Weekend Thread | Hotel 3 $44.1 Skyscraper 25.4, Ant Man’s size does matter with $28.8M

[YM!]

24 minutes ago, Moviefanatic said:

Next year TDK will be out of the top 10. Poor nolanites 

@MrPink is this the end?

[PPZVGOS]

4 minutes ago, andersonhoran said:

AT&TW is doing great overseas (especially in Asia),and still have half of the countries to debut, including China which the first did more than 105M there.

Maybe it's doing well overseas, but its domestic BO is not OK. And the domestic BO is always the best benchmark. 

 

Also, do keep in mind that the studio only gets a fraction of the total WW BO, as well as having to shell out dozens of millions more for promotion and distribution. Making money off movies is not easy at all. 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

2 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

Making money off movies is not easy at all. 

And somehow AMatW will do just that.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Jayhawk

[MrPink]

5 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

@MrPink is this the end?

 

10 years is a good run.

 

3 more days.

[PPZVGOS]

4 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

And somehow AMatW will do just that.

Even if it does, it will be infinitely less than any other recent MCU movie. That is a major factor for any industry decision. 

[TalismanRing]

13 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

How is a movie that cost 170M and already earned 284M (1.67% of its budget, in only a week) not going to make money?  Does it suck it won't make MORE?  Yup.  It is Sad Bens.  But it's not like Marvel Studios was already having a terrible year.

A movie that costs $162m and makes $600m+ supposedly is a flop.

 

How are other studios even in business?   Why are we getting a Kong sequel?   How did  X-Men Apoc get a sequel or for that matter First Class?  How were there sequels after the first Wolverine or the second?    Why have there been more Mission Impossibles after the third one or even the 5th?   Why is anyone even contemplating another Mad Max?    How can the Rock show his face after Rampage and Skyscraper back to back?

 

Tragic.

 

 

[aabattery]

9 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

10 years is a good run.

 

3 more days.

 

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

Even if it does, it will be infinitely less than any other recent MCU movie. That is a major factor for any industry decision. 

Nah, it will be in the ball park of Doctor Strange.  If Marvel only cared about making sequels to their highest grossing properties we'd have had an Iron Man 4 and by now and they'd be bending over backwards cutting enormous checks for their supposedly out of contract big players.  Instead we're getting Black Widow, Strange 2 and probably an Eternals movie.

[dxmatrixdt]

4 hours ago, DAJK said:

I think this result pretty much gurantees a HT4. The fact that it's still opening above the third one, and in summer no less when the Halloween angle isn't as strong. 

 

I think a HT4 in Sept/Oct 2020 could do similar numbers, if not a slight drop/off to 35/120

I noticed there is like 20 episodes of a Hotel Transylvania continuation series on Netflix.  HT4 will have to be careful not to fall into domestic bomb territory.  HT3 looks like it is going to pull of 140 million + domestic and Skyscraper might match Rampage worldwide.  Lucky weekend for these two.  The luck should hold over next weekend too.  I could see possibly Skyscraper cutting into the OW of Equalizer 2 and then both Equalizer and Skyscraper holding very well against Mi6 and Mi6 taking a hit as a result of Skyscrapers third weekend.

[Cooper Legion]

1 minute ago, aabattery said:

 

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS CONFIRMED

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

6 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

Even if it does, it will be infinitely less than any other recent MCU movie. That is a major factor for any industry decision. 

Even if it does? Debating whether it is a disappointment is one thing, debating whether it's going to make a profit is just silly.

[dxmatrixdt]

4 hours ago, Barnack said:

There is no floor really for a box office star these days (and no so much in the past either even 90s Julia Roberts had under 3m OW and movie not reaching 10m it is a bit overrated how certain box office clout was in the past, always had the good star in the good vehicule element to it), Denzel recently made 4.45m on a 1670 theater studio release OW, Bullock 3.23m on a 2,200 theater studio release, Dicaprio went below 13m quite often, Damon just went under 5m two time last year.

 

With a 125m pg-13 with a well proven high concept production type movie, summer release with over 3,500 theater, the BO star and the type of marketing budget that usually come with that, now that give you some OW weekend, that just having a BO star will not. If Walbergh/Jonhson would have made 25m with Pain&Gain that would have been great for example.

 

But even for this, 25m isn't bad: Valerian, King Arthur, Geostorm, Great Wall, Ghost in a shell, there is a list of big over 100m movies not getting close to that, a bit like Cruise with American Made last year, at least the movie did open, was seen and if it is good it could have a good multi (summer release, non holiday OW, can do 4.0x when they work) and be ok.

I don't think human box office stars target upfront demand at the box office.  Jumanji, Rampage, and Skyscraper all had low previews and carried well.  Maybe if it is like a concert film, it gets a huge OD

Movie stars adding 50% to Thursday previews and determining how much of an attractant they are with opening week audiences seems like a dead end to read into.  If someone likes an actor, they can find them on tv.  However, I think movie stars add to the product.  

 

Here is one I could find.  It does not show much, but it does show a small jump on Saturday hinting that maybe Friday was a couple % points frontloaded from fandom.

This would be one of Hayden Christensen's first films since Episode 3.

