Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow

[Joseph Bonelli]

I read one comment somewhere--- that the Disney Company was trashing their great heritage by utilizing their classic characters (Bambi, etc.) in these Number Two, Electric Boogaloo releases!

 

Joe B in NOLA

Phil Edwards Cinema Arts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Warners have also just announced a whole slate of straight to DVD films.
Disney has been particulallry successful in this area with the numerous
straight to DVD
animation sequels, such as POCAHONTAS 12, LION KING 42, JUNGLE BOOK 3,
ALADDIN 14, etc.
In fact the Disney DVD racks in supermarkets look like so many football
scores.

While I have never bothered to look, I have never even stumbled across a
review anywhere
for any of these straight to DVD sequels. I presume they are truly awful.
Phil



Ron Wisberg wrote:

> I'll try to find a link, but I read it in one of the trades. If I
> stumble across it again I'll scan it for you. I read in the New York
> Post that Snakes Down the Drain promotional budget may been as much as
> $50 million, but most likely a substantial percentage of that was
> never spent as it would have been saved for adds for week two, three,
> four, and well, that seems kind of pointless now so they're likely to
> take their snakes and go home. Promotional budgets used to be easy to
> find, even bragged about, but they've become more tight lipped about it.
>
> Snakes on a Plane is basically suffering the same fate as Serenity,
> but this time New
> Line Cinema is suffering right alone with them while Universal more or
> less bailed on Serenity. To me they're similar because both had a
> rabid internet fanbase determined to give it a huge opening weekend
> and make it the number one film. However, a very vocal but ultimately
> small fanbase does not necessarily excite everyone else into watching.
> Opening at about $10 million, with a total of $39 worldwide it was
> considered a complete loss.
>
> But that rabid fanbase came out in force for the DVD. It sold more
> than 2 million copies on DVD after only a few weeks on the market, and
> produced more than $9 million in rentals. There's even been talk of a
> sequel, designed for the STV market, this is the reason I wouldn't be
> surprised by the same for Snakes on a Plane. I mean, if Bring it On
> has spawned not one but 2 direct to DVD sequels, and both have been
> extremely succesful, why not Snakes on a Train? Ron
>
> */JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Thanks for the link to bigscreenbiz.com... lots of interesting
> stuff. But where did you find the figure for the publicity budget
> for MI 3 -- and is there a place where we can find out the PR
> budget for other films? I'm dying to know how much they spent on
> all those TV commercials for MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN... I mean SNAKES
> ON A PLANE.
>
> -- JR
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ron Wisberg
> *To:* MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2006 19:47
> *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] Behind the Blow
>
> There is also a matter of booking agents that can be thrown into
> the mix and can alter everything. I know the closest theater to me
> has an agent that works a deal where studios get 65% of the first
> two weeks. If a distributor will not go for this then they will
> not show the film. The booking agent of course gets paid a fee for
> negotiating this but it's well worth it. This theater doesn't show
> any movie for more than four weeks (it's a matter of number of
> screens) and for weeks three and four the studios receive 30%. I
> have been involved with the financial side of this theater and
> that's the way it operates. This was true for Kong, DaVinci, Lion
> the Witch and Wardrobe, Cars, as well as Descent and John Tucker
> Must Die, big films and small films alike.
>
> Will this be different for other theaters and other distributors?
> Yes. But at that theater if they won't do that deal they won't
> show the movie. A resource to find out more about that end of the
> business is here.
>
> http://www.bigscreenbiz.com/cgi-bin/ultimate.cgi
>
> Some distributors actually demand an up front advance on what the
> box office is likely to be. But that's generally for event films
> and theaters don't mind paying it, they'll get it back in the end
> if not through tickets then through popcorn. Of course, with the
> declining health of event films some are starting to drag their
> feet on this, and for good reason.
>
> This is all thrown out the window when it comes to foreign
> distribution. They operate in their own world. Even someone as big
> as Paramount doesn't distribute in most countries and they use
> foreign distributors that are going to take about 15-25% in
> addition to what the theater takes. And this isn't just for a
> country like Chad, this is for countries like the UK.
>
> MI3 had a $40 million marketing budget and a $150 million
> production budget. A studio is going to walk away with about 40%
> of foreign distribution and about 55% of domestic.
>
> So rounding to $104 million from foreign and $73 million domestic.
> About $177 million. Of course, the film is profitable. Cable, DVD,
