Litio
-
Posts
805 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Litio
-
-
2 hours ago, Barnack said:
I am not sure now, but during the peak of the DVD era, what was described (not making your theatrical release spending money back from the rental) happened to quite successful movies, most mid budget movie were greenlight with that in mind (theatrical releasing cost being above rental).
Theatrical being huge ads for the future window where the money were, I am sure it changed a lot with that money drying out fast.
They do split theatrical marketing with post theatrical marketing, but in reality it is not clean at all everything spent for the first window cascade helping the next one.
The Social Network, perfect success story all around, good money, not sure if it made its $110m releasing cost money back from theatrical rental, it was still around $10 million in the red (studio have a bit of love-hate relationship with Fincher with is marketing campaign demand/style), it made $172 in studio revenues after leaving theatre way more than during.Thank you for your analysis! You are completely right and apparently theatrical release is still huge ads for the future window. Universal is doing "good" with the short window.
Universal Says On-Demand Film Strategy Has Increased Audience
The article says these are the VOD sales generated by Universal (article is dated June 7):
M3gan - $25M+
Sing 2 - $50m+
The Croods 2 -$50m+
Jurassic World 3 - $50m+
Super Mario Bros - $75m+
In streaming, cinema seems to help too. According to Samba TV, The Batman, released on HBO Max 45 days after its theatrical release, had more streams on HBO Max in the first week than other DC films with hybrid release. (Only smart TVs taken into account).
'Creed 3' remains the most watched movie on Prime Video in the US since of June 9.
'Air' remains in the top 5 on Prime Video US. The film was released on the streaming platform on May 17.
I think this explains why many films that flopped in theaters are successful on streaming. If the film was highly marketed for theatrical release, its awareness level is high. Even though people didn't go to the cinema to see it, they have heard about the film, so the chance of watching it later in a "more comfortable option" is higher I guess.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, eddyxx said:
I don't think they would've spent money on that super bowl ad for a hbo max movie.
I partially agree, but with a theatrical release, the film's awareness level will already be high and Warner won't need to spend a lot on marketing when the film goes to HBO Max and The Flash will recoup the marketing theatrical release's spent, if not after it receives all the revenue generated at the box office, then after receiving the revenue from the ancillary markets.
-
30 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:
I'd argue that The Batman benefitted from not getting marketed in the same way The Flash did.
I agree. My point is that I don't think the loss The Flash will bring to Warner would be any less by releasing the movie on HBO Max. One could argue that the film would bring more subscribers to HBO Max, but The Batman, released on HBO Max 45 days after its theatrical release, had more views on HBO Max in the first week than other DC films with hybrid release, according to Samba TV.
-
2 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:
Oh I don't know, perhaps not spending on the giant marketing campaign insisting this was "the greatest superhero movie since the Dark Knight" might've been a good idea.
Yes, but Warner wasn't wrong to release The Flash in theaters. The mistake was overmarket the film. Even 'The Batman', which is a much better movie, wasn't as aggressively marketed as 'The Flash'.
-
12 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:
Great job there Zassy boy but Batgirl would devalue the DC brand right?
How would Warner lose less money releasing The Flash on HBO Max? Do people think HBO Max has no marketing costs?
-
8 minutes ago, The Horror of Lucas Films said:
They definitely doesn't deserve TCU, considering they keep investing money in these money losers movies from DC instead of investing in the biggest franchise they have.
The funny thing is that 'The Nun 2' had/has the potential to do more worldwide than The Flash, but Warner prefers to invest in the marketing of 'Blue Beetle' while 'The Nun 2' doesn't even have a teaser released. They must have some weird fetiche in losing money, thats the only explanation
-
According to Deadline: The Conjuring ($161.7M in profit), The Nun ($155M in profit), Annabelle: Creation ($108.7M profit), The Conjuring 2 ($98.3M profit), Annabelle Comes Home ($64M profit) and The Curse Of La Llorona ($45.6M profit).
Since Warner prefers to invest in DC, they should sell The Conjuring franchise to Paramount for something like $1 billion. I'm sure the franchise would be greatly appreciated by them and Warner would recover all the money lost with DC in recent years.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pinacolada said:
The confirmed budget is $45m....
That's a massive facepalm for me. That's WAY too fucking expensive.
Bad Teacher and Sex Tape cost $20m-$25m
This should cost $30m max. Unbelievable
Bad Teacher's budget was just under $20M, but Sony paid $53M in participations (prob a back-end deal).
Sex Tape had a $45.7m budget, but participations cost less than $3m. Sony spent just under $70m on global marketing and theatrical release costs, the movie made only $126m at the box office and Sony still managed to make $1m in profit after the ancillary market revenue.
