Thursday Numbers: 4.5 M BAYWATCH

[FantasticBeasts]

7 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Fantastic Beasts wasn't a sequel and November/December  movies typically have better legs.

It was a spin off man.. come on I remember people using potter multipliers and telling that this could never reach even $200m.

And no, November films do not have very good legs. I think that Fantastic Beasts was only the second +50m opener to earn a x3 multiplier.

I am not trying to say anything but I am just cautious and I haven't written off this quite yet.

[Fancyarcher]

2 hours ago, YourMother said:

Yep. Now we know both Wonder Woman and Underpants will breakout OW. The GA could use a superhero movie, and the family market has been extremely barren. May sucked this year outside of Guardians 2.

 

Thinking:

$125M-$140M OW for Wonder Woman

$37.5M-$50M OW for Underpants 

 

Underpants could, but Fox's marketing seems to suggest they have little faith in the film. 

[Nova]

6 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I went to a Q&A where John Heyman talked about getting the rights based off of seeing the proof galleys before the first book was published. Technically, I don't know if it was his company that acquired the rights and then WB bought them from him, but I believe he also had a first-look contract with them and it was their money that was used. But I might be wrong about some of the technical details. 

Okay I wasn't sure if there was some background info that I was missing. I know a lot of times things are in the talk but they don't officially go through until later. This makes sense though. But it is possible that WB ended up buying the rights later....but that it was already agreed upon to be a movie well before and they bought it from another company. 

 

Either way it was only by like a year or two lol

[Premium George]

5 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Underpants could, but Fox's marketing seems to suggest they have little faith in the film. 

There was a article posted by someone earlier, which said cu tv marketing cost is higher than boss baby.

[Barnack]

47 minutes ago, Nova said:

I feel like the movie talks began, as soon as the books started to get huge though. When I was in middle school, a lot of the kids were already reading Twlight. It was like it happened simultaneously, if that makes sense. The books were getting huge so the movie talks began. That's how I remember it 

 

Movie talk in the sense of the adaptation rights being  shopped around and studios developing it (not people talking about the movie, that obviously started just after the book became popular), often those book popularity explode once the movie adaptation is announced, that bring lot of awareness to them.

[baumer]

44 minutes ago, FantasticBeasts said:

I think that the big difference with Potter is that, HP was huge throughout the world, while Twilight was always a US thing and even there, at a smaller scale...

 

That is 100% false. Twilight was huge overseas. Just because it wasn't as big as Harry Potter doesn't mean that it still wasn't massive.

[Barnack]

54 minutes ago, franfar said:

1) What? Harry Potter was very popular before the first movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone

 

Not outside the UK in 1997 (and not that much there either) when the movie started to be planned, there usually a reason why those movies are not fully own by a studio, they were seen by someone in advance (Mark Walhbergh company almost achieved to buy 50 shades of grey rights on the cheap before it caught up for example).

 

But that is completely missing the point from the example a used, it is simply example of why it is good (and why now) they tend to plan sequel right away, because if the first movie is a success it is not a given that you will be able to ever do it's sequel (with the original cast/writer/etc..) and if you do, it will cost a lot.

 

P.S. Not sure why people talk about being popular about the first movie, that is not the point at all, world vast popularity before the first movie was greenlight/people cast and sign is what I'm talking about.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Barnack

[Fancyarcher]

18 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

There was a article posted by someone earlier, which said cu tv marketing cost is higher than boss baby.

 

Apparently it was only getting one screen at WrathofHan's theater, which is where I'll admit my own pessimism regarding the films box office came from. I'd love to be proven wrong though. 

[franfar]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Not outside the UK in 1997 (and not that much there either) when the movie started to be planned, there usually a reason why those movies are not fully own by a studio, they were seen by someone in advance (Mark Walhbergh company almost achieved to buy 50 shades of grey rights on the cheap before it caught up for example).

 

But that is completely missing the point from the example a used, it is simply example of why it is good (and why now) they tend to plan sequel right away, because if the first movie is a success it is not a given that you will be able to ever do it's sequel (with the original cast/writer/etc..) and if you do, it will cost a lot.

 

P.S. Not sure why people talk about being popular about the first movie, that is not the point at all, world vast popularity before the first movie was greenlight/people cast and sign is what I'm talking about.

The rest of my comment literally said that it was a bestseller in the US, lol

[FantasticBeasts]

16 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

That is 100% false. Twilight was huge overseas. Just because it wasn't as big as Harry Potter doesn't mean that it still wasn't massive.

It depends of the definition of "huge".

Surely it was more of a DOM than OS thing.

Edit; you are right. Looks up at some numbers and it was actually very big overseas.

Edited May 26, 2017 by FantasticBeasts

[Krissykins]

Twilight was a phenomenon.

 

But you never hear anyone talk about it anymore.....ever.

 

Think the hard core fans grew older and moved on to something else. 

[Krissykins]

Anyway.... Baywatch 3 day under Snatched 3 day?

 

 

 

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, franfar said:

The rest of my comment literally said that it was a bestseller in the US, lol

 

Yes, like there is every month (Jack Reacher is a huge best seller too, it is not Potter), not a 100+ million book sold in the world, not close to that category and your comments is about 1999 sales, year's into the movie development process. You number place it as a success among others has late as 2001:

report in December 2001 on cumulative sales of children's fiction placed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 19th among hardbacks (over 5 million copies) and 7th among paperbacks (over 6.6 million copies).

 

Not what it became:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books#More_than_100_million_copies

 

But that is completely beside the point I was trying to make, I was giving an argument on why a studio should have planned Jurassic World universe at the start like they did, why take the risk of not having Pratt available on the sequels ?

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, FantasticBeasts said:

It depends of the definition of "huge".

Surely it was more of a DOM than OS thing.

Edit; you are right. Looks up at some numbers and it was actually very big overseas.

 

Maybe you are mistaken with Hunger Games (that was more a US success), Twilight was huge everywhere a bit like 50 shares of gray.

[FantasticBeasts]

1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

Twilight was a phenomenon.

 

But you never hear anyone talk about it anymore.....ever.

 

Think the hard core fans grew older and moved on to something else. 

It was a very shallow piece of art just as Fifty Shades.

People will indulge in the trend but then quickly move on...

[FantasticBeasts]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Maybe you are mistaken with Hunger Games (that was more a US success), Twilight was huge everywhere a bit like 50 shares of gray.

Yep. I had a Hunger Games situation in mind.

[Krissykins]

2 minutes ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Yep. I had a Hunger Games situation in mind.

 

Same with Hunger Games... no one talks about it anymore and the Josh guy is about as famous as Taylor Lautner now 

 

People move on so quickly. 

[FantasticBeasts]

2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

Same with Hunger Games... no one talks about it anymore and the Josh guy is about as famous as Taylor Lautner now 

 

People move on so quickly. 

And yet Harry Potter is still super relevant 20 years after its release...

Only classics...

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

Think the hard core fans grew older and moved on to something else. 

 

I wonder what percentage of the 50 shades audience were Twilight fans.

 

Quote

People move on so quickly. 

 

That was a reason toy company didn't like toys for girls as much as for boys, the age windows for toys targeting women tend to be more compressed, they tend to grew up faster and move to more mature things faster than boys (that can still play with their young teens franchise in their 40s)

[franfar]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Yes, like there is every month (Jack Reacher is a huge best seller too, it is not Potter), not a 100+ million book sold in the world, not close to that category and your comments is about 1999 sales, year's into the movie development process. You number place it as a success among others has late as 2001:

report in December 2001 on cumulative sales of children's fiction placed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 19th among hardbacks (over 5 million copies) and 7th among paperbacks (over 6.6 million copies).

 

Not what it became:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books#More_than_100_million_copies

 

But that is completely beside the point I was trying to make, I was giving an argument on why a studio should have planned Jurassic World universe at the start like they did, why take the risk of not having Pratt available on the sequels ?

Last time I checked, we were talking about Monsters Universe, not Jurassic World. Again, a bad comparison.