|
Allegedly, former NYC Club Kid James St. James is going to be part of the YA movie scene in 2017. "St. James published a second book, Freak Show[,] in 2007, a comedy/romance about a teenage drag queen who attends a new school and forges a relationship with the quarterback of the football team. Freak Show was named to the American Library Association Best Books for Young Adults list. The book will be adapted into a feature in 2017 by Maven Entertainment. The film is set to be directed by Trudie Styler, and will star Alex Lawther, Abigail Breslin, and Bette Midler." So says Wikipedia.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Darthemed posted:Allegedly, former NYC Club Kid James St. James is going to be part of the YA movie scene in 2017. Sounds better than those Divergent movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Henker posted:Yeah wasn't Liefeld's version basically edgy 90s Deathstroke ripoff with zero sense of irony? He had some jokes but nothing close to what he's known for today,
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:He had some jokes but nothing close to what he's known for today, Yeah, it wasn't until the Kelly run that he really became the funny guy. He also came up with all the backstory and such that was in the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:Allegedly, former NYC Club Kid James St. James is going to be part of the YA movie scene in 2017. ...jesus, now is not the time I would have picked to make that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Henker posted:Yeah wasn't Liefeld's version basically edgy 90s Deathstroke ripoff with zero sense of irony?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:It's always worth mentioning that the box office gross is nowhere near what the studio gets and the production budget is way under what the studio actually spent. And when your production budget is $250 million then you pretty much need a billion dollar gross to be solidly profitable. Good god. Where are people getting these numbers, because they get more ridiculous every time someone brings them up. Nobody outside the industry has solid numbers because nobody with that knowledge is actually interested in sharing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Since when has not knowing poo poo ever stopped the Internet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:My favourite thing about Shirou is that apparently after years of just doing porn he had a whole pile of notes and drafts for a new non-porn comic ready to go and then he lost them all in the 2011 tsunami, at which point he decided to just stay in the porno comics business for good. It's a real Charlie Brown moment, if Charlie Brown drew porn for a living. It's funny because like, there have been numerous artists who went from porn to more mainline poo poo, but Shirou is just all "gently caress that poo poo, Ima draw horse man oil gangbangs!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:I hope that universe is extreme enough that Poochie is in it You mean Pouchie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Is that sexism, or is it just more promoting the Edgelord of the Sith because kewl dudes sell? I recall a lot of Darth Maul promotion, and he's way less prominent in his film than Kylo in his. Going by the advertising before the movie came out, I wouldn't have known Rey existed at all, and that Finn was going to be the character who is secretly a Jedi. One of the Facebook ads literally said "This is Finn's story."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Here's a way to make a Chinese co-production that isn't just pandering and includes worldwide cast members for maximum box office potentialquote:[Keanu] Reeves will be the star of Company’s next effort, the Cannonball Run-in-China road movie Rally Car, which Hamel said will shoot this summer from Jeremy Lott’s script. Olivier Megaton is now set to direct. The film, which like Passengers percolated for years, now has backing from China-based Fundamental Films, and they are in the final throes of securing U.S. distribution, with Lionsgate is in pole position. Hamel produces with Mark Gao. also other films in early preproduction get blurbs, but not enough to tell anything about yet: quote:Tim Webber, the Oscar-winning VFX wiz behind Gravity, is set to direct Unmanned, a sci-fi film Hamel said will soon secure commitments from a major Chinese studio, U.S. distributor, director and star. It will shoot on Wanda’s sound stages, and on locations in Hong Kong and Mainland China. The film had been fodder for a New Yorker article on STX last year that implied the distributor was moving toward a deal; Hamel said that while that company is a contender, so are several other distributors vying for a film Hamel said will shoot in the fall. It’s a mission movie revolving around human soldiers teamed with the robotic drones that will soon render the human soldiers obsolete. http://deadline.com/2017/01/passengers-producer-stephen-hamel-china-rally-car-unmanned-1201876420/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Cannoball run in China sounds like my kind of flick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
