Barnack

It will stay secret I think, there is a 110 million that come from a serious publication and a 130isssh million that come from Johansson at the very end of the Howard stern interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJjpSVK0fHg Maybe she was talking gross, the 110 being correct but the net or like usual they are downplaying it and the 130issh was refering to the net budget, maybe 110 is the net budget but with pre-sales removed from it (they sold at least 10% of the box office to a Chinese investor), who knows, ranging between 110 and 135 is probably about where it is.

Some people that worked on Home Alone must be happy to still get good Residual paycheck, 899 weeks into the home video release.

This, and using the fact that white american do not complain about Japanese washing like this (Nigeria production also will often cast black people playing whites and so on) to discredit people that have concern with representation in Hollywood production would be extremely unfair, it is a totally false equivalence, movie wise it is just normal for Japanese to not care or ask anything to anyone else, they have their own giant industry and it is mostly what they watch (live action wise).

I'm not sure I fully agree with that reasoning, most Japanese will not be bothered much by what Hollywood do on that aspect, they have what 300 to 400 Japanese movie featuring almost exclusively Japanese actor released in their theater every year, for a while Japanese cinema had an output has big as Hollywood and was always big. The subject lack of Japanese representation on screen would not make the first sense to them, try to imagine white american caring about who play Jason Bourne in a Japanese remake for an equivalent.... they will never watch it anyway and just watch the next Damon one. It is much more Japanese/eastern Asians outside Japan (mostly US because they feel connection with the US movie industry) that has some chance to care about something like that.

One possible plus for GITS would be being popular in Japan/South korea those 2 market seem to be very similar to the domestic market for studio blockbuster in retention rate (close to 50%) I think and I suspect for home media, they spend a lot on marketing in those. At least that was the case for Sony (maybe it is doing better in Japan than other studios that I do not know), it can change a little bit for title/box office total, but that was was the expected average retention rate by market for Sony in 2014. Ranked by retention rate: Studio share of the box office / raw box office: Japan 47% South Korea 47% Germany 44% Spain 44% Belgium 43% Switzerland 42% Russia 42% Austria 42% Italy 41% Australia 41% Brazil 40% Netherlands 40% UK 40% France 39% Mexico 37% China 25% By profit margin of the theatrical release alone, (Studio share of the box office - marketing - prints) / Raw box office, China is not a bad deal at all once considering the almost free releasing Switzerland 29% Netherlands 28% Austria 27% Belgium 26% UK 23% Australia 22% Russia 22% Germany 22% China 21% S. Korea 19% France 19% Japan 15% Spain 13% Mexico 13% Brazil 13% Italy 11% Average for the biggest market: Retention rate: 40% (the number used by deadline) Profit margin: 20%

it probably brought in theater a disproportional amount of people that almost never buy tickets, clearly the type of movie that make the pie bigger and not just change what get the box office (like Avatar did too, with Sherlock and Chipmunk doing extremely well).

Not sure what you mean by making 50% of it's budget back, I doubt it made is theatrical P&A budget back yet.

It could be conscious but also in part unconscious, humans tend to give a bigger negative value to a loss than they give a positive to a win, specially if it is a public one. And maybe because of something has stupid has the price is right, but it seem that the audience will punish you more if you were wrong by predicting more than they do the other way around. To the point that they will prefer and consider it safer to be wrong but significantly under than to be right but a bit over in their predictions. There is also almost no incentive at being right for trades like that, almost none of their reader are using that information to take any decisions, so I would imagine they prefer narrative (movie over/under performing) to being accurate.

3.3% better than last year to date and last year had Force Awakens legs, Zootopia, BvS , Deadpool and has an award movie with is january expension The Revenant, so not an easy beginning of the year to beat. Outside the obvious Monster Truck, the only massive 2017 release to really fail was the Great Wall and for the small one that should have work was The Founder (will be hard without any award attention to have a nice life on Home video) that I can think of.

PR is a much more domestic market heavy title thought, is domestic first weekend was much more important. As for the budget, that 110M budget that the media is talking about is possibly after rebate like say: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-ticketing-service-weying-takes-stake-paramounts-ghost-shell-987261 Removing the sales profit from the budget and so on, that would have probably not happen without a star attach to the movie, studio wise the movie is not necessarily a bigger investment because of the star because of the co-financing/pre-sales door it open for them. And sure, a different and better movie would perform differently, but that is a bit of a strange speculation, has a we known the script/movie with Margot Robbie would have been the same. Has for speculating on how much the movie would be doing with Margot Robbie (that would have not made suicide squad) or a totally unknown actress, that will be extremely hard speculation to do. Would the movie achieved to get the same release (it is an impressive one, all over the world almost at the same time, IMAX 3D, etc...) with an unknown actress far from certain. That is in part what make studying the impact of movie star so difficult, the sample size of live action, without a really strong IP or director that sales by himself, on that kind of budget range getting that kind of release that do not have a movie star do not really exist, to be able to compare GITS performance to something else, it will be really hard. World movie screen's is the most correlated variable with box office and getting them is already a major part of what a movie star give to a movie and how they paycheck tend to be justified even before a movie is released (that and the good co-financing/presales deal they get, you should look how good for the studio the co-financing deal (and bad for the financiers) are on a Denzel movie). Good luck to anyone that is trying to isolate the factor of Johansson on GITS numbers, but I doubt you will achieve to built a strong argument about them.

