• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Wkd BO 05•05-07•17 - Baby Groot & fam show IRL Groot & fam who's Boss

Lima

Member
In profit though? I doubt it. From Swiss's other thread on the most profitable films each year, Captain America Civil War - for example - "only" made $193M worth of theater profits. Doctor Strange made $123M.

I know there is all sorts of crazy math in the film industry (and in acquisitions as well), but in pure profit, I don't know if I'd agree with your statement.

Don't forget DVD, Blu-ray and streaming aftermarket etc. Netflix deals for shows.
Oh and of course merchandise, toys, comics etc. You know the stuff Marvel does.
 

BumRush

Member
Don't forget DVD, Blu-ray and streaming aftermarket etc.

Oh and of course merchandise, toys, comics etc. You know the stuff Marvel does.

I definitely agree! That was (roughly) included in my $200M average per film profit. I'm sure my assumption is off though and - as Slayven said - they've probably made the $5B back easily already.
 

Lima

Member
You guys listened to the how did this get made podcast for Family 8?

Interesting that Kurt Russel's character was lined up to be Brian's father. Like fuck me would have been the perfect setup for meeting the guardians familia. I'd watch that.
 
You guys listened to the how did this get made podcast for Family 8?

Interesting that Kurt Russel's character was lined up to be Brian's father. Like fuck me would have been the perfect setup for meeting the guardians familia. I'd watch that.

Link it.
 

Penguin

Member
So saw some folks asking Box Office questions here yesterday and wanted to throw some out there

Where do you folks follow the international box office scene at? What's the best place to get Chinese numbers? Is IMDB the best place to see the various release dates?
 

AndersK

Member
According to the fine folks at boxoffice discussion GotG vol 2. Was underestimated by 1,4 mil, actuals are 146,4.

No official word yet, but a trusted source has comfirmed it.
 

BumRush

Member
According to the fine folks at boxoffice discussion GotG vol 2. Was underestimated by 1,4 mil, actuals are 146,4.

No official word yet, but a trusted source has comfirmed it.

Get out? I thought for sure it was overestimated.

So saw some folks asking Box Office questions here yesterday and wanted to throw some out there

Where do you folks follow the international box office scene at? What's the best place to get Chinese numbers? Is IMDB the best place to see the various release dates?

Boxofficemojo.com
 

numble

Member
Don't forget DVD, Blu-ray and streaming aftermarket etc. Netflix deals for shows.
Oh and of course merchandise, toys, comics etc. You know the stuff Marvel does.

Disney brought Marvel for 5 billion dollars. They made that back a long time ago.

In profit though? I doubt it. From Swiss's other thread on the most profitable films each year, Captain America Civil War - for example - "only" made $193M worth of theater profits. Doctor Strange made $123M.

I know there is all sorts of crazy math in the film industry (and in acquisitions as well), but in pure profit, I don't know if I'd agree with your statement.

I definitely agree! That was (roughly) included in my $200M average per film profit. I'm sure my assumption is off though and - as Slayven said - they've probably made the $5B back easily already.
Marvel was a publicly listed company before Disney bought them and their finances before being sold were a matter of public record. It was making $60 million to $205 million in profit per year. Paramount also distributed MCU movies for 2 years after the deal and Disney shared profits on Iron Man 3 and Avengers with Paramount. It certainly will be a very profitable transaction to Disney, but as to whether it has already been "paid back", under the most optimistic scenario it was probably only recently paid back.
 
According to the fine folks at boxoffice discussion GotG vol 2. Was underestimated by 1,4 mil, actuals are 146,4.

No official word yet, but a trusted source has comfirmed it.
EmpireCity is very trustworthy.

Great Sunday for Guardians. It's no guarantee, but it's a possible sign this might end up less frontloaded than most other MCU films in this release date. I think passing the first one is pretty much locked up.
 

Slayven

Member
Marvel was a publicly listed company before Disney bought them and their finances before being sold were a matter of public record. It was making $60 million to $205 million in profit per year. Paramount also distributed MCU movies for 2 years after the deal and Disney shared profits on Iron Man 3 and Avengers with Paramount. It certainly will be a very profitable transaction to Disney, but as to whether it has already been "paid back", under the most optimistic scenario it was probably only recently paid back.

If you are talking movie money only, yeah. But Merch is and always will be the beast.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
If you are talking movie money only, yeah. But Merch is and always will be the beast.

Cars

Worst received, least successful at the Box Office for Pixar is on it's third film. Till Good Dinosaur came out.

Cars also hit over 10bil in Merchandise. Only behind Star Wars

Interesting enough, article even states, "According to Bloomberg, if a movie hits one billion dollars in sales, it's a safe estimate that toy sales will average $250 to $300 million." Disney made their money back several fold and for the next 10 years.
 

numble

Member
If you are talking movie money only, yeah. But Merch is and always will be the beast.

Cars

Worst received, least successful at the Box Office for Pixar is on it's third film. Till Good Dinosaur came out.

