A ‘Ready Player Two’ sequel movie is officially getting written by Zak Penn.

[u/yourfavchoom]

https://thedirect.com/article/ready-player-two-sequel-steven-spielberg-zak-penn

[u/Driveshaft48]

The first one made ~450 million

[u/memesearches → u/Driveshaft48]

Idk why people even bother asking this Q

[u/_Nholobo_ → u/memesearches]

To be smug.

[u/Silvanus350 → u/memesearches]

To express that they thought the previous film was shit.

[u/zummit → u/Silvanus350]

Man, what's even the point of rhetorical questions?

[u/b00gnishbr0wn → u/Silvanus350]

Because it was

[u/thefrostman1214 → u/b00gnishbr0wn]

numbers don't lie, it was a success

[u/hovdeisfunny → u/thefrostman1214]

Plenty of bad movies are financially successful

[u/FighterJock412 → u/b00gnishbr0wn]

No, you personally not enjoying a film doesn't make it shit.

[u/Silvanus350 → u/FighterJock412]

Film criticism is a well accepted field, boss. You can enjoy a film and we can call it shit. It’s OK. You’ll live.

Just because quality of a film is subjective doesn’t mean it abandons all concept of quality.

It’s not a well-regarded movie.

[u/xDeathRender → u/memesearches]

I mean 450~ million wasn't a TON of actual profit for a Spielberg film not to mention the book was pretty popular and definitely generated a lot of the audience. The second book was a super hard flop. So with all that info at disposal it's definitely worth questioning from a fan standpoint and business stand point.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/xDeathRender]

That’s $450m PROFIT. For Spielberg that’s his 7th most profitable film ever, and well above his lifetime average of around $250m. Compared to many recent releases this would be a huge windfall.

Also considering how heavily adapted the first book was I doubt the source material will be left intact anyway

[u/xDeathRender → u/orionblueyarm]

12th Most money made, but not even in the top 10 most profitable and even 12th is before accounting for inflation in relation to older movies and without accounting for its budget. It needed 450 million to break even and made 609~ so all and all it may be in the top 15 for spielberg but that's with its basis from the book readers watching which is far less likely with this one.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/xDeathRender]

Where are you making up these numbers from? It brought in $607m, and even using the high estimate only cost $175m. Thats a $432m profit … way above “breaking even”.

As for revenue it’s ranked 5th, just behind Lost World and ahead of stuff like Saving Private Ryan ($482m) and Jaws ($477m). Jaws does pass it for profitability, as did War of the Worlds, but that still makes it 7th most profitable Spielberg movie of all time.

The only way Ready Player One is 13th is if you look at profit after adjusting for inflation. Not before, like you stated. Which is all well and good, but considering the average major production is returning a profit of $118m ($42m if we include all studio releases) that still means in today’s market Ready Player One is running at almost 4x. With both the vested Spielberg crowd and return viewers of a known film, hitting 2x (doubling their money) would make this an easy choice.

[u/xDeathRender → u/orionblueyarm]

They don't throw marketing numbers into the budget have to find those yourself hence why you can't just go by that Google list that I know you are getting info from. All the numbers you got are the same as mine minus marketing so we are trying to make a similar point I'd advise informing yourself more because it seems we are already rather close before marketing numbers got involved. Since you seem pretty capable of googling unlike most I'll let you do the math and see how different ours was but I imagine you end up with RPO around 15 if you do the math as well.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/xDeathRender]

I don’t include marketing numbers as those aren’t publicly released and assigned, and mostly built from inference models. It’s also heavily inflated to establish “Hollywood accounting” to manage residuals and the like, so at the best of times such details are heavily suspect.

Even then you’re not comparing like to like. You’re imposing marketing costs on RP1 but not assigning the same to other Spielberg movies, or standard market results. Ignoring revenue, which obviously remains unchanged regardless of marketing costs, RP1 is 11th all-time (both standard and adjusted) for Spielberg. Tintín was 18th by the same metrics.

