Barnack

With water productions history of costing fortune (Speed 2, WaterWorld, etc...), a franchise known to have not only a lot but usually the best CGI in the industry and often still the best CGI ever for a couple of year's after release, Johnny Depp rumored 50m deal and a lot of people with giant name returning on a sequel, it is a logical candidate, imo. If Infinity War didn't beat it.

Incredible 2 and Jurassic World 2 1-2 punch will really rapidly change that.

Not really if the production cost are well north of 300, than usually Solo would be north of 450m after Marketing. Would be better to have a clearer view of what they mean by that, is that marketing cost the movie life marketing cost or just theatrical does it include the other theatrical releasing cost that are not marketing cost, etc..... If it does say 210m dbo 190m intl for 400m WW, I had in mind quoting myself from the solo thread: Budget: 330m Overhead: 50m (usually 15% of the budget, but maybe Disney use a different formula) Participation: 25m (using a small under 15% participation rate) World Release cost (let say they didn't went all in in some markets and kept it low): 165m 570m cost Rental around (210m* .56 + 190 * 0.4): 185-195 375-385m in the red ? Even with a 200m budget I am not sure how you get to a small just 100m in the red after it's theatrical run, that would be great in is way on a nice profit if that was the case. If the movie do 35% of it's revenues in theater (Disney average), it would reach around 542m in revenues, looking something like this maybe. Add residual, home ent release a bit more participation and if the movie is really well above 300m net budget we could see a lost of around 85m if it was only 250m could be around the break even water. Domestic rental: 117.6 Domestic home ent revenues: 80 domestic home ent ppv: 10.55 Pay TV (i.e streaming nowaday): 27.5m Domestic Free TV: 21m Intl rental: 85m Int hom ent revenue: 30 Intl home ent ppv: 6m Intl TV: 85m Airlines: 3m Consumer products: 85m (Extreme big crash down from Last Jedi 450m, but not only the popularity is not close they do not have the cute like bird with the big eyes to push sales here and possible to have some lost on the stuff they do themselve and will get stuck with an inventory too big) That scenario breakdown exercise went to 550m, matching by initial gross formula intuition, not particularly optimistic on some ancillary but not particularly pessimistic either, it is heavily influenced as a starting point by Amazing Spider Man 2 domestic performances (a 200m something box office franchise entry not particularly well received). So if the movie total production and total world releasing cost is only 450m (that almost exactly Amazing Spider man 2 $455m cost), could be ok depending on people participation deal obviously.

I would imagine a lot of people have seen nothing Terminator related since Terminator 2 too, I must not be alone in that boat. If the movie is setup that you just need to have seen the first 2 you could get to that audience.

Do people talk about producers/studio exec that much for the non-SH/Star wars movies ? Even the giant like Graham king, Rudin, Marshall, what Heyman did with Potter/Gravity/Paddington franchise/etc..., etc... ? That do feel a bit new to me, even when a Rudin has an Aloha we do not have 1% of that talk it seem. They are not supposed to be TV show runner, picking the good writer for the project, matching the good director for it and helping him once he become the boss if things goes well.

Box office pro has it at: 6/8/2018 Ocean’s 8 $45,000,000 Same for deadline tracking saying some firm has it at 30m some other as high as 45m with numbers really close to Ghostbuster: https://deadline.com/2018/05/rihanna-anne-hathaway-oceans-8-box-office-opening-projection-1202393228/ In overall audience tracking in definite interest and first choice, Ocean’s 8’s respective scores of 43 and 6 are very close to Ghostbusters’ numbers (44,5) and ahead of The Heat (33,5),Spy (37,3) and Girls Trip (34,5). The r-rated Heat opened at 39m with like 1,000 less theaters, it would be easy to see why someone would be disappointed with this going lower than that.

That not surprising, how the movie handled that character does not make any sense.

Now a day they seem to accept more and more to let go of the first dollar gross and accept participation of what they call the CB-0 (a pool of all revenues made after a pre-determined break even point formula), even Tom Hanks accepted that on Inferno and they were pushing it on Denzel of all people on Magnificent 7. With the example of the Sony leak, they seem to usually get around 50% of the revenues splitted among them, when Will Smith is alone on Concussion is bonus hit 50% of the revenues after a certain point, when they are a group like American Hustle or Mag 7 they split. Using Magnificant 7 for an example, instead of having Washington getting 15% of the revenues, Fuqua 5% and Birnbaum 5% they preferred transferring them to a 50% of the "profits" instead, reducing risk greatly.

