Thursday Numbers (June 22): TF5 8.1M, Cars 3 4.4M, WW 4M (Deadline)

[titanic2187]

1 minute ago, a2knet said:

 

POTC should manage 4.7-5.2 over the weekend for 159.5-160.

With dollar bump 170 is likely. That's 2.7x the 3-day ow (with inflated Sunday).

The movie regain some late-honour thank to the incredible hold from the last 7 days.....

[narniadis]

2 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

We already got WW estimates, it's hardly a holdout.

 

Estimate yes, but WB per usual is the last one (holdout) to report actual grosses.

 

Also - Tarzan did not end up a flop. If we have to label a film a flop because it loses money than many many films in hollywood are flops including at least 2 Harry Potter films according to WB accounting.... *eye roll* this flop talk is part of the same problem we have with Rotten Tomatoes and the hyperbole "black / white and no grey areas" that the modern society has gravitated toward.

[narniadis]

4 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

We all mostly knew POTC5 and TF5 were going to drop some domestically.

 

But for everyone on the planet to collectively give up on both franchises at the same time is just weird. 

 

 

 

Nah, their histories / rise / peak / fall are so much the same it makes sense... in an odd way.

[grey ghost]

13 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I had it in my summer game. 

 

 

 

I thought it would perform like a mini-COMPTON. (This was well before the limited marketing and lousy reviews and reception, though.)

 

I said it before but a well executed Tupac biopic would hit 100 m DOM easily.

 

The fact that a horrible version with Lifetime channel level quality and zero street cred can still cross 50 m DOM says it all really.

[a2k]

14 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

People love to use "flops" to describe any movie that loses money, but that's not really the definition. A flop is something that loses a sensational amount of money. It ruins careers. Sometimes -- rarely -- it even would bankrupt a studio. A franchise movie that loses some money -- but will likely be a helpful piece in a studio's library -- isn't a flop.

 

With that definition, surely the number of films tagged as 'flop' would decrease. I think people tend use the word 'disaster' for what you are defining as 'flop' and use 'flop' even if a little money is lost, which maybe an inaccurate use of those words but is more verifiable than figuring out if the money lost is balanced by being "a helpful piece in a studio's library" - how does one figure this out empirically?

[KeepItU25071906]

24 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Edge of Tomorrow will have a gross that is less than The Mummy on a bigger budget, yet I don't remember many articles about that one being a flop

 

Edge of Tomorrow wasn't a "begin of the new BIG FRANCHISE!!!!".

 

So, Mummy- it's a flop. And I have big doubt  that movie can reach 400 mln.

[a2k]

EOT seemed to have meh performance (with regards to it's quality and legs) on home market strictly going by the-numbers.com

 

Domestic DVD Sales	$10,884,517	Details
Domestic Blu-ray Sales	$15,157,613	Details
Total Domestic Video Sales	$26,042,130

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, a2knet said:

 

With that definition, surely the number of films tagged as 'flop' would decrease. I think people tend use the word 'disaster' for what you are defining as 'flop' and use 'flop' even if a little money is lost, which maybe an inaccurate use of those words but is more verifiable than figuring out if the money lost is balanced by being "a helpful piece in a studio's library" - how does one figure this out empirically?

 

That's literally the definition of a flop, until box-office fans started using it to slam any movie they wanted to.  

 

In terms of studio's libraries: there is no empirical way because we don't have access to their books. However, the collective titles in a library are incredibly valuable -- there is almost no expense involved and they do nothing but generate money. They are literal cash-cows, even if (as the titles get older) the money may slow to a trickle. There are all sorts of ways you can generate money with older titles: you can re-release them in new editions, you can package them with other movies to places like Netflix and Amazon (a clever way to do this is to bundle some popular titles with un-popular ones -- the streaming services or video outlets have to pay for the whole package deal). Franchise titles can generate interest in older titles from the same franchise. This is really why studios are able to stay in business and why they're incredibly valuable even when they're in a slump (Paramount, Lionsgate, etc). 

[PenguinHyphy]

Oh my gosh, are people really reviling at the word flop? Tarzan and whatever number Star Trek movie that is are surely not hits. People are obviously being facetious when they use the 'f-word.' They are probably hinting at the fact that two supposed tentpoles became pretty uneventful movies. The ones who are in a frenzy about that word really need to stop being so pedantic. You surely know what they mean when they use it. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by PenguinHyphy

[grey ghost]

22 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Of course TARZAN wasn't a flop.

