THE MUMMY | 329.0 M overseas ● 409.2 M worldwide

[fmpro]

No way this breaks even in theaters.. Needs 600 mill to do that..

But should be fine somewhere down the line

[Barnack]

17 minutes ago, fmpro said:

No way this breaks even in theaters.. Needs 600 mill to do that..

But should be fine somewhere down the line

 

With is low dom/high China, even 600 would probably be a bit short. Specially with how much of it must go to Cruise and his team pass a certain point.

[The Dark Alfred]

I don't know what you're smoking. 400m WW would be just about breaking even even with a mediocre 75m domestic.. Not great but not as bad overall as some think of it.

[Barnack]

34 minutes ago, The Dark Alfred said:

I don't know what you're smoking. 400m WW would be just about breaking even even with a mediocre 75m domestic.. Not great but not as bad overall as some think of it.

 

400m would be a lot, he said break even in theater, I'm not fully sure what people ever mean by that (no one using that expression detailled when they mean ever when asked), but it at the minimum mean

 

Theatrical rental > Direct production budget + WW P&A

(maybe they also mean interest, overhead, participation bonus that started, etc... I'm not fully sure). 

 

75m domestic + 245m intl + 80m China would be far to be enough for that.

 

Say even the lowest possible rumored scenario (125 production + 100m release = 225), let alone the highest 370m rumored production + releasing cost

 

75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical rental (that would do between 295m to 392.5 million in total revenue).

 

 

[keysersoze123]

I am with Barnack. No way this makes money through theatrical. Plus cruise always gets some % on gross. That makes it even hard.

 

Quote

It's claimed that the actor, 54, who's recently completed work on The Mummy, wanted a share of the gross proceeds that would match or exceed his deal with Universal for playing the lead in the horror reboot. 

It appears the studio is blinking.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3750085/Mission-Impossible-Tom-Cruise-s-M-6-production-halted-star-s-pay-demands.html#ixzz4jqYxxHVJ 

 

[HesAPooka]

at 400m its looking at bringing in as much as Captain America The First Avenger or Batman begins.

Edited June 13, 2017 by HesAPooka

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

at 400m its looking at bringing in as much as Captain America The First Avenger or Batman begins.

 

Not sure of that (outside merchandising that is much different), those movie were not only domestic heavy (when studio were getting more of it the first weekend) but also in a different home video era. Batman begins was one of the best sellers of 2006 (over 160 million in Dvd sales in the US alone) but it got a long second life after Dark knight became a success too.

 

The ratio box office revenue / others did change quite a bit since, back then theatrical was a bit a publicity operated at a loss for the dvd home video gold mine, what was the real revenue source of the most profitable time ever for Hollywood:

 

Now movie tend to be more dependent on theatrical with that windows being 35+% of the studio revenue, it could be extremely misleading to compare what movie brought just by looking at their box office, specially when comparing from different time.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Barnack

[fmpro]

5 hours ago, The Dark Alfred said:

I don't know what you're smoking. 400m WW would be just about breaking even even with a mediocre 75m domestic.. Not great but not as bad overall as some think of it.

 

5 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

400m would be a lot, he said break even in theater, I'm not fully sure what people ever mean by that (no one using that expression detailled when they mean ever when asked), but it at the minimum mean

 

Theatrical rental > Direct production budget + WW P&A

(maybe they also mean interest, overhead, participation bonus that started, etc... I'm not fully sure). 

 

75m domestic + 245m intl + 80m China would be far to be enough for that.

 

Say even the lowest possible rumored scenario (125 production + 100m release = 225), let alone the highest 370m rumored production + releasing cost

 

75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical rental (that would do between 295m to 392.5 million in total revenue).

 

 

 

3 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

I am with Barnack. No way this makes money through theatrical. Plus cruise always gets some % on gross. That makes it even hard.

 

 

 

What Barnack says

Edited June 13, 2017 by fmpro

[John Rambo]

Decent Grosses in Latin America which is traditionally Cruises weakest territory! 

Kinda disappointed from Europe....UK was jus 1.3m USD higher than EoT (Oblivion opened to 7.5m+. Germany was bad 2.2m for tentpole franchisee movie! 

Netherlands failed to touch 1mln OW. 

France may follow the same trajectory. Japan may well fall in same category if not for cruise and MUmmy's popularity in Japan.

