2013: The Re-Up (box office predictions)

[hammerhedd11]

Considering the second campaign only exists because of this delay; how could you argue then that the delay did not cost them money?

 

[Ultimatehero]

"Making a money and then sitting on it adds to that cost"

- source?

Obviously inflation and interest aren't. What I'm saying is point to some source that purely holding onto it costs them money. As said, point to a source or your own experience. It's a finished product sitting on a shelf, ready to earn money.

I've said double marketing campaigns were the cost from the very beginning. You're saying there's additional costs other than marketing and reshoots. Which I'm saying - if there is, show evidence of that or how you know that from your own experience.

Point: you're saying there are additional costs to holding onto it other than two marketing campaigns and reshoots. That to hold onto something - they have to pay money or lose money that they won't just get back when the film is later released. And with that, as said -- provide evidence.

I'll be happily able to say that "point" is wrong given an article or some back up from your experience, as said. But, from my experience I've never seen that to be the case.

Considering the second campaign only exists because of this delay; how could you argue then that the delay did not cost them money?

You are not reading everything. Evil Twin is saying that studios have to pay money purely to hold onto the film or lose money from holding onto it alone, money that they simply can't just get back at a later period when it's released, nothing to do with the marketing campaign. What I'm saying is purely holding onto it -- they simply get the money back later, and that they don't have to pay to hold onto it. I have never seen this to be the case and it seems like something simply made up -- as I'll refer to it now as "a holding fee" -- so I'll I'm saying is to provide ample evidence that there is a "holding fee" whether from experience or from a journal.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I have been reading everything. If all you've gotten out of Evil Twin's post is that the studio simply has to pay some magical holding fee, and that is what you disagree with, then I fear you are missing the point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

And what would that be?

What I'm saying:

- The studio needs to pay for reshoots, 3D, and two marketing campaigns
- It will need additional money to cover the above
- It will not need to pay some magical holding fee

What Evil Twin is saying:

- The studio needs to pay for reshoots, 3D, two marketing campaigns, AND a holding fee.
- It will need additional money to cover the above

We are saying the exact same thing, just minus this "holding fee." I'm not a GI Joe fan, a sequel would be nice - but I don't really need one. So my whole and only thing here is that I've never heard of a "holding fee."

Which I'm saying I've never seen a "holding fee" or even heard of a "holding fee" and to provide some source of evidence that there is a "holding fee" because with evidence I'll happily say there is a "holding fee" whether that's from experience or a journal. The only contrast between the two is the existence of a "holding fee."

 

[hammerhedd11]

Once again- if you've interpreted Evil Twin's comments as simply, "paying a holding fee", and not the natural functions of a market in regards to withholding a heavily marketed and invested product, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire argument.
But this is just going in circles. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Never did I say that it wouldn't need to pay for two marketing campaigns. Re-read the above. The only difference between what he's saying and what I'm saying is that to hold onto it alone doesn't cost money. That there is some "cost" outside of marketing, re-shoots, and 3D. That simply holding it in your very hands is costing you money. That not having something is costing you money that you simply can't get back at a later date.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Are you reading any of these comments? I mean my last comment specifically, did not mention anything in regards to 3D or marketing, and yet you refer to this "holding fee" that neither Evil Twin, nor I (and which my last comment specifically stated was not what we were talking about) ever mentioned.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Then I'll throw down the same gauntlet to you:

Provide evidence from whichever source that clearly claims that to purely hold onto a film to release at a later point in time costs money. Not talking double marketing, or any costs of that nature. That just holding onto it costs you money.

That was what Evil Twin was saying and only thing I raised issues with. I'll be happy enough to say it does. But in order to say it does I'll need some form of evidence whether that be a journal or from your own experience. I can't be any more open than saying with the evidence I'll happily admit to being wrong.

 

[hammerhedd11]

You keep calling for evidence, or a source, but simply stating "personal experience" in your case as evidence is not a sufficient "source" either.

If you can't accept simple economics without a journal's confirmation, that delaying a product with various resources and investments at stake all geared toward a specific date, and then delaying that by close to a year would cost simply nothing, then I'll guess we'll have to leave it at that (for real this time).

 

[Ultimatehero]

I just accept no evidence as no evidence. And hey, you're free to leave it there because without evidence I'm not budging. And yeah, I hold my personal experience as superior in my own mind -- I'm not asking anyone to simply take me at my personal experience, otherwise I wouldn't have left the floor wide open. Which says I am not concrete and that others are open to making their own decisions. Just my own mind won't move without anything to back up the other claim. So you can sway others, but to sway me to make a concrete statement I need something concrete to back it up. I can't follow blindly here or follow on good faith or will.

 

[danoyse]

Then I'll throw down the same gauntlet to you:

Provide evidence from whichever source that clearly claims that to purely hold onto a film to release at a later point in time costs money. Not talking double marketing, or any costs of that nature. That just holding onto it costs you money.

