Please help answer this question about Deadline.

[HeadShot]

Hi guys. I was wondering where do the numbers come from on Deadlines most profitable movies of the year?  Are those just fake estimates made by Deadline?  Or are those real numbers that they received from the studios?   

 

https://deadline.com/2018/03/most-profitable-movies-2017-star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-disney-fox-merger-1202356161/

 

Like eg. how does deadline know what a studio paid for Worldwide prints and ads?

[Barnack]

It is a mix, most of those numbers are industry model standard estimated by expert (that worked at some point in the industry I would imagine), with from time to time an actual known number that became exceptionally "public", when like Liongates made a big deal about spending only 50m on Mockingjay release or Guardian of the Galaxy 196m budget in 2014 or by the team like the a bit famous Cameron Diaz participation deal.

 

Most of them are simply rules of thumb estimate, prints and ads is somewhat public (like how much air time was bought on national tv tend to be tracked and stuff like that, giving a good idea)

 

when compared to data that became public later (because of the sony leak), they seem to do a gross rough good jobs on the a bit public spending or revenues, like their rental estimate isn't that far off (but not perfect either), tv contract deal, worldwide P&A, they do worst on something private like a movie budget and even worst of talent production participation.

 

They can be wrong by a giant figure (they have been).

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Barnack

[HeadShot]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It is a mix, most of those numbers are industry model standard estimated by expert (that worked at some point in the industry I would imagine), with from time to time an actual known number that became exceptionally "public", when like Liongates made a big deal about spending only 50m on Mockingjay release or Guardian of the Galaxy 196m budget in 2014 or by the team like the a bit famous Cameron Diaz participation deal.

 

Most of them are simply rules of thumb estimate, prints and ads is somewhat public (like how much air time was bought on national tv tend to be tracked and stuff like that, giving a good idea)

 

when compared to data that became public later (because of the sony leak), they seem to do a gross rough good jobs on the a bit public spending or revenues, like their rental estimate isn't that far off (but not perfect either), tv contract deal, worldwide P&A, they do worst on something private like a movie budget and even worst of talent production participation.

 

They can be wrong by a giant figure (they have been).

 

Hmm I see. Thanks this was very useful information.

 

I have another question. The movie A Star Is Born is said to have had 110 million in Worldwide Prints and Ads.  How accurate do you think that is?. Isn't that a huge number for a movie that's not a blockbuster. For comparison sake Venom had 127 million in prints and ads - and this includes China, a market which A star is born wasn't released in.  

 

https://deadline.com/2019/03/a-star-is-born-box-office-profit-2018-1202580798/

 

 

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, HeadShot said:

I have another question. The movie A Star Is Born is said to have had 110 million in Worldwide Prints and Ads.  How accurate do you think that is?. Isn't that a huge number for a movie that's not a blockbuster. For comparison sake Venom had 127 million in prints and ads - and this includes China, a market which A star is born wasn't released in.  

  

https://deadline.com/2019/03/a-star-is-born-box-office-profit-2018-1202580798/

 

If a movie is really believed in by the studio, track well, etc.... middle budget affair marketing can get around the same the mid-level blockbuster type.

 

Movie like Venom often have some partnership helping reduce the cost, part of a well known franchise starting with some awareness and a fanbase.

 

Also a Star Is Born award campaign spending must have been huge, can easily add a 7-8M not spent by a Venom there.

 

Not sure how equivalent of a comparable but if you look at Captain Phillips:

 

Theatrical release:

Domestic marketing: 53m

dom prints: 3.9m

wpf, dues others: 2.76m

 

Intl marketing: 28.6m

intl prints: 8m

intl wpf, freight others: 2.6m

 

That 100m in 2013, around 108m in 2018 dollar and it got I would say about 3m less spent on is award season.

 

P.S. If it didn't change studio spend very little on a China release (when they are under the 25% type of deal), like maybe 2-3% of the box office, I remember that Transformer 4 had a really giant spending by Paramount there and it was only 8 or 14M max by then, It tend to be you get less of the BO gross but you spent very little in exchange.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Barnack

[HeadShot]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

If a movie is really believed in by the studio, track well, etc.... middle budget affair marketing can get around the same the mid-level blockbuster type.

 

Movie like Venom often have some partnership helping reduce the cost, part of a well known franchise starting with some awareness and a fanbase.

 

Also a Star Is Born award campaign spending must have been huge, can easily add a 7-8M not spent by a Venom there.

 

Not sure how equivalent of a comparable but if you look at Captain Phillips:

 

Theatrical release:

Domestic marketing: 53m

dom prints: 3.9m

wpf, dues others: 2.76m

 

Intl marketing: 28.6m

intl prints: 8m

intl wpf, freight others: 2.6m

 

That 100m in 2013, around 108m in 2018 dollar and it got I would say about 3m less spent on is award season.

 

 

Ahh I see. It makes sense. Thank you again for answering my questions.  You are truly the most useful member here lol. I can only dream to know as much as you about the movie industry .

[HeadShot]

@Barnack  Oh one final question. Does it cost the studio any money to keep re-expanding a movie in cinemas aka. adding more screens?   Eg. A Star Is Born was re-expanded multiple times, think 3 or 4.  I know that usual for small movies but this movie debuted with 3600+ screens. 

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=astarisborn2018.htm

[LOGAN'sLuckyRun]

11 hours ago, Barnack said:

It is a mix, most of those numbers are industry model standard estimated by expert (that worked at some point in the industry I would imagine), with from time to time an actual known number that became exceptionally "public", when like Liongates made a big deal about spending only 50m on Mockingjay release or Guardian of the Galaxy 196m budget in 2014 or by the team like the a bit famous Cameron Diaz participation deal.

 

Most of them are simply rules of thumb estimate, prints and ads is somewhat public (like how much air time was bought on national tv tend to be tracked and stuff like that, giving a good idea)

 

when compared to data that became public later (because of the sony leak), they seem to do a gross rough good jobs on the a bit public spending or revenues, like their rental estimate isn't that far off (but not perfect either), tv contract deal, worldwide P&A, they do worst on something private like a movie budget and even worst of talent production participation.

 

They can be wrong by a giant figure (they have been).

 

I always look forward to seeing your comments  

[Barnack]

13 hours ago, HeadShot said:

Oh one final question. Does it cost the studio any money to keep re-expanding a movie in cinemas aka. adding more screens?   Eg. A Star Is Born was re-expanded multiple times, think 3 or 4.  I know that usual for small movies but this movie debuted with 3600+ screens. 

I really do not know (disclaimer everything is interpreted second hand, never worked in the industry)

 

Some movie planning distinguish the domestic release cost in 2, pre-open media and support media, how long and how big the run is do seem to affect the cost, specially for a christmas type of release.

 

They seem to be ready to add say 5 Million more if things are going well.

 

Has for the ability to re-gain theater in particular I really do not know if it cost them anything.