Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Justin4125

  • Rank
    Indie Sensation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is this a legitimate post or sarcasm? Literally nothing you said was true, except that Fox had some failures, but Fox's films are small change for Disney. Disney could write off Fox's studio segment for the next 10 years and be ok, literally Look at Disney's studio segment, the one that took the largest hit due to the Fox underperformers. Despite those losses, Disney's studio segment was still at least twice as profitable as those from every other major studio (WB and Universal mainly, since Sony, Paramount and Lionsgate consider themselves lucky to breakeven). As a company, Disney remains immensely profitable. The profit margins it posts on its studio segment are about twice that of its competitors, even this year with the integration of the Fox flops. Disney's studio segment isn't even its biggest business, Parks and Media Networks (the latter of which was the main reason for acquiring Fox) are far bigger. I've even seen people suggesting that Galaxy's Edge somehow crippled Disney. Just read through the SEC filings, that is simply not the case. You have to understand, for a company as large and as profitable as Disney, a 400m+ loss from the Fox acquisitions is literally nothing. Especially when the studio's profit margins are still massive despite such large losses. Now about Disney's large debts..... After acquiring Fox, Disney did take on more debt. However, it still has very low debt levels compared to its peers. Let's look at WB's parent AT&T, which has a long term debt to asset ratio of 0.31, or how about Universal/Comcast, which has a ratio of 0.37 How about Disney's long-term debt to asset ratio? 0.27 (compared to about 0.17 prior to the Fox acquisiton). So please tell me, is Disney being crushed under the weight of its debts? Prior to the Fox acquisition Disney was fairly debt-light compared to its competitors. Sure, the debt level has gone up considerably (from about 0.19 to 0.27) but it remains below the indebtedness of its competitors. Furthermore, there are many things Disney can do to reduce its current debt load should it choose to do so. Disney basically generates in profit each year as much as the entirety of the debt load they inherited from Fox. I promise you, a Disney bankruptcy is not on the horizon My goodness man, part of me thinks you're just trolling, because no one can be so uninformed in the era of the internet and when the SEC literally demands that the nitty gritty details of public companies become part of the public domain. If you want links to the SEC documents I can supply them, but it would take you all of five minutes to check for yourself.... Disney is in no danger whatsoever, and it is far far from being in the red. It remains the most profitable studio in Hollywood, and even with all of Fox's debts, the parent company remains less in debt than its competitors (I like debt to long term assets as a measure because it focuses on tangible assets as opposed to equity, but if you look at debt to equity Disney is also significantly less indebted than Comcast or AT&T)
  2. Its going toe-to-toe with Glass internationally. Glass opened to 48.5m in similar markets, dropped to 23.6m on its second weekend for an OS total only a few mil higher than where BOP is right now. Glass dropped 52.6% where BOP dropped 50%, but I think the Valentine's Friday in some markets accounts for that difference. Glass legged it to 135m internationally, I don't see why BOP can't do the same. Due to a slightly higher domestic gross, Glass ended its second weekend at 162m vs BOP's 145m (with the domestic Monday as well). Unlike Glass at the same point in time, BOP still has Japan. If that gives it a couple mil, I see BOP finishing in the 235m+ neighborhood to Glass's 247m. 250m is still possible, but I think it'll come in just under As a quick aside, despite poor reviews domestically, Glass was pretty well received internationally
  3. I think some of these predictions are getting too low (yours are the most reasonable, but in my opinion still a little low). I would say 200m is essentially guaranteed (if it fails to hit that mark please come back at me, I'm prepared to never live it down) and ~220m is pretty feasible. The pre-presidents/presidents frame is fairly leggy (most comps compare well to August releases legs-wise) and BOP benefits from a lack of competition (I genuinely don't see Sonic eating into BOP's demos, it reminds me of when Fifty Shades Darker, Lego Batman and John Wick 2 all opened against one another in the same pre-presidents weekend in 2017 and each thrived). Its very possible BOP misses 100m dom, but I would be surprised if it can't pull a standard 2.7-2.8x multi with its release date Internationally I have to turn once again to Glass, another R-rated CBM subgenre film. It opened slightly higher at 48.5m OS, but my goodness its numbers in each country are incredibly similar to those of BOP. Glass pulled a 2.8x multi internationally without the Feb holiday in Europe (though it had some winter holidays in LatAm), which will almost certainly boost BOP in that region. Like Glass, BOP isn't relying on fast-burn markets like most SH films do. WOM, and the degree to which BOP experienced an OW fan rush, are major factors, but I have little trepidation about giving BOP a 2.8x multi overall. Add in 2-3m for Japan and that gets BOP to 225m, I feel thats hardly very optimistic. Optimistic would be something like 240m+ Granted, even the most optimistic number would still be a disappointment. WB doesn't make movies to break even, especially not DC-event films. In general, there's a huge opportunity cost for the studio when one of their slated event films fails to bring in big bucks. They need all the profit they can get from movies like BOP to allow them to take bigger risks on less IP-driven films. Still, DC is a brand and ultimately the brand's long-term viability is the most important thing. The silver-lining is that the well-reviewed and generally well-liked BOP probably did more good for the DC brand than bad, box office numbers aside, and it could have been much much worse all things considered (I shudder when thinking about how low these BO numbers could have been had BOP been a bad film)
  4. I'm not ready to declare the sky is falling for BoP. I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but Glass looks like a solid comp for BoP. It opened to 89.5m WW with 48m internationally (with a similar performance in similar markets (slow burn Europe and LatAm leading). Obviously Glass opened a little higher domestically, but it opened on MLK weekend and Harley gets the holiday boost next weekend. Anyways, even with mediocre WOM, Glass legged it out to 135m internationally (2.8x multiplier) and 250M WW. BoP gets a holiday boost across Europe in the coming weeks, also faces pretty low competition, and if more women come out to see it, I think solid legs are certainly in the cards (it also doesnt rely on a lot of the fast-burn markets many other CBM movies do, I think even 3x+ legs internationally is feasible). We won't know until next week, but I think 250m+ is still very achievable. That'll at least get the movie in the black, which together with the movie's solid reviews can, I think, still be construed as a win. In retrospect, I'm not sure why I ever expected BoP (a movie that bars the audience who likes it most from entering the cinema) would gross something like Shazam, a well-liked fourquad SH film. If you accept that CBM movies have just totally screwed our BO expectations, BoP's box office has a reasonable shot at not being that bad after all (especially in hindsight with some of the factors working against it)
  5. You're right that does account for some of the lost money, but still Cap M was essentially a Cali-made film. They scheduled shots in Baton Rouge for the tail end of filming and did two weeks with about half the crew. I highly doubt this accounts for the missing 50m from its budget. In any case there's still missing money from post-production, and that still brings BOP's budget over the quoted 85m
  6. It could very well be a money loser, if only slightly. I mentioned it already on this forum, but BOP's budget is not 84.5m. It just goes to show how little trades understand movie budgets. BOP's after tax budget on the cali incentive site was 84.5m. On that same site Captain Marvel's after tax budget was 116m http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/CA-Tax-Credit-Progress-Report-2019.pdf Neither figure includes post-production costs and other overages. Clearly BOP's post was not as expensive as that for Cap M, but its like people all of a sudden think post is only expensive for CGI heavy movies. While BOP captured a lot more in the frame than did Cap M, there are so many hidden costs in post nowadays. Even a movie like BOP has a fair amount of special effects shots and requires a lot of CGI touch ups. Even if post was only 1/3 that of Cap M, BOP's budget is still at around 100m. If people use this cali incentive site for their info (as BOM and others do) then they're implicitly accepting Cap M's budget at 116m Additionally, there isn't a lot of room to save money on P&A since such a large proportion of these costs are fixed. The differences in P&A costs between a massive and mid-budget movie is often only around 50%. BOP is still an event flick, so its hard to see how the marketing would be under 100m. So with about 200m budget + P&A (and that's relatively conservative for P&A, Deadline pegged Shazam's P&A at 120m and WB likely allotted the same amount of money to both films) I think BOP will need at least between 250m - 275m WW to break even, and thats with solid ancilliaries (assuming people who skipped out on BOP in theaters will catch it as a rental/streamer)
  7. Sounds right. Shazam actually fell from 15.7 Wed+Thur to 14.5 OS-CH on Friday. BOP went from 7.8 to 10.3. It seems due to the R-rating and female-skewing nature it got a Friday bump. However, I would assume that Shazam had more pronounced jumps on Sat-Sun, so its a bit hard to tell where BOP will end up, could be as high as a 50m OS opening. In any case, especially since it seems BOP is less reliant on fast-burn EM markets, I think its more or less a lock to cross 200m WW. Thats not much of a consolation prize, especially since the budget is at least 100m To clarify that last statement, it seems everyone is using the cali tax credit webpage to figure BOP's budget. On that site, BOP has a budget of 84.5m after its tax break. However, that is NOT the budget number. On that same page, Captain Marvel's budget is listed at 118m net. The figures do not take into account post-production. While yes, Captain Marvel had higher post-production costs, BOP DID NOT have 0 post-production costs. Most likely post was about 1/3 of that of Cap M, which still gets BOP to 100m budget (Deadline cited 84.5m but noted many industry sources said BOP's budget was much higher, that's because it was). Still, if BOP can get to 250m, I think itll minimize losses
  8. Wrong thread for that, but its not a surprise at all given SW's downward trajectory in SK and the hard time HW movies have had in SK recently (aside from Frozen 2). Jum3 came down 40% from Jum1 and it only pulled a 1.5x multi (Jum2 did a respectable 2.5x). TLJ only did 1.6x, TROS will probably pull 1.4x and a 40% comedown from TLJ. Not such a surprise. I don't think Disney was looking to SK to save TROS..... Totally unrelated, but I'm getting tired of Deadline and Forbes making these simple math errors will take in around $17M in Weekend 4 for the No 2. spot, -51%. Its running total will be $477.9M by Sunday. I mean seriously how hard is it to add 17 + 463. Anyone read Mendelson or Travis Bean's recent articles about 4th weekends as a percent of OW? Neither seems capable of simple division. It amazes me how writers for Deadline and Forbes (pubs that are still better than most others for BO news) can make such errors when it comes to basic math, weekend multis and predictions. I know its discussed often, but most people on this forum do this as a hobby and are leagues better. At least Deadline still provides some value given their laundry list of industry insiders Anyways based on weekend multiples (from Thursday) of TROS and Jumanji respectively, a comparable TLJ weekend gets TROS to 15.5-16m and a Jum2 comp gets Jum3 to 14-15.5m. It'll definitely be much closer than 17m and 13m (as Deadline predicts), and SW will likely fall below Jum3 next weekend (though admittedly I thought it would already happen this weekend)
  9. I just hope the movie doesn't outright bomb and that at the very least it can provide some proof of concept. I want studios to get back on board with non-franchise sci-fi horror, the sub-genre has taken a beating the last few years. I doubt Disney will make movies like this again, but if the movie does any business at all it'll send a signal to other studios. Disney is clearly treating the movie like a sunk cost and "dumped" it, it doesn't seem they put anything into marketing it. Kind of a shame, the reviews are far from terrible and it seems it surpassed expectations (albeit low expectations) of many critics. For me the bar for success is low. The movie will clearly be a loss for Disney, but if it can do better than the dismal BO expectations I think that will still be relatively positive for the sub-genre
