Deadline: Pacific Rim sequel likely

Status
Not open for further replies.
Neat. Hopefully it amounts to something.

Also fuck you America. They should release the sequel in fall or something.
 
Saw the film three times, so I did my part.

If a sequel comes to fruition, it needs another Australian mech or at least a successor to Striker Eureka because STRAYA!
 
fredrancour said:
With regards to the shaky cam criticism:I feel like we watched different movies. This was one of the first films in years where Ihave actually felt like fight scenes were shot clearly. Its been a recurring bit of praise both online and with my real life friends
Click to expand...

I saw the movie in 3D on a huge IMAX screen and I found all the action scenes very hard to follow. I completely agree with the criticism on this site: http://www.technologytell.com/entertainment/22392/why-you-shouldnt-see-pacific-rim-in-imax/
But there’s one thing I didn’t love about “Pacific Rim”: I saw it in IMAX- real, science museum, “dome” IMAX- and I even sat at the top, where they say you’re supposed to sit.

That was a mistake.

“Pacific Rim” is a movie in which most of the running time is taking up by one giant thing fighting a different giant thing- so you’d think seeing it on a giant screen would make sense. It doesn’t.

In fact, that screen is just plain too big for the human eye, especially on something like this. Not only is it just about impossible to see the entire robot or the entire monster, but the way the action scenes are shot, it’s basically one long blur of sparks and exploding, shiny things.

Del Toro isn’t one of those hacks who over-relies on shaky cam and thinks he’s being edgy by making his images as incoherent as possible. But in the “Pacific Rim” action scenes, and especially the climactic one, I honestly couldn’t tell what the hell was going on.

So if you go and see “Pacific Rim” this weekend, save some money and skip the IMAX. You can probably go ahead and skip the 3D, too.
Click to expand...

Personally I want GdT to go ahead with something like "The Mountains of Madness" and don't waste his time with a Pacific Rim sequel.
 
I did my part.

You have to also remember that the fact that this was a Wednesday in China means that that group of people are going to tell their friends to see it. If the right elements come together Friday could be a big day for the movie.

I'd also really like to see the Japanese numbers.
 
Saw it with my wife in IMAX 3D last night - did my part.

We both absolutely loved it (me more so) - blockbuster of the year for me. So glad there is a chance of a sequel.
 
I need my blu-ray special collectors kaiju jaeger edition already.

That movie. So epic. SO awesome.

AU7Amsc.gif
AU7Amsc.gif
AU7Amsc.gif
 
I've been looking at how PR is performing around the world and I really wonder why WB would give the go ahead for a sequel when the movie isn't setting the BO alight in any country. The movie is dropping fast in its second week everywhere. It may become a huge hit in China (and maybe Japan as well), but why would WB greenlight a sequel when the original movie is only really successful in just two Asian countries?

According to Box Office Mojo total worldwide gross is $226,446,094. It needs another 200 million dollars to break even. I don't see that happening even when PR is hugely successful in both China and Japan. Hollywood likes movies to be profitable, barely breaking even is not good enough.
 
ymmv said:
According to Box Office Mojo total worldwide gross is $226,446,094. It needs another 200 million dollars to break even. I don't see that happening even when PR is hugely successful in both China and Japan. Hollywood likes movies to be profitable, barely breaking even is not good enough.
Click to expand...

It probably is, explained several times earlier in this thread. That's why the deadline article among others, it's now looking to make profit in BR and merchandise sales in years to come. The only reason PR dropped in later weeks was because of all the new movies in this crowded summer , it's doing quite respectably WW and outperforming predictions. Studios love fully owned properties as well, instead of licensed out stuff, another factor in the sequel considerations.
 
Router said:
But who will cancel the apocalypse?
Click to expand...
They'll find Stacker's long lost son who is the only one who can properly sync with Gipsy 2.0's drift system... in which the AI is none other than Stacker's mind! He'll interact with his son via holographic floating head, like Zordon :O
 
ymmv said:
I've been looking at how PR is performing around the world and I really wonder why WB would give the go ahead for a sequel when the movie isn't setting the BO alight in any country. The movie is dropping fast in its second week everywhere. It may become a huge hit in China (and maybe Japan as well), but why would WB greenlight a sequel when the original movie is only really successful in just two Asian countries?

