Weekend Thread | Wknd #'s A:IW 61.8, LOTP 18.5, BI 16.5, OB 10.1, AQP 6.4, IFP 3.7, R 3.4, T 2.2

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Headed in to see Avengers Infinity War for the 3rd time. Love this movie. Not much else out right now.

Wonder how much this would have made if it had competition.

[Ethan Hunt]

4 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Headed in to see Avengers Infinity War for the 3rd time. Love this movie. Not much else out right now.

Go watch Tully instead!

[Thrylos 7]

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Wonder how much this would have made if it had competition.

Should it have competition by its second or third weekend ? Every studio was free to release its movies whenever it wants. If nothing else this is facing much steeper competition from now on than most big blockbusters have faced.

[MovieMan89]

10 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Wonder how much this would have made if it had competition.

IW = no competition for 3 weeks. Titanic and Avatar = no competition for 3+ months

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Titanic and Avatar = no competition for 3+ months

I imagine you are just joking but

 

2 400m+ franchise movies openned during Avatar second weekend with a 200m rom Com.

 

Titanic openned the same weekend than James Bond and a 300m RomCom opened during it's second weekend.

 

But that is just normal for movies opening around Christmas, you will always have competition right away, if you leg it out you can take advantage of a usually dire February.

[That One Girl]

21 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Headed in to see Avengers Infinity War for the 3rd time. Love this movie. Not much else out right now.

 

Tully tho

[MovieMan89]

Abysmal OD for Life of the Party. McCarthy taking a 2 year break after Ghostbusters was a really dumb move. You'd think she would have chosen something better to come back with. 

[Valonqar]

Holy shit that AWIT PTA! $88!  Why the heck did they expand it to over 1000 theaters? This is slightly better result than Solo presales in China. 

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Valonqar said:

Holy shit that AWIT PTA! $88!  Why the heck did they expand it to over 1000 theaters? 

Obviously to get 100 of course. The PTA is laughable, but it might still make enough this weekend to get to 100 now since Disney will keep it in theaters for forever just like Tomorrowland. They'll probably use I2's OW for double features if they have to. They seem determined to get that 100 lol. 

[eddyxx]

41 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Headed in to see Avengers Infinity War for the 3rd time. Love this movie. Not much else out right now.

Thinking of going to see it for the 4th time and A Quiet Place for the first time either today or tomorrow.

[Valonqar]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Obviously to get 100 of course. The PTA is laughable, but it might still make enough this weekend to get to 100 now since Disney will keep it in theaters for forever just like Tomorrowland. They'll probably use I2's OW for double features if they have to. They seem determined to get that 100 lol. 

That's stupid. Bomb is bomb. The movie was too expensive to look good crawling over 100M and that number doesn't mean anything anymore unless a cheapo like AQP and Get Out. 

[MovieMan89]

6 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

That's stupid. Bomb is bomb. The movie was too expensive to look good crawling over 100M and that number doesn't mean anything anymore unless a cheapo like AQP and Get Out. 

I thought there was something significant about a film crossing 100m DOM? Something to do with TV maybe? Someone who knows more on this help me out here. 

 

At any rate, my theory is that they really want it to go for that record feat of a full calendar year of releases grossing 100m+ DOM. 

 

P.S.: For the record, WiT's DOM gross is fine for its budget. Not great or awful. It's OS that was an epic epic bomb. If the OS share had been more the blockbuster norm, it probably could have broken even or been slightly profitable. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by MovieMan89

[Barnack]

19 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

That's stupid. Bomb is bomb. The movie was too expensive to look good crawling over 100M and that number doesn't mean anything anymore unless a cheapo like AQP and Get Out. 

100m and 200m are relevant number movie for some type of TV/stream contract I think, trying to reach those has nothing to do with looking good or not (and obviously nothing stupid about it).

 

For example the leaked deal between Netflix and Sony for the US market for Sony big animated movie:

 

They pay

32.5% of the first $10m made at the DBO

28.0% of the box office between $10m and $15m

23.5% of the box office between $15m and $25m

19.0% of the box office between $25m and $75m

15.0% of the box office between $75m and $100m

10.0% of the box office between $100m and $125m

5.0% of the box office between $125m and $150m

Nothing between 150 and 199.9999

1 million bonus if you reach 200m

 

And I would imagine there is many similar contract with bonus at certain round numbers of the DBO, motivating studio to spend 200k making 100k missing to reach them if they need to.

