Submitted by Cogniscience t3_yuk3lb in dataisbeautiful
Comments
kindred_asura t1_iwb690z wrote
The first one is still my favorite.
The two next especially the third one went too far into weird shit and "rules", and "adjudicators" and crap. The 4th one looks even worse.
I wish they can go back to their roots for the 5th one, just a simple story.
dc456 t1_iwbd835 wrote
This chart has just starkly illustrated to me why movies that I like are increasingly hard to find. The wider public clearly significantly prefer the type of movie that I really don’t like, or at least are willing to spend more money to see them.
I’m not saying that they or I have better taste, just that the studios are obviously going to cater to the group that brings in more money, and unfortunately I’m not part of it.
AdlPadl970 t1_iwbte16 wrote
Possibly. Another way to look at it is the first movie drew in attention and more people to watch the second one. Then by the time the 3rd one came out there are all those people that have seen or heard about the first 2 movies.
Like I bet in 1983, a few months before Return of the Jedi came out, there was a lot more hype for star wars then a few months before A new Hope in 1977.
dc456 t1_iwc4i0u wrote
But Return of the Jedi did worse at the box office.
Juanito817 t1_iwba0m6 wrote
To be able to create more with less money was what created a legend. I actually liked the first one more than the second and third.
petesapai t1_iwbiyb6 wrote
I didn't get the whole going to the desert to find forgiveness(?) thing in #3. That part was just weird.
But like most people, I just look at it as a fun action movie and ignore the silly parts.
Cogniscience OP t1_iw9r2l2 wrote
I know you guys are thinking it's obvious that if you increase the budget, you will most likely see higher returns. I agree. I just found it interesting how direct the relationship happened to be for the John Wick series and wanted to graph it.
My expert (and foolproof) analysis for John Wick 5: Budget 320 million, Gross 1.376 billion
​
Data source: John Wick 1, John Wick 2, John Wick 3
Tools used: Canva
bjanas t1_iw9toog wrote
See, I don't think that that is something to be assumed; I'm sure plenty of films that throw more cash at their sequels didn't see a proportional increase?
Cogniscience OP t1_iw9vyy2 wrote
Oh I know, I'm just messing around. After a while, studios start to get diminishing returns.
Also, my graph does not include marketing costs which can sometimes be larger than the budget and has a greater impact on how well the movie does at the box office.
perchero t1_iwabhpp wrote
My rule of thumb is marketing costs = film budget
jacktheshaft t1_iwaczev wrote
That's something that gets me is marketing is literally the single largest input into making a film
g_spaitz t1_iwb1pt1 wrote
What then pisses me off is that I'm a sound guy and when I ask more the answer is always there's no budget.
bjanas t1_iw9w6wc wrote
True true.
Don't get me wrong, I know this is a fun post. I'm not here to be a "well akshually" guy.
Wdrussell1 t1_iwaju76 wrote
Well thats not 100% true though. I think the big deal here is that John Wick was just so well done as an action movie and the story was interesting. They almost sell the idea that Keanu as John really is 'The Boogey Man'. The other side of the coin is that the increase from movie 1 to movie 2 in returns was mostly people wanting more of the story. They also did do pretty well at marketing it. So the budget has at least something to do with it.
Movie 3 for sure though was something people wanted. They wanted the continuation of the fight and breaking of the rules in the Continental.
So for sure in this instance (and I am sure in most movies that do numbers like the JW series) it think the increase in profits stems more from the success of the writing, acting and flow of the movie. Not really the budget. I would guess the budget of JW2 and JW3 are stemming more from the fact that they involved so many more people with large names into the movies and possibly a bit related to the effects. But thats a bigger breakdown that we likely don't have good data for.
jbautista13 t1_iwatg1a wrote
John is the guy you send to kill the boogeyman, solid points
IllustriousAd5963 t1_iwb1gmy wrote
well actcthually...
lol, yeah you're right but like, coulda said it in 100 less words:
"we know you're being sarcastic about "2x budget = 2x profit" but to add:
- wick series grew in popularity/awareness
- wick series storyline remained fun/exciting
- higher budget allowed for + exhilarating stunts"
boom, done.