NHF costing $45m looks believable-
1
-
1
-
-
-
2 hours ago, dudalb said:
The Warners and Disney studios wish that was true.
If The Flash makes $140M DOM and $200M OS:
Global theatrical revenue: $150m
Global home sales: $50m
Global TV: $70m
Total earnings: $270 m
Budget: $220m
Marketing: $160m (?)
Total costs: $380m (?)
Profit (Loss) = $270 m-$380 m= ($110 m)
It would have been better if this movie hadn't even been made, but since it was, the decision to release it in theaters was better than releasing it straight to HBO Max. Instead of losing $220 million (assuming Warner wouldn't spend a penny to market it with an HBO Max release), Warner will "only" lose $110 m. The biggest problem was that they spent so much on marketing.
Warner should be happy. They shouldn't have created so much hype for a mediocre movie like The Flash.
I don't know what to predict in total for Elemental, since it has yet to debut in several international countries, but from what I've seen that Disney spent on domestic TV Spots, I don't think the marketing costs were as high as some think here.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:
Not sure if you are joking, but lol. I hate Netflix, I don’t like their model and it’s got even worse this year. With that said I’ve been a subscriber for the last 10+ years, with this month being the first time that I’m unsubscribing. Extraction 2 is a fucking success and arguably the most talked about piece of media I’ve seen this weekend not called Black Mirror. Extraction 2 is an obvious success and despite imagining it’s just a mindless action flick, I’m intriguing to see it before my subscription expires. There is a reason why a sequel to this is already in the works.
A movie can leak online and be very successful with the torrent, but what about money?! After what Netflix did last month, I think we have a free pass to call their productions 'failures'. I mean, if Netflix's release model is so good, why do they keep making desperate decisions to squeeze more money out of customers?!
Ps: I hope you enjoy the movie
8 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:Those goons at Parrot Analytics think that films like DLU and Red Notice made 95M in value to Netflix. If you buy that, Extraction presumably makes budget back so marketing is the real loss (and I doubt it's 100M+)
If these numbers are true, then Netflix has lost a lot of money with RN. Red Notice cost $200m to produce and we don't know how much they spent on marketing.
I don't doubt that E2's marketing is something like $100m. Netflix spent $2.5B on marketing in 2022 and Extraction 2 being a Netflix original movie, it's expected to receive a big investment from them.
8 minutes ago, Willowra said:By your logic, every big Netflix series causes Netflix to lose $200–300M lol
Well, their Tv series don't bring any direct income indeed and since last month they started banning password sharing, I think they are not happy (of losing money?)
-
Even if 'Elemental' and 'The Flash' are not profitable, they will be able to pay the release + marketing costs and cover partially the production costs. That's more than Netflix can dream of.
Let's be honest, this is truly the BIGGEST BOMB of the weekend:Spoiler
Budget: $65m
Marketing: $50m+ (Although I don't doubt it's $100m+)Box Office: $0
Other revenue: $0
Total LOSS: $115m+ -
-
Studios should stop giving so much importance to the USA. Based on Sony reports, it is common for marketing costs in the US to be about the same as in the entire international market. And it is common for the US to make half of the international box office, but home video sales are much higher in the US than internationally. Release the film in theaters overseas and on a limited circuit (and little marketing) in the USA. After 2 months launch on home video in the USA.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Seems like a solid enough result considering the $30 cost per stream.
Not sure if this "solid result" is enough for a movie that cost $300m+ (with marketing). Let's see.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, charlie Jatinder said:
I guess that someone here would be me. Interstellar had 4 days weekend of $13.5mn with 4.75k shows a day.
TENET with 9k shows a day for 5 days doing around same wasn't all that crazy with around 10-15% inflation.
You need to analyze the current circumstances. The screens are in limited capacity and perhaps people are buying more in pre-sales to avoid crowding and sold outs, since the screens are in limited capacity. Things to consider.
-
37 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:
Yes and we aren't really comparing with those films now. Its just that "see Dunkirk did only 22mn" is not really a good case to be made.
e.g. Endgame opened to 200mn in US, that would have been great number in isolation, but anyone trying to justify saying Captain Marvel did only 153mn, so 200 for Endgame is great won't be a good justification.
Yeah Warner didn't expect that, neither any of us. That's why before latest COVID insurgence expectations were $40mn, not $90mn.
South Korea can have legs, but WOM is not that great as yet. Yeah it can rebound from external factor like COVID and typhoon, but that's always case of Will it? than When?.
