Better Man (Robbie Williams: The Movie)

I don't wanna Rock DJ but I'm giving this film a(n)

  • Total voters
    17
I'm still utterly baffled as to why anyone or studio would agree to get behind it to the tune of $110m, though.
 
I mean it’s Robbie Williams. He may not have a hit record but he’s going to stay relevant regardless. He’s surpassed the need to sell singles to garner attention.

I mean this seems like a WILD amount of money to throw at a project like this but I have honestly heard nothing but good things about it so far. I can’t see it surpassing the budget theatrically BUT that plus streaming may at least break it close to even at least.
 
Elton John remained very popular.

I'm not sure Robbie's back catalogue has quite the same hold on people's affections or his story captured the public imagination the way Elton did, until he settled down.

Elton's musical legacy was understood by many generations, as some of his material became associated with particular moments in popular culture. Robbie's... hasn't?

Also, I believe there was general consensus that Robbie had become quite unbearable, and unlike Elton hasn't yet had the public rehabilitation.
 
Did that Netflix documentary he did (in his pants) get big numbers or something?
 
Fair point made about ticket sales but Robbie Williams is not Elton John, or Queen for that matter. Let's sort that bit out!
 
Anyway the point is that nobody on moopy is allowed to go and see it and anyone who does needs to be banned for a few days.
 
I don’t think anyone is denying that there’s a market for a biopic like this, even if the subject hasn’t had a hit in years, but Robbie Williams is firmly not Elton John. Rocketman grossed $100 million in the US alone on a much smaller $40 million budget. As I mentioned above, the film could potentially find its legs in the UK and other markets, but without a strong US theatrical run it’s hard to imagine it being anything other than a loss maker, and he just isn’t a star in the US.
 
How did Rocketman have a fraction of the budget? It also had a handful of star names. Even Bohemian Rhapsody only cost $55m. Honestly, WHO paid for this with any expectation of getting a decent return?
 
Kratz said:
I don’t think anyone is denying that there’s a market for a biopic like this, even if the subject hasn’t had a hit in years, but Robbie Williams is firmly not Elton John. Rocketman grossed $100 million in the US alone on a much smaller $40 million budget. As I mentioned above, the film could potentially find its legs in the UK and other markets, but without a strong US theatrical run it’s hard to imagine it being anything other than a loss maker, and he just isn’t a star in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes I was thking how did this get off the ground when Madonna can't get hers off the ground?! I have no doubt this may do OK in the UK and potentially OZ but is there much interest elsewhere? I also think it would have done better if he wasn't a monkey in it!!?
 
I was thinking, I can’t actually think of another biopic film for a singer or actor, made and released in cinemas (not TV movies) for someone so young who is still alive.

Every biopic I can think of for someone 50 or under has been about someone who died young.
 
I'm also intrigued by the money side of things. If he is big outside of the UK (NOT YOU AMERICA) I guess it's conceivable it could still do well when you factor in a good January at the cinemas and then streaming services buying it etc, but I don't think that side of thing really gets reported on?

I noticed when watching the opening titles that it's made by an absolute PATCHWORK of production companies - more so than usual, and not a single one I recognised from other films.

From wikipedia:

  • Sina Studios
  • Facing East Entertainment
  • Rocket Science
  • Lost Bandits
  • Footloose Productions
  • Azure Centrum
  • Partizan Films
  • VicScreen
  • Screen Australia
 
Last edited:
Finn said:
I'm also intrigued by the money side of things. If he is big outside of the UK (NOT YOU AMERICA) I guess it's conceivable it could still do well when you factor in a good January at the cinemas and then streaming services buying it etc, but I don't think that side of thing really gets reported on?

I noticed when watching the opening titles that it's made by an absolute PATCHWORK of production companies - more so than usual, and not a single one I recognised from other films.

From wikipedia:

  • Sina Studios
  • Facing East Entertainment
  • Rocket Science
  • Lost Bandits
  • Footloose Productions
  • Azure Centrum
  • Partizan Films
  • VicScreen
  • Screen Australia
Click to expand...
is it A BIT ODD that none of these production companies have Wikipedia links?
 
Money laundering on a scale of the Turkish barbers and American Candy stores swamping UK high streets
 
supermassive said:
First shock of 2025, finding out Robbie is only 50.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that, just because of knowing our relative ages.

I did lol at them trying to say he didn't look it on Graham Norton last night though. He's got the skin of a man pretty much a decade older.
 
Ellie said:
I was thinking, I can’t actually think of another biopic film for a singer or actor, made and released in cinemas (not TV movies) for someone so young who is still alive.

Every biopic I can think of for someone 50 or under has been about someone who died young.
Click to expand...
The closest I can think of now is What’s Love Got To Do With It, when Tina Turner was 53 at the time. But again, clearly more deserving.
 
Ellie said:
The closest I can think of now is What’s Love Got To Do With It, when Tina Turner was 53 at the time. But again, clearly more deserving.
Click to expand...
Madonna: Innocence Lost was released when Madonna was in her mid-30s, but I don't think she had a lot to do with it :D
 
Finn said:
I'm also intrigued by the money side of things. If he is big outside of the UK (NOT YOU AMERICA) I guess it's conceivable it could still do well when you factor in a good January at the cinemas and then streaming services buying it etc, but I don't think that side of thing really gets reported on?

I noticed when watching the opening titles that it's made by an absolute PATCHWORK of production companies - more so than usual, and not a single one I recognised from other films.

From wikipedia:

  • Sina Studios
  • Facing East Entertainment
  • Rocket Science
  • Lost Bandits
  • Footloose Productions
  • Azure Centrum
  • Partizan Films
  • VicScreen
  • Screen Australia
Click to expand...
We need the “The Rest Is Entertainment” deep dive!
 
VoR said:
If this winds up having good legs and an awards run, it could very well break even or better.
Click to expand...
on a 110m budget it would need to make at least 275-300m to break even. it debuted with 1.5m in what should be its biggest market. please be serious!
 
Has Robbie put a lot of his own money I to this? Can’t see how it ever got made otherwise!
 
I take Ellie's point about his age and his being alive, but given that he is arguably the biggest British star of a generation, that he's been famous for over 30 years, and that many of his original fans will be grandparents now, I could get past that. Well, if it was a modest British film with a budget of about 20% of this one. And even then I don't think it would be a guaranteed money maker.

But $110m?! Insane.
 
Jark said:
on a 110m budget it would need to make at least 275-300m to break even. it debuted with 1.5m in what should be its biggest market. please be serious!
Click to expand...
What are you basing the 275m to break even on? The same marketing budget as Wicked?
 
For blockbusters I think 2.5 - 3× production cost to break even is generally accepted, isn't it? I don't imagine that's true for all films, though.
 
Yeah, presumably if it's not getting a massive push in America you can take a fair chunk off the promotional budget there as well.
 
smaller budget films often have financing deals and reduced marketing budgets that mean they don't need to reach 3x their budget to break even. this might apply here.

however main markets will be Europe where the % of box office that comes back to the studios averages only about 30% (typically 40%+ in the US) so it probably evens out. it wouldn't break even making 200m for sure.
 
PercyPig said:
What are you basing the 275m to break even on? The same marketing budget as Wicked?
Click to expand...
Well, the standard rule is that the cinemas keep 50% of the money taken, so you’ll always need double the production and marketing spend to make any profit. With a production budget of 110m, global marketing costs of 30m plus doesn’t seem unlikely so 270m would be the minimum needed.
 
He’s did a free show to promote the film in Melbourne

IMG_0242.jpeg
 
:manson: that setlist

He'd better not be gearing up for another of those interminable swing eras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom