kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Can you name some examples of spin offs with zero recurring characters other than Planes? Sure. Star Trek: The Next Generation, Supergirl, Prometheus, five billion Law & Order shows. Granted, perhaps the distinction is that the recurring character in Planes, or Star Trek, or other examples is the "world" it takes place in, as opposed to some specific character. Edited March 10, 2013 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) That would mean any movie set in the Marvel Universe would be considered a spin off.Sure, if they weren't already being adapted from pre-existing material, that's exactly how I would define them. Edited March 10, 2013 by Telemachos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 wats the cinemascore for dead man down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Good weekend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 That $91M prediction? *WALK OF SHAME* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadey Wilsoney Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 wats the cinemascore for dead man down B- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Sure. Star Trek: The Next Generation, Supergirl, Prometheus, five billion Law & Order shows. Granted, perhaps the distinction is that the recurring character in Planes, or Star Trek, or other examples is the "world" it takes place in, as opposed to some specific character. I suppose, even though Prometheus I would consider a prequel. There are some gray areas. There are lots of movies that expand DC and Marvel Universe that aren't really spin offs. I guess I'm just conditioned to consider spin offs movies with a central character that appeared in as side characters in earlier successful films (Puss in Boots, Wolverine, Evan Almighty). But I guess the term could be used in a broader sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Sure, if they weren't already being adapted from pre-existing material, that's exactly how I would define them. I see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) But I guess the term could be used in a broader sense. That's all I'm really doing. I suppose I associate the term Knock-Off as something that carries with it a bit of a negative connotation. My first thought of knock-off in the film world would be something like...those Asylum movies. http://voices.yahoo.com/7-worst-knock-off-childrens-films-7517444.html?cat=2 Like this...the first one on the list is what I'd call a knock-off of Cars. Here's the trailer. Prepare to cringe. Edited March 10, 2013 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It's far from an exact science, but the general rule of thumb seems to now be that worldwide grosses should account for roughly 1.5 to 1.75 times a movie's combined budget (production + marketing) to be considered breaking even or close to profitable. That varies a lot, and films with merchandise to sell can obviously get away with lower profit margins at the box office. As far as the "old rule" goes, it was 2x the budget because marketing wasn't being factored in. But... Hollywood can't get away from the fact that they spend money to sell the movies they make, so they have to have a return on that too. Interesting multiplier you use nowadays. We here oversee used in pre-3D, pre-VOD, pre-whatever this rule of thumb way: If it is about a movie without any already established franchise (book series, comic series, prequels, theme-parks,..) or genre based probable cult followers who in average spend probably more for franchise than the average movie goer: = time 2.5 of the production cost. No advertising added. => ~ 50% returns by the US market, ~ 40% returns by the oversea market (excluding China), advertising... = knowing it might be a bit high, but balancing also out the reduced returns of the non-US market. Also to call something a success it needs to earn money, not only leave the 'reds', so times 2.5 counted as 'sure' for discussions. As big movie companies use for big money movies usually all possibilties to avoid costs (including having the personal and experience for long running negotiations with e.g. the prime minister of .....for getting money / tax-helpers for creating jobs) tend to pick 'cinema-movie-series' for filming part XX of the movie series or a highly successful book-series... => the income spreads over to a lot of franchise => depending on the age of the viewers the income can be a lot, even without matching the times 2.5 or your budget/ad times 1.75 rule. I think in todays worldwide changing situation (DVDs, VOD, franchise, tv-rights,... add to the result, get higher percentages of the movie's final results as in the past) decreasing ticket sells, but higher prices,,,, => depending much on the region and movie genre very different mix of details, incl. depending on the genre sometimes extreme ad-costs, but in opposite depending on the genre sometimes even decreasing ad-costs via the cheaoer www-possibilities. when the movie aims e.g. video-gamer... => it isn't possible anymore to 'calculate' a financial success for a lot of the movies, especially the ones typical to find on/in the top-anticipiated-lists (franchise). Probably still counting for the average romance movie? To get new 'sure' calculation rules the market should probably stabile for a time, so we can see more pattern evole, but I doubt it will be so soon. Too much happens e.g. overseas, including upcoming film making markets in Asia and worldwide shifting trends for what kind of movies ppl still want to watch at the cinemas. And a lot of technical up-grading in the home-cinema's in former 'under-developed' countries. With Marvel they now have the cash to do whatever the hell they want. I could see them making a sequel. Hey, away :pounce:with the 'grabby' hands from Marvel-Studio's income, all is needed for their future movie plans For the moment I am happy if the todays manager get out of the red with this not green-lit by them movie, I think it is far to early for hoping for them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackO Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 On a positive note, SLP at 120M! Amazing! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I guess I missed some drama. Kind of like Krusty when he was out of town during the first part of the who shot Mr. Burns episode 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Great OW for OZ. Also, congrats to LOP for passing 600M WW. Amazing performance. Worldwide Gross: $600,356,619 [est.] 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I suppose, even though Prometheus I would consider a prequel. There are some gray areas. There are lots of movies that expand DC and Marvel Universe that aren't really spin offs. I guess I'm just conditioned to consider spin offs movies with a central character that appeared in as side characters in earlier successful films (Puss in Boots, Wolverine, Evan Almighty). But I guess the term could be used in a broader sense. Wasn't Prometheus rather a 'filler' as it seems to take place between Blade Runner and Alien? Spin-Offs in tv-series as an example: I think Angel is considered still a spin-of to Buffy beside having 1 main and ~ 2 supporting in it, or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmscholar Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 That's a good opening for OZ. 215 Million budget though was a little expensive. With that said, if it can have some decent holds, 220 could be lock. I wonder what it will do worldwide?. Jack is done, stick a fork in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Markets yet to open : Belgium 13 March 2013 France 13 March 2013 Netherlands 14 March 2013 Estonia 15 March 2013 Finland 15 March 2013 Norway 15 March 2013 Sweden 15 March 2013 Taiwan 15 March 2013 And China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 That's a good opening for OZ. 215 Million budget though was a little expensive. With that said, if it can have some decent holds, 220 could be lock. I wonder what it will do worldwide?. Jack is done, stick a fork in it. Maybe 460 M - 475 M worldwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Maybe 460 M - 475 M worldwide. In that low? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Great OW for OZ. Also, congrats to LOP for passing 600M WW. Amazing performance. Worldwide Gross: $600,356,619 [est.] I`ll never understand love for this movie so the success boggles my mind. One of big BO stories of 2012 for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 In that low? Is it low? The overseas number isn't big. It already opened in 80% of the markets. I'll change my predicts after the second weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
