Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2018

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Dec 17, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scott222C

    Scott222C Loner, Rebel & Family Man

    Location:
    here
    Terrible, terrible movie IMO. I didn't like the books, stopped in the middle of book 2 (hung in there too long as I thought that something worthwhile would happen) and threw them in the trash. Watched the movie out of interest how they visualized those crazy elements in the books and was even more disgusted with the movie.
     
  2. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    Wow, I really, really liked ANNIHILATION and have been recommending it to everyone. Thought it was the best science fiction film I'd seen since NEVER LET ME GO. It isn't often I'm left contemplating a film days after viewing.

    Thought it was much better than the good-not-great BLADE RUNNER 2049, whose box office failure stymied the studio push for ANNIHILATION.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    turnersmemo and Mr. Grieves like this.
  3. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    I lived Blade Runner a lot more, but agree with everything else.

    I loved the movie and all the performances, especially Natalie's, were great. Saw it with a friend in an empty theater, and we spent the whole drive back discussing what we thought the ending meant. I understand why not everyone would like it, most people don't like a lot of ambiguity in their films, but I enjoyed it
     
    DPM likes this.
  4. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    I liked how carefully written ANNIHILATION was, as motifs and themes -- cancer, refraction, self-destruction, etc -- were re-asserted throughout the movie, without pummeling the viewer over the head with mere repetition and ham-handed exposition. You don't see this level of carefully wrought thematic detail in many movies. Visually, yes -- Hollywood's great at visuals! -- but larger themes are not often organically woven into the story as they are in ANNIHILATION.
     
    DPM, turnersmemo and Mr. Grieves like this.
  5. Mr. Grieves

    Mr. Grieves Forum Resident

    I think it's the type of film that would benefit from multiple viewings. I also really liked Ex Machina as well.
     
  6. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    I don't get the point of this article. They're saying that because BP is such a commercial hit, over an extended period of time, that other movies suffered as a result? Well duh! I fail to see how this is 'Hollywood's Worst Nightmare'.
     
  7. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I posted this elsewhere, but if "BP" dominated the box office, that's more a sign that people simply weren't interested in the other films.

    If people wanted to see "Wrinkle in Time" or "Tomb Raider", they'd see them - it seems like scapegoating to imply they would've been smash hits if "BP" didn't "steal" their ticket sales...
     
    Jim B., Deuce66 and Stormrider77 like this.
  8. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    Kind of interesting

    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.

    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.
    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:

    "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.by Charlie Jane Anders
     
  9. Mirrorblade.1

    Mirrorblade.1 Forum Resident

    With Black Panther sure made over billion but look all people who work for Disney and marvel..
    It's called paying the employees there wages and stock holders a 120 percent raise ..
     
  10. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    The thesis so to speak of the article is pretty clear, whether one agrees with it or not. It seems to be suggesting that "Black Panther" is essentially *poaching* potential ticket sales from other "major/blockbuster" type films, and is doing so disproportionately more compared to other very successful movies.

    The question is, to what degree can this be measured? I'm not sure, so it's difficult to really assert that article's point too much.

    But what the article posits is certainly quite possible (if not probable) in theory. That is, "Black Panther", in week after week at the top of the charts, is selling tickets to people who *would have* bought tickets to some other relatively big-budget film ("A Wrinkle In Time", etc.). As in, some people, especially when we're getting into five weeks in a row at #1, simply want to go see "a movie", and had "Black Panther" not been there, they would have seen "A Wrinkle in Time" or "Tomb Raider", or whatever, instead. I think there is something to the idea that when a movie starts hitting over a month at #1, they're getting less of the enthusiastic ticket buyer who is setting out specifically to see "Black Panther", and they're getting more of a "meh, let's go see a movie" proportion. And *those* people would have maybe seen some other movie rather than simply stayed home.

    But again, it's nearly impossible to measure this effect, to say that in a similar scenario at some other point in time, people wouldn't have been continually eschewing Movie #2 for "Black Panther."
     
  11. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I get the article's thesis - I just don't agree with it. I don't agree that people are skipping "Wrinkle" or "Tomb Raider" because of it - I think they're seeing "BP" because they're not interested in those other movies.

    People don't simply flock to theaters as a reflex, so I don't accept that if "BP" didn't exist, they would've gone to the other movies instead...
     
    Jim B. likes this.
  12. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    balzac said:
    The thesis so to speak of the article is pretty clear, whether one agrees with it or not. It seems to be suggesting that "Black Panther" is essentially *poaching* potential ticket sales from other "major/blockbuster" type films, and is doing so disproportionately more compared to other very successful movies.

    Hate to ask but if it wasn't a mostly black cast would they still say that?
     
