Jump to content

grim22

The Matrix Resurrections | December 22 2021 | Keanu, Lana Wachowski back

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Macleod said:

 

Nice time to remind people that Warner Bros. at one time considered one or more of the Harry Potters "unprofitable."  😂

 

https://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/

 

27 minutes ago, grim22 said:

David Prowse never received residuals for the Star Wars OT because the movies weren't profitable according to Hollywood accounting.

 

I think it is easy to conflate different Hollywood accounting and profitability claim.

 

For example of that leaker WB Distribution report, I suspect the reason the negative cost on the movie grew by 20% of the gross of the last 12 month (or 33% of the gross after fee), in some Hollywood accounting going to the big name the movie profitability did not matter (gross point).

 

Residuals are base on gross revenues on the post theatrical windows and are directly set by the guild, that sound impossible to not receive them.

 

Prowse did not get a profit participation bonus, but I am almost 100% certain no one ever claimed to him that the movie was not profitable, those contract are almost virtually never claimed to be on profit (or gross), they are on defined profit (or defined gross) with a detailed formula on how they will be calculated.

 

People that never been on a big movie before and-or do not have a good agents-lawyer team will tend to sign a contract with a terrible formula to define profit or gross, which the studio will then use correctly to calculate the absence of bonus, without ever saying some ridiculous like the movie was not profitable. Forest Gump writer had a very famous case, he signed a contract that let the studio put a slate of like 6 movie to calculate the profit, they put Forest Gump with there 5 biggest looser of the year and the formula ended to a lost, they never ever told him in any way that Forest Gump was not a profitable movie (and Hanks made one of the biggest payday ever in the history of Hollywood with is profit participation deal on that one). The studio invited him to look directly at the book and he saw that everything was ok, he got "f...." when he signed the contract not after. They paid him a fortune for a sequel that was never made after that to be fair (which is apparently an extremely cynical and angry script).

 

I would guess that on many of those high profile case, would we read the contract we would say... oh... right. In some others case (say Big Greek Wedding) there can be a vast misunderstanding between talents and the producer about the impact of pre-selling markets to finance the movie to reduce risk or just been able to finance it, when it turn out in a giant surprise hit and you had pre-sold almost all of the potential revenues, you can be left with very little versus what some expect.

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Macleod said:

 

Nice time to remind people that Warner Bros. at one time considered one or more of the Harry Potters "unprofitable."  😂

 

https://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/


Remember that Beatles movie Yesterday that made $150m on a $30m budget?


That lost $88m.

  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AJG said:

That lost $88m.

That sound a bit ridiculous.

 

If you are talking about this:

yesterday-loss-statement_redacted-waterm

 

Look at the date, to 12/31/2019, the television line (the biggest one usually for a movie like this) is not even open yet, the UK tax credit is not fully in yet arrived either.... no one is saying to anyone that the movie lost 87.7m.

 

I feel that person has even the gross participation point of the big name counted against is Defined net proceeds calculation which again that type of contract and calculation is not saying the movie lost money if it end up with a negative number, not at all, but that bonus calculation pre-approved by both party is still negative.

 

If we would look at the sheet Dan Boyle receive, we would see a large profit and giant participation bonus.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



This movie smells like an experiment gone wrong. No one is interested in out there ideas. Want a simple visually cool action blockbuster with kick ass soundtrack. That's all. If they can't deliver on that then the wachowskis should retire from movie making. Focus on television and producing.

  • ...wtf 1
  • Knock It Off 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

If this movie is “out there” then that sounds pretty standard for the Wachowskis. 

The plot for this leaked months ago, based on that i think "out there ideas" is more close to ambitious, weird meaning than average / random.

 

ViewerAnon said the movie is very meta and the leaked plot match that perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





6 minutes ago, HouseOfTheSun said:

Yea just not feeling it for this movie. For something that was so culturally relevant as the matrix was 15 years ago it doesn’t seem to there for this movie. 

Well we don't even have the title (officially), i would be surprised if people are super excited for it without seeing an image at least.

 

I don't know if would be a box office monster before pandemic, but it's hard to predict buzz when there's nothing buzzing it.

 

I'm sure WB will show the trailer at Cinemacon, let's see if they will drop soon after for public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites







It’s more refreshing than odd for me. I hope we go into this knowing as little as possible. By all means release a trailer, but keep it vague. Remember how the trailers for the original used the “nobody can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself” line to create mystery, I hope we see something similar here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, SnokesLegs said:

It’s more refreshing than odd for me. I hope we go into this knowing as little as possible. By all means release a trailer, but keep it vague. Remember how the trailers for the original used the “nobody can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself” line to create mystery, I hope we see something similar here.

 

I admire that they're creating an air of mystery to the movie, but there's probably tons of people outside of the bubble that don't even know this movie is coming out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites











Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.