Barnack

MAG 7 budget was closer to 80 than 90 million thought: https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=1Ki2apGQb7wFKtZifVR43A%3d%3d 107 million gross, at least 30.31 million in tax credit. One difference is Magnificent 7 being a Denzel Washington western was fully expected to do around 65 to 75 million oversea (and those expectation were made with a much better exchange rate in mind), it arguably overperformed a little bit both domestic and oversea, specially in South Korea because of Lee Byung-hun.

I don't know much but it seem that the legs can be really big versus domestic, other comparable Tomorrowland: 2.1m OW, 10.25m total Elysium: 1.53m OW, 7.6m total Interstellar: 1.64m OW, 10.4m total Oblivion: 3.48m OW (Cruise opening power), 12.96m total But it can also fall down and have an ow that is 33% or more of the total.

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/3478-japan-wknd-actuals-your-name-claims-fourth-weekend-record-breaking-harry-potter-and-the-sorcerers-stones-15-year-record/?do=findComment&comment=2948720 Weekend Forecast (04/08-09)01 (01) ¥286,000,000 ($2.6 million), -39%, ¥3,925,000,000 ($35.4 million), Sing (Toho-Towa) WK4 02 (02) ¥234,000,000 ($2.1 million), -38%, ¥4,325,000,000 ($38.9 million), Moana (Disney) WK5 03 (---) ¥225,000,000 ($2.0 million), 0, ¥315,000,000 ($2.8 million), Ghost in the Shell (Toho-Towa) NEW 04 (03) ¥193,000,000 ($1.7 million), -36%, ¥1,600,000,000 ($14.4 million), Kong: Skull Island (Warner Bros.) WK3 05 (04) ¥144,000,000 ($1.3 million), -48%, ¥3,950,000,000 ($35.5 million), Doraemon: Great Adventure in the Antarctic (Toho) WK6 06 (---) ¥100,000,000 ($900,000), 0, ¥100,000,000 ($900,000), The Night Is Short, Walk on Girl (Toho Video Division) NEW 07 (05) ¥92,000,000 ($830,000), -35%, ¥1,050,000,000 ($9.4 million), Daytime Shooting Star (Toho) WK3 08 (06) ¥81,000,000 ($730,000), -34%, ¥3,900,000,000 ($34.8 million), La La Land (Gaga) WK7 09 (07) ¥71,000,000 ($640,000), -40%, ¥800,000,000 ($7.2 million), Policeman and Me (Shochiku) WK3 10 (06) ¥56,000,000 ($505,000, -42%, ¥500,000,000 ($4.5 million), Kamen Rider x Super Sentai: Ultra Superhero War (Toei) WK3

The most obvious reason is that it was less frontloaded, less people saying it the first week give you a bigger pool of people to see it week 3 or 4 specially when you are talking legs in percentage without taking a look at the absolute number. Maybe the smaller exclusive theatrical windows has some impact here, if you do not go see it in the first 2-3 weeks, you probably are more ok to wait for it to reach home video, it will not be as long as in the past ? For the other movies taking place in the media, that was probably pretty much equivalent in the early 2000, the number of studio release movie didn't grow since then it diminished (it went from 200 movies a year from the main studio + their specialty division to around 150).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-facing-900-million-lawsuit-conjuring-franchise-990107

He must be including all the world releasing cost to the other distributors cost.

