Barnack

JL: $122,351,643 after 6 days Mj2: 136,225,792 after 6 days MJ2 made 76 in is thanksgiving 5 days, JL is expected to do around 63/64, it could be 22+m behind by monday without showing reason why it would have particularly better legs to regain much ground over time. Ceiling could rapidly become around 265, Coco/Wonder will be high quality competition for family audience.

I have not seen it, but people are sounding a bit like an exaggeration, you are talking about MTV movie of the year winner that opened like that on home media: The film debuted at No. 1 on the NPD VideoScan overall disc sales chart, with all other titles in the top 20, collectively, selling only 40% as many units as Beauty and the Beast.[77] The movie regained the top spot on the national home video sales charts during its third week of release. According to google trend it maintained a much bigger online presence over a movie like Wonder Woman except for a small windows of that movie release: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11b71vdd3r,%2Fm%2F08fpjj I am really unsure we are a good group to judge a movie like that place in people memory. It is even beating a Star wars movie on home video sales according to this (that sold for a significantly longer period of 2017 than Beauty and the beast): http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/packaged-media-sales/2017 Chance are not 0 that it will be a top 3 least forgotten/most rewatched movie of 2017 worldwide in the next 25 year's.

China share of Justice league oversea opening weekend: 50,562,293 / 185,500,000 = 27.2% If tuesday is 9.5m with a 3.55m tuesday (using Justice League - 23.4m / 426.6m from @Gavin Feng) 3.55 / 9.5 = 37% It would be a big share jump from China (indicating a step drop elsewhere yes)

That combined with what CGI make possible to do without endangering / asking actor to perform, it is possible (not that followed is career that much) that Cameron crazy was some uncompromising will to put stuff in the can, unregard for people vs is ambition and is movies and not necessarily for the fun of doing it like that. In is commentary track of some of is movies he is saying on some scene that he would never do them like that today, with what he know now and with technology advancement. We didn't heard much stories about Cameron with Avatar shoot I think ? I do not suspect it will be the case and depending of ages, if kids own parents are not present they have an designed tutor/handler always present on set to make sure it is going well.

Depend when, but you could be right after BvS second weekend drop worldwide, would not surprise me if they downgraded expectation right there, to be happy to do between BvS and under 1 billion. Amazing Spider Man 2 expectation were 850m WW to give a range of reference, hard to imagine WB expecting less than that for Justice League but maybe not that much higher, James Bond 24 marketing target was 769m WW (almost 400m less than Skyfall, that was considered like a franchise peak) studio can be realistic. That said Wonder Woman just did 400m domestic, it is also hard to imagine that it didn't raise Justice League expectation and hope among the distributors. Has for these characters and their solo outings, you are partly right, superman & batman still feel like a bit of a problem for them, but Aquaman reception must be encouraging for them.

No one here is talking about only BO money, calculating rental is a good way to start (after that you use a percentage, a big movie like that will do at best 40% of is money from box office in 2017 I would imagine at worst over 50%). You are right that outside freak movie Star wars/Age of ultron type, IT, Get Out, etc..., movies are still in the red after theatrical. Everyone here is fully considering all the direct revenues avenue (airlines, dvds, streaming, soundtrack, TV) here in this evaluation of success/failure, maybe not the harder to estimate impact on ongoing Justice league products, but just because it is too hard (and they could be negative, sometime you can overproduce merchandise because of how much are sold close to release date and you want to be ready that you get stuck with them).

Product placement earning tend to (like tax credit) be included in the net budget numbers people talk about and they are not necessarily giant, one franchise with the best product placement of all time are the James Bond movie, being the official smarthphone used by James Bond and having him doing publicity with it outside the movie sold for 5m in money (50m in ads paid by the smarthphone company, that is were the money usually is, in a bigger marketing campaign for the movie, not in cash) and for big names part of that money goes to the actor that has to do the ads/accept to "lower" itself doing publicity in is movies, not all of it goes to the movie. One thing that is hard to talk about profit for a movie like Justice league, is that it probably will with merchandise, but it will be hard to isolate that movie effect on world sales on a on going franchise like that (versus a new movie or a dormant franchise revived by a movie like Ghostbuster were you can compare merchandise sales the last 5 year's versus the year and the movie and the 2 following year in a easier way). It is not that Jay is twisting everything around or contradicting Tele, las t year WB made 1700 million in operating income. Having their biggest flagship title loosing 20m or doing 20m in profits, is not a big distinction between the 2, yes doing 40m more in one scenario is nice, but that about the same difference than doing 200m or 240m in profit on it, the above or below the profit line (that do not take into account inflation and time) is not a big distinction. Often a movie accounting sheet will have a : RETURN THRESHOLD (the expected profit) and the actual profit will be talked in margin with this and not with the break even line, and if that line for justice league was 215m, doing 20m in profit will show minus 195m, a 20m loss will show minus 235m, both in the red, both not that different.

