+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112816
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Poll

A Wrinkle in Time ranks...

Great (9-10)
0 (0%)
Good (7-8)
1 (50%)
Average (4-6)
1 (50%)
Poor (2-3)
0 (0%)
Anus of Cinema (0-1)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 2

Author Topic: A Wrinkle in Time  (Read 483 times)

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2018, 05:23:09 am »
I think they'll be in the clear if this hits $250M-$300M worldwide.

Not even close.  That would equal about a $75-$100 mil loss.

Here's a spreadsheet of The Jungle Book's total costs/revenue:

Spoiler (hover to show)

You're not accounting for all of the extra revenue that the studio will make from other sources that aren't just theatrical exhibition.  Look at how much The Jungle Book is estimated to make from home entertainment sales.  In addition to this, it'll also make a lot from TV showings.  A Wrinkle in Time should have smaller numbers than this, but it's highly likely that they make enough to account for the $75M or so that they lost only in theaters.

Jungle Book and Wrinkle In Time are two totally different animals.  Jungle Book was a reimagination of one of the most popular animated films of all time.  It made almost $1 billion worldwide - so yeah, they are gonna recoup WAY more from DVD/Blu Ray as well as TV.  If Wrinkle In Time bombs to about $300 mil ww, it's gonna made WAY less in those avenues because clearly the interest isn't there.  Furthermore, Jungle Book, being based on a children's animated film, had the built in sales by parents (who saw the animated version when they were kids) who bought that movie for their kids.  Wrinkle In Time won't have that either.

A more apt comparison would be Tomorrowland - an equally reviewed film that made roughly as much as Wrinkle In Time is projected to make.  Here are the Home Entertainment numbers for Tomorrowland.

Home Market Performance
Est. Domestic DVD Sales   $6,130,252   Details
Est. Domestic Blu-ray Sales   $5,440,670   Details
Total Est. Domestic Video Sales   $11,570,922   



Youíre only accounting for DVD/Blu-Ray sales up to that point instead of what itís estimated to make in the long run while ignoring the other money itíll make from On Demand, digital services, TV airings, merchandise, etc.  Where exactly did you get those sales from btw?
Goodbye!

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2018, 10:06:54 am »
I think they'll be in the clear if this hits $250M-$300M worldwide.

Not even close.  That would equal about a $75-$100 mil loss.

Here's a spreadsheet of The Jungle Book's total costs/revenue:

Spoiler (hover to show)

You're not accounting for all of the extra revenue that the studio will make from other sources that aren't just theatrical exhibition.  Look at how much The Jungle Book is estimated to make from home entertainment sales.  In addition to this, it'll also make a lot from TV showings.  A Wrinkle in Time should have smaller numbers than this, but it's highly likely that they make enough to account for the $75M or so that they lost only in theaters.

Jungle Book and Wrinkle In Time are two totally different animals.  Jungle Book was a reimagination of one of the most popular animated films of all time.  It made almost $1 billion worldwide - so yeah, they are gonna recoup WAY more from DVD/Blu Ray as well as TV.  If Wrinkle In Time bombs to about $300 mil ww, it's gonna made WAY less in those avenues because clearly the interest isn't there.  Furthermore, Jungle Book, being based on a children's animated film, had the built in sales by parents (who saw the animated version when they were kids) who bought that movie for their kids.  Wrinkle In Time won't have that either.

A more apt comparison would be Tomorrowland - an equally reviewed film that made roughly as much as Wrinkle In Time is projected to make.  Here are the Home Entertainment numbers for Tomorrowland.

Home Market Performance
Est. Domestic DVD Sales   $6,130,252   Details
Est. Domestic Blu-ray Sales   $5,440,670   Details
Total Est. Domestic Video Sales   $11,570,922   



Youíre only accounting for DVD/Blu-Ray sales up to that point instead of what itís estimated to make in the long run while ignoring the other money itíll make from On Demand, digital services, TV airings, merchandise, etc.  Where exactly did you get those sales from btw?

No - the numbers are as of now - I assure you that Tomorrowland DVDs are not flying off the shelves at this point.  Merchandise?  For Tomorrowland?  Come on Moody - you are acting like all movies are the same - Tomorrowland didn't exactly have a ton of merchandise like Ghostbusters or Star Wars.  And here is the site I use for quick reference on this stuff.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Tomorrowland#tab=video-sales

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2018, 04:24:41 pm »
I think they'll be in the clear if this hits $250M-$300M worldwide.

