Weekend Thread...Friday numbers (Deadline) HF: 6M| BBM: 5M| PD: 4.2| LLL: 3.97 (PG 18) - NOT THE PIRACY THREAD (OR THE POLITICS THREAD)

[EmpireCity]

4 hours ago, DAJK said:

So it had to do a certain number for the 2 week rule to come into play?

 

Correct.  Films have to hit a certain gross at a theater to keep them with a full schedule.  

[JonathanLB]

1 minute ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Correct.  Films have to hit a certain gross at a theater to keep them with a full schedule.  

 

Theaters probably demanded that as "bomb protection," I mean why guarantee a studio gets 2 weeks if the studio can't guarantee their movie won't be a horrible pile of shit? I admit the element of the film industry I least understand is distribution. I've never had real insight into how some of the decisions are made. For instance, why do I see something like Monster Trucks hitting theaters or The Bye Bye Man, but frequently on Netflix I find some straight-to-DVD / straight-to-VOD title with several A-list actors and several B-list actors in it? I am blown away by that, like wow how did these actors find time to make this movie I've never heard of and when I look it up, sure enough, it never went to theaters. Do you know what I mean? I keep thinking, ok, well it's because this movie was really shitty I guess? But wait, lots of movies that go to theaters are really shitty... Do some production companies just have better people "in the know" who can push a movie into theaters easier?

 

Or is it one of those things where you raised $10M to make the movie, but after making the movie, you couldn't raise P&A funds and without a solid P&A spend you know you can't support the theatrical release, so even though such and such other movie is a horrible pile of shit, it gets a theatrical release because the studio is willing to spend P&A on it anyway. That's the most logical thing I can think of but I admit it's just a shot in the dark.

[DAJK]

4 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Correct.  Films have to hit a certain gross at a theater to keep them with a full schedule.  

Does it differ between movies? For example we kept underworld longer than Patriots Day despite it having a smaller attendance. Or is that because for example this week there are many more movies releasing so it's up to them whether or not they want to open up a screen?

[EmpireCity]

4 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 

Theaters probably demanded that as "bomb protection," I mean why guarantee a studio gets 2 weeks if the studio can't guarantee their movie won't be a horrible pile of shit? I admit the element of the film industry I least understand is distribution. I've never had real insight into how some of the decisions are made. For instance, why do I see something like Monster Trucks hitting theaters or The Bye Bye Man, but frequently on Netflix I find some straight-to-DVD / straight-to-VOD title with several A-list actors and several B-list actors in it? I am blown away by that, like wow how did these actors find time to make this movie I've never heard of and when I look it up, sure enough, it never went to theaters. Do you know what I mean? I keep thinking, ok, well it's because this movie was really shitty I guess? But wait, lots of movies that go to theaters are really shitty... Do some production companies just have better people "in the know" who can push a movie into theaters easier?

 

Or is it one of those things where you raised $10M to make the movie, but after making the movie, you couldn't raise P&A funds and without a solid P&A spend you know you can't support the theatrical release, so even though such and such other movie is a horrible pile of shit, it gets a theatrical release because the studio is willing to spend P&A on it anyway. That's the most logical thing I can think of but I admit it's just a shot in the dark.

 

It is the way the movie is produced or funded most of the time.  Those former A List and B List actors you see in a straight to Netflix movie were made with independent money most of the time and were never able to pick up any studio distribution, mostly because every studio saw them and told the producers it was garbage and not worth a theatrical distribution.  

 

The reason you see something like Monster Trucks is because that was produced from start to finish by a major studio.  They are invested in it so they are going to give it a theatrical release most of the time.  The reason you see The Bye Bye Man is because it was taken to a studio on spec and they liked the pitch and decided to co-finance and distribute it.  

 

Then you have things like Birth of a Nation or Manchester by the Sea that are produced with independent money but then the distribution rights are sold to a studio at a festival like Sundance or Cannes or Toronto.  

 

You have it pretty much correct in your last paragraph.  People raise the money independently, film the movie and then it is garbage and no studio wants to buy the distribution rights so they are left with VOD and streaming services to make their money back.  