The twist is that it's a crossover with Death Race. Please?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Good god. Where are people getting these numbers, because they get more ridiculous every time someone brings them up. Nobody outside the industry has solid numbers because nobody with that knowledge is actually interested in sharing it. The thing most people forget is that in a movie that takes place in a modern day context, large chunks of the budget get covered by product placement. Like, Jeep paid a shitload of money to have Bruce Wayne drive it at the beginning of BvS. As did Aston Martin to have that big shot where Affleck yanks the tarp off of it. I also imagine they also pay more to get the shot to show up in trailers - like the Lamborghini shot that is a button in that one Dark Knight trailer. It's why a lot of sci-fi, period pieces, and fantasy movies are the real horribly expensive stuff (as something like Star Wars or Lord of The Rings has zero capability for a brand to show up in it) and why something like John Carter was a huge drain on Disney (never mind it became a sacrificial lamb when Disney bought the Star Wars license), and also why period pieces are usually crossed with sci-fi or fantasy just to create a merchandise revenue line. No studio really trusts a movie to be a movie and just make back all the money spent on it unless it's under like $10 million (the Midnight Specials and indie pickups and long-gestating Oscar bait pictures). Like Blade Runner 2049 will have a good amount of budget covered by product placement, which also helped pay for the original - I wonder if Coke will spend money to carry on what's one of the more famous instances of their logo showing up in cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Good god. Where are people getting these numbers, because they get more ridiculous every time someone brings them up. Nobody outside the industry has solid numbers because nobody with that knowledge is actually interested in sharing it. I've actually sat through a presentation from a lawyer in the industry who writes up all the contracts, and the general takeaway was that if you want to know if a film is profitable, you need to define for whom its profitable, and you need to know how it's financed. But as a general rule of thumb a movie has to make 3-4 times it's production budget to be profitable to the studio. The theaters take roughly 50% of the box office, then you have a number of intermediary agents (distributors, sales agents, escrow companies) who take a percentage, then you have certain financiers who are going to be the first to get their money out. A really simplified model is let's say you make a movie with $50 million of your own money, plus a $100 million bank loan at 5% interest. The movie grosses $300 million in theaters. The theaters take $150 million leaving you $150 million. You pay the bank back $105 million, leaving you $45 million. Congratulations, you just lost $5 million on a summer blockbuster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Those presentations always ignore that the studios make sponsorship deals before they even start filming on huge films, which is thought to be the reason why the mid-sized movies have disappeared as they can't put them in the black before filming begins. (Tiny films also hit black before filming do to presales on overseas markets/cable networks, there used to be Blockbuster Video as part of this equation but RIP Blockbuster) Different budget ranges have all sorts of different requirements and nooks and crannies, and studios have a vested interest on making their films seem like they are losing as much as possible for tax purposes. The 3x budget to make a profit seems like straight garbage because the films will never make a profit on the books, but is probably a good enough guide for whether a film gets a sequel greenlighted. And never make movies with your own money, that's what investors are for!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Good god. Where are people getting these numbers, because they get more ridiculous every time someone brings them up. Nobody outside the industry has solid numbers because nobody with that knowledge is actually interested in sharing it. If a movie you don't like does well, use X formula to say it wasn't really successful. If that formula leads to the notion that the next movie you didn't like also did well, change the formula so that the movie you don't like will remain unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Hollywood wants people to think that their movies are always bombing because it makes it easier to not pay taxes on anything ever. The one big failing of the Sony hack was that they didn't dump any incriminating Hollywood Accounting records.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:Hollywood wants people to think that their movies are always bombing because it makes it easier to not pay taxes on anything ever. The phrase "Hollywood Accounting" is listed by the MPAA as NC-17. TMYK
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
You have to know the code https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYMjF484LlY
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:The 3x budget to make a profit seems like straight garbage because the films will never make a profit on the books, but is probably a good enough guide for whether a film gets a sequel greenlighted. And never make movies with your own money, that's what investors are for! That Order of Phoenix budget sheet lays it out pretty clearly. It looks like the studio took about 2/3 of the box office in that case, then the distribution company took 35% of the defined gross as a distribution fee, meaning the studio only got back about 43% of ticket sales. They borrowed $316 million from someone and owed $58 million in interest. That's a movie that made almost $1 billion at the box office and the studio made a profit of about $25 million excluding advertising expenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