  13. Jim B.

    Jim B. Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    I've seen respected reviews of both Wrinkle in Time and Tomb Raider which said both are pretty average if not poor films.

    I just don't get this slagging off of BP either - I suspect some people may have another more sinister agenda here? Everyone should be celebrating a film with a cast like this doing well, not just the ethnic make-up but three of the strongest female characters I have seen in a film like this. I think it does more for female empowerment than Wonder Woman tbh.

    Anyway, rare in the US to attack something for being too good?
     
    Robert C likes this.
  14. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    In this particular case I think it's the juggernaut, blow-out performance of the movie, staying at #1 for five weeks (which is very rare these days) that is prompting observers and pundits to look at why it continues to perform well and some other films are excessively underperforming.

    I think it's painfully obvious that the excellent reviews of BP and its competing films not being that great is the main reason BP has done so well. Highly-rated, high quality film up against little competition, and then more, but sub-par competition.

    What's potentially interesting, though, is the possibility that, perhaps due to having such a juggernaut out while other middling "that *might* be worth seeing" type movies are out, BP might be actively drawing people away from those movies. But as I said, this is virtually immeasurable. The best you could do to try to prove such a thesis is to find other groupings of films that performed *very* similarly. You'd have to find similarly-budgeted films, which all performed in the same fashion, all at the same time. This would be very hard to do, and still wouldn't account for all of the qualitative things that make BP or any film different than another film, even if that other film had an identical budget and brought in an identical amount of money.
     
  15. balzac

    balzac Senior Member

    I would disagree with this to some degree. I think people *do* go to the movies sometimes just to "go to the movies." It's not literally a reflex; it takes some level of intent. But, some people just every few weeks, or once per month, just want to go to the movies. I've seen people in line still deciding which movie to see.

    So, when a film like BP is #1 for a very extended period of time, it's more likely to still be "hot" while these casual, once-per-month moviegoers wander into the theater.

    So if you have a once-per-month, not particularly discerning moviegoer, BP being so hot for 5-6 weeks means it's more likely they're going to see it. It's still playing on a lot of screens; there are more showtimes, etc.

    Whereas, many other more front-loaded films (pretty much all of them, but an extreme that would be comparable in terms of box office take would be "The Last Jedi") are low-key five weeks later and are less likely to pull people away from the other big-budget films they can choose from.

    It's a different dynamic than just a straight head-to-head, first week competition between two movies.

    But, having said all of that, one could also argue that even if all of this supposition is true, it still boils down to BP being #1 for five weeks and still "hot" due to the film being good, thus people seeing it instead of some other film due to the ubiquitous nature of BP are still doing it ultimately because of the high quality of BP.
     
  16. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, I do agree that some times people go to movies just "to go" - because they're on dates, because it's cold and there's nothing else to do, etc.

    I still think that "Wrinkle" and "Tomb Raider" sputtered financially because people didn't want to see them.

    Would they have made a little more money without the competition of "BP"? Maybe. Would it have been a substantial amount? I doubt it.

    The market can handle more than one blockbuster at a time!
     
    sunspot42 and Stormrider77 like this.
  17. neo123

    neo123 Senior Member

    Location:
    Northern Kentucky
    Black Panther is a good movie, plain and simple, that has gotten good reviews from critics and fans alike. People who don't normally go to movies hear about it and want to see it too, not to mention repeated business from people who've probably seen it 5 or more times. I've seen it a couple times already and actually enjoyed it more the 2nd time.

    I also wonder how much repeated business they are getting compared to other blockbusters in the past. Also, I wonder what percentage of any repeated business is from the black demographic compared to other demographics. Is that repeated business from the black demographic higher than say other blockbusters in the past with known repeated business, such as Star Wars, Avengers, etc. And, I wonder what percentage of the black demographic who saw the movie repeated times go to the movies on a consistent basis. If Black Panther didn't exist, what percentage of the black demographic would still be sitting home compared to them seeing another movie?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    Stormrider77 likes this.
  18. Jim B.

    Jim B. Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    Yes you are right. And if you look back previously in the year there were weeks when the number one film was just barely making $20m at the US box office. So in no way can people say Wrinkle or TR would have hit higher without BP, it's not like a constant number of people are going to the cinema each week, if the film is poor people won't go. It's expensive these days. And there are other weeks when you have two films both doing huge numbers.

    No film is guaranteed success you have to earn it, and those others haven't earned it. It sounds like a rather pathetic attempt by whoever was in charge of those films to find an excuse for them losing lots of money.
     
