'Coyote vs. Acme' Outgrosses All But 3 WB Movies This Year, Heads To Profit (screenrant.com)
- Reference: 0185737014
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/09/22/0529223/coyote-vs-acme-outgrosses-all-but-3-wb-movies-this-year-heads-to-profit
- Source link: https://screenrant.com/coyote-vs-acme-box-office-week-4-domestic-chart-result/
With a break-even number of $120 million, the movie "will probably make up any theatrical deficit (should there be any) with its impending releases on video on demand and streaming," [4]writes ScreenRant . Almost three years after the completed film was initially shelved for a $30 million write-off, its cumulative domestic box office has apparently even beat Warner Bros. dinosaur movie The End of Oak Street :
> In addition to officially joining the chart of the Top 30 movies of the year so far at the domestic box office, by surpassing The End of Oak Street, Coyote vs. Acme has outgrossed five of the eight movies that Warner Bros. has put out in domestic theaters this year.... [It's just $17.6 million behind Supergirl , and within $30 million of Mortal Kombat II and Wuthering Heights .] Their anticipated sci-fi sequel Dune: Part Three also seems guaranteed to land higher than 2026's Coyote vs. Acme on the chart (2021's Dune earned $108.9 million in domestic theaters, while Dune: Part Two earned $282.1 million).
With its a small marketing budget of just $10 million, the movie seems to be relying on oddball marketing stunts like their [5]AMA on Reddit's r/movies . And commemorating the spirit of the movie, Crayon-maker Crayola even released a special " [6]Coyote Secret Plan" web page for children to print and color — and partnered with the film's stars [7]for a video on the importance of creativity:
Lana Condor: Crayola is all about encouraging kids and grown-ups to turn imagination into action.
Will Forte: Which is exactly what Coyote does in Coyote versus Acme. He sees a problem and thinks, "Could this be solved with a rocket, a catapult, or a suspiciously affordable mail order anvil?"
Lana Condor: Usually no.
Will Forte: Usually very no.
[1] https://www.animationmagazine.net/2026/09/coyote-vs-acme-box-office-blows-up-wbs-30m-write-off/
[2] https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/coyote-vs-acme-paw-patrol-266499.html
[3] https://www.threads.com/@ketchupentertainment/post/DdkIbHCDirW
[4] https://screenrant.com/coyote-vs-acme-box-office-week-4-domestic-chart-result/
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1w58qjb/hi_reddit_im_wile_e_coyote_im_taking_on_acme_ama/
[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20260824200618/https://www.crayola.com/free-coloring-pages/print/wile-e-coyote-secret-plan-coloring-page
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fh1bref-AI
Re: (Score:1)
So you're giving fucks about how much it makes as compared to whether you like it or not?
Hollywood Accounting needs to be banned,prosecuted (Score:5, Interesting)
With a break-even number of $120 million, according to the Hollywood Accounting where the WB shell companies are all paying themselves in a circle, compared to the actual production cost of $30 million as indicated by the tax writeoff stated value...
Re: (Score:3)
Once they sell the movie rights, they lose the tax write-off and owe taxes on it once again (but on the $50 million sale price, not the $30 million write-off amount).
$50 + $10 million is what Ketchup put in (they spent the marketing, not WB). They are getting roughly half of ticket proceeds (WB gets nothing). So to make back $60 million, they need $120 million in total sales.
"Eat the rich!" (Score:3)
And situations like THIS are why I want us to try a flat tax: It would be the same for every human or entity, every time money changes hands, and no more deductions, ever. No charity breaks, no loopholes, no dubious accounting, no [1]"write offs" [youtube.com] , no corruption. Everyone, rich or poor, would then be in the same voting boat, killing off part of the class warfare that occurs on election day as we'd all at least vote for lower taxes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAjxn2US7J8
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Ayn Rand proposed something exactly like this...