Not even close.  That would equal about a $75-$100 mil loss.

Here's a spreadsheet of The Jungle Book's total costs/revenue:

Spoiler (hover to show)

You're not accounting for all of the extra revenue that the studio will make from other sources that aren't just theatrical exhibition.  Look at how much The Jungle Book is estimated to make from home entertainment sales.  In addition to this, it'll also make a lot from TV showings.  A Wrinkle in Time should have smaller numbers than this, but it's highly likely that they make enough to account for the $75M or so that they lost only in theaters.

Jungle Book and Wrinkle In Time are two totally different animals.  Jungle Book was a reimagination of one of the most popular animated films of all time.  It made almost $1 billion worldwide - so yeah, they are gonna recoup WAY more from DVD/Blu Ray as well as TV.  If Wrinkle In Time bombs to about $300 mil ww, it's gonna made WAY less in those avenues because clearly the interest isn't there.  Furthermore, Jungle Book, being based on a children's animated film, had the built in sales by parents (who saw the animated version when they were kids) who bought that movie for their kids.  Wrinkle In Time won't have that either.

A more apt comparison would be Tomorrowland - an equally reviewed film that made roughly as much as Wrinkle In Time is projected to make.  Here are the Home Entertainment numbers for Tomorrowland.

Home Market Performance
Est. Domestic DVD Sales   $6,130,252   Details
Est. Domestic Blu-ray Sales   $5,440,670   Details
Total Est. Domestic Video Sales   $11,570,922   



Youíre only accounting for DVD/Blu-Ray sales up to that point instead of what itís estimated to make in the long run while ignoring the other money itíll make from On Demand, digital services, TV airings, merchandise, etc.  Where exactly did you get those sales from btw?

No - the numbers are as of now - I assure you that Tomorrowland DVDs are not flying off the shelves at this point.  Merchandise?  For Tomorrowland?  Come on Moody - you are acting like all movies are the same - Tomorrowland didn't exactly have a ton of merchandise like Ghostbusters or Star Wars.  And here is the site I use for quick reference on this stuff.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Tomorrowland#tab=video-sales


I feel like you're completely misunderstanding my point.  My point is that DVD's/Blu-Ray's and theatrical revenue are not the only two ways to make money.  And I doubt that that's the total amount of DVD sales of Tomorrowland anyway.  They tracked the DVD sales for 5 weeks and the Blu-Ray sales for 4 weeks and that totaled to a little over $8M.  So you're telling me that, over a period of more than 2 years, Tomorrowland has only gained $3M despite gaining $8M over a 6 week period?  After all that time?  Yeah, I doubt that's accurate.  Not to mention that they don't track the money it's gained from digital rentals and TV airings.

Merchandise does indeed exist for Tomorrowland.  It's the same for most major studio release films actually.  I was referring to A Wrinkle in Time when I said that, since I think that's the film more likely to have higher merchandise sales, but my point still stands.  I don't think they'll be on the level of Ghostbusters or Star Wars at all, but it is indeed revenue that comes in to them.
Goodbye!

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2018, 09:13:50 pm »
I think they'll be in the clear if this hits $250M-$300M worldwide.

Not even close.  That would equal about a $75-$100 mil loss.

Here's a spreadsheet of The Jungle Book's total costs/revenue:

Spoiler (hover to show)

You're not accounting for all of the extra revenue that the studio will make from other sources that aren't just theatrical exhibition.  Look at how much The Jungle Book is estimated to make from home entertainment sales.  In addition to this, it'll also make a lot from TV showings.  A Wrinkle in Time should have smaller numbers than this, but it's highly likely that they make enough to account for the $75M or so that they lost only in theaters.

Jungle Book and Wrinkle In Time are two totally different animals.  Jungle Book was a reimagination of one of the most popular animated films of all time.  It made almost $1 billion worldwide - so yeah, they are gonna recoup WAY more from DVD/Blu Ray as well as TV.  If Wrinkle In Time bombs to about $300 mil ww, it's gonna made WAY less in those avenues because clearly the interest isn't there.  Furthermore, Jungle Book, being based on a children's animated film, had the built in sales by parents (who saw the animated version when they were kids) who bought that movie for their kids.  Wrinkle In Time won't have that either.

A more apt comparison would be Tomorrowland - an equally reviewed film that made roughly as much as Wrinkle In Time is projected to make.  Here are the Home Entertainment numbers for Tomorrowland.

Home Market Performance
Est. Domestic DVD Sales   $6,130,252   Details
Est. Domestic Blu-ray Sales   $5,440,670   Details
Total Est. Domestic Video Sales   $11,570,922   



Youíre only accounting for DVD/Blu-Ray sales up to that point instead of what itís estimated to make in the long run while ignoring the other money itíll make from On Demand, digital services, TV airings, merchandise, etc.  Where exactly did you get those sales from btw?

No - the numbers are as of now - I assure you that Tomorrowland DVDs are not flying off the shelves at this point.  Merchandise?  For Tomorrowland?  Come on Moody - you are acting like all movies are the same - Tomorrowland didn't exactly have a ton of merchandise like Ghostbusters or Star Wars.  And here is the site I use for quick reference on this stuff.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Tomorrowland#tab=video-sales


I feel like you're completely misunderstanding my point.  My point is that DVD's/Blu-Ray's and theatrical revenue are not the only two ways to make money.  And I doubt that that's the total amount of DVD sales of Tomorrowland anyway.  They tracked the DVD sales for 5 weeks and the Blu-Ray sales for 4 weeks and that totaled to a little over $8M.  So you're telling me that, over a period of more than 2 years, Tomorrowland has only gained $3M despite gaining $8M over a 6 week period?  After all that time?  Yeah, I doubt that's accurate.  Not to mention that they don't track the money it's gained from digital rentals and TV airings.

Merchandise does indeed exist for Tomorrowland.  It's the same for most major studio release films actually.  I was referring to A Wrinkle in Time when I said that, since I think that's the film more likely to have higher merchandise sales, but my point still stands.  I don't think they'll be on the level of Ghostbusters or Star Wars at all, but it is indeed revenue that comes in to them.

No Moody - they tracked it all the way through, they just posted the specific numbers for 5 weeks - but those totals don't add up to the full number - so they certainly added in the money trickling in for subsequent weeks.  Yes - I'm telling you that you are way overestimating Blu Ray/DVD sales for a movie that wasn't well received - the numbers are the numbers despite what you might want them to be.  Digital purchases and TV spots aren't gonna be big for a movie that nobody really wanted to watch. 

To say merchandise "is the same for most major studio release films" is an insane take.  I have not seen a single Tomorrowland shirt or hat or ANYTHING on a person.  Not a single one.  For you to say that movie will have the same merchandising as a Jurassic World or some other summer blockbuster that people want to see is crazy.  A Wrinkle In Time won't have much either - people aren't that interested.

You seem to think that pretty much all movies are generating profit as you overestimate everything from the cut they get from box office to merchandising, Blu Ray/DVD sales, etc.  Truth is, that's not the case at all - and that's the crap shoot studios engage in when they pour money into a seemingly shitty film like this.  No matter how many accounting gymnastics you or the studios want to do to put a happy face on this likely-to-be steaming pile of shit, if people don't go to see it and don't buy it, it's going to lose money.  I found an article that you might find helpful to explain more:  https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2018, 09:44:24 pm »
No Moody - they tracked it all the way through, they just posted the specific numbers for 5 weeks - but those totals don't add up to the full number - so they certainly added in the money trickling in for subsequent weeks.  Yes - I'm telling you that you are way overestimating Blu Ray/DVD sales for a movie that wasn't well received - the numbers are the numbers despite what you might want them to be.  Digital purchases and TV spots aren't gonna be big for a movie that nobody really wanted to watch.

To say merchandise "is the same for most major studio release films" is an insane take.  I have not seen a single Tomorrowland shirt or hat or ANYTHING on a person.  Not a single one.  For you to say that movie will have the same merchandising as a Jurassic World or some other summer blockbuster that people want to see is crazy.  A Wrinkle In Time won't have much either - people aren't that interested.