  10. How does the way TROS was marketed make its "failure" more severe? We no longer live in an age where trailers are the primary source of information for upcoming movies. Clearly, Disney lost control of the narrative after the one-two punch of a divided fanbase/GA leading up to the film and then the negative reviews following its premiere. Despite Disney's efforts to market the film as the "Endgame/ROTK" of Star Wars, it clearly wasn't received that way by audiences (or anticipated as such). It made perfect sense to market it that way, after all it is the conclusion to the "Skywalker saga" whether we like it or not, but since many fans/GA decided to pass on this iteration of SW before/after TLJ and Solo, it really didn't matter how Disney wished for it to be received. It wasn't received as the Endgame/ROTK of Star Wars, so the film's success does not reflect that kind of potential for the brand. Again, why are so many people in this forum trying so so hard to make this relative failure seem as harsh as possible? Its literally everywhere. The film faced two poorly received predecessors which divided GA and the fanbase as well as negative reviews, nothing Disney could have done would make this "Endgame/ROTK" of Star Wars and we're seeing that in the box office numbers. Disney will still profit, get a small boost in consumer product sales compared to if they hadn't released a film at all, but they will still receive the message loud and clear that they need to tread carefully and take the property in a new direction. Thankfully Mandalorian is doing rather well, which should give them a sense about how to approach future SW projects (that is, focus on totally different characters and shake up the format)
  11. I think it should be able to pull at least 2.5x in existing markets (especially since majors like Japan and Germany are leggy to relatively leggy). If it can do that plus another 10m from PH and SK based on a slight decline from Rogue One numbers, that brings us to an additional 86m or 554m. If it is able to earn another 20m-25m from Japan, I don't see how it finishes with just a 2.3x from existing markets, especially since the fast burn markets are already tapped out EDIT: After looking at Smaug's run again I've changed my mind, I think 540m is a safer bet....
  12. Scott has his shortcomings when it comes to predicting box office, but he's clearly not a paid internet writer. He gave TROS and AEG negative reviews, and he has underestimated every MCU movie since Civil War, basically the opposite of what he's doing with TROS. To celebrate AEG taking the WW crown, something he repeatedly deemed impossible and then entirely underplayed when the benchmark was reached, he wrote an article talking about how Shazam was the best SH movie of 2019 Now you could argue SW needs the help more than the MCU does, so Disney pays Scott (an independent op-ed contributor with 30k- 100k readers) to write positive things about SW but not other Disney titles. But why the hell would a studio pay someone like Scott to write positive things about box office projections mid-run? Pray tell, how does this make TROS more lucrative? Or do they do it just to piss off box office nerds like us? If anything, its the latter not the former Anyways, I agree TROS will have another sharp drop after losing screens next weekend, but I see little chance of it missing 500m. It can take solace in that at least, and Disney gets the obscene record of releasing 3 movies making 500m+ domestic two years in a row. That makes 8 500m+ titles in 3 years. Only one non-Disney title made 500m+ in the past decade, and only 4 non-Disney titles have ever reached that mark. Whatever studio steps up in the next decade (WB seems a contender) its hard to foresee that record coming down
  13. Dude you have to be kidding me. SW merch exploded in 2015 and into 2016. Just look at Disney's consumer products division. Most industry pundits cited SW as contributing to the global boon in merch/licensing revenue in 2016 (which was up almost 5% y-o-y following TFA) https://www.statista.com/statistics/294132/consumer-product-revenue-of-the-walt-disney-company-by-segment/ Sure, some of the new character toys did not sell as well as OG characters, but is this not to be expected? The new characters would need to build momentum, the same thing happened in the prequel series where the top movie tie-in merch sales came from ROTS, not TPM. Had TLJ been received differently, momentum would have continued. TFA was just a single film that provided a proof of concept, it required that subsequent films would make audiences more attached to central characters, not less I was working in equity research at a mid-market investment bank at the time and one of my college friends worked at Allen & Co, a renowned bank focused on media and entertainment. We discussed Disney all the time (it was (and still is) the talk of the street) and the massive upswing in multimedia sales from Star Wars was a key driver in Disney's value proposition (and its ability to lead not only studio entertainment and home vid sales, but consumer products as well (it dominates movie tie-in business like it does theatrical, but that's