Weekend Thread | Estimates: AQP 50M, RP1 25M, CKBLK 21.4M, BP 8.4M,

[MovieMan89]

TR is an unusual case. Both sides are right here. Movies that make 3x+ their budget and set up a franchise almost always  get a sequel. Movies that make sub 60m DOM and cost 90m+ almost never get a sequel. So which side wins? I think it's obvious: if the movie was comfortably profitable for WB they will go ahead with a sequel. And lol at Vikander leaving, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the extra push that gets it made since she seems pretty damn passionate about the role and crafting her character in the first. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by MovieMan89

[That One Girl]

More "franchise-starting" films that made 3x their budget and no sequel:

 

-Captain Underpants

-Bye Bye Man

-xXx 3

-Blair Witch

-Jason Bourne

 

etc.

[John Marston]

Just now, That Ambitious Guy said:

More "franchise-starting" films that made 3x their budget and no sequel:

 

-Captain Underpants

-Bye Bye Man

-xXx 3

-Blair Witch

-Jason Bourne

 

etc.

 

Some of these will get sequels eventually 

[svenson]

6 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:

 

Okay, cool.  And for all we know, Tomb Raider had a bigger budget than it did.  It's all speculation, so I'm going with what the studio's reported budget is.

 

Another one: Rings.

That movie was SAVAGED by critics 7% and audience 24%. TR is the best reviewed video game movie we have had yet and audience like it as well and want more. Nobody wants more from Rings lol.

[Barnack]

29 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:

, so I'm going with what the studio's reported budget is.

And what would that be ? studio almost never report a budget for a movie.

 

Trying to find where that rumor started it seem to be here (not easy to find people using reported budget being instead of Hollywood reporter "sources say"):

 

Sources say The Mummy cost about $125 million after a considerable U.K. rebate, and Cruise is said to have earned $13 million upfront with sizable backend participation.  

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/can-universal-create-a-marvel-like-universe-mummy-monster-flicks-1008839

 

That is not really studio is reporting a $125m budget.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Barnack

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, John Marston said:

 

Some of these will get sequels eventually 

 

I'm sure that Blair Witch and Jason Bourne and xXx will be rebooted again eventually, but that's not the point

[ZeeSoh]

1 hour ago, narniadis said:

IF they make another TR it will follow the pattern of Pacific Rim and also Cradle of Life - it will tank.

 

Also @baumer the 3x the budget world wide for profit has been a standard on this board now for a few years at least.

 

Thats a pretty stupid concept to be honest. What if a movie does most of its gross in China like PR or Warcraft. It sure as hell wont 3x then as the cut from China is very low relative to domestic. 

 

And as barnack stated being in the black from theatrical release alone is also an outdated concept. And thats good for TR coz it is no where even close to break even from theatrical alone. 

[That One Girl]

Just now, svenson said:

TR is the best reviewed video game movie

 

This is some incredible spin for a film that got okay-at-best reaction from critics and "eh it was decent" reactions from audiences.

 

Valerian has the exact same RT score as Tomb Raider (higher average rating too) and you never see people trying to claim that Valerian got good reviews

[MovieMan89]

8 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:

More "franchise-starting" films that made 3x their budget and no sequel:

 

-Captain Underpants

-Bye Bye Man

-xXx 3

-Blair Witch

-Jason Bourne

 

etc.

Lmao, those first two were certainly not put out with the intention of being franchises. In the case of the last two, they easily made enough both DOM and OS to go ahead with a sequel if that was really the intention. Blair Witch made 4x its budget DOM alone. Obviously a sequel wasn't made for other reason besides profitability. And in the case of Bourne, I'm sure it will happen sooner or later.

 

XXX 3 is really the only decent comparison there, though if Diesel wanted a sequel I'm sure it would get made and it very well still might. It definitely made enough WW for Paramount to greenlight it if Diesel wants it. Pretty much all up to him. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by MovieMan89

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Movies that make sub 60m DOM and cost 90m+ almost never get a sequel.

Resident evil retribution is so close to that too.

 

86m net budget, 42m domestic, got a sequel.