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

It is the way the movie is produced or funded most of the time.  Those former A List and B List actors you see in a straight to Netflix movie were made with independent money most of the time and were never able to pick up any studio distribution, mostly because every studio saw them and told the producers it was garbage and not worth a theatrical distribution.  

 

The reason you see something like Monster Trucks is because that was produced from start to finish by a major studio.  They are invested in it so they are going to give it a theatrical release most of the time.  The reason you see The Bye Bye Man is because it was taken to a studio on spec and they liked the pitch and decided to co-finance and distribute it.  

 

Then you have things like Birth of a Nation or Manchester by the Sea that are produced with independent money but then the distribution rights are sold to a studio at a festival like Sundance or Cannes or Toronto.  

 

You have it pretty much correct in your last paragraph.  People raise the money independently, film the movie and then it is garbage and no studio wants to buy the distribution rights so they are left with VOD and streaming services to make their money back.  

 

Interesting. Thanks.

[dxmatrixdt]

4 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

It is the way the movie is produced or funded most of the time.  Those former A List and B List actors you see in a straight to Netflix movie were made with independent money most of the time and were never able to pick up any studio distribution, mostly because every studio saw them and told the producers it was garbage and not worth a theatrical distribution.  

 

The reason you see something like Monster Trucks is because that was produced from start to finish by a major studio.  They are invested in it so they are going to give it a theatrical release most of the time.  The reason you see The Bye Bye Man is because it was taken to a studio on spec and they liked the pitch and decided to co-finance and distribute it.  

 

Then you have things like Birth of a Nation or Manchester by the Sea that are produced with independent money but then the distribution rights are sold to a studio at a festival like Sundance or Cannes or Toronto.  

 

You have it pretty much correct in your last paragraph.  People raise the money independently, film the movie and then it is garbage and no studio wants to buy the distribution rights so they are left with VOD and streaming services to make their money back.  

 

So for Manchester by the Sea, does that mean that these studios (or companies) pay for the movie itself

Production companies	K Period Media B Story CMP Pearl Street Films

 

 

and then these

Distributed by	Roadside Attractions Amazon Studios

 

Make the theatrical release happen????

 

Also, when looking at the list of 'Producers", are they associated with the production company only??

Produced by	Matt Damon John Krasinski Kimberly Steward Chris Moore Kevin J. Walsh Lauren Beck

Where would the profits go???

[EmpireCity]

11 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Does it differ between movies? For example we kept underworld longer than Patriots Day despite it having a smaller attendance. Or is that because for example this week there are many more movies releasing so it's up to them whether or not they want to open up a screen?

 

It does.  There are a ton of factors that go into it and is a negotiation between the studio and the film booker.  

 

For example, Lionsgate might have seen the writing on the wall that Patriot's Day isn't connecting, so in exchange for letting your theater back out of a clean schedule on that they got better theater placement or an extra screen for La La Land.  

 

Sony might have asked for concession on keeping Underworld because it hit a certain gross and want one more week and in exchange they will let you drop it completely when Resident Evil comes out.  You will likely see some deal making in the next 6 weeks from Universal as they are flooding the market with 6 films in that time and are going to be begging and negotiating for screens. 

[Plain Old Tele]

9 minutes ago, Matrix4You said:

 

So for Manchester by the Sea, does that mean that these studios (or companies) pay for the movie itself

Production companies	K Period Media B Story CMP Pearl Street Films

 

 

and then these

Distributed by	Roadside Attractions Amazon Studios

 

Make the theatrical release happen????

 

Also, when looking at the list of 'Producers", are they associated with the production company only??

Produced by	Matt Damon John Krasinski Kimberly Steward Chris Moore Kevin J. Walsh Lauren Beck

Where would the profits go???

 

The production company(ies) sell the movie to a distributor, usually for a fee that covers the production costs + some additional amount, with negotiated points if it hits a particular target theatrically (usually this target is set at a range where the distributor can make its money back). 

