2013: The Re-Up (box office predictions)

[Ultimatehero]

I have no problem with reshoots, if you have a cut but see that things are rough in spots, why not make it better? However, reshoots that delay a picture 9 months, instead of in the normal development time, come at a steep cost.

I hate to bring this up, but as someone who worked within a production company office - I can tell you you are looking way too deep into this whole re-shoots and shelved projects thing. ALL production companies have a film that they have shelved and either that film comes out or it doesn't come out. The executives don't suddenly just stop working because that film is shelved, they are juggling about five to ten projects or more at any singular time.

Thus, what happened here? In all liklihood normal re-shoots and they delayed it to have it released in this month. They held it back as per the release date. Not that the re-shoots took 9 months.

If you're becoming confused with 'development hell' - that term is extraordinarily different. That term is used for films that have start-ups that never go anywhere and that can get a company in deep. But, that's because of paying writer after writer after writer and sometimes director after director for their time. Not that it's taking time.

Basically all that happens is they put it on a shelf for when they feel safe to release it while they continue work on those five to ten other projects. If shelving it for 9 months came with as high a cost as you want to give it, they never would have had it at 9 months. So, what happened? The film was finalized at latest in September, possibly sooner than that, but I'm saying September just to be on the safe side and they let it sit there. They could have released it - but they let it sit there because they wanted to release it when they did.

Did executives have nothing else to do in that time? No way, they have two films in pre-production right now and 11 in development titles that they're working on. Does it cost to shelve a film? Nope. So, what happens? Just waiting longer to earn a profit. Also if they had 2 films come out in 2012 instead of just 1 -- they're looking at a "dead year" of 2013 and most of 2014. Companies have "dead years" when things don't come out. And they can have this because of all the residuals that keep coming their way and all of the profit they've already acquired.

2 marketing campaigns hurt it. But, as someone who has seen shelved movies, that doesn't cost money - you just put it (almost literally sometimes) directly onto a shelf.

Not trying to sound egotistical, but trying to clear up what the "shelf" means to people who seem to be confused. "Shelf" is different from "development hell." And it doesn't mean people stop working and it doesn't mean they don't get money at all, it just means they'll have to wait - and any way around it there would have been a lot of time in-between projects if it did come out last year Battleship (2012), GI Joe (2012), and Transformers 4 (2014). There you're not looking at 9 months in-between, you're looking at around 2 years of having nothing out. It doesn't hurt them, it just delays them.

 

[mclay18]

Anyone have any predictions for the Jurassic Park 3D gross? I think some folks are getting tired of the 3D re-release trend for animated movies, but there's some life left in the live-action re-releases.

I think the domestic cume of the JP re-release will be around Titanic 3D levels, with $200M-$250M made internationally.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Various reports(including bay himself) confirm a reduced budget.
Not sure how reduced, but with bay's sensibilities maybe around the first film 140mil. Plus 3D costs.

A billion seems like a likely gross, but this is sort of a new start(especially the cast) along with audience fatigue and with that comes a risk. Just look at ASM.

ASM was a complete reboot that divided the Spider-man fanbase.

TF4 is a sequel with unified support from Bay fans.

I think TF4 will be closer to POTC4 than it will be to ASM.

 

[Marvin]

ASM was a complete reboot that divided the Spider-man fanbase.

TF4 is a sequel with unified support from Bay fans.

I think TF4 will be closer to POTC4 than it will be to ASM.

Either way, the reduced budget has been confirmed. As long as Bay himself is directing I'm sure it will make it's money. I'm just pointing out the circumstances at play.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In terms of Transformers lowering it's budget - I don't think that that's a big thing. They have 40 minute finale sequences. And if there's one problem with those movies it's that they drag on a little too long. Hopefully what they do is make the film tighter, because with that there's no way we'll notice at all since about twenty minutes will be cut from the usual (which as said, the common complaint is always the pacing).

 

[terry78]

There really is no need for a transformers movie to be nearly three hours unless they really delve into the canon.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I hate to bring this up,

You didn't have to. No one was asking for most of what you were saying and you were clearly doing it to show off. No one was talking about development hell or shelving movies, nor was anyone here confused.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Actually someone was talking about the movie being shelved and if you look on the previous page thinking that if a movie was shelved the studio loses money due to being shelved and how it continues to function. Thus, I merely offered feedback about how the shelving process in the studio system works.

that delay a picture 9 months

It's hard to keep a studio functioning with no revenue coming in for significant periods.

