HenryMeyers20
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by HenryMeyers20
-
-
On 8/9/2017 at 4:47 PM, Mike Branson said:
As soon as the first ticket is purchased it makes profit. But it still has to meet certain thresholds for the backend deals.
Soderburgh is hoping for a $15 mil ow.
Soderbergh was never quoted on that $15 million figure.
But Mr. Soderbergh, your film is in 3000 theaters and it open at less than $10 million.
This is what happen when you gear your promotion to low populated areas.
Its ashamed, that you hide this excellent movie from most of the public just to prove a point.
-
Logan Lucky has a very unorthodox marketing campaign.
In a Los Angeles Times article dated Aug. 17, 2017, the marketing strategy was not to have a giant opening and the article suggested that most of the campaign hasn't kicked in yet.
The promotion of this film is atypical.
Executives hope “Lucky Logan” will pick up steam as the advertising campaign picks up. The film also has a chance to draw moviegoers in the days following opening weekend because of strong reviews and a dearth of competition from other movies during a slow August at the multiplex.
“We're looking at it based on our first 10 days,” Fellman said. “We have a movie people enjoy, and we didn't spend at a level to create some giant opening.”
Dan Fellman is an Executive Producer of Logan Lucky
-
55 minutes ago, Spaghetti of 1000 Planets said:
I wouldn't be surprised if next weekend appeared on this list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/lowest1.htm
A lot of excellent quality movies on this list
-
2 hours ago, Maxmoser3 said:
A high teens to low $20 million start isn't bad. Considering a modest budget, late-summer legs, and Ryan Reynolds outside of Deadpool is poison. Also a buddy comedy is tough to be sucessful as most outside of franchises, will smith, jump street, and comedians with known stars are very tough. So a $50-$60 million stateside total with late-summer legs will be very solid for a film of its kind and profitable for Lionsgate/Summit.
Logan Lucky flopping, the film looked generic on tv spots. Steven Sorderbergh is a hit-and-miss director as well. But when it hits home video at the end of the year, maybe it gets an audience.
Yeah, but HB has a major studio behind it and spent 4 times more on promotion.
LL is a experimental self distribution with no big money behind it.
-
3 hours ago, Nova said:
From The NY Times article:
Mr. Soderbergh noted that the box office bar for success is lower under this setup. With nearly everything prepaid, and no hefty distributor fees coming off the top, even a modest $15 million opening would be a win.
When reading an article, its important to recognise what's a quote and what's not a quote.
This is not a Soderbergh quote, the writer used an arbitrary figure ($15 million) to make the point about the low bar.
Soderbergh has never been quoted saying it needs $15m OW. A quote must be in quotation marks. If there is no quotation marks, then it's not a quote. This is writing 101.
A writer is not going to put his neck on the line by putting in quotation marks something another person never said.
-
46 minutes ago, Nova said:
Just because you have the rights to your film sold off doesn't mean the financial burden goes away.
According to the director, Logan Lucky needed to make $15M OW in order for it to be a success. It doesn't look like it's going to hit those numbers.
He may have nothing to lose but the people he sold the rights to do and they may not do business again because they've lost money.
Lionsgate is actually notorious for signing away rights. When the film ends up flopping they may not see the financial burden but the people they sold the movie to will....when a movie doesn't do well at the box office, someone is losing money. It doesn't just become a financial success because the studio no longer had the burden on them.
Soderbergh was never quoted saying it needed to make $15M OW. In The NY Times interview the writer used that figure as an example to illustrate that LL only needed to make a modest OW to win. No one from the movie ever give a OW number.
-
Soderbergh sold the foreign distribution rights, instead of the usual distribution deal and sold exclusive first rights to Amazon.
Because of this Logan Lucky is really not a bomb. It is like making and distributing a movie for almost nothing.
I love the Hitman's Bodyguard is doing great, because I'm a "critic hater".
But let's keep this into prospective, it may seems odd, but LL is actually in better financial shape HB.
HB marketing is 4 times more expenses than LL
-
Thursday box office
HB 1.7m
LL 525K
-
Both HB and LL are performing as they should based on how each movie has been promoted.
HB doing well with pre online sells in major metropolitan areas.
LL doing well with walk up sells in rural areas.
-
1
-
-
Don't be fooled by Logan Lucky's weak pre-sale numbers. It's marketing is focused on rural areas where online ticket tracking misses. Plus people in these areas buy tickets at the theater, because they don't like to buy tickets online. Looking at fandango pulse all the ticket buying are mostly all are in the bigger cities.
-
1
-
THE HITMAN'S BODYGUARD | 08.18.17 | trailer 1 on page 1
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Just got from seeing HB, good movie and funny. Screw Rotten Tomatoes.