Cars also hit over 10bil in Merchandise. Only behind Star Wars

Interesting enough, article even states, "According to Bloomberg, if a movie hits one billion dollars in sales, it’s a safe estimate that toy sales will average $250 to $300 million." Disney made their money back several fold and for the next 10 years.
Merchandise revenue is a lot, but a lot of it goes to the toy companies. Lego Avengers money mostly goes to Lego. The IP owner usually just gets 15%. So $300 million of toy sales equals $45 million in royalty revenue, before other costs come into play. Based on Disney's own numbers for merchandise profit--$1.9 billion in the latest year total for all Star Wars, Disney, Pixar and Marvel merchandise, it doesn't seem possible that Marvel itself has generated back its cost from merchandise profit. It certainly is not possible that they have made back the money several fold.
 
Marvel was a publicly listed company before Disney bought them and their finances before being sold were a matter of public record. It was making $60 million to $205 million in profit per year. Paramount also distributed MCU movies for 2 years after the deal and Disney shared profits on Iron Man 3 and Avengers with Paramount. It certainly will be a very profitable transaction to Disney, but as to whether it has already been "paid back", under the most optimistic scenario it was probably only recently paid back.

I think you are right. Even counting merchandising, I think Disney is still making the money back from Marvel. They might have broken even by now, but people have to remember that the only reason that Marvel was so cheap was probably because of the shitty deals they had. Disney had to pay a shitload of money to get distribution rights from Paramount. They also had to pay a shitload of money to get the 50% merchandising rights from Sony (and - unless the 2015 deal changed it - they still pay Sony up to $35MM per Spiderman movie). They still don't own a lot of stuff, including the all important theme park rights in Orlando.
 

BumRush

Member
Merchandise revenue is a lot, but a lot of it goes to the toy companies. Lego Avengers money mostly goes to Lego. The IP owner usually just gets 15%. So $300 million of toy sales equals $45 million in royalty revenue, before other costs come into play. Based on Disney's own numbers for merchandise profit--$1.9 billion in the latest year total for all Star Wars, Disney, Pixar and Marvel merchandise, it doesn't seem possible that Marvel itself has generated back its cost from merchandise profit.

Thanks for posting. This is the "concrete" I was looking for.

I think you are right. Even counting merchandising, I think Disney is still making the money back from Marvel. They might have broken even by now, but people have to remember that the only reason that Marvel was so cheap was probably because of the shitty deals they had. Disney had to pay a shitload of money to get distribution rights from Paramount. They also had to pay a shitload of money to get the 50% merchandising rights from Sony (and - unless the 2015 deal changed it - they still pay Sony up to $35MM per Spiderman movie). They still don't own a lot of stuff, including the all important theme park rights in Orlando.

What's the story here? Who owns these rights?
 
You guys listened to the how did this get made podcast for Family 8?

Interesting that Kurt Russel's character was lined up to be Brian's father. Like fuck me would have been the perfect setup for meeting the guardians familia. I'd watch that.

If Swayze was alive he would have probably played Brian's father :(
 
You guys listened to the how did this get made podcast for Family 8?

Interesting that Kurt Russel's character was lined up to be Brian's father. Like fuck me would have been the perfect setup for meeting the guardians familia. I'd watch that.

Ok now that'd be interesting considering Brian didn't remember his dad cause he left before he was born an-

wait
 
:(

That sucks if true
I don't know how true any of it is but I've heard some stuff about them being extremely shitty to their staff so it might be for the best. All those extremely talented people will hopefully find work at much better studios. Hell they should start a new studio up together if they can, do things the right way

Boss baby holding strong!

AW YEAH I saw it for the fourth time this weekend, it's just so damn fun.
 

Slayven

Member
Do you think that's an indicator of legs or since Fri/Sat/Sun are all "opening weekend", does it matter?



What'd you think of the film?

Wasn't the surprise of the first one, but more solid. It's my favorite marvel movie after Civil War. Cause it goes balls deep into the cosmic shit
 

BumRush

Member
Wasn't the surprise of the first one, but more solid. It's my favorite marvel movie after Civil War. Cause it goes balls deep into the cosmic shit

I keep hearing this, plus the fact that the visuals are phenomenal. I can't wait to see it!
 

AndersK

Member
After some reading it seems international actuals was up by 3 mil too. I knocked off 2 bucks from that with my filthy socialist students discount.
 

3N16MA

Banned
Do you think that's an indicator of legs or since Fri/Sat/Sun are all "opening weekend", does it matter?

Indicates that the weekend wasn't heavily front loaded from previews/OD. Strong holds even if it is early.

Can't be a bad thing.
 
The $17M preview number might have been rounded, but if not, Sunday was bigger than Friday proper.
This situation has been happening more and more often, it seems like. It was the case with Logan, Kong, and Beauty and the Beast, I believe. I would guess that Thursday previews themselves are becoming more popular, but the number of people that will see a film on Thursday + Friday is not changing.

Not to take away away from this Sunday number, because it is really excellent. If Guardians 2 has the same OW multiplier as Civil War, it will make $333.8M. But if we instead assume it will have the same drops from Sunday as Civil War, the number is $357.6M. Using Iron Man 3, we get $344.1M/$360.2M

So if Guardians 2 can perform a bit better than IM3, it could end up around the $370M I predicted despite opening $6.5M lower.
 