No one was talking about... shelving movies.

GI Joe 2 was shelved - that's when you have a movie sitting on a shelf waiting to be released past its initial targeted release date, regardless of if it's a year or under a year that's the technical term for it. When a studio holds a film off from release. Thus, all I did was describe what happens within studio walls regarding such situations.

Additional note: the only time "shelving" has really hurt a studio is when the film isn't released into theaters at all or very limited, because that means the movie basically sucks. On those "shelved" movies, you see a major hit in the studio because you're losing tons of money on something intended to go to the silver screen and now it's basically disappearing in hopes of earning some loose money. I wouldn't know how the shelving process works and how it impacts studios if I didn't see a missile hit the one I was at and how the execs coped with it and what it meant overall on operations. When you see a film meant for the silver screen disappear then re-appear on home video -- that's when you know people got fired over it and when the studio took a hit from being shelved. Otherwise, it's just waiting off for a thought to be better release date - a studio still functions from constant residues and other means. And especially for the smaller companies which are basically really small bungalos or in some cases just one small office room. The bigger ones are on contract to release a certain number of films per year for a studio to distribute them. The smaller ones, however, aren't. Hasbro certainly isn't because as said -- either way around it, if released in 2012 they would have been looking at two years without anything anyway. And some companies function well with just one film every five years. Basically, not having a film out doesn't hurt a company. It's those missiles of direct to dvd that turns a innocent shelved film into a torpedo. I'm just a ranter with things I find interesting and, who knows, others might be interested in as well. And it did pertain - as to the above. I just don't know to talk about it without including personal experiences.

 

[redhawk23]

So how do you guys think the new Evil Dead will do? There's not a lot of competition and the reviews have been decent. I saw the film my self last week and I can say it is pretty good so word of mouth may do well.

Considering the solid box office the Raimi produced Possession did back in august despite being lame as hell, I think this movie can do pretty well for itself.

I'm going to wager a 20 million opening this weekend.

 

[:eek:]

Top 10 worldwide

1. Oz The Great and Powerful $414,2 million
2. A Good Day to Die Hard $295,6 million
3. The Croods $242,7 million
4. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters $216,4 million
5. Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons $207,9 million
6. Lost in Thailand $202,6 million
7. Chinese Zodiac $165,4 million
8. Jack the Giant Slayer $158 million
9. Identity Thief $146,7 million
10. G.I. Joe: Retaliation $135,9 million

 

[Evil Twin]

I hate to bring this up, but as someone who worked within a production company office - I can tell you you are looking way too deep into this whole re-shoots and shelved projects thing. ALL production companies have a film that they have shelved and either that film comes out or it doesn't come out. The executives don't suddenly just stop working because that film is shelved, they are juggling about five to ten projects or more at any singular time.

Thus, what happened here? In all liklihood normal re-shoots and they delayed it to have it released in this month. They held it back as per the release date. Not that the re-shoots took 9 months.

If you're becoming confused with 'development hell' - that term is extraordinarily different. That term is used for films that have start-ups that never go anywhere and that can get a company in deep. But, that's because of paying writer after writer after writer and sometimes director after director for their time. Not that it's taking time.

Basically all that happens is they put it on a shelf for when they feel safe to release it while they continue work on those five to ten other projects. If shelving it for 9 months came with as high a cost as you want to give it, they never would have had it at 9 months. So, what happened? The film was finalized at latest in September, possibly sooner than that, but I'm saying September just to be on the safe side and they let it sit there. They could have released it - but they let it sit there because they wanted to release it when they did.

Did executives have nothing else to do in that time? No way, they have two films in pre-production right now and 11 in development titles that they're working on. Does it cost to shelve a film? Nope. So, what happens? Just waiting longer to earn a profit. Also if they had 2 films come out in 2012 instead of just 1 -- they're looking at a "dead year" of 2013 and most of 2014. Companies have "dead years" when things don't come out. And they can have this because of all the residuals that keep coming their way and all of the profit they've already acquired.

2 marketing campaigns hurt it. But, as someone who has seen shelved movies, that doesn't cost money - you just put it (almost literally sometimes) directly onto a shelf.

