Jump to content

Finnick

Monday Numbers: AM:$1.28M | KINGSMAN2:S1.18M | It:$1.09M | Ninjago:$0.41M

Recommended Posts

AM Grossed a decent $1.28M on Monday,

IT With $1.09M CONTINUE TO HOLD WELL WITH A 42% DOWN FROM LAST MONDAY,

 

  Movie Distributor Gross Change Thtrs. Per Thtr. Total Gross Days
- (3) American Made Universal $1,276,595 -68% 3,024 $422   $18,052,985 4
- (1) Kingsman: The Golden Circle 20th Century Fox $1,183,901 -74% 4,038 $293   $67,821,054 11
- (2) It Warner Bros. $1,092,294 -74% 3,917 $279   $291,867,526 25
- (14) Judwaa 2 FIP $512,984 +158% 192 $2,672   $1,151,029 4
- (5) Flatliners Sony Pictures $440,941 -73% 2,552 $173   $7,015,267 4
- (4) The Lego Ninjago Movie Warner Bros. $409,073 -88% 4,047 $101   $35,609,375 11
- (6) American Assassin Lionsgate $272,052 -69% 3,020 $90   $32,136,277 18
- (7) Battle of the Sexes Fox Searchlight $262,466 -69% 1,213 $216   $4,352,966 11
- (9) mother! Paramount Pictures $147,098 -62% 1,840 $80   $16,457,322 18
- (8) Home Again Open Road $131,105 -68% 2,370 $55   $25,283,233 25
- (10) Victoria and Abdul Focus Features $113,330 -68% 77 $1,472   $1,425,879 11
- (-) The Hitman’s Bodyguard Lionsgate $54,131 -67% 1,119 $48   $74,678,634 46
- (15) Friend Request Entertainment Studi… $53,687 -69% 2,081 $26   $3,464,709 11
- (-) Spider-Man: Homecoming Sony Pictures $37,584 -75% 679 $55   $332,744,833 88
- (-) Brad’s Status Annapurna Pictures $34,906 -67% 453 $77   $1,800,972 18
- (-) Dunkirk Warner Bros. $34,022 -58% 401 $85   $186,915,026 74
- (-) Despicable Me 3 Universal $17,250 -84% 419 $41   $262,288,315 95
- (-) Annabelle: Creation Warner Bros. $16,510 -71% 385 $43   $101,595,020 53
- (-) Wonder Woman Warner Bros. $10,655 -77% 261 $41   $412,276,298 123
- (-) Girls Trip Universal $10,030 -61% 179 $56   $115,014,405 74
- (-) War for the Planet of the Apes
Edited by Finnick
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







50 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

WB have made so much money from IT that they can take the hit for Ninjago underperforming. 

 

LEGO BATMAN itself was so profitable (even if it didn't meet expectations, especially OS), that it can safely carry NINJAGO's massive underperformance.

 

If you combine the prod budgets, Dom, OS and WW of LEGO BAT and NINJAGO you get,

 

80 + 70 = 150m prod budget

176 + 64 = 240m Dom

136 + 49 = 185m OS (Ninjago is currently at 22.9m OS with a 10.6m weekend. I just added ~2.5x the weekend more to it's cume. It's conservative as there ought to be some new markets.)

312 + 113 = 425m WW

 

425m combined global cume is 2.8x the combined prod budget, with a lot of it (56.5%) coming from Dom.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, a2knet said:

 

LEGO BATMAN itself was so profitable (even if it didn't meet expectations, especially OS), that it can safely carry NINJAGO's massive underperformance.

 

If you combine the prod budgets, Dom, OS and WW of LEGO BAT and NINJAGO you get,

 

80 + 70 = 150m prod budget

176 + 64 = 240m Dom

136 + 49 = 185m OS (Ninjago is currently at 22.9m OS with a 10.6m weekend. I just added ~2.5x the weekend more to it's cume. It's conservative as there ought to be some new markets.)

312 + 113 = 425m WW

 

425m combined global cume is 2.8x the combined prod budget, with a lot of it (56.5%) coming from Dom.

 

 

WAG having $60-80m budgets means that they can handle a film that doesn't meet expectations. SPA in the early days had films costing $85-100m and only making $190-235m so I assume they lost money on the likes of Cloudy and Surf's Up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

WAG having $60-80m budgets means that they can handle a film that doesn't meet expectations. SPA in the early days had films costing $85-100m and only making $190-235m so I assume they lost money on the likes of Cloudy and Surf's Up. 

surf's up must have been a bad proposition at 100m budget but not the 2 Cloudy's. The 2nd one was even better theatrically due to smaller budget. Both also must have had very strong non-theatrical performance.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cloudywithachanceofmeatballs.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cloudy2.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

WAG having $60-80m budgets means that they can handle a film that doesn't meet expectations. SPA in the early days had films costing $85-100m and only making $190-235m so I assume they lost money on the likes of Cloudy and Surf's Up. 

Surf Up was a big money looser (61.6m loss), 97m production + 120m marketing budget doing only 58dbo+90ibo.

