Topic: Full "Pacific Rim" Trailer

[ScaryTooth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=2vKz7WnU83E

So yeah, looks pretty awesome! And it has GLaDOS in it!

[Cools!]

I hope it turns out good.

[sirean_syan]

I went and saw the movie yesterday and it was pretty awesome. If you have any love for Godzilla or giant robot anime (like Mazinger) from the 70s-90s you'll feel right at home. Of course the giant robot stuff is all great, but what Pacific Rim does right is it keeps the story and human drama simple and straightforward as to not muck up the good stuff. I imagine this is what a lot of folks might have wanted out of something like the new Transformers. Rather than coming up with some convoluted story with worthless plot twists or origin stories you more or less have a straightforward struggle for survival against mean monsters. This isn't the first time I've said this in the past couple of years, but it's become a refreshing when any sort of movie or game is willing to keep things simple. The conflicts that erupt between people are believable even though they play out in a somewhat cartoonish fashion. The characters themselves are all fairly generic archetypes for this sort of thing, but they're all played well. In the end, you just have a movie that's just enjoyable that isn't weight down by shit that makes you hate the movie (like nearly everything in Transformers).

My only complaint was there wasn't enough of the Russian team.  Having the Soviet era style choir going whenever they were doing their thing was brilliant.

Edit: Oh yeah. Because of timing I ended up at at 3D showing and I sort of think it was for the better. 3D seems like it has actually come some ways since Avatar and it felt like the usual clarity or color that was the tradeoff for the the 3D wasn't an issue here. Given the sort of big dumb nature of the movie it really worked well. 

[Cools!]

it was pretty awesome

That's all I wanted to hear.

[idolminds]

Damn dont say that. My theater also has the option to see it in 3D.

[Pugnate]

The problem with the 3D is how the glasses make the film dimmer than it should be.

[scottws]

I saw this yesterday in 2D. I really don't have anything to add to what sirean said. I agree with everything he said and I also noticed the patriotic Russian song that seemed to be the theme of the Russian crew and found it pretty funny.

This movie is not going to be winning any Oscars, but it is a great, fun summer popcorn flick. I'm glad I went.

[idolminds]

So I am WAY behind on movie watching but managed to score a cheap bluray copy of this. Just watched it.

Fucking. Awesome.

Actually I guess I can expand on that a little. Like sy posted, its the simplicity. They knew exactly what they wanted to make and know exactly what people would want out of the movie. Giant robots beating the shit out of giant monsters while destroying everything around them? That is this movie. That is why you bought your ticket/DVD/Bluray, so we are going to give you just that.

[Pugnate]

Yeah I definitely enjoyed this movie for what it was. It had very specific ideas about what it wanted to be, and it managed that quite well.

It is sad that the film didn't make money.

[Cobra951]

This is exactly the kind of movie I would have loved as a kid.  Even now it's entertaining, if not particularly memorable outside of the special effects.

I'm surprised it didn't profit.  Overly bad attendance, or ridiculous production cost?

[Pugnate]

Bad attendance. In the USA any gross from a film only 40% comes back to the producers. The rest goes to cinemas etc.

Overseas, depending, on the country, it can be as low as 20%. Of course things are pulled back with DVD sales etc.

But I mean that's why you have a $200 million budget film that needs to make $400 mill to be a moderate success.

Man of Steel made 670 mil worldwide I believe, and it was a loss. This was before DVD and stuff of course.

Pacific Rim grossed 100 mil in the USA which is just disappointing by any yardstick.

[Quemaqua]

I never go to the movies anymore. I kinda wanted to see this, but it just isn't worth the money to see another popcorn flick that ultimately probably isn't that different from the last popcorn flick. It does look cool and I'm sure I'll watch it eventually, but it's hard to get me into a theater anymore. I've noticed this trend amongst a lot of my friends and such too. I won't say theaters are on their way out or anything, but attendance definitely seems to be less ubiquitous. Maybe the abundance of home-based entertainment we have now?

[scottws]

Bad attendance. In the USA any gross from a film only 40% comes back to the producers. The rest goes to cinemas etc.