According to Box Office Mojo total worldwide gross is $226,446,094. It needs another 200 million dollars to break even. I don't see that happening even when PR is hugely successful in both China and Japan. Hollywood likes movies to be profitable, barely breaking even is not good enough.
Click to expand...


It's a gamble you take when there's a lot of positive momentum around a product that is not commercially a blockbuster. A cult of personality surrounds it and builds to the point where it the sequel ends up being more successful and ultimately the gamble pays off.
 
GREAT NEWS! Perhaps it's sequel will be released at the same time as the sequels for Green Lantern and Tron:Legacy.








Yeah....., there won't be a sequel to this. Seriously guys this is PR 101. Try and spin a negative into a positive. PR hasn't been a success. There will be no sequel.

All this sequel talk comes as Comcast announce their Q2 earnings and Steve Burke talks up Universal's relationship with Legendary. Meanwhile Tull/Legendary are trying to strengthen their hand so nobody realises that they have no hit IPs of their own at the moment.
 
Busty said:
GREAT NEWS! Perhaps it's sequel will be released at the same time as the sequels for Green Lantern and Tron:Legacy.








Yeah....., there won't be a sequel to this. Seriously guys this is PR 101. Try and spin a negative into a positive. PR hasn't been a success. There will be no sequel.

All this sequel talk comes as Comcast announce their Q2 earnings and Steve Burke talks up Universal's relationship with Legendary. Meanwhile Tull/Legendary are trying to strengthen their hand so nobody realises that they have no hit IPs of their own at the moment.
Click to expand...

You've been saying this all along and all along I've been saying you're wrong.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see who's tight. I think it's me.
 
MMaRsu said:
Huh? It's almost broken even already.
Click to expand...

Please read this:

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

If you really liked a particular movie, and you're hoping it made enough money to warrant a sequel, then the wealth of box-office news can be confusing. How can you tell when a movie's a hit? We asked the experts.

If you even pay a little attention to what's going on in the entertainment industry, it's easy to get snowed in with box office information that seems meaningful, but is hard to interpret. If a movie's number one in its opening weekend, does that mean it's automatically a hit? Or is the percentage drop between the first and second weekends the important number? And so on. News outlets tend to report lots of box-office data without giving that much context.

As Phil Contrino, editor of BoxOffice.com, says, "The mainstream media is guilty of this. They look at the opening weekend — and instantly a movie is a success or a failure." But the truth is way more complicated than that. Sometimes, a film can do well in its first weekend and then stumble in later weekends. Or a film can develop "legs," like Christopher Nolan's Inception, and win a few weekends in a row.

And of course, profit and loss are in the eye of the beholder — a lot of people were shocked when leaked financial statements showed that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had allegedly lost $167 million, despite $967 million in global revenues. Studio accounting, designed to make sure people don't collect on back-end deals, is a marvel.

So how do you know if the box-office gods have smiled enough on your favorite movie that studios are likely to greenlight similar films?

The short answer is, it depends on a number of factors, but a rule of thumb seems to be that the film needs to make twice its production budget globally. For the longer answer, read on.

So does a movie just have to make back its production budget, or is there more involved?

There's a lot more, although studios are loath to give out numbers. The studios seldom release accurate production budgets — and they're even more leery of revealing how much they spend on other stuff, like promotion.

According to Contrino, the Print & Advertising (P&A) costs of a movie can be incredibly high — for a small $20 million film, the promotional budget can be higher than the production budget. That's because those films are often romantic comedies or kids' movies, which are cheap to make but still need a lot of promotion. For a film which cost between $35 and $75 million to make, the P&A budget will most likely be at least half the production budget. And the numbers only go up with bigger films. "If the studio spends a lot on the budget, they're going to want to protect that investment by advertising it heavily," says Contrino.

Case in point: Megamind cost between $130 million and $145 to make (depending on what source you believe.) But the P&A budget, or the cost of promoting the film, is estimated to be an additional $65 million, according to Contrino.

Of course, the promotional expenses are different for each film — Contrino points out that Fox didn't seem to waste much money promoting Gulliver's Travels, once it was clear they had a dud on their hands. You didn't see that many TV ads for Jack Black's Swiftian odyssey. So Gulliver didn't lose as much money as it could have.

And in some cases, a studio will actually have less money at stake than the film's production budget — sometimes, the distributor will just acquire an already-made film for a small fee, plus marketing costs, says Gitesh Pandya with BoxOfficeGuru.com. In those cases, the studio can make a profit even if the film doesn't make back its production budget.

Is it true that studios get a bigger cut of the revenue from the opening weekend?

You might have noticed that studios are pushing a lot harder lately to make a film as big a hit as possible in its opening weekend. And films tend to open on more screens right away — a typical big film will open on 4,000 screens, instead of the hundreds of screens it would have opened on in the 1980s.

And it used to be true across the board that the opening weekend was when the biggest percentage of profits went to the studios. In the past, studios "strong-armed exhibitors into these front-loaded deals, wherein the overwhelming majority of the opening weekend take goes to the studio," says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets. "As much as 90% of that revenue is theirs." The theaters only make money by selling "overpriced snacks" to audiences during that first week — but in the following weeks, the theater's cut goes up. Eventually, by the fourth week, the studio's cut has fallen to around 52 percent in most cases.

But after a bunch of theater chains declared bankruptcy in the early 2000s, these frontloaded deals started to fall out of fashion, says Doug Stone with BoxOfficeAnalyst.com.

Nowadays, with many of the bigger Hollywood blockbusters, the theater chains just get a standard cut of the whole revenue, regardless of which weekend it comes in.
So generally, how much of the domestic box office revenue goes to the studios?

The percentage of revenues that the exhibitor takes in depends on the individual contract for that film — which in turn depends on how much muscle the distributor has, according to Stone.

These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

You can actually look at the securities filings for the big theater chains, to look at how much of their ticket revenues go back to the studios, points out Stone. So for example, the latest quarterly filing by Cinemark Holdings, shows that 54.5 percent of its ticket revenues went to the distributors. So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money.
Is it better if a movie makes more of its revenue in the U.S.?

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

The highest profile example of a film that bombed in the U.S. but made tons of money overseas was The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which made only about $100 million domestically but made about $270 million overseas. And a similar thing happened with the previous Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. Another big film that made way more money overseas than domestically was Terminator Salvation.

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

"The reason for this is simple. Collecting revenues abroad is a trickier proposition since the dollar fluctuates against foreign currencies. There are also tariffs from these governments in place in order to keep as much money as possible from leaving their countries and going abroad, which is an understandable practice. While the global conglomerates such as Fox, Disney and Time-Warner that run major Hollywood studios can secure sweetheart deals with various local governments, it doesn't happen for each film. As such, international box office revenue is much less reliable than in North America."

But still, overseas box office does matter, more and more. And stars who have a huge global following are more likely to open a movie than ones who are only famous in the U.S. — just look at the fact that the world-famous Tom Cruise is still starring in movies, despite his ongoing backlash in North America. Mumpower points out that Cruise's Knight and Day only made about $76 million in the U.S., against a production budget of $117 million. But since Knight and Day made $262 million overseas, chances are it will end up being profitable once home-video revenues are factored in.

Adds Mumpower:

"A shocking number of 2010 releases did better abroad than in North America, which makes sense when we consider population numbers. It's just a relatively new phenomenon for the industry. Avatar's performance is a great demonstration of global expansion. It earned $760.5 million domestically, which is (almost) a drop in the bucket compared to the $2.02 billion it accrued in international box office. Only 27% (i.e. roughly a quarter) of Avatar's box office was earned in North America. That's how important the global picture has become to Hollywood studios."

Isn't it true that most of the money is in DVD sales and cable TV airings now?

"DVD rentals and sales can tack on up to $60-$100 mil for a big title and TV rights, merchandise, and many other avenues can generate income," says Chad Hartigan, a box office analyst with Exhibitor Relations.

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

And the studios get a much bigger cut of DVD revenues than they do of theatrical revenues, because the retailers aren't as "significant of a middle man" as the theater owners, according to Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood.com's Box Office division. There are a lot of costs that go into running a movie theater, and showing movies is all the movie theater does — unlike most places where DVDs are sold.