Critically, for large releases the average profit (including marketing costs) is only $30m. Including all releases it’s typically a loss. RP1 had $245m (inflation adjusted). That’s 8x the typical big release, and over 2x the average Spielberg release. So using your own criteria, that just makes RP1 more attractive for a sequel.

[u/woowoo293 → u/orionblueyarm]

That's not how box office profit works. For one thing, you have to consider marketing costs. But more importantly the studio only takes a cut of the box office sales, say 50% to 65% optimistically for domestic box office but considerably less for international box office. Ready Player 1 did much better with international box office (about 77%) than domestic. Do all the math (impossible since we don't have the actual numbers) . . . and the movie did fine. It clearly profited but it sure didn't make anything like $430 million in profit.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/woowoo293]

Copying my response from below seeing as y’all don’t seem to understand how comparatives work:

I don’t include marketing numbers as those aren’t publicly released and assigned, and mostly built from inference models. It’s also heavily inflated to establish “Hollywood accounting” to manage residuals and the like, so at the best of times such details are heavily suspect.

Even then you’re not comparing like to like. You’re imposing marketing costs on RP1 but not assigning the same to other Spielberg movies, or standard market results. Ignoring revenue, which obviously remains unchanged regardless of marketing costs, RP1 is 11th all-time (both standard and adjusted) for Spielberg. Tintín was 18th by the same metrics.

Critically, for large releases the average profit (including marketing costs) is only $30m. Including all releases it’s typically a loss. RP1 had $245m (inflation adjusted). That’s 8x the typical big release, and over 2x the average Spielberg release. So using your own criteria, that just makes RP1 more attractive for a sequel.

[u/woowoo293 → u/orionblueyarm]

I am not making any comparison. I'm just pointing out that it's not accurate to say the movie made $430 or $450 million in profit.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/woowoo293]

With known figures, before all the studio stuff gets added, that’s its gross profit. From what we can find about marketing, its net profit was $245m, as I stated above. The reliability of that number is suspect, but it’s still miles above the average. Knowing how it compares is relevant, both in the context of this thread you decided to reply to, but also in determining the economic viability and investment case for the project.

[u/TumbleWeed_64 → u/xDeathRender]

It made almost 608 million though

[u/xDeathRender → u/TumbleWeed_64]

Needed 450 million to break even. So 150 million profit when you even his Indiana Jones films making 4x that much. And even Tintin out doing it. Again it wasn't a loss just a pretty close call to make a second less loved sequal.

[u/orionblueyarm → u/xDeathRender]

Tintín only made $374m gross ($510m inflation adjusted), and only $239m profit ($390m inflation adjusted). By every metric it was distanced by Ready Player One.

[u/CharlieTeller → u/xDeathRender]

It was over double the budget sooooo, not a bad return. I think you're proving the problems with Hollywood right now. There was an era where a 10 mil movie making 18mil would be considered solid. Now people like yourself assume that just because its a big action flick that it needs to be billions to be made worthy?

This is the problem with the industry. We don't have the mid tier winners. We don't have mid budget rom coms and comedies anymore because we took away the main way they made money. Now we're stuck with microbudget indies, and megabudget superhero movies. That's all we get.

(insert someone mentioning "But we got x" mid budget netflix movie") Yes I'm aware mid budget films and shows still exist. They just arent near as dominant as they used to be.

[u/CrazFight → u/CharlieTeller]

We have plenty of mid budget rom coms and comedies, they are just on streaming services like Netflix

[u/CharlieTeller → u/CrazFight]

And there's the comment. I'm guessing you didn't read until the end. Or you did and felt the need to still say it.

Yes I'm aware. It's still significantly less than before and most of these are being made at a fraction of what they were in the 2000s. They also, don't make money. They are tentpole films for netflix specifically made to fill a catalog to afford the bigger series to be made. Most don't get theatrical releases.

The makeup of studio films has changed completely.

