Age of Extinction Transformers 4 Box Office Prediction Thread (domestic)

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Studios and notable prognosticators are calling them out on it...

Box Office: ‘Transformers’ Controversy Erupts As Paramount Stakes Claim To $100M Three-Day Gross

As well they should. Paramount is full of **** because they are disappointed the film didn't hit 100mil opening weekend. I guess 2 million less is a bomb to them or something.

Anyway these kind of entertainment stories are always fun.

 

[hammerhedd11]

My post wasn't a response to yours by the way.

You have obviously made up your mind that every other studio but Paramount is incorrect and that the film hit 100mil. Feel free to believe what you please but I'm not in the mood to argue about this.

Quit with the hostile tone, it gets old. I asked a simple question and did not attack you; if that provokes you so, maybe a discussion forum is not the best environment for you.

I have not made up my mind about anything other than that there has been nothing more than speculation on this matter that relies on nothing more than the word of nameless industry insiders. There has yet to be any hard evidence that such a crime has taken place. Your post was much more certain about this matter than mine, "I'm sure all studios fudge the numbers but Paramount takes it to the extreme when it comes to this series..Paramount just adds 2 million again like they did with Revenge of the Fallen". You are asserting something factual, and I merely asked where you received this concrete evidence and the fact that you responded in such a petulant matter leads me to believe you have none.

 

[JKKS085]

Ok, so are we responding to any actual evidence here, or just judging based on the fact that everyone has it out for Transformers? I find it more suspicious that this controversy doesn't come up more in terms of fudging the actuals if its this easy, but all of a sudden its very natural to assume that Paramount has.

It's a pattern both with Paramount and within the franchise itself. See post #56 and http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/transformers-late-night-estimate-8-75m-on-path-to-mid-90m-opening/.
Evidences are not that hard to find (I posted evidence of past behaviour from Paramount on the very SAME page you asked for it!).

 

[Marvin]

Whatever may be going on, looks like we'll never get to the undisclosed facts. These studios look like they have a system in place.
Given this is all things Bayformers though, I'm sure the speculation will be even keeled(about as much as the reviews were). Shouldn't take to long before it ends up on all the blog sites.

 

[hammerhedd11]

It's a pattern both with Paramount and within the franchise itself. See post #56 and http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/transformers-late-night-estimate-8-75m-on-path-to-mid-90m-opening/.
Evidences are not that hard to find (I posted evidence of past behaviour from Paramount on the very SAME page you asked for it!).

But here again is the difference between hard evidence and speculation, and I have yet to see anything other than speculation. Both cases involve speculation from the start in that people think it's too good to be true that the film would hit a coveted mark. For AoE, many were expecting this to be the first 100m opener of the year, and so the expectation was set in place, and when it hits exactly that, people are suspicious because they think it is too "perfect". It is a little too clean. But that is the only evidence so far other than anonymous insiders saying they are lying. There are no other numbers or organizations presenting specific reasons that they know Paramount to be lying other than f**ing Deadline. It seems to be tied up in the fact that it hit exactly on a mark that people were expecting, which in and of itself is just weird, not evidence.

For your ROTF example, its also directly tied to this "it's too perfect" thought, and therefore they must be lying. Paramount says they hit 200 mil, later find their estimates on the weekend to be too low, and revise their weekday estimates to be higher to still hit 200. Once again- it is strange and a bit too perfect, but in and of itself that is not evidence. If you accuse someone of a crime, the burden of proof is not on the accused, it is on the accuser, and as of yet I have not seen any actual evidence put forth that shows Paramount is lying. The accusation is not enough.

Why I am so skeptical about all of this is that if studios did this so easily, and so willingly, why has it not been a bigger controversy continuously? If Paramount can fudge $2 mil, why not 2 more? Why not ten? Why would they stop directly at 100 mil and make it 105 or something if they are so willing to completely lie about their earnings and engage in fraud to cover it up? There are so many films that always are close to passing a coveted mark and fail to do so, and the fact that so many films are over estimated on Sunday to only fall on Monday shows it's not really all that easy to inflate some one's numbers like so many here think it is. Because then those invisible millions must come from some where.