 

In India the movie did very well in Southern part which is traditionally English movies Forte! 

Rest of the country was Avg. It was dubbed in 3 Indian Languages namely Tamil, Telugu and Hindi. Not sure of Hindi but Tamil and Telugu have performed well. 

Overall disappointing considering TC factor and The Mummy popularity!

OW is similar to Spectre which is good.

Taiwan opened bigger and better than Mi5 but MI5 had 3x legs which is great! Pretty sure this one will have tough time to reach MI5 gross.

 

 

 

 

[kayumanggi]

140.8 M overseas ● 172.4 M worldwide

[HesAPooka]

16 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

Not sure of that (outside merchandising that is much different), those movie were not only domestic heavy (when studio were getting more of it the first weekend) but also in a different home video era. Batman begins was one of the best sellers of 2006 (over 160 million in Dvd sales in the US alone) but it got a long second life after Dark knight became a success too.

 

The ratio box office revenue / others did change quite a bit since, back then theatrical was a bit a publicity operated at a loss for the dvd home video gold mine, what was the real revenue source of the most profitable time ever for Hollywood:

 

 

Now movie tend to be more dependent on theatrical with that windows being 35+% of the studio revenue, it could be extremely misleading to compare what movie brought just by looking at their box office, specially when comparing from different time.

 

Lets assume they get 40% of international and 55% of domestic. So for Captain America which cost 140m that would mean 96.8m domestic and 77m international for total of 175m . Assuming Mummy which cost 125m makes 70m domestic and everything else international it breaks down as 38.5 + 132 = 170.5m.

If we decide to use 30% for international than Captain America ends up with 96.8 + 57.9 = 157m with the movie costing 140m. And Mummy would come to 38.5m + 99m = 137m for a movie that cost 125m.Either way both movies end up making a similar numbers theatrically compared to their budget. 

Like I said, if it makes 400m it would be as profitable as first avenge and and Batman Begins which if we use the same 55% + 30% break down would end up with 163m from a 150m budget

Edited June 13, 2017 by HesAPooka

[fmpro]

6 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

 

Lets assume they get 40% of international and 55% of domestic. So for Captain America which cost 140m that would mean 96.8m domestic and 77m international for total of 175m . Assuming Mummy which cost 125m makes 70m domestic and everything else international it breaks down as 38.5 + 132 = 170.5m.

If we decide to use 30% for international than Captain America ends up with 96.8 + 57.9 = 157m with the movie costing 140m. And Mummy would come to 38.5m + 99m = 137m for a movie that cost 125m.Either way both movies end up making a similar numbers theatrically compared to their budget. 

Like I said, if it makes 400m it would be as profitable as first avenge and and Batman Begins which if we use the same 55% + 30% break down would end up with 163m from a 150m budget

 

You know P&A(prints and ads) costs 100-150 mill WW for these kinds of movies right? And sometimes participants in the movie costs 20-40 mill too..

So total budget for CA and BB were most likely around 300 mill. These two movies made their the money after theatrical release. If they actully made any money at all

 

Their sequels were greenlight because of the sequels potential gross.. And both studios were quite right

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, HesAPooka said:

 

Lets assume they get 40% of international and 55% of domestic. So for Captain America which cost 140m that would mean 96.8m domestic and 77m international for total of 175m . Assuming Mummy which cost 125m makes 70m domestic and everything else international it breaks down as 38.5 + 132 = 170.5m.

If we decide to use 30% for international than Captain America ends up with 96.8 + 57.9 = 157m with the movie costing 140m. And Mummy would come to 38.5m + 99m = 137m for a movie that cost 125m.Either way both movies end up making a similar numbers theatrically compared to their budget. 
 

 

 

Captain america was significantly more expensive than 140m (is gross budget was a bit over 205 million US, is net was probably around 165 to 180):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html

The payment from the Revenue went some way to offsetting the £130.5 million cost of producing the movie – far higher than expected 

 

 

Theatrical is a very small part of the total story for what a movie bring in (and I,m not sure why we would give that window such a particular part of the story when it was that smaller to dvds).

 

Domestic retention rate went down over time, from Batman Begin probably getting 58%, to Mummy getting probably 53% now.

 

China get 25% and is a bit of a special case, the 40% intl average is for market outside China.

 

The percentage of revenue that is from theatrical also evolved from the peak of Home Media around 2006 to now, from maybe less than 33% for Batman Begins to maybe as close to 50% for a movie like Mummy.