 

Tarzan's budget was too big but it grossed twice as much as most people expected.

[Orestes]

24 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

A flop is something that loses a sensational amount of money. It ruins careers. Sometimes -- rarely -- it even would bankrupt a studio.

 

I'd call those bombs, not flops. King Arthur is the only movie this year that would probably qualify and even then I'd probably still just call it a flop. Depends on if people still try to make Hunnam happen and if Ritchie stays on Aladdin.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, Orestes said:

 

I'd call those bombs, not flops. King Arthur is the only movie this year that would probably qualify and even then I'd probably still just call it a flop. Depends on if people still try to make Hunnam happen and if Ritchie stays on Aladdin.

 

"Flops" and "bombs" used to be used interchangeably, more or less.

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, a2knet said:

EOT seemed to have meh performance (with regards to it's quality and legs) on home market strictly going by the-numbers.com

 

Domestic DVD Sales	$10,884,517	Details
Domestic Blu-ray Sales	$15,157,613	Details
Total Domestic Video Sales	$26,042,130

 

I wonder how much we can use physical sales to asses HE now, and it is really not reliable but Emily Blunt said that some movie had really good life for their box office naming Looper and Edge Of Tomorrow in a interview.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, Orestes said:

 

I'd call those bombs, not flops.

 

Those were mostly synonym:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

In the film and media industry, if a film released in theatres fails to break even by a large amount, it is considered a box office bomb or box office flop

[grey ghost]

 

disappointment = didn't make as much as the box office nerds expected

 

flop = studio lost a huge amount of money judging from the budget vs box office revenue

[Zakiyyah6]

Uh King Arthur was not the only bomb this year. Ghost in the Shell happened. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Zakiyyah6

[DAR]

For top of the line directing talent it seems you can better survive a flop these days if you have a lifeline.  Case in point Andrew Stanton and then Brad Bird

[Barnack]

27 minutes ago, narniadis said:

If we have to label a film a flop because it loses money than many many films in hollywood are flops including at least 2 Harry Potter films according to WB accounting.... *eye roll* this flop talk is part of the same problem we have with Rotten Tomatoes and the hyperbole "black / white and no grey areas" that the modern society has gravitated toward.

 

If you are talking about this:

http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/

 

That was just click bait and just all around very bad reporting imo.

 

The biggest revenue source for those movie were Dvds and they are not there, Domestic TV had yet to start also (or was not including in the revenue poll giving bonus), for me that paper is what was used to calculate the bonus going on to the talent and producer (if you look at the line negative cost, it is augmenting by 30% of the revenues made) with the studio protecting the real cash cow, the dvds from that giant 30% of the gross revenues after distribution expense bonus.

 

The studio was paying 315 million to Heyman and climbing for the movie and people were trying to pass that has an Hollywood accounting trick to not pay the participation bonus ..... Has if you could play games with a producer like David Heyman or someone has powerful has JK Rowlings (both are still working with WB 10 year's later)

 

David Polland explained in a blog entry how much studio were ready to give and run everything else at a lost to keep people away from DVD money during that time Harry Potter movie was made (2004 to 2008), giving huge gross point on theatrical if needed:

Edited June 23, 2017 by Barnack

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Uh King Arthur was not the only bomb this year. Ghost in the Shell happened. 

 

Monster Truck yet again not achieving to even be remembered when people mention 2017 list of flop, that is a bit like Mars Needs Moms exceptional level of flopping.

[Cochofles]

22 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

That's literally the definition of a flop, until box-office fans started using it to slam any movie they wanted to.  

 

In terms of studio's libraries: there is no empirical way because we don't have access to their books. However, the collective titles in a library are incredibly valuable -- there is almost no expense involved and they do nothing but generate money. They are literal cash-cows, even if (as the titles get older) the money may slow to a trickle. There are all sorts of ways you can generate money with older titles: you can re-release them in new editions, you can package them with other movies to places like Netflix and Amazon (a clever way to do this is to bundle some popular titles with un-popular ones -- the streaming services or video outlets have to pay for the whole package deal). Franchise titles can generate interest in older titles from the same franchise. This is really why studios are able to stay in business and why they're incredibly valuable even when they're in a slump (Paramount, Lionsgate, etc). 

 

I learn so much interesting stuff at BOT. That is fascinating, Tele.