It seems like a petty attack at Paramount, because they have a movie doing very well in a summer that's performed underneath everyone's expectations. The movie very well could be on its way to a billion, and people are stating that Paramount is desperate? Where was this desperation when TASM2 underperformed, when Edge of Tomorrow opened so low? Why weren't those studios desperate?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Quit with the hostile tone, it gets old. I asked a simple question and did not attack you; if that provokes you so, maybe a discussion forum is not the best environment for you.

I have not made up my mind about anything other than that there has been nothing more than speculation on this matter that relies on nothing more than the word of nameless industry insiders. There has yet to be any hard evidence that such a crime has taken place. Your post was much more certain about this matter than mine, "I'm sure all studios fudge the numbers but Paramount takes it to the extreme when it comes to this series..Paramount just adds 2 million again like they did with Revenge of the Fallen". You are asserting something factual, and I merely asked where you received this concrete evidence and the fact that you responded in such a petulant matter leads me to believe you have none.

Make me quit my hostile tone and leave these forums. Last time I checked I have the right to discuss the box office of this film if I damn well please.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Make me quit my hostile tone and leave these forums. Last time I checked I have the right to discuss the box office of this film if I damn well please.

You do have the "right" to discuss it; let me know when you want to, instead of having a childish tantrum for no discernible reason.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You do have the "right" to discuss it; let me know when you want to, instead of having a childish tantrum for no discernible reason.

Yeah ignorance of box office in a box office thread seems to annoy me, go figure.

You aren't a baby, I'm not going to hold your hand and guide you through the subject, especially when you have already implied that you are unwilling to believe reality.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Yeah ignorance of box office in a box office thread seems to annoy me, go figure.

You aren't a baby, I'm not going to hold your hand and guide you through the subject, especially when you have already implied that you are unwilling to believe reality.

I could very well be ignorant, but I'll never know, because in the length of this discussion you have put forth nothing of substance other than juvenile insults. I provided my reasoning, you have only insulted me, and derailed this thread with your strange, hostile behavior.

Have your nice little ego trip, but leave it out this thread, where the rest of us can discuss, and disagree politely, like adults.

 

[JKKS085]

But here again is the difference between hard evidence and speculation[...]

It's not too good to be true, it's not that it is/was impossible for AOE to hit the 100M mark from the get go. You're getting it wrong. The problem lies within the numbers reported by the studio itself. With the original friday and saturday numbers they reported, there is realistically no way the movie hit 100M this week end for anyone with the slightest knowledge in the BO workings. Period. It's not because it is too perfect, it's not just Deadline mind you, it simply doesn't add up and therefore it naturally raises strong suspicions amongts insiders and commentators alike.

There is a consensus amongts analysts with zero interest in taking a jab at Paramount, then there is a consensus amongst distributors and other studios as well. If this isn't hard evident, this constitutes a body of reliable, accurate and consistent indications which is sufficient to demonstrate that the reported numbers are likely not accurate. And then there is the Rentrak tracking which is an extremely accurate source and shows that Paramount overestimated the week end by, at least, 2.5M. This is an objective measuring method not speculation on their part.

As for ROTF, the problem doesn't lie with Paramount changing their estimates, the problem is Paramount changing actual numbers way after they were reported to hit a specific mark which raised similar suspicions not because it was perfect but because it allowed the movie to beat some records (including fastest film to gross 200M domestically) while, once again, the reported numbers didn't make sense in the first place. And it still didn't make sense that the movie held impressively well within this timeframe and then crawled to double that gross until the end of it's run. Unless Paramount had to shave a few millions off the following days of course to balance things out.

Now if you are studying law, please just knock it off a notch because this is not a criminal trial (not yet at least, I mean after all Paramount is a public company disclosing at best innacurate estimates to the public, at worst deliberately misleading its shareholders with manipulated figures). But if you want my honest opinion on why they did it, it's quite simple. A headline in the Journal saying "Transformers AOE, first 2014 film to gross 100M+ opening week end, 300M+ wordwide after three days" is way better than "Transformers AOE fails to reach 100M opening week end during tepid summer for tentpole movies, slowest domestic start for the franchise, films sitting at 298M worldwide". It's really not that complicated or extremely sophisticated either. And they didn't fudged it by 5 or 10M for the exact same reason they shouldn't have fudged it in the first place: because it SHOWS. They got caught for a couple of millions I could only imagine the outrage if they fudged it by 5M (let alone 10M). Another problem would that the weekly numbers would just be ridiculous in this case as well as the 2nd week end drop. It would have been way too obvious.

