Barnack

Not exactly sure by what you mean exactly by the net profit question, EST has pretty much the best profit margin for a studio, SVOD is like TV it is almost 100% net profit, there is little spending going into letting a svod platform play your movie. For looking if they are making as much revenues from aftermarket now than in the past, we can take a look at older annual report and compare, that is pretty much the only way to go I think ? Warner brother for example, if we go back when the dvd bubble had yet to burst but toward the end: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105705/000119312512077072/d284310d10k.htm 2009: theatrical: 2.085b home video: 2.82b tv: 1.46b other: 0.129 Total: 6.493b 2010: theatrical: 2.249b home video: 2.707b tv: 1.605b other: 0.125 Total: 6.686b Percentage of the revenues that came from theatrical in: 2009: 32.11% 2010: 33.64% Average: 32.875% ... 2015: 30.6% 2016: 38.8% Average: 34.7% Yes it became a bit more theatrically heavy, but it shifted from dvd to svod and didn't look like it changed by some drastic amount either. We could do the work at breaking down Liongates annual report that did until recently a nice breakdown of home video revenues for a particular bunch of movies (year's of theatrical release) to see the progression. Major blockbuster tend to open the door more to the world market that exploded in the last 10 year's than smaller personal stories, were most of the growth came from, 27.7b in 2008 with 9.6 billion from domestic in 2017 it was 40.6b with 11.1b from domestic, 88% of the growth of the last 10 year's was internationally, global reach product more and more the best options if you have the mean to make and distribute them for sure, but I am not sure how linked to the dvd that is.

Yeah that one was expensive, after the massive Jolie and co. bonus the movie net cost went just above 164m, net direct production cost was 125.887m and at a world release P&A of 114.55m. Sony made some money with it (18.66m) because the movie made 1.786x time it's (production+talent bonus) cost at the box office and in 2010 that was usually more than enough to turn a small profit, but the co-investor lost some (6m) Sequel would have needed to go down to say a 100-110m budget and Jolie going maybe to profit participation instead of her big 40m-50m type of deal with first dollar gross she was paid those days for it to make sense. They did work on a script as late has November 2014 was still in dev (and that could be the issue also, it is setup for a possible sequel but you still need to come up with something good and something Jolie want to do), you can read some idea for it, that was one entertain and developed (a script was written by a big veteran writer Becky Johnston with this scenario): The premise Becky came up with for this version of Salt 2 assumes that the young American girl whose identity Angelina assumed in the first movie – the original American Evelyn Salt – never died, and was in fact taken by the KA’s as an adolescent and indoctrinated to become a KA herself – a woman now known as Irina Gargarin (who’d be the same age as Salt); two sides of the same coin. The movie kicks off when a woman, presumably Salt, lands on the international radar after killing a Russian man - which sets both the KA’s and CIA after Salt. Salt thinks that Romanovich, an Assange-like developer of surveillance technology who’s operating out of the old KA campus, was behind the murder and framed her – so she goes back to Russia to get answers. She learns that Romanovich, a former KA himself, has taken control of the old KA program and has rehabilitated KA's to be less covert and more honorable - and is all about promoting political transparency. She also learns that Irina, the “real” Evelyn Salt, exists, was behind the killing, and is part of a radicalized group of KA's who don't believe in Romanovich's methods (though the two were once lovers). Salt goes to root her out – but more than anything, Salt wants to find this woman who's been impersonating her and with whom she shares a common history. It turns out that Irina is deeply obsessed with Salt for having “stolen her life” and her relationship with her old Aunt Augusta – to the point that she’s even recreated her lost childhood bedroom in her Moscow apartment. Salt tries to bond with Irina while the two play a spy game of cat and mouse (over rising tensions between the two different sects of the KA program, and politically against the backdrop of Russia potentially invading Lithuania) but Irina is too radicalized, resentful and driven by her own political agenda... The plot escalates when Peabody (Salt's ally in the CIA but doesn't know if she’s still on his side or if she’s aligned with Romanovich) and the CIA chief are kidnapped by Irina and her extremist KA’s at a political conference in Greece – and Salt follows her to Iran where it turns out she’s recruiting young kids to become suicide bombers – in her own, radicalized KA bootcamp… Apparently it ended up as a tv movie/show project the year after, to be written by her: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1958011/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_1 https://www.cinemablend.com/television/Angelina-Jolie-Salt-Becoming-TV-Show-Get-Details-118917.html

Well the first one obviously does not sound serious at all, the second one is obviously serious and it is not the same statement at all, he is giving in a certain context it is harder to go with the R not that R-rated horror do not make money, he himself is cashing on it all the time. Blum is probably right, if you cast kids young enough and not make it feel like a high school teens movie or if it is set in the era when adults were that age like It, it is not an issue. But if you have a bunch of teenagers playing truth or dare, that a very hard concept to sell to an adult I would imagine.

