Barnack

Isn't the movie with the most views that will have the biggest opening that weekend or... why are you saying that.

Killing is seen as wrong but certainly using the best tool and force to stop a dangerous person to hurt people is not, regardless if it mean that it has great chance of killing them (say a cop in function), putting at risk the fate of a large portion of a population just because you don't want to simply shoot the bad guy and stop him the best as you can possibly do it is certainly strange, when the stake are put high enough it become unrealistic. i didn't meant public perception (English is a second language, I'm probably been unclear) It sure isn't, is branding that make people killed in prison for example, what was that ? Why other criminal would see being branded by a vigilante some deathly offense....

I don't know about that, lot of people will not care much if a violent person endangering others can kill to protect them, being a violent vigilantly and a total mental case like Batman and not killing the Joker (with all the consequence and good family men that will die because of Jokers future actions) because of some moral code can be questionable in term of realism. But I would say than talking about realism for a grown men that has bat ear on is costume and Aliens looking 100% like humans that are throwing lazer's from their eyes is being a bit strange and not where the movie should be evaluated. Does the character is consistent with is made up unrealistic rules is much more what matter and if the movie decide that Batman has that moral code to create a challenge and because it is a movie made for 10 year's old in mind that they should be able to enjoy it too ?, so be it, if the movie decide that he kill people, why not ? None of the 2 option is inherently better than the other one imo and both are a bit ridicule and certainly not aiming for realism.

I think RDJ is a bit of a misleading example. The judge did 84 million at the box office (with a nice 47 million dom), for a drama called the judge with a 47% rotten tomatoes score, it is much more than if they were unknown actor, but it will be hard to do a direct comparison, drama with bad reviews with unknown actor would probably not achieved to open on 3,003 theater to start with. I think he became a draw on is own, that Kiss kiss bang bang would have made more after Iron Man than what it did before, but then again how much would it have been because it would achieved to get a wide release and because of RDJ clout would have been hard to distinguish, both phenomenom being hard to separate. Also, not being a universal draw (like Denzel, Leo that can open any type of movie in any role) does not mean your are not really a draw on your own. Will Ferrell and Dwayne Johnson will not have opened the judge at $13 million like RDJ achieved to do, he is without a doubt a really big draw on is own in a original Ferrell type comedy and Johnson is arguably the biggest draw on is own in a family action/comedy type of movie. I think that now there is a lot more information about a movie that can participate to is selling, when you were choosing a movie by looking at their poster on the newpapers or the dvd covers, the face of the person on it was a much bigger percentage of that movie information..

Kevin Hart can open a stand up show in theater, with him alone, there is a lot of name actor with box office clout in the right movie.

In some market the embargo was after the release of the movie to the main audience, it was hardly a sustainable one.

No review yet on RT, the embargo is probably still on, I'm not sure but it look like a review of a regular viewer that write reviews on a equivalent of a french IMDB.

Was Jump Street considered great ? I would imagine that Jump Street giant success would have people develop and try to sell tv show adaptation project to the studio, Warner already owned the rights I imagine the tv show having been distributed by them at the time, not a bad studio decision. Failed execution.

Some week it was the most advertised movie in the US: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/life-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202002777/ But for original movie without giant star you do not have much of a choice, you start with 0 awareness. It still ended up with a very reasonable tv spending a week before it's release http://variety.com/2017/more/news/power-rangers-again-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202012184/ Est. Lifetime TV Spend: $22.50M With the good reviews for the horror genre, the cast, low to mid 20s could have been achieved, but it is really hard to reach $20M without a clean pure genre (like R rated comedy, horror) or a proven commercial high concept or a $40M Tv ads run, that why Denzel being able to do it constantly make him arguably the biggest modern domestic draw, low 20's, that what Tom Cruise do in a franchise movie sequel now. Like said above, what make Life first weekend a bit hard is having it not really sold has an horror movie.

