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

[Nova]

9 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

 

Rogue One 

 

TFA 

TLJ

Solo 

[Thrylos 7]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

Most people on here took JL budget "reports"  as facts so why not Solo? Either these sources are reliable or they aren't... 

I find all this back and forth a bit redundant anyway. We will never know what each movie has actually costed, the fact of the matter is (in this case) solo bombed , case closed let’s move on. Solo’s numbers are so low they don’t actually leave room for any sort of debate which could be made, in a “grasping at straws”manner, for justice league.

[Barnack]

17 minutes ago, A2k Rex said:

the studio can use smart accounting to make the profits smaller to prevent big payouts, can't they? they may not do that to burn bridges with the actors i guess. peter jackson took newline to court based on something similar.

Not that much nowaday at least not for those veteran with a veteran team used to those contract. Because it is all specified in advance what math formula will be used to calculate the bonus, what will be the revenues (20% of home videos + 50% of the box office , all tv, all soundtrack, etc...) and even with gross point sometime they will remove a 10% of the top the other people residual, etc... How the overhead will be calculated, what to do with production cost overrun and so on.

 

It is not really the actual profits usually I think (for example Paul Feig team was trying to have Sony count 50% of China box office instead of 25% in the revenues formula and they caught them).

 

Jackson when to court because of something that was not explicit in the contract, were the revenues the studio made by letting the book distributor use imagery of the movie on them were part of the movie revenues or not if I remember correctly. I imagine the contract said something like all revenues including but not limited too a list of stuff (soundtrack, merchandise, etc... without explicitly giving that book example and they tried to exploit it)

 

 

[baumer]

7 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

And they will probably bring over 2 billion to Disney just from the box office without taking into account other revenue streams (that are usually being used as bonuses for movies that have flopped).

 

Yeah Disney is making a killing off of Marvel and Star Wars. If both IW  films were to combine for 4 billion then I would say that after all the back-end deals in marketing and blah blah blah the number would be closer to 1.5 billion ....they're making a killing off of it no doubt

 

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, 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?

 

 

I would assume the Avengers have very similar deal no ?

[Zakiyyah6]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

Most people on here took JL budget "reports"  as facts so why not Solo? Either these sources are reliable or they aren't... 

You make a good point. I could be talking out of my ass but here goes. Considering 70-80% of the film was reshot I tend to believe the 300mil rumor more than the 250mil one. Mostly because I think that this was never only going to be a 120mil film. LF/Disney were probably, understandably, in full cocky "this is our next billion dollar movie" mode so I doubt that any expense was spared. I doubt they'll be in that mode with the, imho, ill advised Boba Fett project.

[ZackM]

5 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

You make a good point. I could be talking out of my ass but here goes. Considering 70-80% of the film was reshot I tend to believe the 300mil rumor more than the 250mil one. Mostly because I think that this was never only going to be a 120mil film. LF/Disney were probably, understandably, in full cocky "this is our next billion dollar movie" mode so I doubt that any expense was spared. I doubt they'll be in that mode with the, imho, ill advised Boba Fett project.

But reshooting 70% doesn't add 70% to the budget.  There are tons of things that still only get paid for once even if you have to film twice.  Set design, creature design, costume design, score, writing, sound mixing, vfx, etc... And then there's whatever was already set in the budget for reshoots anyway.

[Rebeccas]

Solo for sure does not look like a $300m movie... like clearly that money is not showing up on screen. It was just bts bullshit.

[The Panda]

6 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

Lol.

 

 

WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN SINCE A MOVIE I SAW 3 MONTHS AGO

[MovieMan89]

Anyone who thinks Phantom Thread is one of the worst movies they've ever seen shouldn't be allowed to discuss movies. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by MovieMan89

[LonePirate]

5 minutes ago, ZackM said:

But reshooting 70% doesn't add 70% to the budget.  There are tons of things that still only get paid for once even if you have to film twice.  Set design, creature design, costume design, score, writing, sound mixing, vfx, etc... And then there's whatever was already set in the budget for reshoots anyway.

You're making an assumption that new sets, new creatures, new costumes, new sounds, new words and new effects are not needed which is a completely inaccurate assumption. Reshoots occur for reasons other than the filmed footage is not good. Those reasons increase the costs because they require new versions of all of those things. Change a fight scene or change a planetary backdrop and you jack up the budget considerably.

