Barnack

That is mostly a common myth (that was going hands and hands with the other myth that theater keep only 10-20% of the ticket sales the first weekend and were a popcorn business): They are often public traded company, and all the revenue/expense for theatre are all in the open to check (how much they keep from tickets sales, etc..) and not something we need Internet blogs to know: http://investor.amctheatres.com/Cache/1001226518.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001226518&iid=4171292 The majority of the money for theatres is from tickets, few people buy that crazy expensive food specially those who would go in theater all the time to actually see movies with a pass and not like an rare event/going out type of experience: Admissions $ 761.4 Food and beverage 374.1 Film exhibition costs 379.8 Food and beverage costs 62.1 They have much better margin on food and beverage but in absolute money it is tickets. The studio and theater would be ok with it if it was a sustainable plan, but like you said 10$ a month is not enough and obviously the company loosing money everytime you buy tickets will change that over time, they will ask for a bulk price to theater chains, it is inevitable. It is completely unsustainable and make possible 25-50$ a month type of plan now more difficult to do.

That is a bit optimistic thinking, quality has not that much to do with box office (Specially first weekend... since when does it play much of a role) a lot of the time. For example: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kisskissbangbang.htm and http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=niceguys.htm 2 extremelly good movies, big cast, etc... Nice guys got a giant marketing campaing maybe they're was more to it about kiss kiss bang bang giant failure than audience rejecting it despite being one of RDJ best movie ever and one of the best comedy of the 2000's, not necessarily, those are really really hard to sell to audience even with Crowe+Gosling+the writer of lethal weapon+big production+big release with big marketing. Other example: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kuboandthetwostrings.htm IF they would have spent on marketing, chance are good they would have lost that money, going very cheap and see what WOM can do is maybe not a bad plan.

Not sure about that, it could have done The Nice guys type of OW (11-12m instead of 7-8m, maybe even 14m) with a giant WB marketing, would have been likely a money loosing enterprise too.

It is still a relatively small minority that buy ticket before going in theatre (specially theatre with atm style service with no lines make no sense to buy ticket in advance outside the very first days of giant blockbuster)

It is obviously an unsustainable model, that will hurt studio/theater chain a lot, it devalue all the catalogue, theatrical windows and all that follow. Moviepass will not sustain that deal and will ask for a bulk price, there is a reason theater chain are trying to block that system, they are not stupid if they would think movie pass would buy 90$ of tickets for 10$ for decades they would love it, they just know that it make no sense. (And from a studio point of view it destroy all the following windows, could still be a nice deal if it would be a realistic one but it is not). It would be much cheaper for the industry to just have everyone paying 10$ a month on netflix and saving all the cost....

But it was not a studio or a branch, purely a logo, no employee was working for touchstone, no physical location existed for touchstone, it was purely an acura/honda, toyota/lexus type of things to not have parents piss off at disney from time to time: It was not really a thing for a long time: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001039/000100103907000090/filename1.htm Moreover, Touchstone is not a separate and distinct business operation but a brand used in the marketing and distribution of live-action films that are generally geared toward a more adult audience (e.g. PG-13 rated) than those released under the Disney-brand. Touchstone-branded films are produced and released using the same infrastructure support and the same operating assets (e.g. production facilities, distribution network, etc.) as the Company’s other film brands (e.g. Walt Disney Pictures and Miramax Films). The only significant assets that relate exclusively to Touchstone are capitalized film costs. These costs are accounted for in accordance with SOP 00-2, Accounting by Producers or Distributors of Films (SOP 00-2) on a title by title basis and evaluated for indicators of impairment quarterly. Impairments are determined as the excess of a film’s carrying cost over its fair value based on future estimated cash flows. They were an accounting device/pure branding device. Very very different than a Miramax, that was 100% independently run without any intervention of Disney that was simply releasing most of their R-rated or less movies. By the success they are having I'm not sure they need something like that (it is more a we want it type of thing), the strict specialisation in kids/family movie only they made is working great for them.

It was a pure stamp/logo without any employee or building, not sure how relevant is existence was or would be now.

I imagine they will loose a lot of money (the more popular they get the more they will loose), the plan is probably to survive long enough to become big enough and to have an user base now use to pay little to see movies that will not go back to pay 12-14$ for just one ticket, and they will be able then to force theater chain to offer them discount bulk theatre tickets price (and they will pressure studio into accepting it, lowering the value of the theatrical and every window that come after, who would pay a month of theatrical movie, possibly 10 movies in theater to buy just one dvd and so on, customer will require lower price for everything else like 4-5$ for owning a movie on bluray if watching it in theatre is about 3$ for them) There is a reason theater chain are trying to shut it down even thought they would win big in the very short term, they see the consequence of this middle term.

I feel that all that already started in the late 80s and was a bit full on in the 90s when cable news came along, CNN, etc... and started to be seen has a possible source of revenues instead of being operated as a loss leader/public service type of network time for credibility/prestige by the major network. Giving more than the news and having commentator was already common previously to the Internet popularity. There is still every hour on public radio a little news segment that try to be as factual as possible, listening to those now sound like an humor bit/sci-fi.

If a Fox Searchlight studio is to stay away from something like sundance, may as well close the shop, isn't a large reason of is existence ? Brooklyn is a good example of why they should continue, you are only aiming for a success rate around 55-60% max on movies. Searchlight had nice recent success with: The Way, Way Back Beast of the southern wild Brooklyn You remove a lot of risk by buying finish product instead than financing them it is normal to expect much lower margin for your success (they were low risk, imagine having the possibility to pay the production budget of movie after seeing the finish product), Sony classic recent track record with movie that played at sundance is not bad at all: Take Shelter Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $1,730,296 55.8% + Foreign: $1,369,018 44.2% = Worldwide: $3,099,314 2.28 million profit (on 5.94 million revenue) The Guard Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $5,360,274 27.4% + Foreign: $14,200,000 72.6% = Worldwide: $19,560,274 2.89 million in profit from 8.1 million revenue (only had domestic market) Smashed Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $376,597 100.0% + Foreign: n/a 0.0% = Worldwide: $376,597 2.77 million in profit from 6.46 million revenue (almost all revenues from international tv) Celeste and Jesse Forever Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $3,094,813 100.0% + Foreign: n/a 0.0% = Worldwide: $3,094,813 468k in profit from 7.055 million in revenue Searching for Sugar Man Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $3,696,196 100.0% + Foreign: n/a 0.0% = Worldwide: $3,696,196 1.959m in profit from 6.497 million in revenue Kill Your Darlings Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $1,030,064 100.0% + Foreign: n/a 0.0% = Worldwide: $1,030,064 6$ in profit (lol), from 4.3 million in revenue Before Midnight Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $8,114,627 72.6% + Foreign: $3,061,842 27.4% = Worldwide: $11,176,469 362k in profit from 15.16m in revenue For movies like those theatrical is often less than 25% of the revenues (and could go below 10%, Take shelter made 500k from theatrical and went on to do over 5 million in the other windows), that outside the really big buy with really big release are not really easy to judge, a 48 month on netflix alone for them can rack up over 3m.

A movie like la la land arguably didn't come for most of this board users life time, let alone in 2015 (which movie would that be ?), 2014, 2013, etc... I don't know the line if so thin, how much of an "homage" star wars was to those serial Lucas watched when he was a kid and The Hidden Fortress, was still special. Tarantino career in general and so on. Logan was a big homage, felt arguably more special to many than a Doctor Strange.

Not sure what they mean exactly by that the first annabelle: -57.3%, why a second weekend around -59% would be good (would it not be simply a normal hold ?)

Saw Dunkirk last night, could not tell what he did but it is by far the character I remember the most with Hardy, he just had some serious gravita and screen presence (or was just the only old guy...).

Well who would have predicted that in 2016....

It obviously fair to hate the tone, but it is such a personal thing, tone that do not fit the story, tone shift that do not work, are fair criticism for sure, but something as personal as not liking the tone of movie make it more sound like (if the tone was clear in the trailer) you should not watch that movie/who could be interested in the fact you do not like a certain tone. That would be a bit like going on twitter twitting about gory horror movies saying you do not like gory horror.... The BvS tone would not be an issue in a good movie.

Financial result for Sony classic (they had the domestic release only), the acquisition price was so low for them that they almost all did at least a small profit except Meet a talk dark stranger were they lost 630k, impressive ROI overall on them. With is 2 hits making a giant profit (from a sony classic low acquisition price, no risk point of view) Whatever works Total revenue: 7.969 million Profit: 1.7 million You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger Total revenue: 3.9 million Profit: -0.627 million Midnight in Paris Total revenue: 67.311 million Profit: 22.6 million Rome With love Total revenue: 17.7 million Profit: 5.48 million Blue Jasmine Total revenue: 42.3 million Profit: 14.15 million Magic in the moonlight Total revenue: 11.8 million Profit: 1.729 million

When talking opening weekend number (specially in 2007) to use as comparable to try to predict a future movie release arguably only what they were marketed as matter and intention/actual movie is not that relevant.

That I got yes, if I understand the rest of your statement correctly you do not believe they have seen the movie at all, that was my question. That give credibility to the video (like if they got noticed they did not respect an embargo, they would not have much reason to remove a fake review created for click-bait when they were not under embargo)

There is a couple of reason why that team organising an heist is so popular over time 1) Nice montages (of planning the execution with an voice over explanation, those are nice easy to be fun moment in your movies) 2) Audience tend to like watching professional good at what they do doing what they are good at, in a procedural way from spotlight to the classic heist (to discovery channel show) 3) Assemble diverse characters friendly from those Mission Impossible movies to the Ocean eleven they are easy to make good use of archetype fun characters, that will require low enough background/screentime to work. 4) Those movie match the 3 act structure (preparation-execution (twist) -repercussion or the twist at the end 5) Popular genre with audience, obviously a big reason So many great classic, The killing, The sting, Wild bunch, some variation with the Bonnie and clyde/reservoir dogs/Drive Recently Hell or High water, Baby Driver, Ocean eleven, The Town, Inside Man, Snatch/Lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels

Did I said you said that ? I asking you people mean by fake/fudge, that those people didn't saw the movie according to you or that they did but are giving a dishonest review more spectacular than just the movie was ok to get clicks. My point was that if they were to make up a review without seeing the movie (to attract click and subscriber a very positive one would have worked better imo, making what they would have done a strange plan) You said apparently it is click-bait ? what are the appearances ?

? what do people mean by that ? They didn't saw the movie at all or are giving not an honest review of what they saw just to get attention (a good review would have also worked for clickbait I think, maybe worked better)

+ ?

Sure it vastly underperformed, but movie have such a large gap between under performing (doing less than a good expected say 15% ROI), breaking even and flopping, the difference between those 3 result can be 300+m in WW box office. Pure money printing / pure cash grab projects like all those you named should never be ok to be in the 2 close to call zone (that should be reserved to project giving them street creds and still a win if they loose little money/break even like Baby Driver was, Tree of Life, Deadpool etc.... that augment the studio ability to work with interesting producer/director at a good price point in the future and have value for them) I never said it was a failure, I said that it probably didn't flop (lost a large amount of money), but you do not seem to use the word flop like people usually do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs In the film and media industry, if a film released in theaters fails to break even by a large amount, it is considered a box office bomb or box office flop, thus losing money for the distributor, studio, and/or production company that invested in it So maybe you did mean something else by it (maybe you use it to say any form of under-performance indiscriminately ?)

This imo, I doubt Soderberg's went into details or qualified a 15m OW has modest for a movie like this (knowing the P&A and not a studio release he had for it), that did sound the journalist extrapolation and is opinion to put in context Soderberg's statement.

Has there any news that they greenlight the sequel ? It would not surprise me a post Wonder Woman Pine / Hemsworth star trek movie if it can be at a good price is not a bad idea. I think you generally have to just adjust your word flopped and it would after make it easier to understand why they would entertain a star trek sequel, it did not really flop it was not that far from is budget on the domestic box office alone. At 1.85x time is budget at the box office with strong domestic, that make it enter the to close to call if it even loose or made money territory (for the sums of every player involved, not even just from paramount POV), let alone know if it did flop and loose a very large amount of money (I really doubt it) The bigger the budget, the smaller P&A become relative to the total cost and usually the movie need to do less and less relative to is budget to turn into the black, specially for a geek collector item that do well in home media sales usually. Take that movie for example: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ferrellwahlberg2010.htm The Other Guys Production Budget: $100 million Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $119,219,978 70.0% + Foreign: $51,212,949 30.0% = Worldwide: $170,432,927 Only a 1.7 ratio, people that do not know much about how movie revenue work would call it a flop but it made a nice 30 million in profit (4.6m going to the stars 25.6m going to Sony), why ? Because of is very large budget and strong domestic ratio. The other guy generated 248.877m in revenues, judging only from is 78.291 made in rentals is looking at less than 33% of that movie revenue stream and trying to conclude something is really misleading, every movie has is own story and rules of thumb about them do not exist that much. Big movie that do between 1.65 and 2.25 time their budget can be misleading and if we do not have info on them are probably left off in the they did kind of well or not too bad /too close to call for us to say zone. P.S. seem to have a lot of Star Trek talk in the news because of the TV series, so not that weird of a bump.