Jake Gyllenhaal had like 7 success in a row at the box office between Prince of Persia and Demolition 780 million world box office from an estimated 226.5 million total production budget. He had an extremelly good run at the moment he got cast on that movie. I think people involved considered it as a risky affair, that why it is a co-production to split the risk, if it is a 50/50 financing deal with Ellison, that a 29 million expense to produce the movie for Sony, a smart risk imo. Over 15 would be good for Life, but low 10's would be a bad start. I didn't saw the movie, so maybe you can see how they saved money, but 58 sound like such a good number that I wonder if it is not Sony part of the financement that is circulating around. Reynolds was officially cast the week after Deadpool first weekend after all, how cheap could he be.

Wep, my last statement do not change that, the best performing movie usually still have some way to go before being profitable after the theatrical market, usually most of the movie revenue come after and theatrical is the most costly window be far, it is just normal.

Usually go with around 53-55% domestic, 40% foreign, 25% from China. 165*0.55 + 255* 0.4 + 105 * .25 = 219 million in rental approximately, if the rumors of a 185 million budget are true if does not have a chance, world P&A must be above 120 million, probably around 130 to 160 million, overhead of around 15-18 million, Sam Jackson and other are starting to getting bonus too by now. It must be getting above a total negative cost of 325 million already, more than 100 millions still in the red. Excellent performance, will end up one of the most profitable movie of 2017, movie just don't achieve that really often.

Movies almost never achieve to make a profit from theater alone (guardian of the galaxy probably didn't achieve that for an example of how rare it is), like you are saying most of the MCU even don't do that. And it would mean a giant ROI if they do, much more than 10%. If you look at Liongates last year annual report, I would not agree that anything they do from home entertainment and television is gravy, it is fully taken into account into a movie greenlight on how much they are expecting to do on those and almost all movie greenlighted would make a huge loss without them by design, it is the main revenue source of the studio by far : https://www.lionsgate.com/uploads/assets/2016 Annual Report.pdf Within the Motion Pictures segment, revenues were generated from the following in 2016: Theatrical 18.7% Home Entertainment 34.6% Television 12.2% International 32.7% and Motion Pictures-Other 1.8%. Obviously that is a exageration of how low theatrical is for them because it inclue all Liongates library of movie, but what is fun with liongates is that they separate there annual revenue by year slate and in recent year's more than 50% of a movie revenue was from the market after a release, not theater. I'm not sure why people think studio seen theatrical revenue differently then the rest or that they care about some break even in theater line, on all the sony leak material I never seen that mentionned. They calculate a lot of scenario, what the movie would need to break even, to get a good return, etc... never seen a estimation of how much it would need to do to break even from theater.

I think I got what I have having some issue with your numbers, it is not so bad because it is 2 issue that counterbalance themselve a little bit. I think that (if I understand them correctly) 1) You seem to be underestimating total negative cost, a movie budget is usually less than half of them, the average is around 35%, but it get bigger when the budget get bigger, you can look at a couple of deadline estimate for example. http://deadline.com/2016/03/cinderella-movie-profit-2015-box-office-disney-1201724740/ Cinderella Budget: 95 million Total cost: 313 million Total cost without participation bonus: 299 million http://deadline.com/2017/03/the-conjuring-2-box-office-profit-2016-1202049196/ Conjuring 2 Budget: 40 Total negative cost: 183 million Total negative cost without participation bonus: 177 million (deadline is always underestimating participation bonus imo) http://deadline.com/2017/03/central-intelligence-box-office-profit-2016-1202046803/ Central intelligence Budget: 50 million Total negative cost: 184 million Total negative cost without participations bonus: 171 million http://deadline.com/2017/03/la-la-land-box-office-profit-2016-1202047487/ La la land Budget: 30 million Total negative cost: 143.75 million Total negative cost without participations bonus: 108 million 2) You seem to have forgot the biggest source of annual revenue for Liongates, money from home entertaintement and TV, that would explain with you need such a big box office performance to reach a 10% ROI.

