Weekend Estimates: Ant-Man 58.04 | Minions 50.24 | Trainwreck 30.24 | IO 11.66 | JW 11.36 (Page 88)

[CoolioD1]

 At least 10 films released in 2015 over 300m DOM

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/19604-at-least-10-films-released-in-2015-over-300m-dom/

I'm not even sure hateful eight will make 100 million. the fuck?

[a2k]

I'm not even sure hateful eight will make 100 million. the fuck?

 

Maybe not that film. But we have 9 films with a shot, and am risking that there will be 1 more surprise.

[KATCH-2D2]

Oh trust me, I'm in the same boat. I've bought so many movies just for a certain packaging.

But as I'm running out of physical space to store my movies, digital copies of certain movies now is becoming a more frequent option, especially when I can buy UVHD copies that'll stream on Vudu or Flixster in the secondary market for $1 for old releases and $5 for new releases.

A few of my steelbooks, some suspect movies, but they were steelbooks so I had to have them.

 

I love steelbooks too. I owned quite a few from your photo. Sometimes I chose to buy DIGI-books or regular BRs with a nice slip (especially the lenticular ones), whatever appealed to me the most.  Glad I'm not the only collector around here.

 

Thats the exact case with me when it comes to books. Its so easy to find free copies of almost any book online. But E-books are just not the same as Physical copies of the books. The Cover Artwork, actually holding the book, the ease of flipping the papers, even the smell of paper - it all makes the experience so much better. But since I don't earn myself as of yet I have to make do with the fucking downloaded E-Books from the net 

^100% agree!! I'm more serious about physical books than movies actually. At least I've downloaded quite a few movies, I have ZERO e-book in my possession.

 

My saving account has never lived up to it's name for a good reason.  I bet there're some dusk and spider-web in there.

[Gokira2012]

Kevin Feige needs to be fired

[Focus]

Ant-Man is doing well but not well enough to justify a sequel. Hope actuals increase.

[JennaJ]

Ant-Man is doing well but not well enough to justify a sequel. Hope actuals increase.

 

Oh? I thought it was demolishing the competition. Hm.

[scoobysaurus]

Ant-Man is doing well but not well enough to justify a sequel. Hope actuals increase.

 

 

Oh? I thought it was demolishing the competition. Hm.

 

Unfortunately it crumbled

[Ethan Hunt]

Oh trust me, I'm in the same boat. I've bought so many movies just for a certain packaging.

But as I'm running out of physical space to store my movies, digital copies of certain movies now is becoming a more frequent option, especially when I can buy UVHD copies that'll stream on Vudu or Flixster in the secondary market for $1 for old releases and $5 for new releases.

A few of my steelbooks, some suspect movies, but they were steelbooks so I had to have them.

Cars 2 is a giant red flag

[Caesar]

Really someone explain, what exactly is it about the numbers that Ant-Man is doing that doesn't justify a sequel. Especially when other movie with larger budgets have gotten sequels with the same numbers.

[Quigley]

Cars 2 is a giant red flag

 

Brave too.

[DAR]

Maybe H8ful 8 gets to 300 mil WW

[DAR]

Battle LA is in that group, enough said

[Ethan Hunt]

Brave too.

Your avatar :wub: :wub:

Less than a year away!!!!!

Yeah Brave wasn't good ( I don't think it was anywhere near as bad as Cars 2 though)

[scoobysaurus]

Really someone explain, what exactly is it about the numbers that Ant-Man is doing that doesn't justify a sequel. Especially when other movie with larger budgets have gotten sequels with the same numbers.

Well I'm no box office expert (yet) and correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ant-Man is barely going to break even.

 

The movie has a budget of $130m. Assuming it makes $160m dom, it'll make a profit of $80m. So it's going to need $50m profit from overseas for which it has to gross approximately $200m overseas. It's going to make around $250m OS IMO and with that it barely breaks even. And this is without considering marketing costs. Why would studios want to make sequels to movies that aren't very profitable? They're much better off making IM, CA or Avengers sequels rather than Ant man.

[Infernus]

Kevin Feige needs to be fired

 

And you need to be banned.

[WrathOfHan]

Well I'm no box office expert (yet) and correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ant-Man is barely going to break even.

 

The movie has a budget of $130m. Assuming it makes $160m dom, it'll make a profit of $80m. So it's going to need $50m profit from overseas for which it has to gross approximately $200m overseas. It's going to make around $250m OS IMO and with that it barely breaks even. And this is without considering marketing costs. Why would studios want to make sequels to movies that aren't very profitable? They're much better off making IM, CA or Avengers sequels rather than Ant man.

It's very similar to Mad Max. A sequel will only improve BO gains.

[Caesar]

Well I'm no box office expert (yet) and correct me if I'm wrong but I think Ant-Man is barely going to break even.

 

The movie has a budget of $130m. Assuming it makes $160m dom, it'll make a profit of $80m. So it's going to need $50m profit from overseas for which it has to gross approximately $200m overseas. It's going to make around $250m OS IMO and with that it barely breaks even. And this is without considering marketing costs. Why would studios want to make sequels to movies that aren't very profitable? They're much better off making IM, CA or Avengers sequels rather than Ant man.

CA was in a similar position after its first movie, actually a worse one when you consider the budget. Plus making a profit just based on it's box office is good, it means you're just making pure profit from the ancillary markets. 

 

That wasn't the question though, the fact is that there are plenty of sequels to movies that have done worse to the point that they couldn't have made a profit based on box office, X-Men FC comes to mind. Why would Ant-Man, which is being well received, not be able to get a sequel.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Caesar

[KATCH-2D2]

Brave too.

The movie looked gorgeous in HD, I'd rather have Brave in my collection than The Town and Unforgiven (which I bought and have only watched once..  ).

Edited July 19, 2015 by KATCH 22

[Fake]

If a movie breaks even with just theatrical run then it has done very well.

Ant Man is getting a sequel as long as it grosses 150M+ domestic and there is enough goodwill to ensure that the sequel's gross will not go down (home video sales are a good indicator of that).

DOM/OS ratio generally keeps getting better with sequels, so if it does 250M then the sequel will easily do 300M+. Any studio will be happy with 450-500M guaranteed gross.

[JennaJ]

CA was in a similar position for its first movie though, actually a worse when you consider the budget. Plus making a profit just based on it's box office is good, it means you're just making pure profit from the ancillary markets. 

 

That wasn't the question though, the fact is that there are plenty of sequels to movies that have done worse to the point that they couldn't have made a profit based on box office, X-Men FC comes to mind. Why would Ant-Man, which is being well received, not be able to get a sequel.

 

Personally, I think some people speculate this won't get a sequel because expectations have been elevated post Avengers. What was considered good for CA1 or Thor isn't as impressive when it comes at the end of Phase 2 after Marvel gained such a following.

The lowest grossing movie in Phase 2 was Thor TDW with 206m. This looks like it won't reach within 40m of that, so that's quite a downward trajectory from the rest of the Phase 2 movies.

But I think a lot depends on legs. If legs are good enough to suggest WOM got people to watch it who wouldn't otherwise (like Mad Max or Inside Out), then Marvel might be more open to a sequel after they integrate the characters better with Civil War etc.