goldenstate5 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 They started at 7pm. It was $11.2M. Man I'm still not used to saying "Thursdays"... sounds right haha. Yeah, I don't think Ant Man will reach that number but it may be close. Guessing 8 to 9 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Universal didn't spend that money, it s companies that paid Universal to use the Minions brand. I think. It was not Universal s biggest marketing push, it was about Universal selling a brand like never before, probably their biggest since the first Jurassic Park merchandising. Edited July 16, 2015 by The Futurist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) 6 would be good for Ant-Man. Marvel gets its usual rush audience (both of the IMAX showings here tonight are almost full) but it feels more like a walkup movie than anything else they've released in a few years. Edited July 16, 2015 by Gopher 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautske Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Solid 1.55 million on a Wednesday for Terminator Genisys. It's now at 74 million and it should be at 82 million plus by Sunday. With it having a chance to cross 90 million by the end of it's 4th weekend. If it's at around 96-97 million after it's 6th weekend. I wonder how long Paramount will try to keep it in theaters to push it to 100 million. I saw with Terminator Salvation it was basically done at 122 million after it's 6th weekend at the very end of June. But Warner kept it on 150-300 screens until September and it ended up making another 3 million so it could make it to 125 million. They kind of did the same thing with T3 as well I noticed. It was at 147 million after it's 7th weekend and kept it on like 180-300 screens for another 7 weeks to push it to 150 million. First post here... and a bit of a multi-part question and really directed at multiple people. Quoted you, gb0708, because your interest in the Terminator BO reminds me of my renewed on-and-off interest in (casually, relatively speaking) following BO receipts over the past 15+ years. For me, MM:FR brought me back to the numbers and the ensuing analysis/prediction of the movie and the rest of the BO. With that, over the past six weeks or so of reading threads, I'm still a bit dumbfounded about how this all works. That said... If Terminator gets a sub-45% drop this weekend then Para will get it to 100. It's not getting sub-45%. It's shedding at least a thousand theaters this weekend and facing a 60m+ action opener. Gopher/RTH (or whomever), I assume you guys have access to regional market numbers (I've seen RTH list engagements)? Does that include per screening numbers (as well as showtimes) from any given individual theaters? I ask because so many numbers are given in large gross numbers and a lot of predictions/percentages seem to be predicated on percentage changes that can become distorted from breakouts/holidays/flukes. Success seems much more determined on opening big and staying big (thus holding onto locations) much more than movies traditionally did in the 80s, 90s, and even into the 2000s. Therefore, many slow-starting blockbusters from the past would never survive a lackluster reception in this era. I guess I'm wondering if distributors/exhibitors are too busy chasing immediate gratification that they quickly knee-cap what might have been a traditional "leggy" movie for front-loaded horror movies/big OW blockbusters with the big returns up front and unnecessarily cripple the more modest movies that would ultimately bring in a lot more money? How much are location holds determined individually by exhibitor/distributor/local theater manager based on performance at particular locations versus analysis of these broader gross numbers? We, the public, can get per theater average through BOM and other sites, but that does not account for per screening average. I've just been really perplexed following two markets I'm most familiar with (Chicago and Houston) and the variation (or consistency) among particular chains or how one theater (even from the same chain) will split times or movies vastly different than a theater 10-15 miles away. For example, on June 13th (Saturday), my local AMC (twenty something screens) had 43 showings of JW, like 17 showings of Insidious: Chapter 3, 15 showings of PP2, 5 showings of Beyond the Mask, two showings of Home, a matinee of Paddington, and some other weird choices. Mad Max: Fury Road, on the other hand, had screenings at 7:40 PM and Midnight. Other theaters in the area had more balanced showings of the current releases or really bizarre selections themselves. But the question is, does the location average for PP2 lump in those 15 screenings for PP2 against the 2 screenings for MM:FR for the location average? Interestingly enough, Poltergeist had a longer hold there than MM:FR, and of this week, MM:FR (using that because I paid the most attention to it) is not playing in the Houston metro area but is still playing in Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Lufkin among others. Is it suggestive that Houston was a very weak market for the movie or was that self-fulfilling based on theater managers in many local theaters giving it few screenings anticipating low demand for sci-fi/action (plus R rating) and dragging down per location averages that in effect, made the Houston market appear underwhelming (seems Regal/Santikos were still bullish on Mad Max — Cinemark and [most] AMC much less so)? I know on weekends (at least until recently), AMC is still pushing out 50 Shades and Paul Blart 2 on Saturdays in both Chicago and Houston. I found the MM:FR per location averages interesting over the many weeks because relative to the number of theaters, its averages have been far better than movies in similar circumstances which would make me think it would lose locations at a lesser clip than other movies. To take AOU, MM:FR