Support NeoGAF

[vinnygambini]

I thought this was interesting data:

1. Get Hard (Warner Bros.): $44.5 million
2. Focus (Warner Bros.): $43.3 million
3. Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros.): $41.8 million
4. Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros.): $41 million
5. Entourage (Warner Bros.): $40.6 million
6. Run All Night (Warner Bros.): $39.3 million
7. Jurassic World (Universal): $32.4 million
8. Hot Pursuit (Warner Bros.)? $31.8 million
9. Furious 7 (Universal): $31.7 million

Variety now tracks advertising spend from Movie Distributors on T.V. and wow, I don't know how many of them get a dime back on their investment.

I mean, WB spent $40 on TV marketing for Entourage?! What.

$30 million budget for film, $40 for P&A (TV only) = $70 million

Domestic Gross: $32 million (Usually 55% of box-office receipts goes back to it's distributor).

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/mid-year-movie-report-warner-bros-dominates-top-tv-ad-budgets-1201539126/

 

[A Pretty Panda]

I saw the Dragonball movie and they charged me as a student while putting me down as a senior on the ticket

 

[kswiston]

I thought this was interesting data:


Variety now tracks advertising spend from Movie Distributors on T.V. and wow, I don't know how many of them get a dime back on their investment.

I mean, WB spent $40 on TV marketing for Entourage?! What.

$30 million budget for film, $40 for P&A (TV only) = $70 million

Domestic Gross: $32 million (Usually 55% of box-office receipts goes back to it's distributor).

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/mid-year-movie-report-warner-bros-dominates-top-tv-ad-budgets-1201539126/

I wonder how much of that is paid to subsidiaries of the same parent company. Time Warner owns TNT, TBS, and half of the CW. Comcast owns Universal and NBC.

 

[vinnygambini]

I wonder how much of that is paid to subsidiaries of the same parent company. Time Warner owns TNT, TBS, and half of the CW. Comcast owns Universal and NBC.

True, if you're interested, Variety has data ever week:

http://variety.com/author/ispot-tv/

From what I can gather, it seems evenly split. Movie distributors will prioritize targeting their own network, but some audiences might not be there and are shifted to their competitors offerings.

For example, Trainwreck had Est. Lifetime TV Spend: $20M with a good percentage of that on Comedy Central (Viacom) - Amy has her own show there. It's all about target audience.

I'm just surprised that WB had such an advertising budget for much of their film slate, and yet don't have the end results that accompany it (reception is key here as well, but still).

 

[kswiston]

I think this data is a pretty good demonstration of why found footage films aren't automatically rolling in the cash if they make $10-15M in their opening weekend. Production budget might be <$5M, but pretty much every wide release in those articles had $20M+ spent on TV advertising alone.

 

[duckroll]

So I am going to end up being wrong about the magnitude of Fantastic Four's drop. FF's Wednesday gross was $1.66M, which is only slightly higher than Ant-Man's third Wednesday take.

Given this weekend's competition, Fantastic Four is looking at a $6.5M - 7.25M weekend which I believe would give it the worst hold of all time for a superhero film. At least one based on Marvel/DC characters.

That means ~$41M after its second weekend. $60M isn't happening. $50M might be missed if the drops don't lighten up.

How's the film doing internationally? Between Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrowland, and Fantastic Four, which is going to be the biggest disaster of 2015?!

 

[Branduil]

How's the film doing internationally? Between Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrowland, and Fantastic Four, which is going to be the biggest disaster of 2015?!

Well, Jupiter Ascending and Tomorrowland were original IPs. Bombing is bad, sure, but they're still just bombs. You write them off and forget about them. That happens all the time.

The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, is a potentially highly valuable IP that Fox has pretty much ruined forever(for them). And it could have the worst overall numbers.

 

[duckroll]

Well, Jupiter Ascending and Tomorrowland were original IPs. Bombing is bad, sure, but they're still just bombs. You write them off and forget about them. That happens all the time.