> pay-per-view, all of that will push it over the edge. Far over the
> edge. Of course, Cruise/Wagner Productions receives 10% of that
> profit when it happens, J.J. Abrams gets a small cut, and several
> others will at least get a taste.
>
> But studios don't want that much money tied up in a production for
> such a long time without huge and quick returns. Who can blame
> them? I'm sure they thought it was a no brainer that this would
> out perform MI:2. Perhaps they should use their brains a little
> more. Ron
>
>
>
>
> */JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
> Ron (and others),
>
> Thanks for your take on this. In continuing my research, I did
> find this article:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/
>
> Which echoes what you said, but has somewhat different
> numbers... specifically:
>
> "During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to
> 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth
> week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to
> about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of
> International Cinema Equipment Co. "
>
> I also found several references to how George Lucas managed to
> get a full 100% (!) of the box office take for the first two
> weeks of the last two STAR WARS films. So, apparently there is
> nothing like a "standard" deal and each film gets negotiate
> for how much the studio will get and how much the theater will
> get.
>
> For working purposes, it seems we would be safe enough to say
> that, on average, the studio gets 75% of the box-office take
> for the first two weeks, then 60% for the third, 50% for the
> fourth, on down to the where the studio is only getting about
> 35% if the film lasts 6 weeks. That gives us something to go
> on when trying to gauge "how much money a film made" in
> comparison to its reported "production budget" (which is, of
> course, often vastly over-inflated by Hollywood accounting
> practices).
>
> I don't think there's going to be anyway for regular folk
> to be able to figure out with much accuracy how much a studio
> spends for publicity for a given film... the best we could do
> would be to come up with a guess.
>
> Still, I think it is reasonable to assume that if a film does
> twice it's production budget that it has at least broken even
> for the studio, particularly if it does that in the first 2 to
> 3 weeks, when the studio is getting the lion's share of the
> box-office take.
>
> On that basis, MI III made money:
>
> Production Budget = $150 million
> Total Box Office (11 weeks) = $393,162,011
> ... looks like even figuring in $30 million for Promotion and
> cutting the studio's take of the remaining $63 million in
> half, that the film made AT LEAST 30 million in profit for
> Paramount (and that's *before* any DVD sales, pay-per-view,
> rentals and TV sales... which could easily bring in another
> $100 to $200 million). Seems like claims that MI III "didn't
> make money" are grossly exaggerated.
>
> OK, not as much as MI 2, but that film was 6 years ago and
> even though not as good as the original, was apparently far
> better than MI III (which I have not seen).
>
> But let's take a look at the other Tom Cruise film that came
> out within the past year, WAR OF THE WORLDS:
>
> Production Budget = $132 million
> Total Box Office (21 weeks) = $591 million
> ....that had a bigger Promotion budget than MI III, let's call
> it $50 million. That leaves $277 million of which we'll figure
> the studio got 50%...for about $138 million in profit.
>
> So, it seems Tom Cruise's last two films... just within the
> past year... "only" made for Paramount something like $170 -
> $200 million in theater profits alone (and what, twice that in
> DVD and other sales)? Maybe $300 to $400 million TOTAL in the
> past year or so alone? Well, heck... No wonder Paramount
> dumped him. I mean, somebody who can only bring in $300 to
> $400 million a year in profits just isn't pulling his weight...
>
> Only in Hollywood.
>
> But the truth of the matter seems that if one digs below the
> talk show jive, the politically-correct knee-jerk outrage over
> "women troubles" and other such Entertainment Tonight chatter,
> that Tom Cruise's "star" still has quite a bit of luster left,
> even if he is aging a bit (which didn't hurt the careers
> of Sean Connery or Harrison Ford or many others)
>
> I'm sure there are other people who can run even tighter, more
> accurate numbers than mine and come to the same conclusion, so
> it's no wonder that Cruise/Wagner productions was able to
> announce that they have already lined up a $100 million dollar
> revolving line of credit for their independent production
> company's future operations.
>
> I sure hope for the sake of Viacom's shareholders that Sumner
> Redstone has a couple of mega-star rabbits hidden in his desk
> drawer somewhere to replace those "weak" profits Cruise has
> been making for him.
>
> -- JR
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
>

Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List

Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L

The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

---

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.