Weekend Thread....Please read the staff announcement pg 104 (Solo 29.2...DP 23.3...Adrift 11.5)

[baumer]

48 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Dear god, now RT is claiming reports put Solo north of 450m after marketing. These "reports" of the costs for it just keep climbing and climbing. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in certain Disney exec meetings on this one...

 

Those reports are wrong.

[MCKillswitch123]

Grace is kind of a meme when it comes to box office, quite honestly. The only YouTubers that actually seem like they understand box office worth a damn are Dan Murrell (his "Charting With Dan" show is actually pretty much on point and I'd recommend anyone from the forum to check it out) and Perri Nemiroff (her weekly top 5 prediction videos show that she knows her box office stuff pretty solidly as well). Jackson Fulcher is also knowledgeable-ish, but he kinda loses himself on being so convict about the old rule of "2x your production budget = success" (which isn't totally true, per say) + not being aware of international rollouts for films that come out in the US a week or more before other major territories (dude, all it takes is to go to fucking IMDB).

[Rebeccas]

2 minutes ago, Nova said:

I am actually wondering if the reason why Deadpool 2 moved up to May 18th had more to do with a contract that Disney had for Solo with theaters. Similar to the TLJ one. Like Solo was going to keep all the big screens even when Deadpool 2 came out. I know moving to May 18th allowed it to have one week of IMAX that it wasn't going to get with June 1st. 

 

But either way that drop wouldn't have been pretty imo  

If they negotiated that contract post-TLJ, then these theaters are stupid. It was so obvious they were losing money from Jumanji business by keeping TLJ on the most screens. 

[Mekanos]

4 minutes ago, Nova said:

I am actually wondering if the reason why Deadpool 2 moved up to May 18th had more to do with a contract that Disney had for Solo with theaters. Similar to the TLJ one. Like Solo was going to keep all the big screens even when Deadpool 2 came out. I know moving to May 18th allowed it to have one week of IMAX that it wasn't going to get with June 1st. 

 

But either way that drop wouldn't have been pretty imo  

It was also probably to get away from the World Cup.

[Mojoguy]

Solo doesn't have the 4 week on the biggest screens requirement that TLJ had, but it does have the Disney keeps 65% instead of 50% that TLJ had.

Deadline

As an aside, we hear that small town exhibitors were still on the hook to paying Disney a 65% rental on Solo, but without the four-week commitment that came with Last Jedi.

So theaters make less off Solo compared to all the other movies, the less money it makes the more likely theaters will drop the movie.

[LaughingEvans]

It's impossible that Solo cost 400m, especially when the planned budget would be around 200m. The investors would not allow it.

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, LaughingEvans said:

It's impossible that Solo cost 400m, especially when the planned budget would be around 200m. The investors would not allow it.

Those reports include marketing costs though. Not impossible for 450m if the budget really was over 300. Though a 150m marketing campaign does seem like a lot for a marketing campaign that felt about as low key as tentpole campaigns get. That's why I'd think the budget must have been more like 325 or something if 450+ with marketing is legit. 

[mikee11]

3 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

It's impossible that Solo cost 400m, especially when the planned budget would be around 200m. The investors would not allow it.

450 million after marketing is not implausible 

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

It's impossible that Solo cost 400m, especially when the planned budget would be around 200m. The investors would not allow it.

With marketing.

 

Which is what the trades always combine in when there's blood in the water  but otherwise rarely mention.   

[MovieMan89]

Just now, TalismanRing said:

With marketing.

 

Which is what the trades always combine in when there's blood in the water  but otherwise rarely mention.   

There's pretty much never any chance for them to mention a movie costing 450+ even with marketing, so....

[Nova]

9 minutes ago, Mekanos said:

It was also probably to get away from the World Cup.

Well that makes sense for the OS markets. Not so much the domestic market. I think in the end its smart that they moved away from JW2 and the World Cup in terms of OS. They could have had the May 18th date for OS and kept the June 1st release date for domestic though similar to what JW2 is doing. 

[TalismanRing]

7 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Solo doesn't have the 4 week on the biggest screens requirement that TLJ had, but it does have the Disney keeps 65% instead of 50% that TLJ had.

Deadline

So theaters make less off Solo compared to all the other movies, the less money it makes the more likely theaters will drop the movie.

I know this high rental % goes back to Lucas Film but how in heck does Disney demand that much with Solo and not a movie like Infinity War?

