Weekend #s: Sully 22M, Blair Witch 9.6M, Bridget Jones 8.2M, Snowden 8M, DB 5.6M, WTBB 5.5M, Squad 4.7M

[AHepBurn]

Finally had free time and caught Star Trek. Figured I had to being a Trekkie and it being the 75th. Loved the Sabotage part.

[Jake Gittes]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

Don't Breathe is looking at a sub-30% drop this weekend despite Blair Witch opening. A sign of either really good word-of-mouth or just how little appeal Blair Witch had.

 

Both and a tiny theater count drop

[Mojoguy]

Finally had free time and caught Star Trek. Figured I had to being a Trekkie and it being the 75th. Loved the Sabotage part.

You think it is the 75th? You are no Trekkie!

[pretty reckless]

to those who've seen BWP, is it basically a modern way of retelling the original?

[AHepBurn]

11 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

You think it is the 75th? You are no Trekkie!

 I think number stuck because a theater attendant asked if we were watching Star Trek because of the 75th anniversary. Being a little tipsy, it wasn't until we sat down that what she said hit me and all I could think was "Wait, Superman's 75th was three years ago! Star Trek can't be 75! Wonder Woman is 75 this year... Did Star Trek have a book or something before the series that I never knew about all this time? It's got to have come out only in the 60s, right?" Apparently it's still bugging me.

[trifle]

3 minutes ago, AHepBurn said:

 I think number stuck because a theater attendant asked if we were watching Star Trek because of the 75th anniversary. Being a little tipsy, it wasn't until we sat down that what she said hit me and all I could think was "Wait, Superman's 75th was three years ago! Star Trek can't be 75! Wonder Woman is 75 this year... Did Star Trek have a book or something before the series that I never knew about all this time? It's got to have come out only in the 60s, right?" Apparently it's still bugging me.

 

Who are we to know when gestation began?

 

3 minutes ago, AHepBurn said:

 I think number stuck because a theater attendant asked if we were watching Star Trek because of the 75th anniversary. Being a little tipsy, it wasn't until we sat down that what she said hit me and all I could think was "Wait, Superman's 75th was three years ago! Star Trek can't be 75! Wonder Woman is 75 this year... Did Star Trek have a book or something before the series that I never knew about all this time? It's got to have come out only in the 60s, right?" Apparently it's still bugging me.

 

It's the 50th, but they sure didn't market Beyond with all the 50th celebration!

[That One Girl]

SEE SNOWDEN.  NOW.

[DAJK]

Blair Witch and Bridget Jones are doing very well at my theatre for what they are. Will both come close to if not too 20M. Actually, I think Bridget topping 20 is a given at this point. Blair Witch I see around 17-18.

[TalismanRing]

6 hours ago, Blair Witch failed Baumer said:

With a 5 mill budget Blair Witch willbe profitable after the first weekend. Doesnt change the fact that its a sad number.

 

A micro budget but Deadline reported a $20-25m P&A expenditure which isn't large but big enough to make any profit an up hill battle.

[grim22]

17 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

A micro budget but Deadline reported a $20-25m P&A expenditure which isn't large but big enough to make any profit an up hill battle.

 

True, but I think Lionsgate covered a bit from Foreign Presales as well.

[cannastop]

@CJohn

 

I know that you like predicting the demise of movie studios, but when I look through Lionsgate on Yahoo Finance, I see a company that's definitely going to continue operations in the near future. Maybe if they start having catastrophic losses every quarter, they could be gone in 3 years.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LGF/financials?p=LGF

[grim22]

10 minutes ago, cannastop said:

@CJohn

 

I know that you like predicting the demise of movie studios, but when I look through Lionsgate on Yahoo Finance, I see a company that's definitely going to continue operations in the near future. Maybe if they start having catastrophic losses every quarter, they could be gone in 3 years.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LGF/financials?p=LGF

 

 

The thing about most movie studios now is that their financials are barely affected by movie performances anymore. Even Lionsgate has a TV division which does very well for them, they are more vulnerable to their movies flopping or underperforming like happened with MJ1 and MJ2 when their stock was hit but even they are diversified enough now.

[grim22]

Brad Miska defends his review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[baumer]

This is really funny.  So people disagree with a review and they are calling the reviewer out for it?  Ridiculous.  There are people who loved Blair Witch.  I'm not one of them but I can see how some would love it.

[baumer]

This is really funny.  So people disagree with a review and they are calling the reviewer out for it?  Ridiculous.  There are people who loved Blair Witch.  I'm not one of them but I can see how some would love it.

[baumer]

6 hours ago, m3racer123 said:

 

But with a $20m+ marketing budget, I'd imagine it has to pass $50m or thereabouts WW just to break even.

 

Marketing budgets have never bee used to determine how profitable a film is.  With a 5 mill PB, this is going to make a solid return for LG.

[grim22]

7 minutes ago, Blair Witch failed Baumer said:

This is really funny.  So people disagree with a review and they are calling the reviewer out for it?  Ridiculous.  There are people who loved Blair Witch.  I'm not one of them but I can see how some would love it.

 

 

I think it is more because the early review from Bloody Disgusting calling it a "game changer" was what started the big hype train for Blair Witch. The backlash against the horror sites which gave Blair Witch those early glowing reviews has been particularly harsh this weekend.

[POTUS 2020]

9 hours ago, Noctis said:

There's nothing wrong with plastic surgery if you know how to do it. For example, if you remove a bump on your nose and make it a little more straight...but when you go overboard and keep doing procedures, and then filling your face with so much botox and fillers your cheeks resemble donuts, then...

Like many other things in life, people get addicted to more of it until it destroys them

 

[Jonwo]

47 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

The thing about most movie studios now is that their financials are barely affected by movie performances anymore. Even Lionsgate has a TV division which does very well for them, they are more vulnerable to their movies flopping or underperforming like happened with MJ1 and MJ2 when their stock was hit but even they are diversified enough now.

 

It was the same with DWA before Comcast bought them, when their movies did wel, the stock went up but a movie underperforms then the stock took a hit

[TalismanRing]

30 minutes ago, Blair Witch failed Baumer said:

 

Marketing budgets have never bee used to determine how profitable a film is.  With a 5 mill PB, this is going to make a solid return for LG.

 

They are by the studio.  Disproportionately increasing marketing budgets are one of the two main reasons (decreasing home video is the other)  major studios have slashed their production of medium sized films. They're more likely to go very low or very high in terms of budget.  Marketing costs make it very hard for these films to be profitable even if a film seemingly does well for it's comparative budget and genre. These kind of movies aren't going to make much if any money through merchandising or product placement which can off set marketing with  tent poles..
 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818

 

Quote

In 1980, the average cost of marketing a studio movie in the U.S. was $4.3 million ($12.4 million in today's dollars). By 2007, it had shot up to nearly $36 million. If the MPAA still tracked spending on P&A, that number would be north of $40 million today for medium-size films like The Fault in Our Stars or Tammy.