Barnack

Captain america was significantly more expensive than 140m (is gross budget was a bit over 205 million US, is net was probably around 165 to 180): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html The payment from the Revenue went some way to offsetting the £130.5 million cost of producing the movie – far higher than expected Theatrical is a very small part of the total story for what a movie bring in (and I,m not sure why we would give that window such a particular part of the story when it was that smaller to dvds). Domestic retention rate went down over time, from Batman Begin probably getting 58%, to Mummy getting probably 53% now. China get 25% and is a bit of a special case, the 40% intl average is for market outside China. The percentage of revenue that is from theatrical also evolved from the peak of Home Media around 2006 to now, from maybe less than 33% for Batman Begins to maybe as close to 50% for a movie like Mummy. Without merchandising: Batman Begin: 206,852,432 * .58 + 167,366,241 * .4 = 186.9 million Total revenue: 186.9 / 0.33 = 566 million Captain America: 176,654,505 * .55 + 193,915,269 *.4 = 174.7 million Total revenue: 174.7 / 0.35 = 499 million Mummy 75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical Total revenue: 157.75 / 0.45 = 350 million

The fact that monster truck do not even achieve to make list like those make it the ultimate champion in a way. King Arthur still have 3 market to open at least (not that he would go much down on that list with those)

Not sure of that (outside merchandising that is much different), those movie were not only domestic heavy (when studio were getting more of it the first weekend) but also in a different home video era. Batman begins was one of the best sellers of 2006 (over 160 million in Dvd sales in the US alone) but it got a long second life after Dark knight became a success too. The ratio box office revenue / others did change quite a bit since, back then theatrical was a bit a publicity operated at a loss for the dvd home video gold mine, what was the real revenue source of the most profitable time ever for Hollywood: Now movie tend to be more dependent on theatrical with that windows being 35+% of the studio revenue, it could be extremely misleading to compare what movie brought just by looking at their box office, specially when comparing from different time.

400m would be a lot, he said break even in theater, I'm not fully sure what people ever mean by that (no one using that expression detailled when they mean ever when asked), but it at the minimum mean Theatrical rental > Direct production budget + WW P&A (maybe they also mean interest, overhead, participation bonus that started, etc... I'm not fully sure). 75m domestic + 245m intl + 80m China would be far to be enough for that. Say even the lowest possible rumored scenario (125 production + 100m release = 225), let alone the highest 370m rumored production + releasing cost 75*.53 + 245*.4+80*.25 = 157.75 million theatrical rental (that would do between 295m to 392.5 million in total revenue).

They loose so little when they do and require no work at all from them and they make a small fortune from time to time, not a bad deal at all. Is fanbase is a good one.

There is also Malick, and that nothing could end up being really literal.

Allen Sony Picture Classic run was a great one commercially, at least from Sony point of view (Allen movie tend to be funded independently, apparently by financier that just put money in the next Allen movie without knowing necessarily what it will be) Financial result for Sony classic (domestic release only) 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 Minight 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 you consider that all those movie were much more popular intl than domestic and how little the domestic rights cost them (and not having anything to do at all, zero work or involvement, Allen is an extreme case of non studio interference), it is really good, specially if the good home video performance are that solid outthere (he make a lot of sense for streaming platform like Sandler or Statham). He is one of the biggest draw director wise. Extremely good ROI for them.

Best recent comparable (party themed female driven comedy) ? Bad moms: 23.8 million Bridesmaids: 26 million opening Sister : 13.92 (december 19 opening, I imagine it convert to over 20m for a summer weekend locking at those movie legs) Apparently Bad Moms trailer played like crazy among the target audience and Bridemaids had a 90% on RT score making them hard to beat, that said precedent wise show that 25m dom is possible. But I'm really not sure it will reach 20m, specially if WW legs stay that good, it could make WW legs + Cars 3 a really good weekend competition wise.

With is low dom/high China, even 600 would probably be a bit short. Specially with how much of it must go to Cruise and his team pass a certain point.

Should be 95m minimum, 150m maximum, I would guess.

WW there is a good difference, Lucy made 436 million, Salt 293m.

I would imagine they still need some minimal level of movie success to keep those crazy merchandise sales up.

Salt had a 126 million net production budget, spent 104 million on marketing with a big studio release and had arguably the biggest female draw in a action movie ever in her prime in it, with a total cost of nearly 350 million. Atomic Blonde is in a different category of movie than that. Salt number would already be incredible, well anything above John Wick 2 would be incredible, anything between John Wick and John Wick 2 would be really good.

global opening legs can be low when China is in the first weekend now, but still, would that not make it a lock for 350m ?

Black Swan is one of the best movie of the 2000's with a nice high concept and visual hooks, sure if the movie is good it will be easy for it to turn a profit but the being good need to work. That was from the already proven genre/formula too. This could be much slower and weirder.

Not necessarily, Jackie could not have got a better reception (and had somewhat of a franchise/brand for it) and didn't made much ww for Fox (with a bad one it would have flopped hard). Those smaller budgeted original movie (outside a pre-formulated proven genre) are almost never easy profit.

But lower the budget the less the production budget matter in is breaking point formula, low budget horror that get wide release will have 80-90% of the budget spent on the releasing. If a 2 million budget horror spend 15, 35 or even 50 million on marketing, obviously it does not follow the same rules of thumb than a 200 million budget movie than spent only 122 million on marketing.

It also depends how that production hell spending since 2007 is distributed, if sony inherited none of it, exchange rate helping south africa, South Africa tax credit, NY tax credit, canada tax credit for SFX, maybe not that low but with Rothman in charge could be pretty low, rumors were that Tom Hanks Inferno was only 75 million net (that would be like 120 million cheaper than Angels and Demon)

Downsizing is the big frontrunner for them with Suberbicon (clooney coens brothers), and mother! but that is a total unknown that could be wait outside Academy taste.

Sure, Mummy will need much more than the evaluated 220 million WW to break even than Elysium had because of that, but if one believe that very reasonable 125 million budget, depending on Cruise deal (if it is profit participation bonus for example) it's break even point could be not too high. My point was more about the everyone say triple your budget general rules, more than Mummy in particular, that rules could be a good one for China heavy title like Warcraft but not a general one imo. Would not surprise me if those much higher budget rumors are true too, we will probably never know any of it.

Was it not by 2 not so long ago ? (and just 10 year's ago, doubling was the success bar not the profit start bar). Big production budget movie usually can even make profit before doubling (production budget + participation bonus before profit) depending if they are domestic heavy enough. If the 125 million budget is true, that the same budget than Matt Damon Elysium, and that made a 20 million profit with a 286 million box office performance.

The very concept of poison make little sense outside the studio system (were studio were under obligation to use actors they signed for 10 movies even if they had a become a clear negative for the BO). You would need to a be a very special talent that director really want to ever find work as a poison on studios movies nowaday. Studio don't pay big price for someone like Theron on a FF movie if she was a poison, she must have good metric in most market and you cannot know that no one went to see FF8 were influenced by her presence, one of her late night show appearance in the world promo tour and so on, it is rare that it is no one, exit poll show that someone like James Franco had according to ticket buyer polled some impact on a Spider-Man movie first weekend.....

Guardian 2 suffered of inflated expectations and WW is enjoying the downplaying/controlling of said expectation in the media. It certainly not a breakout hit no one really say coming, it is giant superheroes franchise blockbuster that got a giant world blockbuster 2 year<s long campaign with an intro/publicity in BvS, many expected Wonder Woman to be a big movie. Gravity was a breakout hit.

Not sure what you mean exactly by that, but I doubt that P&A for studios movie are on separate budget or what that would change. It is a no brainer that more than 50 million will be spent on a major world released movie on marketing. To give an idea the studio building and is employee are not even completely carried on a separate budget but amortized among the movie made on the movie slate, not putting the marketing expenditure in a movie cost would make people with participation bonus after profit start to make their bonus way too soon. The average marketing cost of big studio movies (budget above 60m) is around 100 milliion.

Twilight, 50 shades of grey, Fault in our stars, Allegiant, Sex in the city, etc... reaching out of the fanbase or not is probably the main factor over gender.