Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2014

That's why you make the deal for gross profits instead of net profits.

 

I still think it would be interesting to see the financials across all formats. We get the box office numbers, but I'd also like to see the Video On Demand numbers, the DVD & Blu-Ray sales & rental numbers, the streaming rentals from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, etc. The amount of money paid from services like Netflix to license them for streaming, merchandise sales, the amount of money received in sponsorship deals with places like McDonalds, etc.

A film may look like it broke even or lost money at the box office but that doesn't mean it didn't pull in significantly more money from these other sources.

 

IMDB and Box Office Mojo both claim $100 million - that's where I got my info...

 

There's a term in Hollywood for net points...but I forget what it is.

 

I believe it was Eddie Murphy who coined the term "monkey points" for net points...

 

These links say $130,000,000:

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/02/06/movie-advisor-robocop/

http://stash-magazine.com/films/know-it-all-robocop-2014/

In truth, the studios tend to keep the announced budgets way down for fear of having a negative impact on critics and some audiences. As one example, I believe when Avatar was released, they said it cost about $230M; only months later did the LA Times report the true budget was probably north of $280M. Here's a very good Vanity Fair story that talks about why budgets are concealed, and what happened with Avatar, which I think is representative of a lot of huge summer tentpole films:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2009/12/how-much-did-avatar-really-cost

What if they won't give you a deal if you insist on gross points? The reality is I bet there's far fewer than 50 people in all of showbiz who can negotiate gross points these days. And don't forget: there's a lot of different ways of even figuring out what "gross points" really mean. Do you mean the unadjusted rolling gross from dollar one? Or do you mean the gross profit left after studio profit (aka "actual profit")?

Famous Eddie Murphy quote from the trial: "Monkey Points. Because only a monkey would believe he'd ever get any money out of them."

 

Ignoring more recent events concerning its director's personal life, it seems as if the new X-Men movie will end up being very similar to Bryan Singer's last superhero effort based on his reshooting parts so close to its release... didn't he supposedly lose confidence late in the making of Superman Returns after initially appearing so confident? Actually, wasn't that also the most expensive film of its kind to be produced at the time? Forgetting those parallels, I'm still waiting for either a new version that doesn't have him second-guessing something as important as a $10m opening sequence ultimately left on the cutting room floor or at least recording a commentary for the theatrical edition. Considering how easily Marvel feels it can press the reset button on other cinematic ventures, can we still expect the next X-Men title that was meant to tie up any remaining loose ends, or are we looking at another Hulk or Spider-Man level quick reboot? I was really hoping that Days Of Future Past would end up being Singer's comeback after a period in the wilderness, but at this rate it seems any chance of his latest being a success disappears with every new passing second. I didn't exactly rate Man Of Steel and I'm certainly not holding my breath for DC's upcoming Justice League crossovers, but my worry is that now even Marvel may struggle as a result of these latest problems. On a bigger scale, just how many bubbles can possibly be allowed to burst before superheroes disappear from our screens for a prolonged period once more, plunging so many formerly lucrative characters into another dark age?

 

Where are you getting $300 mil? According to Box Office Mojo it's pulled in just under $178m worldwide as of yesterday. About what I expected, I think it'll settle as an average franchise rather than a blockbuster one.

 

I don't think Marvel will struggle too much, for now at least. I don't have my hopes up for this X-Men, but even if it fails I think the Avenger series is going to be a train that won't be stopping for a while. Though the Days of Future Past storyline is pretty rich, to say the least, so there's lots of potential here. I hope it does okay so maybe future installments can improve on it. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is doing so well, and was a really good movie to boot, so if this is a sign of what's to come from the Avenger / Captain America franchise overall verses being an exception than I expect more fun at the movies. I think Sebastian Stan (the Winter Soldier) is contracted for 9 movies. Marvel is thinking big, we'll have to wait and see how how consistent the quality is.

I'm very interested, as is the studio, to see how well Guardians of the Galaxy does. I think this movie is Marvel putting it's toes in the water to gauge how characters who are branched out a little in their universe can do. If it's a big hit, it opens a very, very, large door.

