- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 33,768
- Reaction score
- 16,009
My sister worked on the make up in stake land 2.
Movies Ryan Coogler's SINNERS (Grossed $283 Million Globally)
- Thread starter Dragonlordxxxxx
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2013
- Messages
- 29,301
- Reaction score
- 32,791
There's a Stake Land 2?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 33,768
- Reaction score
- 16,009
Yep stakelander is it's other name.There's a Stake Land 2?
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,170
- Reaction score
- 7,908
I have no idea. I can only go from what Ive read from articles online. How about you? Do you have some sort of inside info, or are you going to by things youve read online and the things you assume?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 85,989
- Reaction score
- 22,926
I'll chime in. @Bob Gray is not wrong. I've also known about this ticket revenue distribution system a long time ago. This is not all but certain movies especially the major blockbuster-type movies have special revenue sharing during the early weeks of release which favors heavily towards the studios. Studios get about 60% to 80% ticket revenue to some blockbuster movies in the first week in the US. But I don't know if this system is still in effect after 2020. And I especially don't know if this system applies to Sinners (I doubt it).
If you're curious, try google search "cinema and studio revenue sharing in first week".
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 59,321
- Reaction score
- 121,368
I went ahead and Googled it and this is the most recent article on the subject from the results -
Movie Theatre Business Model | How do Movie Theatres Make Money
The movie theater business is one of the most profitable businesses. Let's look at how this billion-dollar industry works and how movie theaters make money.
startuptalky.com
"Theaters give 50–55% of ticket sales to movie distributors."
And another quote from a different link -
- "Only the biggest movies commonly claim more than 50% of income. When they do, it is almost always from a major distributor and only in the first week or two of the film's run. As one expert put it "a 55% split in favour of the distributor is generally regarded as a great deal and some recent major releases have achieved that". I understand that recently a certain expensive sci-fi movie from a major studio managed to secure 65% of income in its opening week but this is regarded as exceptional.
- Distributors of independent films typically receive between 28% and 35% of income. This means that for some 'specialist' titles (art house films, small foreign language films, documentaries, etc), the exhibitors are keeping up to 72% of the ticket sales. That said, most of these titles have a minimum guarantee attached, to prevent the distributor from getting pennies. A typical deal is "35% vs an MG of £100", meaning that the exhibitor must pay the distributor either 35% of the box office or £100, whichever is the greater."
How is a cinema's box office income distributed?
Today, I'm going to tackle a couple of related topics which seem to come up frequently in reader questions and comments - how is a cinema's box office income distributed, and how much of it ends up with the filmmakers?
stephenfollows.com
So, a movie studio receiving 90% of the boxoffice for the 1st weekend and the theaters keep 10% is very wrong.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2022
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 4,440
As an energy vampire, I identified more with the antagonists of this movie.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 23,278
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Since no one wants to use google in the discussion and actually back up anything;
- Ticket Sales: A significant portion of initial ticket sales, sometimes up to 90%, goes to film studios.
- Revenue Sharing: As weeks pass, theaters keep a larger share, sometimes reaching a 50-50 split.
"“I was shocked to find out movie studios actually take between 80% to 100% of a movie theater’s sales revenue in the first two week,” Yang explained. “Then in subsequent weeks the ratio gradually becomes more favorable to the cinema, usually resulting in a 50:50 ratio.”"
edit: I see I forgot to refresh before posting, my bad
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 23,278
- Reaction score
- 2,084
This is old, and I don't see the question itself he's responding to but Ebert doesn't dismiss such a high percentage outright;I went ahead and Googled it and this is the most recent article on the subject from the results -
Movie Theatre Business Model | How do Movie Theatres Make Money
The movie theater business is one of the most profitable businesses. Let's look at how this billion-dollar industry works and how movie theaters make money.
"Theaters give 50–55% of ticket sales to movie distributors."
And another quote from a different link -
- "Only the biggest movies commonly claim more than 50% of income. When they do, it is almost always from a major distributor and only in the first week or two of the film's run. As one expert put it "a 55% split in favour of the distributor is generally regarded as a great deal and some recent major releases have achieved that". I understand that recently a certain expensive sci-fi movie from a major studio managed to secure 65% of income in its opening week but this is regarded as exceptional.
- Distributors of independent films typically receive between 28% and 35% of income. This means that for some 'specialist' titles (art house films, small foreign language films, documentaries, etc), the exhibitors are keeping up to 72% of the ticket sales. That said, most of these titles have a minimum guarantee attached, to prevent the distributor from getting pennies. A typical deal is "35% vs an MG of £100", meaning that the exhibitor must pay the distributor either 35% of the box office or £100, whichever is the greater."
How is a cinema's box office income distributed?
Today, I'm going to tackle a couple of related topics which seem to come up frequently in reader questions and comments - how is a cinema's box office income distributed, and how much of it ends up with the filmmakers?
So, a movie studio receiving 90% of the boxoffice for the 1st weekend and the theaters keep 10% is very wrong.
"I wanted to correct the idea that as much as 90% of the movie ticket price goes to the studio. When you hear figures that high…80-90 percent, that is AFTER a figure called the House Nut is deducted. The House Nut is supposed to be the operating costs of the theatre. In the case of a multiplex, it’s the overall operating expense pro-rated by the seat count of each theatre. The reason I say “supposed to be” is because it’s a negotiated figure that may or may not be real."
How your ticket price is divided | Roger Ebert | Roger Ebert
From Steve Kraus, Chicago:
www.rogerebert.com
Perhaps the numbers Stephen is citing are factoring in this deduction, but he also seems to be referring to the UK, which may have different standards than the US for distribution splits
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,170
- Reaction score
- 7,908
I went ahead and Googled it and this is the most recent article on the subject from the results -
Movie Theatre Business Model | How do Movie Theatres Make Money
The movie theater business is one of the most profitable businesses. Let's look at how this billion-dollar industry works and how movie theaters make money.
"Theaters give 50–55% of ticket sales to movie distributors."
The quote is talking about box office in India. I dont know why you left that out. Seems kind of important. Its talking about international box office revenue.
And another quote from a different link -
- "Only the biggest movies commonly claim more than 50% of income. When they do, it is almost always from a major distributor and only in the first week or two of the film's run. As one expert put it "a 55% split in favour of the distributor is generally regarded as a great deal and some recent major releases have achieved that". I understand that recently a certain expensive sci-fi movie from a major studio managed to secure 65% of income in its opening week but this is regarded as exceptional.
- Distributors of independent films typically receive between 28% and 35% of income. This means that for some 'specialist' titles (art house films, small foreign language films, documentaries, etc), the exhibitors are keeping up to 72% of the ticket sales. That said, most of these titles have a minimum guarantee attached, to prevent the distributor from getting pennies. A typical deal is "35% vs an MG of £100", meaning that the exhibitor must pay the distributor either 35% of the box office or £100, whichever is the greater."
How is a cinema's box office income distributed?
Today, I'm going to tackle a couple of related topics which seem to come up frequently in reader questions and comments - how is a cinema's box office income distributed, and how much of it ends up with the filmmakers?
This is talking about box office in the UK.
"In order to answer the question, I have been speaking to a number of people in both the distribution and exhibition sectors in the UK "
Again, international, not domestic. Its still interesting and relevant, but it aligns with what I said. You gotta start reading the links you post.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,170
- Reaction score
- 7,908
Ah. Beat me to it. I came across the same info and its actually kind of a quagmire to get legitimate info. I found a couple of forum posts that I didnt use for obvious reasons, but a couple of them said that they either used to work at or just talked to a manager at a theater and sometimes the studio get a "floor", where theres a cut off the top before the distribution split. I take it with a grain of salt because of the sources, but it was kind of interesting that two different places use the same term.