The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, is a potentially highly valuable IP that Fox has pretty much ruined forever(for them). And it's easily going to have the worst overall numbers.

Tomorrowland was potentially a highly valuable IP spinning off another of their theme park attractions that Disney has pretty much ruined forever. Fantastic Four is just a free2keep license that Fox retains, I doubt they really care about managing it well.

 

[Branduil]

Tomorrowland was potentially a highly valuable IP spinning off another of their theme park attractions that Disney has pretty much ruined forever. Fantastic Four is just a free2keep license that Fox retains, I doubt they really care about managing it well.

I don't know if Tomorrowland ever had any real value.

Is Fantastic Four free2keep? I thought they had to make a movie every few years to keep it, which is what led to this debacle in the first case.

 

[duckroll]

I don't know if Tomorrowland ever had any real value.

Is Fantastic Four free2keep? I thought they had to make a movie every few years to keep it, which is what led to this debacle in the first case.

If Disney didn't think Tomorrowland had any value, they would not have given Brad Bird 190 million dollars to make it. F4 is free2keep as long as they make a movie every 7 years or so I believe. They pay nothing extra for licensing cost, and since they don't own the IP itself, it's a killer deal for them, which is why they're not letting it lapse. Out of the 3 big flops this year, F4 has the lowest budget.

 

[Tookay]

Tomorrowland was potentially a highly valuable IP spinning off another of their theme park attractions that Disney has pretty much ruined forever. Fantastic Four is just a free2keep license that Fox retains, I doubt they really care about managing it well.

I dunno. When you expend $120m plus dollars on your free2keep movie franchise and don't come anywhere close to recouping that cost after its shitty reception, I think I'd start caring about managing it well, in addition to questioning the definition of its "free2keep" status.

 

[Branduil]

If Disney didn't think Tomorrowland had any value, they would not have given Brad Bird 190 million dollars to make it. F4 is free2keep as long as they make a movie every 7 years or so I believe. They pay nothing extra for licensing cost, and since they don't own the IP itself, it's a killer deal for them, which is why they're not letting it lapse. Out of the 3 big flops this year, F4 has the lowest budget.

Disney thinking it had value goes without saying, but I think they were pretty wrong about that. Making a movie based on a themed section of a theme park is weird anyway.

Making movies isn't free, so I wouldn't call F4 free2keep, especially since this latest film will be a loss. Cutting a deal with Marvel is almost certain to make more money for them than keeping it at this point.

 

[duckroll]

Disney thinking it had value goes without saying, but I think they were pretty wrong about that. Making a movie based on a themed section of a theme park is weird anyway.

 

[Branduil]

Pirates of the Caribbean is a ride. The ride itself has a narrative, and you can pretty easily figure out what a movie based on the ride would be like.

Tomorrowland isn't a ride, it's a section of a park with the theme "faux-retro future stuff." There's no narrative there, it's just an idea. A movie called Tomorrowland could basically be any genre. Heck, I still don't know what Tomorrowland is about.

 

[DarkFlow]

1. Return of the Jedi Lucasfilm / 20th Century Fox $252,583,617
2. Terms of Endearment Paramount Pictures $108,423,489
3. Flashdance Paramount Pictures / PolyGram $92,921,203
4. Trading Places Paramount Pictures $90,404,800
5. WarGames United Artists $79,567,667
6. Octopussy United Artists $67,800,000
7. Sudden Impact Warner Bros. $67,642,693
8. Staying Alive Paramount Pictures $64,892,670
9. Mr. Mom 20th Century Fox $64,783,827
10. Risky Business Warner Bros. $63,541,777

Yeah wow. 1983 was a pretty awful year for movies in general. RotJ and War Games are good, but the only movie I've seen of those that I'd consider great is Trading Places.

1983 here also. Mr Mom and Risky Business are great movies also.

 

[Lime_In_Da_Coconut]

I just love Hollywood's reasoning: the formula works exactly ONCE and they spend the next 10-20 years trying to replicate it and failing 99% of the time.