That was what Evil Twin was saying and only thing I raised issues with. I'll be happy enough to say it does. But in order to say it does I'll need some form of evidence whether that be a journal or from your own experience. I can't be any more open than saying with the evidence I'll happily admit to being wrong.

Well, since I've worked in media marketing and production for more than 15 years, but don't drop that in every post since it's braggy and unprofessional, let me take a stab at it.

An example for you:

My local theater had a billboard-sized ad for GI Joe last summer, with the release date of June 29th displayed. Which means many theaters had those same GI Joe posters. Do a quick Google search, and you'll find a lot of those. Because the release date changed, they had to eat the cost of the first printing of those posters - whether they were for theaters, billboards, bus shelters, phone booths, etc - and pay to have new versions (print, and possibly new creative) done with the updated release date. This also goes for whatever costs they paid for ad space at the time. Having worked in print production and in ad sales, that's a lot of money...and a lot of headaches, having to do a late switch like that.

Another example:

The GI Joe toy line was already in stores when the movie was delayed last year. Unless they were able to hold on to anything not yet released, they had no toy tie-ins for this release. Do they roll out a second toy line? What are the costs associated with that?

That all affects the movie's bottom line. If the movie had come out last year as planned, there's no need to print new ads or shift the marketing placement around. If the movie makes enough money (and its international figures seem to be making up for whatever it's lagging behind on here), then they can eat the costs and not be terribly worried about it. They appeared willing to do that when they moved the film.

But it's all part of what the film makes. You can't think it doesn't.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You're saying the same thing I am then -- to me that's all marketing costs. To throw another example in, getting a spot in a magazine.

I'm saying purely holding onto the film itself. That outside of marketing, reshoots, 3D there is no additional costs.

And kudos.

 

[danoyse]

You're saying the same thing I am then -- to me that's all marketing costs. To throw another example in, getting a spot in a magazine.

I'm saying purely holding onto the film itself. That outside of marketing, reshoots, 3D there is no additional costs.

And kudos.

And the marketing campaign was about something other than the movie?

All of that has to do with the movie's bottom line. When you have to reprint ads, rearrange ad space - which goes beyond print: that's TV spots, radio, internet. It all costs money, and cuts into the profits of a film due to the additional costs when the grosses are tallied.

Are you sure you work in this business?

 

[Ultimatehero]

You're talking marketing. Not holding costs.

To go to an exact line:

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.

This is the only thing I don't agree with. This isn't mentioning marketing, reshoots, or 3D. But that films have to be released shortly after they are finished or money starts being taken away simply from being withheld.

A more apt example, due to get rid of marketing for a second would be 'Old Dogs.' We had no idea that film was coming out. It came out years after it was completed. As far as I know there were no intensive re-shoots and there was not a secondary marketing campaign. So simply holding onto this film -- without those things -- cost them money? Just to hold onto it?

If that was the case you'd see all these films that studios have completed and are withholding being tossed out onto home video. Because otherwise you're going to constantly get a bill to hold onto a film. Not to mention what this says about films like 'Maleficent' which started filming summer of 2012, is probably completed or being gradually worked on and is waiting for the right release date. To put this into contrast - Spider-Man 2 is filming this summer and releasing next summer.

 

[hammerhedd11]

That's like saying, "Besides the cost of shooting the film, as well as the cost of post production, the film didn't cost anything." You can't disregard a major cost of the entire enterprise as no additional cost if you do it twice.

 

[Ultimatehero]

That's like saying, "Besides the cost of shooting the film, as well as the cost of post production, the film didn't cost anything." You can't disregard a major cost of the entire enterprise as no additional cost if you do it twice.

Which, again, no one is. Now read the above. Thanks.

 

[Fenrir]

Provide evidence from whichever source that clearly claims that to purely hold onto a film to release at a later point in time costs money. Not talking double marketing, or any costs of that nature. That just holding onto it costs you money.

That was what Evil Twin was saying and only thing I raised issues with. I'll be happy enough to say it does. But in order to say it does I'll need some form of evidence whether that be a journal or from your own experience. I can't be any more open than saying with the evidence I'll happily admit to being wrong.

I don't work in the film industry or anything but there does exist such a thing as a "holding fee" in business in general whenever you hold onto an asset. In economics, it is called an "opportunity cost" and in finance, it is called a "cost of carry". Look into it.

 

[danoyse]

A more apt example, due to get rid of marketing for a second would be 'Old Dogs.' We had no idea that film was coming out. It came out years after it was completed. As far as I know there were no intensive re-shoots and there was not a marketing campaign. So simply holding onto this film -- without those things -- cost them money? Just to hold onto it?

Are we due to "get rid of the marketing" because you finally realize that don't understand it as well as you think you do?

A movie like Old Dogs doesn't come out with a major ad blitz or a toy line. But a movie like GI Joe...that has a whole expensive marketing campaign that becomes more expensive when you have to movie it, especially moving it at the last minute like GI Joe was.

