Weekend Box Office: Actuals (Page 55): BP $26.6M TR $23.7M ICOI $17.1M AWIT $16.3M LS $11.8M, PR crosses $100M, Jumanji crosses $400M

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, EmpireCity said:

 

No, it isn't at all.  The stupid comparisons to Blockbuster are completely misguided and that Spielberg article is going on 5 years old and none of it has materialized, and in fact has gone the opposite way. 

It did went quite the opposite way, I do not remember a movie close to be the most expensive of the year's bombing like it was common in the past, that franchisation/in line like production model of the biggest title seem to have made them quite safer, not riskier.

 

Biggest we have are the King Arthur/Valerian level, the 250+m and more type movies pretty much all more than doubled their budget I think.

[misterchief81]

As long as movie studios control the distribution and timing of their product, theatres aren't going anywhere. Yeah, exhibitors will adapt to combat changing tastes (recliners, full service, 21+ theatres etc), but as long as a studio can say "This movie must have a theatrical release window of X amount of weeks before home distribution is on the table", people will continue to go see movies in theatres, because there will always be people who want to see films in that setting, want to see them first, want to experience the tentpole films etc. It would take every major studio completely pulling their product from theatres and going straight to streaming or digital or blu ray release, and I just don't see them abandoning an incredibly lucrative revenue stream, even if attendance drops here and there.

[MrGlass2]

9 minutes ago, misterchief81 said:

but as long as a studio can say "This movie must have a theatrical release window of X amount of weeks before home distribution is on the table", people will continue to go see movies in theatres

But many studios are the ones who want to accelerate the home distribution, it is theater chains who are unhappy about this prospect. And most of those "studios" are already parts of giant corporations who want to eventually handle VOD on their own services.

[EmpireCity]

The thing Spielberg and others never considered fully is how the international market would grow up as countries developed. You can make a $200m movie like Justice League that essentially "bombs" in the United States but still will make money because it made $400m+ from international. 

 

The last 6 months alone have show how many different films are being made and profitable on a huge scale.  Everything from indie movies to blockbusters.  

 

Also, the sort of whining that Spielberg said where "I almost had to put Lincoln on HBO" was because Spielberg has a ridiculous and well earned structure and cut that he gets when he makes a film.  

 

Yeah, studios aren't wiling to take all the risk while he takes none and still gets a bucket of money on certain projects.  

[Barnack]

Just now, MrGlass2 said:

But many studios are the ones who want to accelerate the home distribution, it is theater chains who are unhappy about this prospect. And most of those "studios" are already parts of giant corporations who want to eventually handle VOD on their own services.

I think most want to reduce the time when the movie is not playing in theater near most peoples anymore and not available to buy anywhere else yes, but do they have an issue to have their movies exclusively available in a high price and the only place they can charge a ticket by person watching theatrical windows as long has it is playing in most of them ?

 

That where I would think the tension come from, lot of value for theater to have the movies not available anywhere for a long time even after it is not playing in theater anymore, less obvious for the studios that this is the case, studios know well that there is a ton of values in the theatrical window for them.

[misterchief81]

17 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

But many studios are the ones who want to accelerate the home distribution, it is theater chains who are unhappy about this prospect. And most of those "studios" are already parts of giant corporations who want to eventually handle VOD on their own services.

There is a difference between moving up the window for home distribution and getting rid of the theatrical release altogether. Studios want to see return on investments sooner rather than later. Pushing the home release closer to the theatrical release allows them to make more money is a smaller window of time. But that doesn't mean they are just going to throw away a multi-billion dollar cash cow in theatrical distribution, even if most of them are owned by media conglomerates who want to all start their own streaming services and own multiple television channels. The best marketing for home release is a wide theatrical release. Make money while getting people talking and hopefully eventually double dipping on your product.

[intenso]

16 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

The thing Spielberg and others never considered fully is how the international market would grow up as countries developed. You can make a $200m movie like Justice League that essentially "bombs" in the United States but still will make money because it made $400m+ from international. 

 

The last 6 months alone have show how many different films are being made and profitable on a huge scale.  Everything from indie movies to blockbusters.  

 

Also, the sort of whining that Spielberg said where "I almost had to put Lincoln on HBO" was because Spielberg has a ridiculous and well earned structure and cut that he gets when he makes a film.  

 

Yeah, studios aren't wiling to take all the risk while he takes none and still gets a bucket of money on certain projects.  

I get what you are saying and you are spot on. But i wouldn't say JL bombed in the States it still made 230 million came in at nr 9 or 10 at the chart of all movies in 2017. Would use the term it underperformed

[EmpireCity]

Just now, intenso said:

I get what you are saying and you are spot on. But i wouldn't say JL bombed in the States it still made 230 million came in at nr 9 or 10 at the chart of all movies in 2017. Would use the term it underperformed

Agreed, that is why I put it in quotes.  

 

[Premium George]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

Agreed, that is why I put it in quotes.  

 

Hey, do you know how many screens there are in US? how many of them are 3d?

According to mpaa, in 2016 there were 43531 screens with 16745 3-d. But, I ask this 'cos according to them 70% of world screens were 3-d in 2016.

[misterchief81]

3D has remained much more popular internationally than it has in the US or Canada. And with so much expansion of digital cinema internationally, I would imagine that a larger portion of their builds include 3D capabilities, again, due to it's popularity.

[LonePirate]

8 minutes ago, intenso said:

I get what you are saying and you are spot on. But i wouldn't say JL bombed in the States it still made 230 million came in at nr 9 or 10 at the chart of all movies in 2017. Would use the term it underperformed

 

It underperformed to such a massive degree that it could be considered to a bomb. If a movie only featuring Wonder Woman can clear $410M just a few months before JL and JL adds Superman and Batman (plus others) to the mix and it barely grosses half of WW, then it sure looks like a bomb.

[intenso]

21 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

 

It underperformed to such a massive degree that it could be considered to a bomb. If a movie only featuring Wonder Woman can clear $410M just a few months before JL and JL adds Superman and Batman (plus others) to the mix and it barely grosses half of WW, then it sure looks like a bomb.

Well not according to EC and he knows his stuff 

[EmpireCity]

2 minutes ago, intenso said:

Well not according to EC and he knows his stuff 

It would have been without international.  

[sfran43]

 

[sfran43]

Monday numbers...

 

[sfran43]

 

[ZeeSoh]

26 minutes ago, misterchief81 said:

3D has remained much more popular internationally than it has in the US or Canada. And with so much expansion of digital cinema internationally, I would imagine that a larger portion of their builds include 3D capabilities, again, due to it's popularity.

Here in India majority of the shows for hollywood movies are in 3d whereas 2d shows are limited. I think its more due to the fact that cinema owners can charge more for 3d rather than the fact that its more popular. I hate watching a movie in 3d but most of the time I have no choice but to watch in 3d

[intenso]

1 minute ago, sfran43 said:

 

Thats good 

[sfran43]