RAMPAGE | 13 April 2018 | Warner Brothers | Dwayne Johnson

[StevenG]

I knew this would be a bust (the signs are all there).

Watch as Skyscraper (not Rampage) becomes the next Rock-solid hit.

Regardless of competition and scheduling, Skyscraper has the most compelling premise and the most potentially crowdpleasing narrative of the two films.

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, KeepItU25071906 said:

When Disney makes  "The Jungle Book" with 165 mln budget, and you (WB) spent 180 mln for "Tarzan" - it's already incorrect in any ways.

We do not know how Disney spend on their movies usually (and when we ever do it does not match the reported that much), Disney tend to be more opaque on this.

 

2 hours ago, Alli said:

I'm always suspicious of these huge budgets. If they were true the movie industry would have been dead a long time ago

It is an over 80+ billion a year industry too.

 

In a very rough way, last year's the 6 MPAA studio made around

9.2+13+8.5+6.4+8+2.8 = 47.9B in revenues with around 2.5+1.7+1.3+.697+.44+.364 in profits (7B), that spending 40 billions and there is only 140 MPAA movies a year now, TV is big but still lot of that went into making those 80 or so movie and distributing a bunch for others.

 

 

Look at the united states spending in the Home ent segment alone:

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

12 minutes ago, Alli said:

I'm always suspicious of these huge budgets. If they were true the movie industry would have been dead a long time ago

No the ball park is true, these movies do cost 150-200 sometimes 300m or more.

 

But only the accountants know the real exact figures.

[Avatree]

23 minutes ago, Ledmonkey96 said:

Isn't it kind of late for reviews to still not be allowed up?

nope, they can keep the embargo as late as they like. But showings for Rampage are at 8pm here and its now 3pm.... really pushing it.I dont get why they just dont release the reviews, doesn't matter if they are bad imo. public is going to find out what the film's like regardless.

[filmlover]

14 minutes ago, StevenG said:

I knew this would be a bust (the signs are all there).

Watch as Skyscraper (not Rampage) becomes the next Rock-solid hit.

Regardless of competition and scheduling, Skyscraper has the most compelling premise and the most potentially crowdpleasing narrative of the two films.

Yeah, Skyscraper will definitely fare better this summer. Plus it's more in Johnson's comfort zone these days, which is family movie/family men (San Andreas, Moana, Jumanji) kinds of roles.

Edited April 11, 2018 by filmlover

[Alli]

8 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

No the ball park is true, these movies do cost 150-200 sometimes 300m or more.

 

But only the accountants know the real exact figures.

I simply don't believe it. If the average blockbuster really cost 150M and then you add 100-150M marketing, no movie would recoup its budget, much less make a profit.

 

Do you really believe Blade Runner 2049 had a $150–185 million production budget? No way, Jose!

Edited April 11, 2018 by Alli

[Barnack]

26 minutes ago, Alli said:

I simply don't believe it. If the average blockbuster really cost 150M and then you add 100-150M marketing, no movie would recoup its budget, much less make a profit.

Not necessarily, to take a recent example of a 150m type movie like Matt Damon Elysium in 2013.

 

Expense:

After tax credit cost is down to 125.894m, 

World Wide P&A of: 96.614 (including shipping cost and everythings)

Residual: 5.99m

participation: 2.19m

Add a 15.11m overhead to absord the cost of running a studio on the movies

Add home release and tv release cost

Total Cost: 271.761m

 

Revenues sources:

Domestic theatrical: 43.737

intl theatrical: 74.017

domestic home ent: 62.874

intl home ent: 42.875

Domestic tv: 25.745

World TV: 45.6

Airlines: 2.701

Other: 0.335

Total revenues: 297.934

 

25m in profits in a 150m type production costing 128m net (production + bonus) doing this at the box office:

 

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$93,050,117	32.5%
+ Foreign:	$193,090,583	67.5%
= Worldwide:	$286,140,700

 

They cost 150m that giant, but they often do giant 250-350+m number at the box office also.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Barnack

[Avatree]

12 minutes ago, Alli said:

I simply don't believe it. If the average blockbuster really cost 150M and then you add 100-150M marketing, no movie would recoup its budget, much less make a profit.

 

Do you really believe Blade Runner 2049 had a $150–185 million production budget? No way, Jose!

You know movies are not cheap to make... hiring very well paid actors/writers etc as well as the large crews and post production teams.

 

You ever watch to the end in a FOX film? After the film has finished they display a card that says "Thank you for supporting the 15,000 people who worked on this film" or whatever the number is, usually it's 15,000+ for a blockbuster/tentpole. Hiring 15,000 people on a single project costs a bit of money...

 

Also what do you mean "no movie would recoup its budget"? If a film costs 300M and it grosses like 600M at the box office, then yes it does get its money back... plus theres hundreds of millions to be made ffrom home video - DVD, streaming, TV rights. Then you have merchandise sales too. Films do make money. This is what the business is.

