Jump to content

Ezen Baklattan

THE THREAD OF THE FURIOUS: Friday #s (DHD, Pg 36) F8 45.5M, BB 6.6M, BATB 5.3M, Smurfs 2.9M, GIS 2.1M

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I'd imagine in the usual WB tent pole range of $170m+

 

Nolan's salary alone is $20m (+20% somewhere on the backend), he paid $5 for a vintage plane to destroy, reconditioned  warrships, had 6,000 extras and he's shot on location for months.

 

Nolan said at CinemaCon that wasn't true.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/qa-nolan-previews-adrenaline-rushing-war-epic-dunkirk-46540906

 

Quote

AP: Is there any truth to the report that the production bought a $5 million vintage plane to crash?

 

Nolan: No. We used real antique vintage planes and flew them for the movie but we also constructed full scale models to destroy. A lot of money was involved but not that much money. I would never! Obviously never ... These planes are so beautiful and so valuable for so many reasons and the respect I have for them having done this, especially now having worked with them. The Spitfire is the most glorious machine.

 

Edited by MrPink
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Star Wars was...1977. Nothing in the entire media market today can be compared to something forty years old. You realize that predates the entire commercial videogame industry, don't you?

The Magnavox Odessey was out by then, and there were Pong consoles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Star Wars was...1977. Nothing in the entire media market today can be compared to something forty years old. You realize that predates the entire commercial videogame industry, don't you?

Not to mention many of the earliest highest grossing movies have been re-released multiple times. You need perspective to be an effective BO analyst. Different eras, industry has changed a lot over the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



29 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said:

I wonder when we get to the point where blockbusters are released exclusively in China and come to the US secondarily.

 

It's going to be a while. Even if/when China's box office eclipses the US (currently $6.6G vs $10.7G, respectively), that won't change the fact that five of the six major movie studios are American companies. The US is such a cushy place for rich people, especially compared to China, that it's going to be a while before they start catering primarily to the Chinese market.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just now, johnboy3434 said:

 

It's going to be a while. Even if/when China's box office eclipses the US (currently $6.6G vs $10.7G, respectively), that won't change the fact that five of the six major movie studios are American companies. The US is such a cushy place for rich people, especially compared to China, that it's going to be a while before they start catering primarily to the Chinese market.

It's very early in their movie history whereas those five companies have been around and consolidating for decades. Who knows where the big studios will be in 20-30 years? I'd say it's pretty likely the Chinese will have a big say in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GiantCALBears said:

Incredible, is it still 1/3 of foreign gross that goes to Universal or is it more? 

 

Except for China it change from movie to movie and studio to studio, a Star Wars/Potters will get more than your average movie, Furious 7 is probably up there. Some theaters chain in germany did need to stand their ground because Disney was asking for a 47% return on Force Awaken for example.

 

Potter being a famous example of movie for which we know the studio percentage did a excellent 46% return internationnaly (is 55.5% domestic was not bad either):

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg

 

If mojo intl number is close to the reality:

298.059 / 647.881 = 0.46

 

The outside China intl average is 40% for a studio complete slate, but they get less for smaller movie and more for their biggest tent pole were they can usually get better deal, here Sony leaked expected return rate by Market for Bond 24 (Spectre):

 

 

        Gross               Net
Australia 44% 34%
Austria 45% 38%
Belgium 43% 35%
Brazil 41% 13%
France 39% 30%
Germany 45% 35%
Italy 41% 16%
Japan 49% 16%
Mexico 38% 15%
Netherlands 41% 36%
Russia 42% 25%
South Korea 47% 31%
Spain 43% 13%
Switzerland 44% 36%
UK 44% 35%
China 25% 21%
Top 15 42% 32%
Others 44% 33%

 

Gross is the revenue share / box office

Net is (revenue share - marketing - prints) / box office

 

So the intl revenue share outside China for a Bond movie (and I imagine biggest intl movie in general) is around 44%, some market have really cheap releasing while some others seem to be almost identical to the domestic market, like Japan with huge marketing / studio getting almost 50% of the box office, I imagine a very healthy home video market were most of the revenue is made to justify that amount of marketing expense.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Also think this dropped a lot from F7 because there was way more competition this year then 2015. There were no big blockbuster style of movies for months before it.
 

The market was kind of dead (and especially for action films) besides Kingsmen which had come out in February and American Sniper in January.

