Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets | July 21, 2017 | FLOP OF THE YEAR

[ddddeeee]

I'm done with Pratt after his 'look at me - I'm properly acting' puppy face in Passengers. Stick to the swarm shtick.

[Plain Old Tele]

17 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

I'm done with Pratt after his 'look at me - I'm properly acting' puppy face in Passengers. Stick to the swarm shtick.

 

I want him to do some goofy-ass comedy again. And GOTG doesn't count. 

[Barnack]

42 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

For a movie with a $209m budget that needs to make half a billion WW to maybe make a profit

 

Why would a movie with a gross budget need to make half a billion WW to maybe make a profit ?

 

It will go down to around 170-180m net, it should turn a profit between 350 and 400 million depending on where the box office come from no ?

[TalismanRing]

8 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Why would a movie with a gross budget need to make half a billion WW to maybe make a profit ?

 

It will go down to around 170-180m net, it should turn a profit between 350 and 400 million depending on where the box office come from no ?

 

Most of these media reported budgets are net.  (or at least the net the studios want you to believe) Rarely does the gross budget get reported unless it's something like Deepwater Horizon and they reported the budget before and after tax rebates because there was current public access to that information.

 

My assumption is that this movie won't be making a vast amount in the US where the ancillary market is one of if not the strongest.  

 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by TalismanRing

[That One Girl]

13 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I want him to do some goofy-ass comedy again. And GOTG doesn't count. 

 

I don't know, GOTG is goofier and funnier than 90% of the comedies out there.

[Plain Old Tele]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

I don't know, GOTG is goofier and funnier than 90% of the comedies out there.

 

But not Pratt. (I disagree on the funny in general but that's very subjective, I know).

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Most of these media reported budgets are net.  (or at least the net the studios want you to believe) Rarely does the gross budget get reported unless it's something like Deepwater Horizon and they reported the budget before and after tax rebates because there was current public access to that information.

 

My assumption is that this movie won't be making a vast amount in the US where the ancillary market is one of if not the strongest.  

 

French movie that get tax rebate tend to have their gross budget made public and never their Net that we will never know that fact that it is a french movie and a precise number, it is probably the budget that was used to calculate is Tax credit it will receive, for example for is Lucy budget (or any french movie made with a budget over 7 million euro in 2013):

 

http://www.cnc.fr/web/fr/publications;jsessionid=5199C96634CF209B9C789FDE06E933F9.liferay?p_p_auth=d9pSA07D&p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=exclusive&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fget_file&_20_folderId=4484487&_20_name=DLFE-8641.pdf

 

That movie has a bit of a different context, is domestic market will be Europe (and is revenue in Euro, so the weak Euro exchange rate is a plus not a negative), US is the best market for Hollywood but I'm not sure how true it is for European movie, it could be the other way around for them.

 

Even with a 207 million net budget, why much more than 414 million to turn a profit ? The bigger the budget the lower the box office / budget needed become, because the smaller the releasing cost relative to the budget become.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Barnack

[TalismanRing]

29 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

But not Pratt. (I disagree on the funny in general but that's very subjective, I know).

 

I was lukewarm on GOTG and Pratt in GOTG, but think he's much better in GOTG than JW or Passengers.

 

From what I've seen Pratt works best so far as the goofy sidekick and not a leading man.  As a lead he needs a 90s like Jim Carrey comedy vehicle. 

[DMan7]

51 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I want him to do some goofy-ass comedy again. And GOTG doesn't count. 

 

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I was lukewarm on GOTG and Pratt in GOTG, but think he's much better in GOTG than JW or Passengers.

 

From what I've seen Pratt works best so far as the goofy sidekick and not a leading man.  As a lead he needs a 90s like Jim Carrey comedy vehicle. 

 

I agree with all of this.  

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, DMan7 said:

 

 

Man, different strokes and all, but I didn't find that funny, I found it forced and really awkward. Like most of GOTG's comedy, actually. 

 

Compare this to the stuff he regularly did on PARKS AND REC and there's no comparison (IMO).

[ddddeeee]

3 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I was lukewarm on GOTG and Pratt in GOTG, but think he's much better in GOTG than JW or Passengers.

 

From what I've seen Pratt works best so far as the goofy sidekick and not a leading man.  As a lead he needs a 90s like Jim Carrey comedy vehicle. 

Someone mentioned on here (I think) that he's being sold as the next Kurt Russell in 'Escape from New York' when he's better suited for Kurt Russell in 'Big Trouble in Little China'.