There are some genres of film that do especially well on DVD — like horror films, which are often cheaper to make than other genres to begin with, says Dergarabedian. A horror movie might or might not break even at the theaters, but it's sure to make lots more money when it hits DVD.

But actually, the trend towards studios depending on DVD sales may have peaked already — in 2009, for the first time in a decade, theatrical box office revenue was bigger than home-video revenue, says BoxOfficeAnalysts' Stone. And this seems to be continuing into 2010. Perhaps because of piracy or the popularity of Netflix, DVD sales aren't keeping pace with ticket sales any more. Says Stone, "Studios can no longer rely on as robust an ancillary market to prop up a failure at the box office."

That's one reason why you're hearing so much about 3-D — those higher ticket prices are a way to plug the revenue hole from disappointing DVD sales. And studios are going to start investigating premium video-on-demand services more, as another way to shore up their earnings, says Stone.
Click to expand...
 
Welcome to the thread, vocal minority who hated the film! Also, the Tron Legacy and in particular the Green Lantern reference is absolutely laughable. Just conveniently forget that Green Lantern was critically panned by viewers and cashed in on the superhero craze. Those movies made what they did based on preexisting properties and nostalgia. Pacific Rim is a new IP and enjoyed by a great majority of its audience, something neither of those films can claim. If it does get a sequel, those 2 factors might be part of the reason why.
 
ymmv said:
Please read this:
Click to expand...

And in regards to Pacific Rim I point you to 3 specific examples in that explanation that some people in this thread ignore

But still, overseas box office does matter, more and more. And stars who have a huge global following are more likely to open a movie than ones who are only famous in the U.S. — just look at the fact that the world-famous Tom Cruise is still starring in movies, despite his ongoing backlash in North America. Mumpower points out that Cruise's Knight and Day only made about $76 million in the U.S., against a production budget of $117 million. But since Knight and Day made $262 million overseas, chances are it will end up being profitable once home-video revenues are factored in.
Click to expand...

Isn't it true that most of the money is in DVD sales and cable TV airings now?

"DVD rentals and sales can tack on up to $60-$100 mil for a big title and TV rights, merchandise, and many other avenues can generate income," says Chad Hartigan, a box office analyst with Exhibitor Relations.
Click to expand...

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

And the studios get a much bigger cut of DVD revenues than they do of theatrical revenues, because the retailers aren't as "significant of a middle man" as the theater owners, according to Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood.com's Box Office division. There are a lot of costs that go into running a movie theater, and showing movies is all the movie theater does — unlike most places where DVDs are sold.
Click to expand...

If it can close around $400m when it gets out of worldwide theaters it should turn profitable on home video and the two licensing deals they signed with NECA and Sideshow
 
Femmeworth said:
If they don't get Yoji Shinkawa to design a Jaeger for a sequel, I will be disappointed. Let him do Gipsy Danger 2.0 or whatever the lead mecha is. *salivates at the thought*
Click to expand...

That would be awesome, I just this morning saw his poster of Gipsy Danger for Real3d. Incredible work.
 
Ludicrous Speed said:
You've been saying this all along and all along I've been saying you're wrong.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see who's tight. I think it's me.
Click to expand...

If you don't agree with me then that's fair enough and given how bonkers this business who knows, never say never, you might be right.

But you offer nothing in terms of a counter argument in the face of such overwhelming evidence. The weak box office performance relative to the films' HUGE production and marketing cost.

I just don't see Legendary, despite the whispers from Deadline (and let's be clear they are nothing more) self financing a $150/200m film considering the original will be lucky to squeak into profit with home video etc.

Also I love how all these PR fans are blindly claiming that China's grosses will be the catalyst for a sequel completely disregarding the fact that studios aren't accepting any theatrical gross money from China because of a dispute.

"We'll definitely get a sequel to PR because of China's grosses..., all we need to do is wait indefinitely for the cheque to come in..., "

I haven't had a chance to see the film yet so I have no dog in this fight. I just calls 'em the ways I sees them.
 
Busty said:
Also I love how all these PR fans are blindly claiming that China's grosses will be the catalyst for a sequel completely disregarding the fact that studios aren't accepting any theatrical gross money from China because of a dispute.

"We'll definitely get a sequel to PR because of China's grosses..., all we need to do is wait indefinitely for the cheque to come in..., "
Click to expand...

