Barnack

Except for China it change from movie to movie and studio to studio, a Star Wars/Potters will get more than your average movie, Furious 7 is probably up there. Some theaters chain in germany did need to stand their ground because Disney was asking for a 47% return on Force Awaken for example. Potter being a famous example of movie for which we know the studio percentage did a excellent 46% return internationnaly (is 55.5% domestic was not bad either): https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg If mojo intl number is close to the reality: 298.059 / 647.881 = 0.46 The outside China intl average is 40% for a studio complete slate, but they get less for smaller movie and more for their biggest tent pole were they can usually get better deal, here Sony leaked expected return rate by Market for Bond 24 (Spectre): Gross Net Australia 44% 34% Austria 45% 38% Belgium 43% 35% Brazil 41% 13% France 39% 30% Germany 45% 35% Italy 41% 16% Japan 49% 16% Mexico 38% 15% Netherlands 41% 36% Russia 42% 25% South Korea 47% 31% Spain 43% 13% Switzerland 44% 36% UK 44% 35% China 25% 21% Top 15 42% 32% Others 44% 33% Gross is the revenue share / box office Net is (revenue share - marketing - prints) / box office So the intl revenue share outside China for a Bond movie (and I imagine biggest intl movie in general) is around 44%, some market have really cheap releasing while some others seem to be almost identical to the domestic market, like Japan with huge marketing / studio getting almost 50% of the box office, I imagine a very healthy home video market were most of the revenue is made to justify that amount of marketing expense.

As long as marketing stay close to free for the studio to release in China under the current deal, it is around a average 21% net return even when your movie underperform with no risk of loosing a significant amount of money if it bomb, not bad at all among intl market.

Not sure I get the distinction, most excuse tend to be factual. Example of excuse: The Montreal Canadian had a bad season last year because their best player Carey Price was hurt and didn't play for most of it. That a fact and a good excuse.

Outside Rogue One, Skyfall was more than the 20th entry of the Bond Franchise

As anyone said otherwise (that it would not have been an enormous success without the US) ? That is a bit of a straw man. As for being the 8 entry, first one 16 year's ago, that the same has a Potter release and not all entry of F&F are relevant entry to the story, it does not require for the audience to have seen the previous and the franchise changed a lot since it's beginning, a doubt it really at all on the audience of the first one that had seen it in theater, a lot of that franchise audience is much more recent than that.

Not a bad list overall, some comments: Barbie with Schumer quiting the project I'm not sure it happen in 2018 or if it is easy to predict what it will end up to be. Ready player one, I don't know how big is the book exactly but it sequel started only at number 4, it does seem more like The Martian (good sales and fan bases) but far from a Girl on a train/Life of Pi/Da vinci code and other giants book. I was going to say that is 95 million would have an argument for the best first weekend in a long time, no movie without a suberly strong IP ever openned over the 77 million Avatar/I Am legend did, but American Sniper had a 89 million first weekend, that had a good ip/biopic/known hero but not that specially big. So I guess that is possible, being a first more conventional blockbuster Spielberg in a long time.

Some hyperbole going on right now. No, 9 figure opening are not always impressive, if Avengers 3 part 1 do a 103 million first weekend no one will be impressed, and yes it is possible that a 30% decline for the first weekend (if that happen) is a bit of bigger than expected drop for the studio, at least it is not crazy to talk about it has a possibility. Mockingjay part 2 mentioned before is a really good example, it opened over 100 million for a non-mpaa Studio movie with a small 50 million north america experimental release strategy that the 2 last movie used to boost margin, with not only a much smaller releasing budget that the big studio movies, but also a much smaller production budget, total success crazy to call it a deception ? But that was a 15.7% first weekend drop from part 1, 35% from the series peak and Liongates stock did took a big hit with that release, from 40$ to 34$ the week after it's first weekend (probably not so much because the last Hunger Games drop from the previous but what it did mean for the hole genre that Liongates was really cashing on and is divergent future movies and the others it would have done if the genre would have stayed popular). Now Fast&Furious is a totally different animal, because it is arguably that biggest franchise outside the US right now, and if their is a small disappointment (say 10-15% smaller than wanted domestic opening) we don't know and will not because the giant performance oversea is more than making up for it. Has for the seven being a sure peak because of Walker death, that is not true in at least 16 market were Fast 8 is opening bigger, domestic is different because he was an american actor and the franchise was new in many of those market, but a lot of Seven success had nothing to do with it (same for Dark Knight and Ledger, that movie was a really big deal in market were they didn't care about him, don't even knew who he was, is previous success being mostly big deal in the US only) and a lot to do with Wan giant spectacle.