Re: "Eat the rich!" (Score:3)
Flat taxes are regressive because the poor spend more of their money on necessities, unless you then issue corrections in which case there's no benefit to doing a flat tax because it doesn't save you any effort.
If you actually wanted to fix this problem you'd eliminate loopholes and the alternate rate of capital gains tax
Re: (Score:1)
The studio tried to claim Lord Of The Rings lost money so they wouldn't have to pay the Tolkien estate their percentage.
Re: (Score:3)
They do that with everything. I remember when JMS said the studios pulled the same shit with Babylon 5 because they would find ways to attach unrelated production costs to the project so that it never made money. Anyone working in or with Hollywood that isn't asking for a percentage of revenue is just asking to get fucked over by Hollywood accountants. The government doesn't care if actors or directors get fucked over as long as taxes get paid so don't expect them to care about the problem or try to fix it
Re: (Score:2)
They still claim that Return of the Fucking Jedi hasn't made money.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I'm not sad when people suggest Hollywood might dry up and blow away. Good. Fuck them. They don't pay their taxes anyway and they are absolutely going to replace everyone they can with AI so those jobs are going away no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
> the actual production cost of $30 million as indicated by the tax writeoff stated value
The tax write-off can only be for part of the production cost, isn't it? You don't get to deduct the entire cost of the movie.
It's well-reported that WB sold the film below costs to Ketchup, and they paid $50 million for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is way everyone gets rich, but a movie never makes money. Only a fool takes a cut of the gross Smart money gets a cut of the net.
Ketchup Entertainment (Score:2)
Ketchup bought the distribution rights from WB for around $50M. I suspect most of the $100M goes to the box office and actors, I'm not sure what percentage WB gets. Likely not much given the large up front payout. That puts WB around $20M in the red on this film (they probably spend around $70-80M making it).
I would define what went down as a major cock up for WB. And no matter how well the film does they will have trouble doing much better than breaking even.
Re: (Score:2)
> The current CEO of WB is the same guy who enshittified Discovery Channel
With the pending change in top management, he may be unemployed.
Or promoted, who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Or he may be promoted to a higher position.
Re: (Score:2)
Zaslav was hired with the specific task of getting WBD sold off and he did that, for tons of cash. Mission accomplished per the board that put him there.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure WB gets nothing. Except for the fact that they can create new merchandise for their characters. They sold worldwide distribution rights in total with no revenue sharing as far as I can tell.
Kinda? (Score:3)
> Ketchup bought the distribution rights from WB for around $50M. I suspect most of the $100M goes to the box office and actors, I'm not sure what percentage WB gets.
Everybody thought the film would be a total loss, so I'd expect that $50M is all up-front money, and they aren't getting any points. My understanding of how actor's contracts work is that their points were most likely bought out too, so I don't think anyone is getting any profit the film will make except the distributor. Keep in mind the actors have all already been paid at this point, that's what the film's budget was for. The question is, if their points were already bought out by having WB shelve the mov
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, WB might not make money from this release but they still own the Loony Toons IP and characters and this is turning into a nice case of putting some life into that IP again after the failure of Space Jam 2 .
They can put another movie or a sequel or a new TV series into production off the back of this films success, plus as you said, all that merch. House always wins type situation.
Re: (Score:2)
So at least now we know what Coyote will look like after impact with the canyon floor.
I can't help but Wonder (Score:2)
How much of that was buzz the movie got from all the Free press.
The reason most movies lose money is that the advertising budget is as much or more than the cost of making the movie even with all the Hollywood math involved. And the advertising budget is real it's harder to do Hollywood math when you're reporting on that stuff since the studio is paying another company instead of companies that kind of sort of owns...
I'm happy to see the movie released but it didn't need much of an advertising budge
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't take much. All I needed to know was that it exists and that WB shelved it. That told me it didn't fit the standard movie success formula so it was probably good.
And I still haven't watched the 2021 Space Jam movie that WB actually released.
Word of mouth is always key. (Score:1)
> How much of that was buzz the movie got from all the Free press.
