Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2017

Regarding Sony's announcement, I'm curious if they count digital sales (both sales and rentals) and streaming as part of their "Home Entertainment" business. Their statement doesn't specify physical software sales.

As it is, the post-theatrical revenue stream for movie is HUGE. A lot of people still do DVD and Blu-ray, and a ton of people (inexplicably) *buy* $20 digital copies as well as rent digital copies. The studios also of course make money offering content for subscription streaming.

Either way, their excuse sounds pretty lame. If they're talking about *all* post-theatrical "home" viewing, then they're full of it. And if they're only talking about physical media, then it certainly wouldn't have taken experts to tell them physical sales and rentals are on the decline.

 

And what's really scary is that Alec Baldwin's character is very realistic, and it does happen! Somebody really did their homework. I sure appreciate being self employed, especially when I see that part of the film. Alec is really a fantastic actor. I've come to really appreciate him over the past few years.

 

My take is, most of them are 30-30 years old and have no concept of films made before 1980. Anything from the 1960s and 1970s is "old," and anything from the 1940s and 1950s is "prehistoric." To them, there's zero market for that stuff. They're mostly concerned with what's coming out now, and maybe over the last 5-6 years. Anything before that does not matter... which is sad.

 

Thing is, they may be right...how big is the market for this stuff? (I'd be interested regardless of course)

BTW, didn't Warner offer some sort of thing where you could buy dvds on demand awhile back? I think they might have been DVDRs rather than pressed discs.

 

Yes, the Home Entertainment division includes streaming, downloads, Sony's own cable channels, and physical media. Everything is down.

 

I liked the film, and have only worked one week in sales - which was nothing like what's in the movie.

 

one word screaming thru my head when I watch this....

 

A surprising three bombs this week, including The Space Between Us (which made a paltry $13M) and Robert DeNiro's The Comedian (which had a disastrous $1.1M, low even for a small-budgeted indie). The big surprise was the horror film Rings, the sequel to The Ring movies, which disappointed with around $13M; according to the trades:

...at a $25M production cost, and reported high $20M to low $30M stateside P&A, Rings would have had to debut to $20M to be considered a theatrical success.

The M. Night Shyamalan movie Split surprised a lot of people by being #1 three weeks in a row. That's a pretty big comeback for a guy who's made quite a few bombs in recent years.

‘Split’ Dings ‘Rings’; Auds Keep Distance From ‘Space’; ‘Comedian’ Bombs: Sunday Update

 

Is it really surprising when the reviews for all three were horrid?

The Space Between: 18% critics - 67% fans
The Comedian: 25% - 32% fans
Rings: 5% !!! - 40% fans

The industry i.e.: Hollywood still appears to be arrogant enough to think that they can pump out anything and people will flock to see it, it doesn't work that way anymore, I'm glad when garbage fails it forces everyone to step up their game unless this is the type of result(s) they want.

 

Hollywood still appears to be arrogant enough is all you have to say because it says it all!

 

Oh, I dunno. I can think of some horrifically-reviewed films (particularly from Adam Sandler or Michael Bay) that went on to make many, many millions of dollars.

 

I agree with the sentiment, but the flip side is worse - when garbage succeeds, it perpetuates mediocrity. Oh well...

 

I don't think the performance of "Rings" was particularly surprising. It apparently was bumped on the schedule numerous times. It was shot in 2015 with a projected late 2015 release date, then postponed, rescheduled, then some reshoots, another couple of reschedulings, and then finally one of the tell-tale signs that they know it's going to bomb: a review embargo that wasn't lifted until the day of the film's release, Friday.

It looks like it pulled in almost exactly what Box Office Mojo predicted. I'm surprised the film pulled in even $13 million with only a *5%* rotten tomatoes score, and coming out with another popular horror film to compete with.

It *does* look like "The Space Between Us" did actually underperform even compared to the really low expectations/predictions.

But on a lot of these movies, you can see mediocre or "bomb" level box office coming from a mile away, and there's a point at which you just have to know it's going to do poorly and keep in mind that it's not like the studio is just going to cancel the movie and move it straight to VOD/home video. Even $15-$20 million at the box office is better than nothing, especially on a relatively lower budgeted film like "Rings."

Much like last year's "Blair Witch", I think "Rings" is just a decade or so too late. I can see how the rights holders to those franchises are probably frustrated; cheapie horror with superficially "higher" concepts are quite popular these days. You'd think things of the ilk of "Blair Witch" and "The Ring" would do well. It seemed like "Rings" was trying very hard (obviously) to play off the success of the original, but it's another case of "who was still asking for a sequel 12 years later?". I had seen "The Ring" before hearing about "Rings" (hadn't seen "The Ring Two"), but I couldn't even remember that much about it. (As an aside, I watched "The Ring", the first American remake with Naomi Watts, on the out-of-print Blu-ray last night, and it was relatively enjoyable. I have the first two "Ringu" Japanese films on DVD as well, but I've never watched them because, at least with the first one, the American version is a pretty tightly-conforming remake).

