Jump to content

Dementeleus

Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

By Dementeleus, in Box Office Discussion

Recommended Posts





MrGamer Blockbuster

MrGamer

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

I spent the last 6 months trying to get people to watch A Cure for Wellness so fuck no I ain’t giving up now

I can't believe this shit. Next you're going to tell me you never watched The Mexican either. 

Edited by MrGamer2558
Link to comment
Share on other sites
That One Girl Global Phenomenon

That One Girl

Posted
Posted
Just now, MrGamer2558 said:

I can't believe this shit. Next you're going to tell me you never watched The Time Machine or The Mexican. 

 

*ahem*

 

he did not get a directorial credit for The Time Machine and therefore it does not count as an official film in the library of Verbinski films.

 

(I have seen The Mexican though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Harpospoke Box Office Gold

Harpospoke

Posted
Posted

Are some suggesting that Fox is the only studio producing small budget indie type films?

 

Going back to last year, there are 736 films listed at Box Office Mojo.    I'll bet no one has watched a quarter of those films.   If anyone ran out of films to watch I would love to know your schedule.   And that's just one year.   There are still thousands of movies from previous years to get around to. 

 

Only 30 of them broke the 100m barrier so the overwhelming majority of them were smaller movies.   We are drowning in smaller films of every genre.   

 

If Disney buys Fox it's really not going to be noticeable.  (that's assuming Disney does not add to the huge pile with a former Fox division)

9 hours ago, Barnack said:

Lower budget less risk is a misconception I think, the safest movie of 2018 (if you define it as the minimum ROI it is certain to do) is probably the Last Jedi and it is one of the most expensive, the top 10 safest movie of 2018 would probably mostly fill of giant budget one.

 

There is a risk of opportunity with SW8 and it is still challenging to maximize is potential, same with Guardian of the Galaxy 2, but the risk of not reaching a 8% ROI on those 2 was almost nill, let alone the risk of loosing money on those.

 

King Arthur was in comparison much riskier so was Downsizing or Suburbicon, Risky tend to mean in people mouth:

 

The smaller the landing script for that movie commercial success, The Last Jedi will be a success in pre-sales even before anyone saw the movie.

 

That's what I meant.    Spending a ton of money on a Star Wars, Avengers, or JL movie isn't seen as risky because it is assumed they will make a ton of money.   You'll get your under performers just like you'll get under performing 20m movies.   Some times you'll get a JL or a Lone Ranger.   But they went in thinking it was safe to spend that much.

 

Studios set that budget and it's not an just chance that they spend more on some and less on others.   They don't spend as much on R rated movies for a reason.   It is to reduce the risk.   Their goal to make the risk exactly the same for every movie they make.   It doesn't always work out that way of course...but that's what they are shooting for.    They aren't going to spend 200m on a Deadpool movie ever (maybe 50 years from now).   THAT would be risky.    The budget for Deadpool was such a low risk for Fox that they pretty much let RR do what he wanted.   (Surprise....it's the highest grossing Fox/Marvel movie when Fox isn't as involved)

 

2 hours ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

I hate when people stupidly put words in my mouth. I never call any of these movies important, but apes franchise is challenging for disney, 'cos it is adult oriented. What was the last r-rated blockbuster disney released? Yeah, right.

We'll need to define what you mean by "blockbuster".   Cause there aren't many of them by any studio.    I count only 160 of them that have ever broken the 100m threshold.    Some of those were Disney movies released under the Miramax and Dimension banner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Premium George Blockbuster

Premium George

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Are some suggesting that Fox is the only studio producing small budget indie type films?

 

Going back to last year, there are 736 films listed at Box Office Mojo.    I'll bet no one has watched a quarter of those films.   If anyone ran out of films to watch I would love to know your schedule.   And that's just one year.   There are still thousands of movies from previous years to get around to. 

 

Only 30 of them broke the 100m barrier so the overwhelming majority of them were smaller movies.   We are drowning in smaller films of every genre.   

 

If Disney buys Fox it's really not going to be noticeable.  (that's assuming Disney does not add to the huge pile with a former Fox division)

That's what I meant.    Spending a ton of money on a Star Wars, Avengers, or JL movie isn't seen as risky because it is assumed they will make a ton of money.   You'll get your under performers just like you'll get under performing 20m movies.   Some times you'll get a JL or a Lone Ranger.   But they went in thinking it was safe to spend that much.

 

Studios set that budget and it's not an just chance that they spend more on some and less on others.   They don't spend as much on R rated movies for a reason.   It is to reduce the risk.   Their goal to make the risk exactly the same for every movie they make.   It doesn't always work out that way of course...but that's what they are shooting for.    They aren't going to spend 200m on a Deadpool movie ever (maybe 50 years from now).   THAT would be risky.    The budget for Deadpool was such a low risk for Fox that they pretty much let RR do what he wanted.   (Surprise....it's the highest grossing Fox/Marvel movie when Fox isn't as involved)

 

We'll need to define what you mean by "blockbuster".   Cause there aren't many of them by any studio.    I count only 160 of them that have ever broken the 100m threshold.    Some of those were Disney movies released under the Miramax and Dimension banner.

As barnack pointed out, that's before two decades from now. We are talking about current disney.

But current topic is whether thatoneguy deserves verbinski card or not, I don't want to interrupt that.

  • Like 3
  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barnack Global Phenomenon

Barnack

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

Was Kill Bill not Miramax in 2004?

Yes, I took has a very arbitrary for r-rated blockuster to be in top 200 of all time (i.e making more than 85m at the domestic box office), because it was easy:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm

 

Excluding both Kill bill of the list I looked for, I would not issue considering them blockbuster, but Kill bill 2 had an rumored budget of 30m and did 150m WW, a bit limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Harpospoke Box Office Gold

Harpospoke

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

As barnack pointed out, that's before two decades from now. We are talking about current disney.

But current topic is whether thatoneguy deserves verbinski card or not, I don't want to interrupt that.

:) 

But this could be Disney doing something about that.   Now they could have Fox to release those kinds of films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Premium George Blockbuster

Premium George

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

:) 

But this could be Disney doing something about that.   Now they could have Fox to release those kinds of films.

Yes they most probably will. But as a $60m deal, I am being skeptical. If fox doesn't turn liked profit, disney very well could turn them into a only family blockbuster model too.

Edited by damnitgeorge08
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Barnack Global Phenomenon

Barnack

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Going back to last year, there are 736 films listed at Box Office Mojo.    I'll bet no one has watched a quarter of those films.   If anyone ran out of films to watch I would love to know your schedule.   And that's just one year.   There are still thousands of movies from previous years to get around to. 

 

Only 30 of them broke the 100m barrier so the overwhelming majority of them were smaller movies.   We are drowning in smaller films of every genre.   

 

If Disney buys Fox it's really not going to be noticeable.  (that's assuming Disney does not add to the huge pile with a former Fox division)

510 of those had a budget of less than 1 million, those we have more than enough, but they are not studio movies.

 

Studio's (MPAA)produced 99 movies in 2016 for future release and released 139 movies in 2016 (97 from studio main branch, 42 from subsidiaries). Not so long ago studio's were releasing 200 movies a year and non member movies were 50/50 above/under 1 million not massively under 1 million like today.

 

We certainly do not lack the very small movies output (at least not in a big city), even arguably we get too many of them from jurisdiction that they are state funded that could probably make less of them, but better one.

 

The studio movie with a budget to tell that story semi-close to what the filmmaker had in is mind, those Gone Girl, 45 to 90m budget movies, those we are certainly not having that many of them.

 

59 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

If Disney buys Fox it's really not going to be noticeable.  (that's assuming Disney does not add to the huge pile with a former Fox division)

10 hours ago, Barnack said:

Depend what happen, like I said there is less and less studio movies, last year Fox released 21 movies (15% of the studios output) in 2015, 25.

 

It could be unnoticeable, could be ever better (better distribution, better budgets), they could reduce the main branch output, who knows, but it does not require much to be noticeable in the current strong trend of less and less movies.

 

59 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Their goal to make the risk exactly the same for every movie they make.  

I doubt that this is the case, would need to define risk, but if you look at a studio planning for movies the expected ROI by movies vary quite a bit (can go low 8%, go high 25%), you can read them doing a movie like Baby Driver expecting to loose a bit of money on it just to buy themselve Edgar Wright loyalty on future more commercial project, there is street creeds involved, there is lust even in some case from what we learned, vengeance, there is being a movie fan with a dream of doing a type of movie, trying to built relation with powerful actor/director/producer agents, a lot is going on for why a movie happen.

 

It was a vastly un-relational and bad business to be in in general, the just for money was vastly overrated concept, but it is going more and more toward that for sure now that the studio are more and more runned by people from a division that had nothing to do with movies and never produced anything in their life.

 

I doubt they had has a goal to make Pacific Rim has risky has Star Wars 8, (if we define risk by chance to not make 7% of more annual return on that investment) for example, that would have been just impossible to do, Star Wars is virtually certain to do it out of an major cataclysm, Pacific Rim need to deliver a trailer to do it and so on, even if it was free to do it would have been more risky to pay for is world distribution trying to make a profit then SW8 or the next MCU entry.

 

59 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

The budget for Deadpool was such a low risk for Fox that they pretty much let RR do what he wanted.   (Surprise....it's the highest grossing Fox/Marvel movie when Fox isn't as involved)

That is not the feeling I had from an long form interview with the people that wrote that movie (they even made them wrote a PG-13 version to see), Fox had is top guy on that movie with Simon Kinberg/Donner and 60m with a 100m or so release cost is one of the most risky budget out there, not less risky than giant budget movie, it was just not as risky as an original 60m obviously.

 

If you look at a list of movie with a rumored budget of 55 to 60m on the numbers:

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all/901

 

There is 197 of them.

93 achieved to do more than 2.01x their rumored budget at the world box office, around 50% it is not a particular safe budget bracket, not at all, giant movies will have an higher success rate than that, but most budget bracket tend to have the same success rate, budget has very little to do with safe or not (and often little to do with hard to green light or not). Obviously the consequence of failure are different, but the chance to fail tend to go up or stay the same with a lower budget, not down.

 

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harpospoke Box Office Gold

Harpospoke

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Barnack said:

510 of those had a budget of less than 1 million, those we have more than enough, but they are not studio movies.

 

Studio's (MPAA)produced 99 movies in 2016 for future release and released 139 movies in 2016 (97 from studio main branch, 42 from subsidiaries). Not so long ago studio's were releasing 200 movies a year and non member movies were 50/50 above/under 1 million not massively under 1 million like today.

 

We certainly do not lack the very small movies output (at least not in a big city), even arguably we get too many of them from jurisdiction that they are state funded that could probably make less of them, but better one.

 

The studio movie with a budget to tell that story semi-close to what the filmmaker had in is mind, those Gone Girl, 45 to 90m budget movies, those we are certainly not having that many of them.

 

Depend what happen, like I said there is less and less studio movies, last year Fox released 21 movies (15% of the studios output) in 2015, 25.

 

It could be unnoticeable, could be ever better (better distribution, better budgets), they could reduce the main branch output, who knows, but it does not require much to be noticeable in the current strong trend of less and less movies.

 

I doubt that this is the case, would need to define risk, but if you look at a studio planning for movies the expected ROI by movies vary quite a bit (can go low 8%, go high 25%), you can read them doing a movie like Baby Driver expecting to loose a bit of money on it just to buy themselve Edgar Wright loyalty on future more commercial project, there is street creeds involved, there is lust even in some case from what we learned, vengeance, there is being a movie fan with a dream of doing a type of movie, trying to built relation with powerful actor/director/producer agents, a lot is going on for why a movie happen.

 

It was a vastly un-relational and bad business to be in in general, the just for money was vastly overrated concept, but it is going more and more toward that for sure now that the studio are more and more runned by people from a division that had nothing to do with movies and never produced anything in their life.

 

I doubt they had has a goal to make Pacific Rim has risky has Star Wars 8, (if we define risk by chance to not make 7% of more annual return on that investment) for example, that would have been just impossible to do, Star Wars is virtually certain to do it out of an major cataclysm, Pacific Rim need to deliver a trailer to do it and so on, even if it was free to do it would have been more risky to pay for is world distribution trying to make a profit then SW8 or the next MCU entry.

 

That is not the feeling I had from an long form interview with the people that wrote that movie (they even made them wrote a PG-13 version to see), Fox had is top guy on that movie with Simon Kinberg/Donner and 60m with a 100m or so release cost is one of the most risky budget out there, not less risky than giant budget movie, it was just not as risky as an original 60m obviously.