Awake (2007)

2007/11/30	4	$2,230,887		2,002	$1,114	$2,230,887	1
2007/12/01	6	$2,265,538	+2%	2,002	$1,132	$4,496,425	2
2007/12/02	6	$1,360,447	-40%	2,002	$680	$5,856,872	3

[Napoleon]

Ant-Man 3 will either not happen or be a team-up with a more popular Avenger. There's no way Marvel will want another sequel struggling to be make a profit. Especially now that with the Fox deal they will have better characters to explore.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

2 hours ago, Heat Vision said:

WB does this every year it seems. They have over budget bombs like King Arthur, Jupiter Ascending,etc. I'm just glad it wasn't Ready Player One.

Also, they weren’t well received by critics & audiences...so that’s something.

 

When there’s critically hated bombs like these films and others like RIPD & The Lone Ranger......something isn’t right.

[PPZVGOS]

19 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

A movie that costs $162m and makes $600m+ supposedly is a flop.

 

How are other studios even in business?   Why are we getting a Kong sequel?   How did  X-Men Apoc get a sequel or for that matter First Class?  How were there sequels after the first Wolverine or the second?    Why have there been more Mission Impossibles after the third one or even the 5th?   Why is anyone even contemplating another Mad Max?    How can the Rock show his face after Rampage and Skyscraper back to back?

 

Tragic.

 

 

You do realize that some movies that lose money, do in fact get sequels. If a studio has nothing better to do, they will try and revive a franchise. Not every movie that gets a sequel, was a success, far from it. 

 

Moreover, are we really getting a Kong sequel? From what I know, it will be a Godzilla-Kong team-up. The plans for a Kong sequel were indeed scrapped. X-Men Apoc was a flop, hence the move to reboot yet again. Are you doubting that the first two Wolverine movies were relative failures? The fact that another one was made, does not change the obvious fact. The 3rd MI was indeed a flop, like I said before, even some flops get to have sequels. Why is anyone even contemplating another Mad Max? ---> Excellent question that rational reflection cannot answer. Maybe D. Johnson has no problem showing his face, but Rampage was disappointing, and Skyscraper looks a lot like a flop, he and the financiers of his last two movies won't be too happy, I can assure you of that.  

[Alli]

Some movies were very well received that's why even tho they flopped a sequel was made or is considered. The potential for growth was/is there. See MI:3 and Edge of tomorrow, Mad max fury road.

 

I don't get the feeling Ant 2 is having people raving about it, so the 3rd would most likely decrease as a solo movie

Edited July 15, 2018 by Alli

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, Alli said:

Some movies were very well received that's why even tho they flopped a sequel was made or is considered. The potential for growth was/is there. See MI:3 and Edge of tomorrow, Mad max fury road.

 

I don't get the feeling Ant 2 is having people raving about it, so the 3rd would most likely decrease as a solo movie

Financial flops rarely get sequels even if they are well regarded.   Most if not all of those movies made a profit.

 

These movies though aren't even in the same ball park for WW gross with AM&TW.    There will be a $200m+ WW difference with in most cases a lower budget (and in the case of Cruise & Rock movies most definitely smaller back end deals).  WW, AM&TW will wind up closer to MI5  WW than it will MI3.  

[KJsooner]

Movie grossing 4x it’s production budget is a huge flop. Never change BOT. Many of you wouldn’t last as sports fans.

[Blaze Heatnix]

There are some rules you have to consider, in order to say if a movie is profitable or not. 

 

Ant-Man and The Wasp has a reported 162 million budget + whatever they spent with marketing / promotion. So, it's hard to predict.

 

Barnack can probably give us a better idea in that regard, but let's go anyway. 

 

In general, producers keep 50-55% of domestic numbers, 25% from China and 40% from the rest of the world. If Ant-Man and The Wasp makes 200 million domestic, 120 million in China and 300 million overseas, let's see the numbers:

 

50% of 200 million = 100 million

 

25% of 120 million = 30 million

 

40% of 300 million = 120 million

 

 

So, 100 + 30 + 120 million = 250 million

 

Budget is 162 million. So 250 million - 162 million = 88 million. So, if Ant-Man makes 620 million worldwide with the numbers that i wrote, the movie could have a profit of 88 million. However, I'm not considering marketing, promotion, distribution. 

 

Hell, many movies don't make a profit when they get officially released. Sometimes they have money coming from dvd / blu-ray sales, toys and other stuff.

 

That's why movies like G.I Joe ( which made 302 million on a 175 million budget ) got a sequel, despite flopping in theaters. Toys and merchandising really helped G.I Joe. 

 

Making a profit doesn't mean you'll get a sequel. I mean, you can make a movie and get a profit of 1 million. Is that enough? Are you satisfied to spend 10 million and get 1 million? Making a profit doesn't mean you get more money than what you spent. A profit is anything that you get besides whatever you spent. At least, that's what I consider profit.

 

 

[PPZVGOS]

6 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Movie grossing 4x it’s production budget is a huge flop. Never change BOT. Many of you wouldn’t last as sports fans.

a) I have not seen anyone call AM2 a "huge flop" 

b) Are you certain it will make $650m?

c) AM2 is a disappointment relative to its MCU brethren. This is I think a fair description of objective reality.