performed better two weeks in a row but still lost more locations relative to AOU each of those weeks per location average. There were others as well that have now dropped off (and now San Andreas’ averages are falling steeply) which means either MM:FR is/was underperforming at those locations, or it must be seriously over performing in others. The other explanation is that locations dropped MM:FR because of commitments to other movies anticipating MM:FR would decline much more steeply. Is this what happened when JW cut the legs out of the competition by taking audience from MM:FR and other action movies (MM:FR wasn’t able to capitalize on spillover as much by adults due to lack of screenings by that time)? Universal could then capitalize by propping up the numbers of PP2 that weekend leading to a massive hemorrhage for MM:FR as more locations assumed it was finished while PP2 would hold longer? Did Disney use IO as leverage to prop up AOU in this manner as well? I guess I’m just confused how exactly the decisions get made, and if they are getting made efficiently taking into account rebounds/drops on a local market basis or by looking at the broader percentage numbers? Bringing it to this week, should we expect MMXXL to hold locations much better going forward with an interpretation that it has legs contrary to the first movie, or will industry people view MMXXL percentage drops as being more attributable to poor release scheduling with an expectation of returning to more anticipated declines? In the latter case, if MMXXL has legs, shedding a lot of locations will just be handicapping its legs and more-or-less wedging its ultimate numbers where they feel they belong? I just wonder if a movie like MMXXL is underperforming/overperforming in certain markets as well. For Minions, JW, IO, I guess, as it is with this era, that people are often forced to see only what the theaters give us. As anecdotal as it is, I know so many people that want to see movies they “missed” in their opening weeks (and are too lazy/inconvenient to travel to theaters further away) that get funneled (or peer-pressured) into the longer-lasting blockbusters more because of a desire to go to the movies than a real desire to see that particular movie. TL;DR Sorry, I didn’t intend to write so much. Gopher/RTH/BO people, how much do per screening averages factor into per location averages? Using MM:FR as a recent case study above, how do location averages and local markets factor into holds versus broad examination of the gross numbers/percentage changes? Is everything just more (at least at the major studios) about instant front-loading profit (necessary to recoup marketing/establishing instant franchises?) often times leading to premature/crippling runs for movies that would historically been more profitable on their current projections? Are there just too many situations now where decision-makers are forced into making commitments to movies based on skewed numbers/anticipated performance only to realize rather quickly how incorrect they were (like IMAX commitments for Tomorrowland and T:G) but in an intractable situation? Just really bewildered following BO receipts again after really not doing so much for several years. Thanks. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Universal didn't spend that money, it s companies that paid Universal to use the Minions band. I think. It was not Universal s biggest marketing push, it was about Universal selling a brand like never before, probably their biggest since the first Jurassic Park merchandising. The article does mention that Universal didn't release their own marketing figures that they spent themselves on the film, but it's gotta be huge. They did imply that Universal spent about $7 million working out deals with those companies, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a2k Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Yeah but I bet Minions' marketing money is HUGE. It still makes a ton of profit though. So are their merchandising profits. Minions merchandising and IO merchandising are not even comparable. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxmoser3 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Ehh weren't you the one saying 50 plus drop last weekend too? And couldn't increase from a 2.4 million Thursday to 4 million on Friday? Terminator Genisys will still likely be in over 2,500 screens that's plenty and is much more competition for Jurassic World than Terminator Genisys. If you haven't noticed already Terminator Genisys isn't getting much of a teen or early 20 something crowds, that will go see something like Ant-Man. I'm not so sure Ant-Man is going to sell very well with the 25 and up male crowd. I think Pixels might be more competition with that crowd do to all the 80s video game characters in it.Ant-Man will take most of Terminator's IMAX screens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Ant-Man will take most of Terminator's IMAX screens. For the domestic market I think Ant-Man is taking all of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenstate5 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) So are their merchandising profits. Minions merchandising and IO merchandising are not even comparable. Easily. Why? Because Disney was apprehensive for IO and barely made any merchandise at all. I was at Disneyland a week ago and there are three "big" stores on property: one in Disneyland, one in DCA, and one in Downtown Disney. Each store featured a small, tiny corner with IO merchandise. A couple books, the soundtrack, a (rather ugly) mug, plushies of the characters, an Anger themed talking flashlight (which I nabbed) and some large scale dolls. That's it across the entire property, in three stores only. I stuck around for a bit to observe customer reactions, and kids and adults alike would make an excited beeline towards the IO selection, and audibly voice