Overseas, depending, on the country, it can be as low as 20%. Of course things are pulled back with DVD sales etc.

But I mean that's why you have a $200 million budget film that needs to make $400 mill to be a moderate success.

Man of Steel made 670 mil worldwide I believe, and it was a loss. This was before DVD and stuff of course.

Pacific Rim grossed 100 mil in the USA which is just disappointing by any yardstick.

That surprised me.  I thought theaters didn't get very much from the run of a film and that's why they charge outrageous prices for the concessions.

As far as this movie goes, it's cheesy but I love it.  Saw it in the theater and even bought the 3D Blu-Ray.  The best part is when the Jaeger bashes the Kaiju with a ship.

[Pugnate]

OK so here's a more thorough and accurate answer than I gave:

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

"And of course, profit and loss are in the eye of the beholder — a lot of people were shocked when leaked financial statements showed that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had allegedly lost $167 million, despite $967 million in global revenues. Studio accounting, designed to make sure people don't collect on back-end deals, is a marvel."

Yikes. Sounds shady.

And it used to be true across the board that the opening weekend was when the biggest percentage of profits went to the studios. In the past, studios "strong-armed exhibitors into these front-loaded deals, wherein the overwhelming majority of the opening weekend take goes to the studio," says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets. "As much as 90% of that revenue is theirs." The theaters only make money by selling "overpriced snacks" to audiences during that first week — but in the following weeks, the theater's cut goes up. Eventually, by the fourth week, the studio's cut has fallen to around 52 percent in most cases.

OK so you were somewhat correct Scottws. I guess the opening weekend is where the cinemas have to let the lions eat.

"So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number."

So overseas it is as low as 15%. That's not good. 

[Pugnate]

http://themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/

This also reenforces what was said earlier. The first week of a movie theaters keep as little as 20-25% of the ticket. The second and third week they keep 40-60%. This only grows so eventually they keep 60-80%.

When I read that they keep 60% I guess it meant in general, as in out of the overall run of a film. I guess that makes sense. For example, The Dark Knight made 120 mil or so on opening weekend where I am guessing the studios kept 80%. However it went on to make around 550 mil? So I suppose that means that 400 of that was divided more in favor of the cinemas.

In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% – 25% of the green. That means, if you showed up to watch Bridget Jones’ Diary on opening night, then of the $12 you put out for a ticket, the movie theatre only got to keep between $2.40 and $3.00 of it.

That’s not a lot of money, especially when you think about how much bigger and elaborate theatres are these days. It’s not cheap running one of these places. It can get even worse. This percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release. Can you imagine that? They had to over staff and have above normal capacity flood into their theatres… and they got to keep $0.00 from the ticket sales. That almost seems criminal.

Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales.

[Cobra951]

OK so here's a more thorough and accurate answer than I gave:

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

"And of course, profit and loss are in the eye of the beholder — a lot of people were shocked when leaked financial statements showed that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had allegedly lost $167 million, despite $967 million in global revenues. Studio accounting, designed to make sure people don't collect on back-end deals, is a marvel."

Yikes. Sounds shady.

. . .

Oh yeah.  One thing I learned is never accept a percentage of "net profits" as part of a compensation package if you're in demand.  That's accountant talk for screwing you over down the road.  Go for a lower percentage of the gross instead.

Bad attendance. In the USA any gross from a film only 40% comes back to the producers. The rest goes to cinemas etc.

Overseas, depending, on the country, it can be as low as 20%. Of course things are pulled back with DVD sales etc.

But I mean that's why you have a $200 million budget film that needs to make $400 mill to be a moderate success.

Man of Steel made 670 mil worldwide I believe, and it was a loss. This was before DVD and stuff of course.

Pacific Rim grossed 100 mil in the USA which is just disappointing by any yardstick.

That's just obscene.  I guess money isn't worth what I think it is.  Anything that rakes in 9 figures should profit, or so my long-ingrained money value tells me.  Now I understand why old guys are thought of as cheap.