[BadAtGender]

I kinda wanted to go see a movie tonight. When my brother and I saw Hidden Figures last night, his roommates went to Moonlight at the same time. But Moonlight isn't playing tonight. And everything else I kinda want to see would finish after midnight. 

[EmpireCity]

21 minutes ago, Matrix4You said:

 

So for Manchester by the Sea, does that mean that these studios (or companies) pay for the movie itself

Production companies	K Period Media B Story CMP Pearl Street Films

 

 

and then these

Distributed by	Roadside Attractions Amazon Studios

 

Make the theatrical release happen????

 

Also, when looking at the list of 'Producers", are they associated with the production company only??

Produced by	Matt Damon John Krasinski Kimberly Steward Chris Moore Kevin J. Walsh Lauren Beck

Where would the profits go???

 

 

Matt Damon's company is Pearl Street Films.  He was originally going to direct and star in the movie.  Things changed on that but he stayed on as an investor and producer.  It mostly was produced (paid for) by K Period Media.  That would be Kimberly Steward, the daughter of billionaire David L. Steward who put up $8m for the production.  Think of her sort of like Megan Ellison of Annapurna.  They also had B Story (Kevin Walsh who now runs Scott Free) and CMP (Chris Moore who is friends with Damon and Affleck for years and was a main producer on Project Greenlight) throw in money and other producing duties.  John Krasinski was in it from the start with Damon as the story was partly his idea and was supposed to be in it but stayed on for a producer credit.  They all paid for the production of the movie.  

 

Then after the movie is shot and edited, they got it in competition at Sundance and that is where all studios and other companies like Amazon and Netflix go to see and acquire new content.  Amazon won a bidding war and put up $10m for the distribution rights and have Roadside Attractions to handle the theatrical side for them.  

 

The profits are split up according to the production contracts and deals.  The main investors likely got their money back first from the $10m that Amazon gave them and then after that there is a split of theatrical, home video, VOD, streaming and other revenue streams.  

 

Something like Manchester will end up being a big hit for everyone.  They all get their money back and then some.  It is going to make around $50m possibly domestic by the end of awards season and then a lot more after that in all other revenue streams.  

 

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by EmpireCity

[EmpireCity]

If you want sort of a behind the scenes on how independent movies are made (or not made) and funds are raised (or not raised), watch Lost in La Mancha.  It shows how even renowned and respected directors have to beg investors for money and pool a lot of people together.  That is why you see like 8 logos at the start of some films.  Those companies raise and put up the funds and then partner with or sell the distribution rights to the studio.  

[elcaballero]

3 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

If you want sort of a behind the scenes on how independent movies are made (or not made) and funds are raised (or not raised), watch Lost in La Mancha.  It shows how even renowned and respected directors have to beg investors for money and pool a lot of people together.  That is why you see like 8 logos at the start of some films.  Those companies raise and put up the funds and then partner with or sell the distribution rights to the studio.  

Thanks for the suggestion! It's actually on Netflix in the US right now, if anyone is interested.

[robertman2]

19 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

If you want sort of a behind the scenes on how independent movies are made (or not made) and funds are raised (or not raised), watch Lost in La Mancha.  It shows how even renowned and respected directors have to beg investors for money and pool a lot of people together.  That is why you see like 8 logos at the start of some films.  Those companies raise and put up the funds and then partner with or sell the distribution rights to the studio.  

I watched that in my film lit class. Pretty interesting movie

[baumer]

@EmpireCity do you know why Matt Damon and John Krasinski have a working relationship now? Not that I know all there is to know about actors and their friends and so on but when they did Promised Land together I think John Krasinski had a hand in writing the script. Do you have any insight as to where that started?

[TommyA10]

8 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

 

How do you figure? I'd love to see that math. When TFA had a $14M weekend, it went on to make $57M more after that. And Rogue One just had about a $14M weekend, and you have it making... $28M more total? So half of what TFA made, actually less, on the same weekend? I really don't see that, and I don't think you do either.

 

I think there's understanding the box office in general, and understanding how films perform at the end of their runs. In general people lowball the end of run total because they apply simple math to it that doesn't work out, since movies slow their declines in general as the numbers are smaller, then add discount theaters, and continue to hang around well past when you would assume they'd be gone. 

