Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Barnack

Free Account
  • Content count

    1,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,372 Likes

About Barnack

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  1. Only from Sony release made between 2005-2014 (simply extracted from the Sony leak accounting and Liongates annual total slate), I will make a thread about them (and probably break even point rules of thumb formula)
  2. Without a new leak it is hard to know post 2014 (it was getting to the point that movie that big 3d release movie were getting close of doing only 50% from post theatrical). Liongates annual report break the result down by release year and that show that the overall slate still do more than 50% from post-theatrical, but that include small title. According to deadline estimate last year for some big movie (without merchandise) it was getting often lower than that, but those are only estimate. Between 2005-2010 the average Sony movie total revenue was 176% of is World box office gross total, that was significantly lower between 2011-2014 (around 116-120%).
  3. Pirates got 23 million AUD from Australia I think in tax credit (around 20m when the deal was made) apparently, it got some from other jurisdiction they spend money on obviously: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-pirates-australia-tax-20161024-snap-story.html Did you got more precise info since ?
  4. The space mission involve living on the destination planet, no one would go on a mission like that without their spouse, normal to expect a disproportional amount of couple in the crew.
  5. A lot of it has probably to do with what you have to work with I imagine (at those level they certainly had high level editor and all around competence), not everything is salvageable in post-prod. Specially when you have a long list of requirement like on a BvS movie (you cannot go all Malick on it, cutting Superman and turning the movie into an Alfred movie in the editing room, more seriously he could not remove say the BvS battle, Lois, the villain at the end, Luthor, etc...). Has for the being forced comments, was the extended cut that much better ?
  6. It was a bit of a different era than now 2010, it turned a reasonable profit (usually if you have a big budget movie that achieve to make close to is budget or more at the domestic box office it will be in good shape). Sony made a 25.61 million profit on the Other guys, people involved a 4.62 million in bonus. It had a big 98.455 million budget, but by being a domestic heavy title that didn't try to become a world success it did kept it's world P&A at a reasonable 73 million. It made 73 million from world TV contract, 95 million revenue from world home entertainment, for nearly 250 million in total revenue. Different era because that movie made 68% of is revenue post theatrical, that would be exceptional for a big movie now, but about the norm back in the dvds days.
  7. High 60 would be similar net budget than those comedy for a comparable: That my boy: 69.88 m 22 jump street: 69.7 m (I imagine a really good recent comparable despite being a sequel of a successful movie) Step brothers: 68.4 m Much cheaper than a prime Sandler comedy, Grown up/grown ups 2/Jack and Jill/Just go with it/Click were all about 90 million to buy for the studio. The Other Guys was 98 million net. People making those tend to be really well paid it seem, star power is probably still really important in that genre and one major difference with Central intelligence is that Baywatch has worldwide franchise appeal, if you are ready to have a large world wide release that will cost you between 95-125m, you are more open to spend 60-70 net on production.
  8. Pirates: $230m budget That a massive cut from the last one (or once again a massive deflating budget for Pirates in the press). Good for them if true, favorable exchange rate for all those Australian and other oversea expense, letting a very long time for the post-production to not have to pay surcharge and handle a lot of SFX shop to make the date and I imagine other factor can explain a lot of that cost going down.
  9. I think that they still feel really stupid to me a lot of time, but a lot of it is my own limitation, I need to actively remind myself that it could the 10 times they get down on a planet for the very first time in their life and nothing happened in any of those and that they have much more advanced scanner technology. For a large of the audience (or at least me), going on a unknown planet for the very first time without glove and mask is extraordinary wreckless and arguably stupid, not being amaze to see trees (anything) on that new planet a bit strange and so on, but for those 22th century explorer I imagine it is day to day work by then. At least they let sick people on a small explorer ship and not the main one, but it is still strange to let people with an extremely violent alien unknown sickness goes on it (instead of an external hazard quarantine controlled tent that feel like should be the common protocol). It almost feel like part of the genre that they act like they do by now (that movie played with it, extremely poor leadership and all around incompetence was a wanted part of the story this time) .
  10. OUT, I feel like 140m is a strict minimum and that chance are good it will get over 170.
  11. A I see, completely misread you, yes every window tend to be heavily correlated with the BO performance for movies like that. One good element for them, is that they will not be hurt by exchange rate like an US company.
  12. That more realistic with that cast/(and I imagine some story rights to someone to pay) than the previous 40m figure. Very close to 22 jump street net budget of 69.88 million, that movie needed around 121 million for Sony to break even (in a very domestic heavy scenario of 74m dbo 47m ibo) and a good return for the risk at 176m WW.
  13. First I thought that is crazy, it is more than Guardian 2/Deadpool/80m more than Suicide Squad and other movie with huge buzz. That said I had to think about it after that, before answering, so the the club is a success. Out, 3.5xOW legs are really hard to achieve in today market, all the superheroes movies that went over Spider 1 had a 150m+ opening weekend and many SH movie with a 125+m OW didn't came close to Spider 1.
  14. I would think very few people, but how many time people use name and how easy the name are too remember play a large role in that test. I remember Sam and Rick name in Casablanca and I'm not sure of the others, not because they are better character than (now looking for their name) Captain Louis Renault and Ilsa, just that the movie say those name really often and are easier for me to remember. I'm not sure the weak if you take away the visual for a visual medium is really fair, John Wick/Fury Road/Alien/The Raid 1-2, many movie would be weak if you remove the production design/visual quality, that said many movie had gorgeous visual and failed to reach an audience completely and create word of mouth, it must have been more than this to the success of Avatar.
  15. But wasn't the 1938 remake a case of modernization ?, they made a very big deal of the movie being in technicolor (marketing wise but also in production design), it had sound versus the very popular previous silent version. And didn't they went for a more recent batch of book version, that were made for kids ?