 

[duckroll]

Pirates of the Caribbean is a ride. The ride itself has a narrative, and you can pretty easily figure out what a movie based on the ride would be like.

Tomorrowland isn't a ride, it's a section of a park with the theme "faux-retro future stuff." There's no narrative there, it's just an idea. A movie called Tomorrowland could basically be any genre. Heck, I still don't know what Tomorrowland is about.

I don't think that really matters in terms of what we're talking about. Both are attractions, and things visitors to the parks will be familiar with. That's what they're leveraging on - the familiarity, not the "narrative". Unless you honestly want to tell me that the PotC movies worked because of the ride's "narrative", lol. There's nothing about the PotC movies you can figure out from the ride which you can't figure out from the name. All the important things were made up for the films.

Tomorrowland is a film about a magical secret utopia of futurism inspired by the Disneyland themed world about futurism, just like how Pirates of the Caribbean was a film about ghost pirates trying to break a curse inspired by the Disneyland ride about pirates. If Tomorrowland had gotten the same reception PotC did, and had been a huge success, this conversation wouldn't even exist. It would be acknowledged as the next PotC success. But the reception towards the movie was poor and the audiences rejected it. That's why it failed, not because it was based on a themed space in the parks.

 

[Branduil]

I don't think that really matters in terms of what we're talking about. Both are attractions, and things visitors to the parks will be familiar with. That's what they're leveraging on - the familiarity, not the "narrative". Unless you honestly want to tell me that the PotC movies worked because of the ride's "narrative", lol. There's nothing about the PotC movies you can figure out from the ride which you can't figure out from the name. All the important things were made up for the films.

Tomorrowland is a film about a magical secret utopia of futurism inspired by the Disneyland themed world about futurism, just like how Pirates of the Caribbean was a film about ghost pirates trying to break a curse inspired by the Disneyland ride about pirates. If Tomorrowland had gotten the same reception PotC did, and had been a huge success, this conversation wouldn't even exist. It would be acknowledged as the next PotC success. But the reception towards the movie was poor and the audiences rejected it. That's why it failed, not because it was based on a themed space in the parks.

It was pretty easy to figure out PotC would be about swashbuckling pirate adventures. You don't even need a trailer for that. What is Tomorrowland about? No one knew. No one knows now. No one will ever know.

Obviously they could have made up for that somewhat if they made a really great movie, but I don't think you can claim the ambiguous theme and unenlightening marketing had nothing to do with its massive failure.

 

[duckroll]

It was pretty easy to figure out PotC would be about swashbuckling pirate adventures. You don't even need a trailer for that. What is Tomorrowland about? No one knew. No one knows now. No one will ever know.

Obviously they could have made up for that somewhat if they made a really great movie, but I don't think you can claim the ambiguous theme and unenlightening marketing had nothing to do with its massive failure.

I already told you what Tomorrowland was about. It's a retro futurism. Flying cars, jetpacks, rockets, etc. There's an argument to be made that the theme is less appealing than pirates as a theme, but that has nothing to do with one being a ride and the other being a themed space. The poor marketing also applies to all 3 movies we're looking at here. Jupiter Ascending was delayed and then had zero marketing leading up to the release. F4 had terrible marketing and a really short ad cycle too. In comparison, Tomorrowland had the largest and most expensive marketing campaign of the 3, even if it was a terrible campaign.

My main point was that it seems silly to excuse or discount Tomorrowland from failure by saying that it is a new IP or that it was based on a themed space without a "narrative". It's an existing brand which Disney owned and wanted to leverage, and they bet big on it. It failed.

 

[Branduil]

I already told you what Tomorrowland was about. It's a retro futurism. Flying cars, jetpacks, rockets, etc. There's an argument to be made that the theme is less appealing than pirates as a theme, but that has nothing to do with one being a ride and the other being a themed space. The poor marketing also applies to all 3 movies we're looking at here. Jupiter Ascending was delayed and then had zero marketing leading up to the release. F4 had terrible marketing and a really short ad cycle too. In comparison, Tomorrowland had the largest and most expensive marketing campaign of the 3, even if it was a terrible campaign.