[MrGlass2]

Rampage — a deafening comedy blockbuster

Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson and supersized animals are the stars of this arcade game-inspired film

 

Exactly who all this is for is another mystery — young children may be left unnerved by the body count. Still, Johnson is avuncular on an epic scale, and had you ever idly wondered what the Chicago Financial District might look like being menaced by an alligator the size of an ocean liner, you may now wonder no more.

 

/5

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e04849d6-3d94-11e8-b9f9-de94fa33a81e

Edited April 11, 2018 by MrGlass2

[harrycaul]

13 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

avuncular on an epic scale

[TalismanRing]

3 hours ago, Barnack said:

It is true that it is relatively lower key:

 

Production Companies

• Flynn Picture Company
• New Line Cinema
• Twisted Media
• Wrigley Pictures

 

I would not think New Line have a max budget by WB too and it is a Dwayne Johnson fighting monster in what had the potential to be a giant world release title affair, Angelina Jolie was getting 125.88m net for something like SALT (144.07m today) not so long ago, that would be sign that the budget are really going down and down and not just for the comedy genre, if it is close to the truth (say just the usual 10-15% massaged down).

 

Johnson also has a substantial % on the back end - but if it's structured well or fairly he won't get paid unless it hit's a certain number (I don't say profit because that's nebulous in Hollywood.  WB claimed Potter didn't make a profit)

[nick64]

Maybe the embargo is already up and critics just didn’t care enough to review it 

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Budgets for big movies work in mysterious ways.

Like the way they mysteriously go down in the studio press releases and "official" leaks when it looks like a film will flop?

[dudalb]

17 hours ago, DAJK said:

not sure why the hell WB hasn't lifted the embargo

Uh, because Warners thinks it is going to get panned by the critics?

[MovieMan89]

The first review on RT is 4/4. 

[dudalb]

 

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

Yeah, Skyscraper will definitely fare better this summer. Plus it's more in Johnson's comfort zone these days, which is family movie/family men (San Andreas, Moana, Jumanji) kinds of roles.

My problem with Skyscraper is that I already saw this film when it was called "Die Hard".

Although it seems not to have worked,at least "Rampage" was trying for something a bit different in playing the big monster on the rampage genre for laughs.

Edited April 11, 2018 by dudalb

[Jonwo]

$115m is only a touch higher than what San Andreas cost which isn't too bad. Should easily break even or make a profit

[MrGlass2]

DO NOT PUBLISH, EMBARGO! Review: Relentlessly silly 'Rampage' unleashes monster animals and Dwayne Johnson

 

If Annihilation is the eggs Benedict of gene-splicing sci-fi film fare, Rampage is the huge bowl of Froot Loops.

The audaciously over-the-top adventure (½ out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters nationwide Friday) wrecks Chicago but isn't a total disaster. And for that, director Brad Peyton (San Andreas) can thank his massive stars: muscular action-movie god Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and a mutated, monstrous trio that includes an albino gorilla, a wolf with (no joke) bat wings, and a mammoth toothy crocodile with rhino-like horns. While surprisingly dark and a smidgen too earnest at times, Rampage wraps silly spectacle around its emotional core: a bromance between man and beast.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2018/04/11/review-relentlessly-silly-rampage-unleashes-monster-animals-dwayne-johnson/503539002/

[MrGamer]

Quote

If Annihilation is the eggs Benedict of gene-splicing sci-fi film fare, Rampage is the huge bowl of Froot Loops.

@Trolltastic Tele

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Johnson also has a substantial % on the back end - but if it's structured well or fairly he won't get paid unless it hit's a certain number (I don't say profit because that's nebulous in Hollywood.

If it look like Red Notice, probably a 20-22m paycheck + 30% of the gross revenus after a determined point, with a pre-determined formula, like you say it has been a long time since people signed profit type contract.

 

Quote

  WB claimed Potter didn't make a profit)

That sound just very unlikely, you cannot do that to people powerful like Heyman and Rowling and continue to work without any issue for decade with them, didn't a Potter leaked showing they were making a large (30%) participation bonus ?:

 

http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/

 

You can see it there the negative cost of the movie reaching 316m, having grown by 7.773m since the last 25.9m were made (the price of the movie seem to grow by almost 30% of the revenues after distribution fee, that probably going to Heyman production company and all the big name involved has a participation bonus deal). One could assume the production budget was say 170-180m and the 135/145 million over that are the bonuses.

 

Look to me like simply that TV was still going in but more importantly by far the biggest revenues source of the time, DVDs were almost completely excluded from that distribution deal used to calculate the bonus (that small 88m line video cassette), I think that was common at the time to pay a lot to keep talent away from those Revenues, when Tom Cruise got "100% video" on Mission Impossible 3 it was a big deal.

 

The Goodfellas trial was about that:

http://deadline.com/2016/04/goodfellas-lawsuit-resolved-warner-bros-martin-scorsese-irwin-winkler-bert-fields-1201737115/

 

Was made under a old 1981 deal were WB didn't protect the vhs/dvd revenues correctly, counting 100% of them as movie revenue in the deal instead of the usual only 20% of the 90/2000 era, when they became monstrously huge, so Warner came with a trick trying to hide them on goodfellas to mimic the usual deal people had in the 90s.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Barnack