 

If you look at a list of movie with a rumored budget of 55 to 60m on the numbers:

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all/901

 

There is 197 of them.

93 achieved to do more than 2.01x their rumored budget at the world box office, around 50% it is not a particular safe budget bracket, not at all, giant movies will have an higher success rate than that, but most budget bracket tend to have the same success rate, budget has very little to do with safe or not (and often little to do with hard to green light or not). Obviously the consequence of failure are different, but the chance to fail tend to go up or stay the same with a lower budget, not down.

 

I'm not seeing anything that changes the fact that they have lower budgets for movies that are expected to make less.   That changes according to how they view the risk.   The budget for DP 2 went up and we know why.  It's now seen as less risky to spend more on Deadpool.   The first time it was thought it would make less than X-men or Wolverine movies so they spent less.

 

They only spent 32 million on Baby Driver for the same reason.   I don't see how it can be argued that these budgets are lining up with expectations by accident. 

 

 I also don't see how anyone can expect a studio to lose money for "art".    The studios have always been run by people who want to make a lot of money.   And that's never stopped the creation of great movies.    Art and commerce are not mutually exclusive.   Mozart wrote all his music to make money.   Paul McCartney and John Lennon sat around trying to write hit songs.   (John would call it "Okay! Today let's write a swimming pool.")

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Barnack Global Phenomenon

Barnack

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

I'm not seeing anything that changes the fact that they have lower budgets for movies that are expected to make less.   That changes according to how they view the risk.   The budget for DP 2 went up and we know why.  It's now seen as less risky to spend more on Deadpool.   The first time it was thought it would make less than X-men or Wolverine movies so they spent less.

 

They only spent 32 million on Baby Driver for the same reason.   I don't see how it can be argued that these budgets are lining up with expectations by accident. 

 

 I also don't see how anyone can expect a studio to lose money for "art".    The studios have always been run by people who want to make a lot of money.   And that's never stopped the creation of great movies.    Art and commerce are not mutually exclusive.   Mozart wrote all his music to make money.   Paul McCartney and John Lennon sat around trying to write hit songs.   (John would call it "Okay! Today let's write a swimming pool.")

Budget are not necessarily based on what the movie is expected to do (you can have to pay people a lot if they expect to be working on a movie that will make a lot and you need them, sequel notably), but how much that story need to cost to make a good movie with a good trailer for that story on screen (and those who cost too much for what they are expected to make are just not made)

 

50 shades was expected to make a lot more than Deepwater Horizon, they didn't spent less on it because they expected that movie to make less, they spend less on it because you spend as little as you need to and you need more for Deepwater Horizon destruction spectacle out of the sea platform than for 50 Shades. Dp-2 cost a lot more because everyone involved is now paid a fortune. They cannot change budget looking at expecting risk, you cannot make a cheap Jupiter Ascending, Gravity or a Master & Commander movie because they are extremely risky movie, they are not those movie if you cut their budget anymore, you take a bigger risk on them (or you do not make them).

 

They spend a certain amount on Baby Driver because the director asked 55m gross to tell that story not necessarily based on what they expected the movie to do that was their take on it in the leaked email:

 

Does sony have to lose this to mrc if modi outbids tom? Edgar is one of the people we should have in our tent even if this one is scary at 45, it’s still getaway driver action with music and humor and he will be loyal to whomever makes this forever. Even if this one breaks even or is a loss leader he is someone who writes scripts with joe cornish and creates content and has the pop mainstream sensibility we like. Did Tom run numbers, have sales guys read? I don’t want Edgar locked in at mrc over us. 

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/33059

 

That saw that movie like a loss leader and would be happy with it even if it break even or loss money, because it would attract director and more build a relation with a director (and director friends) they love what they do.

 

Not sure who said that we should expect studio to loose money for "art", but we can expect studio to expect to loose money on some movies in their annual slate, because of the inherent risk that movies should be, if we want to have anything that is not a proven formula on screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites








lielixthe Straight-to-DVD

lielixthe

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

I feel like the government should step in and shut this Disney deal down before Disney owns the entire world.

What're they're supposed to do though? Tell FOX that to keep hanging onto assets they don't want or make a (presumably) markedly worse deal? Since Comcast being the buyer isn't a good outcome either, and I expect any potential offers to FOX will steeply fall off from there on out. Am legitimately confused here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites






Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept