MIB International | June 14 2019 | F Gary Gray directing | Hemsworth, Ferguson, Neeson, Thompson and Thompson

[OdinSon2k14]

What I scratched my head at was...

 

The two aliens, that took on the form of twins? They were shown throughout the movie steamrolling through everybody like a knife through butter....and that's all it took to beat them at the end?! You're sitting there like, that's it?

[Captain Craig]

I saw the film this afternoon. It is not that it's bad, it is just very average.

 

Grade: C

 

The type of film you could lazily put on while you fold laundry and forget half of without affecting much really.

The real crime, I suppose, is that you never start to care for H, M, T or C in any meaningful way you do the originals.

[Captain Craig]

Haha, I'm the last post in this thread till my next post.

 

I'm going to ask a question I know the most possible answer to so 14 replies saying the near certain answer isn't necessary. This is a question of sheer hypothetical in the other direction. 

 

Using the ole "blockbuster" film must make 2 or 2.5x its budget to be successful (defined various ways depending on a film it seems) where does this put MIB: I at this point?

Budget: $110

WW to date: $247m

Dom to date: $79m

 

Poorly performing Domestic films have gotten sequels in recent memory with decent or great International receipts. Pacific Rim comes to mind right away.

Men In Black International isn't doing poorly in the overall receipts tally. Bringing up Marketing costs is a red herring, we all know that is done in a different area and not a true factor to actually making/producing a blockbuster film. The studio handles that differently.

 

Sony is hurting for solid franchises. MIB:I is their attempt to keep one of their few alive. Do they tweak the writing for another? Recast leads altogether and keep some ancillary cast for continuity? Let it lay fallow?

 

 

[JB33]

2 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Haha, I'm the last post in this thread till my next post.

 

I'm going to ask a question I know the most possible answer to so 14 replies saying the near certain answer isn't necessary. This is a question of sheer hypothetical in the other direction. 

 

Using the ole "blockbuster" film must make 2 or 2.5x its budget to be successful (defined various ways depending on a film it seems) where does this put MIB: I at this point?

Budget: $110

WW to date: $247m

Dom to date: $79m

 

Poorly performing Domestic films have gotten sequels in recent memory with decent or great International receipts. Pacific Rim comes to mind right away.

Men In Black International isn't doing poorly in the overall receipts tally. Bringing up Marketing costs is a red herring, we all know that is done in a different area and not a true factor to actually making/producing a blockbuster film. The studio handles that differently.

 

Sony is hurting for solid franchises. MIB:I is their attempt to keep one of their few alive. Do they tweak the writing for another? Recast leads altogether and keep some ancillary cast for continuity? Let it lay fallow?

 

 

Sorry to break the chain of Captain Craig posts but I'm going to respond:

 

I'd say just let it go. Sony should move on and not try desperately to keep it relevant. It's obvious NA audiences didn't give a shit and it's not like overseas audiences ate it up. It's just an alright gross.

[grim22]

6 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Haha, I'm the last post in this thread till my next post.

 

I'm going to ask a question I know the most possible answer to so 14 replies saying the near certain answer isn't necessary. This is a question of sheer hypothetical in the other direction. 

 

Using the ole "blockbuster" film must make 2 or 2.5x its budget to be successful (defined various ways depending on a film it seems) where does this put MIB: I at this point?

Budget: $110

WW to date: $247m

Dom to date: $79m

 

Poorly performing Domestic films have gotten sequels in recent memory with decent or great International receipts. Pacific Rim comes to mind right away.

Men In Black International isn't doing poorly in the overall receipts tally. Bringing up Marketing costs is a red herring, we all know that is done in a different area and not a true factor to actually making/producing a blockbuster film. The studio handles that differently.

 

Sony is hurting for solid franchises. MIB:I is their attempt to keep one of their few alive. Do they tweak the writing for another? Recast leads altogether and keep some ancillary cast for continuity? Let it lay fallow?

 

 

Probably not one with Hemsworth and Thompson. It would have been fasttracked if that was the case, and both of them are going back to the mcu to get some box office traction going.

 

More damning than the box office returns is the audience reaction was mostly "Meh". That is what puts the sequel in jeopardy more than the mid-tier return on investment. Good audience reception can at least make going for a sequel a possibility, but audiences didn't seem to attach themselves to the new leads.

[clockwork]

The first Men In Black movie without Will Smith was not going to have the same success as previous movies unfortunately. I also wonder if they just titled it MIB 4 instead of international would it have made a difference. After reading all that behind the scenes production drama on this movie it's a wonder it didn't turn out worse. Poor Sony.

[Barnack]

On 7/24/2019 at 6:39 PM, Captain Craig said:

Men In Black International isn't doing poorly in the overall receipts tally. Bringing up Marketing costs is a red herring, we all know that is done in a different area and not a true factor to actually making/producing a blockbuster film. The studio handles that differently.

I sincerely wonder where that idea come from ?

 

For example:

http://investors.lionsgate.com/~/media/Files/L/LionsGate-IR/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf

 

Motion Picture

Segment: Revenue ......................................... $1,464.4

Expenses: Direct operating expense ........................... 758.1 977.8

Distribution & marketing expense ..................... 472.2 551.7

Gross contribution .................................. 234.1

 

I never seen an indication that marketing cost were not directly attached to each movie and put in the movie slate result same area (internal leak, annual report).

 

Today so much of the bonus are after a grossly defined break even point, studio without a doubt raise when they start by taking into account when did the movie become profitable because of marketing cost, studio pretty much always have many co-investor, same thing there.

 

On 7/24/2019 at 6:39 PM, Captain Craig said:

Using the ole "blockbuster" film must make 2 or 2.5x its budget to be successful

 

That a rather very ole adage, it became need to make 2 time it's budget to break even, not to be successful a while ago and that raised a bit over time.

 

Has for the MIB 4 movie felt a lot like the Inferno (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inferno2015.htm), if the rumors of under 100M net cost with low P&A are true at Sony.

 

If that the case for Inferno

 

They had (when they planed a 90m net budget and a 110m WW P&A):

 

Break even at: 220m WW (75m dbo, 145m intl)

Return break (15% ROI)  at 303.4m, 99.4m DBO, 204m intl)

Target: 400m (125m dbo, 275m intl)

 

I imagine the figure looked a bit similar for this, some money but under the return break and significantly under their target.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Barnack