kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
The Mummy (2017)
- Thread starter spronk
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Leadsalad
Cis-XYite-Nationalist
- 6,195
- 12,869
I think the movie will do fine. Along with it's inevitable combined-universe follow-ups, it'll comfortably sit in the latter-day PoTC/Transformers/etc.. niche, will earn scathing reviews, the appearance of underperforming domestically, but still make bank internationally.
And it'll probably pay for Cruise, Crowe, Depp, (& Vin Diesel for Furious 14+), etc.. getting digitally de-aged lead-man roles for another 2 decades or so, because their name recognition abroad is a large part of what drives this.
And it'll probably pay for Cruise, Crowe, Depp, (& Vin Diesel for Furious 14+), etc.. getting digitally de-aged lead-man roles for another 2 decades or so, because their name recognition abroad is a large part of what drives this.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
I just have no idea why studios are making this mistake. It's like they are either being greedy, and want to get to the big stories right away--or they have absolutely no idea how current media works, and still are in the mind set that their audience can't piece together multiple movies or find sources of information on various references.
The original Marvel films probably had 2 minutes of the entire film dedicated maybe 1 minute to 'world building' references--it was mentioning a hammer here, or talking about other problems for a single line. How they did their world building, was, as you said--they made a decent movie. And they made the movies (Especially later) with the idea in mind "we want this character to be consistent in other movies". That was really the only thing they worried about, ensuring Iron Man from the Iron Man films, could be in an Avengers film--they didn't try to explain the Avengers or anything, because they knew they didn't need to. Once the Avengers was going to release, they knew social media, and the internet, and how modern media is consumed (IE digitally) would ensure everyone would instantly be up to speed.
The thing is, the scene works even if you don't know who Nick Fury is. Some dude came in and asking him to join a team. Why explain more? If people feel like that had more significance, google, youtube, facebook, can tell them instantly.
Which I think is part of the problem--many of these studios are dinosaurs when it comes to understanding how their audience operates. They run with the assumption that things are still the way they were when Google was crazy and new, and only the young hip kids did it. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter--people will get slammed with sources to show them Easter eggs the moment they are home. The only thing someone has to do is make the movie good enough that people actually feel like reading posts or watching videos on it.
Not always. Marvel had it's fair share of groan-worthy world-building non-sense.
The entire 'oh, besides, you need this metal-candy-bar-something-only-found-in-an-Avengers-warehouse-so-you-can-have-fight-with-Hawk-dude' sequence in Ant Man was clearly extraneous to Ant Man's movie and story, completely added in re-shoots and that only because it set up the tie-in and inclusion of Ant Man in Civil War.
Thor's hot tub seen in Avengers Age of Ultron is infamous in its own right.
The "wink-to-the-4th-wall-style-comments" along the lines of the "You haven't even started to understand what an Infinity Stone can do"/"When-I-heard-you-touched-an-Infinity-Stone-and-lived"-sort in Dr. Strange and GoTG2 were badly written, as the characters in the respective scenes have no reference to what an Infinity Stone is or would be.
Etc...
Marvel was perhaps more subtle initially, simply because they had less planned out as being certain for future production.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,911
- 11,918
All those examples are still more subtle than something like a fucking folder with convenient logos and motherfucking video files that a character clicks on and watches right in front of us.
We can debate whether stuff like the Ant-Man thing was dumb, personally it didn't bother me because at least it made a little bit of sense that someone like Stark might have that tech, but it is pretty clear to me that DCEU and now this Dark Universe bullshit are levels of magnitude dumber. To me, Marvel at least making the effort not to be that retarded is appreciated.
- 1
spronk
FPS noob
- 23,483
- 27,453
most movies make the bulk of their profits from domestic, international box office are a nice $$ for fan bois but for example in china a hollywood company only gets around 22% of the box office, compared to around 70% of the US domestic. $100m in US would require nearly $300m in China to make the same exact money. Also they will make usually a 1.5-1.8x of domestic box office on DVD and streaming sales, whereas foreign box office is closer to 0 for post release for asia and 1x for europe.