 

You'd be amazed how often they don't get that a film is going to bomb, at least in the script phase or in the production phase. They usually know by the time it's finished and actually screens before an audience (even an industry audience), but there have been some surprises.

Ghostbusters was only the most recent example of a studio that pinned major hopes on a big-budget movie opening up a whole new franchise of sequels, toys, TV shows, and so on. Disney did three huge flops -- Lone Ranger, John Carter, and Tomorrowland -- and let's not forget Warner Bros.' Cowboys and Aliens, which I thought was gonna be a "can't miss." It's easy to be an arm chair critic and predict how a film is going to do once you see the trailer, but before the film is made, ya never know.

Note that studios can't always just abruptly cancel the theatrical release and go straight to home video/VOD because of contracts. They often make deals with theater chains that guarantee they're going to ship a film and it'll be in theaters for X number of weeks, and they do that months and months in advance. What baffles me is, once a movie bombs in theaters, why the home video release schedule doesn't get shorter and they just put it out in 90 days vs. 6 months. It's already long out of theaters 3 months later, so it's not like the theater chains will complain.

I once worked on a minor bomb, the Paramount/John Travolta film The Experts, and as I started to work on the home video version, headlines hit all the trades wondering about the rumors that the film was so bad, Paramount was scuttling the theatrical release and they were going to go direct to video (which was a huge comedown for Travolta, who was one of the biggest stars of the world in the 1970s and 1980s). Travolta's agent was interviewed and denied it completely, saying it was definitely going to theaters, but the Paramount exec I worked with said, "it'll be in about 10 theaters to fulfill the contract, but that's all." And it was a pretty bad movie, though it had about 10 solid minutes of actual laughs.

 

Aren't most movies released on home video in 90 days already? (eg "Arrival" - 11/11/2016 theatrical, 02/14/2017 Blu ray)

 

Depends on the studio. Rogue One's theatrical release was December 16th, but it's reportedly not going to be issued on home video until April 28th, which is more than four months. Ghostbusters was released to theaters on July 11th but was rushed out on home video on September 27th, -- a very short turnaround. But Jason Bourne hit theaters on July 29th, but only made it to home video on December 6th... roughly five months.

 

I didn't even know there was a new "Ring" movie coming out till I saw a commercial on TV that said it was "Now playing!"

 

I don't think I knew until it got slated in the local paper.

 

The critical buzz for John Wick 2 and The Lego Batman movie is extremely positive, will it translate to $$$$$. The first John Wick grossed $86 million worldwide and based on it's well earned reputation I think the new one will at least double that number.

 

It seems like in the last year H-wood has become even more condescending and narcissistic. Which is o.k. to a point because I recognize that ego drives talent. But they're failing to deliver decent movies on a quasi semi-regular basis. Is one good movie a month too much to ask?

 

Yeah unfortunately, folks now have a limited spam of attention.

Alien:Coveant will do well
Logan, despite the R rating, will do really really well.
Life feels like "Alien" on a space station. I think this will do so so.
The new Pirates movie will do ok but I think it's running out of steam.
Unfortunately, the latest Transformers movie will probably take it in. Too bad.
Power Rangers will tank.
Baywatch will tank.
John Wick II will break even.
Spider-Man: Homecoming will be a huge blockbuster.
Star Wars- The Last Jedi will tank
The Dark Tower will do well but whether or not it has legs will depend on reviews and audiences taking to the film version of King's novel(s).
King:Skull Island will tank.
Blade Runner 2049 will do well but I don't think it will be a huge blockbuster.
Kidding. Hopefully it won't be a remake of another Star Wars movie.

I have no interest in 50 Shades Darker

That's my thoughts for now.

 

Really liked that flick. It's been years though. Great dance sequence with Kelly Preston, iirc

 

How do you define "tank" in this case?

No way the movie makes less than $400 million in the US. It could be 2 hours of Luke and Rey at Chuck E. Cheese and it'd still make money!

 

I'll stake my life that you're wrong. Here's my bet: after the movie makes a billion dollars worldwide, you have to pay me a matching payment of every dollar it goes over one billion. If it goes under a billion dollars, I'll match every dollar under that amount and pay it to you. Do we have a deal?

Note that I'm not saying it'll be a good movie -- I think it'll be financially successful.

I agree with you on all of these.

I think both will do similar money: good, but not great. I'd see them making $350M-$400M worldwide. Not huge hits, not flops by any means, but OK. They'll make a small profit.

 

His sentence "Kidding. Hopefully it won't be a remake of another Star Wars movie" got moved to the end of his post somehow... Wayne's posts tend to be mangled in one way or another but usually the words stay in the right spot!