sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianL Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 Jumanji, Knives Out and Bad Boys runs have been phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Again Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, YourMother the Edgelord said: No, no it’s not. Especially when films like Ant Man 3 and Blade are coming out. Not all MCU films will do $1B and that’s okay. Yes, it is. Smaller films are going to come out, sure, that we expect to miss 1B. But just because we expect them to be low doesn’t mean they aren’t low. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorddemaxus Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Arendelle Legion said: Yes, it is. Smaller films are going to come out, sure, that we expect to miss 1B. But just because we expect them to be low doesn’t mean they aren’t low. How is something like 800 million low? Just because 4 solo films made a billion doesn't mean any number below it is low. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Atreides Posted February 17, 2020 Author Share Posted February 17, 2020 Moderation Y'all had your fun discussing what's an underperformer for Marvel last night. We don't need to do it today. 9 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, charlie Jatinder said: Say another $75mn participations 75m in participation for a big franchise sequel grossing the studio nearly a billion in revenues would be quite low (deadline created a bit of a strange perception among people low balling them, 25% of profit on big movies, 50% on small movie is pretty common). Big movie with big name between 2006 and 2008 could easily go over the 100m mark, Hancock gave away 120M (I imagine with most of it to Will Smith he could have made $100M a movie back then, 20M +80M in bonus) , Spider-Man 3 above 150M. Men in Black 3 gave 88M away despite underperforming. Except for Spider Man those movie were not close to a Dvd peak era Potter movie in revenues. Give just 5% Heyman 5% Rowling 5% each kid of the main trio 5% to Yates & Goldenberg together (that not high at all). That 30% gross point already. Now obviously they will not give 300m away in bonus, that because people that get first dollar gross point, do not get first dollar gross point, they get first dollar defined gross point (you remove % so there is always money left in the equation). It will usually look like this big name get 20M + 10% defined gross (20% home video, 10% off the top, 20% distribution fee/30% for non-studio market distribution) That what you see here I would imagine the defined gross of that movie used to calculate the production house participation, that does not mean WB is saying the movie loss any money to anyone. The studio probably made $450M from dvd (if it was 20%, if it was 30% more around 300M), but gave them access to only 20% of those revenues, that why you see what i imagine Heyman production company payment (they will cover movie cost, cast and crew bonus) rise by about 30% of that defined gross, it seem all quite standard. Edited February 17, 2020 by Barnack 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 I have come to the conclusion franchise films just need to not loose money to justify their existence because all the above the line people involved in franchise films will earn a lot of money, at minimum. That s why most producers very rarely give up on making films when the brand is big enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 I guess that’s why Sony was more likely to post a net profit because they couldn’t charge ads out to their own networks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, cory said: I guess that’s why Sony was more likely to post a net profit because they couldn’t charge ads out to their own networks I really doubt Sony TV would not charge ads to Sony Feature (that would mess up profit calculation, participation bonus, hurt Sony tv yearly numbers and for what ?). 46 minutes ago, The Futurist said: I have come to the conclusion franchise films just need to not loose money to justify their existence because all the above the line people involved in franchise films Could be true only if the top deciders/board are above the line people (like when Megan Ellison was producer point on a Annapurna production), in the global conglomerate studio system that do not happen. Cannot think of much example of franchise that went on as is just because of the large profit for people making them, Amazing Spider Man/Men In Black/Dan Brown all went over massive shift instead of going on and continuing giving above the line people fortune. Edited February 17, 2020 by Barnack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 With BB4L having a similar daily gross to JW3 than H&S, I wonder how close to Ghost Protocol's $220M its final gross will be? Gross To Date Bad Boys for Life John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum Mission: Impossible - Fallout Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw Straight Outta Compton Week 5 Friday $174,087,306 $143,965,931 $188,163,824 $152,253,240 $152,818,105 Saturday $178,429,306 $146,297,320 $191,530,119 $154,733,655 $154,589,985 Sunday $181,472,306 $148,928,130 $193,988,045 $157,273,185 $155,546,495 Monday $183,037,306 $149,697,847 $194,713,111 $159,216,295 $155,897,995 