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

[Jonwo]

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I 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 was a total surprise, Davinci code was such a giant success (the studio revenue on that movie were of 833 million) that they spent way to loosely on the sequel, Angels&Demon net production budget was of 193.56 million and people obviously 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 movie declined of just 35% at the box office, but declined by 50% on home video, 2006 when Da Vinci Code was release was maybe the all-time peak of Hollywood profitability.

 

That probably 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 divide their salary by 2 to make Inferno happen.

 

The Lost Symbol was very American centric being about Freemasons which likely concerned Sony since the Langdon series is more of a OS seller and Inferno was better received. 

[The Panda]

This spring is going to be non-stop until F8 pretty much

[Fancyarcher]

6 hours ago, Maxmoser3 said:

Cleopatra was considered the "John Carter" of its time 

 

Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of its year (1963), though. It's a rare film that was simultaneously the highest-grossing film of its year while also being a huge flop.

 

5 hours ago, JB33 said:

 

Cheaper casts.

 

 

 

I can't imagine that Wahlberg is very cheap, though.

 

6 hours ago, Orestes said:

Wasn't Superman two movies filmed concurrently?

 

 

 

 

Yup, the second one had a lot of reshoots done, though, since Donner got fired midway through production. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[CJohn]

13 minutes ago, The Panda said:

This spring is going to be non-stop until F8 pretty much

Oh it will stop... on March 23 (and probably March 30).

 

Back-to-back weekends of Lionsgate and Paramount bombs. I leaked a bit just to think about it.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, Fancyarcher said:

I can't imagine that Wahlberg is very cheap, though.

 

Wahlberg cost a reasonable cost, not cheap, but reasonable:

 

Salary $15M for Transformers 4, he has options in place for 2 sequels, at $19M and $20M respectively.

On the first he had points starting at 4% after 200 million at the world BO ramping up to 7.25%

 

Paramount give already a lot to Hasbro, Bay and Spielberg, so they cannot give much point to the cast, they try to limit first dollar gross going away to 25%, on a movie making 1 billion worldwide, that is a giant amount that goes away. 

[WrathOfHan]

I still think GITS can do 30M on OW. The recent trailer is outpacing John Wick 2's second trailer at a similar point in time by about 100k views.

[Jonwo]

5 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of its year (1963), though. It's a rare film that was simultaneously the highest-grossing film of its year while also being a huge flop.

 

Yup, the second one had a lot of reshoots done, though, since Donner got fired midway through production. 

 

Cleopatra was a huge behind the scenes fiasco, I think had they decided to split the film in two, they would have made a decent profit. The film almost bankrupted Fox but they were saved by The Sound of Music two years later.

 

Superman was $55m but thankfully was a huge hit grossing $300m WW. Marlon Brando was a good chunk of that budget.

[Jonwo]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Wahlberg cost a reasonable cost, not cheap, but reasonable:

 

Salary $15M for Transformers 4, he has options in place for 2 sequels, at $19M and $20M respectively.

On the first he had points starting at 4% after 200 million at the world BO ramping up to 7.25%

 

Paramount give already a lot to Hasbro, Bay and Spielberg, so they cannot give much point to the cast, they try to limit first dollar gross going away to 25%, on a movie making 1 billion worldwide, that is a giant amount that goes away. 

 

Spielberg must make a tidy sum being exec producer of Transformers, Jurassic World etc I imagine he's on a hefty salary for Ready Player One, more so than The BFG. 

[CJohn]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Wahlberg cost a reasonable cost, not cheap, but reasonable:

 

Salary $15M for Transformers 4, he has options in place for 2 sequels, at $19M and $20M respectively.

On the first he had points starting at 4% after 200 million at the world BO ramping up to 7.25%

 

Paramount give already a lot to Hasbro, Bay and Spielberg, so they cannot give much point to the cast, they try to limit first dollar gross going away to 25%, on a movie making 1 billion worldwide, that is a giant amount that goes away. 

Marky Mark is being very well payed.

 

You know a lot about insider stuff 

[YM!]

Shit.. this March we'll have 6 films (Logan, Kong, BaTB, PR, BB, and GiTS) over $100M domestic each weekend, and 2 (maybe 3) over $150M domestic.

[Jonwo]

I would guess huge salaries is why big actors are rarely paired together. You'd never see Jolie and Cruise in a film together or Hanks and Cruise because that would be $35-40m in salaries alone not including points and percentage of gross.

[Fancyarcher]

1 minute ago, Jonwo said:

 

Cleopatra was a huge behind the scenes fiasco, I think had they decided to split the film in two, they would have made a decent profit. The film almost bankrupted Fox but they were saved by The Sound of Music two years later.

 

Superman was $55m but thankfully was a huge hit grossing $300m WW. Marlon Brando was a good chunk of that budget.

 

 

Cleopatra was very much a behind the scenes fiasco, particularly with shooting locations, that's why its budget ballooned. 

 

Superman had a huge budget mostly for the effects and locations. Brando's salary also played a part though, it's pretty much the largest reason why he agreed to be in the film, of course. 

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, CJohn said:

Marky Mark is being very well payed.

 

You know a lot about insider stuff 

 

Those number were discussed in Sony leaked e-mail when they were planning what would be a good starting offer for Wahlberg as the lead role in Uncharted, it look like studio/agents talk between themselves on how much people got on previous project.

[Jonwo]

Just now, Fancyarcher said:

 

Cleopatra was very much a behind the scenes fiasco, particularly with shooting locations, that's why its budget ballooned. 

 

 

The original sets and costumes in London which were abandoned when they moved to Rome were reused either for free or on a very low cost for Carry On Cleo. 

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I would guess huge salaries is why big actors are rarely paired together. You'd never see Jolie and Cruise in a film together or Hanks and Cruise because that would be $35-40m in salaries alone not including points and percentage of gross.

 

When Jolie and Depp were in a movie together, The Tourist, it did cost 77.6 million in participation bonus (and I imagine 40 million in salary), Jolie seem to have been making around 50+ million by movie around that time when including the first dollar gross bonus, so was Depp I suppose.

 

I imagine that when big stars assemble for a movie now, they cut on what they usually get because they want to work together, Concussion was giving around 50% of the profit to is cast like American Hustle, the difference is that on Concussion 50% of the profit went to Will Smith alone, while the cast and director of Hustle had to split it among themselves.

[Fancyarcher]

4 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

The original sets and costumes in London which were abandoned when they moved to Rome were reused either for free or on a very low cost for Carry On Cleo. 

 

 

Makes sense! They set actually don't look bad, they were obviously very primitive, though, and look a bit unfinished. 

[Jonwo]

4 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Makes sense! They set actually don't look bad, they were obviously very primitive, though, and look a bit unfinished. 

 

For a Carry On film which were shot on shoestring budgets, they look like they spent some actual money! 

[CJohn]

Why the fuck are Smurfs and Boss Baby coming out on back-to-back weekends? 

[Jonwo]

6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I imagine that when big stars assemble for a movie now, they cut on what they usually get because they want to work together, Concussion was giving around 50% of the profit to is cast like American Hustle, the difference is that on Concussion 50% of the profit went to Will Smith alone, while the cast and director of Hustle had to split it among themselves.

 

I assume Hanks took a pay cut for Bridge of Spies and Sully as those were mid range budgets with big name directors. 

[Fancyarcher]

5 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

For a Carry On film which were shot on shoestring budgets, they look like they spent some actual money! 

 

 

Probably helps that they were actually using Hollywood made props.