 

Also, when you don't know something, please just say you don't know. Don't call out another poster and then when it turns out, gee, looking at the facts, you're TOTALLY WRONG. Funny huh? Did you actually look at any numbers when you spouted off what you wrote, or you just kind of pulled it out of thin air?

 

Here is TFA on the same weekend:

3-day: -37.8%

4-day: -22%

 

Rogue One:

3-day: -39%

4-day: -23.8%

 

Or how about the weekend before:

TFA -53.1%, Rogue One -55.5%

 

Gee you're totally right, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, how could I be so stupid? Looks like Rogue One and TFA aren't performing similarly at all, because you know, within 2% is just so crazy. 

 

So again, I'm going to ask you, please show me the numbers and please show me how you think Rogue One is going to make $28M more and that's it, when TFA made about $57M falling off a weekend of the same size.  

The first thing you should do (before acting like a total smartass) is to read my comment properly. I didn't say RO was gonna make $530m, I said $530s (low $540s would be the absolute max. With insane, almost impossible legs) Second of all, RO made 58% of what TFA made 2 weeks ago. This past week, it dropped to roughly 54% of what TFA made, and it will likely drop some more this week. (Actually, it's been losing ground to TFA relative to its OW, each and every week, with one exception). Even with a 30% drop this weekend, RO will miss $550m, and dropping that much when TFA dropped more than 45% is completely unrealistic . So you're left with an $8 million weekend (at best). How is RO gonna make $35m+ more, after an $8m WE, when it just made less than 53% of what TFA did at the same point in time last year (and is trending to drop even more as the the time goes by)?

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by TommyA10

[Mockingjay Raphael]

I watched The Handmaiden yesterday. This movie really deserves an Oscar, such a piece of art. 

[redfirebird2008]

10 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

If you want sort of a behind the scenes on how independent movies are made (or not made) and funds are raised (or not raised), watch Lost in La Mancha.  It shows how even renowned and respected directors have to beg investors for money and pool a lot of people together.  That is why you see like 8 logos at the start of some films.  Those companies raise and put up the funds and then partner with or sell the distribution rights to the studio.  

 

Thanks for the recommendation. Will definitely check it out.

[Jonwo]

In regard to Manchester by the Sea, Amazon only has domestic distribution with Roadside, it was also acquired by other foreign distributors such as Studiocanal so in theory the producers and financiers may have already made a profit beforehand.

 

It's true for films by Lionsgate/Summit such as La La Land, Lionsgate don't distribute apart from domestic and U.K. so they sell to distributors who buy their slate for that year so the budget for a film is usually recouped or they make a bit of profit but on the flip did if they have a big hit, they won't see any of that OS money. The most infamous case was The Golden Compass which made $300m OS compared to $70m domestic but New Line never saw any of the OS money which is the main reason it folded into Warner Bros 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jonwo

[JohnnyGossamer]

56 minutes ago, Mockingjay Raphael said:

I watched The Handmaiden yesterday. This movie really deserves an Oscar, such a piece of art. 

I should be seeing that and Train To Busan this week. It's one of my most anticipated that I've yet to see along with Verhoeven's Elle.

[Joel M]

46 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

It's true for films by Lionsgate/Summit such as La La Land, Lionsgate don't distribute apart from domestic and U.K. so they sell to distributors who buy their slate for that year so the budget for a film is usually recouped or they make a bit of profit but on the flip did if they have a big hit, they won't see any of that OS money. The most infamous case was The Golden Compass which made $300m OS compared to $70m domestic but New Line never saw any of the OS money which is the main reason it folded into Warner Bros 

 

That's interesting because I always assumed that LionsGate takes back some money from their movies OS performance, at least the succesful ones. It's a really smart strategy for stuff like La La Land or Hacksaw Ridge to cover the budget because you don't know how they'll perform. But I don't get why you would sell the OS rights for New Moon or Catching Fire. I mean they knew those movies would do 400m OS, why they decided to make less money?