World P&A of 30 million would be impossible, it did spent above 25 million in the US in TV spot alone: http://variety.com/2017/more/news/power-rangers-again-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202012184/ So maybe they are talking domestic if Power rangers got nice product placement deal for it, but considering the cost in the United state tv spot alone (add all the other cost and the Canadian release) it would be a bit low. 30 million P&A is a Think like a man too movie, 70 million is what the Resident Evils movie tend to get in the Sony markets (lot of market are pre-sold), 100 million is in the Click/Superbad/Captain Phillips/Social Network/Girl with the dragon tattoo world release expense, a giant superhero type of movie can reach the 200 million mark, Spider Man 3 had a 243 million world release, Da Vinci Code 221 million, the Emmerich destruction movie 2012 had a 201 million world release. Now all of those are studio movie example (Sony, the rare world releasing cost we exactly know), some of them include an Award season cost and Liongates tend to spend less on a domestic release than a major studio (they were proudly saying that they were cutting cost and releasing the Hunger games part 1-2 with only a 50 million domestic budget each, see the link below), but outside domestic/UK it has nothing do to with them. 70 to 100 million for world P&A seem make sense to me, 30 is impossible. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/media/hunger-games-studio-lionsgate-punches-above-its-hollywood-weight.html?_r=0 Perhaps more impressively, given the constant discussion in Hollywood about reducing promotional costs, Lionsgate spent roughly $50 million to market “Mockingjay” in the United States and Canada. Hollywood’s six major studios, each of which operates a domestic marketing department at least three times the size of Lionsgate’s, routinely spend $100 million to release a major movie in North America.

You could buy Snowpiercer US distribution rights, rename it BioShock and wide release it for the first time.

German tax credit situation was a bit exceptionnal, I don't think many big movies achieve to become profitable just by pre-sales, maybe the Twilight/Hunger Games sequels and some other exceptionnaly certain to do really well but still massively pre-sold in many market by the studio because they have no choice. It must have been more common with smaller movie that pre-sales well, like horros that can get an october release date. Deadline estimate of fo-foreign pre-sales is 130 million, for an estimated net budget of 140 million: http://deadline.com/2015/03/hunger-games-mockingjay-part-1-profit-box-office-2014-1201391223/ But that is an extreme example, studio would not sell to a rebate in advance the profit of their tentpole sequel usually like Lionsgates do.. From all the Sony movie released between 2006 and 2014 that we can look at, I think none achieved a negative production cost because of pre-sales, some came really close to be free thought (American Hustle for example).

I'm not so sure it is to a lost the movie played almost exactly like Sony expected, a movie like Magnificent 7 will not play in term of ratio box office/total revenue like a 3D movie or anything targeting younger audience. That was the studio estimate for that movie box office potential: DBO $85M IBO $65M At 85 dbo and 75 ibo they estimated a profit between 5 and 10 million, estimating that the movie would need to do around 220 million Worldwide to reach good ROI level,with marketing people having little confidence they would reach that bar. The movie over-performed domestically a little bit with 93 million to compensate a bit lower than expected Intl due to the difficult exchange rate. Has for 90 million production cost that sound a bit high, the movie had a quite big 107 million gross production cost but got a really generous tax credit of 30.3 million from Louisiana (and maybe some other from other jurisdiction they spend the rest of the money on): https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=1Ki2apGQb7wFKtZifVR43A%3d%3d Very worst case scenario the movie had a 81.2 million production and at best it was close to the 75 million planned the movie, and big movie that achieve to do more at the domestic box office than their budget tend to not loose money. You also need to take into account the domestic heavy nature of the box office, domestic box office is worth about 1.3 dollar of Intl box office, doubling you budget when you are domestic heavy and have a big budget like Mag7 can be more than enough to turn a profit. Denzel is certainly a draw and can pretty much guarantee your domestic first weekend, the issue with him is more on the international side.

And in 2015 WB made a lot of money from video game like Batman Arkham Origins that benefit from those franchise having movie/tv show made about them, it certainly a big part of those franchise model business. I understand why Deadline just stopped to try evaluating the impact on the theme park revenue/video games/clothes/etc... it is probably not easy at all.

Smith still have some attraction, a doubt that a movie like that would have made as well in Italy without him in it. If we use Smith last holiday Concussion release as a reference, with a planned 43 million budget and a planned 75 million world release P&A, it needed an estimated 95 million WW ( 63 dbo/32 ibo) to break even according to Sony leaked estimate and 132 million WW (97 dbo/ 35 ibol) to give a good ROI. If that rumored 36 million is close to the net budget of this one, I would imagine that it was about the same but with a much smaller part of the box office being from the domestic market and they probably went for a smaller domestic release budget too.

