Matt Damon’s ‘The Great Wall’ will end up with losses around $75 million

The Art of Elysium presents Stevie Wonder's HEAVEN

Matt Damon’s white-savior film The Great Wall bombed in North America. It debuted at third place in its opening weekend (coming in behind Lego Batman and Fifty Shades Darker), and at this point, the movie will probably barely rack up $40-45 million in the North American box office. At first, people thought that the Asian market would make up for the North American loss, because it was on track to make at least $200 million in China and other Asian countries. But probably not. Plus, even if the film makes $300 million overall, the studios (both American and Chinese) probably won’t be able to recoup their money. The Hollywood Reporter has more (and the math is sort of confusing):

The collapse of The Great Wall at the domestic box office (it has made $34.8 million in North America) has iced any notion of a significant future for U.S.-China co-productions. The movie likely will end up with losses of more than $75 million, sources say, and Universal Pictures will be on the hook for at least $10 million.

The studio funded about 25 percent of the film’s $150 million production budget, the rest coming in equal parts from Legendary Entertainment, China Film Group and Le Vision Pictures. But Universal also covered Wall’s global marketing expenses, conservatively estimated at $80 million-plus. The film earned $171 million in China (a disappointment) and is expected to top out at about $320 million globally. That’s way less than investors had anticipated for the biggest-ever U.S.-China co-production. “The fusion of the No. 1 and No. 2 movie markets in the world will eventually happen, but it is a misfire, domestically speaking,” says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. Adds one Hollywood executive who has dealt extensively with China, “There’s no question but that it’s a failure.”

The good news for Universal is that its share of this failure will be relatively modest. The studio gets to collect a roughly 10 percent distribution fee from all theatrical revenue (between 40 percent and 50 percent of the total box office), and box-office rentals likely will recoup much, if not all, of its marketing outlay before other investors dip into whatever money is left to cut into production costs. The four partners will split any further theatrical income equally. If the movie generates hoped-for ancillary revenue (including $20 million from domestic home entertainment and as much as $40 million from international home entertainment, with $25 million to $30 million from TV — admittedly, a best-case scenario), that will further stanch the red ink.

Still, the crumbling of this Wall has toppled much hope for major Sino-American pictures. Among the lessons insiders have learned are the difficulties of finding stories that meld Eastern and Western characters and the challenges of blending crews, which in Wall’s case meant hiring 100 interpreters and solving conflicts that allegedly took place among some below-the-line workers.

“This was the first movie of its type,” says one executive connected to the project. “You’re trying to appeal to everyone, and you’re not compelling enough to appeal to anyone. It feels like Esperanto.”

To date, the studios have viewed officially sanctioned China co-productions with skepticism, even though they offer vastly greater financial benefits, enabling backers to pocket 43 percent of ticket-sale revenue out of the country, far more than non-co-productions allow. Past tentpoles, such as Paramount’s Transformers: Age of Extinction and Disney’s Iron Man 3, were briefly planned as co-prods before their producers realized the depth of Chinese involvement and script control.

[From THR]

From what I can figure out, the American companies get paid first and the Chinese backers get paid with whatever’s left, which means that the best case scenario for everyone involved with The Great Wall is that every party simply breaks even. Seriously though, why would anyone think that spending this kind of money was a good idea? You don’t spend $150 million on a production and then $80-100 million on promotion for something you’re not sure will work. Besides that, no one from China OR America thought to ask themselves “Hey, are we making a movie where Matt Damon saves China???” As for the “formula” of trying to make a financially successful movie with a blended cast and crew and an inoffensive storyline… yeah, I have no idea. But let’s cross The Great Wall’s formula off the list, okay?

The Art of Elysium presents Stevie Wonder's HEAVEN

Photos courtesy of WENN, ‘The Great Wall’ stills.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

38 Responses to “Matt Damon’s ‘The Great Wall’ will end up with losses around $75 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mousyb says:

    Good.

  2. Beth says:

    Not as much as the US will lose with our “border wall”.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      Exactly what I was thinking; no one is trying to see a film about a wall right now.

  3. TheOtherOne says:

    Jimmy Kimmel said that; he mentioned it during his Oscars monologue.

  4. Aiobhan Targaryen says:

    Ha Ha Ha. LOL. Ha Ha Ha.

    I do feel bad for Pedro though.

  5. Alexandria says:

    I thought the Chinese market would actually prop it up. Oh well. I have no issues with casting as the majority of the cast is still Asian and the Chinese producers did pick Damon after all. But I don’t find the movie’s premise compelling enough to watch.

