Barnack

Not sure what they mean by Traditional video game adaption that would exclude Warcraft ?

Current last hour average: 2018-06-04 12:00:00 131 Oceans 8 2018-06-04 12:00:00 93 Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom 2018-06-04 12:00:00 43 Hereditary 2018-06-04 12:00:00 28 Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom 3D 131/121/43

At least when they are young (50 shades at a high 42% of it's OW below 25, for an r-rated affair it was popular among the F-25), world wide pre-sales it look like, first Hunger Games also did had some form of pre-sales record I think.

Older movie goers attending movies more days after release in average is a true stereotype too: The AARP study highlighted that older adults also demonstrate distinctive behavior around film release cycles. Movio research has shown this group is significantly less likely than moviegoers under 50 to attend films on opening weekend, with 60-percent of their visits coming after opening weekend, and on average, 15.2 days post-opening. https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2017/the-50plus-moviegoer.html

Product placement helping world marking is true for most franchise, they still end up spending a fortune on their release, Sony did spent 190m on a world theatrical release of Amazing Spider-Man despite the many product deal. Bond one of the best franchise for product placement, they still spend 150m on that world release. Has for using your own SFX in house division or placing the ads on your own channel, it still cost you exactly the money you will have made if you would have sold the spot to someone else or your SFX division time to an other studio movie instead. And must be counted in the price of the movie/release, Imagine being the studio that play the superbowl for example and use 30s of airtime for one of your movie it just cost you the amount of money an other company you would have gave to you to advertise their product, maybe tax wise it is a bit advantageous but maybe not.

Regardless of the reliability and bias of the readers, often those sources are a bit reckless into making a distinction between gross production cost and net production cost. Amazing Spider Man 2 was conformably above 300m also (312m) but after a 48m help became a regular 264m tentpole superhero movie. Every report that is not clear about that distinction or lump marketing cost without breaking down how much for each, even if reliable will sound has sensationalist and of little use. Both report could even be truth, considering how little went to the cast salary, the tax return could be impressive Georgia is generous, Disney could very well have spent well north of 300m (say 315m) making this movie, will end up after the audit process finish getting what they estimate now will end up to 60-65m tax credit from all the different jurisdiction for an around 250m net budget (around 20% rebate).

Today sales: Solo A S 3566 Deadpool 2394 Avengers 1187 Jurassic 1172 Book Clu 1031 Incredib 1007 Adrift ( 932 Oceans 8 782 Upgrade 514 Life of 291 Heredita 207 Show Dog 200 Action P 148 A Quiet 136 Breaking 123 Overboar 100

Well it is directed by the Spain hero and mega star. That is not too surprising. It will do monster business there, all Bayona movie were Spain biggest movie of their respective year I think, I would expect the same for this.

Loved Gone Girl (book and even more the movie, I like some over the top non sense), loved how Flynn adapted it and this seem to be in the type of movie I usually like, so easy sell for me, just looking at a couple of frame of the trailer, didn't needed any marketing or any spoiler (I have not read this one).

Because Frozen was such a monster for long time it is hard to distinguish how much Star wars revenues lost explain Disney drop versus Frozen drop (And you had Cars 3 helping to reverse the drop, Moana also a little bit, making the drop from those 2 looking smaller than it was) Consumer Products & Interactive Media 2016 Licensing, publishing and game: 3,819 Retails: 1,709 Sales: 5,528 Operating income: 1,965 2017 Licensing, publishing and game: 3,256 Retails: 1,577 Sales: 4,833 Operating income: 1,744 13 drop in sales, 11% drop in profit. Has for the margin, has you can see they are ridiculous, 35% margin type.. with a ridiculous 40-45% ROI

Are movie in China with subtitle and not dubbed ?

Not sure about worked, 12m OW and achieved to loose a bit of money on a near best picture quality candidate adaptation of one of the most popular franchise of the 2000s...... Studio was piss with Fincher strange marketing for Dragon Tattoo for a long time.

Not sure about Steppenwolf, but Thanos was high level (and quite new) CGI, must have cost a fortune, the blend of realism injected into an obvious purple fake guy worked quite well. From Gollum to now the Apes&Hulk&Thanos... etc... maybe turned a corner and what is possible to do and what people will come up with.

Your number you used are correct, but your missing many of them (not that it necessarily matter, your 200m profit estimate will probably end up real close) You can look at deadline estimate of the first one to have a rough idea, it is not perfect but it is not bad in general: According to them, Deadpool generated 647m in revenues and had 324m in cost for a 322.24m type of profits. https://deadline.com/2017/04/deadpool-box-office-profit-2016-1202057182/ If deadpool do 300/400 and has a similar type of revenues / box office performance we could expect a 575m revenues type (I do not know if there is merchandise revenues with that franchise, if so could be more, but say there is none) with a near 375-400m cost (last one costed 325m according to deadline estimate, this one budget is apparently 60m higher but will pay a bit less residual, participation should be higher % but on less revenues). So a 175m to 200m type of profit before merch if there is some, seem about right.