In the past they were trying, now they stopped to include merchandising sales that could be attributed to the movie, so a lot of revenues from some of those franchise is missing, giving a chance to non-franchise movie to get to the top. It was maybe too hard to evaluate.

The joke ? The joke went completely went over my head sorry, I thought it was a simple statement to show how much Deadpool was profitable by comparing it to an other low cost giant blockbuster, not humor.

The statement was that deadpool made 4.7x more than La La Land made, I don't think it is what Deadline is saying. Fox made on Deadpool 4.7 time what Liongates did on La la land but Deadpool didn't necessarily do 4.7 time as much as La la land. That is because Liongates do not distribute worldwide and most of La La Land business was made outside Liongates markets, the other market were sold to other distributors that made a good portion of La La Land profit.

57% of La la land box office was made in pre-sold market (non domestic/UK), lot of the money didn't went to Liongates on that one (I imagine sometime they love that reality like when Power rangers flop overseas and do well domestic, but for something like La la land it must hurt a little bit).

I would not equate deadline estimated Deadpool made more profit than DS and CW together, with Deadpool made more profit than DS and CW together. They are really rought estimate, made with a lot of variable unkown to them (like the movie real budget) and they can be off the mark by a lot. For an example Deadline profit estimate of 22 jump street: http://deadline.com/2015/03/22-jump-street-profit-box-office-2014-1201391202/ 144.48 million Reality: Sony profit: 45.54 million, that is almost 100 million off To be fair third party investor made a 43 million profit on it, so 82 million of profit was made and I guess they could not have known how much of the movie was owned by Sony vs MGM vs Lone star but they still overestimated the overall profit by 76% One of Deadpool biggest cost will be the profit participation bonus Reynolds, Kingberg and co are getting and those tend to stay really secret, Deadline can easily be off by 40 million

First 50 shades trailers had 84 million view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfZWFDs0LxA Darker seem closer to 20 million: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6BVyk7hty8 It is not easy to calculate with the big amount of them and account having them, but you have to watch out, youtube views are not the same as trailers views, if you include Facebook and other platform they are less valids because they count anyone that have seen them involuntary scrolling a page that had it, Youtube views are much more solid (because they are better moneytize and are more strict on what is a view) And 50 shade darker will be one of the biggest movie of the year, once against showing a strong correlation between youtube views and box office, the correlation is extremely strong according to all study made, they mean a lot. If trailer views would not mean much, that would mean that if we take the last 800 wide released movie and graph the opening box office relative to their trailers views that we would not see a strong correlation, I doubt that, I doubt that very much.

Who is talking about a success ? The conversation was surrounding was having a star attach was worth it from the studio point of view. Being worth it was did the studio end up with more money (it can be by loosing less or making a small profit because of the star) not a win. I disagree about slightly more funding, take the over 100 million dollar movie Denzel Washington business, it would not make sense without the funding benifit. On a Denzel flop: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=takingofpelham09.htm 150 million on a movie with a net 115.4 million budget, the studio lost only 16 million, third party investor that invested 48.58 million on that movie did lose 31.4 million, twice as much as the studio, from a Sony point of view Denzel presence at 20 million was a blessing. And we are talking about Paramount having 70+% of Ghost funded in the example, 50% or more for Passenger (giant risky movie), not sure why you are saying slightly more, it is massive 100+ million dollar of co-financier money and risk sharing we are talking about (and all of those at the advantage of the studio usually, with the studio breaking even and starting making money on the movie before the co-financiers will). You can make 10 blumhouse things it is true, but can only wide release 2 or 3 for the same cost, marketing cost on those giant vs small movie is not necessarily that different. A deliver Us from Evil screen gems type of title has still a total cost of around 100 million, Exorcise of Emily Roses total cost of 130 million, has the production budget goes up bigger it is in proportion of the total cost and smaller the box office / production budget the movie need to be a success. The big advantage of those Blumhouse type of title, they only spend money on those who play well in test audience and can make good trailer (that test well), while on big movies they rarely have the courage to cut their looses and always release them.

never said fake, I said they do not know (they are very clear about them not knowing, in that article the movie did cost between 110 and 180, Paramount is exposed between 30 and 70%, etc...)

