shuotong Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Johnny Tran said: F8 was a sequel to $1.5B but partially the reason it made that was because Paul Walker passed away. Come on now. No one knows exactly how much Paul Walker boosted the box office. I guess: very minimal. He didn't play any big role outside FF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Deadline's ranking isn't all that useful if they don't have insider information about things like the real participation numbers (and they probably don't). Much of the post-theatrical revenue is their prediction, since it is too early to know for many movies. You could say that the Deadline ranking is useful for people like (most of) us who don't really know how the movie business works, but it is probably as accurate as something you could do yourself with a simple spreadsheet - just looking at box office numbers and budget. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john2000 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, MrGlass2 said: Deadline's ranking isn't all that useful if they don't have insider information about things like the real participation numbers (and they probably don't). Much of the post-theatrical revenue is their prediction, since it is too early to know for many movies. You could say that the Deadline ranking is useful for people like (most of) us who don't really know how the movie business works, but it is probably as accurate as something you could do yourself with a simple spreadsheet - just looking at box office numbers and budget. hey deadline is a site with a very good quality in terms of box office carefull what are you saying,they are the best (JOKING) Edited March 28, 2019 by john2000 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Interesting how Venom made $100M more than Deadpool 2 at the box office yet made only $10M in net revenue. On the flip side though; Deadpool 2 made $617 in total revenue versus Venom's $564 which is $55+ difference and yet still made less than Venom because of costs ($382 versus $318) Just goes to show you how there are so many variables we at BOT tend to ignore when it comes to this stuff and how much a movie actually makes for the studio. Regardless, I just think about how much money these studios are spending on these projects and yea no way could I be a studio head and have to make decisions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars for each movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 44 minutes ago, ZeeSoh said: According to Deadline, participation cost for JW2 was a mind boggling 200m which is what lowered the net profits. If not for that, it would easily have broke even theatrically. Also remember that when we say break even theatrically we are only including profits from box office run but the cost includes everything (video release cost, overheads, interest, participation, etc). If we only include box office profits and only include the production+marketing+distribution cost then JW2 breaks even and makes a decent profit. 44 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said: No. 418 DOM-> ~209 revenue 630 OS-C-> ~252 Revenue 261 C -> ~65 revenue Total of 526M theatrical revenue via the 50-40-25 rule of thumb, Deadline estimated at 541. They’ve got the total costs at 612M, 170 production, 145 P&A, 200 participations, ~100 miscellaneous. You should not do that. Breaking even theatrically should be something like: Theatrical revenues - production - overhead - theatrical release cost - participation kicked in on the revenues made in theater Residual, home ent release cost and other cost occuring because of the future windows, bonus paid on those revenues should not be counted imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Nova said: Interesting how Venom made $100M more than Deadpool 2 at the box office yet made only $10M in net revenue. On the flip side though; Deadpool 2 made $617 in total revenue versus Venom's $564 which is $55+ difference and yet still made less than Venom because of costs ($382 versus $318) Well it was to be expected since Deadpool 2 was so much stronger in the US - where it matters most. I am actually surprised that Venom is in front, according to Deadline, since D2 also had a relatively low/mid budget. And perhaps Deadline underestimate the long-term DVD sales of Deadpool 2 Christmas Edition. Edited March 28, 2019 by MrGlass2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Speaking of costs, profits etc - great thread on the Blumhouse business model (scroll down- he has 12 tweets) Split had $80m (!!!) in participation 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 12 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: Split had $80m (!!!) in participation Didn't the director put a significant amount of own money into that one too ? Making that amount not specially high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 15 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: Split had $80m (!!!) in participation Those are just the Deadline numbers (guesses?) from last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: Speaking of costs, profits etc - great thread on the Blumhouse business model (scroll down- he has 12 tweets) Split had $80m (!!!) in participation That account has a bunch of nice graphic, including the why Disney isn't interested in the movie business (only in IPs creation and promotion) anymore: Movies tend to do 1x% when it goes extremely well, with their franchise model they are doing over 25%, I doubt movies can ever do that. Edited March 28, 2019 by Barnack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said: Those are just the Deadline numbers (guesses?) from last year. He seems to have more data than what has been previously shared by Deadline. He's the former head of strategy at Amazon Studios so he'd have his own contacts. Edited March 28, 2019 by TalismanRing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Barnack said: That account has a bunch of nice graphic, including the why Disney isn't interested in the movie business anymore: Movies tend to do 1x% when it goes extremelly well, with their franchise model they are doing over 25%, I doubt movies can ever do that. Films in franchises aren't movies? More like franchises are the most lucrative side of movie business. Edited March 28, 2019 by TalismanRing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: He seems to have more data than what has been previously shared by Deadline. That doesn't seem to be the case. Any example? 4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: He's the former head of strategy at Amazon Studios so he's have his own contacts. Obviously he knows how these things work, but I'm not sure why an Amazon executive (or a Deadline writer) would have detailed knowledge of every Blumhouse contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 59 minutes ago, shuotong said: No one knows exactly how much Paul Walker boosted the box office. I guess: very minimal. He didn't play any big role outside FF. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Just now, TalismanRing said: Films in franchises aren't movies? It is way more than a movie business like he said: Disney doesn’t need its SVOD service to be massively profitable – or even revenue maximizing. In fact, Disney has never needed this in any business units. The Walt Disney Company isn’t in the business of selling a video or toy. It is about selling stories and IP that capture value across every media category and countless individual SKUs. A movie just for a movie (i.e. cannot make sequels, help the parks, toys, etc....) would have a really hard time being a good use of money for Disney right now, the last 2 year have they made and released just a movie ? Feel like that was a while now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrGlass2 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Barnack said: A movie just for a movie (i.e. cannot make sequels, help the parks, toys, etc....) would have a really hard time being a good use of money for Disney right now, the last 2 year have they made and released just a movie ? Feel like that was a while now. Hey they will release a few movies, before shutting down FOX Searchlight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Personally, my interest in, and measure of, box office success has nothing to do with profits/costs etc. since, as gets said around these parts fairly often, I don't see any of the money. I measure by the raw numbers and tickets, because that tells me how much of an audience turned out for a movie, which is what interested me about box office in the first place. In a nutshell, I only care that Movie X made Y number of dollars. If Movie X made more money total than Movie Y, but Movie Y was more profitable, I don't care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Lehnsherr Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 Yeah getting into how much a film actually made in profit/loss is tricky cause much of that information is disclosed by the studios. In terms of performance the best way to see whether a film over or underperformed is how the studio reacts afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted March 28, 2019 Author Share Posted March 28, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 4 hours ago, ZeeSoh said: Venom probably wont be there as it doesnt qualify the deadline rule that the top 10 has a cut off of 215m domestic (Venom is at 213m domestic). So its gonna be MI6 likely as AM2 gross is too low. Venom will be in another list that Deadline will put out for “smaller” movies That’s a dumb rule. If you’re trying to rank profit there’s no reason to make a revenue cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