Wdrussell1 t1_iwb231v wrote
I would write and re-write things into less and less thought. However, the wording I chose was specific and thought out the way it was to make a point and defend it with understanding and thought.
When making a point without the thought its hollow. It doesn't get the point across properly and leaves everything up for interpretation.
Example:
>higher budget allowed for + exhilarating stunts"
This is not what I said. I said that it allowed for more people in the movie, it also allowed for bigger names to be used, and possibly more related to the effects of the movies.
Your extrapolation of the information isn't a complete thought but even if forced it would essentially work out to mean that it just give a bigger budget to CGI and other effects. Nothing about the cast itself or how large of names they are in acting. It also leaves out something we both didn't mention of including more locations so things like transporting certain items and renting time/gear for those locations.
Not everything can be properly boiled down into a few words and make sense. Nor can a few words extrapolate complex thought and understanding.
Words come without emotion and conveying information in them is hard.
IllustriousAd5963 t1_iwb2b3j wrote
oh god, it got longer 😳 lol, man, how does this person live and function. gotta be like a 14-16 yr-old range type of kid. my gooness mate. can relax on all that.
I didn't read but maybe 2 lines of the 1st one, and nothing at all of the 2nd book. out of maybe 100-200 people who glance at your 2 book-messages here, probably only around 2-3 will actually read them... more than 1-2 lines of em. it's a waste unless you're using them almost entirely for yourself.
Wdrussell1 t1_iwb2fxo wrote
It looks as though you have been the person to prove you are the 14-16 year old. Plenty of people read comments. Your small intellect just doesn't understand them. Maybe /r/dataisbeautiful isn't for the person who can't understand said data.
regalrecaller t1_iwatli4 wrote
Does this account for inflation?
x0rn t1_iwadwef wrote
It looks like the more you increase the budget the worse the movie gets.
RAGINGBULLlph t1_iwa0524 wrote
Infinite money glitch incoming
Necessary_Scholar282 t1_iw9y4a4 wrote
And halves the quality of the story.
Apollon1212 t1_iwakyr7 wrote
Tbh john wick series never seemed like a series to watch for story to me. Tho i liked its story. Its a series to watch for pure action thats why i think they shouldnt do too many john wick's to avoid repetition.
L3NTON t1_iw9ywbb wrote
The third one had a story?
Jfrog1 t1_iwa370u wrote
the third one had Halle Berry, which was all it needed.
VaishakhD t1_iwbk8qc wrote
If you watch john wick movies for the story, you are the problem
attaboy000 t1_iwa3cr4 wrote
I think number 4 will stop this trend. These movies, as much as I love #1, should've stopped.
Zoakeeper t1_iwa4gt3 wrote
I mostly agree. The second one was bloated and essentially two different movies. But taking that info the third movie has expanded “the universe” of John Wick. We may not like it, but it pretty much took “The Fast and the Furious” franchise model and applied it quickly and more efficiently.
Zoakeeper t1_iwa419v wrote
Because I watched this for the second time ever last night. The 2002 comedy “The Sweetest Thing” with Cameron Diaz was made for $43 million. That money in 2002 had a higher budget than the first two John Wick movies. All of this means relatively nothing other than the death of the Rom-Com and making an interesting story with smaller budget and production.
BA_calls t1_iwa9qpn wrote
Going to the movies to see romcoms is not a thing anymore.
Zoakeeper t1_iwaav0q wrote
Exactly, and not on that high of a budget.
SignorJC t1_iwbf3rs wrote
They’re mostly terrible movies with basically the same plot. They just rotate through actors that are popular at the moment. All the romcoms are getting made for streaming or direct to tv now aren’t they?
Prior-Crew-8603 t1_iwalctn wrote
Correlation ≠ causation…
This is stats 101...
The fan base is growing so they can expect a larger turn out and, therefore, more revenue… They use these estimates to more confidently invest in a bigger budget to please the larger crowd.
