Weekend estimates | Veronica mars- 2M (down 39% on Sat), 300 2-19.1M,LEGO (7.71M), non-stop (10.6M)

[Orestes]

Do we know why it took so long for this one?

 

It is a head scratcher, especially with how sequel happy Hollywood is. Only thing I can think of is that there wasn't a sequel comic book at the time, though I guess there technically still isn't, but it's apparently been in the works.

[filmscholar]

NEED FOR SPEED

 

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:  $17,808,000  28.1% + Foreign:  $45,600,000  71.9% = Worldwide:  $63,408,000  

 

 

Now imagine if that Domestic number was more 25-30+.   Domestic it just didn't come in that strong.  Now it did make it's production budget back basically (Marketing? that's a different story).  So again, Overseas may very well save it. 

[a2k]

Do we know why it took so long for this one?

 

I think it was because Snyder had to be associated in some way with it, and he was focused on some 300 like originals that WB were happy to produce, maybe to keep him happy and prevent him from being taken away by other studios who would have been more than happy to let him make originals for them. He has a unique style and got his way with the producers imo, till he lost some of the mojo.

Edited March 16, 2014 by a2knet

[forg]

I've always been uneasy about it given the way Muppets '11 failed to light up the box office despite a massive marketing push from Disney and a prime Holiday release date with little family competition. Add in the mixed reviews Most Wanted is getting, and frankly a 50m total may not be in play.

 

Agree, The Muppets was profitable in the end but I was really expecting a 100M finish with that marketing, reviews and holiday legs.

 

This sequel won't really do well I'm afraid

[RthDeadWov]

Correct me as you wish, but this is how i (approximately) calculate the profitability point (i like that one, Shawn!) 

As there is no way for sure to know such a thing, because studios have different deals maybe for each picture and then again, different deals with each countries, to round it up, this is what i do.

 

50% of US Gross (i know it's not the same 1st week than 2nd, but again, just to round i up) + 30% of OS Gross - Budget - P&A (just guessing, this is what i really don't know and what i was asking before, i assume it could be around 50% of the budget or more)

 

So, in example, let's break down World War Z:

US Gross: 202.4 / OS Gross: 234.0M would make this:

111.3M + 101.3M = 212.6M

Budget: 190M / P&A: (for argument's sake, let's say half of this) 76M 

190M + 76 = 266M

So, 212.6M - 266M = -53.4M

This is of course, just theatrically, then you have BR,DVD, Cable, VOD, TV, etc. 

 

What i am doing wrong or what am i missing?

you are correct there is a lot that goes into this as stated above

 

With P&A its based on what the potential BO is, even if P&A budget amount were available to look at and then you wanted to compare to BO, the amount is based on what they thought the film was originally going to do vs. what it did.

 

Initially there is an estimated BO , P&A etc to get a film greenlight (split by country), then that changes with finished product and once people have seen to film and then look again at its potential

 

so if say, for Domestic

Greenlight est BO 40m, P&A 12m

 

est BO (after seeing finished product, release date set etc) 50m, P&A 15m

 

and the film ends up doing only 30m or it ends up doing say 80m , for the 15m spend you don't know what the original expected BO was for the spend (in this example 50m) and the P&A various per title it could be 15% of expected BO or 30% of it based on how wide, talent tours a whole stack of things.30-35% is rough est on the original greenlite numbers est BO.

After film opens or just before they may decide to spend more , usually called sustain budget

 

The other thing with profitability on film is things like Product Placement, Smurfs 2 was reported to have covered all or most of its Prod budget from product placement before film even opened.

 

 

Couple extract from past posts, I answered

 

tilko, on 28 Aug 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Based on the fact that it cost $105 million to make and has only grossed $27.1 million to date, many will naturally assume that The Smurfs 2 is a flop. Since studios rarely ever make sequels to movies that flop, many will also naturally assume that The Smurfs 3 won’t be forthcoming. Strangely, both of these assumptions are dead wrong. Thanks to product placement and marketing tie-ins, The Smurfs 2 was already profitable before it even hit theatres.