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, LonePirate said:

You're making an assumption that new sets, new creatures, new costumes, new sounds, new words and new effects are not needed which is a completely inaccurate assumption. Reshoots occur for reasons other than the filmed footage is not good. Those reasons increase the costs because they require new versions of all of those things. Change a fight scene or change a planetary backdrop and you jack up the budget considerably.

But that's pretty much the reported reason for why there were re-shoots.

[LonePirate]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

But that's pretty much the reported reason for why there were re-shoots.

And if you believe that the directors were fired because the filmed footage was not good and everything remained the same in the reshoots except for the acting, cinematography and the directing, then you are a fool.

Edited June 4, 2018 by LonePirate

[Nova]

Personally I don't see how Solo could have cost $300M. And yes I know reshoots were involved in that but looking at the movie itself, I'd imagine the cost before those reshoots was $200M. It does not look like a movie that cost over $200M imo So I'd probably believe the $250M report before the $300M just because I don't see where they spent all that money. 

 

Regardless, we could sit and argue whether it's $250M or $300M but regardless the movie is a bomb. Adding $50M or removing $50M isn't going to save it from being one either. 

[RRA]

Let me get this straight:

UPGRADE did $4.4 million from 1,457 screens

ACTION POINT did $2.3 million from 2,032 screens

 

Yes I know Paramount (wisely) dumped AP, but still....holy crap.

[EmpireCity]

Blast me all you want, but the costs for Solo are nowhere near these $450m or whatever numbers are being thrown out now.  

 

Also, everyone keeps talking about the marketing costing so much but leaving out that most of the marketing was on Disney owned channels and much of it was paid marketing via Nissan and other companies.  Solo and Star Wars in general virtually has their marketing paid for thorough licensing and sponsorship deals.  Even when you consider production and what costs the most, the effects and sound and post production is all done through companies they own.  

 

Either way, the movie was too expensive and Disney is going to be much, much more budget aware moving forward. 

 

The lasting effect from Solo will be more of "the party is over" and like any non-Marvel movie the budget will be watched more closely.  

[Rebeccas]

1 minute ago, Nova said:

Personally I don't see how Solo could have cost $300M. And yes I know reshoots were involved in that but looking at the movie itself, I'd imagine the cost before those reshoots was $200M. It does not look like a movie that cost over $200M imo So I'd probably believe the $250M report before the $300M just because I don't see where they spent all that money. 

 

Regardless, we could sit and argue whether it's $250M or $300M but regardless the movie is a bomb. Adding $50M or removing $50M isn't going to save it from being one either. 

The only thing that could bring it up that high is the LF obsession with practical effects these days.. if they really needed to reshoot A LOT, it could've ballooned costs if they had to re-build a bunch of practical sets (just from a time-spending sense) which then means you have to pay people for much longer, etc. 

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, LonePirate said:

And if you believe that the directors were fired because the filmed footage was not good and everything remained the same in the reshoots except for the acting, cinematography and the directing, then you are a fool.

Oh FFS, I didn't say that was all that changed but it was the primary reason for the re-shoots and the biggest change.   Kasdan was pissed they weren't sticking more to the script.

If you don't know that by know you're an idiot.

[Zakiyyah6]

2 minutes ago, Nova said:

Personally I don't see how Solo could have cost $300M. And yes I know reshoots were involved in that but looking at the movie itself, I'd imagine the cost before those reshoots was $200M. It does not look like a movie that cost over $200M imo So I'd probably believe the $250M report before the $300M just because I don't see where they spent all that money. 

 

Regardless, we could sit and argue whether it's $250M or $300M but regardless the movie is a bomb. Adding $50M or removing $50M isn't going to save it from being one either. 

Justice League doesn't look like a 300mil budget film to me and yet that's what the budget apparently was. 

[RRA]

2 minutes ago, Nova said:

Personally I don't see how Solo could have cost $300M. And yes I know reshoots were involved in that but looking at the movie itself, I'd imagine the cost before those reshoots was $200M. It does not look like a movie that cost over $200M imo So I'd probably believe the $250M report before the $300M just because I don't see where they spent all that money. 

 

Regardless, we could sit and argue whether it's $250M or $300M but regardless the movie is a bomb. Adding $50M or removing $50M isn't going to save it from being one either. 

These talks about budgets confirms another wrinkles that the current SW movies are indeed the new DCEU when we're debating how much they really cost and thus how much profit (or loss) they made.