Not trying to sound egotistical, but trying to clear up what the "shelf" means to people who seem to be confused. "Shelf" is different from "development hell." And it doesn't mean people stop working and it doesn't mean they don't get money at all, it just means they'll have to wait - and any way around it there would have been a lot of time in-between projects if it did come out last year Battleship (2012), GI Joe (2012), and Transformers 4 (2014). There you're not looking at 9 months in-between, you're looking at around 2 years of having nothing out. It doesn't hurt them, it just delays them.

I know exactly what the shelf means. And, all I said that there were costs associated with it. Which there are. Nowhere did I say that they spent 9 months doing reshoots and spent hundreds of millions of dollars, although they surely spent something. Or that they didn't have other projects. You're arguing with things that weren't said or implied.

However, ignoring the time value of money and the opportunity cost of not having a film out, is an issue. You can get away with it occasionally, but it certainly affected the studio's bottom line. It was never the studio's plan when they greenlit the film to do two marketing campaigns and significant reshoots missing the summer of 2012.

To turn it around, are you going to argue economics and say that the time value of money and opportunity cost aren't issues to consider? There's a reason that it's fairly extraordinary for a film as expensive as G.I. Joe 2 to go back to reshoots and a new release date as late in the game as G.I. Joe did. Sometimes it works out, Titanic, sometimes it doesn't, Jack the Giant Slayer.

Part of me thinks that if G.I. Joe was released as it was in 2012 it would have made exactly the same amount of money. In that regard, the delay was likely a mistake. However, since I don't doubt that the final product was better and the third film will do better as a result, it probably was the right long term decision due to "goodwill". Batman and Robin was a money maker, but it killed the "goodwill" for the franchise. G.I. Joe 2 probably will make less profit than otherwise, but sets up the franchise for a more profitable third film.

 

[:eek:]

G.I. Joe: Retaliation added $40.2 million overseas this weekend to bring its overseas cume to $145.2 million. The film held-over especially well in Korea ($3.7 million weekend, $11.2 million cume), Russia ($3.2 million weekend, $14.6 million cume), Mexico ($2.5 million weekend, $10.8 million cume) and Australia ($2.2 million weekend, $8.3 million cume). The global total is now $231.8 million and shows no sign of slowing down. It is difficult to think the G.I. Joe would have had this much success in its original release date last year, facing off with The Amazing Spider-Man.

 

[Evil Twin]

The international numbers are clearly saving G.I. Joe 2. And why we'll get a third entry.

Evil Dead is also a clear success, even if it doesn't have a great multiplier. Mama still looks like it's going to be the horror champ of the first half of the year, though.

Oz looks like it's going to finish out in the $230 to $240 million range and somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million worldwide. Given the budget and marketing that's perhaps a single instead of a home run for Disney, but it's a success.

The Croods has clearly benefited from a lack of competition.

 

[Ultimatehero]

However, ignoring the time value of money and the opportunity cost of not having a film out, is an issue. You can get away with it occasionally, but it certainly affected the studio's bottom line. It was never the studio's plan when they greenlit the film to do two marketing campaigns and significant reshoots missing the summer of 2012.

It wasn't the company's plan have to re-shoot, but the studio let them go ahead with it. You are missing one obvious as it pertains to the company.

2012 - Battleship
2013 - GI Joe
2014 - Transformers

Vs.

2012 - Battleship, GI Joe
2013 - Nothing
2014 - Transformers

That screams loud and clear that it is like one company I worked at, within big studio walls, where they only had one film every five years and kept on running a strong ship. Not every company needs to meet a film quota. And if they did -- 2013 wouldn't have been left open in the first place. That would mean two years without having a single film out - and you're honestly going to sit there and say 9 months mattered to them? Any which way to Sunday they were already planning at least a two year gap.

 

[danoyse]

It wasn't the company's plan have to re-shoot, but the studio let them go ahead with it. You are missing one obvious as it pertains to the company.

2012 - Battleship
2013 - GI Joe
2014 - Transformers

Vs.

2012 - Battleship, GI Joe
2013 - Nothing
2014 - Transformers

That screams loud and clear that it is like one company I worked at, within big studio walls, where they only had one film every five years and kept on running a strong ship. Not every company needs to meet a film quota. And if they did -- 2013 wouldn't have been left open in the first place. That would mean two years without having a single film out - and you're honestly going to sit there and say 9 months mattered to them? Any which way to Sunday they were already planning at least a two year gap.