For Hollywood, Not All Box Office Dollars Are Equal
Yes.
But they do.
Fate of the Furious. Domestic 225 Million. International 1,013 Million.
PoTC 5 (?). Domestic 150 Million. International 500 Million.
The Mummy (currently) 57 Domestic. International 236 Million.
Transformers Age of Ext. (the one before the current one). Domestic. 245 Million. International. 858 Million.
Even if International Dollars are only 1/3rd to the studio compared to domestic dollars, these make bank internationally. In comparison, R rated stuff (Deadpool, Logan), Comedy (as humor traditionally travels badly), etc. just have less intl. appeal and/or safety nets (depending on how you look at it.
And I am sure the studios are simultaneously working hard on squeezing more cents out of that intl. dollar. If they only get 22% compared to 70% domestic, it also means there's more potential to up the efficiency intl. than there is domestic.
And finally, the size of the market intl. is growing at a much faster clip than the domestic one. Expansion of cinemas in the US is probably more or less stagnant, if not retreating due to Netflix & Co. (didn't check), while it is still growing strong intl., again making future investments into stable (if bland) franchises worthwhile.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Ant man tie in was well done. Show not tell, minimal exposition that didn't take away from the story. Set the tone with interactions and the broad universe (Including how the Avengers were sucking up old Stark/Shield facilities). Just because something is 'extraneous' doesn't mean its bad. Many movies can drop large sections and still have the plot make sense, but the character will suck. Ant Man is really a display of doing a nod to the broader universe correctly.
Thor's avenger scene was bad, but mainly because it was confusing a muddled. Unlike the Ant-Man scene which 'fit' with the rest of the film, the Thor scene just didn't thematically or even in pacing. You go from quiet contemplation after a defeat to Thor getting shocked in a poor, not great.
I didn't notice anything bad in Doctor Strange. The one who mentioned infinity stones was the literal librarian of an ancient magical order that was well versed in the multiverse. I think most people can assume he knew about the gems. In GoTG2, Quill's father is a living planet and one of the "ancient" ones in the Universe, like the collector, an immortal that's been alive since the beginning of time--again, I don't think anyone questioned why they know about the infinity stones. You could say IN the film we don't know he's an ancient one--but the dude is a living planet that was going to destroy countless worlds (Super powerful being), it seemed really reasonable he knows some high level shit.
And that's thing, allow your audience to make connections--it's an important part of any film making, I think. But especially so in 'shared universes' where Easter Eggs and references are going to be looked for specifically. As long as it makes sense within the universe, you're good.
Oldbased
> Than U
- 28,521
- 67,574
I didn't respond to the first article because it says $350 million it loses $95 million but at $450 million it is cash even and that is just poor writing. Many points in the article are correct based on what we have seen in other articles for movies, however they all say the same thing. % returned to the studio is a week by week basis and on contract. That means a studio could get 100% or 60% the first 1-2 weeks of a film based on how well it is intended to do and the companies behind it. Think of it as lobbying drugs to politicians except only theater chains/countries. When it goes foreign those amounts drop mostly due to the middlemen in the process who distribute it to the screens.
On the same note, I initially estimated they spent over $50 million on advertising. It turns out that figure is $100million or more than the cost of the film which is just pure stupidity on Universals part. Unless they had some super marketing deals for this they will have trouble recouping that cost. I haven't seen any Mummy pizza boxes or Cruise drink cups but I haven't checked around either. A movie like this will typically bring in 40-60million in BR/DVD sales of which they get I think around 25% for the first year or so. Plus the handful of millions from places like Netflix/Amazon/Premium selection like Starz and so forth.
The article claims 2 significant figures. One is a $195 million production cost and a $150 million advertising budget.
The listed estimated production costs on other sites including Box Office is $125 million and $100 million advertising/marketing.
That is a swing of $125 million dollars and I've noticed a trend of the sites who generally shit on Cruise are higher figures than the sites who appear to not care/favor him.
Still, due to that high marketing $225 million will be hard to pull off. $175 million would have been possible.