I think its likely theres different distribution deals for different movies, and the "Holly wood Magic" of how finances work is probably a whole other discussion onto itself. I still laugh over studios claiming that Star Wars hadnt turned a profit:
LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader That Return Of The Jedi Hasn't Made A Profit!? - SlashFilm
During an interview with Equity Magazine, David Prowse, the actor who played (but didn't voice) Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, claims that LucasFilm has yet to pay him any residual payments on Return of the Jedi because the the film has yet to make a profit. "I get these...
www.slashfilm.com
More recently there was an interesting interview with Jamie Kennedy of all people. He said one of the tricks they used was marketing budget. Where if a smaller movie has little promotion, but it comes out the same year as a big release like Harry potter, the "marketing budget" is actually everything combined for all movies, and then they can declare the movie isnt profitable because it didnt make back an enormous promotion budget. Again, grain of salt because its Jamie goddamn Kennedy, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 23,278
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Ah. Beat me to it. I came across the same info and its actually kind of a quagmire to get legitimate info. I found a couple of forum posts that I didnt use for obvious reasons, but a couple of them said that they either used to work at or just talked to a manager at a theater and sometimes the studio get a "floor", where theres a cut off the top before the distribution split. I take it with a grain of salt because of the sources, but it was kind of interesting that two different places use the same term.
I think its likely theres different distribution deals for different movies, and the "Holly wood Magic" of how finances work is probably a whole other discussion onto itself. I still laugh over studios claiming that Star Wars hadnt turned a profit:
LucasFilm Tells Darth Vader That Return Of The Jedi Hasn't Made A Profit!? - SlashFilm
During an interview with Equity Magazine, David Prowse, the actor who played (but didn't voice) Darth Vader in the original Star Wars trilogy, claims that LucasFilm has yet to pay him any residual payments on Return of the Jedi because the the film has yet to make a profit. "I get these...
More recently there was an interesting interview with Jamie Kennedy of all people. He said one of the tricks they used was marketing budget. Where if a smaller movie has little promotion, but it comes out the same year as a big release like Harry potter, the "marketing budget" is actually everything combined for all movies, and then they can declare the movie isnt profitable because it didnt make back an enormous promotion budget. Again, grain of salt because its Jamie goddamn Kennedy, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
That seems to be what Roger Ebert was referring to;
This is old, and I don't see the question itself he's responding to but Ebert doesn't dismiss such a high percentage outright;
"I wanted to correct the idea that as much as 90% of the movie ticket price goes to the studio. When you hear figures that high…80-90 percent, that is AFTER a figure called the House Nut is deducted. The House Nut is supposed to be the operating costs of the theatre. In the case of a multiplex, it’s the overall operating expense pro-rated by the seat count of each theatre. The reason I say “supposed to be” is because it’s a negotiated figure that may or may not be real."
How your ticket price is divided | Roger Ebert | Roger Ebert
From Steve Kraus, Chicago:
Perhaps the numbers Stephen is citing are factoring in this deduction, but he also seems to be referring to the UK, which may have different standards than the US for distribution splits
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 59,321
- Reaction score
- 121,368
Is that supposed to be some kind of a mic-drop?
100% of the ticket sales go to the studio... for the first two weeks for some releases?
That means the theaters are showing those movies at a loss for those two weeks because they have to operate the theater and clean up after every showing.
Very curious that no examples have been made of which movies that the studios received 90% or 100% of the opening two weeks ticket sales.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 62
Went with a few friends, we all found it to be OK. I'd give it like a 6.5, fun dumb movie. Loved the first half but once the vampires came out it got pretty silly. I think From dusk till dawn did it much better.
Loved the costumes, setting, and some of the side characters were hilarious.
I definitely think its overhyped and wish I waited to watch at home for free.
Loved the costumes, setting, and some of the side characters were hilarious.
I definitely think its overhyped and wish I waited to watch at home for free.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,170
- Reaction score
- 7,908
Because I already pointed out foreign markets get about half. Your article agrees with me.
Dude, take the L and start letting people talk about the movie the thread is made for.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 65,845
- Reaction score
- 115,017
You ever heard of concession stands?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 12,228
- Reaction score
- 7,611
There's a reason concessions are so expensive at theaters and more and more want to sell booze or more than just popcorn and hotdogs.
