The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[bjmdds]

I was looking forward to Dark Shadows until I saw the trailer. The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit look good.

[FormerBondFan]

The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit look good.

For sure, they'll strike over $1 billion.

[Blowfeld]

The Hunger Games opened with $66 dollars in one day Maybe Eon should recast Bond a teenage girl!

[Mazer Rackham]

BJ nobody is making money on TGWTDT.


MGM will only co-finance the next two sequels in the Stieg Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy" if it can achieve "better economics."

"Dragon Tattoo," distributed by Sony, generated more than $230 million worldwide, but not enough to pay back MGM for its investment. The movie carried a $100 million production budget.
Keep in mind this announcement is after the US DVD release. MGM covered 20% of the cost.
Funny story is people are returning the official DVD because it looks like it's a bootleg dumbass Sony!

Code: Select all

MGM says it will lose money on 'Dragon Tattoo'
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-dragontattoo-mgmbre82m00x-20120322,0,5713061.story[/url]

LOS ANGELES, March 22 (TheWrap.com) - MGM said Thursday that it expects to lose money on "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and has regained full control of United Artists.

MGM execs told investors that it would only co-finance the next two sequels in the Stieg Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy" if it can achieve "better economics."

"Dragon Tattoo," distributed by Sony, generated more than $230 million worldwide, but not enough to pay back MGM for its investment. The movie carried a $100 million production budget.

"While this is a solid result, it is below our expectations and we booked a modest loss," CEO Gary Barber said during a conference call with investors.

The studio has an option to co-finance film adaptations of the next two books in the series. MGM said it expects to turn a profit on last weekend's "21 Jump Street" and that it has an option to participate in the sequel that Sony is developing.

Barber positioned last year as a strong one for MGM, which emerged from bankruptcy in December 2010. In 2011, MGM reported operating income of $79 million and revenue of $699 million, studio executives said.

MGM has ended the United Artists joint venture launched in 2006. Tom Cruise and his producing partner Paula Wagner purchase a stake in the studio under the venture.

MGM retained a substantial interest in UA, which only produced two movies, "Lions for Lambs" and "Valkyrie" through the venture. Both films disappointed at the box office and Wagner left as CEO of United Artists in 2008.

During much of that period, MGM labored under its own financial difficulties. After failing to attract a buyer and burdened with some $4 billion in debt, the studio announced in 2010 that it would undergo a prepackaged bankruptcy.

After MGM emerged from Chapter 11, Spyglass Entertainment chiefs Barber and Roger Birnbaum were named co-CEOs of the studio and have set up co-financing deals for their "Hobbit" and James Bond franchises with the likes of Warner Bros. and Sony.

MGM is a privately held company, but has taken the unusual step of publicly disclosing its financial results to stock holders.

The Los Angeles Times first reported that MGM has regained control of United Artists.

There is a reason Sony is not doing big $200m + budgets any more, MIB 3 being the exception.

[Mazer Rackham]

The story going around that TGWTDT needs 10% more to break even are simply not true. What was said was MGM hoped to do 10% more than it did, not that MGM would break even (or Sony). If the movie cost only $100m total it would still be in the red if only slightly.

The one service John Carter and TGWTDT have done is to shine light on some of the Hollywood money myths. "Yowzers! it made $230m and only cost $100! That'S money all day long!"

[bjmdds]

So Q once again, DC bombed and cost another studio more money in 2011. The cowboy caper was also a bust. What did that mess lose? Did Tin Tin red out or black out on the books? Modest loss for a solid result? Is Barber joking or spinning the bad news?

[Gala Brand]

BJ nobody is making money on TGWTDT.


MGM will only co-finance the next two sequels in the Stieg Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy" if it can achieve "better economics."

"Dragon Tattoo," distributed by Sony, generated more than $230 million worldwide, but not enough to pay back MGM for its investment. The movie carried a $100 million production budget.
Keep in mind this announcement is after the US DVD release. MGM covered 20% of the cost.
Funny story is people are returning the official DVD because it looks like it's a bootleg dumbass Sony!

Code: Select all

MGM says it will lose money on 'Dragon Tattoo'
[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-dragontattoo-mgmbre82m00x-20120322,0,5713061.story[/url]

LOS ANGELES, March 22 (TheWrap.com) - MGM said Thursday that it expects to lose money on "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and has regained full control of United Artists.

 MGM execs told investors that it would only co-finance the next two sequels in the Stieg Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy" if it can achieve "better economics."

"Dragon Tattoo," distributed by Sony, generated more than $230 million worldwide, but not enough to pay back MGM for its investment. The movie carried a $100 million production budget.

"While this is a solid result, it is below our expectations and we booked a modest loss," CEO Gary Barber said during a conference call with investors.

The studio has an option to co-finance film adaptations of the next two books in the series. MGM said it expects to turn a profit on last weekend's "21 Jump Street" and that it has an option to participate in the sequel that Sony is developing.

Barber positioned last year as a strong one for MGM, which emerged from bankruptcy in December 2010. In 2011, MGM reported operating income of $79 million and revenue of $699 million, studio executives said.

MGM has ended the United Artists joint venture launched in 2006. Tom Cruise and his producing partner Paula Wagner purchase a stake in the studio under the venture.

MGM retained a substantial interest in UA, which only produced two movies, "Lions for Lambs" and "Valkyrie" through the venture. Both films disappointed at the box office and Wagner left as CEO of United Artists in 2008.

During much of that period, MGM labored under its own financial difficulties. After failing to attract a buyer and burdened with some $4 billion in debt, the studio announced in 2010 that it would undergo a prepackaged bankruptcy.

After MGM emerged from Chapter 11, Spyglass Entertainment chiefs Barber and Roger Birnbaum were named co-CEOs of the studio and have set up co-financing deals for their "Hobbit" and James Bond franchises with the likes of Warner Bros. and Sony.

MGM is a privately held company, but has taken the unusual step of publicly disclosing its financial results to stock holders.

The Los Angeles Times first reported that MGM has regained control of United Artists.

There is a reason Sony is not doing big $200m + budgets any more, MIB 3 being the exception.

Don't the studios almost always (95% of the time) claim to have lost money on a film? Isn't it known as "Hollywood Accounting"? I guess GWTDT joins Rain Man, Batman, and Forrrest Gump among the money losers. I'd read (Box Office Mojo) that the production cost was $90 million. It must have taken some real creativity to turn $230 million in revenues (plus DVDs and product placement) into a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

[Omega]

Don't the studios almost always (95% of the time) claim to have lost money on a film? Isn't it known as "Hollywood Accounting"? I guess GWTDT joins Rain Man, Batman, and Forrrest Gump among the money losers. I'd read (Box Office Mojo) that the production cost was $90 million. It must have taken some real creativity to turn $230 million in revenues (plus DVDs and product placement) into a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

No not really the studio only get maybe half of the gross BO and the Tattoo movie actually cost the production cost of $90 or $100 million (depending on who is right) plus another $75 or $100 in adverting and whats it called...distribution cost?.
$200 million dollar cost maybe more with Sony only getting what like $115 million of the gross. MGM saying 21 Jump Street is more exciting kind of sucks because the tattoo movies are a better idea IMO

To prove the point look at one of the many "John Carter is a flop" stories out there and look at the numbers provided, Disney says they will lose $200 million on a movie that cost $250 million dollar to make, a movie that already earned $180 million when Disney announced they were taking a loss.
The numbers from John Carter sucks it big time are like this
Movie Production Cost $250 million
Movie Advertising Cost $100 million
Movie Needs to Break Even $600 Million

Those are the numbers reported.

Batman (1989) and Gump cost $35 & $55 in production respectively but made $400 and $600 million even with adverting those movies did good. But I take your point about Hollywood movie accounting a freaking Harry Potter movie (HP 5 maybe?) a movie which made almost a billion dollars didn't make money according to Hollywood. WTF!? Those damned Hogwarts kids right?

[Gala Brand]

Don't the studios almost always (95% of the time) claim to have lost money on a film? Isn't it known as "Hollywood Accounting"? I guess GWTDT joins Rain Man, Batman, and Forrrest Gump among the money losers. I'd read (Box Office Mojo) that the production cost was $90 million. It must have taken some real creativity to turn $230 million in revenues (plus DVDs and product placement) into a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

No not really the studio only get maybe half of the gross BO and the Tattoo movie actually cost the production cost of $90 or $100 million (depending on who is right) plus another $75 or $100 in adverting and whats it called...distribution cost?.
$200 million dollar cost maybe more with Sony only getting what like $115 million of the gross. MGM saying 21 Jump Street is more exciting kind of sucks because the tattoo movies are a better idea IMO

To prove the point look at one of the many "John Carter is a flop" stories out there and look at the numbers provided, Disney says they will lose $200 million on a movie that cost $250 million dollar to make, a movie that already earned $180 million when Disney announced they were taking a loss.
The numbers from John Carter sucks it big time are like this


Movie Production Cost $250 million
Movie Advertising Cost $100 million
Movie Needs to Break Even $600 Million

Those are the numbers reported.

Batman (1989) and Gump cost $35 & $55 in production respectively but made $400 and $600 million even with adverting those movies did good. But I take your point about Hollywood movie accounting a freaking Harry Potter movie (HP 5 maybe?) a movie which made almost a billion dollars didn't make money according to Hollywood. WTF!? Those damned Hogwarts kids right?

The idea of spending $90 million on a "hard" R is insane in the first place. Probably only 20% of the movie-going public would even consider going to a movie with full frontal nudity and multiple graphic rape scenes. "Girl" came in third for movies with R ratings that were released last year behind Bridesmaids and The Hangover 2, which are a different genre. According to your numbers it would have had to gross north of $330 million for Sony to show a profit, which wouldn't have happened even if it had gotten an Academy Award nomination (which I think they were banking on).

[Omega]

The idea of spending $90 million on a "hard" R is insane in the first place. Probably only 20% of the movie-going public would even consider going to a movie with full frontal nudity and multiple graphic rape scenes. "Girl" came in third for movies with R ratings that were released last year behind Bridesmaids and The Hangover 2, which are a different genre. According to your numbers it would have had to gross north of $330 million for Sony to show a profit, which wouldn't have happened even if it had gotten an Academy Award nomination (which I think they were banking on).

I think it was bad idea to do a christmas release too. But I mean everybody thought it was going to break records that weekend so know body really knew until it was too late.

I think those numbers are probably close Ale always say triple the reported cost so it should of broke even shouldn't it? $300 million is not too high a mountain to climb.

Think what I was reading about the sequels is they want to make them back to back, the first director has basically said he is not coming back, so they need a new guy to direct and I don't know however much they deem it is worth in one lump sum to film two more Tattoo movies.
Sad thing is after Sony saying it is a go we know it is not from MGM and the girl who put the girl in the movie. Rooney Mara has two movies coming up that may make her unavailable or push it back more.

Oh man I meant to share this before but forgot, one of the movie sites talking about the green light for the sequels in January reported "Daniel Radcliffe and Rooney Mara are already signed on"

[Alessandra]

The idea of spending $90 million on a "hard" R is insane in the first place. Probably only 20% of the movie-going public would even consider going to a movie with full frontal nudity and multiple graphic rape scenes. "Girl" came in third for movies with R ratings that were released last year behind Bridesmaids and The Hangover 2, which are a different genre. According to your numbers it would have had to gross north of $330 million for Sony to show a profit, which wouldn't have happened even if it had gotten an Academy Award nomination (which I think they were banking on).

I think it was bad idea to do a christmas release too. But I mean everybody thought it was going to break records that weekend so know body really knew until it was too late.

I think those numbers are probably close Ale always say triple the reported cost so it should of broke even shouldn't it? $300 million is not too high a mountain to climb.

Think what I was reading about the sequels is they want to make them back to back, the first director has basically said he is not coming back, so they need a new guy to direct and I don't know however much they deem it is worth in one lump sum to film two more Tattoo movies.
Sad thing is after Sony saying it is a go we know it is not from MGM and the girl who put the girl in the movie. Rooney Mara has two movies coming up that may make her unavailable or push it back more.

Oh man I meant to share this before but forgot, one of the movie sites talking about the green light for the sequels in January reported "Daniel Radcliffe and Rooney Mara are already signed on"

The studios don't get half, they get A THIRD of the gross, and that's a GROSS which means you also have to pay taxes on it. If the studio wants to break even (break even, not make a profit) they need to make three times as much the production cost in box office gross. It's math, not opinion, and it is explained fully by Hollywood finance experts. Studios actually NEVER say they booked losses, they always gloat that their movie was a success. But we all know that even movies that generate $1 bln in box office revenue can make the studio book a LOSS. If people had access to the balance sheets of the studios, hilarity would ensue over how some movies that are sold as "Major success" in reality are not. And yes it is a matter of proportion between expenses (reminder that on top of production expenses there are ADVERTISING costs that for a blockbuster movie are around $150 mln). It's 3x the production costs (ALL of them, advertising included) in box office gross or there's no breaking even for the studio. So yeah, TGWTDT was a bomb. No matter how hard they try to sell it, anyone who knows basic "who gets what of the box office gross" facts and who can divide and multiply, is gonna laugh at the studio for even trying to sell this lie.

BJ, Smash ratings aren't dropping. They're stable and actually just two weeks ago they did their best ratings since the premiere. The show is doing just fine and it is an improvement for NBC in that timeslot by 160% in the 18-49 demo. Of course they renewed it, they haven't had such a hit in that timeslot in YEARS. And, it really is a great show. Not for everyone, for sure, it's Broadway and theatre and a whole lot of drama, but it's a really, really good show. With great actors and real Broadway stars.

Oh btw... Person of Interest of course was renewed for S2 as well. LOL most networks can dream about having almost 15 mln viewers a week with a NEW show on THURSDAY night at 9 pm (most competitive slot in the week). My boys know how to do it!

Meantime, The Hunger Games is breaking records. It is a MAJOR hit. See? Not recycled, not a remake. Great casting, and teenagers are obsessed with it. Recipe for a hit.

[Goldeneye]

Congratulations to Omega, Bond77,& English Agent! Promoted to 00 in recognition of their many contributions to the forum!

[katied]

Congratulations to Omega, Bond77,& English Agent! Promoted to 00 in recognition of their many contributions to the forum!

Awesome!


I'm really looking forwards to seeing the Hunger Games-apparently it's pretty faithful to the book-I have to say, having seen the ads.... they certainly got the Haymitch and Effie characters right!

[bjmdds]

Exactly what are these Hunger Games all about? I just got back from the New Jersey annual Beatles convention Saturday night concert featuring 2 former members of Wings and the big Mick, Micky Dolenz, who closed out the show with a 4 song set, the last a group on stage tribute to his buddy Davy Jones, as they all sang Sleepy Jean. Big Mick got chocked up a little dong it, saying he was still in a state of shock over the tragic loss of Davy.

[Alessandra]

Congratulations to Omega, Bond77,& English Agent! Promoted to 00 in recognition of their many contributions to the forum!

[Thunderpussy]

Congratulations,

[The Sweeney]

Congratulations to Omega, Bond77,& English Agent! Promoted to 00 in recognition of their many contributions to the forum!

Congrats 00 newbies. Welcome to the club....

[katied]

The Hunger Games is a cross between Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" and "1984". That''s a simple answer. It's set in a United States that has been decimated by some sort of cataclysm(they never really make that clear). Each year kids from each park of the United States(or Panem as it's called in the books) are chosen to participate in the Hunger Game,which is a battle to the death.

[carl stromberg]

The Hunger Games is a cross between Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" and "1984". That''s a simple answer. It's set in a United States that has been decimated by some sort of cataclysm(they never really make that clear). Each year kids from each park of the United States(or Panem as it's called in the books) are chosen to participate in the Hunger Game,which is a battle to the death.

It's also like Battle Royale (both film and book) and the great Stephen King (as Richard Bachman) short storries The Running Man and The Long Walk. I like all of these so should read and watch The Hunger Games.

Congratulations to the new 00's

[katied]

I read it last year, and really enjoyed it. *Way* better than most of the dystopian young adult books out there(and there are a few).