You seem to think that pretty much all movies are generating profit as you overestimate everything from the cut they get from box office to merchandising, Blu Ray/DVD sales, etc.  Truth is, that's not the case at all - and that's the crap shoot studios engage in when they pour money into a seemingly shitty film like this.  No matter how many accounting gymnastics you or the studios want to do to put a happy face on this likely-to-be steaming pile of ****, if people don't go to see it and don't buy it, it's going to lose money.  I found an article that you might find helpful to explain more:  https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

Exactly where does it say they tracked it all the way through?  They don't specify anywhere in their explanation that they tracked each week and adjusted accordingly after each week since 2015 all the way through 2018.  They even say where they get their source from, and said source doesn't track Tomorrowland all the way through.  If a film makes $8M over a six week period, then it makes zero sense for it to make only $3M over a nearly 2 and a half year period after having been on the market for so long.  Not quite sure why this site is being viewed as a highly reliable source to you, because it shouldn't be.  The fact of the matter is that home video sales aren't tracked as frequently as they once were, so it's hard to get data from anywhere that doesn't come from Deadline's tracking spreadsheet (which comes from inside sources, and they only show them for films that make the highest profit yearly anyway).  None of us know for sure how much Tomorrowland made on home video, but I can assure you it's far more than $11M.  I'm not arguing Tomorrowland made a profit, because it had a huge budget and probably ended up as a loss, but it's silly to think it made so little with home video and TV earnings accounted for.

I misworded myself.  What I meant to say was that any major studio release will have merchandise released with it.  How much money it makes is a different matter entirely, but it is, indeed, revenue that goes back to the studio.

That's not what I think at all, but you seem to think every film won't make a profit just because it's not a success in theaters.  You said that this film would take a loss of about $75M if it were to hit $300M worldwide, which clearly is not you accounting for the home video sales that the film will receive.  There's a reason that the standard 3x its budget rule exists for determining a film's profit: because it works most of the time.  I have a hard time believing that it won't make at least $75M from other forms of revenue.  Using another example, Central Intelligence, which made $127M domestic and $216M worldwide, is on track to make $136M earned on the home video market ($61M for combined Blu-Ray/DVD/digital sales, $45M for American TV rights, and $30M for foreign TV rights).  A Wrinkle in Time, according to early projections, is set to make about $44M-$45M opening weekend, which should put it on track for a $132M domestic finish at the worst, and a $158M domestic finish at best (depending on how strong word of mouth among the audience is).  Given that there's clearly far more interest in A Wrinkle in Time when we compare box office numbers, why shouldn't it be able to, at the least, match what Central Intelligence accomplished?  They're two different films, sure, but interest in A Wrinkle in Time appears to be greater than interest in Central Intelligence, so why shouldn't it be able to match that film's numbers at the least?
Goodbye!

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2018, 11:03:22 pm »
No Moody - they tracked it all the way through, they just posted the specific numbers for 5 weeks - but those totals don't add up to the full number - so they certainly added in the money trickling in for subsequent weeks.  Yes - I'm telling you that you are way overestimating Blu Ray/DVD sales for a movie that wasn't well received - the numbers are the numbers despite what you might want them to be.  Digital purchases and TV spots aren't gonna be big for a movie that nobody really wanted to watch.

To say merchandise "is the same for most major studio release films" is an insane take.  I have not seen a single Tomorrowland shirt or hat or ANYTHING on a person.  Not a single one.  For you to say that movie will have the same merchandising as a Jurassic World or some other summer blockbuster that people want to see is crazy.  A Wrinkle In Time won't have much either - people aren't that interested.

You seem to think that pretty much all movies are generating profit as you overestimate everything from the cut they get from box office to merchandising, Blu Ray/DVD sales, etc.  Truth is, that's not the case at all - and that's the crap shoot studios engage in when they pour money into a seemingly shitty film like this.  No matter how many accounting gymnastics you or the studios want to do to put a happy face on this likely-to-be steaming pile of ****, if people don't go to see it and don't buy it, it's going to lose money.  I found an article that you might find helpful to explain more:  https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

Exactly where does it say they tracked it all the way through?  They don't specify anywhere in their explanation that they tracked each week and adjusted accordingly after each week since 2015 all the way through 2018.  They even say where they get their source from, and said source doesn't track Tomorrowland all the way through.  If a film makes $8M over a six week period, then it makes zero sense for it to make only $3M over a nearly 2 and a half year period after having been on the market for so long.  Not quite sure why this site is being viewed as a highly reliable source to you, because it shouldn't be.  The fact of the matter is that home video sales aren't tracked as frequently as they once were, so it's hard to get data from anywhere that doesn't come from Deadline's tracking spreadsheet (which comes from inside sources, and they only show them for films that make the highest profit yearly anyway).  None of us know for sure how much Tomorrowland made on home video, but I can assure you it's far more than $11M.  I'm not arguing Tomorrowland made a profit, because it had a huge budget and probably ended up as a loss, but it's silly to think it made so little with home video and TV earnings accounted for.

I misworded myself.  What I meant to say was that any major studio release will have merchandise released with it.  How much money it makes is a different matter entirely, but it is, indeed, revenue that goes back to the studio.

That's not what I think at all, but you seem to think every film won't make a profit just because it's not a success in theaters.  You said that this film would take a loss of about $75M if it were to hit $300M worldwide, which clearly is not you accounting for the home video sales that the film will receive.  There's a reason that the standard 3x its budget rule exists for determining a film's profit: because it works most of the time.  I have a hard time believing that it won't make at least $75M from other forms of revenue.  Using another example, Central Intelligence, which made $127M domestic and $216M worldwide, is on track to make $136M earned on the home video market ($61M for combined Blu-Ray/DVD/digital sales, $45M for American TV rights, and $30M for foreign TV rights).  A Wrinkle in Time, according to early projections, is set to make about $44M-$45M opening weekend, which should put it on track for a $132M domestic finish at the worst, and a $158M domestic finish at best (depending on how strong word of mouth among the audience is).  Given that there's clearly far more interest in A Wrinkle in Time when we compare box office numbers, why shouldn't it be able to, at the least, match what Central Intelligence accomplished?  They're two different films, sure, but interest in A Wrinkle in Time appears to be greater than interest in Central Intelligence, so why shouldn't it be able to match that film's numbers at the least?

It makes perfect sense - movies like that make the majority of their home entertainment revenues in the first few weeks of release.  I don't know how to explain that to you because it's so incredibly obvious.  I feel very confident that $11 mil is the DVD/Blu Ray recoup from Tomorrowland. You basically saying the site that actually tracks the revenues just added $3 mil for shits and giggles.  Otherwise, where did that $3 mil extra come from?  You're saying it can't be just $11 mil, though the site that actually tracks the numbers seems to say that's exactly what happened. 

As far as merchandise - was their any merchandise from The Circle?  How about Rings?  Fact is, MOST films have little to no merchandise - essentially it's the tentpole films that recoup revenue from merchandise.  Again, I have no seen one stitch of merchandising from Tomorrowland - not one.  Have you?  If we aren't seeing them anywhere, they aren't being bought.  There's next to nothing on line for that movie from a merchandising standpoint.  Not sure why you think every movie has merchandise - it doesn't. 

You aren't taking into account the marketing/advertising aspect of A Wrinkle in Time vs Central Intelligence.  A Wrinkle in Time had a massive ad campaign littering the Olympics - which is NOT cheap at all.  Central Intelligence wasn't even close to this.  There is likely a $30-$40 mil different just in the marketing alone.  Again, this was a MASSIVE ad campaign close to the level of Feigbusters.  It cost them a ton to try and get people to the film.  Also, A Wrinkle In Time had a production cost DOUBLE of Central Intelligence.  So, tack on another $50 mil into their expenses.  Central Intelligence has The Rock, who believe it or not has shown the ability to generate interest (Jumaji 2, Furious films, etc).  So, it's not that shocking that their home entertainment revenue is relatively high - although I'd like to see where you got those numbers because I can't find them anywhere through a google search.

Did you even read the article I posted?  Or are we just gonna ignore good pieces of info pertinent to this discussion?

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2018, 11:42:15 pm »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

The One Who Lurks

  • Tyler Perry
  • **
  • Posts: 952
  • I'm still here. Lord knows why.
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2018, 11:47:03 pm »
I think they'll be in the clear if this hits $250M-$300M worldwide.

Not even close.  That would equal about a $75-$100 mil loss.

Here's a spreadsheet of The Jungle Book's total costs/revenue:

Spoiler (hover to show)

You're not accounting for all of the extra revenue that the studio will make from other sources that aren't just theatrical exhibition.  Look at how much The Jungle Book is estimated to make from home entertainment sales.  In addition to this, it'll also make a lot from TV showings.  A Wrinkle in Time should have smaller numbers than this, but it's highly likely that they make enough to account for the $75M or so that they lost only in theaters.

Jungle Book and Wrinkle In Time are two totally different animals.  Jungle Book was a reimagination of one of the most popular animated films of all time.  It made almost $1 billion worldwide - so yeah, they are gonna recoup WAY more from DVD/Blu Ray as well as TV.  If Wrinkle In Time bombs to about $300 mil ww, it's gonna made WAY less in those avenues because clearly the interest isn't there.  Furthermore, Jungle Book, being based on a children's animated film, had the built in sales by parents (who saw the animated version when they were kids) who bought that movie for their kids.  Wrinkle In Time won't have that either.

A more apt comparison would be Tomorrowland - an equally reviewed film that made roughly as much as Wrinkle In Time is projected to make.  Here are the Home Entertainment numbers for Tomorrowland.

Home Market Performance
Est. Domestic DVD Sales   $6,130,252   Details
Est. Domestic Blu-ray Sales   $5,440,670   Details
Total Est. Domestic Video Sales   $11,570,922   



Youíre only accounting for DVD/Blu-Ray sales up to that point instead of what itís estimated to make in the long run while ignoring the other money itíll make from On Demand, digital services, TV airings, merchandise, etc.  Where exactly did you get those sales from btw?

Believe it or not, merchandising revenue is supposed to recoup the costs of making the merchandise.

Not the movie.

The movie's revenue is supposed to recoup the costs of making the movie.

If the profits of the merchandising have to be used to make up for the financial losses of the film, that's bad.

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2018, 11:48:03 pm »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.

(by the way Dylan I'll respond to your post tomorrow, I'm tired right now)
Goodbye!

The One Who Lurks

  • Tyler Perry
  • **
  • Posts: 952
  • I'm still here. Lord knows why.
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2018, 11:53:25 pm »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.


Ah yes, I'm sure Tomorrowland's financial failings were totally assuaged by the sales of the licensed Tomorrowland pin stickers.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2018, 11:53:45 pm »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.

(by the way Dylan I'll respond to your post tomorrow, I'm tired right now)

So basically... pins?

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2018, 11:54:11 pm »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.

Ah yes, I'm sure Tommorland's financial failings were totally assuaged by the sales of the licensed Tomorrowland trousers and stickers.

Also, none of those clothes are in any way related to the movie.

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2018, 12:19:28 am »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.


Ah yes, I'm sure Tomorrowland's financial failings were totally assuaged by the sales of the licensed Tomorrowland pin stickers.

I'm not saying it's much revenue, but it's still revenue.  It's not even my main point, but I'm glad you guys are cherry picking this one part of my argument and running with it.
Goodbye!

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2018, 12:33:28 am »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.


Ah yes, I'm sure Tomorrowland's financial failings were totally assuaged by the sales of the licensed Tomorrowland pin stickers.

I'm not saying it's much revenue, but it's still revenue.  It's not even my main point, but I'm glad you guys are cherry picking this one part of my argument and running with it.

No, I totally get where you're coming from. I mean, if they could just get a little over 360,000 people to buy Tomorrowland pins, that'd account for almost .5% of the movie's production budget. That's not to be sniffed at!
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

The One Who Lurks

  • Tyler Perry
  • **
  • Posts: 952
  • I'm still here. Lord knows why.
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2018, 02:19:21 am »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.


Ah yes, I'm sure Tomorrowland's financial failings were totally assuaged by the sales of the licensed Tomorrowland pin stickers.

I'm not saying it's much revenue, but it's still revenue.

Revenue that goes to help pay off the cost of producing the merch, and generate profits for that particular firm.

Merch sales don't make up for a loss caused by a film.

Hell, even DVD/Blu-Ray sales can't do that for bigger-budgeted stuff.  Their sales can only go so far.  They can make a light box office success or a break-even more worthwhile (i.e. the Hellboy films), but a bonafide flop will always be a bonafide flop.

Tho Master Fie

  • God-King
  • Sam Raimi
  • **********
  • Posts: 5410
  • Fear comes in waves
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2018, 10:14:52 am »
The fact that Disney had to pay the Oscars to advertise this film for them is pretty pathetic.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2018, 11:04:46 am »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.


ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2018, 11:12:13 am »
I don't know what you're talking about, Dylan. Why, just the other day I went out and bought myself some awesome Tomorrowland merchandise.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tomorrowland&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig9p7J-eDZAhVDzlMKHWxtBq8Q_AUIDygA&biw=1600&bih=770

Remove the DVD's/Blu-Ray's, and that's the stuff I'm talking about.  It doesn't sell much, but it's still revenue generated.

(by the way Dylan I'll respond to your post tomorrow, I'm tired right now)

So basically... pins?

Actually, PIN - not plural.  The expensive one is a 1984 replica of the Disneyland/Disney World Tomorrowland land, not the movie.  Only the $2.75 one is from the movie.  Oh, and the $1 button - CAN'T forget that.  Furthermore, I've still yet to see a single person wear, own, display, or cram up their ass a single one of these pins and/or buttons along with any other piece of merchandise this movie offered. 

I mean, I suppose revenue is in fact revenue.  That $20.75 from merchandise will certainly take the pressure off the $100 million+ production budget (and likely $100 million+ ad campaign).

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4285
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2018, 12:07:06 pm »
No Moody - they tracked it all the way through, they just posted the specific numbers for 5 weeks - but those totals don't add up to the full number - so they certainly added in the money trickling in for subsequent weeks.  Yes - I'm telling you that you are way overestimating Blu Ray/DVD sales for a movie that wasn't well received - the numbers are the numbers despite what you might want them to be.  Digital purchases and TV spots aren't gonna be big for a movie that nobody really wanted to watch.

To say merchandise "is the same for most major studio release films" is an insane take.  I have not seen a single Tomorrowland shirt or hat or ANYTHING on a person.  Not a single one.  For you to say that movie will have the same merchandising as a Jurassic World or some other summer blockbuster that people want to see is crazy.  A Wrinkle In Time won't have much either - people aren't that interested.

You seem to think that pretty much all movies are generating profit as you overestimate everything from the cut they get from box office to merchandising, Blu Ray/DVD sales, etc.  Truth is, that's not the case at all - and that's the crap shoot studios engage in when they pour money into a seemingly shitty film like this.  No matter how many accounting gymnastics you or the studios want to do to put a happy face on this likely-to-be steaming pile of ****, if people don't go to see it and don't buy it, it's going to lose money.  I found an article that you might find helpful to explain more:  https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

Exactly where does it say they tracked it all the way through?  They don't specify anywhere in their explanation that they tracked each week and adjusted accordingly after each week since 2015 all the way through 2018.  They even say where they get their source from, and said source doesn't track Tomorrowland all the way through.  If a film makes $8M over a six week period, then it makes zero sense for it to make only $3M over a nearly 2 and a half year period after having been on the market for so long.  Not quite sure why this site is being viewed as a highly reliable source to you, because it shouldn't be.  The fact of the matter is that home video sales aren't tracked as frequently as they once were, so it's hard to get data from anywhere that doesn't come from Deadline's tracking spreadsheet (which comes from inside sources, and they only show them for films that make the highest profit yearly anyway).  None of us know for sure how much Tomorrowland made on home video, but I can assure you it's far more than $11M.  I'm not arguing Tomorrowland made a profit, because it had a huge budget and probably ended up as a loss, but it's silly to think it made so little with home video and TV earnings accounted for.

I misworded myself.  What I meant to say was that any major studio release will have merchandise released with it.  How much money it makes is a different matter entirely, but it is, indeed, revenue that goes back to the studio.

That's not what I think at all, but you seem to think every film won't make a profit just because it's not a success in theaters.  You said that this film would take a loss of about $75M if it were to hit $300M worldwide, which clearly is not you accounting for the home video sales that the film will receive.  There's a reason that the standard 3x its budget rule exists for determining a film's profit: because it works most of the time.  I have a hard time believing that it won't make at least $75M from other forms of revenue.  Using another example, Central Intelligence, which made $127M domestic and $216M worldwide, is on track to make $136M earned on the home video market ($61M for combined Blu-Ray/DVD/digital sales, $45M for American TV rights, and $30M for foreign TV rights).  A Wrinkle in Time, according to early projections, is set to make about $44M-$45M opening weekend, which should put it on track for a $132M domestic finish at the worst, and a $158M domestic finish at best (depending on how strong word of mouth among the audience is).  Given that there's clearly far more interest in A Wrinkle in Time when we compare box office numbers, why shouldn't it be able to, at the least, match what Central Intelligence accomplished?  They're two different films, sure, but interest in A Wrinkle in Time appears to be greater than interest in Central Intelligence, so why shouldn't it be able to match that film's numbers at the least?

It makes perfect sense - movies like that make the majority of their home entertainment revenues in the first few weeks of release.  I don't know how to explain that to you because it's so incredibly obvious.  I feel very confident that $11 mil is the DVD/Blu Ray recoup from Tomorrowland. You basically saying the site that actually tracks the revenues just added $3 mil for shits and giggles.  Otherwise, where did that $3 mil extra come from?  You're saying it can't be just $11 mil, though the site that actually tracks the numbers seems to say that's exactly what happened. 

As far as merchandise - was their any merchandise from The Circle?  How about Rings?  Fact is, MOST films have little to no merchandise - essentially it's the tentpole films that recoup revenue from merchandise.  Again, I have no seen one stitch of merchandising from Tomorrowland - not one.  Have you?  If we aren't seeing them anywhere, they aren't being bought.  There's next to nothing on line for that movie from a merchandising standpoint.  Not sure why you think every movie has merchandise - it doesn't. 

You aren't taking into account the marketing/advertising aspect of A Wrinkle in Time vs Central Intelligence.  A Wrinkle in Time had a massive ad campaign littering the Olympics - which is NOT cheap at all.  Central Intelligence wasn't even close to this.  There is likely a $30-$40 mil different just in the marketing alone.  Again, this was a MASSIVE ad campaign close to the level of Feigbusters.  It cost them a ton to try and get people to the film.  Also, A Wrinkle In Time had a production cost DOUBLE of Central Intelligence.  So, tack on another $50 mil into their expenses.  Central Intelligence has The Rock, who believe it or not has shown the ability to generate interest (Jumaji 2, Furious films, etc).  So, it's not that shocking that their home entertainment revenue is relatively high - although I'd like to see where you got those numbers because I can't find them anywhere through a google search.

Did you even read the article I posted?  Or are we just gonna ignore good pieces of info pertinent to this discussion?

Does the site have anything on when the info was last updated?  I suppose one of us could contact them and ask directly where the extra $3M came from, and if that's actually how much Tomorrowland has sold on Blu-Ray and DVD.  Until then, I'm not gonna buy it until I get info that I think is more accurate and appears to be from a reliable source.

The merchandise portion of my argument isn't saying that the majority of the film's money comes from merchandise, because that's not true at all, but it is still revenue generated and could help them lose a little less money, even if it's only a small amount.  In addition to the pins, I saw toys/action figures, a novelization, a prequel novel, a Funko Pop, the score/soundtrack, etc.  And yes, stuff like The Circle or Rings probably has merchandise available for them, even if they do make very little money.

The numbers come from Deadline's most profitable movies list that they do at the end of each year.  The link is here (http://deadline.com/tag/movie-profits/).  Clicking on each film shows its costs/revenue breakdown.  I picked Central Intelligence because it was the lowest ranking film that made a profit from last year's list, and could accurately prove my point about how you seem to underestimate the ancillary market.  You estimated that a $75M-$100M theatrical loss would be taken if it were to make $300M worldwide, correct?  Here are some other similar films and their total earnings from home video:

Home - $158.27M
Kung fu Panda 3 - $177.9M
Angry Birds - $157M
Sponge Out of Water - $144.76M
Divergent - $115.36M

I really see no reason as to why A Wrinkle in Time can't top $100M from the home video market, especially when stuff like Angry Birds can get to that mark.

Also, which parts of the article do you want to highlight that prove your point?
Goodbye!

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2018, 01:49:39 pm »
Moody, you're completely ignoring what Shockwave said. You can't just factor in the profits made from merchandise without also factoring in the costs of producing said merchandise. You do realize that it costs money to make DVDs, pins, and those retarded Funko Pop dolls, right? Studios make these things to turn additional profits, not to cover the costs of a box office bomb.

 

+- Hot Threads

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Charles Longboat Jr.
Today at 01:42:28 pm

Awards Season by Charles Longboat Jr.
Today at 01:41:46 pm

The Video Games MegaThread by Charles Longboat Jr.
December 07, 2018, 01:06:29 am

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 04:19:15 pm

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
November 27, 2018, 03:59:28 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:58:34 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
November 26, 2018, 11:56:39 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm