Weekend Estimates: Kong 61M, Logan 37.8M, Get Out 21M, Shack 10M, Lego Batman 7.8M

[That One Girl]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I got the Dunkirk prologue before Kong.  Loved the shit out of it.

[DeeCee]

2 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

He had sort of a "You're not gonna have Nixon to kick around anymore!" moment after PH. Fuck everything, he'll just direct mindless toy actions commercials for the rest of his career and get really well-paid to do so. 

Reminds me of this. 

 

"We used 7 helicopters."

 

 

[aabattery]

9 minutes ago, CJohn said:

Way too many spoiler tags here.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

sorry

 

 

 

 

 

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I got the Dunkirk prologue before Kong.  Loved the shit out of it.

Same, but it did nothing for me?  Which is odd because I like Nolan.  

[robertman2]

Kong better be worth driving my moped in 40 degree weather for

[Jonwo]

3 hours ago, grim22 said:

 

Transformers 3 and 4 both got over 100M in tax credits from Chicago, and Transformers 5 will get close to that from Detroit. They get subsidized by that in almost every facet of production, else we would be seeing ridiculous budgets on them. Pirates is the one series which always goes crazy with the budgets, Pirates 5 had already reached 320M in production budget a month before filming even ended. Pirates 4 had a 410M budget according to tax documents they filed. Hobbit was 600+M for 3 movies shot back to back, would have probably been almost 600M for 2 before they decided it was too risky at that budget and made 3 movies instead.

 

The Last Knight filmed in the UK so they get tax credits there too, the generous tax credits is the reason many tentpoles shoot in the UK, WB's purchase of Leavesden turned out to be very good as it's always busy not only with WB but other productions, Pinewood and Shepperton are at capacity as well. 

 

Pirates is expensive because filming with water tend to drives up budgets, filming with Queensland for the new film was actually for financial reasons, The Lone Ranger was $250m which was too high for a Western. 

 

 

3 hours ago, cookie said:

 

Last Knight is said to be $260 million.

 

But for all his faults Micheal Bay is known for shooting on time and on budget.

 

Bay along with Nolan and Eastwood are known for shooting on time and on budget, Nolan was under budget for his last few films which is unusual. 

[DAJK]

Calling it now when deadline does its late night Saturday report it'll say "Kong heading to 56-57M+ weekend"

[cubsfan]

8 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Calling it now when deadline does its late night Saturday report it'll say "Kong heading to 56-57M+ weekend"

Hope so.  I really want this to do well.  

[Jonwo]

4 hours ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

Yeah, I just mentioned those movies because I remember that they cost a lot of $$$ for their time and did not remotely make it back. Dante's Peak was another one (admittedly, the effects were spectacular in that movie) 

 

Somehow, Spielberg and Lucas always manage to make big movies with far less anyone else seems able to. 

 

I get the feeling Spielberg and Lucas are more cost conscious directors, The BFG cost $140m which to me wasn't that expensive considering how visually heavy it was. Zemeckis in comparison spent a lot more on films like What Lies Beneath which cost $100m, $10m more than than Castaway and Forrest Gump which cost $55m in 1994 but luckily was a huge hit not to mention the motion capture years where the films were between $150-200m, his last three films cost a lot less. 

 

Films like Manchester by the Sea, Moonlight etc everyone is working for scale and ironically those films tend to have a harder time raising money but the producers usually sell the distribution rights and recoup the budget. 

[Ethan Hunt]

La La Land every bit as great on viewing number 3

[grim22]

37 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Calling it now when deadline does its late night Saturday report it'll say "Kong heading to 56-57M+ weekend"

 

I won't be surprised. It held really well on Movietickets today, losing only 2% whereas most movies lose 5-8% on Saturday since Friday is the biggest day and includes previews.

[the128boy]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Or he explains that of course a Tiger will beat a Cub.

 

HILARIOUS part. My theater cracked up at that part and several others.

