Dune 2 Opening Weekend Thread [3/01/24 -3/03/24] [82.5m DOM OW]

[Firepower]

9 minutes ago, AniNate said:

I don't recall any serious sequel rumblings re Blade Runner and the movie was a complete narrative as it was, but the fact that Denis was still given the go ahead to make a multipart sci-fi epic afterward when the previous attempt at adapting that also bombed was indication that its box office performance wasn't held against him, and there is still evidently interest in continuing the IP given this new Blade Runner TV series in the works.

But it wasn't a complete narrative, the movie had open-ended ending, more open-ended than the original because they wanted a sequel. There were serious plans about it, Alcon bought the rights to make it their big franchise, they expected it to gross over 400 mln by their own admission and it didn't, in fact it almost killed the studio and left them in dust, that's why we get this pile of shit Amazon series, game and random cartoon, they try to squeeze IP as much as they can to recoup money they spent on buying those rights from Bud Yorkin and cover massive loses on BR2049.

Edited March 2 by Firepower

[von Kenni]

2 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

There's nothing to indicate that it will only make $500m. It is set for $175-$180m WW opening according to latest estimates. Overseas it is playing best in mature, leggy markets like Germany, France, that will backload it, and WOM is great everywhere. PS are very strong in China where it hasn't opened yet so I think a WW total close to $700m is likely. 

 

Yeah, we're arguing about an imaginary scenario that is not going to happen (under 5% change). It'll do much more than $500M and is highly likely to go over $600M. Can very well do over $700M too.

[HummingLemon496]

Lmao there's no way people are seriously worried about this film's profit lmao. It only needs $475M worldwide to break-even and will end above Wonka WW probably which will make this comfortably profitable. 

Edited March 2 by HummingLemon496

[Dominic Draper]

Saw Madame Web.

 

Truly one of the worst CBM in a long time. I don't think Dakota Johnson can act. 

 

The obvious ADR for the villain in every scene was hysterical. It truly felt like an extended pilot for a CW show. When the villains tech girl is helping him I was getting Deja Vu for CW shows.

 

Absolutely comical that the suits were in it maybe 45 seconds. Teasing a film that Sony should have just made instead of this because those suits did look kinda nice. With the exception of Madame Webs suit whose glasses made her look a failed in ring manager for Macho Man Randy Savage.

 

Night Swim, Argylle and this and it's only March. Some true dreck.

 

2/10

[Firepower]

14 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a panned film disliked by both audiences and critics. The comparisons are stretching insanely thin here.

It wasn't that panned, TASM2 is not Madame Web or Morbius, it had mixed reception, but not terrible, in fact it has its fans.

 

14 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

There's nothing to indicate that it will only make $500m. It is set for $175-$180m WW opening according to latest estimates. Overseas it is playing best in mature, leggy markets like Germany, France, that will backload it, and WOM is great everywhere. PS are very strong in China where it hasn't opened yet so I think a WW total close to $700m is likely. 

It needs great legs for 700m, time will tell if general audience will connect to it enough.

 

13 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

Sequels to The Amazing Spider-Man 2 wasn't killed by lack of profit but Studio head's personal anger toward Garfield when he felt disrespected and didn't do the promotional/attendance stuff that the Studio head personally told him to do. This is widely reported and revealed afterward.

Nonsense, nobody cancels the entire big budget franchise because its star didn't show up on some random meeting, it's just an excuse, they killed sequels for one and only reason: money. They expected TASM2 to gross a billion and it barely broke even along with mixed reception.

 

13 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

Dune 1 marketing budget was somewhere around $110-120M if I remember from some sources. Here is just +-$100M. That said the budget was even bloated at least $10-20M or more because they did almost two campaigns. First one prior to the pandemic and later again because the pandemic screwed the first planned release.

There's no chance Dune 2 had a minimum marketing budget and lower than the first one, you are reaching, they very clearly spared no expense because they believed in it.

Edited March 2 by Firepower

[HummingLemon496]

 

 

Orange

[Firepower]

4 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

Lmao there's no way people are seriously worried about this film's profit lmao. It only needs $400M worldwide to break-even and will end above Wonka WW probably which will make this comfortably profitable. 