But if you really want to think that it's just people being jealous at Paramount because they are so successful just go for it. Don't hold back. It just seems to me like you are grasping at straws to deny something that is so extremely obvious to everyone with knowledge of the BO workings. I don't think they acted out of desperation (and I frankly never read anyone saying that about Paramount) but they surely acted out of misguided vanity. And this is the best case scenario because then again I wouldn't be to prompt to discount the indirect economic benefits of this "PR stunt" for the company. And I think there is no further need to point out that this film is set to be one of the most (if not the most) successful movie at the BO this year, that it is going to perform extremely well like other installments in the franchise (even if it will probably hit an all-time low domestically) and that in the grand scheme of things it is a very idiotic move on Paramount's part (even if it's not a first).

 

[Liam_H]

But here again is the difference between hard evidence and speculation, and I have yet to see anything other than speculation.

Well since you were curious, I'll try to answer. Of course there is no hard evidence in the sense that we have video of the studios heads telling them to fudge it over $100M. But all studios have access to the same data and a lot of them are coming to the conclusion that Paramount has inflated the total by about $2M. As to why, maybe the quote below is one...

One insider at Paramount with knowledge of the financials told Deadline that there has been concerns that there could be more layoffs if Transformers 4 didn’t hit the $100M mark. So maybe that’s what’s going on.

Deadline has added another update

Sorry, Paramount, but our Box Office chart will reflect what we believe is the more accurate three-day gross of Transformers: Age Of Extinction. We are also posting Par’s numbers so we can show the industry how they claimed to have gotten there. See below. Also, it is worth noting that with the accurate grosses, it puts Transformers 4‘s worldwide total at $299.6M. With Paramount’s inflated domestic grosses, it puts their worldwide gross at an inflated $302.1M. But what better headlines to please the bosses and shareholders with: A $100M domestic and over $300M worldwide. The only problem? It’s a public company and there are strict guidelines about this type of thing.

The more accurate weekend gross: 1). Transformers: Age Of Extinction (PAR), 4,233 theaters / $40.9M Fri. / $31.68M Sat. (-23%) / $24.9M (-21%) / Per screen average: $ $23,030 / 3-day cume: $97.5M) / Wk 1
1). What Paramount claims it to be: Transformers: Age Of Extinction (PAR), 4,233 theaters / $41.8M Fri. / $32.4M Sat. (-22%) / $25.7M (-20.6%) / Per screen average: $23,633 / 3-day est. cume: $100.038M / Wk 1

Even Ray Subers of BOM had to add this...

*Other outlets are reporting that Paramount is inflating the weekend figure for Transformers: Age of Extinction, and that the actual number is around $98 million (or lower). Mojo's policy is to stick with the number that the studio has reported, though, and will list $100 million until Paramount issues a revision.

Obviously I have no hard evidence except speculation so take from this what you will.

 

[hammerhedd11]

It's not too good to be true, it's not that it is/was impossible for AOE to hit the 100M mark from the get go.

Why is it unbelievable that the movie dropped 25% on Sunday? It is a smaller than normal drop, but what about that suggests out right impossibility? My problem with this is again with the evidence you cite; it is a body of opinions (analysts, tracking numbers) that are not infallible. They only suggest it is unlikely, but nothing about the numbers that I have seen suggest something statistically impossible. I get very much the reasons why Paramount would inflate the numbers for the Sunday headlines, but not in deliberately lying about the actuals for Monday. Of course I am no box office expert, and beyond your patronizing comments as to my level of knowledge of box office, can you explain to me why these numbers don't "add up", other than just saying they don't. Plenty of movies have had stronger than usual drops than this that were not expected to have good holds, but I don't see why these numbers in particular warrant this speculation. My only guess is that movies like this and past Transformers films in general are very front-loaded, but one performing better than normal automatically points to fraud?

