ReelROI better because it is presented as a profit rate which makes for easier apples to apples comparisons with other movies, in terms of profitability.

At any rate, great work!

"Math class is tough!"

Cool clip - so appropriate!

Barbie has now paid $3.41 on $495.7M in box office revenues, and it hasn't even hit its 2nd weekend.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Barbie has now paid $3.41 on $495.7M in box office revenues, and it hasn't even hit its 2nd weekend.

For YouTube critics - men and women - and their followers, this movie is still a flop, because, although it might make some money, it will never make a billion dollars.

They have started their next wave of attacks on the movie. Now they are attributing this temporary success to its brand - all those women, who had a Barbie as a child, want to see the movie, because they suffer from nostalgia - and Ryan Gosling's Ken.

According to them Margot's Barbie is a flat, uncaring and despicable superfeminist, while Ken is the tragic Greek hero who neoconservative men - it is not only cultural, but also political now - identify with and they call for a Ken's uprising.

Whatever happens, it is already a huge success and together with "Oppenheimer (2023)" it is a big win for the cinema.

I'll need some more popcorn this weekend to watch how all this develops on the social media.

@wonder2wonder said:

For YouTube critics - men and women - and their followers, this movie is still a flop, because, although it might make some money, it will never make a billion dollars.

They have started their next wave of attacks on the movie. Now they are attributing this temporary success to its brand - all those women, who had a Barbie as a child, want to see the movie, because they suffer from nostalgia - and Ryan Gosling's Ken.

According to them Margot's Barbie is a flat, uncaring and despicable superfeminist, while Ken is the tragic Greek hero who neoconservative men - it is not only cultural, but also political now - identify with and they call for a Ken's uprising.

As someone who would have loved to see this fail, that measure of flop does not exist in reality. The movie opened well, was well received by its intended audience, and is on course to continue to do well. Whether or not it makes a billion is irrelevant; it will make back its production and advertising cost so it's not a flop. The fact Mattel is announcing a Barbie cinematic universe means the producers are more than happy with its box office.

In fact, the fact youtubers keep talking about it just adds to its popularity. The best way to kill a movie like this is if no one talks about it, which is the exact opposite of what's happening.

Barbie has now paid $3.99 on $578.8M in box office revenues, and 2nd weekend is not done yet.

@northcoast said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Barbie has generated $155M so far, beating estimates of $100m - $130M.

Interpretations, analyses? Have at it!

Okay, I'll bite;) --

Thanks @northcoast! I called for interpretations and analysis somewhat facetiously, but mostly earnestly.

For those who were positively convinced this movie was going to "flop/bomb", and attempted to defend that position with comical gymnastics and vivid imaginations, this hopefully could be a teaching moment for them — if, that is, they have any real interest in learning at all.

The movie is not a bomb by any stretch of the imagination. The question that must be befuddling them is "why?" What factors did they so miserably fail to recognize in their deep analysis that has had so much more impact than their agendas could even see in front of their faces?

An extremely effective ad campaign? One of the tag lines for this movie was, "If you like Barbie, see this movie. If you don't like Barbie, see this movie."

Mattel has been in the marketing business for a long time. They know something about selling, and it shows here.

I suppose that is the advice any film studio would give for any movie they were making, but I think in this case it worked for both camps. Women and girls wanted to see the movie for all the happy memories, men (and women who were never really into "playing Barbies") were clued in that it might just not be a straight-up happy and hollow doll movie (which it wasn't).

At my showing, there were plenty of young and old women in the audience, presumably many of whom had liked Barbie when they were kids and were there for the memories, and then there were people like me-- a man who played with GI Joes:)

Kudos to the writers, directors, actors, for striking a balance that continues to resonate with audiences.

And, judging from what I saw when the movie finished, it worked on both levels: there were happy childhood memories, but also a deeper meaning: Everyone has value, just for being who they are.

Seems like a great message to me. Can't fathom what element of society would recoil from this.

Barbie is more than just the sum total of her outward appearance, and she doesn't need a man (Ken).

Insecure men might feel insecure about this message. What they ought to do with all their angst is channel their energy into being better human beings, rather than raining their misery all over everything.

And also, Ken himself has value, just for being Ken. He doesn't need Barbie, either.

I'll be interested to see how they made that message work.

Apparently, since everything is political these days,

Not these days. My mentor told me, decades ago, that "everything is politics." What happens is we (hopefully) grow up from seeing the world through child eyes and begin to recognize it.

there are some folks on the political Right who think this is a "man-hating" movie. Although I can see where they are getting that from, I really think they read too much into it,

Funny, since, they like to criticize the woke movement for "reading too much into" anything that questions the status quo.

and should just enjoy the movie. There was some great set design, Rhea Perlman was a treat in her role, and the opening with its take from 2001: A Space Odyssey was fantastically clever.

An enjoyable movie in these anxiety-ridden times.

Can't wait to see it myself!

Thanks, @northcoast, for shedding some light to help us better understand. You've made it far less mysterious ;-)

I watch a lot of ABC programming. ABC's parent company is Disney. Suffice it to say also ABC is giving this movie heavy promotion.

There's nothing else family friendly playing right now. It opened next to Oppenheimer, which caters to a completely different demographic. Adults who are eager for adult entertainment and stories.

There are still family friendly movies in the theatres, including the new one "The Haunted Mansion (2023)". Next week Wednesday there is also the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023)". So soon no more bright and pink, but back to the dark, gloomy atmosphere movies.

DRDMovieMusings wrote:

The movie is not a bomb by any stretch of the imagination. The question that must be befuddling them is "why?" What factors did they so miserably fail to recognize in their deep analysis that has had so much more impact than their agendas could even see in front of their faces?

This movie is not a flop. It's going to pay back at least $4 for each production budget dollar. In the history of Hollywood movie-making, that is good money for a movie that was supposed to "flop flop flop".

How much will it rake in at the end of it's theatrical run?

No one knows. We will see. But it's already paid splendid ROI, and it's not done yet.