Break-even point is 2.5 multi, 190*2.5 is not 400.

[von Kenni]

13 minutes ago, Firepower said:

It wasn't that penned, TASM2 is not Madame Web or Morbius, it had mixed reception, but not terrible, in fact it has its fans.

 

It needs great legs for 700m, time will tell if general audience will connect to it enough.

 

Nonsense, nobody cancels the entire big budget franchise because its star didn't show up on some random meeting, it's just an excuse, they killed sequels for one and only reason: money. They expected TASM2 to gross a billion and it barely broke even along with mixed reception.

 

There's no chance Dune 2 had a minimum marketing budget and lower than the first one, you are reaching, they very clearly spared no expense because they believed in it.

https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/andrew-garfield-was-fired-from-playing-spider-man-after-he-failed-to-visit-sonys-event-heres-what-happened-leading-everything-to-tom-holland/#:~:text=The actor was 'let go,the cause of his absence.

 

The actor was 'let go' from the part after he failed to show up at an event where Sony CEO Kaz Hirai was meant to unveil The Amazing Spider-Man 3 for a 2017 release, it was disclosed in an email after the infamous Sony breach of 2014. 

 

Oh...and in Japanese culture that is a big no-no. Getting caught on faking to be sick and disrespecting.

 

--

 

About the marketing budget, I didn't say anywhere that Part 2 marketing budget is lower than Part 1. I used the Puss $130M as reference in the first quick and dirty post, and you can up that to $135M from Batman if you like or go to $140M which still doesn't change the profitability that much at the $500M mark. If Dune Part 1 marketing budget was around $110M-130M after those extra spent due to pandemic, then Part 2 won't be much higher and without new sources on that it's likely around that $130-140M.

 

You can pull numbers from your as..tute brain but try to at least back it up with some datapoints and sources which I've shared more than plenty.

Edited March 2 by von Kenni
Japan reference

[HummingLemon496]

1 minute ago, Firepower said:

Break-even point is 2.5 multi, 190*2.5 is not 400.

True, I fucked up. Edited the comment, should still easily pass $475M 

[von Kenni]

3 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Break-even point is 2.5 multi, 190*2.5 is not 400.

 

The breakeven point rule of thumb is 2x but I usually use 2.2x to be on the safe side. Though generally I start to do a breakdown on revenues, residues, etc. to estimate it more precisely. But it's not 2.5x.

 

Maybe someone else can elaborate on this this time...

 

[Mr Roark]

58 minutes ago, Firepower said:

$500M gross against $190M production budget and expensive marketing is a miserable profit, if any profit, sequels to movies with similar gross/budget ratio are usually cancelled or put on shelve till better times. Reception and awards of Part 2 might save Messiah, but that's not a guarantee, it's not a charity, $500M gross would mean general audience doesn't connect to it despite all the praise. Again, IF final gross is gonna be in 500 mln range.

1. Movies especially like Dune are highly profitable also after their theatrical lifetime;

2. Net production budget will be lower;

3. It will make anyway way more than $500M.

 

What are we even talking about lol

[Firepower]

9 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

 

The breakeven point rule of thumb is 2x but I usually use 2.2x to be on the safe side. Though generally I start to do a breakdown on revenues, residues, etc. to estimate it more precisely. But it's not 2.5x.

 

Maybe someone else can elaborate on this this time...

 

It's definitely not 2x, studios get smaller share from overseas gross and miserable one from China. 2.5x multi is a common one for break even point, I didn't come up with this.

[TalismanRing]

15 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/andrew-garfield-was-fired-from-playing-spider-man-after-he-failed-to-visit-sonys-event-heres-what-happened-leading-everything-to-tom-holland/#:~:text=The actor was 'let go,the cause of his absence.

 

The actor was 'let go' from the part after he failed to show up at an event where Sony CEO Kaz Hirai was meant to unveil The Amazing Spider-Man 3 for a 2017 release, it was disclosed in an email after the infamous Sony breach of 2014. 

 

Oh...and in Japanese culture that is a big no-no. Getting caught on faking to be sick and disrespecting.