My main point was that it seems silly to excuse or discount Tomorrowland from failure by saying that it is a new IP or that it was based on a themed space without a "narrative". It's an existing brand which Disney owned and wanted to leverage, and they bet big on it. It failed.

Before the movies, when someone said "Pirates of the Caribbean," what would you think of? You'd think pirate adventures, swashbuckling, "Yoho, a pirate's life for me!" There's an easy hook for a movie there. Adventure on the high seas is a storied film setting. It's easy to market, they just needed a good film.

What do you think of when you think of Tomorrowland? I think "Rockets spinning in a circle. Oh, Space Mountain, that's a fun ride. I guess the people mover is there too." None of those are movies. They're not even a movie genre. It's not that you can't make a good movie based on "Tomorrowland." You could, because the movie could basically be anything. It could be a Free Willy/E.T. ripoff about a space whale that a young boy must free using the power of spinning rockets. It could be a Jurassic Park ripoff(Westworld?). It could be a Groundhog's Day ripoff where people in a theme park can never reach "tomorrow." The problem wasn't not being able to make a good movie, it's that you basically would have to market it as an original IP, because just saying "Tomorrowland" doesn't give people a clue about what the movie is.

It's not that Tomorrowland isn't a failure, or that Disney didn't waste a bunch of money. But it being a failure doesn't mean anything for the "Tomorrowland franchise," because there is no Tomorrowland franchise. And really, there's no actual reason to think it could easily become some huge movie franchise. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that Fantastic 4 could be successful in the right hands. It's just that Fox has basically destroyed all possibility of that ever being their hands.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I already told you what Tomorrowland was about. It's a retro futurism. Flying cars, jetpacks, rockets, etc. There's an argument to be made that the theme is less appealing than pirates as a theme, but that has nothing to do with one being a ride and the other being a themed space. The poor marketing also applies to all 3 movies we're looking at here. Jupiter Ascending was delayed and then had zero marketing leading up to the release. F4 had terrible marketing and a really short ad cycle too. In comparison, Tomorrowland had the largest and most expensive marketing campaign of the 3, even if it was a terrible campaign.

My main point was that it seems silly to excuse or discount Tomorrowland from failure by saying that it is a new IP or that it was based on a themed space without a "narrative". It's an existing brand which Disney owned and wanted to leverage, and they bet big on it. It failed.

It should also be noted that Jupiter Ascending and, I'm guessing but it's entirely possible here, F4 were sent to die because the studio figured that audiences would hate them. See also 47 Ronin.

Disney definitely thought Tomorrowland would catch on with the public, even if it was possibly a hard sell.

 

[duckroll]

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that Fantastic 4 could be successful in the right hands. It's just that Fox has basically destroyed all possibility of that ever being their hands.

If there is, I sure haven't seen it. I'm a fan of the comic. I think that given the right circumstances someone could make a good movie out of it. But I think it's a huge challenge for it to be really commercially successful. Ironically for this discussion, I think the challenge is as great as the one Tomorrowland faced. Fantastic Four's main appeal is in the very same things which people rejected in Tomorrowland. The material works best when it's this idealistic and optimistic look into retro futurism with great science adventures and discovery without being cynical or grimdark. That's a hard sell in today's entertainment.

Fantastic Four is one of the foundations of the Marvel Universe in the comics, one of their first and most important titles in their history. Yet it remains a struggling comic brand which can only find success rarely in the hands of more talented writers. I think that says a lot about the commercial viability of the franchise. It's not that it's not possible, but I think it's harder than you think. This one was a total disaster, but even if it had been way better, I'm not sure we have seen any actual evidence that it would find huge success.

 

[Branduil]

If there is, I sure haven't seen it. I'm a fan of the comic. I think that given the right circumstances someone could make a good movie out of it. But I think it's a huge challenge for it to be really commercially successful. Ironically for this discussion, I think the challenge is as great as the one Tomorrowland faced. Fantastic Four's main appeal is in the very same things which people rejected in Tomorrowland. The material works best when it's this idealistic and optimistic look into retro futurism with great science adventures and discovery without being cynical or grimdark. That's a hard sell in today's entertainment.