I am really unsure how common those pay or play deal (they do seem not uncommon) and if they include residual (I doubt it) or planned bonus (I also doubt it), you probably only keep your salary. If that type of actor contract is common: http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138775794/actor-agreement.docx Seem to say that if you get pay or play: 1. except if Actor has been made “pay-or-play” and thereafter Producer elects not to require Actor’s further services, Producer shall pay Actor the fixed compensation in accordance with the payment schedule set forth herein. Any foregoing payments are subject to Producer's rights hereunder, at law and in equity, and shall be reduced by any amounts Actor earned or could have earned for Actor's services when Actor's services would have been required here­under. You get removed from your pay the future payment you will have received. Also say it like this: 1. Compensation: Subject to Paragraphs 7 and 11 hereof, and provided Producer elects to produce the Picture and Actor is not in material default hereunder, Producer shall pay Actor, in full consideration of Actor's services rendered, rights granted and representations, warranties and agreements made hereunder, the following compensation: (a) Fixed Compensation: The sum of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Should the Exclusive Period as described in Paragraph 2(a) above extend beyond 10 weeks plus two free weeks, overages will be calculated on the basis of $8,333.33 per week based on a five-day week. This fixed compensation will be applicable against the contingent compensation set forth in subparagraph 3(b) below. (b) Contingent Compensation: 5% of 100% the Pictures Net Proceeds as Net Proceeds are defined in Appendix A. (c) Pay or Play: Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 7 and 11 below, Actor will become “pay or play” for the fixed compensation described in subparagraph 3(a) above upon commencement of principal photography.

That franchise always achieved to do 2.5 it's dbo (and got close to 3.0). I can see it being more domestic heavy (feel more like a straight comedy maybe and no Pitt/Roberts type), but it should do 50/50 at least right ? If that goes to 200m it should do it oversea also for 400m. 350m that Murder on the Orient express success level, while being I would imagine more domestic heavy, a 250m would be quite good. Using a recent example that is somewhat similar in cost and participation level, say the Hanks/Greengrass, 60m Captain Phillips. They had no gross dollar participation and were starting to get bonus around 120m WW, raising to make a bit over 50% of the profit if the movie was a hit (I would imagine that kind of near 50/50 split if the movie is a hit would be similar on this movie, it does seem standard many movie seem to do that). Captain Philipps 92.5m budget for marketing is probably quite similar. Captain Philips movie was estimated to make at those different performance level: At 200m WW (85m/115m) 232.98m in revenues with 55m in profits (25m toward the talent, 31.28m studio), 13.4% ROI At 235m WW (100/135) 268m in revenues, 84 million in profit, 40m to the talents, 44m to the studios, 16.4% ROI 353m WW (150 dbo / 203 intl) 360.65m in revenues and almost 160m in profit, with 77.42m in profits going to the studios with 80.45m going to the talent, 21.5% ROI In reality the movie did around 219m WW, 107/111 and overperformed a little bit on home video for a better than anticipated at that level of performance 275m revenues for it is life time and a 50m profit for the studio. Remove 10m for those profit figure for the 70m instead of 60m budget and I imagine it will look like that, probably start to look good financially around 200 and nice success unqualified success around 220-240m.

Sales today on fandango: Solo A S 17810 Deadpool 12982 Avengers 5652 Adrift ( 4916 Jurassic 2864 Book Clu 2860 Upgrade 2817 Incredib 1841 Life of 1153 Oceans 8 860 Action P 849 Breaking 684 Overboar 652 A Quiet 637

Like other pointed out, even if it is hard it is easier to have some guess on how much profit a movie will make than how much of the profit a particular entity (here Fox) will make personally versus the others (it require guessing the profits and then guessing the revenues split). Kinberg and Reynolds must by quite expensive on this, but there is quite a special amount of profit made by those movies.

It is not clear cut, but yes there is a sense that at least DCEU is in what feel like a growing genre worldwide, I am not sure which one will make the most profit in the next 50 year's (i.e. which would one is worth the most). Easier to imagine what DC will or could do.

Disney is a studio that still hurt is Marvel movies with product placement in them even if they make billions...They tend to feel really cheap in many ways (or responsible). Marvel is probably an extreme example, because of Ike extreme cheapness legacy, but the people that gain those giant budget at Disney often earned it (Pixar people, Star Wars, Pirates, etc...) and not reckless at all.

Probably easier to keep to cost lower for independant movies than studio ones, not being a studio production probably open some possible price reducing options. With a Lucas not necessarily charging for is writng/producing/directing fee like he would have to a studio and possibly ILM not charging them the same way a studio SFX division charge stuff to the movie division. But yeah a 110m Phantom Menace (around 165m today) do look good with the scope of it.

Was probably 100m more than that, SM3 was 299m net. The Amazing Spider Man were both above 300m gross budget. Solo did feel really expensive to me, they didn't reuse many cheap setup that much or many cheap minutes.

I would assume the Avengers have very similar deal no ?

Not that much nowaday at least not for those veteran with a veteran team used to those contract. Because it is all specified in advance what math formula will be used to calculate the bonus, what will be the revenues (20% of home videos + 50% of the box office , all tv, all soundtrack, etc...) and even with gross point sometime they will remove a 10% of the top the other people residual, etc... How the overhead will be calculated, what to do with production cost overrun and so on. It is not really the actual profits usually I think (for example Paul Feig team was trying to have Sony count 50% of China box office instead of 25% in the revenues formula and they caught them). Jackson when to court because of something that was not explicit in the contract, were the revenues the studio made by letting the book distributor use imagery of the movie on them were part of the movie revenues or not if I remember correctly. I imagine the contract said something like all revenues including but not limited too a list of stuff (soundtrack, merchandise, etc... without explicitly giving that book example and they tried to exploit it)

Apparently the track record trying to achieve saving money doing that is so-so and often done for scheduling ? Because unions make sure everyone make the same amount of money that if it was 2 movies. Not sure how true it is, but Twilight breaking dawn was 247.3m for example, would they have cost much more than that made normally ?