This year however.....John Wick: Chapter 2, Logan, Kong: Skull Island, Beauty And The Beast, Power Rangers & Ghost In The Shell. 

And then on top of all that you have the breakout of Get Out.
 

Regardless of how some of those did, the market wasn't empty this time around so the drop is understandable.

Edited by somebody85
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I'd imagine in the usual WB tent pole range of $170m+

 

Nolan's salary alone is $20m (+20% somewhere on the backend), he paid $5 for a vintage plane to destroy, reconditioned  warrships, had 6,000 extras and he's shot on location for months.

 

As Mr. Pink said, the vintage plane rumor is not true. The filming period on this movie was also much shorter than his other big budget projects.

 

Inception and Interstellar were $160m with a lot more VFX work required and longer shooting schedules. I would guess the budget for Dunkirk is under $150m, possibly as low as $120m ($100m for everything else and $20m for Nolan's salary). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



25 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Skull Island is still playing, and I don't believe in adjusted grosses. If you do that basically no TV show is a success because none of them get the audience share of MASH/Cheers in their prime. Market has changed.

 

Nope that what it say, it does say that no TV shows are watched like Mash/Roots, etc... were and that would be true.

 

Success bar change differently than adjusting, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

As Mr. Pink said, the vintage plane rumor is not true. The filming period on this movie was also much shorter than his other big budget projects.

 

Inception and Interstellar were $160m with a lot more VFX work required and longer shooting schedules. I would guess the budget for Dunkirk is under $150m, possibly as low as $120m ($100m for everything else and $20m for Nolan's salary). 

I disagree, safe to say it's $150m+. Just an opinion since we don't have the hard data. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It would be very hard for me to say that Get Out has been the biggest surprise at the box office in the last decade. It sure is the surprise of this year and probably will continue to be so but I think every year we have a film that breakouts and that no one expects to perform the way it did. Last year we had Deadpool. In 2014 we had American Sniper and GOTG. Mind you two of those films are Marvel properties but let's be real....none of us expected them to blow up the way they did. Get Out's performance for a very low budget horror film is insane and I'm not taking anything away from it. But I don't think I can say that it's had the most surprising performance at the box office in the last decade when just in the last 2-3 years, I can name 3 other films that also surprised us big time at the box office....and in much bigger ways too. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

As Mr. Pink said, the vintage plane rumor is not true. The filming period on this movie was also much shorter than his other big budget projects.

 

Inception and Interstellar were $160m with a lot more VFX work required and longer shooting schedules. I would guess the budget for Dunkirk is under $150m, possibly as low as $120m ($100m for everything else and $20m for Nolan's salary). 

 

120 itself is high for this film imo. It should do very well in Europe so WW should be strong. May not do much in China (and rest of Asia).

I am waiting for a Dunkirk Under Inglorious Basterds (120.5) club from @Tele Came Back so I can go IN.

 

Edited by a2knet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Just now, GiantCALBears said:

I disagree, safe to say it's $150m+. Just an opinion since we don't have the hard data. 

 

I figure it's probably more expensive than what Redfirebird is thinking, but assuming it tops out at $160, which is where Inception and Interstellar were 'officially' budgeted at. Wouldn't be surprised if it is a bit cheaper than those after any credits (Assuming there is any)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Its amazing how expectations play for movies. Peter Jackson's Kong earned more domestic and just a little less WW than Skull Island on a slightly larger budget but never recovered from the perception of being a flop thanks to sky high expectations  (and being very bloated), Skull Island on the other hand had very low expectations and this result is a big win for everyone involved.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 minute ago, grim22 said:

Its amazing how expectations play for movies. Peter Jackson's Kong earned more domestic and just a little less WW than Skull Island on a slightly larger budget but never recovered from the perception of being a flop thanks to sky high expectations  (and being very bloated), Skull Island on the other hand had very low expectations and this result is a big win for everyone involved.

It's all about expectations and how realistic they were to begin with. That's what we do here my friend. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



12 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

$532.4 M globally? Holy shit, well this movie pretty much just made back it's budget in a weekend. I don't know which franchise is bigger for Universal, F&F or JW (curious to see how the second holds).

I mean it's no surprise but 9 is definitely coming and now we know that 7 definitely had a higher debut due to Paul Walkers death. I remember all the memes that weekend from the final scene.

The minion franchise is the most profitable for Universal. It cost much less than FF and JW. The budgets are usually around 75m, while the other two cost more than 200m.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.