I thought a while ago anything above BvS performance (both domestic and Oversea) would have made it an automatic form of success, showing that BvS didn't hurt the brand to much and rebuilding toward growth. Close to BvS would have been neutral, anything significantly (10%) below (domestic or ww) would have put it in disappointment zone I would think (so way probably same number than yours). Flop for franchise movie is an harder word to use, it is not so much about the movie direct loss, than the franchise value loss.

Comic book movies being pretty much the biggest genre in the world (I imagine pixar like style giant animation being the only competition), I am not so sure what that distinction is adding, is there any genre after that as far X goes that 700m would look less good than for a CBM ? Days of Future past did 747.9m in a 36.4b box office market (2.05% market share), 2017 projection are to be a 41.2b market, if we consider that China local production are now bigger than back then in proportion and be a bit pessimistic and consider the 2017 market a 40.5b one, that would give an adjusted for the market growth box office of: 846.5m Other team up CBM: Avengers: 1,518,812,988 * 40.5 / 34.7 = 1.77b Ultron: 1.405 * 40.5 / 38.3 = 1.485b Civil War: 1.15b Days: 846.5m Justice League (arguably 2 of the 3 biggest hero of all time spiderman missing, added Wonder Woman just coming from a giant hit, Aquaman with a Game of Thrones actor + others): 700m Logan: 616m If it was an average super heroes movie, an X-men entry among the already 12 of them, a new origin story, etc... 700m would be great for sure. But for what was something that had the biggest clout/franchise appeal of all time, that was clearly demonstrated by the giant opening Day of Batman V Superman, the giant sales of the video games of Batman during that time, having to ask will it reach 700 or 750m ? is probably not respectable, I really doubt studio exec and CA board member at WB see those numbers has respectable. It is a giant you get 2-3 billion dollar movie (with all the impact that has on the tv shows, video games, all the studios branch) if you do not mess it up that failed to even get close has of now.

Nope a film (those made purely for money like those franchise title) has to clear their return points (a certain ROI) anything over that is a plus. There is a laps of time between the spending of the money and reimbursing it, money has lost value during that time and more importanly in those days of low inflation was not spent on something else, clearing is budget is far to put it in the success category, the difference between clearing the budget and the success bar of titles were a lot of profits are shared by big above the lines names can be over 150m at the box office. Take a movie like Inferno, there were 3 different bar set by the studio when they thought it would have a 90m budget instead of a surprise lower 75m because of the exchange rate drop: Break even point: 208m (68.6 dbo, 140m intl), far from a success at that point. Return GP Break (14.6% ROI): 341m (115.9 dbo, 226 intl) for a 52m in profit at that point that was a good use of capital for a company like Sony, anything about that is yes a plus. Third one being what was put in their budget (400m WW, the expectation) Inferno made cheaper than expected and doing 220m Worldwide maybe turned a small profit, that does not make it successful, it needed to do in the 300m to be a success and have talk on continuing that franchise. That 14.6% ROI objective and what is considered a good return vs a bad return is certainly completely determined by the competition, and it will be different in the smarthphone market, than the video game market than in the grocery store chain market. Now when talking about box office on a message board, we judge movie performance a lot for what they did vs their potential, that how we judge the jobs done by people in charge (from the CEO, to director's, to actor selling the movie, to marketing department, release timing to audience reaction), there is no much other way to judge movie than versus their potential, even if we say oh that is good it made 3 time it<s budget, that is purely under the context of what movie do in average. Everything is always relative, good exist only in the context of comparison, same for bad. If the last Jedi do 725m WW and do not reach 300m domestic, maybe that will be respectable for a space fantasy (destroyed Valerian after all, not far from Guardian of the Galaxy and that was judged a big success), but that will be compared to the Force Awaken/Jurassic World/Avengers/Avatar 2 type of performance and be considered a disaster with Disney having to react and change all their Star wars plans

I think that already happened after BvS and SS. JL project went to just a part 1 also, it was just so fast a turn around after BvS that we didn't fully see the impacts of the change.

vs the non wasting time box office talk.... ? That the hole point of this message board a waste of time.

According to Alexia Deadline is out of the top 500 in the US website (and not in the top 2000) WW. Drudge is out of the top 100 US, out of the top 500 WW. It will be an item on yahoo/msn/etc... new for a day and depending on what come up, will not be after a small cycle. Even when they become really big it is hard to see an effect on the BO, someone literally dying while shooting Deadpool 2 will probably do nothing either, even if the production is found guilty in a civil court of negligence.