The trick is to just pay yourself to be distributor and promoter via cross-industry synergy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:"Edgy 90s muscleman with guns and swords and zero sense of irony" basically describes every male Rob Liefeld has ever drawn. The best part was that him cracking jokes and being sarcastic all the time was still part of his character in that, if you had a trading card of him at the time or read his profile or read a part of a comic where other characters describe him that would always come up. But then like others said it wasn't until the Kelly run that any of that actually happened in any way noticeable beyond any other extreme 90s attitude character. Before that point he was totally useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Electromax posted:The trick is to just pay yourself to be distributor and promoter via cross-industry synergy. Yeah, that's why you really have to carefully define who is making a profit. Basically any major release is profitable for the actors, directors, cameramen and other staff. They get paid even is the film is never released. For a major release, smart investors money is usually pretty secure. If a parent company owns the studio, distributor and toy company, the studio can lose a shitload of money on a movie, while everybody else makes money. It's why movies for children and man-children are going to continue to dominate the release schedule for the forseeable future. We'll see some prestige movies for the studios to raise their profile, and every once in a while they'll release something interesting to keep the artists happy, but the real money makers are the movies which move toys, or "collectibles" if you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Electromax posted:The trick is to just pay yourself to be distributor and promoter via cross-industry synergy. While they can be the distributor in the US, studios often cannot be overseas distributors by law. It's one of the major reasons that international gross only gives back a small amount to the studio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:The thing most people forget is that in a movie that takes place in a modern day context, large chunks of the budget get covered by product placement. I guess this is why Final Fantasy 15 is loaded with product placements despite not even taking place on Earth. The production of the game is so long the budget must have been enormous, so your characters can buy Nissin cup noodles from shops that accept American Express.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
thats just because nissin cup of noodles are good
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:It's why a lot of sci-fi, period pieces, and fantasy movies are the real horribly expensive stuff (as something like Star Wars or Lord of The Rings has zero capability for a brand to show up in it) Although there's always stuff like Nissan having the Rogue One tie-in car, or Denny's having a tie-in Hobbit menu. Also why the Nokia product placement was so jarring in the 2009 Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Mercedes? C'mon, he should obviously be driving an Italian car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Has there been a product placement thread in CD before? Seems like a topic with a lot to discuss and dissect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:Has there been a product placement thread in CD before? Seems like a topic with a lot to discuss and dissect. You mean the Transformers thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Simplex posted:That Order of Phoenix budget sheet lays it out pretty clearly. It looks like the studio took about 2/3 of the box office in that case, then the distribution company took 35% of the defined gross as a distribution fee, meaning the studio only got back about 43% of ticket sales. They borrowed $316 million from someone and owed $58 million in interest. That's a movie that made almost $1 billion at the box office and the studio made a profit of about $25 million excluding advertising expenses. No, the leaked statement from OotP doesn't lay anything out clearly, because it was explicitly written to hide the profits from someone who was supposed to receive a share. You'll notice that it claims the film lost $168 million, which is obviously loving ridiculous because they went and made 3 more. The "distribution fee" is bogus as well. Warner Brothers Studios produced the film, and then Warner Brothers Entertainment distributed it practically worldwide barring a few minor exceptions. If I take 10 dollars out of my front pocket and move it to my back pocket, I didn't spend 10 bucks. As for the amount the studio "borrowed," Warner is generally the sole financier of its films, so the "someone" they borrowed from was themselves. It's ridiculous to say "the studio doesn't make money unless the gross is X" when it's all one company and it is advantageous for the studio to look unprofitable on paper. e: This doesn't even take into account Britain's generous tax breaks for film production, but w/e Baronash fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