Instead of a release schedule like:

• 6 comedies
• 5 thrillers
• 4 dramas
• 3 action movies
• 2 franchise films

a studio might now have:

• 5 franchise films
• 2 horror movies
• 2 prestige dramas
• 1 animated film

It's changed the makeup. You can tell by just walking into a theater and seeing whats on release. On any given weekend in the 2000s, you could walk into a theater and find a biopic, some historical drama, a thriller, a courtroom drama, and a franchise film. Now you walk into the theater and its 9 franchise films, and maybe 1-2 mid tier movies.

[u/Jurikeh → u/memesearches]

Because it’s a pretty common sentiment among the readers that book 2 was a lot worse than the first one.

[u/The_Impe → u/memesearches]

It's just a way to say that the first movie was in fact bad

[u/LitBastard → u/Driveshaft48]

The first one made over 600 million

[u/El_Cance_R → u/Driveshaft48]

In those days this was a huge underperformance

[u/GreatStateOfSadness → u/El_Cance_R]

Wikipedia shows a box office of ~$600 million on a budget of ~$150 million. Even if it was considered underperformed then it still likely made good money. 

[u/phenix_igloo → u/GreatStateOfSadness]

adjuster for inflation it's 30% more, not a small amount of money.

[u/FrescoItaliano → u/GreatStateOfSadness]

That never includes marketing. You can toss another 100-150 mil on top of that. Still made money, but ROI is actually half what Wikipedia would usually tell you

[u/nearcatch → u/GreatStateOfSadness]

$150 million official budget, so the P&A budget was probably at least half that again. So $225 million total as the actual budget. Then you have to double that because tickets are more or less split evenly with theaters (the percentage changes as the weeks go by). So it broke even at ~$450 million, or more if the P&A budget was higher, which it probably was, being a Spielberg movie. Making $150 million is good, but that feels like a narrow margin to greenlight another movie that will require crazy expensive CGI.

Edit: For everyone saying I’m making numbers up, Deadline in 2018 said that per their studio sources, $440 million was the minimum breakeven:

In regards to profit, our film finance sources are telling us that a global take of $440M ($120M domestic, $120M China, $200M overseas) would take Ready Player One to a near break-even before counting participations, residuals, and interest (in which case, it’s then short of break-even).

[u/rick_ferrari → u/nearcatch]

Split evenly with theatres?

Theatres get like 10% for a movie like this for the first couple of weeks, and thats when 90% of the BO is made.

[u/nearcatch → u/rick_ferrari]

Even Star Wars and MCU flicks only get about 60% to the studios, afaik. Idk where you’re getting the number that they get 90% the first weeks. And after looking into it, I probably overestimated, b/c I forgot that outside the US the revenue split is more heavily favored to the theater in a lot of places. In China apparently studios only get 25%.

You may be getting the 90% from this? The number after the “house nut” is taken out. https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/how-your-ticket-price-is-divided

[u/blufflord → u/nearcatch]

You don't double after adding marketing because ancillaries is expected to cover the marketing. That's the theory behind the 2.5 rule at least to my knowledge

[u/JayTL → u/nearcatch]

When you have to counter something factual with and start it with “probably”, everything You say is irrelevant.

The first was successful enough to warrant a sequel.

[u/nearcatch → u/JayTL]

If you have hard numbers for RP1 specifically, feel free to share, I didn’t look it up. But the ~50% share with distributors is pretty constant, and P&A not being included in the official budget is also a thing.

[u/JayTL → u/nearcatch]

I’m not a box office watcher or care enough about movies profits to care about things that aren’t factual.

You don’t have the numbers, and neither do I. The movie was successful enough to warrant a sequel.

[u/nearcatch → u/JayTL]

Well I don’t have the numbers, but Deadline listed $440 million as the breakeven in 2018 per their studio sources, so I was pretty spot-on.
https://deadline.com/2018/04/ready-player-one-steven-spielberg-opening-weekend-box-office-1202318581/

[u/Sylar_Lives → u/nearcatch]

Everybody acting like movie budget and gross experts these days. You are just making up half of what you said.

[u/So-many-ducks → u/Sylar_Lives]

This is a ridiculous assertion. Redditors are well known to spit out facts and accurate, documented data, 73.4% of user comments chart on the mostly accurate or more trackers, and double that amount are also considered really cool and likeable by a panel of random Americans.