their disappointment for how dull the selection was. The plushies were selling out like crazy (only Fear, and one Joy and Anger were left as the CM told guests that they were getting some out in the back), and the rest decently. But it was one after another of, "I loved this movie! ...wait that's it?" And then you have Universal Studios, which has a gigantic Minions simulator ride that dumps out in a gigantic store that features literally nothing but DM merch, and about 75% of it is strictly Minions related. They even have the Minions meet and greet INSIDE the store with a queue that wraps around shelves full of merch. So they are clearly making bank in that department. As for IO, I'm going to place a bit more blame on the company... they didn't seem to have any sort of faith merch would sell well so they barely made any at all. Edited July 16, 2015 by goldenstate5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Not too surprising, Disney didn't have faith in Frozen merchandise either. Remember how the supply could not meet the demand at Christmas? I do suppose there will be an upswing in IO merchandise due to its popularity (though not on Frozen's scale, of course). Wasn't there a similar "demand > supply" situation with the original Toy Story, that was actually referenced in-universe in Toy Story 2? Edited July 16, 2015 by TServo2049 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregBeuke Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 For the domestic market I think Ant-Man is taking all of them. Yeah all the IMAX are gone. It's still playing in 3D at some theaters though. I can see both Terminator and Jurassic World done to 2,500 screens this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I misquoted the source but found this - Bloomberg says companies paid 593m for all promotions. Not sure what the breakdown is between each company and Uni but I imagine the studio paid at least half that amount for their own promotion (25 mil for TV ads alone). When the budget's that small and you know you can hit at least 700 mil worldwide, it's easy to go all out. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-10/-minions-593-million-publicity-spree-points-to-film-profit The biggest P&A budgets before this were around $175 million. You honestly think Universal spent $300 million here? The vast majority of that $593 million was spent by the sponsors. This movie seriously has you guys desperate and grasping at imaginary straws. At least you're writing some entertaining fiction though. Edited July 16, 2015 by PDC1987 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) The biggest P&A budgets before this were around $175 million. You honestly think Universal spent $300 million here? The vast majority of that $593 million was spent by the sponsors. That s what I said, this article is either poorly written or understood or both. Like yeah, Universal spent 593m to promote the Minions. Sure. That doesn't make any bit of sense. Which means that Universal will make an insane amount of money with the Minions, probably the most profitable movie of 2015 with Star Wars. Edited July 16, 2015 by The Futurist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinaTakla Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The biggest P&A budgets before this were around $175 million. You honestly think Universal spent $300 million here? The vast majority of that $593 million was spent by the sponsors. Agree - Uni didn't spend a lot at all. Mostly tie-ins 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I also think that a lot of the marketing budget was payed for by sponsors and deals because having minions on a brand would help the brand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Terrible for yellow guys, again. Flop. Bomb. Crumbling worse than JW. Toxic WOM. Ted 2 redux. Comcast bankruptcy imminent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) MM XXL has really saved A LOT of face with its run. After that initial 3 day weekend number I wondered just how quickly it would fade away but it clearly has fantastic WOM. I still think July 4th was a huge mistake for its release date overall, particularly putting it on a Wednesday, thus deflating the 3 day weekend and allowing every news outlet to make it look harsher than it is (though the weekend number was lousy). Has a real shot at 75 million which would be over a 6 multiplier. Edited July 16, 2015 by RyneOh1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 MM XXL has really saved A LOT of face with its run. After that initial 3 day weekend number I wondered just how quickly it would fade away but it clearly has fantastic WOM. I still think July 4th was a huge mistake for its release date overall, particularly putting it on a Wednesday, thus deflating the 3 day weekend and allowing every news outlet to make it look harsher than it is (though the weekend number was lousy). Has a real shot at 75 million which would be over a 6 multiplier. It opened on Wednesday and grossed more Wednesday/Thursday than it did on the weekend. Given this fact, I am not sure how you can possibly give it credit for over a 6 multiplier. You're dividing a 75 total gross by the 12.8 weekend when in reality it would have grossed probably around $20m on the weekend if it opened on Friday. That would still be a multiplier close to 3.7, which is great compared to the first movie and truly bizarre for a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The MM multiplier that should be focused on is the fact that it's going to finish with about 5x its production cost at the domestic box office. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladels Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 So are their merchandising profits. Minions merchandising and IO merchandising are not even comparable. I wonder if they can reach $10 billion like Toy Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