Fun with dick and jane was 123,785 net for a 2005 release (around 160m now a day), comedy getting in the 100-150m budget with that kind of trailers: Was not that uncommon around 2002-2008

And the 100m net budget rumors is probably underplaying it, Sony had it at (111,09) net. Even by cutting the lost with a small international release, they lost 113m on it, just a tiny bit less than the movie budget + overhead... If I remember the story right, that movie got stuck in production hell and was a vestige of the pre-economical crisis/dvd bubble when risk disappeared quite a bit for studio, when he started on this movie in 2006 it made sense.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/ A bit of a strange list, both for the approximate income and the approximate expense do seem a bit strange. They seem to do for profit World box office * 0.5 + gross domestic physical sales....... Yep seem to be it, looking at 4 different movie that formula give almost their exact numbers. Sound like a ridiculous rules of thumb to use.... that hurt recent release quite a bit.

Wonder if the adventure of plutot nash bombed so hard that even website compilation forget about it....

And 30m without any new market would be in the good range for franchise entry drop lately from a 65m start (-54%). Deadpool 2 went from 176 to 57 (-67.6%). 0 Competition, starting low, ok reception, Star wars being on the leggier side of franchises usually all helping I would imagine.

Making movies and then paying people ticket at the door to have people watching it does feel a bit like this: To me.

Not sure because at 39.2m it would come with the non sense biggest opening weekend in the franchise history click bait "news", but I would say below 35m would be specially 30m would feel low. ( 40m now is 28.2m in 2001 dollar to give a reasonable comparable and they didn't start playing movies Thursday 4:00 pm back then and could easily go over 4.0x) Magnificant 7 achieved 34.7m with 3,647 screen and that was with mostly just one quadrant, with a 81% audience over 25, 60% male and a lot on the back of Denzel/Pratt and co. (60% of audience saying they were there because of the cast) power. This franchise is arguably quite bigger, more recent but with still more than a decade break and feel like it could score among the female under 25 demo as well and not be as limited: Rank Title (click to view) Studio Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 Ocean's Eleven WB $183,417,150 3,075 $38,107,822 3,075 12/7/01 2 Ocean's Twelve WB $125,544,280 3,290 $39,153,380 3,290 12/10/04 3 Ocean's Thirteen WB $117,154,724 3,565 $36,133,403 3,565 6/8/07 Adjusted for ticket inflation: Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adj. Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 Ocean's Eleven WB $293,804,700 3,075 $61,672,700 3,075 12/7/01 2 Ocean's Twelve WB $183,895,600 3,290 $57,752,800 3,290 12/10/04 3 Ocean's Thirteen WB $155,979,300 3,565 $48,107,800 3,565 6/8/07 Adjusted for actual inflation OW Ocean 11: 54m Ocean 12: 52m Ocean 13: 44m 30m on over 4,000 theater with absolutely 0 competition would be quite the setback a 33% drop from the least popular entry, the movie can live along Incredibles 2 / Jurassic World if it is well received obviously and leg out, but if is not well received it could be strong competition for it because those are appealing to virtually everyone.

Bullock is not necessarily easy to sell a sequel on. Apparently, I think Paul Feig said this about a Heat 2 project potential, after Speed 2 and Miss Congeniality 2 she has a strong non sequel rules, even about reading sequel script. I would imagine that could have changed specially when getting in a established franchise like this (I think it is a first for her), but I would also imagine she is not locked to say yes to anything and that if she need her to return nothing would be set in stone in advance. If it does under 200m WW I would imagine it would depend on the breakdown domestic/intl, reception, willingness to people to return because it would be borderline, but Jack Reacher got a 96m gross budget sequel after that 80m dbo/138m intl performance recently.

That a bit strange way to see things. Take La la land/Greatest Showman or a Jumanji remake for more extreme example, did people were asking for those because they become great success ? Or once shown the preposition (via a trailer view or a description from a work colleague/friend) the high concept interested them ?