old news for Disney as it was doing so even before it became the theatrical powerhouse it is today). A lot of people who are citing declining merch forget that its declining from the sky high levels post-TFA. The "seeds of destruction" are only visible in hindsight. Its easy to look back and trace how things audiences didn't like in TLJ could be found in TFA. Of course they can! But from TFA alone there was absolutely no reason to forecast such a significant decline in SW merch sales and hype, except if you wisely noted that TFA was perhaps a lightning in a bottle break-out and that it would be difficult for any subsequent film to match that level of success (first movies in SW trilogies have always benefited from general audience curiousity, which naturally dissipates over time). Yes, the divisive reactions to TLJ, Solo and TROS have knocked down theatrical/home vid/merch/parks sales from SW, more so than one would expect from a decline in GA curiosity, but again, such a blow to the franchise was simply not a base case from the perspective of 2015/2016. Also a 61% second weekend drop in China is FAR from disastrous. TFA pulled a 2.4x multiple in China, what about that forecasted doom in your eyes? We've had massive franchise films pull 2.0x multiples without at all damaging their respective franchise's drawing power in China (Ultron did even less than 2x that same year). Again, hindsight bias is very tricky. Every time I backtest an investment strategy look-ahead bias is one of the primary things I'm trying to eliminate. You could look at the prequels and argue that the elements audiences reacted poorly to were also present in the OG trilogy. Subtle narrative choices, as well as those in characterization and tone, can have massive ramifications on how an audience receives a film. TLJ, for all its problems, was still a sequel to TFA. You can erasily trace many similaries, even aspects that audiences disliked in TLJ, to TFA, and yet, had TLJ made some slightly different choices, we might not be having this discussion at all
  14. Forgot about Titanic you're right. Official EMEA numbers are 560m for TLK and 535.5m for AEG. Endgame just barely edges out Skyfall for the #5 all-time in EMEA. I assume it goes Avatar Titanic TFA TLK (560m) AEG (535.5m) Skyfall (520m) Skyfall did amazing business in Europe, and although the pound and euro have fallen ~14% and ~20% respectively since its release, inflation makes up for the currency depreciation when comparing it to AEG (I know ATP inflation has been rather high in parts of Europe, in the US ATP has only increased ~10% since 2012 when looking at BOM's numbers). Its so difficult to foresee anything topping Avatar/Titanic. As a region, EMEA has lagged significantly behind Asia (in dollar terms LatAm has hardly grown as well), and EMEA movie going is essentially flat/slightly down compared to 10 years ago, with increases in emerging europe, central asia and Africa helping to offset losses across the majors. I genuinely believe Avatar will have the crown indefinitely
  15. A few things. First, I mentioned those movies to point out that, in general, horror films do not have great legs, especially when there is a rush factor to consider. Legs aren't so simple as good WOM = long legs, especially when it comes to hyped films with large openings. Us was like a hyped up horror sequel, and granted that rush factor, its legs were just fine. You can't compare a movie like Us to a movie like Get Out, the legs of which can be largely attributed to people "discovering the film". Given the profile of Us, many more of its potential audience came out on opening weekend, unlike with Get Out. You have to consider the monster opening that it had, not just look at the multiplier. You can't compare a movie with a 70m OW to a smaller prestige horror flicks with a low openings and long legs. As a side note, Us had a pretty mild 2nd weekend drop, its just when competition starting heating up even more that its legs started to waver I cited movies like It2 and Annabelle 3 to illustrate that 2019 was a pretty good year for horror. You're right, only Us was a true break out, but a number of pics did fine business. Disappointments relative to expectations aside, It2 and Annabelle3 were still solid, and the other pics I mentioned, though they didn't do the 250m+ WW of the three films you selected, generally out performed expectations (excluding PS). The Nun did a lot of business, sure, but it came from a highly successful franchise. A number of non-franchise, under the radar films ended up with strong, profitable runs. 2019 was certainly not a wash
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.