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

[Barnack]

21 minutes ago, Green245 said:

According to Deadline, production and P&A ran 250 million. These figures are just estimates. And are generally underreported. Having an estimate that a worldwide gross of 350-400 million was needed for this movie to be profitable is reasonable.

You usually do not need to make 400m with a domestic heavy title like WiT to be profitable with an around 105-120m production budget and a usual 95-130m ww P&A.

 

That number people has in mind could come from this:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/08/review-a-wrinkle-in-time-delivers-weird-fun-and-heartfelt-family-entertainment/#69e87d631eb3

With about $200 million in production and marketing costs, the film needs to finish in the vicinity of $400+ million worldwide to turn a profit from theatrical receipts alone.

 

That number is completely different one that the GB-break point (and a rather useless / theoretical strange one), if you are domestic heavy (with a release spending that was realistic about) that and have a really large budget, it is perfectly possible to turn a profit without necessarily even doubling or barely doubling your budget at the box office, see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=themagnificentseven.htm for an example look at Denzel Washington filmography they rarely go over 2.5 time their budget

 

Mag 7: 162m on a 90m rumored net budget (that one real net budget was probably between 77m to 85m too), it had a limited expectation of it's possible performance (studio had 85m/65m intl for 150m WW in mind) so it had a reasonable 75-85m budget with a 75-85m ww P&A planned in consequence to still turn a profit with that type of box office.

 

Last 10 year's of Denzel box office vs rumored budget:

RJQ: 12.19m on a 22m (.55)

Fences: 64m on a 24m budget (2.66)

Mag 7: 162m on a 90m budget (real budget around 85m or less) (1.905)

Equalizer: 192m on a 55m budget (was more 73m gross / 63.075m net in reality) (3.04)

2 guns: 131.94m on a 61m budget (nice budget for that pair, 77m gross, 17m tax credit from Louisiana) (2.16)

Flight: 161.77 on 31m (5.21)

Safe house: 208 on a 85m budget (2.44)

Unstoppable: 167.8m on a 100m budget (1.67)

Book of Eli: 157m on a 80m budget (1.96)

Pelham 1-2-3: 150m on a 100m budget (the real net budget was 115.43m) (1.29)

 

On that last 10 year's, 10 movies, Denzel went above is rumored budget

2.0x: 5 times

2.5x: 3 times

3.0x: 2 times and getting a sequel on one of those

 

Put it this way in is complete career only 2 Denzel movie reached 200m at the box office (266m American gangster on a +100m budget and Safe House mentioned above on a +85m budget) and their budget's are around 100m.

 

The men still get paid 25, 30, 35+ million to play in movies with is 20m + first dollar gross deal he tend to get, why ? Domestic heavy, good home ent perf, third party financier easy to find and low risk when he is involved even if the upside potential reward is capped to a low amount.

 

 

 

 

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

You're right, what we all should really be discussing is:

Will there be a Ready Player Two?

Why, yes, I believe there's a good possibility of there being a sequel, specially if the scenario of over 3x domestic plus over 200M in China plus over 600M WW happens - and it seems it will. A sequel to the book is already being written and will come out next year I believe.

 

Now whether it will be nearly as good as this one is another question entirely. It will depend heavily on whether the second book is actually good rather than an unplanned sequel for an unexpected hit that pales in comparison type of deal and on whether they will be able to convince Spielberg to direct it, which I doubt they will sadly.

 

There's also the question of whether it's financially worth it to even make a sequel, but with the good reception domestically, the very good reception OS and the great reception in China it seems to me like the checks will just write themselves.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Porthos]

 

[Zakiyyah6]

Solo still looks mediocre to me and I have less than no interest in seeing it.

[Porthos]

Just now, Zakiyyah6 said:

Solo still looks mediocre to me and I have less than no interest in seeing it.

I thought it looked fantastic, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[Zakiyyah6]

2 minutes ago, Porthos said:

I thought it looked fantastic, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

That's fine. I should update and say that I think it looks bad actually. But I'm not trying to piss on your parade. 

[Porthos]

1 minute ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

That's fine. I should update and say that I think it looks bad actually. But I'm not trying to piss on your parade. 

No worries, I can take it.  

 

And I realize not everyone will want this.  But I am there for opening night.  Just screams "fun adventure" to me, which has been missing in SW films for the last couple of ones. 

[MikeQ]

I'm really enjoying the feel/tone of the movie. It's the first Star Wars Universe film that doesn't feel like yet another Star Wars instalment, but like its own beast, which is kinda cool.

 

This trailer gives me a greater sense of what an extended Star Wars Universe could look like. I'm no Star Wars expert, but I'm sensing how not everything has to be another huge epic Jedi/the Force extravaganza, but a fun adventure on its own merits.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Arlborn]

32 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

I can finally feel it. I'll be there.

[Green245]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

 

Thanks for posting. I will see it on opening night Thursday. I hope its good!

[DAR]

Terrific weekend for AQP and Blockers.  Also great drop for RPO

[harrycaul]

Solo looks a bazillion times more appealing to me than the last two Star Wars movies.

[Green245]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

You usually do not need to make 400m with a domestic heavy title like WiT to be profitable with an around 105-120m production budget and a usual 95-130m ww P&A.

