Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Barnack last won the day on September 3 2018

Barnack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation



About Barnack

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not news (is being talking about this for what at least a decades): https://nypost.com/2017/10/10/apple-teams-with-spielberg-for-streaming-tv-series/ Also produced stuff for Amazon... I am pretty sure he is not making any exception for those platform either. The reaction to is position when he was saying that in the past: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-thinks-netflix-films-should-not-qualify-oscars-1097351 Versus the most recent time, seem to have changed quite a bit for some reason, saying that : "I don’t believe that films that are given token qualifications, in a couple of theaters for less than a week, should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.", is an attack on Netflix now....
  2. You are on a website dedicated on obsessing on stupid box office numbers (with about 99.9% of it's member being very very remotely connected to those movies in any possible ways if any), that should put you in a specially good position to put yourself in the shoes of someone obsessing on something like a stupid RT score.
  3. https://deadline.com/2019/03/a-star-is-born-box-office-profit-2018-1202580798/ Lot of strange / typo ? Budget: 36m Participations: 35m Not accounted for here is the revenue from the hit soundtrack, which was a driving force for this picture’s success, racking up 4 billion in album sales worldwide and 2 billion streams worldwide. 1) I imagine those are millions and not B. 2) If a 34M just below the lines in California gross budget movie (with $7M tax credits) end up being only $36M net, that mean everyone worked on a very low salary and make the paying only 35m in participation with those Cooper, Roth, Gaga, Todd Philips, Jon Peters, names involved look quite low. 35m is less than 10% gross or around 16% profit type of deals. If they really kept a movie like that performing like that to under 75m in total budget + bonus cost, kudos to them, incredibly good deal. Captain Philips at 350m WW box office was already at 80m in bonus (and people got paid with that 60m net budget), I would imagine those low salary tend to come with better back end deal in exchange.
  4. Probably quite impossible to know, but here some extracted target for recent big budget Sony movie: Movie Budget Break even point Greenlight Marketing target Return break "Success" bar / budget ratio Amazing Spider Man 268 560 600 660 2.46 Amazing Spider Man 2 260 616 850 848 3.26 Men in black 3 250 625 620 760 3.04 Bond 24 220 524 764 769 1546 3.50 Total recall 154 297 400 2.60 White house down 150 320 425 455.8 2.83 After earth 149 262 400 400 690.2 2.68 Elysium 126 220 300 348 2.38 Pixels 3d 120 210 282.5 368.4 2.35 Smurf 2 118 245 528 401 3.40 Inferno 91 209 300 341.9 3.30 Budget was the expected budget when those target were set. Break even point is a gross estimate to when the movie needed to make at the box office to end up making $0 in it's life time from the studio point of view, the movie itself is not necessarily break even in is totality (a partner could still be taking a hit at that point), the BO / budget ratio for the Break Even point vary a lot because of how domestic the performance is expected to be and if people have first dollar gross deal or not. Greenlight (when available) what they thought the movie was likely to do when they gave it the go. Marketing target, beginning of the year projection or updated one. Return break, usually when do they start making a 14% to 17% return on their money type of deal, James Bond is so high because of the 75% of the profit going to MGM and Sony keeping 25% + not having access to home video revenues structure. If that a 200m and play intl quite a lot, that : Suggestion would make a lot of sense, that cast/director is probably not getting much participation and probably far after profit zone kick in (writers / Tull could be the big % guys there)
  5. Ahhhhhhh !!!! That it, with movie starting thursday week does not end on sunday at all. Thank you. 45 * 1.65 + 331 = 405m 45 * 2 + 331 = 421m That make much more sense.
  6. I was going to ask how common that was, maybe Canada was quite similar to the UK (CM 3.4M versus Us 2.8m) Do Canada follow more the UK or the US directly ? Couple of: http://playbackonline.ca/2017/12/20/top-grossing-films-of-2017/ Look like a mix Canada order: Beauty Guardian 2 Wonder Woman Spider Man Thor 3 UK order of those title: Beauty Guardian 2 Thor 3 Spider Man Wonder Woman US order: Beauty Wonder Woman Guardian 2 Spider Man Thor 3
  7. EDIT: Forget all this, week 3 isn<t even over yet. My first reflex was really, possible to miss 400M ? Considering the 45m advance with Wonder Woman after 17 days and 18M above the 408m Hunger Games, but: Captain Marvel Hunger Game Beauty Wonder Woman Jurassic world 2 Gotg 2 Week1 $196.9 M $189.9 M 104% $228.6 M 86% $147.8 M 133% $204.8 M 96% $183.2 M 108% Week2 $89.6 M $79.4 M 113% $119.3 M 75% $86.0 M 104% $100.0 M 90% $83.6 M 107% Week3 $34.3 M $46.2 M 74% $59.4 M 58% $59.4 M 58% $43.0 M 80% $46.6 M 74% Weekly box office is going relatively down quite a bit versus other 400m+ movies and good competition is starting. Legs, week 3 multiplier Jurassic World 2 added 1.603 times week 3 to it's total. Beauty and the beast added 1.63 times week 3 to it's total. Guardian 2 added 1.64 times week 3 to it's total. Hunger games added 2x times it's week 3 to it's total. Wonder woman added 2.01 times it's week 3 to it's total. 2.0 legs (that look like that on the great legs side) would push it to 320.75+ 34.3*2 = 390m for a 2.54 multi, 1.65 legs (that look like that on the sequel/very hyped side) would push it to 320.75+ 34.3*1.65 = 377m for a 2.45 multi (hard to believe that one), That does look a bit low, maybe that 34.3M week is a bit of an anomaly/last week burning some demand anormally big, Us giant 70m+ affair effect or something ?
  8. Barnack