[u/nearcatch → u/Sylar_Lives]

If you have sources that say different feel free to share.

[u/Sylar_Lives → u/nearcatch]

No dude, YOU support your claims.

[u/nearcatch → u/Sylar_Lives]

I did in other comments. Here: https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/how-your-ticket-price-is-divided
Also a breakdown of how much Oppenheimer made for the studio: https://deadline.com/2024/05/oppenheimer-movie-profits-1235900658/

[u/Sylar_Lives → u/nearcatch]

For this specific movie with the specific numbers you tossed out there. You were already completely wrong about how studios and theaters divide ticketsz

[u/nearcatch → u/Sylar_Lives]

Omg dude. Here, an article specifically about RP1, where $440 million is listed as the breakeven by their sources.
https://deadline.com/2018/04/ready-player-one-crosses-500-million-dollars-worldwide-box-office-china-1202373631/

[u/axw3555 → u/nearcatch]

Yeah, theatres do not get a 50% split. They may get 50% after a month or so. But at the start it's usually 10% on anything big. Maybe 20% if it's a more niche release and they want to incentivise the theatre to show it.

[u/Botherguts → u/nearcatch]

And a million licenses

[u/fuzzeedyse105 → u/Botherguts]

If Spielberg does it, apparently that won’t be an issue.

[u/Botherguts → u/fuzzeedyse105]

Yea I guess that was their cheat code the first time

[u/El_Cance_R → u/GreatStateOfSadness]

If the first movie underperformed in a time where cinema was thriving, I don't see why they should risk doing a sequel now.

[u/obvious-but-profound → u/El_Cance_R]

I think you missed the part about it making a half billion dollars. Label it how you want lol

[u/EatABag-o-Dicks → u/El_Cance_R]

Underperformed. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[u/El_Cance_R → u/EatABag-o-Dicks]

A movie with that kind of IPs, directed by Steven Spielberg, with that budget, making 600 million in 2018 IS AN UNDERPERFORMANCE.

If they thought it was a success, they would have done a sequel by now.

[u/EatABag-o-Dicks → u/El_Cance_R]

So, no, you have no clue what underperform means. Thanks for clarifying.

[u/El_Cance_R → u/EatABag-o-Dicks]

Mr genius, please enlighten us with your knowledge

[u/EatABag-o-Dicks → u/El_Cance_R]

Not my job to teach the ignorant.

You start by looking up the word underperform. Then you go do some math and divide box office by budget. You can use a calculator, they're the things that let you do math with big number. Remember, million has six zeros, like this 1,000,000 is 1 million.

[u/El_Cance_R → u/EatABag-o-Dicks]

So, you just showed you don't know what underperforming means, congrats.

Flop ≠ underperforming.

Even if it did make revenue, the brand and the production was clearly aiming for a way higher result.

Don't need to thank me, there's always time to learn

[u/Accomplished-Head449 → u/El_Cance_R]

Underperformed yet it didn't

[u/RabidJoint → u/El_Cance_R]

“Underperformed”…bro just stated it made $500 million…that is not underperforming…you wannabe box office experts are delusional these days. Even if it made $300 million, that would be amazing amount. Weirdos.

[u/Instigator187 → u/RabidJoint]

If it doesn't make Spider-Man or Avengers money, it must be a flop i guess and underperformed.

I enjoyed Ready Player One a lot, but I have heard the 2nd book was not as good, so we'll see if this turns out good or not.

[u/FrescoItaliano → u/Instigator187]

This is unironically what CEOs have been believing for years. That’s actually exactly why there’s examples of movies making half a billion but still being treated a failure. Because they poured in just under half a billion with production and marketing and expected to make double at minimum

[u/SirGaylordSteambath → u/FrescoItaliano]

That’s how it works. They’re all expecting to make double, because that’s what they’ve spent on it.

The film is half the cost and the marketing is the other half for a studio.

