Barnack

Personnal Shoper, Certain woman, Clouds of Sils Maria, Still Alice have all been success all around or in some ways.

First one made 50m adjusted for ticket price, this one will not go much over it I have the feeling, bleeding theater like that. First one made 90.2m in 2018 dollar intl, with only Italy/South africa to get a release, not sure this one will reach the 84m unadjusted WW total of first, it made 1.8m intl is last weekend for a 20.17m total, could end up below 31m. Skyscrapper feel like an harsh drop, -1049 theater, Legendary/Universal Pacific Rim lost 1081 theater weekend #3, but that had a -66.7% second weekend giant drop and a PTA that was only 50% of skyscraper the daily coming in the third weekend.

Motion capture does not require much of an animator no ? Anyway under academy rules ? Did it re-change ? https://web.archive.org/web/20110605174517/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/rule07.html DEFINITION An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time. Seem up to date to me: http://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/91aa_rules.pdf

Could be very hard to distinguish for me a studio confidence into an expected reaction (they are pushing a good test screening numbers since last year, so possibly) and not liking the tracking numbers and trying stuff with little too loose, when they show the movie a lot a week in advance like that but did hold the embargo review. Specially with an review embargo still up just 7 days before release with an original movie that could use it.

Isn't Avatar motion captured a lot and not animated ?

Does seem to be a creative challenge to make a charlie angels movie in 2018 (also true for a Top Gun) Banks is not a bad choice for it, that pitch perfect 2 played on the comedy tone line/boundary pushing/offensive yet ok for now by having the joke coming out of character establish in a way to make it acceptable to an audience.

I often have some edit issue, my most common one is having a lot of white background tag behind a lot of text appear, needing to be remove in a text editor that support ctrl-h

using spoiler tags often can take care of this.

I am not saying first dollar, I am saying math formula agreed too what will be considered the profits on a movie. Many people simply get straight performance bonus close really simple that look like this Jennifer Aniston deal on We're the millers for example was: WE’RE THE MILLERS $4.5MM fee (schedule of PP) v. bo bonuses: $250k @ DBO $70MM or WWBO $140MM $375k @ DBO $80MM or WWBO $160MM $375k @ DBO $90MM or WWBO $180MM $500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM $500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM $500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM $500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM + paid ads + 500k perqs On Wanderlust: WANDERLUST $8MM v. 8%Gp + $2MM out of 10% GP @ CB0% (HV 87.5/12.5% for calc/30% HV royalty for payout) + $250K @ DBO $95MM, $100MM, $105MM, $110MM, $115MM, $120MM $500K @ DBO $125MM + $500K perq allowances ---------------------------- Gross point after a CB0 is reach, is usually what is called profit now, it is not on actual profit but a pre approved formula to calculate a close equivalent people agree on before hand. They will say for example if the movie pre-sales some market, 95% of those revenues will go on the movie budget line to reduce it, changing when the participation start to kick in. Testimony of small actor / selling book rights / first time people will be different than experimented in the movie industry people actual deal. There is little trust nowaday, those horror story of the past could have been true, but now that studios movies are not really studio movies anymore, all the people involved use a third party company like them: http://www.fintagehouse.com/business-groups/filmandtv/collection-account-management/ To count the money that get in and make sure everyone get paid in clear pre-agreed way, you can read in how much detail they can go to define what post-break is calculated and how much of the revenues goes in that pool: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/81364 (paul feig agents starting to deal for the Ghostbuster 3 gig)

You quoted that message: And asked below: There must be some sort of loss threshold that would still allow for a sequel. I was asking did you misquote the wrong message or was there any link between what you quoted and the question ? I literally just copied-pasted a studio accounting sheet of the closest movie (in release year, production budget and box office performance) I could find. Well yes, I would imagine excluding some freak scenario, what I am wondering does this has anything to do with what we were talking about ? Who ever said that movie loosing shit ton of money get sequel ?