 

And there is often people (producer, actor, writer, director) that do not get points directly linear with the performance, but rather set amount that jump if the movie reach X at the box office, say for example Jennifer Anniston deal on We're the Millers:

 

bo bonuses:

$250k @ DBO $70MM or WWBO $140MM

$375k @ DBO $80MM or WWBO $160MM

$375k @ DBO $90MM or WWBO $180MM

$500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM

$500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM

$500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM

$500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM

 

That you could piss off if you didn't try to reach them as much as you did on other project.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Barnack

[Valonqar]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

100m and 200m are relevant number movie for some type of TV/stream contract I think, trying to reach those has nothing to do with looking good or not (and obviously nothing stupid about it).

I see. That's what @MovieMan89 said too. Thanks! 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Valonqar

[That One Girl]

10 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I thought there was something significant about a film crossing 100m DOM? Something to do with TV maybe? Someone who knows more on this help me out here. 

 

At any rate, my theory is that they really want it to go for that record feat of a full calendar year of releases grossing 100m+ DOM. 

 

P.S.: For the record, WiT's DOM gross is fine for its budget. Not great or awful. It's OS that was an epic epic bomb. If the OS share had been more the blockbuster norm, it probably could have broken even or been slightly profitable. 

 

Hm, seems like you're okay with Disney trying to fudge Wrinkle in Time over 100M, yet you weren't okay with Universal getting Fifty Shades to 100M perfectly legitimately.  I wonder why  

[MovieMan89]

9 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Hm, seems like you're okay with Disney trying to fudge Wrinkle in Time over 100M, yet you weren't okay with Universal getting Fifty Shades to 100M perfectly legitimately.  I wonder why  

Because it has no bearing on my club. Disney fudging WiT to 100 changes nothing about that, whereas if Freed would have been the only movie to ruin my club it would have done so illegitimately. Alas, it didn't matter because many movies ruined it. 

 

Btw, remember when you said IW couldn't break the OW record for months and declared victory on the OD that was perfectly in line to break the record if you know MCU patterns?

 

See, I can beat the dead horse too. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by MovieMan89

[a2k]

FIFTY SHADES WAS NOT FUDGED 

It didn't have a similar theatrical pattern like it's predecessor because that one if anything had an abnormal run. And anyways, to retain a movie in theaters so that it earns real money to get a milestone, and then to pull it off theaters once that milestone is achieved, is not a fudge.

Edited May 12, 2018 by A2k Raptor

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, A2k Raptor said:

FIFTY SHADES WAS NOT FUDGED 

It didn't have a similar theatrical pattern like it's predecessor because that one if anything had an abnormal run. And anyways, to retain a movie in theaters so that it earns real money to get a milestone, and then to pull it off theaters once that milestone is achieved, is not a fudge.

I have a different definition of fudge that clearly most here don't agree with. It's fine, at least I apply that definition to all films and not just select ones. 

 

Though I will say there are probably very few films out there that didn't earn all of their money. The kind of fudge that "borrows" from another film is likely near non-existent given that's just not that easy to do. Most fudging has to do with other techniques. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by MovieMan89

[expensiveho]

This might be obvious, but isn't fudging illegal? Like Netflix could take legal actions against a studio for "making up numbers" just to get a bigger check from them.

 

So unless it's just something for PR (aka OW record or random marks) I don't think fudging ever happens (at least not anymore)

 

When people refer to fudges nowadays it just means making it stay in theaters longer that it normally would. 

[Barnack]

36 minutes ago, expensiveho said:

This might be obvious, but isn't fudging illegal? Like Netflix could take legal actions against a studio for "making up numbers" just to get a bigger check from them.

 

Reading the contract with Netflix, they seem to not even use studio box office numbers but third parties one like Rentrak.

 

Probably why they go through all the re-expansion, drive in dual feature and so on trouble, they probably cannot cheat at all or not much, being audited both by the people getting bonus and by the people paying them money according to the performance and both group using third party entity to track sales, not trusting the studio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Barnack