The rumors are that 50%+ of that movie achieved to be co-financed and/or pre-sold, from a studio point of view they were clearly worth it before the movie was finished too shoot, the movie was saved by their presence (exit poll show 78% of the audience naming Lawrence or Pratt as a reason to be there). the excellent release date and those deals, that Sony achieved to get purely because of the star power attach. That is pure speculation, the movie Life: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=life2017.htm Is a bit what you are describing, around 50-60 million budget, lower profile cast but still a B-list level and it about doubled Passenger on is rotten tomato score, had some horror genre put in it that can work very well, will it make a decent profit ? No. Passenger will make a small to good (depending on the pre-sales/co-financier deal) profit for Sony, Life will loose money for them. Why do you think Passenger will make more than 4 time the world box office of Life while having a significantly worst reception ?

Deadline figures are people doing estimate, they think Paramount will lose money they do not know. I doubt that it is true, how to you know if dreamworks didn't gain when it came time to find a distributor in the movie to have a star attach to it ? How do we know if they didn't got more in pre-sales like those: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-ticketing-service-weying-takes-stake-paramounts-ghost-shell-987261 Because a star was attached to it ? That they didn't get better third party financier because a star was attach ? How do we know if the really excellent world release (IMAX 3D screens, every market almost at the same time, all of them in the same 7 days windows) was not achieved because a star was attached to the movie ? That she didn't helped Russia nice performance ? Why is the exit poll say that 39% of the audience had her as a reason to by a ticket if she was not a draw ?

How much do you think The Revenant is making with unknowns actor ? You think world audience was asking for The Revenant anyway ? Compare director filmography result and you will usually see a huge bump between their movie featuring DiCaprio or not, Scorsese, Nolan, Tarantino, Iñárritu, their biggest non franchise movie tend to be the one with DiCaprio in it by a really good margin. There is a bit too much focus made on production budget vs total budget I think and I'm not sure what you mean by being worth the time (what time ?), a movie like that total cost will probably a bit over 250 million before participation bonus (Elysium had a 126 million net budget and a total cost of 275.29 million before participation bonus for a close example). Remove the movie star and is 20 million paycheck from Elysium, now the movie cost 256 million instead of 275.29, a 7% rebate, but how much more you need to spend on marketing to get an equivalent release in audience awareness and exhibitor that accept to give it the same amount of theater screen ? You probably do not save the full salary amount of the star because you needed to spend more on your marketing campaign to reach audience. A movie like Passenger achieved to get an Holidays release with a relatively small marketing expense (much smaller than say monster truck or Live by Night), because those star salary are more a form of marketing expense than production expense.

Arguably it kind of did (at least jury still out until all market open) of being a serious loose your jobs flop. The Revenant opened at 38 million and made 538 million worldwide, do you really believe that there is not such thing as a bankable star ? How do you explain Kevin Hart What Now box office performance or Identity Thief opening at 35 million if Melissa McCarthy was not a bankable star ?

Isn't a 62% liked it Average Rating: 3.5/5 User Ratings: 29,737 A very mediocre RT audience score ? That is Batman V Superman 63% territory, X-Men Apocalypse was at 67%, Passenger 64%, Suicide Squad 62%, The transformer also usually score over 50% in RT audience score. I would agree with that it could be artificially low, apparently: Ironically, Screen Engine/ComScore’s PostTrak audience polls show that Asian Americans bought tickets to watch Ghost and even enjoyed the film. They repped 13% of Ghost‘s audience, on par with the demo’s turnout for Arrival (14%, $24M), Passengers (12%, $14.9M opening) and xXx: The Return Of Xander Cage (14%, $20.1M FSS), the latter which featured several Asian stars including Donnie Yen and Wu Yifan. Zero percent gave Ghost a poor rating. Of the Asian Americans who watched Ghost, 93% gave it a good, very good or excellent rating, which isn’t that far from Caucasians, Hispanics (both 97%) and African Americans (94%). People that didn't like a movie probably are disproportionately motivated to go score them on some public platform, specially if there is a some negative online buzz around them.