 

Has for a sequel for TR, it's rating on China audience reviews make it harder to greenlight imo, regardless of the profitability of this one (not something that need to be taking into account when talking sequel, nothing to do with how much this one does but how much the second one would)

[svenson]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

TR is an unusual case. Both sides are right here. Movies that make 3x+ their budget and set up a franchise almost always  get a sequel. Movies that make sub 60m DOM and cost 90m+ almost never get a sequel. So which side wins? I think it's obvious: if the movie was comfortably profitable for WB they will go ahead with a sequel. And lol at Vikander leaving, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the extra push that gets it made since she seems pretty damn passionate about the role and crafting her character in the first. 

So true they have finally found a good Lara Croft and Vikander definitely expressed returning as Lara and i think Daniel Wu and Nick Frost will return as well. Its also the best reviewed video game movie and best reviewed TR movie by far. Jolie's was trashed. This one is liked. It has so much going for it getting a franchise started here.

[That One Girl]

9 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Lmao, those first two were certainly not put out with the intention of being franchises

 

They were?  I'm sure STX thought they could exploit The Bye Bye Man and make cheap sequels for it every Friday the 13th if it did well enough.  And Captain Underpants has like 11 books, there's no way they didn't at least plan a franchise there.  Hell, they literally titled it "THE FIRST EPIC MOVIE"

Edited April 8, 2018 by That Ambitious Guy

[filmlover]

I kinda doubt we'll see another Bourne movie unless they attempt to jumpstart it with another character/actor again. The last movie was expected to be a much bigger deal than it ended up being (given that it marked Damon's return to the role after nearly a decade), and it's unlikely Damon will return if Greengrass doesn't want to.

[John Marston]

8 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

 

Thats a pretty stupid concept to be honest. What if a movie does most of its gross in China like PR or Warcraft. It sure as hell wont 3x then as the cut from China is very low relative to domestic. 

 

And as barnack stated being in the black from theatrical release alone is also an outdated concept. And thats good for TR coz it is no where even close to break even from theatrical alone. 

 

 

Outdated? Sorry I don’t buy that 

[John Marston]

8 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said:

 

Thats a pretty stupid concept to be honest. What if a movie does most of its gross in China like PR or Warcraft. It sure as hell wont 3x then as the cut from China is very low relative to domestic. 

 

And as barnack stated being in the black from theatrical release alone is also an outdated concept. And thats good for TR coz it is no where even close to break even from theatrical alone. 

 

 

Outdated? Sorry I don’t buy that 

[narniadis]

Good grief - I despise that the world has gotten so "black & white." I am not a hater for pointing out the fact that chances are relatively slim for Tomb Raider to get a sequel. I haven't even seen the film yet for crying out loud. That is one of the reasons that uber stan / fanboys on this forum are so annoying - you can disagree about the relative nature of a film's future without hating on the film.

 

Also - Considering that Divergent was left unfinished, in our day and age no sequel is ever guaranteed.

 

Finally - the 3x WW stuff is for discussion purposes, not hard evidence. Plenty of films do not make actual profit from theatrical and it is one of the reasons that we have seen such a dogged shift to the world wide focus from the strictly domestic one. I think some of yall woke up with your radars tuned to "cranky" today.

[oMeriMombatti]

is it only me who thinks @svenson is another clone of @mredman/@intenso.

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by oMeriMombatti

[MrGlass2]

15 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:

 

I'm sure that Blair Witch and Jason Bourne and xXx will be rebooted again eventually, but that's not the point

How do you know xXx won't get a sequel?

[John Marston]

The reason Tomb Raider might not get a sequel is that it is dropping like a rock indicating bad WOM. Thus a sequel should make less. If it had good legs then a sequel would be more likely 

Edited April 8, 2018 by John Marston

[svenson]

2 minutes ago, narniadis said:

 

 

Also - Considering that Divergent was left unfinished, in our day and age no sequel is ever guaranteed.

 

It had a budget of 100-110 million it made 179 million WW. Hardly a good comparison. Of course they pulled the plug with that one.