jack-jack INCREDIBLES 2 Weekend |🏆| ACTUALS: 182.7M OW | O8 19M, Tag 14.9M, Solo 10M, DP2 8.7M, IW 5.4M

[TalismanRing]

Just now, L Silverman said:

It was wrong for SPECTRE and it's wrong for Wrinkle in Time.

Not comparable. NOTHING opened big during March 11-13 or March 18-20 to even pretend it was double bill related and it's theater count even decreased both w/es

 

The only Sony opener on either w/e was Brother's Grimbsy which made $3.2m.    The other big openers were both under $30m and from other studios.

 

Feb 19–21	37	$108,423	+187%	340	+293	$319	$199,778,275	16
Feb 26–28	59	$23,156	-78.6%	92	-248	$252	$199,847,683	17
Mar 4–6	54	$29,757	+28.5%	63	-29	$472	$199,890,642	18
Mar 11–13	51	$41,979	+41.1%	16	-47	$2,624	$199,948,480	19
Mar 18–20	52	$44,791	+6.7%	9	-7	$4,977	$200,011,902	20
Mar 25–27	49	$39,235	-12.4%	14	+5	$2,803	$200,069,186	21
Apr 1–3	78	$4,600	-88.3%	5	-9	$920	$200,074,175	22

[Barnack]

14 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

IM's budget was $140m net -  it's not as if the budgets are actually financed with the gross budget in mind as the end budget.  Feige also had to to pre-sell it in O/S markets to get it financed and then distributed by Paramount.   Marvel Studios not Paramount did most of the heavy lifting.

 

(just 33% financed) For small guy with how long an uncertain tax credit can be depending of the jurisdiction, they can have it very much in mind still need the cash flow to actually do the movie.

 

Could you imagine how easy it would be to sell OS like Liongates could on their franchise for the Marvel studio post Iron Man 1 success or to get loan, for example the same deal of financing Iron Man 2 33% part of the budget was still in place, it was very easy for them to get it. Liongates had to sell stuff like library part and rights to future movies to fund the first Hunger games (despite financing 75% of the production by OS Rights), but the second one was a breeze.

 

Eon goes a lot like this and reached the same international high as Avengers in 2012 with Bond. With a distributor doing very little money from Bond.

 

Quote

Paramount did with the MCU indictes the MCU would have been better off or even just slightly less well off under them than Disney.  And if they stayed Independent Feige would probably have left to get out from under Permutter.

They would still be probably making movies no ? That was the starting point, I would say that anyone that can think they can run a world simulation under which Disney does not buy them and know with authority what happen in it is probably delusional.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

it was double bill related and it's theater count even decreased both w/es

That an all time line, 75% theater drop, +41% box office:

 

13

51

54

Spectre

Sony

$41,979

+41.1%

16

-47

$2,624

$199,948,480

$245

19

[Fullbuster]

I'm really happy for Disney/Pixar, their animated movies deserve what's best!

[L Silverman]

4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Not comparable. NOTHING opened big during March 11-13 or March 18-20 to even pretend it was double bill related and it's theater count even decreased both w/es

 

The only Sony opener on either w/e was Brother's Grimbsy which made $3.2m.    The other big openers were both under $30m and from other studios.

 

Feb 19–21	37	$108,423	+187%	340	+293	$319	$199,778,275	16
Feb 26–28	59	$23,156	-78.6%	92	-248	$252	$199,847,683	17
Mar 4–6	54	$29,757	+28.5%	63	-29	$472	$199,890,642	18
Mar 11–13	51	$41,979	+41.1%	16	-47	$2,624	$199,948,480	19
Mar 18–20	52	$44,791	+6.7%	9	-7	$4,977	$200,011,902	20
Mar 25–27	49	$39,235	-12.4%	14	+5	$2,803	$200,069,186	21
Apr 1–3	78	$4,600	-88.3%	5	-9	$920	$200,074,175	22

 

Back to Wrinkle, so tell me, when was the last time that a movie had a +1700 expansion two months after its wide release date and not because of Oscar contention.

[Barnack]

58 minutes ago, kswiston said:

I am confused why you keep using gross production budgets, when it is pretty obvious that tax incentives/breaks are pre-factored into film budgets. 

 

When talking about box office success scenario between 2 budget (or here studio ownership/distribution scheme), net budget is a bit irrelevant no ?, budget is relevant talk with box office because it is affecting what is on screen and in the trailer spectacle and scope and for those only gross budget matter.

 

Net budget only matter when talking profitability, outside of that I am not sure it should be brought up as much as people do (or at all).

 

A bit the same reason almost no one ever talk about net of pre-sales budget or budget minus third party investor commitment.

 

Also we pretty much never know the actual net budget, sometime we know the gross.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Barnack

[kswiston]

1 minute ago, L Silverman said:

 

Back to Wrinkle, so tell me, when was the last time that a movie had a +1700 expansion two months after its wide release date and not because of Oscar contention.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=cars3.htm

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, L Silverman said:

 

Back to Wrinkle, so tell me, when was the last time that a movie had a +1700 expansion two months after its wide release date and not because of Oscar contention.

In holiday weekend at least it is common, Finding Dory did it not so long ago. Some holiday weekend have one movie with a big expansion every year trying to take advantage of it.

 

For example:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/laborday.htm?page=LABOPEN&sort=date&order=DESC&p=.htm

1

16

18

Finding Dory

BV

$2,932,001

+363.8%

2,075

+1,730

Edited June 17, 2018 by Barnack

[PPZVGOS]

Is it fair to say that Incredibles 2 is likely to make over $600M domestic? 

 

I think so. 

[L Silverman]

2 minutes ago, kswiston said:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=cars3.htm

Wow, another dud Disney was fudging with.

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

When talking about box office success scenario between 2 budget (or here studio ownership/distribution scheme), net budget is a bit irrelevant no ?, budget is relevant talk with box office because it is affecting what is on screen and in the trailer spectacle and scope and for those only gross budget matter.

 

Net budget only matter when talking profitability, outside of that I am not sure it should be brought up as much as people do (or at all).

It's relevant to business decisions that are made and why certain films are made.  The gross budget does not get green lit, the net budget does.

 

 

[The Fast and the Furiosa]

2 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Wow, another dud Disney was fudging with.

At least Disney’s “fudgery” can be explained by either expansions or Drive ins. Can’t say that about Spectre/Passengers

[kswiston]

2 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Wow, another dud Disney was fudging with.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=pixar2014.htm

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=pixar1117.htm

 

 

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Wow, another dud Disney was fudging with.

OK, forget early numbers - now I miss EC

[dxmatrixdt]

21 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

It was wrong for SPECTRE and it's wrong for Wrinkle in Time.

why wrong?

[L Silverman]

And kudos to Book Club for breaking $60m.  Virtually no marketing, slipping under the radar and managed to do more business domestic than Tomb Raider and Pacific Rim 2.

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, kswiston said:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=pixar2014.htm

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=pixar1117.htm

 

 

It's catching

 

Aug 25–27

15

$1,675,201

+53.4%

2,210

+1,407

$758

$406,193,262

13

[L Silverman]

2 minutes ago, mathemetrics said:

why wrong?

Because people aren't paying to see SPECTRE or Wrinkle in Time.  They're paying to see the more popular movie on the double bill and are basically getting the other film as a free bonus.

[kswiston]

3 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

It's catching

 

Aug 25–27

15

$1,675,201

+53.4%

2,210

+1,407

$758

$406,193,262

13

 

Speaking of superhero films that clearly needed a fudge to boost their pathetic numbers:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avengers11.htm

 

[L Silverman]

2 minutes ago, kswiston said:

 

Speaking of superhero films that clearly needed a fudge to boost their pathetic numbers:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avengers11.htm

 

Also, there's a difference between the re-release of a popular movie that people might want to see one last time in theaters like Avengers and the re-release of a movie that no one was really clamoring to see again like Wrinkle in Time.