 

Without merchandising:

Batman Begin:

206,852,432 * .58 + 167,366,241 * .4 = 186.9 million

Total revenue: 186.9 / 0.33 = 566 million

 

Captain America:

176,654,505 * .55 + 193,915,269 *.4 = 174.7 million

Total revenue: 174.7 / 0.35 = 499 million

 

Mummy

75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical

Total revenue: 157.75 / 0.45 = 350 million

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, fmpro said:

 

So total budget for CA and BB were most likely around 300 mill. These two movies made their the money after theatrical release. If they actully made any money at all

 

I doubt they were there total cost were close to be that low, but if they were in those range they certainly made a large profit (without even merchandising/video games/etc... being considered).

 

Salt for example made 358,571 million in total revenue with $0 from consumer products sales, with that box office:

 

Domestic:	$118,311,368	40.3%
+ Foreign:	$175,191,986	59.7%
= Worldwide:	$293,503,354

 

It's theatrical rental revenue were of 57.783 (dom) + 77.462 (intl) = 135 million (37% of it<s revenue were from Theatrical not particularly good), significantly lower than Batman begins or Captain America, those 2 movie made significantly more than 400 million in revenues, 300 million total budget would mean hundreds of millions in profit for them.

 

 

 

 

[HesAPooka]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Captain america was significantly more expensive than 140m (is gross budget was a bit over 205 million US, is net was probably around 165 to 180):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html

The payment from the Revenue went some way to offsetting the £130.5 million cost of producing the movie – far higher than expected 

 

 

Theatrical is a very small part of the total story for what a movie bring in (and I,m not sure why we would give that window such a particular part of the story when it was that smaller to dvds).

 

Domestic retention rate went down over time, from Batman Begin probably getting 58%, to Mummy getting probably 53% now.

 

China get 25% and is a bit of a special case, the 40% intl average is for market outside China.

 

The percentage of revenue that is from theatrical also evolved from the peak of Home Media around 2006 to now, from maybe less than 33% for Batman Begins to maybe as close to 50% for a movie like Mummy.

 

Without merchandising:

Batman Begin:

206,852,432 * .58 + 167,366,241 * .4 = 186.9 million

Total revenue: 186.9 / 0.33 = 566 million

 

Captain America:

176,654,505 * .55 + 193,915,269 *.4 = 174.7 million

Total revenue: 174.7 / 0.35 = 499 million

 

Mummy

75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical

Total revenue: 157.75 / 0.45 = 350 million

Genuine question, why are you using different numbers (.33 .35 .45) for each movie?

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

Genuine question, why are you using different numbers (.33 .35 .45) for each movie?

 

That is gross rules of thumbs of the percentage of the revenue that came from theatrical over those time periods (even if each movie is an individual story and that it change a bit by movie genre, all there windows revenue tend to be heavily correlated), more and more revenues come from theatrical. If you look at every year deadline most profitable blockbuster list, the total revenue vs the box office is going down and down every year.

 

It is also a clear trend in the sony leak accounting, the total revenue for a movie / world box office changed quite a bit, it went from 199% between 2005-2010 to 123% between 2011-2014 (for big movies alone it went from 145% to 107%)

 

A movie doubling it's big budget was a success story around batman begins because of the giant dvds market (and in the 90s the TV market), not anymore, it would be misleading to compare movie from different era without taking into account the complete evolving portrait.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Barnack

[John Rambo]

Russia held well on Monday due to holiday, SK dropped very hard less than million gross! Any other territories with weekday holds update?

 

[a2k]

450 is not dead for Mummy yet it seems.

80 ch + 80 dom + 290 os-ch = 450

400-425 a little more realistic.

[Plain Old Tele]

The problem with saying a movie isn't turning a profit theatrically (as if that were a bad thing) is that studios don't make movies with that approach. Obviously if it happens they're delighted, but they greenlight movies at a certain budget (and with a certain marketing budget) based on all revenues. We only see the theatrical side. 

[a2k]

Rarely do movies break even in theatrical.

 

Movies like Kong Skull Island won't break even in theatrical:

185 budget + >100 P&A =  >285 total budget

168.5*0.53 + 229*0.4 + 168.5*0.25 = 223 theatrical (using 168.5 dom after dollar bump, 229 OS-China, 168.5 China)