[DMan7]

Just now, Tele Came Back said:

 

Man, different strokes and all, but I didn't find that funny, I found it forced and really awkward. Like most of GOTG's comedy, actually. 

 

Compare this to the stuff he regularly did on PARKS AND REC and there's no comparison (IMO).

 

You should've never said that from now onwards this shall be the gifs I reply to all your posts on Pratt and GoTG.

 

[Plain Old Tele]

2 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:

Someone mentioned on here (I think) that he's being sold as the next Kurt Russell in 'Escape from New York' when he's better suited for Kurt Russell in 'Big Trouble in Little China'.

 

That's a great comparison.  

[BadAtGender]

28 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

Man, different strokes and all, but I didn't find that funny, I found it forced and really awkward. Like most of GOTG's comedy, actually. 

 

Compare this to the stuff he regularly did on PARKS AND REC and there's no comparison (IMO).

 

I felt like that moment was when they filmmakers realized they didn't have a good way to resolve the film. The third act of GotG is pretty damn dire overall, but that was cringe-worthy.

[TalismanRing]

35 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

 

You should've never said that from now onwards this shall be the gifs I reply to all your posts on Pratt and GoTG.

 

 

Every time I see this I just think it's evident why he could only get stripper gigs via his grandma.

[Jake Gittes]

Pratt did good in non-goofy roles in Her, Moneyball and ZDT so if the leading man career outside of franchises doesn't pan out after all he could be a reliable supporting player. 

[RyneOh1040]

15 hours ago, The Futurist said:

The movie was ALWAYS budgeted at 190m at least.

 

I don't get why this seems such a surprise to anyone.

 

He wanted to make a movie to compete with the current market and the current market is the 200M/300m blockbuster.

 

Simple really.

 

And yes, it is his life long dream.

 

it's a surprise because just because a director wants to make a 250 million dollar film doesn't mean they do.  ESPECIALLY a sci-fi.  Besson doesn't have some insane pedigree in terms of putting up box office hits (Lucy was a big success but I don't understand how he convinced them to do this).  And with virtually unknown leads.  I love DeHaan but the general public has no clue who he is.  So yeah, color me shocked.

 

I also think it's interesting people seem to be taking it a bit personally that I posted that.   I understand wanting a good film, but I DON'T understand setting up a film to be the worst kind of headline.  Which is what they've done here.  I mean this has to hit Lucy numbers to even think of being profitable with no Scar Jo, a much stranger concept and crowded market.  I just don't get the thought behind it from a practical stand point.  

Edited April 12, 2017 by RyneOh1040

[Barnack]

18 minutes ago, RyneOh1040 said:

it's a surprise because just because a director wants to make a 250 million dollar film doesn't mean they do.  ESPECIALLY a sci-fi.  Besson doesn't have some insane pedigree in terms of putting up box office hits (Lucy was a big success but I don't understand how he convinced them to do this).  And with virtually unknown leads.  I love DeHaan but the general public has no clue who he is.  So yeah, color me shocked.

 

I also think it's interesting people seem to be taking it a bit personally that I posted that.   I understand wanting a good film, but I DON'T understand setting up a film to be the worst kind of headline.  Which is what they've done here.  I mean this has to hit Lucy numbers to even think of being profitable with no Scar Jo, a much stranger concept and crowded market.  I just don't get the thought behind it from a practical stand point.  

 

I am not sure who is the them he would have need to convince talked about, the movie is made by Besson own studio and has a majority owner he can do pretty much has he want. Are we talking convincing bank and the co-investor ? It will depend on the type of deal Besson gave them.

 

I'm not so sure it need to do 460 million WW to even think about being profitable, it is a 207 million and I think that is probably the gross production budget, not a 250 million net budget, it should end up costing around 170-175 million net and needing around 360 million max to break even, maybe closer to 400 if it is China heavy. 

 

Bigger the budget, smaller the box office/budget ratio usually become for a movie to be profitable.

 

a 40 million movie with a 75 million world release is a 115 million expense.

A 180 million dollar movie with a 140 million world release is a 320 million expense.

 

Even thought the budget is 4.5 time has high, is cost come releasing time is only 2.8 time higher, usually it will take only 3/3.5 time the box office of the 40 million dollar movie to break even. If it is around 100 million for the 40 million title, 300/350 million for the big movie can often put it close to profit depending where the box office come from. It all depend on how much people are getting points of course, but those actor are not touching any first dollar gross.

 

Luc Besson is a really big name worldwide, he carry starpower by himself, not like James Cameron but probably like Ridley Scott in many country.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Barnack

[John Marston]

after it flops Besson can produce Taken 4 and be back in the green again