Word of mouth is always key.
Saw it yesterday, enjoyed it a lot (Score:3)
Given the pitance we pay in Venezuela for the tickets (something like U$D 6 for 2 tickets), this wil barely register in the "profitability" part, but, at least, is two more butts on seats for the stats.
Could have seen it in streaming later on (is not like this needs a big screen, or has some art-sy quality), but I wanted to show support in the only way I could.
Comic movies now suck. (Score:2)
Too many remakes, too many reboots, too many.
Was this original? No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner and similar cartoons every Saturday morning. But relative to other movies with their comic of the month, it is new material and has that nostalgia that modern comic movies absolutely fail to deliver because they keep remaking and rebooting the same material like the beating of a dead horse.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner"
The connotation that the roadrunner in the 80s was original is hilarious .
Re: (Score:2)
They were still mostly airing the shorts from the 40s-60s even then. So I would say they were original. New audiences, but original. While this new movie relied a lot on referencing old material, it wasn't nearly as bad as other recent nostalgia fueled movies.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the Roadrunner cartoons were pretty much all the same, with differing details. Retreads aren't necessarily bad. Formulas exist because they work.
I just don't like the things I've seen in the last 40 years. (OTOH, I didn't like the movie version of "The Wizard of Oz" when I was a kid...I much preferred the book version.)
Re: (Score:2)
> Too many remakes, too many reboots, too many. Was this original? No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner and similar cartoons every Saturday morning. But relative to other movies with their comic of the month, it is new material and has that nostalgia that modern comic movies absolutely fail to deliver because they keep remaking and rebooting the same material like the beating of a dead horse.
Sometimes, nostalgia bait works, especially when it's nostalgia that hasn't been strip-mined to near death over the last forty plus years. I got a real kick out of all the references to old looney toons tropes and even the specific references to Coyote's particular ACME purchases over the run of his cartoons. Lots of background references to the old production teams too, like the name of the law firm being the old creators' names. It's just a ton of fun and made good on a lot of the old cartoon vibes.
You guys Team Coyote (Score:2)
Or Roadrunner?
Re: (Score:2)
RR is a dick, and Coyote is a failure. Team Acme FTW.
Re: You guys Team Coyote (Score:2)
Once again the MIC wins
Re: (Score:2)
> Or Roadrunner?
Did you even watch the movie? THEY'RE THE SAME TEAM!
I haven't seen the movie (Score:2)
The concept/idea is great, but I am like 90% sure they will F it up with bad writing and production. The trailers weren't great.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually very funny. There's a reason word of mouth has been doing the heavy lifting for this.
Re: (Score:2)
What a concept. Produce a good product, skip the marketing blitz, and yet people will still pay for the product?
It's almost like the fake math that advertisers use to justify their budget, doesn't actually work.
Re: (Score:2)
It was enjoyable. It gets bogged down a bit in the middle but there are enough clever gags to keep it moving along. Forte and Cena do a good job of hamming it up with the characters as well.
Plus (spoiler?) I appreciated that the plot kinda revolves around cartoon Peter Lorre.
21st Century (Score:3)
I ordered my anvil from Amazon.
sad it doesn't say ACME.
"ACME" stencil on Amazon (Score:1)
> I ordered my anvil from Amazon.
> sad it doesn't say ACME.
There must be an "ACME" stencil somewhere on Amazon? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Consumer Merchandise Expediter
Re: (Score:2)
>> I ordered my anvil from Amazon.
>> sad it doesn't say ACME.
> There must be an "ACME" stencil somewhere on Amazon? :-)
Cheap Chinese copy
Re: (Score:2)
So did I, and I paid extra for 'Amazon Instant' delivery. Not making that mistake again.
(typing this from an anvil-shaped hole in the ground. ow.)
Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case
Re: (Score:3)
We kinda have that already, it's called Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd.