This all very well be true, and I am not discounting that completely, but as of yet, the only word about this has only been speculation, mostly about why they would do it, which is not necessary or enlightening. Continuing to show that many analysts are doubtful or suspicious only proves that they are doubtful and suspicious, but once again, until we have something concrete, none of us can say without a doubt that Paramount is truly guilty of this. You may not like the law speak, but it still applies- I only see speculation, of which is not entirely unwarranted, but still speculation, and I don't see enough to say without a doubt whether they purposely committed a crime here.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I could very well be ignorant, but I'll never know, because in the length of this discussion you have put forth nothing of substance other than juvenile insults. I provided my reasoning, you have only insulted me, and derailed this thread with your strange, hostile behavior.

Have your nice little ego trip, but leave it out this thread, where the rest of us can discuss, and disagree politely, like adults.

Certainly you can tell me what to do but you do know that I don't have to do it right? You seem to be confused about the power you have over me. You have approximately no power over where or what I post. Zero.

If random posters had that power I'd clean out a few threads but we don't. So you will have to deal with me and hate that I bring up Paramount's blatant number fudging. And no I don't have videotaped proof Perry Mason. Keep your head in the sand and never take it out for all I care.

 

[flickchick85]

I think it's important that people are calling Paramount out on this, because it doesn't seem like there's anything currently in place to prevent this kind of business practice, and it could set a very dangerous precedent in box office reporting if they were to get away with this scot-free.

Allowing the studios to be the ones that report their own takes always seemed kind of shady to me. It almost seems like the box office is a damn honors system right now, and the last people you want operating under an honors system are Hollywood movie studios, lol.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Well since you were curious, I'll try to answer. Of course there is no hard evidence in the sense that we have video of the studios heads telling them to fudge it over $100M. But all studios have access to the same data and a lot of them are coming to the conclusion that Paramount has inflated the total by about $2M. As to why, maybe the quote below is one...

Deadline has added another update

Even Ray Subers of BOM had to add this...

Obviously I have no hard evidence except speculation so take from this what you will.

It was probably a bit too much to say absolute hard evidence like you point out, but I guess my point was that from what I understood, and I could very well be wrong, was that while other studios and analysts can track the data of these numbers to a great accuracy, the final numbers will always come from the studio's, so that in mitigating this 2 or 3 mil difference, they may very well be missing the tiny difference that is truly there. Of course, many will think I'm naive because they will tend to not believe the large corporation, but I only question this because it does not happen often, because playing with fake numbers does not add up and when the controversy arises, it can only do harm to its reputation, so risking such a reaction for the sake of a 2 mil difference does not seem as feasible to me. But I could very well be wrong and I'm glad to discuss it, so I appreciate you being able to converse politely.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I think it's important that people are calling Paramount out on this, because it doesn't seem like there's anything currently in place to prevent this kind of business practice, and it could set a very dangerous precedent in box office reporting if they were to get away with this scot-free.

Allowing the studios to be the ones that report their own takes always seemed kind of shady to me. It almost seems like the box office is a damn honors system right now, and the last people you want operating under an honors system are Hollywood movie studios, lol.

What would you say the incentive would be in continued false reporting of numbers? I can't imagine that any sort of business where the numbers eventually mean nothing would attract any sort of investors in the long term.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Certainly you can tell me what to do but you do know that I don't have to do it right? You seem to be confused about the power you have over me. You have approximately no power over where or what I post. Zero.

If random posters had that power I'd clean out a few threads but we don't. So you will have to deal with me and hate that I bring up Paramount's blatant number fudging. And no I don't have videotaped proof Perry Mason. Keep your head in the sand and never take it out for all I care.

I thought you wanted to discuss box office.

 

[flickchick85]

What would you say the incentive would be in continued false reporting of numbers? I can't imagine that any sort of business where the numbers eventually mean nothing would attract any sort of investors in the long term.

Public perception should not be underestimated. It affects stocks and shareholder's views on a company's performance, and the majority of the public's not paying attention to whether or not a studio is fudging their numbers. If they hear that some movie opened huge, many people are more likely to check it out to see what the fuss is about. It sounds silly, but in certain situations, even a $5mil difference could make all the difference in how a movie is performing in relation to tracking/expectations, which then dictates how the media will spin it, which then dictates how successful the public/industry sees it, which then effects the stocks/shareholders/investors, etc. What if that $5mil determines whether or not the movie had the biggest opening of all time? Or even the biggest November opening, or biggest opening for that type of movie? Then that's what all the headlines will say, which would sell it to the public as as a bigger success story than it would have been sold as otherwise, which convinces more people to check it out since they don't want to be left out of the cultural conversation. If it's determined a couple weeks later that it's opening was reported wrong, it still gave the studio the opportunity to milk that extra $5mil for all the millions it was really worth in the meantime. When movies are fighting on a regular basis for claims to new box office titles and records, fudging a few million can affect a great number of factors, regardless of what the truth actually was.

 

[JKKS085]

Why is it unbelievable that the movie dropped 25% on Sunday?[...]

It is not only the sunday drop that is problematic. They didn't reported a 25% drop but a whooping 20.6% drop BTW and that number beats both Maleficent and Edge of Tomorrow sunday drops while both films displayed the best legs in the summer so far (and excellent legs by all means), and way better legs than any film in the Transformer franchise (which you noticed are extremely front loaded aside from the first outing). Outside of BO anomalies and films facing extremely strong competition (take MoS last year), there is a clear correlation between the internal multiplier of a movie (owe gross/od gross) and it's overall multiplier (final gross/owe gross).Movies that held extremely well during their first week end (like AOE allegedly did) don't suddenly start plumetting (and that's exactly what happened with ROTF). Any drop higher than 50% next week end would be further indication (if it was needed) that this week end's numbers have been fudged. And then there is the Rentrak tracking showing that the numbers released by Paramount don't make sense. The PSA multiplied by the number of screen tracked (which is pretty much everything aside from a few small theaters) comes down to under 97,5M for the three days. But I bet you are going to discard everything I just wrote because ... let me guess ... speculation ? If your question was if I had Brad Grey on tape asking an employee to manipulate the numbers, then that it was an extremely silly question. I'm just trying to shed some light on the subject based on the studio's past behaviour and my knowledge of the BO workings. I'm not the prosecutor in The People vs. Paramount case after all.

Now if you want to stick to your guns (and I have yet to see the smallest piece of evidence on your part, or on anyone else's part for that matter, that these numbers make sense one way or another), more power to you. I for one choose to believe people who are far more knowledgeable than you, far more knowledgeable than me, with insider informations, years of BO analyze behind them and factually no dog in this fight. Yet if a trustworthdy analyst comes up tomorrow with opposite indications backing up Paramount's number I would hear his/her objections. But there seems to be a consensus on the matter so far (just like with the "Puerto Rico" incident) with strangely no "insider" to back Paramount up and virtually no one in the business taking their side. No matter how you want to spin it if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck ...

 

[hammerhedd11]

It is not only the sunday drop that is problematic. They didn't reported a 25% drop but a whooping 20.6% drop BTW and that number beats both Maleficent and Edge of Tomorrow sunday drops while both films displayed the best legs in the summer so far (and excellent legs by all means), and way better legs than any film in the Transformer franchise (which you noticed are extremely front loaded aside from the first outing). Outside of BO anomalies and films facing extremely strong competition (take MoS last year), there is a clear correlation between the internal multiplier of a movie (owe gross/od gross) and it's overall multiplier (final gross/owe gross).Movies that held extremely well during their first week end (like AOE allegedly did) don't suddenly start plumetting (and that's exactly what happened with ROTF). Any drop higher than 50% next week end would be further indication (if it was needed) that this week end's numbers have been fudged. And then there is the Rentrak tracking showing that the numbers released by Paramount don't make sense. The PSA multiplied by the number of screen tracked (which is pretty much everything aside from a few small theaters) comes down to under 97,5M for the three days. But I bet you are going to discard everything I just wrote because ... let me guess ... speculation ? If your question was if I had Brad Grey on tape asking an employee to manipulate the numbers, then that it was an extremely silly question. I'm just trying to shed some light on the subject based on the studio's past behaviour and my knowledge of the BO workings. I'm not the prosecutor in The People vs. Paramount case after all.

Now if you want to stick to your guns (and I have yet to see the smallest piece of evidence on your part, or on anyone else's part for that matter, that these numbers make sense one way or another), more power to you. I for one choose to believe people who are far more knowledgeable than you, far more knowledgeable than me, with insider informations, years of BO analyze behind them and factually no dog in this fight. Yet if a trustworthdy analyst comes up tomorrow with opposite indications backing up Paramount's number I would hear his/her objections. But there seems to be a consensus on the matter so far (just like with the "Puerto Rico" incident) with strangely no "insider" to back Paramount up and virtually no one in the business taking their side. No matter how you want to spin it if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck ...

You make a lot of good points, and I certainly am not disputing that speculation or that any of this is entirely baseless. I am going back and forth myself on what I believe on this issue; my point, as unclear as it may have been, is that I was leery to be quick to judge on this, because not much has been revealed to the general public about it. The only "official" sources I've seen write up about it as of now are Deadline along with snippets from other box office analysts, and so in here and in other places where certain people seemed to make definitive statements about its veracity was puzzling to me, because at that (and this) point, the most we've gotten is 'word' from others. Maybe that's all we'll ever get, and maybe you're right in that the only possible confirmation would be something impossible. There are of course people who know much more than me, who could speak a lot more about specifics but as of now, it's been fairly quiet apart from, and it's hard for me to form a definitive opinion based solely on that.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Public perception should not be underestimated. It affects stocks and shareholder's views on a company's performance, and the majority of the public's not paying attention to whether or not a studio is fudging their numbers. If they hear that some movie opened huge, many people are more likely to check it out to see what the fuss is about. It sounds silly, but in certain situations, even a $5mil difference could make all the difference in how a movie is performing in relation to tracking/expectations, which then dictates how the media will spin it, which then dictates how successful the public/industry sees it, which then effects the stocks/shareholders/investors, etc. What if that $5mil determines whether or not the movie had the biggest opening of all time? Or even the biggest November opening, or biggest opening for that type of movie? Then that's what all the headlines will say, which would sell it to the public as as a bigger success story than it would have been sold as otherwise, which convinces more people to check it out since they don't want to be left out of the cultural conversation. If it's determined a couple weeks later that it's opening was reported wrong, it still gave the studio the opportunity to milk that extra $5mil for all the millions it was really worth in the meantime. When movies are fighting on a regular basis for claims to new box office titles and records, fudging a few million can affect a great number of factors, regardless of what the truth actually was.

I understand your point in the appeal, but I don't really see that being something feasible in the long term for a company to practice. Inflating numbers in the short term could inspire some eager investors, but you can only fool people for so long. I think it isn't just honesty that more studios don't lie about their film's openings, but that it would essentially make everything they do worthless, and like any sort of unnecessary inflation, would just make everything cost more. If it becomes that much easier to reach a record or hit a certain mark, then it will of course mean less and, of course, eventually not pay off like people will be expecting.

 

[def28]

Finke posted on the matter...

http://nikkifinke.com/oh-grow-theres-box-office-controversy-every-week-just-transformers-4/

 

[JKKS085]

You make a lot of good points, and I certainly am not disputing that speculation or that any of this is entirely baseless. I am going back and forth myself on what I believe on this issue; my point, as unclear as it may have been, is that I was leery to be quick to judge on this, because not much has been revealed to the general public about it. The only "official" sources I've seen write up about it as of now are Deadline along with snippets from other box office analysts, and so in here and in other places where certain people seemed to make definitive statements about its veracity was puzzling to me, because at that (and this) point, the most we've gotten is 'word' from others. Maybe that's all we'll ever get, and maybe you're right in that the only possible confirmation would be something impossible. There are of course people who know much more than me, who could speak a lot more about specifics but as of now, it's been fairly quiet apart from, and it's hard for me to form a definitive opinion based solely on that.

In other news here's what the WSJ has to say about it:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/100-million-debate-transformers-debut-was-big-but-how-big-1404174343

The latest "Transformers" movie claimed $100 million in North American ticket sales for its opening weekend, but some in Hollywood say the numbers don't compute.

Paramount Pictures said Monday that its big-budget sequel "Transformers: Age of Extinction" sold $100,038,390 of tickets in the U.S. and Canada from its debut Thursday night through Sunday. That was virtually identical to the $100 million estimate that the Viacom Inc. VIAB +0.42% -owned studio gave Sunday morning and ahead of this year's second-biggest opening, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" at $95 million in April.

But people with access to the box-office reporting system universally used in Hollywood said that reaching that tally likely involved some not-very-common assumptions on Paramount's part.

Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore said: "We believe in the accuracy" of the studio's reported number.

Rentrak Corp.'s RENT +0.11% reporting system has a direct line into the vast majority of theaters in the U.S. and Canada, to track actual ticket sales, but it isn't in quite all of them. To report their "actual" gross the Monday after a film opens, studios estimate the sales at the small number of remaining locations. That figure stands as the final publicly reported opening gross of the movie. Large openings, particularly ones that pass milestone figures like $100 million, are often touted for marketing and publicity purposes by studios.

According to several people with access to Rentrak data, the system provided ticket sales data for about 4,100 of the 4,233 theaters playing "Transformers" in the U.S. and Canada. Together, those theaters sold about $95.9 million of tickets for the film.

Theaters that don't report into Rentrak tend to be small, independent locations that do less business than average. So when calculating their Monday "actuals," studios typically assume that those outlier theaters each gross at most half of what the average theater reporting to Rentrak does.

By that method, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" would have grossed about $97.5 million.

In order for the movie to reach $100 million, the "Transformers" theaters not tracked by Rentrak would have had to gross more than the nation-wide average—a rare though not unprecedented assumption for a studio to make.

Paramount's Mr. Moore said that some of the theaters not included in Rentrak are high-priced digital screens from IMAX Corp. IMAX +2.04% and that others are in Puerto Rico—and that "Transformers" movies perform particularly well with Hispanic audiences.

A knowledgeable person said that of 353 domestic IMAX locations playing "Transformers," only six weren't tracked by Rentrak. Those six tend to be among the lowest-grossing IMAX locations, this person added.

Mr. Moore declined to specify how many theaters in Puerto Rico showed the movie or how many of those were tracked by Rentrak. "These assumptions are consistent with assumptions other studios have made on movies with a larger than normal appeal to Hispanic audiences," said Mr. Moore.

Rentrak declined to comment.

It is common for studios' "actual" box office numbers on Monday to be slightly different—and usually lower—than the estimate issued on Sunday morning. Those "actual" figures are rarely as widely questioned in Hollywood as "Transformers" was on Monday, although scrutiny was high, given the size of the debut.

Paramount will learn the true opening-weekend gross for the film after it receives its cut of ticket sales from theaters in the coming weeks. Mr. Moore said Paramount, following standard industry practice, wouldn't be reporting that number publicly.

Any difference would presumably be immaterial to the success of the movie or Paramount's bottomline. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" is on track to gross more than $250 million domestically and significantly more overseas. Paramount said Monday that the movie has already grossed $202.1 million internationally, slightly more than it estimated on Sunday.

Typically, studios keep about half of domestic box office receipts and a bit less overseas. In China, where "Transformers" has already grossed $92 million, studios keep only 25%.

It is a bit more "nuanced" than the Deadline piece on the matter (but not by much) and it's quite funny to see that Paramount keeps using the "Puerto Rico" excuse to justify extremely questionnable numbers.

Finke posted on the matter...

http://nikkifinke.com/oh-grow-theres-box-office-controversy-every-week-just-transformers-4/

If anyone still wonders why Finke got fired, this is why
It's not only because she turned out rather poor at tracking numbers, it's not because she displayed years of continuous and obvious bias, it's because she spends more time trashing other people (including current and former, in this case, colleagues which is a really classy move) than doing her job.

And finally, here's what Subers said about the issue on twitter last night:

Ray Subers @raysubers · 20 h
I don't really have it in me to go after Paramount over this $100.04m number for TRANSFORMERS. But I hope someone else does.

Ray Subers @raysubers · 19 h
Good summary of the TRANSFORMERS 4 $100m controversy over at Deadline: http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/transformers-late-night-estimate-8-75m-on-path-to-mid-90m-opening/

 

[JKKS085]

@boxofficemojo 2 min
Transformers: Age of Extinction' added $10.5 million on Monday. 4-day total: $110.5 million. http://bit.ly/1iRH8Qz

The funny part of today's story is that based on numbers from Rentrak, the movie did an estimated 10.91M on monday. That's probably another very convenient coincidence.

 

[def28]

The funny part of today's story is that based on numbers from Rentrak, the movie did an estimated 10.91M on monday. That's probably another very convenient coincidence.

So now they just keep shaving off a bit for the rest of the week right?

Also, I don't get how all this works but didn't rentrak also say the numbers were 100m for the week yesterday? Or did they get that from the studio? How does that go down exactly?