Well, in terms of audience response on opening night, Vol. 3 grabbed a CinemaScore of A as did both vols. 1 and 2 - seems James Gunn knows exactly what this franchise's fans want, and has continued to deliver.

In terms of money, Guardians 2014 paid $4.55 and Vol. 2 (2017) paid $4.32. Good money.

Vol 3 has returned $3.12 thus far but is still in theatres, I'll let the dust settle on its theatrical run and then update. Any way you slice it, this is yet another solid installment in a solid franchise (I have not seen any of them, I'm just looking objectively at numbers).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

In terms of money, Guardians 2014 paid $4.55 and Vol. 2 (2017) paid $4.32. Good money.

I like what you do in terms of using this to show profitably of different sized films re budget but I really wish you used another term than "paid".

It's way off being the correct term. i.e. You're doing ww box office / budget and then saying that's what it "paid". But surely it isn't?

e.g. It looks like that's what you're saying it "paid" per dollar invested but that's wrong isn't it?

To my mind you'd need to remove the budget from the box office and then divide that profit line to get a "paid" figure, i.e. (ww box office - budget) / budget.

So for GOTG Vol 1:-
~ ($808m - $170m)/$170m = $3.75 "paid out" per $1 invested.

Obviously this would still be wrong due to not factoring in marketing and percentage of box office actually going back to the film makers but I still think that's closer to something you can say "paid" against, at least in simple box office Vs budget terms.

I'll leave that argument between the two of you, but I will agree that despite a kind of rough start, "Guardians 3" has been one of the exceptions to the more recent Marvel rule. It gave audiences what they wanted, told a pretty good story with ACTUAL CHARACTERS, and was overall highly entertaining. It deserves to be doing as well as it has been. Not a huge hit, but a huge step in the right direction.

@Tsavo said:

I'll leave that argument between the two of you...

Not an argument - like I said, I like what @DRDMovieMusings does in terms of showing us how films are doing (did some interesting stuff with the F&F film recently using his dB).

I just think it's the wrong terminology is all... But then, like I was saying you can't actually work a true figure anyway given unknown variables like marketing and percentage of box office from overseas where lower percentages are paid back to the film makers.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@Tsavo said:

I'll leave that argument between the two of you...

Not an argument - like I said, I like what @DRDMovieMusings does in terms of showing us how films are doing (did some interesting stuff with the F&F film recently using his dB).

I just think it's the wrong terminology is all... But then, like I was saying you can't actually work a true figure anyway given unknown variables like marketing and percentage of box office from overseas where lower percentages are paid back to the film makers.

Fair. "Disagreement" might have been the better word to use there. Either way, you're right. There are several unknowns, especially in an industry as financially dodgy as the film industry, and Disney in particular.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@Tsavo said:

I'll leave that argument between the two of you...

Not an argument -

I agree! I love the engagement, different views, ideas, etc.

like I said, I like what @DRDMovieMusings does in terms of showing us how films are doing (did some interesting stuff with the F&F film recently using his dB).

Many thanks!

I just think it's the wrong terminology is all...

I'm not married to the term "paid" but that was the term I was using before coming up with ReelROI(tm) to express the idea of my simplified baseline number.

But then, like I was saying you can't actually work a true figure anyway given unknown variables like marketing and percentage of box office from overseas where lower percentages are paid back to the film makers.

EXACTLY!

I am not an insider, there are too many inconsistencies and variables the industry loves to keep their own little secret, so there was no way I could come up with any kind of relatively consistent comparative number unless I stripped away all the variables for all and just dealt with the two base numbers I could find (when I can find them) - revenue (gross or G) vs production budget (or B), thus G/B straight up.

There is such a thing as the "Insider's Formula", which is G/2 - B, which attempts to broad brush stroke factor for marketing and advertising (M&A) ...but, again, some movies get lots of M&A, and others gets zilch, so how would one compare this movie to that movie if that movie got so much more M&A than this movie? G/2 - B also results in a dollars figure, suggesting money earned or lost but, again, that number is sufficiently misleading as to be of little value. Think of two movies that made a profit of $10M. Okay, great. But movie X generated $15M over a budget of $5 and movie Y generated $100M over a budget of $90M. Isn't it better business to make $10M after only putting up $5M than it would be to need $90M to make that same $10M? (and we haven't even bothered to weight M&A into these numbers!)

By simplifying down to the basest elements, I've been able to cobble together a movie ROI dbase that provides a consistent comparison of "profit potential" for over 3,100 titles from 1915 to present by presenting how many dollars a movie generated ("paid back") in revenue for each $1 spent on production budget.

@Tsavo said:

There are several unknowns, especially in an industry as financially dodgy as the film industry

This is the struggle, isn't it?

and Disney in particular.

That lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson is a great example, right?!

This is the weakest Guardians of the Galaxy movie but it's still awesome.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

There is such a thing as the "Insider's Formula", which is G/2 - B, which attempts to broad brush stroke factor for marketing and advertising (M&A) ...

