Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood | July 26 2019 | Digital Foot Technology | RIP Cinerama Dome

[CoolioD1]

studios get a pretty small cut from china anyway don't they?

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

3 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

studios get a pretty small cut from china anyway don't they?

Yeah it's like 25%.

[MrGlass2]

42 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

studios get a pretty small cut from china anyway don't they?

 

40 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

Yeah it's like 25%.

But they don't spend anything in marketing or distribution so the rate of return is actually similar to many foreign countries.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

31 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

But they don't spend anything in marketing or distribution so the rate of return is actually similar to many foreign countries.

You are pretty much spot-on.

 

Marketing and distribution cost for studio releases in China usually cost just $1m or $2m.  Say OUaTiH makes $100m in China, the studio will get back about $23m in pure profits after PA, a ratio of appr. 23%. I would assume it's very similar to many OS markets.

 

For buyout releases (aka non-big-six-studio releases), the PA could be much higher than $2m, as high as $8m-ish in certain cases, but again, these buyout releases have already been bought by Chinese distributors; foreign studios already have received the MG regardless of the box office.

 

If China opens up its box office market wider, studios ratio of course will go up, maybe close to 37% in extreme (the same ratio of local films), but in that case, studios would have to do the PA and cover the cost by themselves which would result into much higher PA spend. The actual return ratio could be about 30% after PA? just a guesstimate.

 

It could be higher but all in all 23% is not that bad ratio.

 

The thing is, I doubt China will ever open the market to the studios to that extent. It would mean the studios can decide on release dates. not happening... not a free market.

Edited October 21, 2019 by A Marvel Fanboy

[TalismanRing]

4 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

But they don't spend anything in marketing or distribution so the rate of return is actually similar to many foreign countries.

The main issue is not theatrical which as said is somewhat offset by lower marketing for most film but the paucity of ancillary markets.

[TalismanRing]

4 hours ago, Joel M said:

That's really the most baffling thing about this rumour. Post-Titanic glory Cameron DID NOT get that deal with Avatar. Cameron made hundreds of millions including ancillary market etc but he didn't make 500m+ from Avatar's theatre run alone. If this Tarantino backend rumour is true in any sense, whoever singed for it at Sony should have been fired well before the movie hit theatres.

I believe the rumored figure was also  based on the previous deals he had with Weinstein.  The movie was also in a bidding war between studios with others backing out b/c the demands were too high.

 

In terms of big director back end deals Nolan gets $20m up front and 20% on the back end.  According to Deadline's yearly breakdown he made more on Interstellar than WB or Paramount did combined.

 

Deadline has  Spielberg as producer getting 35% after crash break even on all Jurassic films.  He had the same on MIB (add in Sonnenfield, Smith & Jones and it's why Sony keeps claiming they lose money on all the MIBs - but keep making them...)

[Barnack]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:37 AM, reddevil19 said:

I'd definitely be very interested to see the actual details, but doubt we will, unless there's another leak.

Personally, I feel it's doubtful that he'd get final cut, to the extent where he can tell China to fuck off AND a gross participation deal that high. Net profit participation? Sure. But I don't see how ANY studio would agree a 25% gross participation for this kind of movie. It's not a James Cameron action extravaganza, after all...

I would be flabbergasted if Tarantino do not at least get conditional final cut, with condition looking like this:

 

- Must be approved R or less by the MPAA

- Running time must be 1h20 to 3h45

- Must look like the approved script and 2-3 names involved with the project (say himself, Pitt-DiCaprio) must appear in the final product (on screen or behind it)

 

The biggest thing he could have is that is movie cut must past a certain score in screen test organized by a third party company , with him having a set amount of screening to try to achieve that score. Final cut isn't that rare, it is even common for the big name and absolutely for a Tarantino.

 

He will not have final cut (but maybe the right to consult and make it) for the the TV/Airport cut that need to not be R, but on the DVD and theater absolutely.

 

That 25% first dollar gross (or a 50% on net that ramp up a bit higher after that) is something a studio would certainly consider agreeing for a project like this, even getting higher than 20% on Home Video on it, but it would be for him and the stars.

 

If he get 25% (15% directing, 7% writing, 3% producing), Leo 10%, Pitt 7%, Heyman 5%, Robbie 2%, well that just does not work at all anymore, as you rack up name you always tend to split down the % people get (but he movie revenues tend to get bigger at the same time), maybe the rumors got from the fact that he got 25% to play with and go around sign stars with that % budgets.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Barnack

[Barnack]

5 hours ago, Joel M said:

Cameron made hundreds of millions including ancillary market etc but he didn't make 500m+ from Avatar's theatre run alone.

25% would not have been 500m+ from Avatar theater run alone.

 

Assuming absolutely no market was pre-sold and that the first dollar gross deal had no off the top what so ever (big if) and that it got about 55% dom, 45% intl, 22% china

 

760*.55 + (2029-202)*.45 + 202*.22 = 1284.59 * .25 = around $320M

 

To get example of what big name director can get paid.

 

Danny Boyle on Steve Jobs had a $3M directing/producing fee + 12.65% from first dollar less the directing fee and final cut (with some extraordinary close that lawyer could check the movie and change could be made for legal reasons because of the true story/real people natures) from Fox Searchlight and that precedent got carried on (Sony didn't want that 12.65% FDG number at all, quite high for that level of recent success).

 

Sony offer to Feig for Ghostbuster:

Writting: 2MM for one draft, first rewrite, first polish, 350K for supplement rewrite, 100K for supplemental polish, V 3.5%

Directing: 8MM + 10% of the profit pool

Producing: 500K + 2 EP credits.

 

All being boosted if Spy yet to be released performed over a certain level at the box office.

 

The Russo's asking price for doing Gray Men before Civil War released negotiation looked like this:

 

WRITING AND DIRECTING

7 v 7%

8 v 8% at CA3 800m

9 v 9% at CA3 1b

 

No need for final cut (has the giant producer Joe Roth wanted it)

 

Zemeckis on Allied asked 8m V 15%

 

 

 

[Joel M]

Just like Tarantino’s Hollywood is a throwback pic, so is its financial structure, we hear from sources, with 30% of the first dollar gross going to the filmmaker, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Brad Pitt in a first dollar pool. We hear that first dollar gross is typical on a Tarantino pic, and that between Inglourious Basterds and The Hateful Eight, he made around $75M between fees and profits. Typically, on a big star-driven tentpole like a Dwayne Johnson movie, profit is dispensed at a percent of cash break-even. We understand that in order for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to break-even, it has to make just north of $400M at the worldwide B.O., just under the $425.3M that Django Unchained grossed (38% of that came from U.S./Canada, where the feature made $162.8M, still his highest- grossing movie).

 

 

I was talking about this deadline article that got the ball rolling on "this movie needs to make 400m to break even".

How does this 400m break even point make any sense? Because it doesn't to me. Django with similar budget and backend deals was a big success for everyone involved but OUATIH needs to make almost as much to not be a flop. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Joel M said:

I was talking about this deadline article that got the ball rolling on "this movie needs to make 400m to break even".

How does this 400m break even point make any sense? Because it doesn't to me. Django with similar budget and backend deals was a big success for everyone involved but OUATIH needs to make almost as much to not be a flop.

Django was indeed quite similar, maybe a bit cheaper at 86.8M net budget after the Louisiana tax rebate with a planned 96M theatrical release (the 2.75M planned for the awards probably augmented after the success to push it to $100M+).

 

Sony had the international market (theatrical+home ent+Tv) for it, if their accounting to not have some pass-pass because of the market split: they made 262.5M in revenues and gave 80.34M of those in participation bonus, that almost 30% on the dot with 100% home video, no off the top. They made 50M in profits from the intl part, I imagine the Weinstein domestic profit was similar to about 50M.

 

If similar movie with similar deal goes from 100M profit for the studios to almost $0 from december 2012 to summer 2019, those would be harsh time, but who knows maybe.

 

At 350M of revenues that 100M movies can become a 200-210M movie with all the bonus, and if now you need to double that budget at break even you need that 400M (I imagine that the logic of the writer), back in the days for a strong domestic movie with no China, you didn't had to double the budget+bonus when that number got to the 180-200M because of high bonus and you had just a 100M release for it.

[The Futurist]

QT is in it for the Art no doubt.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

QT is in it for the Art no doubt.

Yes no doubt, like Cameron he probably did hit fortune independence a long time ago (he is obviously in it a lot like an athlete that continue to play to cement is legacy in history and break records as well).

Edited October 22, 2019 by Barnack

[dudalb]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:36 PM, Alli said:

The scene was so disrespectful. Fuck Tarantino. It's easy to say it's your favorite scene if it doesn't affect you. i bet you laughed at the scene. Good for Lee's family for taking a stand. I'm on China's side. Trash movie anyway

So glad you support a ruthless dictatorship.

[Alli]

1 minute ago, dudalb said:

So glad you support a ruthless dictatorship.

so glad you support the mocking of an asian legend

[dudalb]

29 minutes ago, Alli said:

so glad you support the mocking of an asian legend

Some people realy need to lightnen up.

[JB33]

3 hours ago, dudalb said:

Some people realy need to lightnen up.

Oh they will. They'll lighten up when a straight, white male icon is being mocked.

[Eric Duncan]

https://deadline.com/2019/10/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-to-be-re-released-this-friday-with-four-new-scenes-1202767103/

 

Quote

Sony Pictures Entertainment today announced that Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood from director Quentin Tarantino will be re-released with never-before-seen footage bookending the motion picture. The reissue with over 10 minutes of four additional scenes will hit 1,000+ locations in the U.S. and Canada starting this Friday, October 25.

 

“Audiences have shown tremendous support for this movie, and we look forward to offering them another opportunity to see the film as it’s meant to be seen – in theaters on the big screen – with more sights and sounds of the sixties from Quentin Tarantino as an added treat,” said Adrian Smith, President of Domestic Distribution, Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group.

 

[tonytr87]

21 hours ago, Alli said:

so glad you support the mocking of an asian legend

 

You think that's worse than censorship and dictatorship? One is a simple comic scene not so much making fun of a legend but more or less portraying him accurately but satirically. One is...well, I don't have to explain. 

[PDC1987]

Are 17 year old SJWs who previously didn't even know who Bruce Lee was really still going in on this film?

[CoolioD1]

7 hours ago, Eric loves Rey said:

https://deadline.com/2019/10/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-to-be-re-released-this-friday-with-four-new-scenes-1202767103/

 

 

it's funny the theatrical version is already longer than the version shown at Cannes. I hope Tarantino just keeps releasing gradually longer and longer cuts. just add a couple minutes on every time until it gets to four hours.