AnotherDayAnotherDollar
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by AnotherDayAnotherDollar
-
-
On 9/15/2021 at 10:33 AM, poweranimals said:
I mean to be fair, where else can they put it at this point? 2022 is packed.
Straight to streaming?
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Pinacolada said:
Yeah I'm thinking somewhere in the 40% range for critics on RT, judging by the early reactions. Besides that one reaction, the rest do say it's an improvement
Let's hope so, but that's not really a high bar lol
-
11 minutes ago, AJG said:
It's hard to take opinions like this seriously because of "I think could be a major player in the Oscars next year". Or the guy saying Venom 2 is great and then goes on to say "Sony did it again!".
-
1 hour ago, AJG said:
One “ok - not great” from Resetera. His buddy felt the first was better…
Mid Credit scene spoiler too. In a spoiler warning. At the bottom of the page
This is the spoiler thread there if anyone wants to read it. Apparently the OP thinks this one is weaker than the first. I mean if that's the case then wow.
-
So Hardy and Harrelson are carrying the movie. Expected. Hardy carried the first.
-
3
-
-
36 minutes ago, Barnack said:
And those are non adjusted for inflation figure.
In grossly adjusted (using release date) for 2014 dollars it look like this:
Amazing Spider man 2: 14.5 millions on 603 millions in revenues on 708 millions WW box office
Amazing Spider man 1: 72.1 millions on 725.9 millions in revenues on 781 millions WW box office
Spider man 3........: 214.9 millions on 1,282.20 millions in revenues on 1,021 millions WW box office
Spider man 2........: 350.7 millions on 1,363.52 millions in revenues on 996 millions WW Box office
Actual revenues wise it was down to about making 44% from their biggest success Spider Man 2. Yes it explain I think the deal they made, their profit was lower than the check they got from Marvel to have made a spider man movies on the last one, it was a net negative one in reality. And their co-financier were loosing money ($5 million) on it, making the number above look better than reality.
Very interesting indeed, especially on losing money in Amazing 2. They do get up to 3.5% from the BO gross from Marvel because of the 2011 merch sale agreement, but even that wasn't enough. Goes to show you that Sony's take on Venom was likely much lower than the 247MM deadline reported.
That actually strengthens my position on Sony divesting the unit and doubling down on GN&S.
-
8 minutes ago, Barnack said:
It is not I think it is really good, that not the movie profit, that the part of the profit going into Sony pocket, deadline and other do not tend to estimate the studio part of the profit and show total profit the movie made (outside the very publicized pre-sold affair like the liongates Hunger Games where that distinction is sometime made). They tend to be either co-financed or pre-sales some markets in advance to diminish risk, help cash flow, etc... but that reduce the return that goes to them when they work and investor will like to sign option on sequels when they invest on property or have option on total slate, making so that even if a franchise became riskless you either are obligated to let them invest in the new entry or just to keep it happy if it is not contractually forced can to do it, (sometime studio like Warner when they get partner with a slate deal will exclude Harry Potter from them in advance, which is a very rare non Disney big movies fully financed)
It is not an high profit industry that much, those 25% type of return are really in the upper side type, they are what they which for when they greenlight movies.
Spider man profits look like this (from Sony point of view, including merch when they had them or the 25 millions they get from Marvel after they sold them back to them)
Amazing Spider man 2: 14.5 millions on 603 millions in revenues
Amazing Spider man 1: 69.9 millions on 704 millions in revenues
Spider man 3........: 188.2 millions on 1,123 millions in revenues
Spider man 2........: 279.8 millions on 1,088 millions in revenues
That goes from 25% to 2%
Very good point about deadline not accounting for the profit being split between the financiers. Venom, for example, was split with Tencent and probably others.
I had no idea Sony's take was sliding that bad for SM movies. Makes sense why the 2015 deal happened in the first place. Meanwhile Sony's take in SM 2018 was in the 9 figure using a 20% royalty rate and Sony's own 70% digital to physical media ratio. Same for MM, which will likely hit 10MM sold by the end of this calendar year.
Thank you for providing those numbers.
25 minutes ago, Barnack said:I must admit that at one point the past I thought both Sony and Microsoft would have one by now, directly on the console has either a plus or in their Xbox pass or Sony PS now-ps plus, with their own show.