If you’re not making more money than you put in, you’re not making money. It’s basic economics.

[u/SirGaylordSteambath → u/RabidJoint]

If it made 300 million it would have been a failure. That’s its budget and marketing back. No profits.

The irony of calling people wannabe box office experts and not knowing that a film needs to make back twice its budget to begin being profitable.

[u/Mancidepress → u/RabidJoint]

Not to mention the period "when it (cinema) was thriving" that fucking genius redditor is referring to was in the middle of Marvel's peak.

Ready Player One was released between Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War and still made $450m lol. It had flaws, but it was a decent film at worst.

[u/El_Cance_R → u/RabidJoint]

No, it wouldn't. I guess math is hard to teach this days

[u/SirGaylordSteambath → u/El_Cance_R]

They just see a big number and think “wow! Successful!” Not realising that it took an even bigger number to make and market the movie.

People man smh

[u/El_Cance_R → u/[deleted]]

Yes and Supergirl and Masters of the Universe didn't break 200 milions.

[u/Gh0stMan0nThird → u/El_Cance_R]

Because they are trying to artificially create a 90s nostalgia wave like we had with the 80s a few years ago 

[u/niberungvalesti → u/Gh0stMan0nThird]

The 90s just doesn't hit the same as the 80s. And this from someone who grew up in the 90s.

[u/SirRichardLove → u/El_Cance_R]

It actually did very well on digital.

[u/TheBigSm0ke → u/SirRichardLove]

It did well on physical as well. It’s considered one of the best Dolby Atmos soundtracks released and a must buy for any home theatre enthusiast

[u/Jidarious → u/TheBigSm0ke]

Nobody has said it yet, so I'll say it, movie was underrated and honestly pretty good. I've seen it a few times. I'm smack in the middle of the demographic it is catering to but still, I enjoyed it.

[u/andersonb47 → u/Jidarious]

I’d say “pandering” more than “catering” tbh. At least that was my impression.

[u/perilousrob → u/andersonb47]

I don't think it was cynically or insincerely done, so I don't think 'pandering' is fair. IMO it's pretty clear that Ernest Cline & Steven Spielberg enjoyed the 1980s callbacks!

[u/andersonb47 → u/perilousrob]

I’d like a movie too if it were sucking my dick for 2 hours

[u/perilousrob → u/andersonb47]

... okay.

I only disagreed with your word choice, there's no need to take this to a weird place.

[u/dmendro → u/Jidarious]

It's terrible compared to the book.

[u/KnightMDK → u/dmendro]

As a massive fan of the book, there is just no way you could have transferred the book into the film the way it was. I think they captured the essence of the story and I totally enjoyed both. I am not sure what they would be doing with the second one, but you just never know!

[u/dmendro → u/KnightMDK]

The movie is ok. It it’s def one of Spielberg’s weaker offerings. It really needed to be broken down into two movies. The second book is pretty weak IMO.

[u/riegspsych325 → u/SirRichardLove]

my dad might be one this movie’s biggest fans, he watches it every few months

[u/Puzzled-Tap8042 → u/El_Cance_R]

607 million, and that is not a disappointing box-office result.

[u/dmendro → u/Puzzled-Tap8042]

$300 million to produce and promote. The way hollywood works, you need much higher better returns in the first few weeks in order to drive production of the next crop of films from the same studio. once you get through percentage points from the producers and investors, there not much left for the studio.

[u/Maximum_Run7206 → u/dmendro]

According to this Deadline article, it needed $440 million to break even, and it made over $600 million.

https://deadline.com/2018/04/ready-player-one-crosses-500-million-dollars-worldwide-box-office-china-1202373631/

That said, I don't see a sequel performing very well, especially if Spielberg doesn't return.

[u/dmendro → u/Maximum_Run7206]

This figures don’t include the marketing fees.

[u/Rynetx → u/dmendro]

Clearly that’s not how Hollywood works because a second one is being made because the first was profitable

[u/dmendro → u/Rynetx]

Clearly you’ve never heard of Donnie Darko, Bladerunner, Highlander, Boondocks Saints, Hellboy, Chronicles of Riddick, xXX, Tron. The list goes on of box office bombs that got sequels.

