Skyscraper | July 13 2018 | Legendary | Rawson Marshall Thurber directing. The Rock. China co-production, set in China.

[baumer]

18 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

You can criticize The Rock for sometimes trashing negative articles on his social media, sending his tens of millions of followers against a poor journalist or blogger.

 

Having an over-optimistic outlook on his latest movie's financial prospects (and it was indeed #1 worldwide) is nothing out of the ordinary. Skyscraper will be a minor flop anyway.

 

Doubt it.  It will be a minor hit, if anything.

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, Jay Beezy said:

I'm talking about the maximum amount of money a movie could lose that the studio would still be willing to make a sequel.

Is there any link with that and the message you quoted ?

 

Has for the question there is no hard rules about how much a movie can loose and still go with a sequel, it is all about at what price they can make a sequel and how much they think it could do.

 

4 hours ago, AndyK said:

They also use that trick to avoid paying actors residuals.

That is hard residual are calculated on revenues not profit, and third party accounting firm are usually in charge of making sure everything is ok.

 

 

 

[AndyK]

32 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Is there any link with that and the message you quoted ?

 

Has for the question there is no hard rules about how much a movie can loose and still go with a sequel, it is all about at what price they can make a sequel and how much they think it could do.

 

That is hard residual are calculated on revenues not profit, and third party accounting firm are usually in charge of making sure everything is ok.

No, its calculated on profit.

 

The most famous case being the actor that played Darth Vader who complained he hasn't recieved a single penny in residuals from Star Wars because they haven't turned a profit.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/

 

I'm sure they keep their stars happy.

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

No, its calculated on profit.

 

You are talking about some custom agreed type of deal and not residual.

 

You can look at how residual are calculated:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53410bafe4b065254d7107c5/t/54d0c71ee4b0fbe008c667f9/1422968606172/Residuals+summary+chart+v+18.pdf

 

All post theatrical windows residual use gross revenues in the formula, big flop still pay residuals, it is guild rules.

 

If a big talent want more than those and obtain it via is own contract ability, then it can take many many form, but it is almost never calculated on profits.

 

The closer it goes to profit, is by using a pre-determined hard rules formula that look close to what profit will look like, but that make it clear how what is called "profit" is calculated.

 

Many of the story you heard about Hollywood accounting lying about profit were bad entertainment reporting.

 

The studio didn't told the Forest Gump writer that movie didn't made a profit (Tom Hanks and Zemeckis both made fortune in bonus), they told him they fucked him with a stupid contract he signed without a lawyer/accounting team that stipulated they could put a bunch of movies on the bottom line.

 

Because of those error story, actual net profit without a clear pre-determined how it will be calculated seem to have stopped (from the contract I did read), usually writer/director/actor can know their bonus just by going on box office mojo and an excel sheet.

[Jay Beezy]

59 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Is there any link with that and the message you quoted ?

Where is this coming from in terms of a link and quoted message? I feel like your interpretation of things is out of whack. It’s about basic math and common sense. Excluding notions of pre-existing franchises and universes, if a movie loses a shit ton of money, then you wouldn’t be making a sequel. But if only loses just a bit, then perhaps you can go ahead with a sequel.

 

I take back franchises since a big bomb in a franchise can bury it.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Jay Beezy

[AndyK]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

You are talking about some custom agreed type of deal and not residual.

 

You can look at how residual are calculated:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53410bafe4b065254d7107c5/t/54d0c71ee4b0fbe008c667f9/1422968606172/Residuals+summary+chart+v+18.pdf

 

All post theatrical windows residual use gross revenues in the formula, big flop still pay residuals, it is guild rules.

 

If a big talent want more than those and obtain it via is own contract ability, then it can take many many form, but it is almost never calculated on profits.

 

The closer it goes to profit, is by using a pre-determined hard rules formula that look close to what profit will look like, but that make it clear how what is called "profit" is calculated.

 

Many of the story you heard about Hollywood accounting lying about profit were bad entertainment reporting.

 

The studio didn't told the Forest Gump writer that movie didn't made a profit (Tom Hanks and Zemeckis both made fortune in bonus), they told him they fucked him with a stupid contract he signed without a lawyer/accounting team that stipulated they could put a bunch of movies on the bottom line.

