+- +-

+- You

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

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 80
Latest: John Oliver
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 112048
Total Topics: 4360
Most Online Today: 7
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

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 467 times)

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4228
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2018, 02:05:19 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.

I missed that post.  I suppose heís right, and Iíll admit defeat on that.  Letís just drop the bit about merchandise then and call it a day, because I still think my other points are valid.
Goodbye!

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2018, 05:45:37 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?

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. 

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

Moody - maybe instead of searching for and cherry picking certain items only in an effort to "prove your point", you should instead actually read the entire article I posted in an effort to actually figure out better what the fuck you are talking about.  Just a thought. 

Also - these "revenue" pages you are posting aren't at all official.  There's even a disclaimer on Deadline that says "Here are the costs and revenues as our experts see them:"  If you are going to just disregard the website that actually tracks and posts the revenues for a film, I can just as easily scoff at some random numbers that "Deadline's experts" put on a page.

Flounder Prefers Browntown

  • Moderator
  • Stanley Kubrick
  • ******
  • Posts: 13547
    • Flounder's Reviews
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2018, 05:49:20 pm »
When did a thread about a Disney film based on source material considered "unfilmable" turn into a 10,000-Year-Old Man vs. Dumpster Baby box office argument...
Everything is terrible.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6999
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2018, 07:23:48 pm »
When did a thread about a Disney film based on source material considered "unfilmable" turn into a 10,000-Year-Old Man vs. Dumpster Baby box office argument...
Because if the film bombs itíll validate the perception of the source material being unfilmable.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2018, 07:38:07 pm »
Though it's just a Brietbart article (the only one that's updated Wrinkle in Time projections that I could find), it looks to indeed be a massive bust if this article holds true.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/12/oprah-winfrey-fail-wrinkle-time-crash-lands-box-office/

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Moderator
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6999
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2018, 10:24:36 pm »
Though it's just a Brietbart article (the only one that's updated Wrinkle in Time projections that I could find), it looks to indeed be a massive bust if this article holds true.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/12/oprah-winfrey-fail-wrinkle-time-crash-lands-box-office/
On Box Office Mojo itís sitting at roughly $63 million, and is lagging behind Black Panther, Tomb Raider, and I Can Only Imagine. Itís more or less guaranteed to be a turkey stateside.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2018, 10:58:14 am »
Though it's just a Brietbart article (the only one that's updated Wrinkle in Time projections that I could find), it looks to indeed be a massive bust if this article holds true.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/12/oprah-winfrey-fail-wrinkle-time-crash-lands-box-office/
On Box Office Mojo itís sitting at roughly $63 million, and is lagging behind Black Panther, Tomb Raider, and I Can Only Imagine. Itís more or less guaranteed to be a turkey stateside.

If the cost was indeed $250 mil, it's gonna get slaughtered unless it pulls in a Warcraft-like haul oversees.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2018, 12:48:40 pm »
Though it's just a Brietbart article (the only one that's updated Wrinkle in Time projections that I could find), it looks to indeed be a massive bust if this article holds true.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/12/oprah-winfrey-fail-wrinkle-time-crash-lands-box-office/
On Box Office Mojo itís sitting at roughly $63 million, and is lagging behind Black Panther, Tomb Raider, and I Can Only Imagine. Itís more or less guaranteed to be a turkey stateside.

If the cost was indeed $250 mil, it's gonna get slaughtered unless it pulls in a Warcraft-like haul oversees.

So, yeah, it unquestionably bombed. Also, it's currently rated as 2nd worst of the year on Kritikanstvo. (Though apparently, we have still accounted for the largest part of its foreign B.O.) I'll still try to do an RC on it, though, just to see how far I can make it.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: A Wrinkle in Time
« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2018, 06:08:09 pm »
Though it's just a Brietbart article (the only one that's updated Wrinkle in Time projections that I could find), it looks to indeed be a massive bust if this article holds true.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/03/12/oprah-winfrey-fail-wrinkle-time-crash-lands-box-office/
On Box Office Mojo itís sitting at roughly $63 million, and is lagging behind Black Panther, Tomb Raider, and I Can Only Imagine. Itís more or less guaranteed to be a turkey stateside.

If the cost was indeed $250 mil, it's gonna get slaughtered unless it pulls in a Warcraft-like haul oversees.

So, yeah, it unquestionably bombed. Also, it's currently rated as 2nd worst of the year on Kritikanstvo. (Though apparently, we have still accounted for the largest part of its foreign B.O.) I'll still try to do an RC on it, though, just to see how far I can make it.

The movie itself was a complete mess.  However, if you take a pot brownie and sit in the top row, apparently it is funny as hell - not because it was attempting comedy, but because the catastrophic trainwreck from a writing, acting, and directing standpoint is sheer hilarity.

 

+- Hot Threads

The Trump Presidency Thread by John Oliver
Today at 04:43:54 am

Movie critics/reviewers you regularly read/listen to by Tut
Today at 02:13:14 am

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by ChillinDylan Godsend
Today at 12:40:20 am

Best political ads by Tut
June 19, 2018, 10:51:07 pm

The D.I.E.G.O. System by Tut
June 19, 2018, 10:47:19 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 19, 2018, 08:10:44 pm

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by Rupert Pupkin
June 19, 2018, 03:49:19 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
June 19, 2018, 03:03:17 pm

Hereditary by Kale Pasta
June 19, 2018, 11:38:46 am

Incredibles 2 by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 19, 2018, 12:02:27 am

Rapper XXXTentacion Shot Dead. Age 20 by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 06:46:16 pm

Has anyone played any of the Far Cry games? by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 12:19:25 am

Tag by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 12:16:49 am

2018 Standings by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 17, 2018, 10:16:29 pm

Started a Twitter Account for the Board by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 17, 2018, 10:00:19 pm