I never thought that rental copies were in those the-numbers estimates list (I doubt they are, but that could explain the high average price, copy for rentals business did cost quite a lot back in the days, over 80$ I think). Netflix subscriber did stabilize a little bit, I think you are probably right: It is one of the biggest factor why HE started to fall after the 2006/2007, it tripled between 2007 and 2010 and stagnated/stabilized between 2014/2017, with almost all the growth being outside the US.

It did extremely well on home video, for example first time it played on TV it broke records, that still hold today: It became at that time the highest-rated television program ever presented on a single network, watched by 47.5 percent of the households sampled in America, and 65 percent of television viewers, still the record for the highest rated film to ever air on television. Every movie released around Gone With the Wind had the same playing field, none came close, Titanic had many advantage versus today release for example, less piracy, streaming, much longer theatrical window, is success is obvious because no other movie in the late 90, early 2000 come even close, same for E.T., Star Wars, and Gone with the wind all in that special category (and all close in term of box office market share of their era on their first release).

Most (has over 50%) but not much more than that, it is about 60% that make a profit I would say, 25% that make a significant one (when you are not Disney). Fully agree that it is compared to expectation that really matter, but those are almost 100% of the time totally unknown and are people estimating (and people expectation can be vastly different than a studio, they often have marketing study about the interest on the movie and other tools that people do not have), it would not surprise me if Universal expected a massive domestic drop, a small bump in China and other newer growing market, with the rest playing between F6 and F7, closer to 7 than 6.

Total cost is not exactly the same as spent on a film, most of a movie total cost is not on the film itself (the average budget is about 35% of the movie total cost) 700 million would include Diesel, Johnson and others bonuses, residuals, interest, amortization of running a movie studio distributed among all the movies they are making (overhead) and so on. Spider Man 3 total cost 10 year's ago was of 934 million for an extreme example. With that cost break down: World theatrical marketing: 157.442 million Others theatrical releasing cost (prints, freight, etc...): 85.771 million World home entertain marketing: 69.92 million World home entertain MFG: 79.982 million Direct net production cost: 299.763 million Overhead: 41.96 million Participations bonus: 154.6 million ! (Raimi and co made a fortune on that trilogy) Residual: 35.3 million Some others (tv release, consumer product cost & marketing, etc...): 9.45 million It made 1122 million in total revenue, 188 million in profit for the studio. The movie production budget ended up being only 32% of is total cost. Spider-Man 3 was released around the time Hollywood peaked in profitability, now they are probably cutting expense a lot (or at least trying too) and don't spend as much specially not on the home video release or manufacturing with digital saving them money, but 700 million for a giant movie sequel would not be necessarily be a out of question amount, that would still make it 234 million cheaper (275 million adjusted in today dollar) than Spider-Man 3 after all.

Lot of the cost in the total cost are relative and proportional to the movie success, in large part participation bonus and residuals, in a much smaller way the size of the marketing (bigger the movie, bigger the home release, longer the theatrical run and it's cost, etc...) That would be nice to share how you achieved that measure, I imagine it is for recent release (in the past total revenue was usually much bigger than the box office for average movie and around the same for giant one), did you use deadline estimate of the last 2/3 year's ? I imagine that having a big China box office would put the fast and furious on the lower end of the usual bracket. Couple of known example of the past (the ratio move a lot with most of the studio revenue made post theater, how well you perform on home video change a lot and make hard to use a rules of thumb) and obviously it is very dependent of the market the box office come from: Spider-Man 3: WWBo: $890.9 million Revenue: $1122.4 million, $964.82 million without merchandising Ratio: 126% 2012: WWBo: $769.7 million Revenue: $677.68 million Ratio: 88% The Da Vinci Code WWBo: $758.2 million Revenue: 833.63 million Ratio: 110% Amazing Spider-Man WWBo: 758.2 Total revenue: 703.86 million, 677.5 million without the Disney payment made to Sony for every Spider Man movie they were doing at that time. Ratio: 92.8% Hancock WWBo: 624 million Total revenue: 660.6 million Ratio: 105% Smurf WWBo: 563.7 million Total revenue: 500.76 million Ratio: 89%

Not all blockbusters, some even have to pay when they break them, they get a lot of car companies ads mentioning the movie and for sure car for free (that they can break on those), not sure it is fat cash transaction. I'm not sure why it would cost 200M or that Fast 7 would have cost 200M, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was 236, The Amazing spidermans movie were over 300 before tax credits and those do not have a costly assemble cast like Fast&Furious, 200 million net would Angels and Demon cost, extremelly cheap for a blockbuster sequels that shot on locations and returning star cast like F&F. And for Sure universal will again make a lot of money, those F&F could do 50% of what they are doing and still be huge success.