    Pretty much imo. Inflation between 2012 and 2018, (9.4%) Avengers outside China: adjusted for dollar inflation (1,518,812,988-86,300,000)*1.094 = 1.567b Avengers End Game outside China: 1.6888b Movie annual box office share: Year Title WW box office Movie BO Share 2012 Avengers 34.7 1.5188 4.38% 2018 Infinity War 41.7 2.0484 4.91% First Avengers get a bonus for being the first making it close, IW get also a bonus for being an older and older franchise going on (not always a plus after 5 year's), hard to say which is more impressive.
  9. Disney have an history of Vault, making it hard to even buy the dvd of some movies from time to time. I would be a massive turnaround to shift all that value into the Disney+, maybe it will happen one day when D+ is $25 a month or something like that, but it would not surprise me if they stay with a vault affair for ever. With a rotating sub-selection available, to not make legacy title lost in the noise but an event when they get available and people talk about them.
  10. I imagine runtime include generic ? And not that precise. Nolan is limited by what physically fit on big IMAX 70mm, Interstellar generic had to be cut to fit it I think. But IMDB does allow advanced search for question like that, just put the result by box office to have the big studio affair on top: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?title_type=feature&release_date=2010-01-01,&runtime=150,&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc The last jedi: 152m Knight Rises: 164 Transformer 3: 154m BvS: 151m All the Hobbits (169, 161, etc...) The longest recent 100m+ movies was probably Wolf of Wall street (Scorsese liked is 4 hours version, but was not allowed), but that was independently (and very illegally) financed, Cloud Atlas 172m also a lot of non-studio financing. Interstellar/T5 went 2h45 or more
  11. Disney+ has synergy with ESPN+ (only way to see UFC now for example and already have millions of very high paying OOT subscribers) and Hulu to help the start AppleTV has synergy with hardware and a rabid giant fanbase that eat anything they will propose them to do. Disney has much more chance because it must work imo, there is almost not falling back to not having it, while Apple can quite that game and concentrate or something else. Disney have been delivering content for decade, have a library, it could get over 200m subscribers before Netflix
  12. Barnack


    Billion dollar by year (if we include re-release box office), is getting less and less exclusive: 2018 5 2017 4 2016 4 2015 5 2014 1 2013 2 2012 4 2011 3 2010 2 2009 1 2008 1 2006 1 2003 1 1999 1 1997 1 1993 1 But quite stable in the last 4 year's. It was obviously way more impressive before 2010 than after, 2012 was an other jump, but between 2018 and say 2013 2014 was hit by an exchange rate drop/China slowing down a bit some years, that could support your point, some 2018 movie do not make 1 billion in 2013, but maybe Alice in wonderland do not do a billion in 2018. Of all the 2018 billion dollar movie , which with a similar performance/buzz do not reach the billion in 2012-2013 time ? Only Aquaman ?
  13. Those estimate were not 65m down to 25m level. Justice League had a 93.84 million start a 15% mistake Poppins had a 32.33m start (almost on the nose of the $35m Disney projection) a massive 46% mistake 65m to 25m would be an 61.5% mistake. Making prediction from tracking data on the start on a Wednesday when Christmas fall on the next Tuesday scenario is probably significantly harder than on a more classic weekend.

Important Information

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