Kusagari

Member
The early doom saying seems hilarious now with how close to 150m Guardians actually ended up.

Guardians should be good the next 2 weeks as I doubt King Arthur or Alien really causes that much of a disturbance, but I wonder how the legs hold up once the gauntlet with Pirates hits.
 

Dalek

Member
The early doom saying seems hilarious now with how close to 150m Guardians actually ended up.

pinkman.gif
 
When did Disney retire the Buena Vista name for their older fare?

Technically, the Buena Vista name wasn't actually used as a film label for non-Disney films, they used film subsidiaries/division like Touchstone and Hollywood. It was used for Disney's film and home video distribution divisions though, among the company's other divisions (television, theatre, publishing, games, etc.)

The Buena Vista name was used for all of Disney's company divisions up until 2007, which is when they largely retired the name. There's still a Buena Vista Street attraction at Disneyland California Adventure Park and a Lake Buena Vista at Walt Disney World; but the divisions have by-and-large been rebranded to the Disney or ABC corporate name.

With that said, a few of Disney's divisions --including the international film and home media distribution divisions-- still use the Buena Vista label as their legal name, which I think is why box office reporters/analysts still use the Buena Vista acronym (BV) to refer to the company's film output.
 

Anth0ny

Member
Just saw the cars 3 commercial and my mom asked "is this movie for kids?"

I know it exists to sell cars but the marketing for this movie has been truly baffling.
 
Just saw the cars 3 commercial and my mom asked "is this movie for kids?"

I know it exists to sell cars but the marketing for this movie has been truly baffling.

It's almost as if, at Pixar, they care more about crafting a story that they want to tell, than setting out to make a movie just to satisfy a demographic.

Despite being an absolute goldmine for children's toys, none of the Cars movies are really aimed squarely at children. The first one is a love letter to Americana and Route 66, what kid gives a shit about that? And I've said it before and it'll probably be on my gravestone but if the plot of Cars 2 (which they specifically wanted to write as an adult spy film) was changed to include like any other characters besides talking cars, it would be PG-13 at minimum. A character is literally tortured to death and several others are killed on screen as well.

If anything Cars is the most deceptive franchise Pixar has because purely on the surface they look like mindless fodder for children, and while kids can and absolutely do enjoy them their actual stories are not really aimed at that audience. Cars 3, at least from the marketing, looks to continue that trend since apparently its story has to do with getting old and being eclipsed at something that you love doing by a younger generation.

I'm kind of surprised that we're almost at 20 movies over the span of 30 years, and people still think Pixar (and any modern animation house, really, they've all stepped up their game like crazy) just makes movies for kids. They make movies, period, and they're for everyone to enjoy, and they happen to be animated.
 
Whoa Guardians was actually underestimated? Damn it ended up coming very close to that $150 million number. Fantastic opening.

At least among friends and family I know word of mouth seems through the roof with pretty much everyone thinking it's as good or better than the first film. Really curious to see how it legs out.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
It's almost as if, at Pixar, they care more about crafting a story that they want to tell, than setting out to make a movie just to satisfy a demographic.

Despite being an absolute goldmine for children's toys, none of the Cars movies are really aimed squarely at children. The first one is a love letter to Americana and Route 66, what kid gives a shit about that? And I've said it before and it'll probably be on my gravestone but if the plot of Cars 2 (which they specifically wanted to write as an adult spy film) was changed to include like any other characters besides talking cars, it would be PG-13 at minimum. A character is literally tortured to death and several others are killed on screen as well.

If anything Cars is the most deceptive franchise Pixar has because purely on the surface they look like mindless fodder for children, and while kids can and absolutely do enjoy them their actual stories are not really aimed at that audience. Cars 3, at least from the marketing, looks to continue that trend since apparently its story has to do with getting old and being eclipsed at something that you love doing by a younger generation.

I'm kind of surprised that we're almost at 20 movies over the span of 30 years, and people still think Pixar (and any modern animation house, really, they've all stepped up their game like crazy) just makes movies for kids. They make movies, period, and they're for everyone to enjoy, and they happen to be animated.

Yep. The first Cars is about settling down in a small town and letting go of childish ambitions. No kid is going to grasp that.
 

kswiston

Member
Deadline is saying $10M on Monday for Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2.

So somewhere around $185M by the end of Thursday. A 57% drop this weekend would give it another $63M. So I'm guessing somewhere around $245-250M through its second weekend.

Suicide Squad was at $223M after its second weekend. Deadpool was at $237M
 

BumRush

Member
Deadline is saying $10M on Monday for Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2.

So somewhere around $185M by the end of Thursday. A 57% drop this weekend would give it another $63M. So I'm guessing somewhere around $245-250M through its second weekend.

Suicide Squad was at $223M after its second weekend. Deadpool was at $237M

Was that a good drop for the first Monday? I know the first one did $11.7M but that was in August and I'm struggling to find a recent comparison point.
 
Top Bottom