I'm a bit curious about how those calculation are made, if they would achieved to sales the foreign market to around 100 million, that would make it a bit the equivalent of a free movie that you would release only on the domestic market with the presales covering 100% of the production cost. Would a free to do movie really need to reach 110 million on the domestic box office to achieve a 10% ROI ? It is a Liongates budget release after all, they are spending about the same money Sony is spending on Life (a 58 million movie) on the domestic release tv ads, not a big Warner Brother release: http://variety.com/2017/more/news/power-rangers-again-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202012184/ As for a $104M pre-sales, being the equivalent of distributing yourself a movie making 314 million at the foreign box office, what is the rules of thumbs used ? I don't think that box office amount would generate a 100 million theartical rental margin, Imagine a 55 million Intl release cost, and a generous 40% average box office share (not China heavy), 314*.4-55 = 70.6 million. And if it include international home video and TV, 100 million sound really low. It look like you are saying that a 100 million movie , need to do a 424 million WW performance to only do a 10% ROI, 424 million would be a massive hit, 4.24 is budget at the box office, probably more around 17-19+% ROI or non-Disney studios will have a really hard 2017.

Rumors is that it didn't do any loss for the studio and was not a big money looser overall, like cited in one of the article in this thread: It could still have made a good ROI, it just needed to perform better on the domestic side. Marketing cost were not has high back then and some big movies in the 90's paid their production budget completely just with the TV first run, a different era. Apparently according to the MPAA, in 1994: Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (26.46 million in 2017 dollar) http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost Today the average cost of marketing without print for a studio movie is probably around 40 million for the domestic release alone, it was of 36 million in 2007 the last time the MPAA tracked that data.

I doubt that, sure he will get a lot of money, but in term of asking for reshoot, be the director in charge of is marvel movie, have final cut and so on, I mean he did let the studio force Shane Black to change major element of is script of Iron Man 3 just because they thought they could sales more toys. Marvel and Disney in general would probably not agree to too much.

I was specially curious about the 50% of the budget into marketing rules of thumb, if you look at a deadline estimate of a 100 million budget movie, like Cinderella http://deadline.com/2016/03/cinderella-movie-profit-2015-box-office-disney-1201724740/ Net Production cost: 95 million World theatrical release cost: 130 million World home video release cost: 38.28 million total releasing cost: 168.28, or around 170% of the production cost Obviously, those are not just marketing expense, but the print part in P&A is getting smaller and smaller. 50% of the net production budget seem really low for marketing cost as a rules of thumb, specially for a movie with a budget under 200 million.

I would be interested on how/where those rules of thumb come from and if they are adjusted for Liongates (Liongates usually spend much less on marketing than major studio and like you said sales foreign gross, not having Intl marketing expense), they look like they are. From the sony leak, during the 2006-2014 year's, sony total expense for their movies were of 28 billion and were split like that: Source of expense Total % DTH MARKETING (5,866,385) $ 21% DTH PRINTS COS (871,294) $ 3% DTH WPF DUES OTHER COS (340,165) $ 1% ITH MARKETING (2,601,562) $ 9% ITH PRINTS (COS) (1,062,961) $ 4% ITH WPF, FREIGHT, OTHER (COS) (270,762) $ 1% DHE MARKETING (1,044,398) $ 4% DHE RELEASING COSTS - MFG COS (1,280,725) $ 5% IHE MARKETING (486,013) $ 2% IHE RELEASING COSTS - MFG COS (820,764) $ 3% TV MARKETING (43,802) $ 0% TV OTHER COSTS COS (68,834) $ 0% DIRECT PRODUCTION COSTS (9,256,003) $ 33% OVERHEAD (808,450) $ 3% PARTICIPATIONS (2,234,617) $ 8% RESIDUALS (1,024,544) $ 4% Total (28,081,279) $ 100% Marketing expense have been a bigger expense than production in that time frame: Total marketing expense: 5,866,385 (domestic release) + 2,601,562 (intl release) +1,044,398 (domestic home video) + 486,013 (intl home video) + 43,802 (tv release) = 10 million, versus 9.25 for production cost.

California started giving some interesting tax credit recently, and production start coming back. California Film and Television Tax Credit - For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, a new film credit against tax will be allowed. The new tax credit is allocated and certified by the California Film Commission (CFC). The credit is: • 25% of the qualified expenditures attributable to the production of either a television series that relocated to California in its first year of receiving a tax credit allocation or an independent film. • 20% of the qualified expenditures attributable to the production of a qualified motion picture in California or a television series that relocated to California that is in its second or subsequent years of receiving a tax credit allocation. Additional credits, not to exceed a total of 5% of qualified expenditures, may be allowed: • 5% of qualified expenditures relating to music scoring or music track recording attributable to the production of a qualified motion picture in California. • 5% of qualified expenditures relating to qualified visual effects attributable to the production of a qualified motion picture in California. • 5% of qualified expenditures relating to original photography outside the “Los Angeles Zone”. But they only spend like 330 million a year maximum I think.

I think some of them were quite expensive, the First captain america for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html A £130.5 pound gross budget, in 2011 that was around 205/210 million US, I'm not sure many of the first were known (we usually only know the budget of the MCU shot in the UK, some production place like Georgia, Canada, the budget tend to stay fully private)

The leaked Sony accounting show a direct net production cost of 299.763 million yes, considering that Raimi and Co. got a bit over 150 million in bonus on that movie, that end up being quite an expensive movie, over 450 million for the budget + participation bonus. It is just a 16% bump from the reported figure thought, pretty standard, even a bit on the low side probably. The 193.5 million Angels&Demon was reported at 150 million, that is 29% more. Those around 250 million budget for massive superheros movie are usually a bit of a jokes, age of ultron $250 million is quite small relative to how much they were getting in tax credit too, they had spent over 300 million US in november 2014. It is just a filling number the press use when they do not know and use them for a lot of them. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/disney-handed-record-31m-tax-credit-for-filming-avengers-in-uk-9783561.html According to the accounts, Disney has so far spent £208.1m on making Avengers 2, That article is from Wednesday 8 October 2014, they had spent 333 million US and that was 6 month before the movie release.

Other way around I think for Guardian, it was reported around $170 million but people did found the registered company registered by Marvel for the movie (Infinity Works Productions), that had a 3 month expense report and gave a $232 million budget, they confirmed to Forbes that it was the valid number and because journalist can see UK tax credit they know it ended up costing around $196 million, it is a rare movie that you can actually see all the 3 month expense and if you transfer the pound to the US value of that time you arrive at the same number Forbes did. https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015/01/27/disney-reveals-guardians-of-the-galaxy-was-over-budget-at-232-million/#572fe9d137c2 The X-men apocalypse, I not 100% sure if it is the only source, but Simon Kinberg the writer and producer said in a podcast that the budget was $200 million, he was not sure for the net budget because the tax credit auditing and all that and because we don't know Québec tax credits for individual movie I imagine $178 million is an estimate from that. But yeah not only you are not sure how much tax credit you will get, but depending of the jurisdiction you are not sure for how much you will be able to sell them if needed.

JW 2, Avatar 2-3 Some announced have some outside shoot, some Justice League, maybe a really good Fantastic Beast, Batman solo or Fast and Furious, an animated movie could do it or something we don't know about yet, like the Nolan after Dunkirk.

Depend of your starred and good definition obviously but, yes she had promenant role in some really good movies. Her voice work in Her was just great and that is one of the best Sci-fi of the 2000's Lost in Translation, Ghost World, Under The Skin, Don Jon, some Woody Allen flick, etc..