Thank for this, Scott. I have a question about budget, since it seems a very maleable number. When a studio or prodco quotes a budget to you, as in, "we love your script and think we can make it for $25 million," what are they in fact saying? 25 below-the-line, 25 total, 25 total inclusive of marketing? Or is there no blanket right answer?

Hey Scott, Is there and second part to your Apes/C&A comparison..? I can't seem to find it.

Also goes to show that international audiences don't just want movies with big bangs. You'd think they'd notice by how talkie Euro movies are...

Normally when they mention a budget in a news article, they are talking about actual costs related to production (which includes pre-production and post). What is called P&A (Prints and Ads) refers to distribution and marketing, and those are typically not included unless it specifies they are in the article.

Richard, that got hung up and is backlogged in Draft form, but I promise to get to it, as I do think the issue of 'emotional resonance' is a contributing factor to C&A's lack of B.O. success (but nearly as much as melding of sci-fi and western genres, and the choice they made in terms of tone).

Biggest jumps in intl B.O. are in countries like Russia and China, perhaps different sensibilities that much of Europe. Continuing conventional wisdom: Big visual action / sci-fi type movies sell well overseas.

Don't forget the merchandising and video/dvd sales. Movies like Cowboys & Aliens offer significant opportunities for those.

@Pliny, it does seem like Hollywood lives or dies by Box Office numbers, right? I doubt Cowboys and Aliens is getting a sequel.

Oh man. I don't like when movies don't perform well, but I felt really cheated after watching C&A. In short, I thought it sucked. Big time. A colossal disaster. They have FIVE credited screenwriters, plus another 'Story by' credit. Not to mention Spielberg, Grazer, Howard, and Favreou all spitting out ideas. Talk about too many cooks in the kitchen. A good article could focus on why this movie failed so miserably? Timing? Western? 2 identical leads? Lousy script? Lame set pieces? The list goes on... But I digress.

Looking forward to it.

Is it really 2.5:1? I've read that it's 2:1. And it seems that most of the movie money math is fuzzy at best -- even to the people involved. Also, although I understand how the box-office take is divided amongst the parties over the length of a release in the states -- but do they follow a similar model when the film is released? Or is the pie divided differently abroad?

should be "released in other countries?"

damZway: Actually I sat in a meeting at Castle Rock re my project Alaska, and Alan Horn (now the former head of Warner Bros.) said point blank, a movie needs to make three dollars for every dollar spent on production, so unless the economics have changed drastically over the last decade or so, it's probably 2.5 or higher rather than lower. In terms of revenue split between studios and exhibitors, those numbers flex depending upon the studio, the exhibitors, the movie, but as a rule studios get a significantly higher percentage of revenues (as high as 90%) the first week out, then that figure reduces over the length of the film's run. Overseas? I have no idea. Perhaps a GITS reader knows or could steer us to that information. My guess is it's probably a similar formula.

Interesting -- and even scarier. But is it $3 for every $1 to break even -- or to make a profit worthy of the monetary risk taken?

damZway, it's a good idea to carry a healthy dose of skepticism when listening to anyone from a movie studio discuss profits. They have, shall we say, unusual accounting practices. Starting with charging interest to a production they are funding on money they have essentially lent to themselves. So those are costs against the production, but actually straight profit to the studio. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. In reality, even with the collapse of the DVD market, studios probably make money on half or more of their movies, and some of them huge profits. Plus don't forget the value of a movie as part of the studio's library of titles. Any rental, purchase, rebroadcast or other paid use of a movie after it's going through the entirety of its first run goes straight to the bottom line, even 10, 20, 30 years or more after the fact. And as they accumulate titles in their library, those become assets the studio can use to get loans, adds to the valuation of the studio overall, can be remade, or as in the case of Lion King 3-D, reissued. So very little reason to shed any crocodile tears for movie studios.