Fantastic Four is one of the foundations of the Marvel Universe in the comics, one of their first and most important titles in their history. Yet it remains a struggling comic brand which can only find success rarely in the hands of more talented writers. I think that says a lot about the commercial viability of the franchise. It's not that it's not possible, but I think it's harder than you think. This one was a total disaster, but even if it had been way better, I'm not sure we have seen any actual evidence that it would find huge success.

I'm sure it's more difficult than some comic books, but still, The Incredibles is proof that it's possible.

 

[duckroll]

I'm sure it's more difficult than some comic books, but still, The Incredibles is proof that it's possible.

The only thing The Incredibles might prove is that a Fantastic Four animated film might be viable.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I think a good movie F4 should be a MCU prequel set in the 60s-70s, where the 4 fight a young Dr. Doom and some scrub villain that can get killed because older Doom needs to appear in present day. Coincidentally, it should be written and directed by Brad Bird.

 

[kswiston]

Straight Outta Compton took in just under $5M from Thursday previews. Unless the film is really frontloaded this weekend, that suggests a $50M+ opening.

Man from U.N.C.L.E. had $900k in previews.

 

[Futurematic]

The only thing The Incredibles might prove is that a Fantastic Four animated film might be viable.

Fox has an animation division, F4 animated and aimed at the same audience The Incredibles tapped would be a good play. Do they have to specifically make a live action F4 to keep the rights?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Straight Outta Compton took in just under $5M from Thursday previews. Unless the film is really frontloaded this weekend, that suggests a $50M+ opening.

That is fucking crazy. An R-rated, 2 1/2 hour biopic about NWA is going to clear 50 mil opening weekend.

I thought it'd do well, but I figured that'd be legs working - considering word of mouth, still might be. But that's really impressive.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Straight Outta Compton took in just under $5M from Thursday previews. Unless the film is really frontloaded this weekend, that suggests a $50M+ opening.

Man from U.N.C.L.E. had $900k in previews.

Holy shit at the Compton numbers. That is awesome.

 

[kswiston]

That is fucking crazy. An R-rated, 2 1/2 hour biopic about NWA is going to clear 50 mil opening weekend.

I thought it'd do well, but I figured that'd be legs working - considering word of mouth, still might be. But that's really impressive.

To make things more impressive, Straight outta Compton is only playing in 2750 theatres. Meanwhile we have over 4000 theatre owners regretting their mandatory 2 week Fantastic Four contract.

Fantastic Four might actually end up setting an all time record. The largest theatre drop of all time in a single weekend was 2523 venues by Meet Dave. That would still give Fantastic 4 close to 1500 venues next weekend.

 

[kswiston]

So, very early Friday estimates are putting Straight Outta Compton in the low to mid 20s range for its opening day. Deadline is guessing $55-60M for the weekend, but take that with a grain of salt.

Man From U.N.C.L.E.'s early Friday estimate is $5M. That would translate into a $12-14M weekend depending on how frontloaded Friday was.

Rth is estimating Fantastic Four's second Friday at $2M. That's 82% down from last Friday (77% if you take out the Thursday previews)

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Rth is estimating Fantastic Four's second Friday at $2M. That's 82% down from last Friday (77% if you take out the Thursday previews)

Oh wow.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

So, very early Friday estimates are putting Straight Outta Compton in the low to mid 20s range for its opening day. Deadline is guessing $55-60M for the weekend, but take that with a grain of salt.

Man From U.N.C.L.E.'s early Friday estimate is $5M. That would translate into a $12-14M weekend depending on how frontloaded Friday was.