You are aware that those GI Joe reshoots were because of bad test scores and not enough Channing Tatum, correct?

 

[Drizzle]

You are aware that those GI Joe reshoots were because of bad test scores and not enough Channing Tatum, correct?

They claimed that, but after seeing the finished product it doesn't seem like they added much of Channing Tatum at all. I think it was mainly to convert it to 3D.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I could see the first, going into reshoot some things. The second one being, anyone who can see the movie can attest to whatever they did with Channing it was very low budget. I can see possibly the first scene - cutting through a fence. Which might cost some money, but not alot. Then playing video games with the Rock in his home which was obviously low budget. Basically they just added inexpensive throw away scenes with Tatum. I'd imagine the reshoots happened largely elsewhere.

 

[Evil Twin]

It wasn't the company's plan have to re-shoot, but the studio let them go ahead with it. You are missing one obvious as it pertains to the company.

2012 - Battleship
2013 - GI Joe
2014 - Transformers

Vs.

2012 - Battleship, GI Joe
2013 - Nothing
2014 - Transformers

That screams loud and clear that it is like one company I worked at, within big studio walls, where they only had one film every five years and kept on running a strong ship. Not every company needs to meet a film quota. And if they did -- 2013 wouldn't have been left open in the first place. That would mean two years without having a single film out - and you're honestly going to sit there and say 9 months mattered to them? Any which way to Sunday they were already planning at least a two year gap.

Are we talking Paramount or Hasbro? And, are you saying that pushing back the film at the last minute didn't cost in terms of opportunity cost, interest, etc.?

What's your argument here, exactly?

The plan was to release G.I. Joe 2 in 2012 and at the last minute they changed their mind. They obviously took on additional costs because of it. Reshoots, a second marketing campaign, 3D conversion, the opportunity cost of missing Summer 2012, and 9 more months of carrying costs among other things. Costs which will effect the bottom line. By the time you throw all that in, Joe 2 might be a more expensive film than the first one, despite plans for a cheaper version.

Was it a good decision? Probably, because the film seems to be better received, but G.I. Joe 2 is probably going to be a fairly break even affair and bailed out by the international numbers. As it is, G.I. Joe 2 looks like it's going to park somewhere in the $130 to $140 million range domestically, which is probably about what it would have done domestically if released in Summer 2012. Merchandising, international box office, and a better managed third movie are what's going to keep this franchise profitable.

Heck, does The Rock think it's a good idea to have three, big budget action releases in 3 months?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Hasbro, obviously. Paramount is called 'studio'. Hasbro is called 'company.'

You are the first and only source I've ever seen adding "carrying costs" and "opportunity costs" - and this is coming from seeing actual costs. Do you have anything to back that up or is that just something from off the top of your head? Which it seems like to me. Because as said, even from within studio walls, you're the only one I've ever seen mentioning such costs.

 

[jacobed]

They've already confirmed there were no reshoots with Channing. That delay was for 3d only. And it shows the 3d was phenomenal and creative. The movie was done and ready to go, there were none to very little changes between last years and this years versions of Gi Joe.

 

[Evil Twin]

Hasbro, obviously. Paramount is called 'studio'. Hasbro is called 'company.'

You are the first and only source I've ever seen adding "carrying costs" and "opportunity costs" - and this is coming from seeing actual costs. Do you have anything to back that up or is that just something from off the top of your head? Which it seems like to me. Because as said, even from within studio walls, you're the only one I've ever seen mentioning such costs.

That's because they want to spin it as all positives. You've never heard of the "time value of money"? That's economics 101. It's why films are typically timed so that they're released and they start collecting revenue shortly after they're finished rather than 2 to 3 years down the line, because delaying the payback costs money. Three quarters of a year of interest and inflation does cut into the bottom line.

Granted, that's not sexy for the "toldja" style of journalism, but it's a reality of finance, whether it's a mortgage or an investment in a major film.

If Hasbro wanted G.I. Joe 2 in 2013, they would have filmed it in 2012, not 2011. Paramount certainly was planning their schedule around a big summer tentpole in 2012 and undoubtedly bypassed opportunities in the meantime to fill that slot with alternative products. That's an opportunity cost to Paramount. That may not equal a loss on the balance sheet, but a safe $30 million comedy was a better investment than nothing on the schedule.