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Tran Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 I don't know where else to ask this this seems like the most active thread right now so here it goes. I've been fascinated by the "streaming wars" and one aspect that I'm interested in is the business side of paying to own the streaming rights to popular TV shows. One thing I'm not quite understanding is the Seinfeld deal. Now Warner Bros. produced Seinfeld originally under the Castle Rock banner right? But Sony TV are the people making the contract negotiations. How does this work? I assume WB is seeing some of the money from these deals since they produced the show right? So are they basically bidding against themselves? Couldn't they have easily obtained the rights to Seinfeld seeing as some of the money would be coming back to them? Anyway, as we know Netflix won the Seinfeld bidding war. But then there are other shows that a Disney or WB can just throw on their service because they own them without a bidding war... How does all this work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said: I assume WB is seeing some of the money from these deals since they produced the show right? So are they basically bidding against themselves? Couldn't they have easily obtained the rights to Seinfeld seeing as some of the money would be coming back to them? My guess for all the producer of the shows paying a fortune for the streaming rights of them. Show came with some "syndicalisation" rules, gaining the right to sell them on open market, the studio can win that bid against other bidders, the show producer-cast-third party investor will get a % of that sales, so they cannot shortcut that part and steal them of that money. The competition knowing that the studio will get back a large of that money, know they need to bid a giant amount to outbid them and even if they are sure to loose, they need to hurt their direct competitor by having those show being expensive to them (with how much the % going to other people end up to be), making him harder for them to buy other show after. Edited February 18, 2020 by Barnack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Tran Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Barnack said: My guess for all the producer of the shows paying a fortune for the streaming rights of them. Show came with some "syndicalisation" rules, gaining the right to sell them on open market, the studio can win that bid against other bidders, the show producer-cast-third party investor will get a % of that sales, so they cannot shortcut that part and steal them of that money. The competition knowing that the studio will get back a large of that money, know they need to bid a giant amount to bid them and even if they are sure to loose, they need to hurt their direct competitor by having those show being expensive to them (with how much the % going to other people end up to be), making him harder for them to buy other show after. Interesting indeed.. this is why I felt it was such a smart play for Netflix to produce their own content because once it's yours you can sell it and resell it again and again.. I'm sure Sony TV probably didn't know back then exactly what they had but now they are in a position (and WB too) where Seinfeld is going to make them millions and millions for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said: I don't know where else to ask this this seems like the most active thread right now so here it goes. I've been fascinated by the "streaming wars" and one aspect that I'm interested in is the business side of paying to own the streaming rights to popular TV shows. One thing I'm not quite understanding is the Seinfeld deal. Now Warner Bros. produced Seinfeld originally under the Castle Rock banner right? But Sony TV are the people making the contract negotiations. How does this work? I assume WB is seeing some of the money from these deals since they produced the show right? So are they basically bidding against themselves? Couldn't they have easily obtained the rights to Seinfeld seeing as some of the money would be coming back to them? Anyway, as we know Netflix won the Seinfeld bidding war. But then there are other shows that a Disney or WB can just throw on their service because they own them without a bidding war... How does all this work? Seinfeld was produced before Castle Rock was acquired by Turner who later merged with TimeWarner/WarnerMedia so they are existing deals in place that have to be honoured which is why Sony has distribution rights to various Castle Rock films and TV series like When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Men etc despite Castle Rock being owned by Warner Bros. It's fairly common that a studio gets to keep the distribution rights to a film or TV series even if the IP or production company is acquired by another studio. You only have to look at the very complex rights issues regarding the 1966 Batman TV series. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACSlater Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 Go Sonic Go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 Is it just me or... is there a typo in the Fantasy Island poster? Shouldn't it be "from the producer of" or "from producers of" or even "from the producers of"? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