    • Lena says:

      Which Chinese producer, Thomas Tull, Charles Roven, Jon Jashni or Peter Loehr? This was a western film,from the beginning, with all western writers and producers, originally they even had a western director (the guy who made the last samurai), only at the very end they hired a Chinese director and some Chinese executive producers (which is way lower in the hierarchy from a producer).

  6. PrincessDork says:

    I wonder how much of that $150 million production went into Damon’s pocket? $25-30 mil?

  7. minx says:

    I still laugh at those pictures of him, he looks so silly.

    • anon33 says:

      Right? He’s simply not believable in this role.

      • emilybyrd says:

        I agree. For a film like this, you need somebody who’s credible, and whose charisma and general appeal is off the charts. To be honest, I think the producers were probably looking at Tom Cruise and Last Samurai and thinking they’d just do a similar film (except with the white guy saving China this time!).

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        I agree that they were thinking about what they were able to do with The Last Samurai. But The Lat Samurai was an epic, respectful film with great Chinese actors. And, Matty D is no Tom C… before he jumped the couch, that is.

  8. Amanda says:

    I honestly didn’t even hear about this movie until the Oscars.

  9. OhDear says:

    [Insert Nelson from the Simpsons’ Ha-HA here]

    Though I do feel bad for the Chinese backers.

  10. Bob says:

    “Hey, are we making a movie where Matt Damon saves China???”

    Can we stop pretending any of the people complaining about that would’ve bought tickets to this movie even if it had no white actors in it? Can we stop reflexively shitting on an attempt by two groups from vastly different cultures trying to work together? Can we take a second to consider the potential implications of introducing Western (union-guaranteed) labor practices to Chinese productions?

    • India Rose says:

      1. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
      2. Hamilton the Musical
      3. Big Hero 6

      People of color need to see people of color in stories about people of color — or ANY stories, as Hamilton showed can be done. The era of white saviors as the only viable monetary option for Hollywood (and of only white people playing lead roles) is DYING. Our country’s demographics are changing and Hollywood needs to catch up. My God, if you think I would take my Chinese-born son to see Matt Damon save his country of origin, you are completely mistaken. The idea that it needed a white lead is racist, gross and — guess what — it didn’t work. People laughed at it, instead of flocking to the theaters. White people need to stop thinking they have to be featured in order for a film to be appealing. If you don’t want to see a film with non-white actors, stay home. But don’t assume your position represents everyone else.

      • Bob says:

        “If you don’t want to see a film with non-white actors, stay home”

        Coincidentally, the first movie I saw in the theater that didn’t have a single white person onscreen was Raise the Red Lantern, directed by the same man who directed The Great Wall — Zhang Yimou. That was in 1991. Part of the reason I’m so certain people like you would not have bought tickets to this movie even if the entire cast were ethnic Chinese is because of the ignorance y’all manifest every time the topic comes up. Big Hero 6. Really? An animated film based on a Marvel comic with characters who have Japanese names. Try this list for your Chinese-born son:

        1. Hero (2002)
        2. House of Flying Daggers (2004)
        3. Curse of the Golden Flower (2006)

        “But don’t assume your position represents everyone else. ”

        Why on earth are you assuming I’m more hostile to non-white actors than you when you can’t even name three live action films with predominantly Asian casts? This was my point with my original comment — stop patting yourself on the back for your open-mindedness and open your eyes to just how provincial you are being.

      • RebbyRose says:

        Replying to Bob

        I just want to say you are wrong about people not buying tickets to see a cast with no white actors or a film that has a person of color in the leading role with white actors being the minority in the film.

        People noticed and complained because they WERE interested in the movie but Matt Damon being cast as the lead in a story that revolves around a hero of China just turned people off because it doesn’t fit.

  11. Loo says:

    The Great Wall bombed because it looked and according to critics is bad. It didn’t bomb because of white washing that isn’t really white washing at all.

    • Shijel says:

      People forgetting again that this film had Chinese backers, majority Chinese cast, AND a Chinese director and getting white actors into the project was a deliberate decision for many reasons, though one can question some of those reasons.

      Doubt most people would’ve gone to see it in cinemas even if it had an entirely Chinese cast. It’d still come up with a loss. It just looked… not good.

      • Adrien says:

        Yeah, it looks awful. Crouching Tiger and Memoirs of Geisha were both critically and financially successful. Both featured an All Asian cast. This movie’s premise is an Irish guy who helps a Chinese army build a wall to protect them from dragons. At least that is how I understand it. It could work as a fantasy comedy but not as a historical film especially not in this woke generation.