We all know that will get resolved soon enough. Too much money on the table for both sides in the future, it would be a bit silly to think the tax issue is going to go on long term for several years.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
We all know that will get resolved soon enough. Too much money on the table for both sides in the future, it would be a bit silly to think the tax issue is going to go on long term.
Click to expand...

True. True. But then again hinging the success and very future of your franchise on a market that only hands back 25% of the final theatrical gross (if you're lucky) is foolish as well.
 
Until we find out either way, I'm just going to assume everybody is wrong :p

Want your opinion to have merit? Call some stuff correctly for once. Otherwise you're just a blowhard. And that goes for all the ______ GAF things, not just here
 
BronsonLee said:
Until we find out either way, I'm just going to assume everybody is wrong :p

Want your opinion to have merit? Call some stuff correctly for once. Otherwise you're just a blowhard. And that goes for all the ______ GAF things, not just here
Click to expand...

Let me guess. That goes for everyone except you?

*roll eyes*
 
Geez fun police, let us at least have our glimmer of hope. If a sequel never happens, it never happens.
 
Busty said:
If you don't agree with me then that's fair enough and given how bonkers this business who knows, never say never, you might be right.

But you offer nothing in terms of a counter argument in the face of such overwhelming evidence. The weak box office performance relative to the films' HUGE production and marketing cost.

I just don't see Legendary, despite the whispers from Deadline (and let's be clear they are nothing more) self financing a $150/200m film considering the original will be lucky to squeak into profit with home video etc.

Also I love how all these PR fans are blindly claiming that China's grosses will be the catalyst for a sequel completely disregarding the fact that studios aren't accepting any theatrical gross money from China because of a dispute.

"We'll definitely get a sequel to PR because of China's grosses..., all we need to do is wait indefinitely for the cheque to come in..., "

I haven't had a chance to see the film yet so I have no dog in this fight. I just calls 'em the ways I sees them.
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to spout your agenda like it's fact. Like you're an expert and you have some pull in whether a sequel gets made. You're an armchair analyst, just like all the other people posting here and on other forums. You don't know. You're making an assumption, just like everyone else.

If you know someone at legendary who has been feeding you info, fine. But you don't.
 
Busty said:
True. True. But then again hinging the success and very future of your franchise on a market that only hands back 25% of the final theatrical gross (if you're lucky) is foolish as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are just relying on China - if it doesn't do well in Japan as well, China's not going to be enough. But if they can get another 50-75m from Japan then they'd have done well in all the major asian markets and done decently in many other foreign ones.

Just making another film wouldn't be enough. They'd have to go full-out on the franchise building - the toys currently are selling really well, so they'd have to continue building from there. Books, comics, graphic novels, maybe an animated series - they'd need a larger overall plan if they want a more successful sequel in the other markets they underperformed in. They'd have to build up to it with a lot more momentum
 
Busty said:
Let me guess. That goes for everyone except you?

*roll eyes*
Click to expand...

I make no illusions about being an expert on anything, duder! That's why I don't predict shit, if you haven't noticed.

SalesGAF, MovieGAF, WaffleIronFightGAF, same shit, different day. Full of predictions, with a sterling track record for failure.

If everybody could just stop speaking in absolutes, that'd be cool. It just makes everybody eat crow/get salty at some point anyway (looking at you, TeamCG :( )
 
Too good to be true, I'll wait for more of an official confirmation.

But if it does turn out to be true - remember who saved your franchise Del Toro, now repay the favor and give us some kick-ass European Jaegers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is there anything else on TV quite like Band of Brothers and The Pacific?
37
2K
Insane Metal replied
You got 10 sequel points to give sequels to 10 movies that you wish would've gotten sequels.
37
2K
bitbydeath replied
WTF: Robert Eggers Set For ‘Labyrinth’ Sequel At TriStar
NSFW Drama Rumor  2
58
2K
Hawk The Slayer replied
‘Avatar’ Sequel Series ‘Seven Havens’ Ordered at Nickelodeon, Set After ‘Legend of Korra’
News 
33
2K
Lambogenie replied
‘Ready or Not: Here I Come’ Adds Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elijah Wood and More as Searchlight Sequel Starts Production
2
163
touchfuzzy replied
Top Bottom