Mission: Impossible - Fallout | July 27 2018 | Paramount | Reactions coming in | "Best action movie since Fury Road"

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Everyone went balls to the wall on putting in the effort on this from McQ to Cruise to Paramount's marketing team and in the end it could just barely end up paying off for them. 

That very large and high for the budget window for the break even point among expert opinion is probably because of McQ and Cruise (and J.J. Abrams other big name producer) giant back end paycheck, it will probably paying a lot for them in the end.

 

Deadline estimated Rogue Nation profit to be 110m on a 150m budget with a 140m theatrical release.

 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

Leave it to BOF to call something like Fury Road divisive.  Some people here clearly don't know what a divisive movie is.  "Oh, I didn't like this movie as much as most people did so its divisive".   Durp.

BOT, do sound a bit over the top about a movie that got a B+ cinemascore, 3.3x OW multiplier for a franchise sequel with those imdb rating.

 

10	147,982
9	174,685
8	186,763
7	110,952
6	48,077
5	21,860
4	11,177
3	7,479
2	5,494
1	11,319

 

8.6 metacritic user score

85% liked it rotten tomatoes user score.

 

https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/mad-max-fury-road-storms-home-video-sales-charts-1201589467/

 

If by divises they mean some think it is great others just a good 8/10 movies.......... but this is far from a Nicolas Winding Refn, Kubricks when is movies just released or Malick

 

 

[kowhite]

180m budget (thanks insurance dudes!) and 150m P&A?  700m BO?  Hello profit!  Yeah, maybe not profitable off theatrical alone, but that’s not how people these days make movies (unless it’s a Chinese movie).

 

Dont get me wrong...Black Panther is way more profitable.  But Paramount isn’t complaining.  Assuming those insurance bucks cashed the check.  If it cost 250m...well, profitable.  But it’s Paramount.  The revenue is flowing.  It usually isn’t.

Edited August 5, 2018 by kowhite

[Shawn Robbins]

3 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

I can't help but feel kind of bad for everyone involved here. Everyone went balls to the wall on putting in the effort on this from McQ to Cruise to Paramount's marketing team and in the end it could just barely end up paying off for them. Really annoying, this shouldn't have to struggle to a profit like that. 

Not to knock it -- this is doing damn well, trade reports to the contrary -- but I do think this is a franchise primed to be opened outside of summer and potentially do even bigger numbers. Considering Fallout was the fourth straight male-dominated action film of July, it's doing super well.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Except that 650m break even point is bullsh*t

 

Fury Road made money with much less BO

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, firedeep said:

Except that 650m break even point is bullsh*t

 

Fury Road made money with much less BO

I imagine not necessarily if there is 25% or so going in first dollar deals like Paramount has on Transformer franchise among that group of producer/director/writer/actors and Cruise.

 

At 650m you get over 115m in bonus and the movie is now costing 300m at break even point. Men in black 3 need about that  because it was giving away 90m in bonus at the break even point, increasing the actual budget quite a lot.

 

If they are mostly or all on a post-break participation, it does sound ridiculously high yes. I imagine that why they do not know and why the figure change so much from different opinion, trying to guessing people deals.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Barnack

[MovieMan89]

26 minutes ago, Shawn said:

Not to knock it -- this is doing damn well, trade reports to the contrary -- but I do think this is a franchise primed to be opened outside of summer and potentially do even bigger numbers. Considering Fallout was the fourth straight male-dominated action film of July, it's doing super well.

Yeah, GP adjusts to nearly 250m DOM releasing in the holiday. Wouldn't be a bad idea to try that again. 

[DeWeese]

6 hours ago, tomknff said:

 

Making $30M-$50M profit on such a big investment is not that great. I think the next one will have a lower budget ($150M-ish).

The budget was only 180 with the insurance covering the extra cost from cruise being hurt

[HesAPooka]

Somehow every time a Tom Cruise movie comes out there's an article that comes out that says it wont make money or it will make very little money when other movies with similar budgets get hailed as hits when they cost the same as make as much, strange.