No the electricity grid can have problem's in a significant part of the US.

Where are you reading that ? That sound like a strawman to me, who just even a little bit serious is saying that when in 2017 we just got IT and Get out in the top most profitable movie list + Annabelle Creation and Conjuring 2 + Don't Breathe the year just before ?

Those MCUs title have now a strong family audience base I think, with the moms and the very young kids (specially with Guardian/Spider man being there), it should sustain some legs. DH2 was back when teen's group (and young girl big group) went to the theater a lot, they tend to stay home now.

Just saw this yesterday in theater, the movie took a bit too much of a while to become special but it reach such high high at is peak. Anyway I get why it didn't took of like a little miss sunshine, I think it take too much time to reach is high (even too that make a movie that really earn is payoff and is extra cheese) I imagine that in other era maybe this and Edge of Seventeen could have been nice theatrical hit, some mini Juno or a Little Miss Sunshine type.

Well I really do not know, but some speculated that it didn't concerned enough with female cast names, the show was traditionally one targeting a male audience with Pamela Anderson and co., being a new era release and not wanting to go there too much and trying to appeal to female they did rack up on men names and sold them, but maybe didn't do it the other way around. It failed to attract a male audience a little bit. Not sure who it could have cast that would have accepted to do it to. But still that a 177m without China movie, could you imagine a movie perceived as that bad doing that on names alone.... Action/Comedy, brand of the show played a role, at least that what is pointed by how well it did in market were the show was the most popular like Germany and compared to a Pain&Gain that made just half of that while being a much better movie and better support to Johnson with Wahlberg and Bay names.

I agree with you that it is a fine opening imo, as long as it play intl like it could, but maybe the genre is not has popular than in the past but those dumb disaster movie can reach 150+ from time to time in the 2000s Day after tomorrow: 186m (adjusted: 276m) Perfect storm: 182m (311m) 2012: 166m (200m) Also the Godzilla, WWZ, War of the worlds, Gravity but they had more going for them.

@Lordmandeep Here the trick to follow the decline of the home ent/movie on tv business. https://www.lionsgate.com/uploads/assets/2017AnnualReport.pdf 2017 fiscal year, for the motion picture business Liongates revenues sources breakdown were: Theatrical: 19.3% Home ent: 36.8% TV: 14.5% International: 27.8% (they sales those market, not distributing) other: 1.5% For the TV products: Dom television: 76.7% Intl: 17.8% home ent: 4.8% other: 0.8% In the movie business home entertainment was still by far the biggest revenues sources for a studio like liongates. If you remove direct to dvd products, movie release on home video alone for someone else and so on and look only at liongates movie getting a theatrical release the breakdown in 2017 of revenues was: Theatrical: 357m Home ent: 439.7m (packaged: 247m, digital: 192.7m) TV: 238.7m Intl: 439.7m Other's:18.2m Total: 1,490m If we remove international that is a block: Theatrical: 34% Home ent: 41.64% TV: 22.72% other: 1.7% That is not that different than all of sony release from 2006-2014 revenues breakdown Domestic Theatrical 18% Intl theatrical 17% DOMESTIC HOME ENT REVENUE 24% DOMESTIC HOME ENT PPV REVENUE 2% INTL HOME ENT REVENUE 11% INTL HOME ENT PPV REVENUE 1% DOMESTIC TV PPV REVENUE 1% DOMESTIC PAY TV REVENUE 6% DOMESTIC FREE TV REVENUE 4% INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION 16% AIRLINES AND MUSIC 1% CONSUMER PRODUCTS REVENUE 1% If you remove international it become Domestic Theatrical 32% DOMESTIC HOME ENT REVENUE 43% DOMESTIC HOME ENT PPV REVENUE 4% DOMESTIC TV PPV REVENUE 2% DOMESTIC PAY TV REVENUE 10% DOMESTIC FREE TV REVENUE 7% AIRLINES AND MUSIC 1% CONSUMER PRODUCTS REVENUE 2% Warner Brothers: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?t=1&item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NjYzMzAxfENoaWxkSUQ9Mzc1NjcxfFR5cGU9MQ== 2015 Theatrical: 1.578b Home Ent: 1.717b TV: 1.579b Others: 0.269b Total: 5.143b Theatrical was only 30.6% that year, because 2014 was a really strong slate (1.969 in theatrical rental) and 2015 a weak one. 2016 Theatrical: 2.18b Home ent: 1.481b TV: 1.63b Others: 0.321 Total : 5.612b Theatrical was 38.8% of their movies revenues, a particularly strong theatrical year because of Potter, BvS, Suicide Squad giant success. Universal https://www.cmcsa.com/static-files/111ba611-eb85-4edc-9000-3907c84697d8 2015: Theatrical: 2.829b (their monster year) Content licensing (streaming and tv): 1.923b Home ent: 1.801b Other: 0.734b Theatrical was: 38.8% 2016: Theatrical: 1.56b Content lic: 2.563b home ent: 1.254 other: 0.983 Theatrical was: 24.52% (when a weak year follow a really strong year it will do that, jurassic world, fast 7, etc... were on home video/tv in 2016) 2017: Theatrical: 2.192b content: 2.967b (streaming is getting more and more important for them) home ent: 1.326b Other: 1.173b Theatrical: 28.62% Yes Dvd went down and movies studio stopped to do in average around 170% a movie box office in revenues (i.e. in the 2006-2008 type era, a movie doing 100m at the box office could mean 170m in revenues for a studio, that give an idea of how strong sales were) but still most of the revenues seem to clearly be after the theatrical window in recent year's, except for the biggest 3d title that I imagine it is maybe not the case anymore or the big OW without legs that are not well liked. Has you see with the number above, lot of talk about the bigger and bigger reliance on theatrical for studios and deadline catastrophic revenues stream post theatrical scenario in their estimate, but I have yet to see that in an actual bottom line studio annual result, it is still going strong, Netflix and others are spending a fortune on studio content after all.