I've seen this same formula, usually presented as "you have to make double the budget to make profit", but don't really get it. Like I was saying before, they only get a percentage of box office - maybe a bit more than 50% in the US and a bit less than 50% overseas. So just ballpark averaging that out at 50% should mean half the gross just covers the budget BEFORE any marketing was factored in at all does it not?

... by presenting how many dollars a movie generated ("paid back") in revenue for each $1 spent on production budget.

I guess the best example of why I'm uncomfortable with that wording would be a film that had equal budget / office office, say $100m box office vs $100m budget. You'd say there the movie "generated ("paid back") in revenue" $1 "for each $1 spent on production budget."

But it didn't. It "generated ("paid back")" $0 / absolutely nothing against the $1 of production budget. Similar logic with $50m box office vs $100m budget. That's not generating $0.50 per $1, it's losing $0.50 per $1.

Anyway, apologies again - not saying that to argue or be disrespectful of what you're doing (your example on it's use on "returns" from varying budgets shows it's worth), just me being pedantic I guess!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@Tsavo said:

There are several unknowns, especially in an industry as financially dodgy as the film industry

This is the struggle, isn't it?

and Disney in particular.

That lawsuit from Scarlett Johansson is a great example, right?!

Entirely agreed. Honestly, it amazes me that the industry has avoided a more serious corruption investigation and conviction before now.

@HarrySkywalker said:

This is the weakest Guardians of the Galaxy movie but it's still awesome.

Honestly? I disagree. I think the first film was the weakest overall, mostly due to the villain.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

There is such a thing as the "Insider's Formula", which is G/2 - B, which attempts to broad brush stroke factor for marketing and advertising (M&A) ...

I've seen this same formula, usually presented as "you have to make double the budget to make profit", but don't really get it. Like I was saying before, they only get a percentage of box office - maybe a bit more than 50% in the US and a bit less than 50% overseas. So just ballpark averaging that out at 50% should mean half the gross just covers the budget BEFORE any marketing was factored in at all does it not?

Yep, it's a spirball that assumes eveery movie has the same rate of additional costs. But they don't. So, what's the point of it?!

... by presenting how many dollars a movie generated ("paid back") in revenue for each $1 spent on production budget.

I guess the best example of why I'm uncomfortable with that wording would be a film that had equal budget / office office, say $100m box office vs $100m budget. You'd say there the movie "generated ("paid back") in revenue" $1 "for each $1 spent on production budget."

But it didn't. It "generated ("paid back")" $0 / absolutely nothing against the $1 of production budget. Similar logic with $50m box office vs $100m budget. That's not generating $0.50 per $1, it's losing $0.50 per $1.

I get how you're seeing it , but I look at it this way...producers write a cheque for $100M. It's spent, the movie is in the can.

Hits theatres, does $100M box office.

They spent $100M and got back $100M.

So, it paid them back $1 for each $1 they spent — I did NOT say it profited them $1!

I say it paid $1.

Hey, after 3,100 movies over the last 113 years, the ReelROI(tm) is ~$3.51!

• The Wizard of Oz (1939) paid $12.16 in a decade (1930s) that paid $10.00
• Star Wars (1977) paid $70.49 in the highest paying decade, the 1970s, paying $10.71
• Blade Runner (1982) paid $1.18
• Goodfellas (1990) paid $1.87 vs. 22 movies directed by Martin Scorsese paying $2.20
• Fight Club (1999) paid $1.60
• The Shawshank Redemption (1994) paid $2.33 vs. 44 movies in 1994 paying $3.63
• 33 Denzel Washington movies have paid $2.28
• 21 George Clooney movies have paid $2.93
• George Clooney's three Ocean's movies paid $4.02

Anyway, apologies again - not saying that to argue or be disrespectful of what you're doing (your example on it's use on "returns" from varying budgets shows it's worth), just me being pedantic I guess!

Again, all good! My system is only mine, others can do it as they feel, and I'll enjoy sharing back and forth!

@Tsavo said:

@HarrySkywalker said:

This is the weakest Guardians of the Galaxy movie but it's still awesome.

Honestly? I disagree. I think the first film was the weakest overall, mostly due to the villain.

Really? I thought the first movie is the best one. The dynamic of the characters was at its best.

@HarrySkywalker said:

@Tsavo said:

@HarrySkywalker said:

This is the weakest Guardians of the Galaxy movie but it's still awesome.

Honestly? I disagree. I think the first film was the weakest overall, mostly due to the villain.

Really? I thought the first movie is the best one. The dynamic of the characters was at its best.

There's a lot I like about it, and I agree that the character dynamics are great, but it still is very much an introduction to them. There was a lot of room for them to grow, dramatically, and like I said, the villain was pretty shallow. We got no real backstory for him, no really meaningful motivation, he more or less just exists so the plot can happen.

@NeoLosman said:

Man, it was nice to actually enjoy myself at the theater again.

Enjoyable as GOTG3 was, I must say that seeing it at the multiplexes was still nowhere near as fun as watching The Dark Knight Rises was in Aurora, back in '12

Well this conversation just got dark quickly.