Which isn't to say that the film isn't going to be a success, but delaying it by almost a year, two marketing campaigns, etc. took a bite out of the bottom line of the film. Again, maybe for the best, but international numbers are what's going to save the franchise as it's not on pace to match the first installment domestically (it's about 12% behind at present).

Which isn't to say that companies can't survive without a constant stream of product. But, there's a reason that you don't see big budget films pushed back on a regular basis, rather than a carefully planned production and release schedule.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I never said journalism - I said within film studio walls. Again -- within FILM STUDIO WALLS, first hand here. Not journalism. Again find a source that says delaying costs money -- or at the very least tell how you know this. Until you do so, I can't take what you say seriously. Because having been behind studio walls (not journalism) I haven't heard one shred of evidence pointing to what you're saying.

It isn't the best outcome. But as said, point out one source that says the studio loses money or has to pay money to shelve it. As said, you're the first person ever that I've heard this from. Not taking journalism. Talking first hand big studio and company experience.

So either say how you know this or point to something that talks about this. Hey, you might be right -- but, all I'm saying is from personal experience within the industry I've never heard them talk about it. So, without hearing how you know this - whether it be experience or in some journal - I can't place stock behind it.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I never said journalism - I said within film studio walls. Again -- within FILM STUDIO WALLS, first hand here. Not journalism. Again find a source that says delaying costs money -- or at the very least tell how you know this. Until you do so, I can't take what you say seriously. Because having been behind studio walls (not journalism) I haven't heard one shred of evidence pointing to what you're saying.

It isn't the best outcome. But as said, point out one source that says the studio loses money or has to pay money to shelve it. As said, you're the first person ever that I've heard this from. Not taking journalism. Talking first hand big studio and company experience.

So either say how you know this or point to something that talks about this. Hey, you might be right -- but, all I'm saying is from personal experience within the industry I've never heard them talk about it. So, without hearing how you know this - whether it be experience or in some journal - I can't place stock behind it.

Alright, man. We got it. You're "in the biz". You don't need to bring it up every single post.

As for GI Joe; how can you possibly say this delay didn't cost Paramount anything when they basically backed two separate marketing campaigns?

 

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, man. We got it. You're "in the biz". You don't need to bring it up every single post.

As for GI Joe; how can you possibly say this delay didn't cost Paramount anything when they basically backed two separate marketing campaigns?

I said the marketing campaigns cost them. Not keeping it on the shelf.

I also only mentioned it because it was thought I got the information from journalism - I got it from experience. So the whole journalism and journalistic spin line was unnecessary, if you read the whole thing you'll readily see that all I did was correct the journalism line. I also said if what I'm saying about the shelf is wrong to say how it is wrong through stating what one's experience is or through some journal. If I am wrong, I'll be the first to readily say it. Just not without anything backing it up. So, I am leaving the grounds open.

 

[Evil Twin]

So, nobody talks about the time value of money, interest, inflation, or opportunity cost when running a studio? Did they go to business school and take an economics course? I bet the finance people talk about these concepts when setting up a film.

Those are economics 101 concepts. You can look at Viacomm's quarterly statements and see how much they're paying in interest per quarter on their borrowings. That's real money. And making a movie and then sitting on it adds to that cost.

Are you saying that inflation, interest, etc. are imaginary concepts? Are you saying two marketing budgets didn't take a bite out of the bottom line? Why do you think that studios don't routinely delay films at the last minute, run up two marketing budgets, and finish films more than a couple months in advance of their release?

What's your argument here? That G.I. Joe 2 was produced entirely according to plan with no extra costs that may have had an impact on the bottom line? I don't think you're making that argument, but I'm having trouble figuring out what your take on G.I. Joe 2 is.

My take is that the delays bumped up the costs and probably didn't produce any additional gross domestically (I think Joe 2 would have grossed around $130 million in 2012 domestically), but they probably ended up with a better film and the international grosses make up for it all.

Really, I don't know what we're arguing about. I don't think Paramount and Hasbro are completely happy with the domestic numbers. And I doubt they're happy with paying for a second marketing campaign, etc. They are happy with the international numbers. And the international numbers are why there's going to be a third movie. They'd have been happier if they managed the film better in the first place.