Pretty much every studio annual result break down feature film theatrical revenues, home ent, tv and merchandising, Liongates even do a breakdown from physical/non-physical home ent revenue by year and by release year slate. No need to rely on journalist and article on that one. I would not even be surprised that some comment on the movie business side that obviously never worked in worldwide movie studio distribution/accounting out there, but do not even do the very minimal basic of reading all the studio annual report and building a mental imagine of how it work, something impossible to suggest in most if not all any other financial type reporting, but they are talking to an audience that do not care (not investor for who reality matter) but fan's that want number just to talk about them online, regardless of how valid they are. In 2017 home ent spending was still larger than theatrical in the US with 20.5b vs 10.x b at the box office: http://deadline.com/2018/01/u-s-home-entertainment-spending-rises-to-20-5-billion-1202239252/ You can look at a couple of studio result to have some idea, I will try to give you some list but Liongates are the most detailled in revenues source breakdown.

Baywatch also had popular genre and one of the biggest world tv show of all time if not the biggest as is currency, it was far from a starpower only vehicle, there is reason that it made so much more than pain&gain for example.

11,1 would be a more logical 4.62 multi than a rare below 4 one (particularly strange for a non sequel movie)

9.5 would be a 3.96x multi of the previews for is OD Blade Runner: 3.15 Warcraft: 3.452 TR: 4.278 Pacific Rim Up: 4.396 John wick 2: 4.984 Pitch Perfect 3: 5.06 San andreas: 5.85 Feel a bit low for a non sequel. If that translate into a worst than TR (11.25x)/PR (11.96) preview to opening weekend multi it could do around 10.6x is previews = 25.44 True friday of 7.1 TR: 6.884 (23.633m OW) Rampage: 7.1 PrU: 7.98 (28.117m OW) Good cinemascore and possibly playing family heavier than those could help it being more Saturday/Sunday heavy than them.

They spent everything on Unsane ? More seriously that is still one of the biggest opening ever for them: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?yr=&view=company&view2=allmovies&studio=bleeckerstreet.htm&sort=opentheaters&order=DESC&p=.htm Most bleecker street release do not reach 700 theater during their runs, even could be in talk for best picture kind of good like Captain Fantastic was.

Probably yes, deadline last update had AQP around 33m for this weekend with Rampage 27-28m: http://deadline.com/2018/04/dwayne-johnson-rampage-box-office-weekend-a-quiet-place-1202363694/ That ranking seem to fit ticket sales, Rampage make more money by ticket sold (many of those are 3d, imax) obviously, is maybe bit more walk up and is certainly less at night title like horror can be and should be stronger during day times, but that margin is quite wide.