That would require a big news coverage of the story, like other pointing out it is hard to point controversy affecting box office (one way or the other), peak post Weinstein story just got us some of the best weekends of the hole year for example. Specially for people really behind the camera and not having their name on anything, would make it even harder. Animal cruelty scandal (manufactured I think ?) didn't hurt A Dog's Purpose box office, it would require something really big to affect Toy story.

Are you talking about bad reaction to internal and/or test screen audience ? I would imagine that for movie like that, that must be quite common.

Yeah he is not walking away because of a bit too long unwanted hugs (in the industry of huggings) and the writers didn't quit Toy Story projects because of them.

Is someone asking is this real, real ?

I think it will do around CW + what Guardian of the Galaxy presence will add. That one seem to have a different over/under 25 metric (specially female over 25 I think) than the rest of the MCU, they play much older/family crowd and Thor 3 seem to have got some of that Guardian type audience and the next Avengers could got it too to reduce the natural drops sequels will have (will it be enough to make more than for the drop and add to it, possible).

If the avengers would be performing like this next year, the conversation would certainly be different, it would be about a fear of global collapse for the industry and so on that is for sure, but the difference would be mostly normal imo.

Not sure if 635m would make it a contender for the top 50 flops, it is still more than doubling is budget in a merchandise type of movie. There is a list of giant budget movie that didn't do 15% of their budget at the box office, plutot Nash, Gigli, Heaven's Gate with some of them closing studios, some less terrible but still in an other category, Mars Needs Moms, Monster Trucks, Stealth, How do you know, etc..

635m do sound quite low for a movie making around 100m in China.... I think WW or IT profit alone would cover (and more) even the worst case scenario lost of 100m in profit, 50m profit is a movie like Captain Philips, 100m in profit is a movie like Superbad (it did 120m in profit between the studios and talents), Hancock made 200m in profit between Will Smith and the studio. WB operating income (gross profit) in 2016 were of 1,700 millions, they are usually around 1,200 to 1,400m to give a reference what a 100m lost on a movie instead of doing 200m in profit would have on a annual bottom line for them.

Would 7-8m be an exorbitant amount ? , that is significantly less than someone like a Paul Feig on a big movie compensation. Specially being a preferable position than anyone else, not just with the experience in the genre but also if he had already worked on the movie (if I remember the story of Snyder asking for help before he leaved the project, that could all be PR stuff, who knows), with the very short time to turn around with someone else ? I imagine that why they went with someone with Gilroy directing track record with Rogue One also and paid him so much for it he was already involved with the movie. Going with something completely new like for Han Solo is probably less ideal than someone already familiar ? Specially if he is not making any % back end deal, someone like him that is probably used to do what 20/25m + good % for movies like that ?

I feel like that is 2 different think, I am pretty sure is contract for Justice League (and salary) mentioned that he needed to direct the movie to get is paycheck and probably got a specified amount for writing and a different one for directing, guild credit is completely different. If Gilroy get 200k (is biggest directing movie credit being Bourne Legacy 276m) I am not sure why Whedon only get the same. Regardless if Whedon started to work in May 2017, that is around 25 week would be around around 5 million like Gilroy, a large portion of that 25m and do not leave a lot of money for the SFX of the news shoots (that not much below the 7-8m I had in mind for him), considering the extra cost of non planned/overtime heavy workload

Not sure what it mean, he didn't sign a contract and got paid for is directing and writing job he did on that movie ? With the studio in a weak position for negotiating ? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/rogue-one-writer-tony-gilroy-make-millions-reshoots-951119 Gilroy work on Rogue One was rumored to be around 200k a week and expended has responsibility grew for a total of about 5 million, imagine someone that made the 2 highest grossing superheroes team up movies of all time, with an over 3b at the box office would get to "save" something has important than Justice League for the studio ? Has an exec and having to face the board responding about that movie performance, you would love to take credit and/or protect yourself saying you hired the guy with the best track record possible to help the movie and you are probably ready to pay an healthy amount to be able to say that. If you mean by not being credited and not having to give him residuals and other benefit that come with those, that may be true but that would probably also mean that you need to up is salary to compensate.

That one is also quite strange, a 175M movie that sell merchandise needing 590M to break even ! That is more than 3.3 time it's budget, that is really a lot. Reshoot that cost only 25M ? Whedon writing/directing contract alone, buying big name composer out (or you could see has hiring Elfman) would have taken a lot of that amount. Marketing of 70m for a giant superheroes world release, the Brad Pitt movie Moneyball had a 73 million marketing budget, Tom Hanks Captain Philips spent 92.5m on marketing.....