If I'm not mistaken, someone here was predicting a larger opening than Interstellar based on pre-sales, even with the pandemic going on. It seems absurd to imagine that Tenet would open with more than Insterstellar in the current situation. Pre-sales during the pandemic will not behave as they used to. Things to consider. If expectations were not so high (unduly), that number that Tenet is doing would not be a surprise. Legs in the last few weeks were good, but we will have to wait and see.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:
Dunkirk was a WW2 movie though. Interstellar, Inception, and this would translate way better to Asian audiences than a film like Dunkirk would. And it was looking at a much bigger opening before the resurgence.
Comparisons to these films are useless. Warner didn't release Tenet in the current situation expecting it to do the same as films like Interestellar and Inception. Isn't that exactly why Warner demanded a higher percentage at the box office?
We also don't know how the legs will behave. Weren't theaters in SK supposed to be closed this week?-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:
I won't be looking at Dunkirk for TENET TBH. The better comp would be Inception & Interstellar, both of which are potential $90-100mn grosser today.
Korea was supposed to be huge for this one.
There was no guarantee that Tenet would replicate the success of Interestellar or Inception. If Nolan's name was enough, Dunkirk would have made well over $ 22m... And making $ 70m + in South Korea is not as simple as it sounds.
-
4 hours ago, Arendelle Legion said:
Looking at some summer culture day 100k+ openers from 2019-2015, 50%+ Thursday drop would be quite unprecedented for a movie with good reception. Clearly related to the external factors imbruglia brought up. But to the extent those affect Th, will probably also affect FSS.
Based on this either culture day Openers, MI:6, MI:5, and Dunkirk I think I’ll expect a 5-7x Th:FSS, adding 330-500 for a ~500-650k 5-day, $3.5-$5M 5-day (without previews).
$ 4m by Sunday? Look great. Dunkirk made $ 22m lifetime under normal circumstances. Tenet making $ 4m 5-day + previews even with the government considering closing cinemas on SK this weekend is nothing but great!
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Jamiem said:
Wrong.
This is from the New Zealand page so some details might be different:
“From 4th September, with Premier Access, you can watch Mulan before it's available to all Disney+ subscribers. Disney+ will offer Premier Access to Mulan for $39.99 (and total minimum cost of $49.98 with a monthly subscription) on disneyplus.com and select platforms, including Apple and Google. Once you have Premier Access to Mulan, you can watch as many times as you want on any platform where Disney+ is available and on compatible devices. Your access to Mulan will continue as long as you are an active Disney+ subscriber”
source: www.disneyplus.com/Mulaninfo
23 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:They still need to subscribe to D+ first to watch Mulan though and they can literally only watch it on D+. It's like DLC for games. I can buy DLC for a game from Steam but I need the game to play the DLC.
22 minutes ago, Eric the Unhinged said:...yes you do. If you don't have a Disney+ account, you can't get Mulan. You can't not have a Disney+ account and go to iTunes and buy Mulan there. This just makes it so the transaction doesn't have to come from inside Disney+, which in some cases make things easier for the consumer.
You are correct. The website I read said something different:
https://www.digitalspy.com/a33670805/mulan-disney-plus-streaming-release-apple-roku/
They don't seem too concerned if Mulan is going to be a failure...
-
18 minutes ago, Eric the Unhinged said:
And it's still a D+ exclusive. You can't watch Mulan unless you already have an account, but the partnering with Roku and Google and whatever is so people can purchase it without going onto the Disney+ website.
Available platforms: D+, Roku, Google, Apple... People don't need D+ to buy Mulan. So... this isn't a D+ exclusive. Not anymore
-
3 hours ago, Arendelle Legion said:
I see the irrationally anti-VOD squad is for some reason suggesting that Mulan being available on more channels in a bad thing for it financially 🧐
Makes absolutely zero sense, but what else can you expect I guess 😂
???? The movie was announced as a D+ exclusive, it shows that Disney know that Mulan will barely generate any profit. Even if it does something like $150m on OW, piracy will destroy any legs it could have just like it happened with Trolls 2.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RockyMountain said:
You can now purchase Mulan not only on Disney plus but also Apple, Google, and Roku. Article says it is available now for a 100m subscribers.
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a33670805/mulan-disney-plus-streaming-release-apple-roku/
Lmfao. They know that this will not generate any profit. Next step is to put it on porn sites to make money from ADS.
-
1
-
Steve Rogers Birthday Bash Weekend Thread | 5-Day #s: Indy 83.4, Elemental 18, Spidey 17.65, Sound of Freedom 14.2, No Hard Feelings 11.3
in Numbers and Data
Posted
The Flash is really fast. It debuted a few days ago and it's about to leave the top 10. I love the concept.
By the way, that friday number is lower than what Evil Dead Rise did on its third non-summer friday ($1.68m).