[Mulder]

Kong is doing insane at my theater rn. We're packed

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, John Marston said:

One more  ridiculous budget movie. Men in Black 3 for 225m. Lmao

 

If only, the net budget was of 245.908 million

 

5 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

And yet, still nicely profitable. 

 

Depends for who, for the cast, director and Spielberg it certainly was, with a very nice 88.43 million participation bonus, but a 245.9 million movie + a 88.43 million from gross participation turned it into a massive 334.33 million dollar movie, it's box office should have been enough to break even but the movie flopped on home media.

 

Third party investor lost 19.93 million on the movie, Sony studio lost 28.112 million.

 

Men in Black 3 and Angels&Demon loosing a lot of money are 2 of the most extreme example that we just don't know, except for the most obvious case, if a movie was profitable or not.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Barnack

[boxofficeth]

Gotta love the enthusiasm in this room in this truly historic March. 

 

When was the last time outside summer that we have three consecutive 50M+ openers? Purely great!

[Jonwo]

Just now, Barnack said:

 

If only, the net budget was of 245.908 million

 

 

Depends for who, for the cast, director and Spielberg it certainly was, with a very nice 88.43 million participation bonus, but a 245.9 million movie + a 88.43 million from gross participation turned it into a massive 334.33 million dollar movie, it's box office should have been enough to break even but the movie flopped on home media.

 

Third party investor lost 19.93 million on the movie, Sony studio lost 28.112 million.

 

Men in Black 3 and Angels&Demon loosing a lot of money are 2 of the most extreme example that we just don't know, except for extreme example, if a movie was profitable or not.

 

Didn't MIB3 go majorly over budget due to shutting down mid production to rework the script?

 

Angels and Demons I'm surprised lost money, probably explained why Inferno had a smaller budget.

[grim22]

3 minutes ago, boxofficeth said:

Gotta love the enthusiasm in this room in this truly historic March. 

 

When was the last time outside summer that we have three consecutive 50M+ openers? Purely great!

 

2 years ago. We had Cinderella, Insurgent, Home and Furious 7 in back to back weeks in March-April.

[CJohn]

1 minute ago, grim22 said:

 

2 years ago. We had Cinderella, Insurgent, Home and Furious 7 in back to back weeks in March-April.

That was an insane March.

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

When was the last time a non VFX heavy/adult skewing movie made more than 200m in USA ?

 

Besides American Sniper.

 

Passion of the Christ maybe ?

 

It has become rarefied air.

 

They are extremely rare in the last 10 year's, outside American sniper

 

2009: The blind side made 255 million/Hangover 277 million

2011: Hangover 2 made 254 million

 

 

 

[Barnack]

31 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

Didn't MIB3 go majorly over budget due to shutting down mid production to rework the script?

 

Angels and Demons I'm surprised lost money, probably explained why Inferno had a smaller budget.

 

It does seem to have went overbudget, it was greenlight for 210 million net, 35 million less than the end result, Sony also expected getting 58-59% of the domestic box office at one point....

 

Angels&Demons loosing money was a total surprise to me too, The Da Vinci code was such a giant success (the studio revenue on that movie were of 833 million) that they spent a lot on the sequel (probably have no choice, how do you say no to that team after the first movie), Angels&Demon net production budget was of 193.56 million and people obviously got big first dollar gross deal, they gave 62.25 million in bonus, turning it effectively in a movie costing over 250 million with a giant 170 million world P&A release. Having a budget + bonus + p&A of 425 million was not updated to the new reality of the dvd market that just started to decline, the sequel declined of just 35% at the box office from the original, but declined by 50% on home video, 2006 when Da Vinci Code was release was maybe the all-time peak of Hollywood profitability.

 

Yes, that must be why they cancelled the sequel and did skip one book (the sequel had a release date planned and all), the cast/director/producer accepted to open their contract, remove first dollar gross and divided their salary by 2 to make Inferno happen.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Barnack