You are talking about some custom agreed type of deal and not residual. You can look at how residual are calculated: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53410bafe4b065254d7107c5/t/54d0c71ee4b0fbe008c667f9/1422968606172/Residuals+summary+chart+v+18.pdf All post theatrical windows residual use gross revenues in the formula, big flop still pay residuals, it is guild rules. If a big talent want more than those and obtain it via is own contract ability, then it can take many many form, but it is almost never calculated on profits. The closer it goes to profit, is by using a pre-determined hard rules formula that look close to what profit will look like, but that make it clear how what is called "profit" is calculated. Many of the story you heard about Hollywood accounting lying about profit were bad entertainment reporting. The studio didn't told the Forest Gump writer that movie didn't made a profit (Tom Hanks and Zemeckis both made fortune in bonus), they told him they fucked him with a stupid contract he signed without a lawyer/accounting team that stipulated they could put a bunch of movies on the bottom line. Because of those error story, actual net profit without a clear pre-determined how it will be calculated seem to have stopped (from the contract I did read), usually writer/director/actor can know their bonus just by going on box office mojo and an excel sheet.

Elizabeth Banks playing a role in the movie should help a little bit, but yes that do seem like an Ocean movie were it is push by names, with a bit of why no one big accepted to sign on vibe if no one do. Lupita quitting not helping (Oscar nominee and a on the rise known name in some market at least). Depending on the schedule, if it is Steward first return in Hollywood before Underwater and the other "comeback" release get out it could create some buzz/narrative but I imagine Charlies Angels will be after those.

In my market those are blockbuster.

That special, would not expect to be a specially good on the weekend type of movie, not really family/date night (Equalizer 2 received an "A" CinemaScore (better than the "A-" for the original) and played to an audience that was 58% male, a bit higher than the 52/48 split for the original.. There is a possibility that it is strongly playing among the fans with those reviews and will be front loaded, like you said a 90m could be possibly in play here.

Is there any link with that and the message you quoted ? Has for the question there is no hard rules about how much a movie can loose and still go with a sequel, it is all about at what price they can make a sequel and how much they think it could do. That is hard residual are calculated on revenues not profit, and third party accounting firm are usually in charge of making sure everything is ok.

I am not sure if your are trolling or being serious. What loss are you talking about exactly ?

Yeah I removed my bonus estimate into the course, but you get the point, 344m + ovearhead + participation it is still above 338m. And that for a giant success, imagine moderate success, just ok, just not loosing money.... That just an extreme example to show how hard it is to just make production cost + world release cost from theater (without even counting overhead and participation, 2 aspect people seem to count has completely different cost). Spectre for example was a movie that was rumored to have a chance to achieve that (Made 880m at the box office) At 770m WW it would have not done it (200/570). Theatrical profit: domestic rental: 102.74 intl rental: 235.89 Revenues: 338.63 Theatrical release cost: Domestici: 62.06m intl: 94.76m Net production cost: 220m Cost without overhead: 376.82 Cost with OH: 398.82m Cost with OH and creative share: above 430m

Overhead is defined and agreed in advance on by people getting performance percentage and it is there for that very reason yes, calculate a realistic bonus on a realistic profit, the cost of running a studio must be took into a consideration in how much movies made at some level. 85m for a SH world release would be quite low. To have a gross idea you can look here: https://deadline.com/2015/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-profit-box-office-2014-1201391217/ Theatrical World Rental: around 338m Net Production cost: 196m Theatrical World release cost: 148m Total cost: around 344m + overhead + participation on box office performance people had. 6m still in the red. Without even considering overhead&participation bonus that started to kick in a while ago. And we are talking about a major giant hit making hundreds and hundreds of millions in profits, one of the biggest of the year (5th according to deadline), Imagine for the regular success hit. It is common for movies to make less in theater to the studio than what it cost the studio release a movie theater and still make a big profit. If you look at studio annual financial report, you will see a minority of the revenues coming from the box office (30%-40%) for the movie division. I am not exactly sure what you mean (could you just the clear math formula ?) but the fact that Guardian of the Galaxy could end up a flop with it should make an alarm sound.

Ok it was so low I assumed it was something else, a world studio release is usually way more than 30m P&A, that a small domestic release cost alone. I used 75m ww P&A and 105m total releasing cost when including home ent and TV in my numbers above. After residual and overhead my total cost was of 180m, much much more than 100m, if a 70m would cost only 100m in total, it would not need much at the box office to turn a great profit. I am not exactly sure what you mean by that, why would they care about how much money they make when it is in theater ? Because the future windows tend to be highly correlated with that one ? Well yes, but with the current interest rate the money made by the movie in the first 3 month and the 9 month after that.... not that big of a difference. Why would take care if the money come from movie ticket or somewhere else ? I never read anyone ever made that distinction. You would need to define what you mean by that. Do you mean if (Dom rental + Intl rental) < (Production cost + overhead + participation bonus at that moment in the movie still in theater + WW P&A) If so about all movies are flops, Guardian of the Galaxy was a flop it didn't recoup is money just a the box office either. A movie like Baywatch will have a total cost of what 150m if we do not consider residual, home entertainment release cost, before the bonus kick in, to make that from the box office alone, you need to make what around 340m ? So if a 70m movie does not make 340m at the box office (almost 5 times it's budget) it is a flop ? How much do you think Deepwater Horizon needed to make to not be a flop ?

What is the 30M in that equation ? What 100m + total budget mean ? I made a clear line by line of how a performance like this look like, using actual studio accountant leaked work, if there is term you do not understand do not hesitate to ask, but no if a studio retain only 80m it is not necessarily mean a loss, rental is usually around 35-40% of a movie revenues (outside the big blockbuster), so if it retain 80m chance are good of making 200m+ and making a bit of money.

How rental of 80m on 179m of box office (45% world retention rate average) make by post oblivious to the fact the studio does not retain all revenues ? All those line are studio point of views revenues and expense, not sales.

Was a bet certainly to not play the people leaving has an ending for season 2. The show being so big, new people will be extremely self aware during the show.

Obviously, but it still made 178m no China release here. No perfect comparable, but Sony accounting team had Monument men 207.35m in revenues with a 179m world box office and making 20m in profits at a 69m budget and a standard 75m world release P&A, break even point was at 150m (65dbo/85intl). For momument men it would have been expected to play like this at 74 dbo / 105m intl: Dom rentals: 39.2m Intl rental: 40.01m Dom hom ent: 29.6m dom pay per view / vod: 8..67m intl home ent: 22.37m intl vod: 4.77m dom pay tv: 9.3m dom free tv: 8.87m intl tv: 42.26m airlines: 2.3m Total revenues: 207.35 Production budget: 69.3m Overhead: 8.36m (12%) residual: 5.37m creative share: People on CB-0, not first dollar gross, almost nill Releasing cost including home ent and tv: 104.32m Total cost: around 187m gross profit: around 20m, around 10% margin (all from intl tv, so during year 2) Remove a little bit domestic, add a little bit intl, R-rated comedy can do well on rental but who knows.... Regardless, it was certainly not a flop, not close to even in conversation to be a movie loosing a big amount of money.

Also Fandango bought movieticket in 2017 and m-go in 2016 and the other move like this one: Mergers of movie chains have complicated matters regarding which company provides online ticketing for a particular chain. Upon Regal's acquisition of Consolidated Theatres, that chain was under contract to MovieTickets.com; as such Fandango does not ticket those Regal theaters. On the other hand, Regal's acquisition of the Hoyts chain resulted in Fandango taking over their online ticketing. Do they make comparison over the subset of the same theater they sold ticket for in 2015 and now or on Fandango in general ?

150m was just a rumor I would imagine. 150m in 2015 is around 160m today. Lot of people probably got a raise: https://www.imdb.com/search/name?roles=tt4912910,tt2381249 McQuarrie the obvious big one, but also Ferguson and you add Cavill pay check.