Rth is estimating Fantastic Four's second Friday at $2M. That's 82% down from last Friday (77% if you take out the Thursday previews)

So I might not be that far off with that 80%

 

[Discotheque]

wow that's a real shame how bad UNCLE is gonna do. smh.

oh well at least Compton is making that money.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Arm & Hammer can't catch a break

 

[kswiston]

So I might not be that far off with that 80%

Friday drops tend to be worse than the rest of the weekend due to preview grosses, and first day rush, but the film is definitely going to have a drop somewhere in the 70s,

 

[Discotheque]

Arm & Hammer can't catch a break

damn shame too. i think lone ranger was better than most summer films in the past few years.

straight decimated by most reviewers and audience tho. i think his career is pretty much over.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Friday drops tend to be worse than the rest of the weekend due to preview grosses, and first day rush, but the film is definitely going to have a drop somewhere in the 70s,

Ang Lee's Hulk held the "Biggest 2nd weekend drop for a superhero movie" crown down for long enough

 

[Draconian]

straight decimated by most reviewers and audience tho. i think his career is pretty much over.

The hyperbole is pretty incredible here sometimes.

 

[kswiston]

Ang Lee's Hulk held the "Biggest 2nd weekend drop for a superhero movie" crown down for long enough

This movie is going to be an outright disaster. Overseas numbers are actually running slightly behind the Green Lantern, and GL finished with $103M overseas. FF might actually miss $100M overseas unless things pick up dramatically with its remaining debuts.

Combined with the domestic gross, a $150-160M worldwide gross is looking probable. As of now, it doesn't look like a Chinese release is happening, but it is too early to be sure.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

This movie is going to be an outright disaster. Overseas numbers are actually running slightly behind the Green Lantern, and GL finished with $103M overseas. FF might actually miss $100M overseas unless things pick up dramatically with its remaining debuts.

Combined with the domestic gross, a $150-160M worldwide gross is looking probable. As of now, it doesn't look like a Chinese release is happening, but it is too early to be sure.

The original 2005 movie nobody liked made $154,696,080 domestically, would be amazing if ten years later the reboot WW total falls under that

 

[Discotheque]

The hyperbole is pretty incredible here sometimes.

is hammer's career flourishing or something?

edit: oh shit he's actually in some pretty cool upcoming projects. nv/m lol

 

[BronsonLee]

Time for China to save Fantastic Four!

 

[Discotheque]

Time for China to save Fantastic Four!

lmao at that avatar. neville baggins.

 

[Draconian]

is hammer's career flourishing or something?

It's almost like there's a difference between not flourishing and completely dead or something.

EDIT: lol I see you looked at his upcoming stuff

 

[BronsonLee]

lmao at that avatar. neville baggins.

I don't even have avatars on, but this one fit me too well, dammit

 

[PhoncipleBone]

At this rate with FF, they might as well go for all the worst records. There is no kill like overkill.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

There is no kill like overkill.

This is some Bond villain shit right here.

 

[kswiston]

Age of Ultron has either crossed $1.4B finally or will do so this weekend. It's last reported overseas number puts it there as of Thursday, but it could be up to $250k short still depending on rounding.

Jurassic World should pass (or be very near) $1.6B this weekend. It is doing really well in Japan, but shitty exchange rates are going to mean a ~$60M or so gross in USD instead of the $100M it would have received for the same local currency a couple of years ago. It doesn't look like $1.7B will happen, so Titanic will maintain its second place WW lead by at least $500M.

 

[Slayven]

So I am going to end up being wrong about the magnitude of Fantastic Four's drop. FF's Wednesday gross was $1.66M, which is only slightly higher than Ant-Man's third Wednesday take.

Given this weekend's competition, Fantastic Four is looking at a $6.5M - 7.25M weekend which I believe would give it the worst hold of all time for a superhero film. At least one based on Marvel/DC characters.

That means ~$41M after its second weekend. $60M isn't happening. $50M might be missed if the drops don't lighten up.

That is fucking crazy. An R-rated, 2 1/2 hour biopic about NWA is going to clear 50 mil opening weekend.

I thought it'd do well, but I figured that'd be legs working - considering word of mouth, still might be. But that's really impressive.

If that is crazy I don't want to be sane