 

But Cloudy got a sequel for a reason (didn't loose money) and Cloudy 2 made a nice profit

 

Cloudy: 116.8m net budget, 87.7m marketing budget, 3.3m profit (the profit is small because of a suspiciously high 30m overhead, when it is rarely above 12% of the budget, that is more a 15-18m type of profit)

Cloudy 2: 79m net budget, 101m marketing budget, 56m profit

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Surf Up was a big money looser (61.6m loss), 97m production + 120m marketing budget doing only 58dbo+90ibo.

 

But Cloudy got a sequel for a reason (didn't loose money) and Cloudy 2 made a nice profit

 

Cloudy: 116.8m net budget, 87.7m marketing budget, 3.3m profit (the profit is small because of a suspiciously high 30m overhead, when it is rarely above 12% of the budget, that is more a 15-18m type of profit)

Cloudy 2: 79m net budget, 101m marketing budget, 56m profit

I assume Open Season made a small enough profit for the DTV sequels, I can't believe Cloudy 1 cost that much, the reported budget was $100m!

Edited by Jonwo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I can't believe Cloudy 1 cost that much, the reported budget was $100m!

2009 was a bit of a different era how much studio were ready to spent and I think how much help (tax credits) they were getting, I imagine rendering farm and others cost related to animation went down in the last 10 year's to explain that amount of difference between Cloudy 1 and 2 budget. That nearly 150m for budget and overhead is high it is true (wonder if non experimented people didn't get played for that Overhead cost or if there was a special situation to amortize some general investment made a sony animation studio or something).

 

Open Season

 

Total revenue: 330.83m (a strong 115m on domestic home Ent Revenue)

Net production budget: 99.56m

Marketing cost: 124.285m

Net Profit: 4.92m

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Total revenue: 330.83m (a strong 115m on domestic home Ent Revenue)

Net production budget: 99.56m

Marketing cost: 124.285m

Net Profit: 4.92m

 

Sony made some really small profits for their animated films, had Smurfs not been such a hit OS and HT was as well, I think SPA would have closed a long time ago. WAG in comparison has made big profits from The Lego Movie and Lego Batman

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

28 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Sony made some really small profits for their animated films, had Smurfs not been such a hit OS and HT was as well, I think SPA would have closed a long time ago.

Probably

 

Profit (loss) (by release date)

 

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

Cloudy 2: 56.75m

Smurf 2: 17.13m

Hotel T1:  88.5m

Pirates band of misfit: (33.3m)

Arthur Christmas: (96m)

Smurf 1: 94.93m

Cloudy 1: 3.3m

Surf up: (61.6m)

Open season: 4.9m

 

-----

Just 75m of profit in that 8 year's windows (to put it in perspective the movie Superbad alone made a profit of 88.5m), remove Smurf 1 and HT and it would have been quite in the red overall. Trying to compete with Pixar/Dreamworks in big animation was a costly business (big 9 figures budget, big 9 figures world release)

 

 

Edited by Barnack
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Probably

 

Profit (loss) (by release date)

 

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

Cloudy 2: 56.75m

Smurf 2: 17.13m

Hotel T1:  88.5m

Pirates band of misfit: (33.3m)

Arthur Christmas: (96m)

Smurf 1: 94.93m

Cloudy 1: 3.3m

Surf up: (61.6m)

Open season: 4.9m

 

-----

Juste 75m of profit in that 8 year's windows (to put it in perspective the movie Superbad alone made a profit of 88.5m), remove Smurf 1 and HT and it would have been quite in the red overall. Trying to compete with Pixar/Dreamworks in big animation was a costly business (big 9 figures budget, big 9 figures world release)

 

 

Arthur Christmas basically wiped out any profits made by Smurfs that year. It's no wonder Sony dropped Aardman after two films. Much as I'm not a fan of Illumination, their model does work and I think the likes of WB, Sony etc copy that model rather than emulate Disney

Link to comment
Share on other sites



disappointed by what works and what does not. added my grades :)

 

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

Profit (loss)

 

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

Smurf 1: 94.93m F

Hotel T1:  88.5m ?

Cloudy 2: 56.75m B

Smurf 2: 17.13m F

Open season: 4.9m C

Cloudy 1: 3.3m A

Pirates band of misfit: (33.3m) A-

Surf up: (61.6m) A

Arthur Christmas: (96m) A-

 

Edited by a2knet
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, a2knet said:

 

LEGO BATMAN itself was so profitable (even if it didn't meet expectations, especially OS), that it can safely carry NINJAGO's massive underperformance.

 

If you combine the prod budgets, Dom, OS and WW of LEGO BAT and NINJAGO you get,

 

80 + 70 = 150m prod budget

176 + 64 = 240m Dom

136 + 49 = 185m OS (Ninjago is currently at 22.9m OS with a 10.6m weekend. I just added ~2.5x the weekend more to it's cume. It's conservative as there ought to be some new markets.)

312 + 113 = 425m WW

 

425m combined global cume is 2.8x the combined prod budget, with a lot of it (56.5%) coming from Dom.

 

 

 

:thinking: That would be a nice mid sized hit it was just one movie.  Too bad they had more than one marketing budget for both.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites









  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.