That said they were right and concentrating on game and streaming game was the way to go with them and it did not took long for the media part of console to be almost completely and utterly irrelevant part of them has either what come with a smartv or a $25 dongle took care of it for most customer now, now if you would release a console that do nothing else than game it would not be an issue, interest for them has a Blu-ray player or device able to stream movie on your network or usb drive, Netflix, etc... is irrelevant. When it was a giant part of the PS2 and PS3 success story the dvd than bluray part of them.
Apple showing and even Netflix in some ways show that it is hard to make content, more to it than giving a lot of money to creator like it was fun to just repeat and say in the past.
Worth noting that Sony killed their live TV service (called Playstation Vue) as well. You are 100% right and I agree with your take.
-
2 minutes ago, Barnack said:
They did try to go mid budget after the success of Apocalypse but scaling down after.
From Sony point of view:
Extinction: 44.45 million profit on 197.76 millions revenues
Afterlife: 62.28 million profit on 252 millions revenues
Retribution: 10 millions profit on 198.422 millions revenues (budget was 75 millions)
Apocalypse: 57 millions profit on 201.36 millions revenues
Screen gems title can tend to pre-sales some markets and like almost always have co-financier that shares the profits, what is really nice is that the profit is usually higher that the money put on the movie in advance during production.
That's pretty low profit for successful films. I know their numbers for Venom and the SM movies were good from the deadline numbers (not sure the profit of ITTS but I assume 9 figures for it). SIE has had bigger profits from their licensed Spider-Man games than these movies though, and of course, from a lot of first parties like GoW and TLOU since no royalty there. Much better ROI.
-
4 minutes ago, Ronin46 said:
As I originally said "they have some titles with some value". Some will do well and some will not. But stating that Spiderman is the only thing they have so they should just sell there movie division is not something I agree with at all.
For example
Resident Evil is a pretty profitable franchise. The last 1 made over 300 million on a 40m budget, before that it was 240m on a 65m budget and before that 295m on a 57m budget.
Jumanji last one 800m box office on 125m budget, previous one 961m on a 90m budget.
Bad Boys 90m budget over 400m box office
Venom 116m Budget and 800m plus box office
I would imagine those 4 titles would interest some other studio if made available. I can imagine all the tie ins with Venom, Morbius, Spiderman would also have a lot of interest.
They also own a lot of other franchises that could be revived or turned into tv series.
Anyway you think they should sell because thay have nothing other than Spiderman. I disagree on that. I could talk myself into Ghostbusters, Venom, Resident Evil, Morbius, Kraven all bombing. But some will do well and some wont. The titles as a whole will still hold value as does Jumanji, Bad Boys and some of there older franchises.
Having things of value is not enough if the ROI is in the single digits. Shareholders want good profit margins for their invested capital. I think SPE should sell because it's a poor performing division. I believe the capital spent there would bring better return if spent on GN&S division. I have no other reason to want to see the division divested other than seeing my bank account grow.
I don't even think SM is the most important asset SPE has because they can't mine the product in other areas. All merch royalties goes to a direct competitor. We'll see how those Spidey spin offs do. I'm not convinced they'll do as well as you think. Some fans are hyping themselves up because Venom did 850MM. 300MM of that thanks to Tencent who took most of the 25% gross. We'll see how it goes. Fox was unable to form a coherent and good shared universe with much more recognizable characters. DC has been unable to do the same so far. The BEST thing Sony has going for it is that a lot of the GA connects them with the MCU because they see the Marvel name.
I digress on talking about franchises. I think they are poor and not sustainable long term. You think otherwise. It's fine. The best thing SPE has is the TV division, but Sony cannot launch a streaming service since they lack scale, which is another reason to divest and double down on gaming that they are dominating. Disruptive services and products like Steam Deck, Gamepass and others can change things quickly as we saw with the Wii. Sony must be ahead of the game there. No pun intended.
I'm not the only shareholder who thinks that. Multiple people have called for Sony to spin off the Pictures division. This is nothing new.
-
56 minutes ago, Ronin46 said:
Its pointless debating about return on investment and strategic plans with someone who said "Sony should sell off there movie production because all they have is Spiderman" when
1) They have a few other things of value which I listed
2) Jumanji is a mega profitable franchise
and most importantly
3) Why would they sell when there Spiderman franchise is worth so much and any tie ins they can do with that (Venom, Morbius etc)
I mean Sony is about to release Venom, Ghostbusters, Spiderman, Morbius and Resident Evil in the next few months.
Of course they did not make a lot of profit on there movies as they have been holding them. Lets wait and see how those go before we cherry pick the last financial year as to there future projections.
Not everything you listed is highly profitable. The ROI is imperative for any division and that's why shareholders have called, more than once, for Sony to spin off SPE.
Jumanji has been extremely profitable at the BO the past couple of iterations. I'd assume a third would do extremely well also (if they can retain Johnson and Hart). Not sure about long term viability of the franchise, but I'll give you that it's a big and very profitable franchise for now.
The Spidey spin offs (i.e. characters Sony owns the film rights to) have questionable to limited BO appeal. Venom sure was a surprise. China's BO made the BO bigger than I thought it would be. Tencent did an amazing job marketing there. I'm expecting a drop at the BO take for Venom 2, even accounting for covid. Sony is testing the water of the reach of its characters with Morbius. They have also talked about a Madam Web and Aunt May movie, both of which no one wants to watch. I'm dubious on how Morbius will do, especially with no Blade or Midnight Sons connection. Venom has been an uber popular character for awhile. Morbius has not. We'll see how it does. A Jan release date with Jackass coming the week after may hurt its (already limited) potential.
RE has never been big at the BO, so that's a non starter. It's a horror movie and it's profitable, but nothing to be excited about. Ghostbuster's last entry bombed badly just a few years ago. We'll have to see how this next one will do with a big Disney movie releasing the week after it. Spider-man NWH will be profit sharing with Disney at 75/25 ratio. Going to be the biggest movie though thanks to the MCU.
I have been investing in Sony's ADR when it was still listed as SNE. Don't try to turn this into a last financial year. Sony Pictures has been the redheaded step child for Sony for years and its shortcomings have been hidden by other divisions picking up the slack. Sony has gotten rid of other low performing divisions and I hope they do the same with Pictures. The best thing about SPE is its TV side, not movies.
-
3 hours ago, Ronin46 said:
Bad Boys, Jumanji, Uncharted, Ghostbusters are a few others.
Bad Boys is okay. Last one did good numbers because we hadn't seen one in over a decade. Doubt they can make that an ongoing franchise. Reminds me of Lethal Weapon or Rush Hour.
Jumanji put in the work for the last two movies. Obviously that Rock - Hart combo is lifting the product
Uncharted is unproven in the movie world. A game being a huge hit does not equal to a big movie hit. See WoW.
Ghostbusters remains to be seen. Last one bombed badly. This one seems to be a lot better, so let's see how it'll do at the BO. A week after it launches it'll have to fight with Encanto for those family $$$$.
SPE is also one of Sony's lowest ROI divisions, if not the lowest. There's a reason they wouldn't be able to launch their own streaming service. That money would be better spent doubling down on gaming where they dominate.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:
JC is getting a sequel to spread the "no lawsuit" payout to the stars, ala Cruella...
BW2 already got a lawsuit - so no incentive in a sequel...
A hypothetical Black Widow 2 would star Florence Pugh (who already said she's looking forward to her future in the MCU), not ScarJo.
At most ScarJo would cameo in flashbacks, but not necessary. Lawsuit has no bearings in the making a sequel to the movie or not. I think it should be a D+ series though regardless.
-
At the high end of that prediction it seems pretty decent for Venom 2, does it not? Dropping from the first movie, but expected in a covid world.
-
35 minutes ago, poweranimals said:
Yeah, I don't understand why people are hating on this already. Trailers have looked great.
I think it looked terrible.
Actually let me rephrase that. If you enjoyed the first movie then the trailers looked great and you'll probably enjoy this sequel. If, like me, you thought the first movie sucked then the trailers looked to be more of the same, if not worse.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Noctis said:
Why doesn't it have one? That's strange...
China doesn't care.
-
34 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:
Disney can put SC on PA after 45 days and get similar money to BW considering people who didn't go to theater will pay it but also lots of fans who watch it on theaters will pay to watch many times again at home.
If China didn't approve the movie i think SC will gross around 400-420M, so bigger than BW despite opening lower because PA won't destroy it's legs. But they still can put it on PA after 45 days and get 75-80% of what BW did and then put on VOD and BD after 90 days and gross even more.
To me this is the better way to make all the money is possible between theaters, streaming and digital and could make SC totals above BW despite costing less on budget and marketing, and being a new characters.
Eternals could go the same way. With more hype and a better environment this one can make 600M on box office and additional 100-125M on streaming / digital keeping the november date and using PA and PVOD in different dates weeks after theatrical release.
Surprised this model hasn't been talked about to be honest with you.
45 day theatrical exclusive
PA after that (14 days or whatever)
VOD after that (another 10 days or whatever)
Blu Ray and DVD (no one buys them anymore but sure)
Free on Disney+ ~ 90-120 days after theatrical debut.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Forgive my ignorance, but what is PS and MTC?
-
16 minutes ago, cax16 said:
Personally I think they should PA everything till things get better. This has nothing to do with SC numbers but it gives consumers (like me) more options and gives them another revenue stream.
People who want to go to the theatre are going anyways and people like me who want to see the movie and who may not be comfortable going to a theatre have the option to pay the PA fee and watch at home.
I’m not looking to argue with people about this, it’s just my opinion.
Disney execs are probably looking at two variables here.
1) Do you want to piss off Feige to the point where he might walk like he almost did in 2015 due to not seeing eye to eye with Perlmutter? Feige is the biggest and hottest name in Hollywood. Disney stock would take a hit if he walks away without a transition and a successor. Marvel movies would likely suffer without his guidance as well. We have to remember Feige is big on the theatrical experience, supposedly wanted Black Widow to be theatrical only, and supposedly was pissed at his bosses because of the ScarJo situation.
2) How many people will go to the high seas if they do Option A (theatrical only) vs how many people will go to the high seas if they do Option B (hybrid release)? What's the opportunity cost and the money that each option can cost them and bring them. Option B allows for 4K pristine copies to be available on the web the day of release. A lot of people, including all of China, will be watching a perfect copy of the product for free. If they can't get release dates in China then it may also affect their decisions.
Not trying to argue, but looking at it from a business standpoint those are the two outstanding points that Chapek, Bergman, and Kareem Daniel need to look at.
-
6 hours ago, Ms Lady Hawk said:
I’ll hedge my bet on this one. There are approximately 50% cinemas open now. The big markets will be open by May, since the vaccinations are going very well. However, social distancing (maybe 50% max capacity) will still be in place. So I see this opening at about 40 million. I will give it a 3 multiplier for about 120 million domestic and mostly because of China, I think this will do 500 or 600 million WW.
This is absolutely the best case scenario at this point IMO. I would have to think Disney would be extremely happy with 80MM domestic / 400MM WW, let alone 120MM domestic / 500 or 600MM WW.
-
1
-
-
This movie was more of the same, but not as funny or fresh as the previous one. Rock and KH have great on screen chemistry, no doubt.
If you liked the J2 you'll like J3.
-
3 hours ago, Jedi Jat said:
I used to wonder, why DC films are more previews loaded than MCU. I think the reason is headstart DC had in films breakout with Batman films in late 1989. The then kids were in their late 20s or early 30s in 2008, explain the preview heavy TDK as the 20-30s are the audience for Thursday nights.
MCU is there now, after 11 years inception, we are at stage that kids of 10-15 in 2008 are in mid 20s now.
Certainly.
The reason DC was seen as more popular than Marvel is because of the big budget media presence that it had since the 70s and 80s whereas Marvel was struggling to get things made to the point where they sold it for pennies on the dollar, basically begging studios to make it for them. Just like Feige said that Disney buying them was the best thing that happened to them, Warner buying DC was the best thing that happened to them.
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings | Marvel Studios | 92% RT & 99% VA Score | ONLY IN THEATERS Sep 3 2021
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Simu Liu is trending on twitter. Apparently some old reddit AMA thing popped up and he gave some controversial answers. I am still looking over what the comments were and I won't link anything here, but it's all over twitter.