Spronks article claiming $345 million production/marketing would require far more than the article claims to break even. The numbers don't add up using mine nor Spronks figures. That would be a $700 million to break even point and even Universal wouldn't spend that sort of money on Cruise and the Mummy given the sales figures of the previous movies which hovered around the $400 million mark initially. No way Universal spent what Deadline claims, if they did they deserve to lose money.
Initial claims $195+$150 million- ‘The Mummy’ Will Lose $95M: Here’s Why
reported $125 million production(No marketing cost)- The Failed Launch of 'The Mummy' and the Danger of Franchising Too Soon
$125 estimated (no marketing cost )http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=mummy2016.htm
Claims $190 +100 million Tom Cruise Blamed For The Mummy's Failure At The Box Office
Claims $125 million based on initial reports http://www.the-numbers.com/news/222...mes-Alive-Internationally-with-140-76-million
Other data and speculation
https://mic.com/articles/179088/so-you-think-the-mummy-will-flop-think-again#.V9XwvTnZn
This article actually breaks down Spronks Deadline information to make more sense but uses the high numbers to do so The Mummy Is a Huge Flop That Could Cost Universal $95M
Sales to date The Mummy (2017) - Financial Information
So the real question remains. Did they spend $225 million including marketing or did they spend $345 million. That is a VERY wide gap that would require 200-350 million more in sales to break even.
On the same note, I initially estimated they spent over $50 million on advertising. It turns out that figure is $100million or more than the cost of the film which is just pure stupidity on Universals part. Unless they had some super marketing deals for this they will have trouble recouping that cost. I haven't seen any Mummy pizza boxes or Cruise drink cups but I haven't checked around either. A movie like this will typically bring in 40-60million in BR/DVD sales of which they get I think around 25% for the first year or so. Plus the handful of millions from places like Netflix/Amazon/Premium selection like Starz and so forth.
The article claims 2 significant figures. One is a $195 million production cost and a $150 million advertising budget.
The listed estimated production costs on other sites including Box Office is $125 million and $100 million advertising/marketing.
That is a swing of $125 million dollars and I've noticed a trend of the sites who generally shit on Cruise are higher figures than the sites who appear to not care/favor him.
Still, due to that high marketing $225 million will be hard to pull off. $175 million would have been possible.
Spronks article claiming $345 million production/marketing would require far more than the article claims to break even. The numbers don't add up using mine nor Spronks figures. That would be a $700 million to break even point and even Universal wouldn't spend that sort of money on Cruise and the Mummy given the sales figures of the previous movies which hovered around the $400 million mark initially. No way Universal spent what Deadline claims, if they did they deserve to lose money.
Initial claims $195+$150 million- ‘The Mummy’ Will Lose $95M: Here’s Why
reported $125 million production(No marketing cost)- The Failed Launch of 'The Mummy' and the Danger of Franchising Too Soon
$125 estimated (no marketing cost )http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=mummy2016.htm
Claims $190 +100 million Tom Cruise Blamed For The Mummy's Failure At The Box Office
Claims $125 million based on initial reports http://www.the-numbers.com/news/222...mes-Alive-Internationally-with-140-76-million
Other data and speculation
https://mic.com/articles/179088/so-you-think-the-mummy-will-flop-think-again#.V9XwvTnZn
This article actually breaks down Spronks Deadline information to make more sense but uses the high numbers to do so The Mummy Is a Huge Flop That Could Cost Universal $95M
Sales to date The Mummy (2017) - Financial Information
So the real question remains. Did they spend $225 million including marketing or did they spend $345 million. That is a VERY wide gap that would require 200-350 million more in sales to break even.
spronk
FPS noob
- 23,483
- 27,453
all i know is i dont wanna see the bride of frankensteins cooch
feels bad for tom, dude is getting up there in age and probably wants to change to a more cerebral adventure guy like indiana jones. shit like mission impossible and edge of tomorrow require peak physical form, can't be easy to keep at 50+. I hope he moves on to TV, him in a weekly sci fi show on HBO would be awesome
feels bad for tom, dude is getting up there in age and probably wants to change to a more cerebral adventure guy like indiana jones. shit like mission impossible and edge of tomorrow require peak physical form, can't be easy to keep at 50+. I hope he moves on to TV, him in a weekly sci fi show on HBO would be awesome
- 1
- 1
jayrebb
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 14,765
- 14,717
Got the studio sessions. Forgot this violin prodigy was present for it L. Shankar - Wikipedia he kills it on "Careless" n pretty much everything he is on. I might have to buy a full album from him for meditation purposes. I don't know who is more talented him or Davis.