Because the producers often choose the director (and even writers sometime too, depending of the director) it is hard to disconnect them of anything.

I imagine that why there is conflict, he make lot of pressure and he has power, but not total control like Cruise (hard to imagine Cruise would ever work on a MI movie with an actor he has feud with and stuff like that or have scene filmed without him having writing them or at least approved). They probably negociated hard a bit after MI 3 apparently lost money, with Tom Cruise rumored to still have made a giant 65 million paycheck out of it, with how much Protocol did and with how much The Bourne Legacy declined without Damon they are probably really happy to have kept him.

Probably when the series started to fall down without is cast, with Tokyo drift, turning the situation into we need those without contract actor back or we stop that franchise. He became a producer on Fast And Furious and the franchise jumped back to 130%, augmenting even more is power for the next one, what the studio could say to him for the next movie ? It must be common for stars of a franchise that want power to acquire it, if at one point their presence were necessary for the movie to happen and if the franchise use "weak" director, that accept to do movies with an actor/producer/studio that have final cut over them. Apparently he call the highest studio execs all the time, but it still does sound far from Cruise power on Mission Impossible.

That expression rarely make much sense to me, but that is an extreme of it, it is not like it was hidden from the marketing or the previous entry, how are they shoving anything in anyone throats ?, people actively choose to see those movie, no one is ever forced (it is not like parents making a special effort for a kid movie). I suspect many people love more than they want to admit to watch movie that they will love to consider bad afterward and complain about (I even read somewhere, I watched all the Transformer and each were worst that the previous one...).

Cannot know for sure, but let just say I was not surprise at all that one of the 2 end up being the villain in marketing and that they were fighting each other in the trailers. Johnson is pretty much up there has the best in the business in social media marketing and selling. It was maybe not just made up for publicity, but the fact that it was compatible with the movie marketing narrative probably played on why he did it.

Bay often work on thigh budget, obviously Pain&Gain (26 million with that cast and being a bit of a "period" movie) for example and he didn't needed a strong producer or any exec, it was 100% is show, if those rumored Transformer budget are true he is far from having unlimited budget and is being really reasonable efficient (I'm talking only about 1 and most of the 4 was not able to finish it, haven't not see the other 2 but from the trailers it seem to be the case too). And that could be part of the issue, how much fiscally responsible he is, to some extreme like literally retaking shot from previous movie to save money to accept General Motors, US army, etc... demands to reduce is movies cost or augment spectacle at little cost, he is really far to someone that is not always thinking about money that is running wild with budgets and hurting studios, arguably a bit too much the other way around. You give Bay creative control or you don't use him imo, he is a small studio.

The amount of talk around trailers views, first 24 hours views, etc... while some people still ask themselve or are piss about studio that make trailer teaser and announcement instead of simply releasing them.

A dog purpose would be a better example to use has a big surprise hit in China.

Ok that is me that got confused by those similar title (I imagine that what happened to the author to)

I think it is some The Fast and furious vs Fast and furious movie title confusion. The 4th one really made 207M http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fastandfurious.htm

The reviewer should be by far the best person if I think a movie is fresh or rotten, it is clearly one of RT strenght to let reviewer enter it themselve instead of trying to decipher everyone own personal ranking system.

I am not sure who is the them he would have need to convince talked about, the movie is made by Besson own studio and has a majority owner he can do pretty much has he want. Are we talking convincing bank and the co-investor ? It will depend on the type of deal Besson gave them. I'm not so sure it need to do 460 million WW to even think about being profitable, it is a 207 million and I think that is probably the gross production budget, not a 250 million net budget, it should end up costing around 170-175 million net and needing around 360 million max to break even, maybe closer to 400 if it is China heavy. Bigger the budget, smaller the box office/budget ratio usually become for a movie to be profitable. a 40 million movie with a 75 million world release is a 115 million expense. A 180 million dollar movie with a 140 million world release is a 320 million expense. Even thought the budget is 4.5 time has high, is cost come releasing time is only 2.8 time higher, usually it will take only 3/3.5 time the box office of the 40 million dollar movie to break even. If it is around 100 million for the 40 million title, 300/350 million for the big movie can often put it close to profit depending where the box office come from. It all depend on how much people are getting points of course, but those actor are not touching any first dollar gross. Luc Besson is a really big name worldwide, he carry starpower by himself, not like James Cameron but probably like Ridley Scott in many country.