The companion ad to that DLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc59X7xS2ts Lobok posted:Mercedes? C'mon, he should obviously be driving an Italian car. Even the samurai robot in Transformers 4 transformed into a Bugatti.  Curiously, he too is a Mercedes in Transformers 5. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Baronash posted:As for the amount the studio "borrowed," Warner is generally the sole financier of its films, so the "someone" they borrowed from was themselves. It's ridiculous to say "the studio doesn't make money unless the gross is X" when it's all one company and it is advantageous for the studio to look unprofitable on paper. Warners is rarely the sole financier on any movies it makes since the turn of the millennium. I think Potter was a rare exception - they had that long deal with Legendary where Thomas Tull used his VC money to bankroll varying amounts of big movies, all the way up to like 80% of Seventh Son and like 65% of Pacific Rim (which is what busted that relationship up until Skull Island, when Tull figured there was more money in Zilla v Kong and made a deal for Kong to be a WB release as to make that happen), and since then they've been working with RatPac/Dune Entertainment, which is Brett Ratner and James Packer (RatPac) and Steve Mnuchin (Dune) bankrolling just about everything post-2013. So yeah, Trump's pick for Secretary of Treasury is the guy who helped pay for Mad Max Fury Road. It's also where the weird thinkpieces calling Suicide Squad the "Trumpiest movie of the year" and how it's categorically more than just bad as a normal movie came from. I want to say the only studio that does sole financing of its stuff is Disney, but that's because The Walt Disney Company is a fuckoff large conglomerate in and of itself and can afford to - Time Warner has stripped itself away to basically be Warner Bros, DC Comics, HBO, and the former Turner Networks family (TBS, TNT, TCM, Cartoon Network, CNN+assoc channels). Time Inc even got spun off some years ago, and they're half the name. Paramount is all caught up in the fuckery around the Viacom/Sumner Redstone stuff and Viacom is basically Paramount+MTV Networks at this point, since the forced split to have CBS and Viacom be two separate companies some time back. Like, Hasbro is paying for an amount of the Transformers movies, I know that much. Does Fox pay for its own stuff wholesale? I'm trying to recall if there's any major financial partners they are engaged with. I'm pretty sure they threw down all the cash for Avatar. I guess kiimo might know since he works there now. Uni currently has the deal with Legendary and there's still companies like Village Roadshow floating around. Lionsgate might pay for its own stuff, but they don't generally overspend on big spectacle movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:So yeah, Trump's pick for Secretary of Treasury is the guy who helped pay for Mad Max Fury Road. It's also where the weird thinkpieces calling Suicide Squad the "Trumpiest movie of the year" and how it's categorically more than just bad as a normal movie came from. Haha, wait, what? How could anyone even argue this? What does that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Simplex posted:That Order of Phoenix budget sheet lays it out pretty clearly. It looks like the studio took about 2/3 of the box office in that case, then the distribution company took 35% of the defined gross as a distribution fee, meaning the studio only got back about 43% of ticket sales. They borrowed $316 million from someone and owed $58 million in interest. That's a movie that made almost $1 billion at the box office and the studio made a profit of about $25 million excluding advertising expenses. Electromax posted:The trick is to just pay yourself to be distributor and promoter via cross-industry synergy. In the example mentioned, that's what Warner's did, so most of that $211 million fee went right back into their pockets. The $57 million in interest may be tax-deductible depending on just how it was set up, and the loan for $315 million (at what looks like 18% interest?) was probably from a dummy corp set up by Warners (Or maybe even Time as this was pre-split) so they could borrow from themselves/co-financers and write it off. The Merchandising tag is disturbingly low, probably because they are lumping only specifically "Order of the Phoenix" stuff there while general Harry Potter film merchandise goes under a separate balance sheet, and redistribute as needed for tax fun. Marketing is fun because Warners owns half of the CW, so it essentially pays itself 50% for advertising there, plus 100% for all the advertising on Turner stations and HBO (I don't recall if Harry Potter was on HBO or not, but there were probably "first look" specials and synergy), all with small fees for the middlemen and then sliced and diced between corporations so everyone can write off everything possible. And some of those stations then pay them for the rights to air Harry Potter, wherein WB will then pay them so they can run commercials for the next Harry Potter during that broadcast. This is just WB moving the money around for a small fee and biggest writeoff, which isn't a loss at all for the company as a whole, just on this balance sheet's piece of the puzzle. And that's just the stuff that's obvious, there is nothing on the sheet about location tax breaks, real world brands paying for a few fleeting seconds of visibility before Harry goes back to the wizard world, what the other corporate bodies are filing about this film, or other stuff. That, my friends, is real magic. (the sheet being referred too can be seen here - http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/ )
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:Does Fox pay for its own stuff wholesale? I'm trying to recall if there's any major financial partners they are engaged with. TSG co-finances almost all of Fox's genre movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Haha, wait, what? How could anyone even argue this? What does that even mean? You don't need to tie Suicide Squad to Trump to prove it's a loving awful piece of poo poo. The movie does that just fine itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:40
|
|