Email best way? can attach a 100meg zip on gmail right. hmu
Last edited:
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,911
- 11,918
HC rips of this are out.
It wasn't as bad as I was led to believe, but it wasn't anything to get excited about either. I actually thought Russell Crowe was used decently too, because honestly if it had just been Cruise they would have had a difficult time making me believe all that other shit going on was possible. But with Crowe, no big deal.
Maybe it is my white privilege, but I've noticed that mummy chick is only really attractive to me when she's pale/white. This movie and Star Trek in particular. She's not all that hot to me normally. I mean, movie star-wise. Real life, duh, she's way too hot to even look at me.
I give this movie a 6/10. Could have been a lot better, but wasn't terrible.
It wasn't as bad as I was led to believe, but it wasn't anything to get excited about either. I actually thought Russell Crowe was used decently too, because honestly if it had just been Cruise they would have had a difficult time making me believe all that other shit going on was possible. But with Crowe, no big deal.
Maybe it is my white privilege, but I've noticed that mummy chick is only really attractive to me when she's pale/white. This movie and Star Trek in particular. She's not all that hot to me normally. I mean, movie star-wise. Real life, duh, she's way too hot to even look at me.
I give this movie a 6/10. Could have been a lot better, but wasn't terrible.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Russell was probably the best part of the movie.
holy shit Cruise tho....I can't believe how bad that was..
holy shit Cruise tho....I can't believe how bad that was..
jayrebb
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 14,765
- 14,717
Tom Cruise's The Mummy Could Get a Sequel
Yikes.
So it closed 30 million higher than anticipated. That's still a net loss of about 60 million dollars.
I'd be unsure if they want another Cruise-helmed Mummy flick if I'm Universal. But realistically speaking, what are their other options in the "Dark Universe"? Bride of Frankenstein sounds like fucking dogshit...
Cruise Mummy Redux it is then? Fuck it.
Yikes.
So it closed 30 million higher than anticipated. That's still a net loss of about 60 million dollars.
I'd be unsure if they want another Cruise-helmed Mummy flick if I'm Universal. But realistically speaking, what are their other options in the "Dark Universe"? Bride of Frankenstein sounds like fucking dogshit...
Cruise Mummy Redux it is then? Fuck it.
Last edited:
Valderen
Space Pirate
- 4,593
- 2,812
Finally got around to seeing this last night. What a forgettable movie, just average all around, story, performance, etc...was just average/mediocre.
The world building wasn't compelling at all, nothing to make me want to see more of this Dark Universe. A really big disappointment, I expected more even knowing the bad reviews.
The world building wasn't compelling at all, nothing to make me want to see more of this Dark Universe. A really big disappointment, I expected more even knowing the bad reviews.
- 1
- 3,181
- 8,269
The Dark Universe is on hold, for now anyway.
Universal Goes Back to the Drawing Board as Dark Universe Producers Abandon the Franchise - Bloody Disgusting
The Mummy killed it overseas, so I don't really see why. Unless they really just want these movies to be successful here.
The Mummy (2017) (2017) - Box Office Mojo
The Transformers franchise has no qualms making garbage that the Chinese will flock to, why should universal?
Universal Goes Back to the Drawing Board as Dark Universe Producers Abandon the Franchise - Bloody Disgusting
The Mummy killed it overseas, so I don't really see why. Unless they really just want these movies to be successful here.
The Mummy (2017) (2017) - Box Office Mojo
The Transformers franchise has no qualms making garbage that the Chinese will flock to, why should universal?