Saban's Power Rangers | March 24, 2017 | Teaser Trailer on Page 47

[John Marston]

maybe it will eke out a profit in the end but sequels are likely dead

[drdungbeetle]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

maybe it will eke out a profit in the end but sequels are likely dead

If it gets a profit, it'll be of the "but we can run it 1321483039574397092795 times on Freeform!" type of profit where it only makes it 10 years down the line. Not much help to Lionsgate right now.

[Dementeleus]

9 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

If it gets a profit, it'll be of the "but we can run it 1321483039574397092795 times on Freeform!" type of profit where it only makes it 10 years down the line. Not much help to Lionsgate right now.

 

Here are some basic numbers:

 

production budget: 105m

domestic marketing budget: unknown but probably in the 30m-60m range (huge tentpoles like MOS, etc have domestic marketing budgets in the 60-80m range or so)

total cost to make/market the movie: 135-165m

Per Deadline, Lionsgate is on the hook for around 25% of that, because of foreign presales, etc: 33.75m-40m

 

domestic gross: 80m

Let's say Lionsgate gets 53% of that -- their take is 42.4m

 

If they aren't already in the black, they will be very soon. Even with modest HV sales and TV rights, it's gonna be a very good ROI for Lionsgate.

[grim22]

12 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

He thought PR was beyond awful and that LIFE was one of the best movies of the year. Go figure.

 

No worse than throwing a tantrum when someone says Con-Air is better than Face/Off, and The Rock is better than both.

[grim22]

21 minutes ago, John Marston said:

maybe it will eke out a profit in the end but sequels are likely dead

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they do one sequel just to save face. The issue though is that a sequel will have to be a higher budget as audiences will expect action from the get go itself.

[drdungbeetle]

How people expect the foreign companies who were dumb enough to invest in a Power Rangers movie that bombed to invest in a sequel is beyond ridiculous. Do they like losing money distributing flops?

[drdungbeetle]

2 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they do one sequel just to save face. The issue though is that a sequel will have to be a higher budget as audiences will expect action from the get go itself.

"Saving face" is irrelevant if the foreign investors don't want to be swindled a second time and there's zero sequel buzz to this thing.

[Dementeleus]

Swindled? C'mon man, don't be ridiculous. 

[drdungbeetle]

4 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

Swindled? C'mon man, don't be ridiculous. 

At the cruddy foreign BO this thing got, they most certainly were swindled and will be idiots if they let Lionsgate fleece them again.

[Dementeleus]

Just now, drdungbeetle said:

At the cruddy foreign BO this thing got, they most certainly were swindled and will be idiots if they let Lionsgate fleece them again.

 

They weren't swindled at all. They made an investment in a production that carried a certain risk. This is literally their business. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. 

 

I have no no idea whether LG will make a sequel or not but it's pretty silly to assume that every single foreign distributor is losing their shirts on this when we don't have the first clue about any of their terms. 

[NoobSaibot]

It's the way the investment business works. People lose money or gain it back. Whether the investors take a loss or gain a profit, there's always a risk.

 

They weren't robbed of anything. They just made a bad investment with this particular movie.

[drdungbeetle]

18 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

They weren't swindled at all. They made an investment in a production that carried a certain risk. This is literally their business. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. 

 

I have no no idea whether LG will make a sequel or not but it's pretty silly to assume that every single foreign distributor is losing their shirts on this when we don't have the first clue about any of their terms. 

Dude, there's no way you can justify a 120 mil movie that only gets about 90 mil in the US and tanks internationally as "profitable". I know you industry people are obsessed with shilling crap blockbusters, but please don't go so far to insult my intelligence. How exactly do you justify these foreign investors getting swindled again and putting the same or more money into a sequel?

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, drdungbeetle said:

How people expect the foreign companies who were dumb enough to invest in a Power Rangers movie that bombed to invest in a sequel is beyond ridiculous. Do they like losing money distributing flops?

 

Maybe some thought the people buying La la land were dumb.....

[drdungbeetle]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Maybe some thought the people buying La la land were dumb.....

So? La La Land made boatloads even in US gross alone and easily covered its production cost. Power Rangers did not cover its production cost in US grosses.

Lionsgate could make like 3 "La La Land budget" movies for the cost of 1 Power Rangers, yet people here seem to want them to flush more money down the Ranger hole.