 

Because of those error story, actual net profit without a clear pre-determined how it will be calculated seem to have stopped (from the contract I did read), usually writer/director/actor can know their bonus just by going on box office mojo and an excel sheet.

Not really, only a A lister can get a contract from "first dollar".

 

Quote

What your actor is banking on is that your film will actually generate a revenue stream, and at some point—whether it is from the “first dollar” the film makes (if your star is truly “A-list”), when the film actually moves into net profitability (which, under Hollywood accounting, will likely never happen), or at some point in the middle of the film’s revenue stream —he or she will share in those revenues.

https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/series/cinema_law/cinema-law-big-star-no-money-back-end-residuals/

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

Where is this coming from in terms of a link and quoted message?

 

You quoted that message:

Spoiler

Yeah I removed my bonus estimate into the course, but you get the point, 344m + ovearhead + participation it is still above 338m.

 

And that for a giant success, imagine moderate success, just ok, just not loosing money.... That just an extreme example to show how hard it is to just make production cost + world release cost from theater (without even counting overhead and participation, 2 aspect people seem to count has completely different cost).

 

Spectre for example was a movie that was rumored to have a chance to achieve that (Made 880m at the box office)

 

At 770m WW it would have not done it (200/570).

 

Theatrical profit:

domestic rental: 102.74

intl rental: 235.89

Revenues:  338.63

 

Theatrical release cost:

Domestici: 62.06m

intl: 94.76m

Net production cost: 220m

Cost without overhead: 376.82

Cost with OH: 398.82m

Cost with OH and creative share: above 430m

 

And asked below:

There must be some sort of loss threshold that would still allow for a sequel.

 

I was asking did you misquote the wrong message or was there any link between what you quoted and the question ?

 

8 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

I feel like your interpretation of things is out of whack. It’s about basic math and common sense.

I literally just copied-pasted a studio accounting sheet of the closest movie (in release year, production budget and box office performance) I could find.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

Excluding notions of pre-existing franchises and universes, if a movie loses a shit ton of money, then you wouldn’t be making a sequel

Well yes, I would imagine excluding some freak scenario, what I am wondering does this has anything to do with what we were talking about ? Who ever said that movie loosing shit ton of money get sequel ?

 

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Not really, only a A lister can get a contract from "first dollar".

 

I am not saying first dollar, I am saying math formula agreed too what will be considered the profits on a movie.

 

Many people simply get straight performance bonus close really simple that look like this

 

Jennifer Aniston deal on We're the millers for example was:

WE’RE THE MILLERS 

$4.5MM fee (schedule of PP)
v.

bo bonuses:

$250k @ DBO $70MM or WWBO $140MM

$375k @ DBO $80MM or WWBO $160MM

$375k @ DBO $90MM or WWBO $180MM

$500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM

$500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM

$500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM

$500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM

+
paid ads + 500k perqs

 

On Wanderlust:

WANDERLUST 
$8MM v. 8%Gp
+
$2MM out of 10% GP @ CB0% (HV 87.5/12.5% for calc/30% HV royalty for payout) 
+
$250K @ DBO $95MM, $100MM, $105MM, $110MM, $115MM, $120MM  
$500K @ DBO $125MM 
+ 
$500K perq allowances

 

----------------------------

Gross point after a CB0 is reach, is usually what is called profit now, it is not on actual profit but a pre approved formula to calculate a close equivalent people agree on before hand. They will say for example if the movie pre-sales some market, 95% of those revenues will go on the movie budget line to reduce it, changing when the participation start to kick in.

 

Testimony of small actor / selling book rights / first time people will be different than experimented in the movie industry people actual deal.

 

There is little trust nowaday, those horror story of the past could have been true, but now that studios movies are not really studio movies anymore, all the people involved use a third party company like them:

http://www.fintagehouse.com/business-groups/filmandtv/collection-account-management/

 

 

To count the money that get in and make sure everyone get paid in clear pre-agreed way, you can read in how much detail they can go to define what post-break is calculated and how much of the revenues goes in that pool:

 

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/81364 (paul feig agents starting to deal for the Ghostbuster 3 gig)

 

[AndyK]

^Yes Jennifer Anistin is an A lister, we know they are looked after.