But a movie like that can lose money over a delay. Are its stars still popular? Is the topic still culturally relevant? Sometimes it works in the opposite direction because it stars someone who wasn't popular two years ago, but is now.

 

[craigdbfan]

I don't work in the film industry or anything but there does exist such a thing as a "holding fee" in business in general whenever you hold onto an asset. In economics, it is called an "opportunity cost" and in finance, it is called a "cost of carry". Look into it.

Interesting. That might explain MOS marketing (or rather lack thereof).

 

[Ultimatehero]

Actually, Dan if you look back from my very first post I said that it would have to make up for having two marketing campaigns. It's just that some people have very poor reading comprehension and keep on skipping over that. I picked 'Old Dogs' to stop people thinking marketing and move over to the only thing I was commenting on -- "opportunity cost" and "cost to carry."

Fenrir was the only person here who nailed the only thing I was commenting on. Fenrir, how does that relate to film however?

 

[Fenrir]

A movie like Old Dogs doesn't come out with a major ad blitz or a toy line. But a movie like GI Joe...that has a whole expensive marketing campaign that becomes more expensive when you have to movie it, especially moving it at the last minute like GI Joe was.

But a movie like that can lose money over a delay. Are its stars still popular? Is the topic still culturally relevant? Sometimes it works in the opposite direction because it stars someone who wasn't popular two years ago, but is now.

In principle, considering the time value of money, the type and kind of movie is irrelevant. Unless there is some sort of convenience yield (hidden benefit like the one you mentioned about movie stars' future popularity) to holding onto an asset, technically anything that can earn money now but isn't is losing money.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In principle, considering the time value of money, the type and kind of movie is irrelevant. Unless there is some sort of convenience yield (hidden benefit like the one you mentioned about movie stars' future popularity) to holding onto an asset, technically anything that can earn money now but isn't is losing money.

How does the loss of money show up?

In those regards, why would Disney for example shoot Maleficent in 2012 rather than 2013 if it's been aiming to release in 2014? In contrast, for example Spider-Man 2 is shooting this summer to be released next summer (choosing that because they're both special effects films and probably have the same level of special effects in them).

Even with the convenience yield, could they still possibly lose money just from being held? Like is convenience yield a bump from the losses and there is still losses?

For films that a studio never releases, in any form, are these additional losses in along with what the film cost to make or is the budget of the film the max it can reach?

- I'm a writer, I can't write 'Wall Street 3,' thus why I always remained open. I don't know money. I just know the choice some studios make with certain films which causes me to question if some things might work slightly differently.

 

[Fenrir]

Fenrir was the only person here who nailed the only thing I was commenting on. Fenrir, how does that relate to film however?

Many ways, actually. Not releasing a film for no good reason does not make any economic sense. Here are only a few reasons why:

1. As danoyse mentioned, increased marketing costs. Money loses value with each passing moment. Sogenerally, it is going to be more expensive to market a film tomorrow than it will be today. This applies to all financial costs such as any deferred payments, credit contracts and whatnot.

2. Likewise, assuming there is no convenience yield of holding on to an asset, any revenue a film generates today is going to be worth more than what it might be tomorrow.

3. Costs of carry and opportunity costs can be a whole host of things - inflation, storage costs, risk-free rate of return profits for the given time period...the more you known about the inside-workings of an industry, the more you can add to this list.

 

[danoyse]

Actually, Dan if you look back from my very first post I said that it would have to make up for having two marketing campaigns. It's just that some people have very poor reading comprehension and keep on skipping over that. I picked 'Old Dogs' to stop people thinking marketing and move over to the only thing I was commenting on -- "opportunity cost" and "cost to carry."

Fenrir was the only person here who nailed the only thing I was commenting on. Fenrir, how does that relate to film however?

Does this include your own reading comprehension that seems a little off?

From what I can see, there was a discussion about how the GI Joe delay affected the grosses. Which seems fair enough. It was delayed. There were reshoots. They had to advertise it twice. That cost money.

For some inexplicable reason, except for perhaps your endless need to remind everyone how major film studios are apparently holding you up over the Hollywood hills like it's the opening sequence of The Lion King, you launched into an unnecessary explanation of what a film being "shelved' means.

Except that no one needed an explaination of what that meant, and we're just going around in circles now, trying to explain things to you.

Changing the subject doesn't mean everyone is missing your point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Everyone was purely focusing on marketing. While what I was getting to are the things that only Fenrir touched upon and cleared up. Still hoping Fenrir answers those other questions.

I'm a writer. And maybe not all of Hollywood, but at least one of the studios is -- by the way -- love that imagery dude. I never knew you saw me as Simba. I'm touched, honestly, that you see me as the king of Pride rock though. I gotta remember that imagery. (<-- oh yeah, sarcasm meant to be funny - not insulting... I'm hard to 'read' online apparently)