[Dementeleus]

12 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Dude, there's no way you can justify a 120 mil movie that only gets about 90 mil in the US and tanks internationally as "profitable". I know you industry people are obsessed with shilling crap blockbusters, but please don't go so far to insult my intelligence. How exactly do you justify these foreign investors getting swindled again and putting the same or more money into a sequel?

 

Of all the movies out there, this seems an odd choice to push this argument. In the grand scheme of things (all Hollywood would-be blockbusters) it's pretty small fry. It's also a movie where we actually have some basic numbers to show profitability (for Lionsgate at least).

 

You keep using the word "swindled" as if Lionsgate was somehow lying and cheating to con all these distributors. They didn't, that's why I object to those words.

 

I assume those distributors who lost a fair amount will either offer reduced amounts for any possible sequel or pass entirely. But again, who knows the specifics for each territory. It may be possible to cobble together sequel funding even with those concerns.  

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

Here are some basic numbers:

 

production budget: 105m

domestic marketing budget: unknown but probably in the 30m-60m range (huge tentpoles like MOS, etc have domestic marketing budgets in the 60-80m range or so)

total cost to make/market the movie: 135-165m

Per Deadline, Lionsgate is on the hook for around 25% of that, because of foreign presales, etc: 33.75m-40m

 

domestic gross: 80m

Let's say Lionsgate gets 53% of that -- their take is 42.4m

 

If they aren't already in the black, they will be very soon. Even with modest HV sales and TV rights, it's gonna be a very good ROI for Lionsgate.

 

The issue is we don't know how much of that 75% they are not on the hook for is pre-sales or co-financier, if a lot of it is co-financier they are getting a share of the 90 million or so revenue that movie will do domestic.

 

If it is pure pre-sales, well then it became a small 25 million movie with a very small 9 to 15 million release doing over 80 million at the box office, i.e. a really nice success.

[Barnack]

15 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

So? La La Land made boatloads even in US gross alone and easily covered its production cost. Power Rangers did not cover its production cost in US grosses.

Lionsgate could make like 3 "La La Land budget" movies for the cost of 1 Power Rangers, yet people here seem to want them to flush more money down the Ranger hole.

 

What a movie bought oversea make domestic do not matter that much about what we are talking about, the point is that buying movie in advance is often a risky game, sometime you hit a jackpot with the first Hunger games or La laland and sometime you loose, what matter is the total bought slate over a large amount of time performance.

 

Lionsgate could make like 3 la la land for the cost of 1 power rangers, well not necessarily.

 

The cost of one Power Rangers is not necessarily that bigger with how easier it is to presales something with a franchise name and even thought you can make 3 la la land for the gross price of one Power Rangers, you cannot make 3 of them and release 3 of them for the price of making and releasing one Power rangers. 

 

The difference in price in distribution is not necessarily that big between small and big budget movie. Movie like Moneyball/Social Network got an over 50 million domestic release, not that much different than the 200 million blockbuster that use product placement deal and pre-awareness for the franchise name to release their movie.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Barnack

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

The issue is we don't know how much of that 75% they are not on the hook for is pre-sales or co-financier, if a lot of it is co-financier they are getting a share of the 90 million or so revenue that movie will do domestic.

 

If it is pure pre-sales, well then it became a small 25 million movie with a very small 9 to 15 million release doing over 80 million at the box office, i.e. a really nice success.

 

The co-financier might be taking a portion of international. Or foreign HV. Or domestic HV. Or.... etc. We just don't know. I agree, it's possible it's not purely in the black at this point. But it seems highly likely that it will be with ancillary revenues, which is basically true of most blockbusters these days.

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

The co-financier might be taking a portion of international. Or foreign HV. Or domestic HV. Or.... etc. We just don't know. I agree, it's possible it's not purely in the black at this point. But it seems highly likely that it will be with ancillary revenues, which is basically true of most blockbusters these days.

 

I don't think liongates got co-financier for the international, they probably sold those market, I'm talking like a Lone Star co-financier on a Ghostbuster movie type of deal, people that shared the risk and revenue with Liongates on what they did not pre-sales.

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I don't think liongates got co-financier for the international, they probably sold those market, I'm talking like a Lone Star co-financier on a Ghostbuster movie type of deal, people that shared the risk and revenue with Liongates on what they did not pre-sales.

 

Temple Hill Entertainment is listed as one of the production companies but I don't know what their involvement was. Lionsgate got domestic and part of the UK. Disney got Russia. GEM and Batrax got a good chunk of OS with the exception of certain other distributors who got major territories or clusters of territories. Saban gets a chunk of everything.