      • detritus says:

        If they did it Robinhood Men in Tights style I would watch that.

  12. Lucy says:

    I’m afraid to say that, although I do enjoy this site, I do side-eye the way it has covered this movie and the controversy surrounding it. Why? Because while it’s no piece of art by any means, it’s not the racist, white-savioury mess so many people make it to be either.

    • Don't kill me I'm French says:

      Matt Damon is not the white savior in the movie.He just helps to build the wall.
      After,it is not a good movie

      • Sam the Pink says:

        I saw it (Husband’s fault!). The wall is already built when he arrives. He helps the Chinese people defeat the aliens/monsters trying to cross the wall. That’s the entire plot of the movie – not anything else.

      • Yorkgirl55 says:

        Multiple people in all the threads involving this movie have told the writer what the movie was about, that the Chinese director that casted Matt Damon had no intention of the person being Chinese in the first place.

        .
        But no, that’s boring.

  13. Adrien says:

    I didn’t know Pedro Pascal is in this film. Such a diverse cast. Kidding.
    I don’t understand why Matt Damon agreed to this project especially after The Martian’s huge success. Why would he take on a role designed for Nicolas Cage? I would understand Johnny Depp wanting this but Matt? Is he even a huge deal in China? Was Tom Cruise not available? Too many questions.

    • Jay says:

      why are you knocking Pedro? And Matt is in this film because the martian was very popular in china so they thought a Chinese movie starring Matt Damon would be popular in China. And actors make poor choices all the time, no one – including Matt Damon – is above that. He’s made shitty movies before.

  14. Sunflowers says:

    Zhang Yimou is the director and one of the people who cast Matt Damon for the role.
    Here is what he had to say about it:
    “We were never intending to cast a Chinese person in that role. And then the idea that it’s only white heroes… that’s preposterous too. There are many Chinese roles that are very heroic. They didn’t wait for Matt Damon to show up before fighting this monster!”

  15. poppy says:

    part of the problem is people bank rolling films have no idea that throwing crazy money does not equal catching crazy money.
    they don’t want to think it is respectable to make a movie for 1.8 mil with a compelling story but no action/cgi that grosses 23 mil (moonlight). even get out has made bank and it is a suspenseful comedy but really has no action sequences cgi or huge stars. get out was less than 5 mil to make and is close to 50 mil gross. that’s a shįt ton of profit and it was extremely entertaining. was it an earth shattering life changing story? no but it is apparently more appealing than whatever this wall mess is.
    these idiots think to be successful it has to be geared to 12 year old boys and cost a kazillion dollars with all the cgi they can squeeze into for it to be worth pursuing.
    it isn’t about telling an amazing story, it is hardly even about creating something entertaining, it is about how can we make this something that has lots of tie-ins (toys bed linens cereal etc) so we can make a kazillion dollars.
    people are sick to death of these boring franchises, crappy stories where characters fall into line with 1950s “values” (white male hero, sexy girlfriend blah blah blah), and so many explosions and so much cgi it all looks fake, or let’s just reboot some old movie.
    do we really need another batman movie?

    add to the worthless schlock that hogs most screens the high price of admission, the fact you can easily (if not more so) be entertained by television at home, they are really doing themselves a huge disservice. they crank out the same old boring shįt over and over.

  16. Sunflowers says:

    Nevermind

  17. Blanca says:

    I have to be honest, I did like the movie and I loved the cast ensemble. How the women played a fundamental role and a woman won the final battle.

  18. Jeesie says:

    If those are the correct figures it’s already made a profit. It’s sitting at 308 million right now, so if cost 150 million to make and 80 million to promote, it’s made almost 80 million. Which isn’t great, but anyone acting like it’s lost money is doing so for accounting/tax purposes.

    It was a crappy movie, but there really was no whitewashing issue here. China has a booming film industry of its own that celebrates its history and heroes. In China Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal are the diversity hires. I’m not sure how people don’t get that. The Western perspective on race and diversity only applies in the West. Asian people are a minority in the West, but the majority worldwide (by a lot). Han Chinese make up almost 20% of the world population. I can’t comprehend how Americans don’t get that we don’t need to be treated like minorities in our own country just because we’re minorities in yours.

    • teacakes says:

      Actually, the article is accurate – the film is losing money .

      jsyk, that 308 million doesn’t all go to the studio – at least half of it goes to the exhibitors, theatres etc. In China, the studios get only 25 percent of the box office take. And that’s not even counting the promotion expenses. A movie needs to make at least 2.5-3x its production budget to even get close to break-even point, and this is not going to reach that mark.