I think deadline "estimater" has a good grasp on those deal. For example they were in the good ball park for Spectre: http://deadline.com/2016/03/spectre-profit-box-office-2015-james-bond-1201723528/ Deadline estimate: Domestic releasing cost: 56 Foreign releasing cost: 85 Sony target cost (movie was released after the leak after all, so cannot use the real numbers): Domestic release cost: Around 58 million to 65 million depending of the scenarios (50 million in advertising) Foreign: Around 83.5 to 94 million (with around 60 million in advertising) Deadline estimate are not bad at all And not many franchise get as good brands has Bond like Jonwo pointed, the smarthphone deal placement on the last Bond had a 55 million value, 50 million value in smarthphone ads that would feature Bond and 5 million cash (some of it going to Daniel Craig thought). Possibly that those huge title use partner to just have a ridiculously big saturation marketing wise (with exec being fearful to not do it) more than doing a cheap release versus a non-ip movie.

I don't know, despite being a very classic and average entry, Doctor Strange still got good reviews despite the whole "Whitewashing-evil-racist-hollywood", not sure it is that automatic.

Well sure adjusting for the situation is always necessary when talking about trailer views (real youtube view vs facebook views, fanbase type and so on). But obviously, that does not matter at all (none of this is made has a way to speculate about a movie BO)

Aren't this pretty much always done like that ? It cost good money to get those millions trailer views, specially without a strong IP (or Watson/Dwayne Johnson) that does a lot of the work for you.

Would Edge of Tomorrow (or even the Departed) would get some made up think piece in 2017 ? I think it is quite different, and here it is an exceptional case spoiler watch out:

Theater are obviously fighting against it, they are always fighting for the biggest windows of exclusivity possible. But also according to some exec, movie studio should fight against it too (but they do not have necessarily much to say about it, all of them being own by giant media corporation that will do the VOD and have most of their revenue come from outside the movies usually) Remove all the prestige of the theatrical release and all that jazz surrounding every release, it will be hard to give a new release (specially mediocre one) more value to people than streaming a movie from 1983 instead or a movie from 6 month ago.

Should be, need a 3.3 box office / ow ratio and a 30/70 domestic/oversea ratio to reach 275, with a 25 million.

There is more to a movie total P&A than TV ads, but I would tend to agree that a movie like Sing seem to have use more money, at least domestic were we can see, a movie like Dory used little if I remember correctly, riding on the name and franchise strength. One possible difference for a movie like Civil war is how much it must cost to move that cast around. Even thought releasing cost is pretty much Deadline more accurate number (they are more wrong about movie budget, participation bonus and so on, those being absolutely private with often no available clue of what they are) they can still be off quite a bit on releasing. For example, Amazing spider man 2 release estimated cost by deadline Domestic: 90 Foreign: 84 Total: 174 Sony leaked releasing cost: Domestic: 84.61 Foreign: 107.18 Total: 191.79 For 22 jump street Domestic: 47.5 Foreign: 46.9 Total: 94.4 Sony leaked releasing cost: Domestic: 38.65 Foreign: 19.435 (MGM was paying for some of it, that movie was heavily co-financed almost 50/50 with MGM and Lone Star) Total: 58 They are in the really good ballpark specially domestic were they seem to do better than just using a formula with the movie budget and number of weeks in theater, but estimating world cost must be a mess and they must simply rely on some rules of thumb formula, it would be too much work to go see tv spending by markets, adjust for the individual exchange rate of that time and so on.

She could have but in the movie apparently

I was going to say that not only they cost a fortune but if you want to well craft them as well as Disney, it is often a 5 year's process, not that quick of a turn around, you have time to loose your jobs as studio runner and for your replacement too before to see any result.

deadpool vs Rogue one will be an interesting one, one big advantage for Rogue One will be participation deal wise, Kennedy probably has a fat deal, but you probably do not need much for the actors (specially that you do not needed to lock them sequels wise), while Kinberg and Reynolds must have made a fortune on Deadpool (they were probably accepting bigger but only after profit participation instead of gross dollar to help make it made.... more surprising blockbuster like gravity can sometime be the biggest paycheck). I would imagine that the product placement being so good on Star wars that the releasing cost will not be that dissimilar. Using deadline usual formula Theatrical Rental Deadpool: 363 * .5 + 420 * .4 = 349.5 million Rogue One: 531 * .5 + (523.8-69.5) * .4 + 69.5*.25 = 464.6 million (115 million more) The budget difference of 140 million is already pretty much gone just with the rental, should be close.

Not sure that movie has much to do with Hollywood, has for zero story it is an adaptation of a comic book with what I understand a rich story and world building to take from, from what I understand it is an European movie (not just director, but producers/comic book story/financing/crew/etc..).

It did look like a movie marketing was not sure how to sell at all, Lucy you could sell it with a simple sentence or 2, very simple well known and proven high concept, this seem to have been much harder.

According to Johansson around 130 million

It does sound way too low (at least looking at the leak of the 2007 Potter movie, it did look like they were getting 30% in participation bonus, from the gross after an off the top 30% distribution expense). Heyman is the producer from the beginning, powerful enough to make a movie like Gravity happen, I would imagine he is getting 2% of revenue pool minimum has a bonus, around 10m very minimum, Rowling is getting producer points, screenwriting point, story rights point and Yates had a ridiculously high box office average on that series he must be getting a 7% type of participation profit deal. To give an idea how reasonably low 30 million would be on that over 850 million at the box office franchise movie with those people, it is less than the 41.5 million in participation bonus that was paid on Superbad, 100 million less than the 130.7 million paid on Da Vinci Code, 125 million less than the bonus paid on Spider-Men 3.