Movies: Twister Sequel: Twisters

[kook10]

Maybe, but the point is that they haven't yet.

Good point. It looks like they do it when the domestic box office peters out. Twisters isn't going to make much more and is still a long way from breaking even, so they have to count on VOD helping out.

The revenue sharing with the movie theaters is a sliding scale. The theaters get a significantly bigger share in the first and second weeks, and the longer it runs the bigger share the studio gets. It is always a split though. I think they must have discovered that with declining theatrical attendance they will get the same or more sales if they release it on VOD after a couple of weeks and not share the revenue at all. I would guess they keep it in theaters just long enough to keep the chains happy.

 

[Osprey]

The revenue sharing with the movie theaters is a sliding scale. The theaters get a significantly bigger share in the first and second weeks, and the longer it runs the bigger share the studio gets. It is always a split though. I think they must have discovered that with declining theatrical attendance they will get the same or more sales if they release it on VOD after a couple of weeks and not share the revenue at all. I would guess they keep it in theaters just long enough to keep the chains happy.

I believe that it's the other way around. The studios get the much bigger share in the first few weeks and the theaters get an increasingly larger share as time goes on. That's why the studios don't mind ending their movies' theatrical runs early and probably partly why theaters are hurting right now. Movies leaving early and moviegoers just waiting for streaming screw the chains out of revenue that they used to get.

 

[kook10]

I believe that it's the other way around. The studios get the much bigger share in the first few weeks and the theaters get an increasingly larger share as time goes on. That's why the studios don't mind ending their movies' theatrical runs early and probably partly why theaters are hurting right now. Movies leaving early and moviegoers just waiting for streaming screw the chains out of revenue that they used to get.

apologies - you are right. brain fart. I even worked for an indie film producer/distribution rights broker in a former life. gotta stop smokin that shit!

 

[johnjm22]

This is from Dan Murrell.

As of Aug 4th the film was about 111M short of profitability by his estimation.

 

[DaaaaB's]

This is from Dan Murrell.

As of Aug 4th the film was about 111M short of profitability by his estimation.

Well, Crypto Guy says that's BS and has declared the movie a resounding success. Guess we're at a stalemate.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Well, Crypto Guy says that's BS and has declared the movie a resounding success. Guess we're at a stalemate.

Movie was great, got great reviews, overwhelmingly majority of people enjoyed it and will continue to make money. They get back tons of money on tax write offs that not listed in Dan Murells fancy little picture, and the movie will continue to make money over the years.

Yup, that’s a success.

 

[johnjm22]

Unless it gets reported by a reputable publication, there's no way of actually knowing what the marketing cost was. Dan's 100M estimate is based on conventional wisdom for this type of film, but I'd like to think studios have become more judicious with their promotional spending in recent years.

Variety reported the total marketing and distribution expense for Borderlands was 30M and 100M for Deadpool and Wolverine. I can't imagine Twisters would have the same marketing budget as the latter.

 

[Osprey]

Movie was great, got great reviews, overwhelmingly majority of people enjoyed it and will continue to make money. They get back tons of money on tax write offs that not listed in Dan Murells fancy little picture, and the movie will continue to make money over the years.

Yup, that’s a success.

An Oklahoma newspaper reported last year that the movie cost nearly $200M, and the state has a 20-30% film tax credit, so it's likely that the $155M budget figure is after tax credits and the graphic above is, therefore, correct. It's also not the only source that suggests that the film is little over $100M away from profitability. I linked to another earlier, and I imagine that they all understand the financials better than to not account for significant tax credits.

Besides, even if the $155M were before tax credits and the studio got the maximum 30% back, that equals $108.5M spent on making the film. Add a low-end $50M estimate for marketing and you get $158.5M total expenditure. To break even, it would've had to gross at least double that, or $317M, which it's still $30M away from. So, either way that you calculate things, it has yet to turn a profit.

For the reasons that you gave, it hasn't really been a flop, but it hasn't been a complete success, either. It cost too much and didn't make enough. It's possible that it'll turn a profit eventually, as you say, but having to wait months or years after a film has left theaters to turn a profit is generally not counted as a resounding success.

I wrote above that I enjoyed it and want to see films like it succeed, and I don't think that anyone else here has anything against it, either, but the numbers are what they are, unfortunately. A lot of people (both audiences and critics) liked The Fall Guy and Furiosa, too, but neither turned a profit during their theatrical runs. Furiosa, especially, checks all of the boxes that you just listed (great reviews, people enjoyed it, large tax rebates and popularity on VOD), and it's the biggest flop of the Summer so far. You can have a well received movie that still struggles to break even because it cost too much relative to demand.

 

[MadDevil]

Finally saw this and had a blast. They maybe tried a little too hard to recapture the original at times but it was done in a fun and entertaining way. It was everything you'd want and expect out of this type of movie. Also, Glen Powell is a movie star. Dude just has that "it" factor.

 

[S E P H]

Finally saw this and had a blast. They maybe tried a little too hard to recapture the original at times but it was done in a fun and entertaining way. It was everything you'd want and expect out of this type of movie. Also, Glen Powell is a movie star. Dude just has that "it" factor.

I have the same thoughts, but this was way better than the first one. It is more structured, has a better story, and more believable scenes if you take out "stopping a tornado with science" sci-fi stuff.

It gets too Hollywood at times, with people showing up at perfect times and over-the-top story-telling backdrops, but it was still damn good. It has a great cast and nice plausible elements for most of the movie, and not like having that stupid belt scene in an EF5 from the first film. Also, I'm glad that they added the El Reno Tornado as the "main monster," the real-life thing is still probably the worst tornado of all time from the clips I have seen (Joplin is worse, but only because it hit a town). El Reno would have done massive damage if it hit a town as Joplin Tornado did.

E: I have to add the real thing for you lot who have never seen it. Both blokes are lucky to be alive.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Finally saw this and had a blast. They maybe tried a little too hard to recapture the original at times but it was done in a fun and entertaining way. It was everything you'd want and expect out of this type of movie. Also, Glen Powell is a movie star. Dude just has that "it" factor.

Glen Powell is just so much fun. He does everything in acting well. I enjoy it every time he shows up on screen. That Daisy Ridley Stone girl is pretty decent also but Powell is awesome.