 

 

[Nova]

13 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

If they negotiated that contract post-TLJ, then these theaters are stupid. It was so obvious they were losing money from Jumanji business by keeping TLJ on the most screens. 

Well the contract still has Disney getting 65% according to Deadline so you never know 

[NCsoft]

1 hour ago, Thrylos 7 said:

I am really cautious when it comes to new/modern horror films. I like both IT and “get out” but that’s about it. Things like “it comes at night”or even the highly praised “the witch”.....  

When it comes to these recent year "divisive horror" movies that are praised by the critics, I just judge them on a one by one basis. I liked The Witch's atmosphere but didn't quite get the theme of the film. I hated it follows, but really enjoyed The Babadook. 

[MovieMan89]

Just now, TalismanRing said:

I know this high rental % goes back to Lucas Film but how in heck does Disney demand that much with Solo and not a movie like Infinity War?

 

 

Because up until one week ago, Star Wars was always considered THE franchise of all franchises. It's why Solo's performance is in fact something to make a big deal about. 

[Nova]

Just now, TalismanRing said:

I know this high rental % goes back to Lucas Film but how in heck does Disney demand that much with Solo and not a movie like Infinity War?

 

 

Exactly. 

[Mojoguy]

Stop talking about the marketing. No one gives a shit about the marketing.

Just looking at that budget, Solo is a disaster.

[Mekanos]

Japan will save Solo 

[TwoMisfits]

8 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Solo doesn't have the 4 week on the biggest screens requirement that TLJ had, but it does have the Disney keeps 65% instead of 50% that TLJ had.

Deadline

So theaters make less off Solo compared to all the other movies, the less money it makes the more likely theaters will drop the movie.

If Disney is really getting 65%, maybe we should start to reconsider how rapidly Solo will lose theaters to other older movies that stay...

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, MovieMan89 said:

Dear god, now RT is claiming reports put Solo north of 450m after marketing. These "reports" of the costs for it just keep climbing and climbing. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in certain Disney exec meetings on this one...

Not really if the production cost are well north of 300, than usually Solo would be north of 450m after Marketing.

 

Quote

 

@Barnack

Assuming that 450m production and marketing cost for Solo is legit and say it makes 380-400 WW, what would your guesstimates be for potential loss? 

 

 

Would be better to have a clearer view of what they mean by that, is that marketing cost the movie life marketing cost or just theatrical does it include the other theatrical releasing cost that are not marketing cost, etc.....

 

If it does say 210m dbo 190m intl for 400m WW, I had in mind quoting myself from the solo thread:

 

Budget:   330m

Overhead: 50m (usually 15% of the budget, but maybe Disney use a different formula)

Participation: 25m (using a small under 15% participation rate)

World Release cost (let say they didn't went all in in some markets and kept it low): 165m

570m cost

 

Rental around (210m* .56 + 190 * 0.4): 185-195

 

375-385m in the red ?

Even with a 200m budget I am not sure how you get to a small just 100m in the red after it's theatrical run, that would be great in is way on a nice profit if that was the case.

 

If the movie do 35% of it's revenues in theater (Disney average), it would reach around 542m in revenues, looking something like this maybe. 

Add residual, home ent release a bit more participation and if the movie is really well above 300m net budget we could see a lost of around 85m if it was only 250m could be around the break even water.

 

Domestic rental: 117.6

Domestic home ent revenues: 80

domestic home ent ppv: 10.55

Pay TV (i.e streaming nowaday): 27.5m

Domestic Free TV: 21m

Intl rental: 85m

Int hom ent revenue: 30

Intl home ent ppv: 6m

Intl TV: 85m

Airlines: 3m

Consumer products: 85m (Extreme big crash down from Last Jedi 450m, but not only the popularity is not close they do not have the cute like bird with the big eyes to push sales here and possible to have some lost on the stuff they do themselve and will get stuck with an inventory too big)

 

That scenario breakdown exercise went to 550m, matching by initial gross formula intuition, not particularly optimistic on some ancillary but not particularly pessimistic either, it is heavily influenced as a starting point by Amazing Spider Man 2 domestic performances (a 200m something box office franchise entry not particularly well received). So if the movie total production and total world releasing cost is only 450m (that almost exactly Amazing Spider man 2 $455m cost), could be ok depending on people participation deal obviously.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Barnack