 

That number people has in mind could come from this:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/08/review-a-wrinkle-in-time-delivers-weird-fun-and-heartfelt-family-entertainment/#69e87d631eb3

With about $200 million in production and marketing costs, the film needs to finish in the vicinity of $400+ million worldwide to turn a profit from theatrical receipts alone.

 

That number is completely different one that the GB-break point (and a rather useless / theoretical strange one), if you are domestic heavy (with a release spending that was realistic about) that and have a really large budget, it is perfectly possible to turn a profit without necessarily even doubling or barely doubling your budget at the box office, see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=themagnificentseven.htm for an example look at Denzel Washington filmography they rarely go over 2.5 time their budget

 

Mag 7: 162m on a 90m rumored net budget (that one real net budget was probably between 77m to 85m too), it had a limited expectation of it's possible performance (studio had 85m/65m intl for 150m WW in mind) so it had a reasonable 75-85m budget with a 75-85m ww P&A planned in consequence to still turn a profit with that type of box office.

 

Last 10 year's of Denzel box office vs rumored budget:

RJQ: 12.19m on a 22m (.55)

Fences: 64m on a 24m budget (2.66)

Mag 7: 162m on a 90m budget (real budget around 85m or less) (1.905)

Equalizer: 192m on a 55m budget (was more 73m gross / 63.075m net in reality) (3.04)

2 guns: 131.94m on a 61m budget (nice budget for that pair, 77m gross, 17m tax credit from Louisiana) (2.16)

Flight: 161.77 on 31m (5.21)

Safe house: 208 on a 85m budget (2.44)

Unstoppable: 167.8m on a 100m budget (1.67)

Book of Eli: 157m on a 80m budget (1.96)

Pelham 1-2-3: 150m on a 100m budget (the real net budget was 115.43m) (1.29)

 

On that last 10 year's, 10 movies, Denzel went above is rumored budget

2.0x: 5 times

2.5x: 3 times

3.0x: 2 times and getting a sequel on one of those

 

Put it this way in is complete career only 2 Denzel movie reached 200m at the box office (266m American gangster on a +100m budget and Safe House mentioned above on a +85m budget) and their budget's are around 100m.

 

The men still get paid 25, 30, 35+ million to play in movies with is 20m + first dollar gross deal he tend to get, why ? Domestic heavy, good home ent perf, third party financier easy to find and low risk when he is involved even if the upside potential reward is capped to a low amount.

 

 

 

 

Denzel Washington? I have no idea what you talking about.

 

Sometimes when you have to move a discussion this far off topic to prove a point, it may be time to re-evaluate your position.  

 

I'm not here to rain on anybody's parade. I love movies. I want movies to be successful. It breaks my heart to see A Wrinkle In Time do so poorly at the box office. If you want to believe this movie will somehow, against all reasonable estimates, turn a profit on its cinematic run, you are absolutely within your right to do so. I am not here to upset anyone. I only enjoy talking about movies and the movie business. If you think 200 million or so is all that is needed to make A Wrinkle In Time a box office profit bonanza.. have at it.

[TwoMisfits]

Solo trailer looks way better than the 1st few...and I think I hate Alden Ehrenreich playing the Han role even more...since he seems either under (energy/volume/charisma) or literally trying to mimic it, both without success...

 

But, the movie might be good enough to bring me in anyway:)...I'm trying to think of the last movie I hated the lead, but still really enjoyed the movie (I will say, Woody Harrelson - damn, if he's as good in the movie as he is in the trailer, maybe it should be his movie:)...I've gotta think on that one:)... 

Edited April 9, 2018 by TwoMisfits

[Green245]

13 minutes ago, DAR said:

Terrific weekend for AQP and Blockers.  Also great drop for RPO

I saw Blockers Saturday night. It was suprisingly better than I expected. Its generally not my type of movie. Audience loved it. John Cena was excellent.

[Green245]

Just now, TwoMisfits said:

Trailer looks way better than the 1st few...and I think I hate Alden Ehrenreich playing the Han role even more...since he seems either under (energy/volume/charisma) or literally trying to mimic it, both without success...

 

But, the movie might be good enough to bring me in anyway:)...I'm trying to think of the last movie I hated the lead, but still really enjoyed the movie (I will say, Woody Harrelson - damn, if he's as good in the movie as he is in the trailer, maybe it should be his movie:)...I've gotta think on that one:)... 

Woody Harrelson is good in almost everything. He is easily one of my favorite actors.

[75Live]

8 hours ago, oMeriMombatti said:

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

 

 

you nailed it.  and he's been banned, thank goodness.  Great work mods  

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, 75Live said:

 

you nailed it.  and he's been banned, thank goodness.  Great work mods  

Too bad he'll only rise from the ashes again and ruin Christmas when Aquaman comes out.

[baumer]

Yes, that Solo trailer has got me interested for sure!

[LonePirate]

20 minutes ago, baumer said:

Yes, that Solo trailer has got me interested for sure!

 

@baumer you're one of the best gauges of popular sentiment on these boards. That's meant as a compliment, btw. If that trailer has won you over, then general audiences will likely provide a warm reception to both the trailer and the film.