Last 4 hours fandango sales Column1 Column2 A Quiet 5209 Rampage 3290 Blumhous 2664 Blockers 1375 Ready Pl 1362 Avengers 1133 Black Pa 602 Isle of 566 Tyler Pe 406 Chappaqu 403 I Can On 323 Beirut 238 The Mira 207 Love, Si 136 A Wrinkl 125 Sherlock 107 Pacific 101 Sgt. Stu 88 Super Tr 78 Rampage / Blumhouse Truth or Dare fandango ratio down to 1.23 in the last 4 hours, AQP running 150+% over everything else. Last Hour: A Quiet 884 Rampage 486 Blumhous 441 Blockers 244 Ready Pl 196 Avengers 149 Isle of 99 Black Pa 94 Tyler Pe 69 Chappaqu 67 I Can On 55

stressful begging ------ There is some strong vocabulary going around for incorporated entities going throw around.... and does not seem to come from Fox employee stress by those 5k/10k possible cut talk.

Disney bought Marvel Entertainment 4B, LucasFilm with LucasArt studio, ILM special effect house, land/ranches, Stars Wars, Indiana Jones and other stuff 2b cash + 2b stock, Pixar studio 7.4b and just X-men's rights (and I guess some other character) for $15b ? I would have guess less than 650m for that.

Well yes, it is obvious that it make sense for Disney to own Fox world distribution structure, to the point they are paying like 30B for it or some giant amount like that. I never said it make no sense for them to do it. I am explaining why it can make anti-trust people antenna activate, they completely separated movie making and movie showing in 1948 for a reason when they made illegal for a studio to own movie theaters for a reason. It is a full positive for Disney obviously (outside the case if they are overpaying for it), it is for the non Disney movie producer point of view and consumer that it could be less obvious, how interested that giant percentage of the world distribution channel of movies will be interested in distributing movies they are not making themselves (Disney in the pass was distributing 50 movies a year, many not made by them they practically stopping distributing anything that is not in-house now) and with what kind of deal for the movie producer when they do. Having the same co. making and distributing movies can easily become an issue, specially if there is less of them.

Corporation that are not studio buying a movie studio does not change much if anything in term of competition. Not only Sky, fox star is a giant distributor of content but also movie distribution, if you look at about any movie distribution you will almost always see many studio being involved playing nice to each other, If you look at Moana: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=disney1116.htm Universal/Paramount distributed in Turkey and many market were not Disney release, look at the list of distributor: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3521164/companycredits Look at Pacific rim 2: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=pacificrim2.htm http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2557478/companycredits Universal did some of it, Universal/paramount (UPI) did a lot of it, but also Sony and they had many local guy getting involved also. if you reduce the number of distributor at one point it can change the kind of deal someone making movie has with them, specially if the distributor is own by a company that is actually making movies and will privilege them and has less and less the need to play nice with other to distribute their products in some market in exchange that one day they will do the same for theirs.

Obviously not, but there is often law that would say you cannot only show Disney stuff on your Disney channel that were made in the pass. From what I understand it is not being force to distribute what you do or something, it is closing bandwidth to other producer because of vertical integration that tend to be problematic. There is a tendency to want to kept the broadcast (would be phone line, Internet line, railroad, water pipe) system independent of the content creator and remove the power of the bandwidth owner to choose winner&looser in exchange of money. Amazon owning kindle device or Apple making Ipod and being the only one selling music on them via Itunes were really close call for example and that why Microsoft that was owning the platform at the time had to separate is office product from that company or even is Internet browser. If Netflix one day become an 80% market owner of what content enter in people home and only show Netflix made show, that the type of thing that could be made illegal by the state. A lot of that money paid is for Century Fox world distribution of content infrastructure power also.

There is the direct impact of people that do not go in theater often waiting for it that could exist I imagine. And other obvious direct impact was having to move the release around a bit last minute and make it quite close to RPO. A less obvious impact, is I would imagine harder to get ads partnership, to have your movie on cereal box, subway menu and cars ads, Avengers must be getting all the blockbuster movie ads space on the type of product that tend to do them. Looking at rampage promos: https://www.ispot.tv/search?term=Rampage Not many products deal it seem. https://www.ispot.tv/search?term=Infinity war&qtype=full Avengers has Geico, Nerf, even a house mortgage service is promoting Avengers.... https://heroichollywood.com/avengers-infinity-war-promotional-marvel/ Coca-Cola, Infinity cars, Quicken Loans, Ziploc, Yoplait, Duracell, etc..... Rampage has Ford but that was from before the shooting started.

It had a troubled production and went overbudget quite a bit if it would have stayed in the low 80m it's 193m at the box office would have made it a nice hit at the time (like you said must have been home video heavy). After that, studio started to make Scorsese pay of is own pocket for some reshoot I think he said in a interview.

True, but it is not going clearly one way and an other to be saying that they did choose the right scope for that project (that was my point, with how it is doing I do not see why it is clearly smart to not have gone bigger spectacle wise with that concept, Skull Island did very well going more toward that 185m price tag)