Also it's better that way to get the impression the next day of a film, most people don't realize a film is quite bad until a couple hours afterwards. God knows back in the day I actually thought The Phantom Menace was good until I got home and started thinking about how none of it made any sense.
Re: Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
No we don't. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Universal. IMDB by Amazon. They have no interest in being honest and only use it to further their marketing causes snd build hype based on lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence of that? There are a lot of big budget movies with some downright nasty IMDB or RT or Letterboxd reviews that many a large studio would rather not have there.
Your system isn't any less susceptible to mass conspiracy manipulation either.
Re: Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
It's not a conspiracy.
[1]https://www.vulture.com/articl... [vulture.com]
[2]https://collider.com/rotten-to... [collider.com]
Plus, I've confirmed it myself numerous times by using their ratings and being deeply disappointed, the "wtf is this" level of disappointment.
[1] https://www.vulture.com/article/rotten-tomatoes-movie-rating.html
[2] https://collider.com/rotten-tomatoes-ratings-influenced-studios/
Re: (Score:3)
> Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
> What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
> To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case with lots of PC and guilt-trippiny Coyote, sprinkled with the most prominent lines served at random.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 96% reviews and 95% audience, which are really high scores. Is it Oscar material? Obviously not. It is nostalgic? Absolutely. But we shouldn't discount nostalgia. For food, nostalgia is often most of the enjoyment for "authentic" or "comfort" food and far exceeds any technical merits of the food. Enjoyment from nostalgia has a far stronger effect than technical merits. Same thing for movies.
Re: Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Universal. Fundamental conflict of interest, and both RT and IMDB are just used as another marketing tool these days. Manipulated rankings all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
> Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
> What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
> To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case with lots of PC and guilt-trippiny Coyote, sprinkled with the most prominent lines served at random.
I went to it opening day and loved it. Nostalgia bait, sure. But it's FUN nostalgia bait. I do think it's a good movie if you were ever a fan of Looney Toons. I couldn't say what anyone would think if they weren't, because that shit was essential viewing when I was a kid and is basically embedded in my DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it with a group of four people.
Three of us enjoyed it quite a bit.
I didn't mind it but nothing was surprising to me.
I saw several scenes that could have been more cleverly written but I was glad to support the group that saved a creative work from the burn pile. The idea of killing a movie for accounting losses seems sinful.
The motion-control photography, practical effects, and integration of animation were at least as good as Roger Rabbit.
If you enjoy the craft of filmmaking it's at least worth seein
Re: (Score:2)
Nostalgia is very powerful. All the boomers that grew up with coyote versus road Runner cartoons now get a chance to relive that.
Anvils (Score:2)
I was invited to attend the movie with a group. Before the movie started I handed out tiny umbrellas to everyone. You know, just in case someone tried to drop an anvil on their head.
Wow (Score:2)
I'm glad my name backwards isn't rod knock anal
coyote outgasses (Score:2)
I read that as outgasses and thought Coyote must have finally eaten Roadrunner.
Movies are *never* profitable. (Score:2)
Have you not heard of Hollywood accounting?
Next movie: IRS vs. _Coyote vs. Acme_ (Score:1)
The true tale of government agents extracting their share from the profitable movie Coyote vs. Acme .
Up Series (Score:2)
Perhaps slightly tangential to topic, but while we are discussing the merits of what could be summarised as a quick - but sucessful - movie project using an old idea, the UK has just shown [1]70 Up [imdb.com], which is the latest and final release of a documentary following the lives of 14 people from age 7 to 70.
In an age where we tend to quickly make goods that are often used for a short time then discarded, this is a sort of cathedral of documentaries. The first release, "7 Up", was in 1964. I suppose it is a kind of
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt41858262/
Well then let me be the firs one to... (Score:5, Funny)
Meep, meep!
Re: (Score:3)
"There are a limited number of signs."
Re: (Score:2)
About damn time.
Re: (Score:1)
> Meep, meep!
Iran will be taunting Trump with that before the mid-terms in 3... 2... 1...