--

 

Other e-mails from Sony revealed that was only part of the reason.  They fully believed it would do 1B WW.  Their cash cow was drying up.  They would not have made - actually sought - that deal with Disney Marvel if financials and profits weren't the main reason for change.

 

[AniNate]

16 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

 

The breakeven point rule of thumb is 2x but I usually use 2.2x to be on the safe side. Though generally I start to do a breakdown on revenues, residues, etc. to estimate it more precisely. But it's not 2.5x.

 

Maybe someone else can elaborate on this this time...

 

 

There is no hard and fast "breakeven" for every movie. Ideally you want to be at least double, but the less quantifiable audience vibes probably are the other most significant factor. If a movie is received well by audiences, that bodes better for long-term investment in the creative vision compared to a movie that maybe is profitable on the strength of strong marketing and opening weekend but has absolutely toxic word-of-mouth. 

 

 

Edited March 2 by AniNate

[Firepower]

17 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

https://www.koimoi.com/hollywood-news/andrew-garfield-was-fired-from-playing-spider-man-after-he-failed-to-visit-sonys-event-heres-what-happened-leading-everything-to-tom-holland/#:~:text=The actor was 'let go,the cause of his absence.

 

The actor was 'let go' from the part after he failed to show up at an event where Sony CEO Kaz Hirai was meant to unveil The Amazing Spider-Man 3 for a 2017 release, it was disclosed in an email after the infamous Sony breach of 2014. 

 

Oh...and in Japanese culture that is a big no-no. Getting caught on faking to be sick and disrespecting.

They could be angry, but they already considered a change of plans after TASM2 results as it was discussed in that leaked Sony mail, they would never fire him if TASM2 did a billion even if Garfield spit on Hirai's face.

 

12 minutes ago, Mr Roark said:

1. Movies especially like Dune are highly profitable also after their theatrical lifetime;

2. Net production budget will be lower;

3. It will make anyway way more than $500M.

 

What are we even talking about lol

1. They were... when physical media was still a thing. Matt Damon put it very well on Hot Ones.

2. Because?

3. Hopefully.

The point is $500M is not a good number for this. I loved the film, so I want it to be successful, but I don't like those numbers if multi is gonna be below 3 and China's usual 2.

[SpiderByte]

Yeah they didn't cancel the whole movie off of Garfield not being there since...that would be stupid 

[JustLurking]

39 minutes ago, Firepower said:

It wasn't that panned, TASM2 is not Madame Web or Morbius, it had mixed reception, but not terrible, in fact it has its fans.

It's literally sitting rotten with a barely passing audience score. "Panned" and "literal dogshit" are not synonyms.

 

Dune on the other hand has very strong critical and audience reception, likely brings good money in ancillaries and whatnot. Even if financials are "just ok" it will not be denied the final film, that's just a very weird position to take.

 

Do I wish it was doing better? Yeah absolutely, deserves to as well. But it is what it is.

 

Also I hope people have not become so used to seeing the "quick check" 2.5 formula they now think it is an exact science. Even if it was, though, Dune 2 will pass that bar.

Edited March 2 by JustLurking

[The Wild Eric]

No offense, but it's very clear nobody's minds are being changed on whether Dune 2 is seen as a success, and we've been talking in circles for several pages now. Do we have to keep fighting over this on a loop when there will be no resolution? Besides, it's been one day. Just one day. Why are we now making these sweeping proclamations after just one day? Just a tad silly, no?

[Firepower]

3 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

It's literally sitting rotten with a barely passing audience score. "Panned" and "literal dogshit" are not synonyms.

6.6 imdb is average, but not exactly panned, 51% is what it is, mixed, 50/50, it's still far from the worst reception ever, not good, not terrible.

Edited March 2 by Firepower

[von Kenni]

4 minutes ago, Eric Atreides said:

No offense, but it's very clear nobody's minds are being changed on whether Dune 2 is seen as a success, and we've been talking in circles for several pages now. Do we have to keep fighting over this on a loop when there will be no resolution?

 

But, but...

Edited March 2 by von Kenni