 

Clearly this isn't/hasn't worked for ordinary actors, Vader felt the dark side of the force.

 

Or maybe the actors union have tightened things up since then !

[Heat Vision]

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Heat Vision

[Barnack]

Nice to see someone actually really knowing distribution very well with ongoing actual experience commenting on it:

 

Jim Amos, who spent about 30 years in distribution at Sony Pictures Entertainment, is joining STX Entertainment as senior VP of theatrical distribution.

 

An other article of him on the disney-fox merger:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamos/2018/07/08/why-the-disneyfox-merger-might-not-be-a-fairy-tale-for-theater-chains-or-moviegoers/#733139583359

 

It is true imo that even in 2018:

Still, to this day, headlines proclaim success or failure of a film after the domestic opening weekend, somehow ignoring the international market and its 55%-65% or more of total worldwide gross.

 

How ridiculous that is, but is true, and it can be hard to turn that perception around.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Barnack

[Barnack]

8 hours ago, AndyK said:

^Yes Jennifer Anistin is an A lister, we know they are looked after.

 

Clearly this isn't/hasn't worked for ordinary actors, Vader felt the dark side of the force.

 

Or maybe the actors union have tightened things up since then !

 

I am not sure ordinary actor have back end deal that include points type contract very often (even just the very easy bonus at 100m, 150m, etc...) must be rare and only on franchise for them. When you have those first dollar, V or post break type of deal and you are just an actor, you are a big name, no ?

 

And like I said if you are talking about regular actor residual, that is all automatic and from the gross revenues,with the amount set by the guild negotiation and pretty automatic, studio does not get out of those.

[MovieMan89]

Looks like this will miss 300 worldwide. Not seeing anyway it's profitable with a 125m budget only making half of that DOM and over 1/3 of the gross coming from China. 

[Heat Vision]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Looks like this will miss 300 worldwide. Not seeing anyway it's profitable with a 125m budget only making half of that DOM and over 1/3 of the gross coming from China. 

The Rock says is profitable so is profitable 😏

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Looks like this will miss 300 worldwide.

A 10.415m weekend with a 279.64m total.

 

That a under 3 multiplier needed with Japan yet to open, Rampage did 4.5m in Japan if this does 3m it would need 17m after a 10.4 weekend.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, Barnack said:

A 10.415m weekend with a 279.64m total.

 

That a under 3 multiplier needed with Japan yet to open, Rampage did 4.5m in Japan if this does 3m it would need 17m after a 10.4 weekend.

It will probably fall down to under 1m in China after this weekend though and same for DOM. So 17m minus Japan seems pretty hard to me. Maybe it does well enough in Japan to push it to 300. 

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

It will probably fall down to under 1m in China after this weekend though and same for DOM. So 17m minus Japan seems pretty hard to me. Maybe it does well enough in Japan to push it to 300. 

Will end up close I imagine, between 296 and 301 is the most likely. But the last Die Hards were big hits in Japan (32m and 21m) so who knows.

 

 

Non franchise Johnson movie often do not get released at all in Japan and Jumanji was not particularly big there too.

[Napoleon]

$280 million worldwide is perfectly fine for a $125 million budget. It will make a profit once all is said and done.

[kowhite]

On 7/26/2018 at 4:55 AM, Jay Beezy said:

I'm talking about the maximum amount of money a movie could lose that the studio would still be willing to make a sequel.

 

Ahh, you’re taking about the Pacific Rim formula.  Unfortunately, said formula doesn’t work in most places cause it makes no fucking sense.  

 

But, this involves Legendary so you never know.

[kowhite]

On 7/26/2018 at 5:51 AM, AndyK said:

Depends what you call a loss, most movies make a loss because of the accounting tricks that are used to avoid tax.

 

Usually they set each movie up as its own company, then they put huge charges on that company for distribution and other costs which stops it ever making a profit.

 

They also use that trick to avoid paying actors residuals.

 

1) most movies make a loss cause they’re not profitable

2) I don’t think you understand how residuals work.  Hint...you can’t dodge residuals based on costs...they’re not part of the calculation.  Ever.  Ok, maybe some taxes.