[Barnack]

57 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

Somehow every time a Tom Cruise movie comes out there's an article that comes out that says it wont make money or it will make very little money when other movies with similar budgets get hailed as hits when they cost the same as make as much, strange.

That Mummy movie constant attack was a specially weird one.

[elcaballero]

The sound system was punishing during my showing (which was just a standard format). When the theme played, it felt like a rock concert.

[Ryan Reynolds]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mission-impossible-tom-cruise-pushed-a-dark-plot-was-cut-1130744

 

interesting article, starting shooting with 33 page script 

[Spidey Freak]

4 hours ago, kowhite said:

180m budget (thanks insurance dudes!) and 150m P&A?  700m BO?  Hello profit!  

Has a chance at 800 now  

[kowhite]

42 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

Has a chance at 800 now  

 

Yay!  Maybe Paramount can buy into Movies Anywhere now.  Broke ass mofos.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

I imagine not necessarily if there is 25% or so going in first dollar deals like Paramount has on Transformer franchise among that group of producer/director/writer/actors and Cruise.

 

At 650m you get over 115m in bonus and the movie is now costing 300m at break even point. Men in black 3 need about that  because it was giving away 90m in bonus at the break even point, increasing the actual budget quite a lot.

 

If they are mostly or all on a post-break participation, it does sound ridiculously high yes. I imagine that why they do not know and why the figure change so much from different opinion, trying to guessing people deals.

In that case, the talents related already makes a bunch. so who cares if the studio itself wouldn't get that much profits.

 

Btw, I heard it is Cruise not Paramount who actually owns the IP of MI series, so Paraount should be happy that they get to distribute one of the summer's biggest hits.

[Valonqar]

8 hours ago, Barnack said:

That Mummy movie constant attack was a specially weird one.

Yeah, there are far worse bombs to get hung up on, and for what it's worth The Mummy cleared 300M OS which is more than PRU did WW for example, and it also made similar under 100M in  China without being made for that market specifically. So attacks on it and Cuise make no sense. I guess some critics still think of him as the Couch Jumper or something. 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Valonqar

[divinity83]

All things considered, the Mission: Impossible franchise does very well. Understand that he is still extremely controversial and the “couch-jumping” incident is minor league now. There are people who will never pay to see a Cruise-led film because they think paying money for a ticket is the same as donating to an evil cult. I know at least one person who bought a ticket to a different film and snuck into Fallout (Moviepass users likely did that too).

 

Personally, if I cared about how movie stars spent their money, I would never see a film. After seeing the behind the scenes work of everyone involved, how expensive it must have been, I went to see Fallout on a real IMAX screen at the Smithsonian. It was glorius. I still have real issues with this film, but not with the action.

[Baerrt]

2 hours ago, divinity83 said:

All things considered, the Mission: Impossible franchise does very well. Understand that he is still extremely controversial and the “couch-jumping” incident is minor league now. There are people who will never pay to see a Cruise-led film because they think paying money for a ticket is the same as donating to an evil cult. I know at least one person who bought a ticket to a different film and snuck into Fallout (Moviepass users likely did that too).

 

Personally, if I cared about how movie stars spent their money, I would never see a film. After seeing the behind the scenes work of everyone involved, how expensive it must have been, I went to see Fallout on a real IMAX screen at the Smithsonian. It was glorius. I still have real issues with this film, but not with the action.

The thing with Cruise being a factor is when things such as Going Clear and Leah Remini's tv series, and book, are out there in the culture claiming Scientology to be essentially evil you have a significant amount of the public watching, reading or hearing about these exposes and  it increases the skepticism about Cruise.

[MovieMan89]

I don't think Cruise carries much of a stigma anymore bc of his personal life. Any box office ceiling for his films is far more likely to be due to  younger audiences under 30 not being into him since the dude is approaching 60 after all. 

[Jonwo]

Mission Impossible is pretty much Paramount's only huge franchise since Transformers dived in popularity, They're never going to let it die until Cruise hangs up the role and even then they'd find ways of rebooting it.