Come on now, do you really not see what some people would love in those movie watching experience, babadook was so so good and one of the most frightening movie I ever saw, It comes at night was not as special but still really good. A bit like humor, experience with movie that work a lot on mood will vary a lot from people to people. At a visceral level I have a hard time not understanding how someone didn't love Manchester by the sea, everytime I rewatch it I am blown away by how good the writing is and everything that executed from it, but at a rational level it is obvious. Movies are a fun way to explore emotion and human experience via empathy in the safety of not taking any risk, the realm of those experience that people want to semi live by proxy will change by people to people, I have little interest in gore horror but from time to time those extreme emotion's presented in a ICAN or babadook are great human extreme to explore to some, so it is easy to transfer my feeling about not wanting to experience gore horror type to someone that would not like to explore those 2, without having to think that the gory movie is ridiculous crap. To think a movie is crappy because it does not work with you personally but do for many people is just strange and something that should disappear a bit once you ever have a different experience with a movie in a rewatch (either now feel like a bad movie while it felt like a good movie on first watch or vice versa)

For a franchise movie with that cast that can play worldwide if true it would be really responsible and really safe. Ocean 12 was rumored to be 145m 2018 dollar (110 back in the days) for example. It is not too far from The Magnificent Seven remake (I guess the closest recent comparable assemble movie but with clear leader star wise a remake of a legendary movie with a legendary cast), that was made for 107m gross around 75 to 85m net. Difference is this will play oversea unlike a Denzel western. according to Sony early estimate at a 75-80m budget with a 75m P&A, Magnificant 7 needed to do 160m ww to make a small profit of around 5 to 10m, and 220m to be a good financial return, the cast was getting a lot of the profit to themselve, that why you need to go quite above the doubling the budget at the box office thing, probably similar with that cast. Also because it was limited to the older male audience (and domestic heavy only once Liam Neeson was not involve anymore), the maximum it could achieve was quite low, probably under the best scenario around 200m, while this ceiling is maybe something close to devil wear prada adjusted or something like that.

Not sure what you mean by net sales there, if you mean 450m even if enormous for any other movie ever can still be a disappointment for a Star wars movie sure, like it's 1.3b at the box office maybe was or Ultron 1.4b. But the way it was expressed, I am not sure it had fully the sense of how special making 450m from merch for a movie is was fully appreciated, that around the estimate total profit of Black Panther before it's merchandise.

They do tend to be helped by the marketing surrounding a movie (and by is popularity if it get popular too): Or if you have good study that show a weak or no link I would be interested, it is hard to find some.

Why would one ever do something like this ? What possible useful information could one achieve to make by talking about theatrical, what does those revenues have in any way that the others windows does not ? Buying Star Wars for 2b+2b would have never make sense for the strictly theatrical runs. Take a giant 1.4b run, even domestic heavy and the best high disney term. Say 650m dbo, 750m intl, that say a 760m world rental (65% dbo, 45% world) Say your movie did cost net 265m with a 185m world release and is giving to the talent/star/producer just 20% of it's rental, that a 602m cost. You have 160m left, how many of those do you need to make to ever make back 4b with a good ROI of say just 10% (not that good for Disney) ? A ridiculous amount. The Star Wars complete franchise making over 5 billion a year in sales when it does good must be taken into account or once you amortize the acquisition cost in your production cost you will never make a profit from theater from those movies, even turning 6 Last Jedi/Awaken type of performance in a row.

If I imagine ? Fee for Directing: 20-25m Writing: 5-9m Producing: 2-3m Participation: 45-95m Total: 72m to 132m Good ballpark ?

I am not sure what is your reference to say $450 is not that good. Other studio tend to get what around 15% in licensing sales ? You need to sales for likes 3 billions of stuff to get 450m. According to deadline Paramount was making with Transformer around 30m in merchandise revenues (I would imagine they expect Hasbro to get most of it ? sound low): https://deadline.com/2015/03/transformers-age-of-extinction-profit-box-office-2014-1201391233/ When SpiderMan was one of the biggest merchandise sellers in the world with the Cars franchise or at least by far the biggest superheroes franchise in the world able to push for over 1billion in sales some year's, Sony was not making nearly has much from it (105m from spider-man 2, 150m from spider-man 3) 450m is enormous, specially when you consider that part of that business has extremely high margin (the part were you let people put your logo on stuff they do and they gave you a percentage of the sales with you spending or doing nothing). Warner brothers complete year of theatrical product consumer products revenues for example: 2014: 271m 2015: 269m 2016: 321m Last Jedi reportedly beat that by itself, Star Wars was really in a different space than almost everything else merch wise, if not everything else.

700m box office performance is a lot. Amazing Spider Man 2 had a 264 million net budget, 191m world theatrical releasing cost, no access to the merchandise money and turned a small profit. If it would have saved 100m by having a small 100m release, it would have made over 100m in profit.