About DC and the Justice League, I have zero faith in it. And I think, what seems like their current strategy, of doing a big Justice League movie first and then branching out to the individual movies is a wrong one. Basically a reversal of what Marvel did. DC seems to want their billion dollar movie first, and I don't think it's going to go very well for them.

 

IMDB says $126M domestic and $177M worldwide. I assume you combine them for the total... but IMDB just revamped the site and maybe they're supposed to be separated.

I agree 100%.

 

I think they are supposed to be separated. Box Office Mojo has the $177 total coming from the $126m domestic + $50m overseas. I thought about it last night, and I think the studio was really just hoping for the best even though the movie was likely never going to become a huge hit. Hunger Games appealed outside of it's readers with a somewhat controversial story, if sort of unoriginal, that had people talking. Shailene Woodley is really talented, maybe just as much as Lawrence, but I don't think she has superstar appeal or the factors to make her one. And the timing had "me too" written all over it. Also didn't help that reviews were so-so, and the first Hunger Games was a pretty good movie on it's own.

 

I read an article very recently about the low-budget horror film Insidious: Chapter Two which had an overall budget of less than $5 million. To secure the leads for the film (Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne) they made some kind of profit sharing deal based on the box office grosses (the article did not go into the particulars). The actors were paid the minimum upfront, but due to their profit sharing deal they each received $7 million after the theatrical run.

Seems like a smart way to get actors you really can't afford for a project. It worked out well for all concerned based on these figures:

Insidious: Chapter 2

Budget - $5 million

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $83,586,447 51.6%
+ Foreign: $78,332,871 48.4%
= Worldwide: $161,919,318

 

Man, Transcendence is getting trashed by the critics. Currently at 17% on Rotten Tomatoes!

 

movie goers don't like it either - only 56%

 

Really disappointing to hear. I loved the idea and thought it was going to be really good.

 

I wouldn't say I loved the idea, but it looked interesting enough for me to watch on Netflix eventually, so I'm a little disappointed, too.

 

Here's an article from The Hollywood Reporter that breaks down the big summer releases by studio, how much they cost to make, etc.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-forecast-studio-695608

 

Yes, that's becoming a standard deal: they get SAG minimum and very few frills, but then get X percent of the real gross from the first week on. It's a gamble, because if the movie flops, the actor gets zip. Tom Cruise has done this on a few of his films, working for relatively little money in exchange for a big piece of the pie.

On the other hand, Jonah Hill agreed to work in The Wolf of Wall Street because he was excited by the part and excited at the chance to work with Martin Scorsese, so he agreed to do it for $60,000 (also SAG minimum). But I think he gambled that he'd get an Oscar nomination and lots and lots of serious work from this role, which appears to be happening. He got no percentage from the film.

 

I worked on a feature film that IMDb says was 75,000,000. In fact it was 15,000,000. Major flop if you believe what you read. The producers made money even though the movie did not. You just can't get the truth about these things. When profit sharing is involved no movie has ever made money. And yet they keep making them. Bottom line. If a movie gets a sequel and allegedly didn't really make money the books are cooked. Let's not forget that a good portion of these budgets are being payed directly to the folks making the movies. When a studio rents it's own stages, equipment and work force to it's own production and includes that in the budget do you really think the movie lost money when it loses money on paper? Think about it. Where does the money actually go when a movie costs X amount of dollars?

 

Wow, that's an incredible difference! I've worked on a few where they claimed the budget was $250,000 or even $500,000, but the reality is it was more like $150,000 (at most).

What I think is true is that there's often a lot of weirdness with movie budgets, and getting hold of the actual line-item budget is nearly impossible. I do agree that the major studios charge very, very high overhead to production companies, and that includes simple stuff like soundstage rental and office space.

I've only been in a position to see actual line-item budgets a few times, but when I have I've always been surprised by how certain people make ridiculously high money, while others are paid far less than I expected. This is particularly true in television; I can recall a situation where the two main stars were making $65,000 a week, but one of the major supporting players was only making $5000 a week, and most of the other actors were making $12K-$15K. The latter person eventually found out about the discrepancy, hit the roof, and was replaced on the subsequent seasons.

 

Transcendence is dead on arrival, it might not break $15 million over the weekend. They are predicting it will come in 4th place behind Captain America, Rio 2 and the faith-based film Heaven Is For Real.

 

Vidiot called this one. Three for three box office bombs for previous Wonder Worker Depp....
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-johnny-depps-transcendence-697648
Box Office: No Easter Resurrection for Johnny Depp's 'Transcendence'

Sci-fi epic Transcendence is bombing in its Easter weekend debut, marking another major box office disappointment for Johnny Depp after The Lone Ranger and Dark Shadows. The $100 million movie is even losing to Heaven Is For Real, the latest faith-based title to prosper at the box office.

Transcendence, coming in No. 4 on Good Friday with an opening-day gross of $4.8 million from 3,455 theaters, may have trouble crossing $13 million for the weekend after receiving scathing reviews and a dismal C+ CinemaScore. Transcendenceintends to make up ground overseas, where it is getting a coveted day-and-date release in China.....

 

Johnny Depp's box-office appeal always seemed to be fool's gold for me. He wasn't a moneymaker until the first Pirates movie, and he gained box office clout b/c people somehow kept paying to see the sequels despite their dubious quality. I think most people went for the franchise and the Jack Sparrow character, not specifically for Depp. Or maybe it was for Depp as Jack Sparrow. Same goes for Alice in Wonderland, in which even some within Disney marketing thought it wouldn't do well. Outside of these franchises his movies have faired from average to bomb. Rango being an exception, though I'm not sure if his voice really carried that movie.

 

I think Depp is a very talented guy, but he's chosen some very bad projects lately. Three bombs in a row is bad. Don't forget, he and producer Jerry Bruckheimer famously said that Lone Ranger bombed only because the critics slammed the film's high budget. I suspect he's gonna make a new Pirates movie very quickly.

I'll go on record right now as predicting that Tom Cruise's new movie Edge of Tomorrow will not do well. I bet it could break even, but no way will it be a hit. I'm very skeptical of Jupiter Ascending, too (though I liked Cloud Atlas). A Million Ways to Die in the West could go either way, but I'd lean towards success. I want Jersey Boys to succeed, but I think it's going to tank because the timing is bad for it. And I think the Adam Sandler romantic comedy Blended will tank. I think Spiderman will blow the roof off theaters and will be the biggest film of the year, neck-and-neck with Captain America. And I think 22 Jump Street will not do well, but it won't be a total bomb.

I'm not sure about the new X-Men Days of Future Past movie, but I hope audiences ignore Bryan Singer's scandals and judge the film for what it is -- and I'm hoping it does well. I suspect it won't do as good as hoped. I was initially skeptical about the new How to Train Your Dragon sequel, but the first one surprised me and I think this could do great just based on timing (no big cartoons several weeks before or after this one).

I'm still skeptical that Godzilla's got legs. And I don't think Maleficent will do well. I hope Planes 2 crashes and burns, because it's a stupid idea for a movie. (But it was very cheap to produce, so it won't have to make a lot of money to do well.) Michael Bay has two films out this year -- Transformers 18 (or whatever it is) and the reboot of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and I don't give a crap about either. They're just too mind-numbingly stupid for me. I like Mark Wahlberg and think he's done some really good things as an actor, but the movie looks like too much "been there/done that" to me. Do we need more giant robots? And I don't see a hit in Hercules. Didn't we already have an ancient Rome movie melt down earlier this year? And the 300 sequel already kind of satiated that audience.

 

I am going to predict Godzilla is the hit of the year. Granted I am a Godzilla fan but I base this prediction on how the studio is marketing this movie and this..

http://news.tokunation.com/2014/02/28/godzilla-2014-test-footage-reactions-across-web-15803

"During a special screening today in London, director Gareth Edwards presented roughly 20 minutes of footage from the upcoming “Godzilla” film. The few critics lucky enough to see this footage have given near-universal appraisal, suggesting a very promising return for the King of the Monsters!"

Studios don't do this kind of advance screening if the movie hasn't already tested through the roof.