Come on guys… do better…
BeatchaKimchi t1_iwb1cqi wrote
I’m pretty sure the post was meant to be a joke, the OP knows this isn’t an actual trend
Cogniscience OP t1_iwbh4g8 wrote
Yes, thank you. Some people don't realize I'm being tongue-in-cheek with the title haha.
Prior-Crew-8603 t1_iwbql2v wrote
> Come on guys
Not directing my disappointment to OP, just the many comments who don’t catch on.
-oRocketSurgeryo- t1_iwa65iu wrote
The histogram makes it tempting to draw the conclusion in the title. But we have a correlation v. causation question to work through before we can properly draw it.
haijak t1_iwafjwt wrote
That's not how this works.
Correlation. Not causation.
delayedconfusion t1_iwa77vd wrote
I'd say the franchise popularity growth had a lot more to do with this than the budget.
SierraBravoLima t1_iwasd65 wrote
I am waiting for John Constantine
Hadleys158 t1_iwa3t2i wrote
Interesting it's nearly 4 times return each time, i wonder if the next one will be the same?
thepokemonGOAT t1_iwaula1 wrote
John wick was more popular when the 2nd came out than when the 1st came out. Hard to attribute all the gains to the movie’s budget without way more data and control groups.
[deleted] t1_iw9qsbq wrote
[deleted]
buster_rhino t1_iwa9oxq wrote
Does the total budget include marketing spend?
EdofBorg t1_iwa9wsr wrote
I see a 400% return each time.
jacktheshaft t1_iwacojz wrote
It also tracks with number of dogs
Rockefeller_street t1_iwaf7h4 wrote
The John Wick movies are solid. One of the few franchises to never have a dull movie.
kinezumi89 t1_iwaodjg wrote
It would be clearer to plot just the delta, no?
ryoma-gerald t1_iwaybf1 wrote
At some point the diminish return will cut in.
BeatchaKimchi t1_iwb1fx6 wrote
The amount of people taking this post seriously makes me question society
PM-ME-YOUR-CROTCH t1_iwb2hbg wrote
Hey disney, pay attention!
ShelfordPrefect t1_iwb4pd7 wrote
Let me introduce you to these magical things known as "scatter plots" which are great for demonstrating linear relationships between variables
FactoryBuilder t1_iwb60hq wrote
Is this why they’re making number 4?
Creepernom t1_iwbamm1 wrote
John Wick movies are really fun. I don't really care about the story too much, I'm just here to see Keanu do cool moves and kill bad guys in cool ways. It's simple fun.
vergil718 t1_iwbd9ju wrote
Correlation not cause. But you said you're just messing around, so you probably already know that.
Imo the budget isn't simply a multiplicator for the revenue here. I'd say that because a previous movie was successful, they have a growing and already interested audience for the second movie and the success also encourages them (and allows them) to spend more on the sequel.
So in short the success of the previous movie and the growing audience cause both the bigger budget and the bigger revenue of the next (which makes the two correlated but not causal).
account_is_deleted t1_iwbdlsx wrote
No wonder that they keep churning them out, seems like it's printing money.
deceptivelyelevated t1_iwbev1r wrote
I’m wondering if the budget is the total cost? Does the studio end up with gross-budget? Seems like a tremendously large amount of profit.
[deleted] t1_iwbiywc wrote
How are they making the movies so cheap
Sonabaybeach t1_iwbmk8w wrote
John Wick parabellum was one of the only movies I’ve seen in theaters in the past like 10 years, and it had me gripping my seat and smiling showing all my teeth the entire time. Such a terrific action flick
[deleted] t1_iwbnw28 wrote
[removed]
ReallyWTH t1_iwbz9pg wrote
On the other hand are too many movies where each sequel has a smaller budget and is worse than the previous one. The first that comes to mind is Starship Troopers. I think in the last one they didn’t even use actors. It’s just CGI.
BurnTheOrange t1_iw9x1cl wrote
The first john wick was incredible for doing so much with a low budget (especially for a stunt-heavy action movie).