johnboy3434

In its final cut, it's the longest superhero film of all time... and I honestly think that version of it is a good movie. The problem is that the man behind it had no business touching Superman.

...You mind sharing it with the class then? Using words? Unambiguously explanatory words? AKA Communicating like a human being?

Okay, what is your evidence, you fucking child?

Didn't someone else in your recent thread run a regression and find that RT user score was significant? Another regression on another site (can't remember exactly where, it was awhile ago) showed the same for Cinemascore, but did your data show otherwise?

You're assuming that only an unintelligent audience would prefer "toons and tights" as its preferred type of movie, and by implication that an audience that prefers critically-acclaimed drama must be more intelligent. I'm gonna have to ask you to back that assertion up.

So, of the three factors statistically shown to correlate with good legs (high Youtube trailer views, good Cinemascore, high RT user score), Power Rangers has hit all three. Hopefully that translates into better staying power than we expected.

Wait, Puerto Rico. San Juan, the capital, is bolded. Coordinate markings are given on the side of the map. San Juan's latitude is roughly 18.5 degrees North. So... $18.5M Friday?!

NUMBERS. NEED NUMBERS.

So that means the movie would only have to make about $45.5M to cover the rest of the production budget. Then it's just a matter of covering the marketing expenses. If they spent $50M on P&A, then that means a domestic gross of $136M would put it in the black. That would take some surprising legs. So, it's all up to home video.

When the Deadline article says that Lionsgate has 25% exposure on Power Rangers, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that they've already covered 75% of the costs selling the foreign distribution rights, among other things?

Oh by all means, continue to regale us about how your five-year-old tastes were so sophisticated while simultaneously putting down anyone who thinks otherwise. It's totally endearing and not at all unflattering to you.

I see this difference whenever I discuss new movies with my grandfather. His first question after I describe the film is almost always "Who's in it?". And my silent reaction is usually "What does that have to do with anything?".

You know, I actually can't help but wonder if the number of movies made about the Holocaust hasn't unintentionally trivialized it. As horrific as it was, hearing about it on a regular basis can deaden the impact. The movies being largely predictable melodrama doesn't help either.

Most depressing franchise ever?

That one is owned by DiC, Saban's brief rival in the adapted-live-action-Japanese-superhero genre. So Saban has Power Rangers, VR Troopers, Masked Rider, Beetleborgs, and Mystic Knights of Tir-Na-Nog. Meanwhile, DiC has Superhuman Samurai Syber-Squad and Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills. And then you have two standalone stragglers in Ultraman: The Ultimate Hero and Kamen Rider Dragon Knight.

So this pulled in $3.6M from Thursday screenings. Mojo says that $40M+ is a lock now. So it's already outperforming expectations, if only slightly. Let's cross our fingers and see where this goes.

Yeah, I should have specified: My numbers are assuming that LG's ideal goal is to make a satisfactory return on the film project before it leaves theaters. While that attitude has become far less prominent in the years since VHS exploded, it would still be an ideal outcome because then everything they make from home entertainment and television is gravy. I imagine that the film showing signs of making a profit in theaters would also translate into an instant greenlight for a sequel. It's worth noting, for example, that of Marvel's "Phase One" films, only Iron Man and The Avengers are likely to have made a profit from box office receipts alone.

I'm assuming a $50M P&A budget. I'm also assuming that LG gets 55% of domestic gross and would have gotten about one-third of the foreign gross had it distributed the film itself. So the total negative cost is $150M, so to make a 10% return the studio needs to receive $165M. If it makes $110M domestic, that means LG received $60.5M from domestic ticket sales. So that leaves $104.5M that need to be made up elsewhere. Multiply by three, and that would be the equivalent of LG's share from a $313.5M foreign gross if LG had been able to release the film itself. So yeah, assuming a $110M domestic gross, the film would have to make $423.5M in order to make a 10% return if LG had done all the distributing itself. Of course, the total number changes depending on the ratio of domestic to foreign. If the film had an average 40.7/59.3 split between domestic and foreign, then the worldwide gross would only need to be $391M in order to make a 10% return.

Box Office Mojo has given its projection for opening weekend: $38M. If BoxOffice.com's predicted 2.89x multiplier holds, that would leave it with a total domestic gross of $110M. If so, then in order to get around a 10% return, Lionsgate would need to have gotten a combined $104M or so between selling the rights to foreign distributors and whatever its share from UK ticket sales is. Of course, there's no way to know how much they got for the sales, but to put it in perspective, that's roughly what they would have gotten from a $314M foreign gross if they had been able to distribute it themselves. The question, then, is whether the foreign distributors saw at least that level of potential in the film.

Those rules are not adjusted for Lionsgate's practices (because I don't know how exactly to quantify them). Every individual situation will deviate at least a little from them, of course, because that's usually what happens with rules of thumb. I just picked them up from following box office-related discussion over the years. Combine that with the indirect sources of profit mentioned, and for all I know the movie could be a success with a $15M opening weekend. But absent any specifics, I would want to see it make at least $55.4M before I would break out the party poppers.

The final word on the production budget seems to be $100M. Assuming various rules of thumb (marketing budget is 50% of production, LG gets 55% of domestic gross and [the prepaid equivalent of] one-third of foreign gross, minimum satisfactory return of 10%) and past projections about the film's legs (specifically, BO.com's long-term forecast of a 2.89x multiplier), that would put the opening weekend "success threshold" at $55.4M. Of course, any number of unknown factors could change that, especially profits that are not directly gained from the film itself, like merchandising, product placement, and tax breaks. Meanwhile, BO.com has made an official opening weekend projection of $36M. So yeah.

According to "official" numbers, Pirates 3 is the most expensive movie of all time after inflation (about $342M). Does that sound about right, or have some other films gone past that once you get into off-the-record expenses?

The first budget number reported was an "insider projection" of $75M. Then months and months and months later, the number of $120M was reported. Now, it's being reported as $105M.

If this film manages to make it to the other side and stay in the black, even if just barely, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to make it work.

Some regression analyses done at various times on this forum have shown three (that I have seen) predictors that are correlated with better performance for a film: Trailer views, Cinemascore, and Rotten Tomatoes audience score. The film is doing great on the first criteria, we'll know the Cinemascore by Saturday afternoon, and the RT audience score will be something to keep an eye on starting Friday.