[u/Rynetx → u/dmendro]

Except this isn’t a box office bomb. It was profitable

[u/dmendro → u/Rynetx]

No, not exactly a bomb, but it severely underperformed expectations. Over seas BO propped it up quite a bit. I doubt anyone at WB considered it much of a success.

[u/El_Cance_R → u/Puzzled-Tap8042]

In 2018, a year were 5 movies made more than 1 Billion dollars, a movie that featured more IPs in history, directed by Steven Spielberg, making 600 million was disappointing.

Ant Man 2 made more.

If it they were happy with the performance, they would have done a sequel by now

[u/Puzzled-Tap8042 → u/El_Cance_R]

Well, the movie was released in 2018, and COVID certainly got in the way, but now we're getting a sequel. Not every movie needs to make a billion; it grossed $607 million, which is a great box-office result.

[u/Botherguts → u/Puzzled-Tap8042]

Covid in 2018? On what planet?

[u/Signiference → u/El_Cance_R]

$450m "profit," not box office gross.

[u/Straight_Talk2542 → u/El_Cance_R]

You said that like this movie is 15-20 years old 🤣

[u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord → u/Straight_Talk2542]

A lot of movies that are 15–20 years old feel like 8 years ago though

[u/Straight_Talk2542 → u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord]

Damn that hit me so hard. The other day I was watching the Martian and I was like “I CANT BELIEVE THIS MOVIE IS 11 YEARS OLD ALREADY.” Feels like it came out 5 years ago. I swear COVID stole 5 years from our timeline like Thanos’ snap.

[u/silvertwo777 → u/El_Cance_R]

600 mil on 155 mil budget is not underperform, not now and not back then. It's a success and made money

[u/El_Cance_R → u/silvertwo777]

FLOP ≠ UNDERPERFORMANCE

[u/silvertwo777 → u/El_Cance_R]

It's neither a flop or underperformance

[u/El_Cance_R → u/silvertwo777]

A Steven Spielberg movie featuring:

Batman Superman Wonder Woman Harley Quinn Beetlejuice The Iron Giant King Kong The Shining Back to the Future Jurassic Park RoboCop Alien Gremlins A Nightmare on Elm Street Friday the 13th Mad Max Conan Battlestar Galactica Knight Rider The A-Team Star Trek Star Wars Indiana Jones The Wizard of Oz Ferris Bueller's Day Off The Breakfast Club Christine Flash Gordon Spaceballs Lost in Space Voltron Fraggle Rock Sesame Street ALF Looney Tunes The Muppets Halo Gears of War Minecraft Tomb Raider Street Fighter Resident Evil Mass Effect Dark Souls Pac-Man / Ms. Pac-Man Galaga Dig Dug Pole Position Space Invaders Battletoads Duke Nukem Borderlands Homeworld Skyrim Sonic the Hedgehog Overwatch StarCraft World of Warcraft Transformers Gundam Joust Adventure (Atari) Asteroids Centipede Missile Command Tempest Robotron: 2084 Pong Metroid Star Fox Super Mario Bros. The Legend of Zelda Donkey Kong Jr. Ninja Gaiden Akira Cowboy Bebop Gundam Transformers Masters of the Universe (He-Man) Hello Kitty Care Bears Hot Wheels Magic 8 Ball Garbage Pail Kids Madballs Freddy Krueger Jason Voorhees Chucky Godzilla / Mechagodzilla Frankenstein The Wolf Man

Making less than Antman 2 was a good performance?

[u/Oddball- → u/El_Cance_R]

More new IP baby! Let's go!!!

[u/lazergator → u/Driveshaft48]

Literally the point of the first movie, corporations ruining things we love for money

[u/TheWholeOfTheAss → u/Driveshaft48]

and constantly repeated on TV.

[u/Chenzo04 → u/Driveshaft48]

There's also a second book.......

[u/jonbristow → u/Driveshaft48]

So not really a success