    Oatsdad and Stormrider77 like this.
  19. 4xoddic

    4xoddic Forum Resident

    In the day, there were "road shows"

    Fashioned after Broadway musicals, road shows featured reserved seats, two showings a day, and an intermission, making the film seem more of an event than a general-release picture, which opens in more than one theater per city, shows several times a day, and is more moderately priced. Phased out with 1970s inflation. . . . Google books

    Wichita's Boulevard Theater is said to have opened on May 17, 1945. Part of the Boulevard Shopping Center, the theater had one screen and 972 seats.

    Fox Theaters booked shows in Wichita according to the anticipated tickets sales & estimated run. The Miller Theater had 2,000 seats, "the most spectacular theater Kansas had ever had." Midnight Cowboy showed for weeks @ The Miller, when I worked there, 1969. Woodstock played for weeks @ the Boulevard, when I worked there, 1970. Both shows sold out every Friday & Saturday night. But twice as many saw a movie at the larger theater than the smaller.

    Movies in Wichita were shown @ only one theater at a time; with Fox bidding against Commonwealth.

    Knowing a movie might run twice as long @ the Boulevard, => lower % paid to distributor as the weeks went by => greater profit IF the same # of tickets were sold in total, vs a short run @ Miller.

    Our newly opened, Dec. 2016, Carmike Town Center 13 => AMC Dine-In Manhattan 13, appears to have a max seating capacity of 111 seats in each of the 13 auditoriums, & is showing only 6 movies; some 3D, IMAX. No other theater chain in town for competition. Unless a movie is showing @ > 1 auditorium, it will take 9 days = Boulevard's one screening capacity; 18 days = Miller's, or 36 days = 2 sold out screening of Midnight Cowboy on a Friday night; 72 days = + Sat night.

    So, it's not surprising to me that the wife's meet up group's venture to dine elsewhere & see Black Panther (2/16/18) last Tuesday night => sold out, let's see Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (12/20/17).
     
  20. 4xoddic

    4xoddic Forum Resident

    my error in higher math; 2 showings/day, 111 seats, would cut those # of days by 1/2
     
  21. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Senior Member

    Location:
    Sheboygan, WI
    No movies on the horizon I want to see until Island of Dogs and Soldado (the 2nd trailer seems to affirm it might match Sicario for intensity, quite an accomplishment). Maybe something interesting will show up before that. I have this sense that most movies are becoming interchangable amorphous blogs of CG laden narrative construction, heavily reliant on 'myth' or 'magic' with nothing ever really at stake.

    haha, not that anyone will miss me at the theater!
     
  22. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Pacific Rim 2.
    Not a single good as the first one.
     
  23. drmark7

    drmark7 Forum Resident

    I will give you a true story based on this involving several movies mentioned here.

    I *really* had been wanting to see ANNIHILATION. My local Cinemark made this relatively difficult. They seemed to change the show times from day to day. And they showed it for just 2 weeks. Our Cinemark has a Tuesday "All seats $5." So I called their phone number to get the time on Monday to plan ahead. That Monday, they had a 5:20pm show. When I got there on Tuesday, they had changed the showtimes. Well... I was all dressed up and no place else to go. And really charged up to see a movie. The only film I had the slightest other interest in seeing was BLACK PANTHER... and that was just to see what the hype was all about. So I had to pay an extra couple of dollars to see a 3-D showing at the time I had available. So there you go. I'm sure many end up seeing various movies by this series of events. I felt BLACK PANTHER was just so-so. Felt like I was switching channels between a sci-fi movie, an African American music video with all the pretty colors, and a James Bond wannabe movie. Checked on the way out. ANNIHILATION was ending that Thursday at the end of it's second week. So I then cancelled another commitment on that Thursday at dinnertime... to see the LAST showing of ANNIHILATION. And I really liked ANNIHILATION. Well worth the effort. But yes, I was one who ended up seeing BLACK PANTHER for just those reasons discussed here.
     
  24. Jim B.

    Jim B. Senior Member

    Location:
    UK
    I think that's very rare, especially here in the UK.

    Why can't people just acknowledge BP has done well because it's good instead of making up lame reasons why people saw it by accident?
     
    sunspot42 and Stormrider77 like this.
  25. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    No, you didn't. The article claims "BP" essentially bogarted tickets that would've gone to other "big ticket" films if "BP" wasn't on screens - ie, people love it so much that went to see it instead of the other potentially popular movies.

    These people had ample opportunity to see "Wrinkle" or "Raider" - they simply chose to see "BP" instead.

    On the other hand, you saw "BP" because of theater incompetence. You didn't plan to see it - you just attended a screening because you were there and the movie you wanted to see wasn't playing.

    You could've seen "Wrinkle" or "Raider" - you chose "BP".

    You had an extremely unusual circumstance. I'm pretty sure the total # of "BP" tickets sold to customers who really wanted to see "Annihilation" instead = 1! :laugh:
     
    Stormrider77, sunspot42 and Jim B. like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine