Barnack Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, DAJK said: But theatres don't keep 50% of ticket sales. Actually, for the first 2 weeks of a movie's release, the take-away for theatres is very low. It's only when a movie is in its later weeks that less money goes back to studios. http://investor.amctheatres.com/Cache/1500096868.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1500096868&iid=4171292 In thousand 2016 Admissions : $2,049,428 2015 Admissions : $1,892,037 Film exhibition cost 2016: 1,089,501 (53%) 2015: 1,021,457 (53.9%) I thought that meant they paid around 53% in rental in average, that number from theater chain financial statement match exactly the number used in Sony leaked accounting (they got 53% of the box office on their movies). Are you sure you are not talking about the old model ?, that was before the mid 2000, when the box office became too front loaded and theater chain started to go under it changed to almost always flat fee by now. Look in that movie released in 2007: http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/ Even on a Potter movie 10 year's ago the rental was already just 55/56% (162m/292m) the theater keeping 44-45% on a title like that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 We have to wonder why they even open Logan Lucky in theaters at all. Why not go straight to Amazon Prime. Or why do any movie open in theater these days. The big money is in video and tv revenues. LL box office shows movies made for adults are big loser in the theatrical window, maybe streaming would have been better for this type of movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) On 8/22/2017 at 2:15 AM, HenryMeyers20 said: Or why do any movie open in theater these days. The big money is in video and tv revenues. Less than before (video and tv), theatrical is getting a larger and larger part of the pie (streaming, EST didn't made up for the dvd/physical rental / tv decline). But has a more general rules, the movie tend to get a lot of attention and value if it does go through theatrical (it is almost always costing more in p&A than ticket), it gain value in all is future windows versus a strait to video affair, your tv revenue depend on how much the movie made at the box office and so on. Edited August 23, 2017 by Barnack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I love what Kevin Smith and Steven Soderbergh are doing. I wished more filmmakers now will follow their lead. The fact you can make a profit at the theatrical window is unheard of in today's environment. What's even more incredible is that a good film with an all star cast can make profit opening weekend with just $7.6 million box office. Big Hollywood must be hating this. Even an inside Hollywood publication "Hollywood Reporter" is saying that Soderbergh's self distribution is a failure. Some publications is sticking to the false claim that LL needed to make $15m to be successful. But Soderbergh was never quoted saying that figure. This shows that big Hollywood don't like self distribution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, HenryMeyers20 said: The fact you can make a profit at the theatrical window is unheard of in today's environment. Well you can if you pre-sales other windows or world market or depending of the co-financing deal. calling it a profit at the theatrical window is playing a bit with the expression. Not that different than what studios sometime do, take Sony point of view on a movie they pre-sold the intl market like American Hustle: DOMESTIC THEATRICAL REVENUE 68,339 DTH MARKETING (24,130) (Annapurna Pictures paying for half the theatrical release cost) DTH PRINTS (COS) (1,330) DTH WPF, DUES, OTHER (COS) (625) DOMESTIC THEATRICAL MARGIN 42,255 DIRECT PRODUCTION COSTS (9,100) (net of intl presales) Quote What's even more incredible is that a good film with an all star cast can make profit opening weekend with just $7.6 million box office. There is a difference between someone making a profit from a film vs the film making a profit (that is usually the aggregate of all players), Liongates probably made a good profit from Power Rangers, Power Rangers didn't made a profit. Maybe most player will loose money out of it and maybe all the cast that worked at SAG minimum price would have lost their "bet" financially speaking including a big name director/producer that worked for nothing on it, vs what they would have done on a normal project that would have flopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 What Soderbergh did is different than Sony, because Sony dished out their own money for domestic P&A. With Logan Lucky the P&A was paid for by streaming sell to Amazon. As far as the cast and crew, no one loses. They choose to work for scale and profit sharing. They knew it's a gamble, but they believe in this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 31 minutes ago, HenryMeyers20 said: What Soderbergh did is different than Sony, because Sony dished out their own money for domestic P&A. With Logan Lucky the P&A was paid for by streaming sell to Amazon. It is a bit different but they were still in the black from theatrical alone because they sold the rest of the world market and dished only half of the domestic P&A, they made around 93 million from domestic Home Video/domestic streaming /domestic TV (something they would have never achieved without a giant theatrical release), selling that much to pay for P&A would have been a really bad gamble. And that what Soderbergh say, it would be surprising that achieve to sell markets the exact budget price, P&A being the exact first streaming windows price, etc... it is maybe just an expression of almost. Spoiler As far as the cast and crew, no one loses. They choose to work for scale and profit sharing. They knew it's a gamble, but they believe in this project. It is either a gamble (meaning that it is possible to win or loose) or not a gamble (and sure gamble is a choice, Daniel Graig probably have an hard time to care much about compensation on movies by now if it is not a 50 to 60m on a James Bond... It is gamble for Amazon, for the distribution company Bleecker Street for the international distributor, for the cast and everyone working on profit sharing and Soderbergh themselve. A movie production/distribution model need to be evaluated has a hole, does all is actor make money from it ? To be sustainable and for other filmmaker to have that possibility it need for the people experimented with it to make money for the financier, not making money themselves (that does not help the future people to copycat what they did) You can talk about Soderbergh/Tatum other production company itself point of view having made the good gamble and not being the one that will absorb the loss, but if you talk about the movie I would think you need to see the aggregate to judge if the movie is a success (vs the movie was a success for Actor X), we need to see how much the people that bought the movies right will make and what kind of value it will have on an Amazon catalog (say they paid 10-15m for a movie that does not end up being much more popular than an beast of no nation, would it not have been better for them to have an exclusive at that price point ?). Robocop remake was maybe a nice success for MGM, not for Sony that had the domestic market for example, Valerian for Eurocorps vs the distributer buyer, etc.... Not that much different here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Could LL be recognized at awards times? The Independence Spirit Award may give it a few nominations. Also Golden Globes in its best comedy and musical categories. The Oscars is going to be kinda tough, because they don't seem to be in to comedies. But they did give a few nominations for American Hustle, which is a similar movie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 hours ago, HenryMeyers20 said: Could LL be recognized at awards times? The Independence Spirit Award may give it a few nominations. Also Golden Globes in its best comedy and musical categories. The Oscars is going to be kinda tough, because they don't seem to be in to comedies. But they did give a few nominations for American Hustle, which is a similar movie. No chance. Indie Spirits are now totally adjusting their nominations to Oscars. So it's less indie and more what they expect to be nominated by AMPAS. sell-outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, HenryMeyers20 said: The Independence Spirit Award may give it a few nominations Because independant does not mean much nowaday and would really be hard to define, they are more a low budget movie award than independant movie award They reserve the right of breaking the rules and make exception but in general: https://s3.amazonaws.com/SA_SubForm_etc/2018_SAsubmissions_RulesRegs_080917.pdf Cost of completed film, including post, should be less than $20 million. Any variations are at the sole discretion of the Nominating Committees and Film Independent. Logan Lucky 30 million production start to be a bit big for them. 25 minutes ago, Valonqar said: No chance. Indie Spirits are now totally adjusting their nominations to Oscars. So it's less indie and more what they expect to be nominated by AMPAS. sell-outs. The Witch won 2 spirits last year, Swiss Army Men has 2 noms, ... Isn't it more AMPAS that started to accept smaller movie than a shift the other way around ? Edited August 23, 2017 by Barnack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 @Barnack I read quite a few write-ups that Indies are copying AMPAS within their "low budget movie" frame. It isn't my observation cause I don't follow small movies, but I read about it from supposed experts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 The Indie concept was always a fallacy to me, wether it is in movies or music or any other field. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Valonqar said: @Barnack I read quite a few write-ups that Indies are copying AMPAS within their "low budget movie" frame. It isn't my observation cause I don't follow small movies, but I read about it from supposed experts. Those supposed expert often have an hard time distinguishing about correlation/causation and love creating narrative to have year long content talking about a one day event. If you go look at the indies of 2005: Best Feature Brokeback Mountain Capote Good Night, and Good Luck. The Squid and the Whale The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada Best First Feature Crash Very similar to AMPAS already at that time, same for the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_Independent_Spirit_Awards A shift happened where the result between the 2 started to look more similar, late 90/early 2000, did the indie spirit award changed ? or did independant movies became mainstream and studio's became acquisition/distribution machine of them while producing less and less of their own movie every year, with the dvds/streaming making it easier to reach AMPAS voters with your movies than before and them voting less for the movie of their own studio ? Pulp fiction won in 1994, Fargo in 1996. It is hard to distinguish how much a movie like Moonlight winning both at the indie spirit and the Oscar last year is the spirit trying to become predictor or the AMPAS enlarging the array of movie they accept to consider that would have been confined to indies awards in the past. There is also the fact that in the past oscar type people worked with larger budget than now. Edited August 23, 2017 by Barnack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 @Barnack I understand now. Thanks. So-called experts indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 What about the Golden Globes? Does LL have a good chance to be recognized in the comedy and musical categories? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 8 hours ago, The Futurist said: The Indie concept was always a fallacy to me, wether it is in movies or music or any other field. The indie field is driven by starry eyed rich people willing to blow their money on awesome bad investments. Thank you everyone who lost money. Im exaggerating but that shit drives a lot of it. Not just indies either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 On 8/21/2017 at 5:32 PM, DAJK said: But theatres don't keep 50% of ticket sales. Actually, for the first 2 weeks of a movie's release, the take-away for theatres is very low. It's only when a movie is in its later weeks that less money goes back to studios. It usually doesnt work that way anymore. Theaters on average do keep 50%. And even when it did, those percentages were misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire of Themyscira Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 Wanna check this out for my girl, Riley, rumoured for Poison Ivysus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAM! Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 10 hours ago, Claire of Themyscira said: Wanna check this out for my girl, Riley, rumoured for Poison Ivysus. She'd be great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryMeyers20 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Opening weekend is 100% marketing. Soderbergh bad decision was to focus the marketing to the lowest populated and poorest parts of the country.Rural areas don't have enough people for a big box office hit. A lot of rural people don't even have money to go to a movie.It's amazing it made as much as it did.If your are selling a product you have to go where the people live, people that can also afford your product. How do you expect the masses to turn out when you don't marketed to the masses. Soderbergh is a very good director and he is good at financing his film. But he knows nothing about film marketing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