 

>>very True PP can on occasion in a big way help either the Production or Marketing budget and yes in the case of Smurfs 2 most of its production budget was covered by Product placement and probably some of marketing.<<

 

 

------

tonytr87, on 23 Aug 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I've always thought that studios make a profit much easier than people on this forum realize. The general rule of thumb is it needs to gross more than double the production budget.<<

 

 >>Oh Christ no and the rest has to be multiple times over ,if a movie cost say 100m to make it its GBO was say 400m its more than likely made a loss theatrically, depending on total marketing/print cost, distribution fees etc etc, but then there's also things like product placement(can be worth millions to simply feature a brand of car/watch in movie) that go towards paying for the prod budget (like Smurfs 2 recently was reported to have covered all or most of the prod budget from product placement deals, so even with low BO it will definetly turn a profit, without the product placement it would have a huge loss theatrically).

 

So theres a lot that goes towards what make film profitable or not just from theatrical, before you add in other revenue streams beyond cinema release

 ------

Spaghetti Treads Lightly, on 23 Aug 2013 - 1:01 PM, said:

The numbers at Box Office Mojo just scratch the surface of the true financial numbers of a single film. It's impossible to determine profit or loss from anything just from that site with full certainty, as helpful as its information can be.

 

>>Yep<<

 

Edited March 17, 2014 by Rth

[La Binoche]

Non-Stop is doing very well in the face of direct action competition from 300 and Need for Speed. 

 

It's also doing well overseas: 

 

[*]StudioCanal’s fully financed thriller Non Stop starring Liam Neeson brought in a further $12.5m for a $59m running total. The film added $1.4m in the UK through StudioCanal for $11.5m.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Yep. It is so laughable that some guys around here were claiming Smurfs 2 is a flop and thought Smurfs 3 wouldnot happen.

[The Stingray]

Does anybody know of any movie site that can recommend movies for you? Like, for example, if I wanna find out about movies that are similar in style and themes to Mulholland Dr.

[Michael Gary Scott]

Netflix?

[#ED]

[mcclaine]

you are correct there is a lot that goes into this as stated above

 

With P&A its based on what the potential BO is, even if P&A budget amount were available to look at and then you wanted to compare to BO, the amount is based on what they thought the film was originally going to do vs. what it did.

 

Initially there is an estimated BO , P&A etc to get a film greenlight (split by country), then that changes with finished product and once people have seen to film and then look again at its potential

 

so if say, for Domestic

Greenlight est BO 40m, P&A 12m

 

est BO (after seeing finished product, release date set etc) 50m, P&A 15m

 

and the film ends up doing only 30m or it ends up doing say 80m , for the 15m spend you don't know what the original expected BO was for the spend (in this example 50m) and the P&A various per title it could be 15% of expected BO or 30% of it based on how wide, talent tours a whole stack of things.30-35% is rough est on the original greenlite numbers est BO.

After film opens or just before they may decide to spend more , usually called sustain budget

 

The other thing with profitability on film is things like Product Placement, Smurfs 2 was reported to have covered all or most of its Prod budget from product placement before film even opened.

 

 

Couple extract from past posts, I answered

 

tilko, on 28 Aug 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Based on the fact that it cost $105 million to make and has only grossed $27.1 million to date, many will naturally assume that The Smurfs 2 is a flop. Since studios rarely ever make sequels to movies that flop, many will also naturally assume that The Smurfs 3 won’t be forthcoming. Strangely, both of these assumptions are dead wrong. Thanks to product placement and marketing tie-ins, The Smurfs 2 was already profitable before it even hit theatres.

 

>>very True PP can on occasion in a big way help either the Production or Marketing budget and yes in the case of Smurfs 2 most of its production budget was covered by Product placement and probably some of marketing.<<

 

 

------

tonytr87, on 23 Aug 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I've always thought that studios make a profit much easier than people on this forum realize. The general rule of thumb is it needs to gross more than double the production budget.<<

 

 >>Oh Christ no and the rest has to be multiple times over ,if a movie cost say 100m to make it its GBO was say 400m its more than likely made a loss theatrically, depending on total marketing/print cost, distribution fees etc etc, but then there's also things like product placement(can be worth millions to simply feature a brand of car/watch in movie) that go towards paying for the prod budget (like Smurfs 2 recently was reported to have covered all or most of the prod budget from product placement deals, so even with low BO it will definetly turn a profit, without the product placement it would have a huge loss theatrically).

 

So theres a lot that goes towards what make film profitable or not just from theatrical, before you add in other revenue streams beyond cinema release

 ------

Spaghetti Treads Lightly, on 23 Aug 2013 - 1:01 PM, said:

The numbers at Box Office Mojo just scratch the surface of the true financial numbers of a single film. It's impossible to determine profit or loss from anything just from that site with full certainty, as helpful as its information can be.

 

>>Yep<<

 

 

Rth, thank you so much for taking your time to reply me. Extremely helpful.

 

[BadAtGender]

[Dementeleus]

Wow, VM's Friday was greater than its Sat+Sun. How often does that happen?

 

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing FRIDAY THE 13TH? Which others?

Edited March 17, 2014 by 7elemachos

[grim22]

Wow, VM's Friday was greater than its Sat+Sun. How often does that happen?

 

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing FRIDAY THE 13TH? Which others?

 

Endless Love 4 weeks ago.

[BadAtGender]

I don't know about limited releases, but it's not super uncommon for things with dedicated fanbases:

 

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/percofwknd.htm?page=Fri&p=.htm

[Dementeleus]

I don't know about limited releases, but it's not super uncommon for things with dedicated fanbases:

 

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/percofwknd.htm?page=Fri&p=.htm

 

That's more than I would've thought, but still, fifteen films out of how many thousands tracked since the 80s? (Or whenever BOM started posting dailies).

[BadAtGender]

That's more than I would've thought, but still, fifteen films out of how many thousands tracked since the 80s? (Or whenever BOM started posting dailies).

 

I think they've got dailies going back about 15 years, but it might not be complete even that far. (Some films have earlier dailies, but it's not comprehensive.)

 

And in most of these cases, you'd probably see a relatively large Midnight sneak audience. VMars got about 25%, but I know there's some (Twilight, Harry Potter), that get an incredibly large percentage of the Friday gross at Midnight.

[Chewy]

The last Potter did it, although obviously its extremely large midnights played a big part in that

[BadAtGender]

It's actually funny that Friday the 13th didn't get more than 50% of its gross on Friday, but that's possibly because of the holiday inflated Sunday. Even so, it got something like 30% of its total gross on the opening Friday. (Which, truth be told, VMars could beat.)

[RthDeadWov]

NFS & ROAE One entry each and both Empire 25Top theatres engagement  wkend 14-16/31-Regal Union Square 14, New York City NY       146k(GBH)2-Pac Arclight hollywood, los Angeles CA   144k(GBH)3-CPLX Varsity 12, Toronto ON        101k(GBH)4-CM San Franciso Centre 9, San Francisco CA   (GBH)5-Landmark, The Landmark Los Angeles CA     (GBH)6-AMC Empire 25, New York city NY      (ROAE)7-CM Kabuki Cinema, San Francisco CA     (GBH)8-Pac Arclight Pasadena, Pasadena CA      (GBH)9-CC Angelika Mosaic, Fairfax VA      (GBH)10-AMC Pacific Place 11, Seattle WA      (GBH)11-HAR Camelview 5, Scottsdale AZ      (GBH)12-AMC Lincoln Square 13, New York City NY (GBH)13-Landmark Century Centre 7,Chicago IL      (GBH)14-CM Evanston 18, Evanston IL        (GBH)15-Pac Arclight Sherman Oaks , Sherman Oaks CA    (GBH)16-Landmark  EE Street Cinema , Washington DC    (GBH)17-Regal University Town 9, Irvine CA      (GBH)18-Landmark Kendall Square 9, Cambridge MA    (GBH)19-LandmakK Bethesda Row , Bethesda MD      (GBH)20-AMC Empire 25, New York city NY      (NFS)Top Canada1-CPLX Varsity 12, Toronto ON (GBH), 2-CPLX Scotiabank Chinook 16, Calgary AB(ROAE),3-3-CPLX Scotiabank 9 Vancouver BC (GBH)