Ghost in the Shell | March 31, 2017 | Scarlett Johansson | Paramount | New Trailer on page 43!!!

[Barnack]

20 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

I fail to see why funding this movie is a success when you could make 10 Blumhouse things with the money from it. Funding nonprofitable movies is not a "win" for the studio regardless of the fact that the stars can generate slightly more funding if cast. All that Chinese money dumped into losing Hollywood productions won't last forever, movies like Ghost will burn them.

 

Who is talking about a success ? The conversation was surrounding was having a star attach was worth it from the studio point of view. Being worth it was did the studio end up with more money (it can be by loosing less or making a small profit because of the star) not a win.

 

I disagree about slightly more funding, take the over 100 million dollar movie Denzel Washington business, it would not make sense without the funding benifit. On a Denzel flop:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=takingofpelham09.htm

150 million on a movie with a net 115.4 million budget, the studio lost only 16 million, third party investor that invested 48.58 million on that movie did lose 31.4 million, twice as much as the studio, from a Sony point of view Denzel presence at 20 million was a blessing.

 

And we are talking about Paramount having 70+% of Ghost funded in the example, 50% or more for Passenger (giant risky movie), not sure why you are saying slightly more, it is massive 100+ million dollar of co-financier money and risk sharing we are talking about (and all of those at the advantage of the studio usually, with the studio breaking even and starting making money on the movie before the co-financiers will).

 

You can make 10 blumhouse things it is true, but can only wide release 2 or 3 for the same cost, marketing cost on those giant vs small movie is not necessarily that different.

 

A deliver Us from Evil screen gems type of title has still a total cost of around 100 million, Exorcise of Emily Roses total cost of 130 million, has the production budget goes up bigger it is in proportion of the total cost and smaller the box office / production budget the movie need to be a success.

 

The big advantage of those Blumhouse type of title, they only spend money on those who play well in test audience and can make good trailer (that test well), while on big movies they rarely have the courage to cut their looses and always release them.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Barnack

[Dementeleus]

41 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Who is talking about a success ? The conversation was surrounding was having a star attach was worth it from the studio point of view. Being worth it was did the studio end up with more money (it can be by loosing less or making a small profit because of the star) not a win.

 

I disagree about slightly more funding, take the over 100 million dollar movie Denzel Washington business, it would not make sense without the funding benifit. On a Denzel flop:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=takingofpelham09.htm

150 million on a movie with a net 115.4 million budget, the studio lost only 16 million, third party investor that invested 48.58 million on that movie did lose 31.4 million, twice as much as the studio, from a Sony point of view Denzel presence at 20 million was a blessing.

 

And we are talking about Paramount having 70+% of Ghost funded in the example, 50% or more for Passenger (giant risky movie), not sure why you are saying slightly more, it is massive 100+ million dollar of co-financier money and risk sharing we are talking about (and all of those at the advantage of the studio usually, with the studio breaking even and starting making money on the movie before the co-financiers will).

 

You can make 10 blumhouse things it is true, but can only wide release 2 or 3 for the same cost, marketing cost on those giant vs small movie is not necessarily that different.

 

A deliver Us from Evil screen gems type of title has still a total cost of around 100 million, Exorcise of Emily Roses total cost of 130 million, has the production budget goes up bigger it is in proportion of the total cost and smaller the box office / production budget the movie need to be a success.

 

The big advantage of those Blumhouse type of title, they only spend money on those who play well in test audience and can make good trailer (that test well), while on big movies they rarely have the courage to cut their looses and always release them.

Also worth pointing out that for someone like Blumhouse, most of their titles are sold to a distributor. So Blumhouse covers their (low) budget plus a small percentage, and probably a small additional chunk that kicks in at some agreed-upon point once the distributor's made money. So Blumhouse doesn't have to shoulder all the distribution costs. They're covered as soon as the movie's sold.

 

Obviously that's very different from a studio (which also is its own distributor).

[ChrisTelclear]

4 hours ago, Valonqar said:

Leo and Denzel are bankable and that's about it. And even they get by cause they choose appealing concept, not an easy sell, mind you, but they are better at picking serious stuff than Will Smith. 

You mean the same Denzel that rode Mag 7 to a loss at the box office?  $162M WW with a $90M production cost.   Oh, that had Pratt in it too, so much for his drawing power.

 

Maybe it's Leo, then a few who can draw with the right situation.

[drdungbeetle]

13 minutes ago, ChrisTelclear said:

You mean the same Denzel that rode Mag 7 to a loss at the box office?  $162M WW with a $90M production cost.   Oh, that had Pratt in it too, so much for his drawing power.

 

Maybe it's Leo, then a few who can draw with the right situation.

Denzel is a reliable draw if the movie has a production cost of 50 mil or under and depends on US (not international), but he is not the kind of megadraw that can justify a blockbuster. Pratt got lucky with Guardians (a perfect role for him) and Jurassic (people care about the dinos, not him) and isn't a draw because he's "Chris Pratt".

 

[Boxofficerules]

Leo has mostly done well received movies. Most movie stars started taking the piss after awhile by chasing the money and starring in awful movies (Eddie Murphy, Adam Sandler) and their fans started feeling ripped off. Hence why people are cautious about seeing a movie just because it has a name in it.

[drdungbeetle]

20 minutes ago, Boxofficerules said:

Leo has mostly done well received movies. Most movie stars started taking the piss after awhile by chasing the money and starring in awful movies (Eddie Murphy, Adam Sandler) and their fans started feeling ripped off. Hence why people are cautious about seeing a movie just because it has a name in it.

Pretty much. Revenant and most of his other stuff have effectively been either prestige stuff or Nolan scripts. I still don't think Leo would save a bad movie though, in terms of "drawing".

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, ChrisTelclear said:

You mean the same Denzel that rode Mag 7 to a loss at the box office?  $162M WW with a $90M production cost.   Oh, that had Pratt in it too, so much for his drawing power.

 

Maybe it's Leo, then a few who can draw with the right situation.

 

I'm not so sure it is to a lost the movie played almost exactly like Sony expected, a movie like Magnificent 7 will not play in term of ratio box office/total revenue like a 3D movie or anything targeting younger audience.

 

That was the studio estimate for that movie box office potential:

DBO       $85M

IBO        $65M

 

At 85 dbo and 75 ibo they estimated a profit between 5 and 10 million, estimating that the movie would need to do around 220 million Worldwide to reach good ROI level,with marketing people having little confidence they would reach that bar.

 

The movie over-performed domestically a little bit with 93 million to compensate a bit lower than expected Intl due to the difficult exchange rate.

 

Has for 90 million production cost that sound a bit high, the movie had a quite big 107 million gross production cost but got a really generous tax credit of 30.3 million from Louisiana (and maybe some other from other jurisdiction they spend the rest of the money on):

 

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=1Ki2apGQb7wFKtZifVR43A%3d%3d

 

Very worst case scenario the movie had a 81.2 million production and at best it was close to the 75 million planned the movie, and big movie that achieve to do more at the domestic box office than their budget tend to not loose money. You also need to take into account the domestic heavy nature of the box office, domestic box office is worth about 1.3 dollar of Intl box office, doubling you budget when you are domestic heavy and have a big budget like Mag7 can be more than enough to turn a profit.

 

Denzel is certainly a draw and can pretty much guarantee your domestic first weekend, the issue with him is more on the international side.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

The movie wouldn't have been greenlit without a name.

The brand was just way too obscure and niche.

 

It s as simple as that.

 

Next.

 

 

[drdungbeetle]

9 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

The movie wouldn't have been greenlit without a name.

The brand was just way too obscure and niche.

 

It s as simple as that.

 

Next.

 

 

It was too obscure and niche WITH the name. The name was meaningless if it can't actually bring the bacon.

[shayhiri]

Btw, GREAT movie, seeing it Tuesday for the THIRD time - AND bringing my girlfriend!!

[kowhite]

1 hour ago, drdungbeetle said:

It was too obscure and niche WITH the name. The name was meaningless if it can't actually bring the bacon.

 

True.  Granted, you don't know that til you try.  This type of move is mitigating risk, not eliminating it.  You can't eliminate it.

[Klingo]

Just heard they a making another anime series.  Pretty excited! 

[filmlover]

5 hours ago, drdungbeetle said:

Pretty much. Revenant and most of his other stuff have effectively been either prestige stuff or Nolan scripts. I still don't think Leo would save a bad movie though, in terms of "drawing".

Leo had a flop with J. Edgar and even that didn't do as bad as it would have with any other actor starring.

[NoobSaibot]

LOL, this movie made so little money for my nearest theater that they've already sent it to Room 13 (which contains 75 seats--their next to smallest room). Nobody in my area gives a shit about Ghost in the Shell.

Edited April 7, 2017 by NoobSaibot

[BadAtGender]

8 hours ago, drdungbeetle said:

Denzel is a reliable draw if the movie has a production cost of 50 mil or under and depends on US (not international), but he is not the kind of megadraw that can justify a blockbuster. Pratt got lucky with Guardians (a perfect role for him) and Jurassic (people care about the dinos, not him) and isn't a draw because he's "Chris Pratt".

 

 

The only reason the production costs for Denzel's films tends to the mid-budget end is because he doesn't seek out franchise vehicles. He does films that are sold on him and him alone. And with just his name, he can probably guarantee $60m+. Which is pretty damn huge for any actor. There's a reason he can command a $20m payday every film, despite more modest results. If he's the biggest line item on the budget, and there's a consistency of performance, that's an excellent result.

 

If Denzel actually sought out franchise films, you'd probably see him get blockbuster results. He doesn't seem to have an interest in that, but if he did, you'd probably see that, yes, there would be an effect by having him, and he'd justify the blockbuster. But at the same token, because it's a franchise film, there would be a number of other factors at play with the box office results.

[shayhiri]

5 hours ago, NoobSaibot said:

LOL, this movie made so little money for my nearest theater that they've already sent it to Room 13 (which contains 75 seats--their next to smallest room). Nobody in my area gives a shit about Ghost in the Shell.

 

I see that amuses you, American??

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by shayhiri

[WrathOfHan]

4 hours ago, NoobSaibot said:

LOL, this movie made so little money for my nearest theater that they've already sent it to Room 13 (which contains 75 seats--their next to smallest room). Nobody in my area gives a shit about Ghost in the Shell.

My theater is in a similar boat. 2D is now in their 3rd smallest auditorium, and 3D is in the smallest.

[Valonqar]

11 hours ago, drdungbeetle said:

It was too obscure and niche WITH the name. The name was meaningless if it can't actually bring the bacon.

 

true and they thought that this name could bring the bacon just because she brought the bacon only once in her entire career. Not to mention that that bacon's budget was 40M so who the fuck thought it was a good idea to invest over 100M in her movie? It's like investing over 100M in a Melissa McCarthy movie (Ghostbusters). Opening power has a limit. Just because they opened modestly budgeted movies, it doesn't mena there's enough audience for expensive movies to become hits because of those names with limited appeal.

 

 

[zackzack]

I know this is superficial but from the manga, the Major looks like a 5'10" sinewy hard body who hits the gym daily 

Doesn't look like Scarlet at all. I don't know why the cast her at all. On a tactical level,she looks wrong for the part.

 

[Valonqar]

@zackzack cause it's a male fantasy to have an action chick with big boobs and big ass. And she has the biggest T&A in Hollywood. It's like sticking a Golden Age of Hollywood sex bomb in an action role.