Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:10 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
Which is the time most wide-release movies make the majority of their money.
No.
  #102  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:12 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
*...14 days after it was released.
This is number crunching territory. The bean counters can look at the first weekend's result and get a ball park estimate of how things will turn out. After 2 weeks the ball park is looking fairly small.

Look at columns at places like BoxOfficeMojo and OfficeProphets. They will use "comparables" a lot. Similar types of movies, similar budgets, etc. Once some real numbers come in they know based on these what's going to happen. (If you're real gutsy, you can sometimes make a very good prediction based on Thursday night "preview" numbers.)

Once in a while there's a bit of a surprise. For example when a movie appealing to older audiences gets some real legs. (Only a few do.) But based on the 2nd weekend drop we know that nothing surprising happening here.

I certainly hope that no one thinks there's anything magical involved in these predictions. It's just box office history and math.

Last edited by ftg; 10-04-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #103  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:35 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,159
[Moderating]

Spoilers being displayed when quoted is a known bug with the Sultanthemes skin. There's not much that can be done about it, beyond switching to the non-buggy skin.
  #104  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:52 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
No they haven’t. The quoted post displays correctly.
They do on the SultanTheme skin, unless you use my fixer script. And that skin is the default, and the one that works best on mobile.

I personally decided to (try to remember to) avoid quoting the actual spoilers now. Yeah, it takes a bit of extra effort, but it makes it better for some people. I suggest others at least consider doing so, too. It's easy to just replace it with [spoiler] when quoting.

[Edit: missed Chrono's post (maybe I left the page open too long), but I'm leaving this for the suggestion of the workaround.]

Last edited by BigT; 10-04-2019 at 02:54 PM.
  #105  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:06 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,416
I thought about starting a category in the "Movie Marathon" thread over in Thread Games. It was going to be "Worst Movie Titles in History". I was going to start it off with "August: Osage County", which sounds like an interminable flick about downtrodden characters straight out of a Faulkner knock-off, trying to survive the oppressive heat of late summer in the south. "Ad Astra" is even worse. Who the hell came up with that?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-04-2019 at 03:07 PM. Reason: typo
  #106  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:20 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
This is number crunching territory.
I'm not ignoring your posts, just trying to understand how much money this needs to make by the end of 2019 before you agree this didn't bomb.
  #107  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:26 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]

Spoilers being displayed when quoted is a known bug with the Sultanthemes skin. There's not much that can be done about it, beyond switching to the non-buggy skin.
I did not know there was a known bug that unspoilers quoted spoilers for everyone using the default skin and everyone not logged in. Thanks for the explanation.
  #108  
Old 10-04-2019, 05:19 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
This is number crunching territory. The bean counters can look at the first weekend's result and get a ball park estimate of how things will turn out. After 2 weeks the ball park is looking fairly small.

Look at columns at places like BoxOfficeMojo and OfficeProphets. They will use "comparables" a lot. Similar types of movies, similar budgets, etc. Once some real numbers come in they know based on these what's going to happen. (If you're real gutsy, you can sometimes make a very good prediction based on Thursday night "preview" numbers.)

Once in a while there's a bit of a surprise. For example when a movie appealing to older audiences gets some real legs. (Only a few do.) But based on the 2nd weekend drop we know that nothing surprising happening here.

I certainly hope that no one thinks there's anything magical involved in these predictions. It's just box office history and math.
I used to keep a spreadsheet called “Legs” to track exactly that. If you put aside movies that got an awards bump, like Moonlight or Gravity, and put aside kids' films (which have amazingly long runs), a multiplier of 3x opening weekend was a good generic average.

Ad Astra's drop of 47% is better than average, but not crazy good. A finish around $75M domestically is probably about right.

For a while I tried to use CinemaScore to model a multiplier, but it’s hard to get consistently. Ad Astra's B- isn’t going to help.
  #109  
Old 10-04-2019, 05:53 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
I kind of like the title, but I tend to appreciate artsy fartsy type stuff. I agree that it’s probably not great for mass marketing a high budget science fiction film with a big movie star in it.
  #110  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:18 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
I'm not ignoring your posts, just trying to understand how much money this needs to make by the end of 2019 before you agree this didn't bomb.
Let's see. I've said twice in this thread that this will not be a bomb. It will likely lose money but not such a wide margin to be considered a bomb.

The end of 2019 is not a good choice here. Once China sees it, the box office will be fairly settled. There's not going to be a significant amount of money left to come from theaters by the end of the month.

So the studio will be releasing this on disc well before Christmas and for online video rental around then. Lesser streaming will come soon after.

Do these count as income by the end of 2019? If you only look at box office then it would seem to be a real bomb. But these other sources will bridge some of the gap towards break-even. And if you include these sources you have to look further ahead than the end of 2019. Although by then the numbers folk will have an excellent idea as to the eventual grand total.

While it might be nominated for an Oscar for its effects, I don't see any major nominations coming. (That crowd is loathe to nominate big budget, poor performance films.) So no Oscar bounce for any source of income.
  #111  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:29 AM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
I know 1939's Gone With The Wind has made a $100 million on DVD and Blu-ray sales alone in the past ten years, but let's assume this won't be the case here 80 years from now, so final guesses on numbers by the end of 2019 for?

U.S. box office?

Foreign box office?

Physical media?

Streaming contracts?

What's your estimate of a break even point? Apparently David Prowse died without seeing a cent of residuals...
  #112  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:40 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Although, thinking about it, this will undoubtedly continue to make profits much longer than the average movie. Another advantage of investing the unstoppable "Hollywood star in a spacesuit" genre is that they're either prophetic or hilarious to future generations, so they're always revisited no matter how moronic.
  #113  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:35 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
I know 1939's Gone With The Wind has made a $100 million on DVD and Blu-ray sales alone in the past ten years
That might be one of the highest-ranked movies of all time but that seems implausible to me. At a cost of ten bucks per disc, that would mean sales of ten million copies in the past ten years. This and this pages list the top 100 selling DVD and Bluray discs for 2019 and that movie is nowhere to be found on those lists.
  #114  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:38 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
That might be one of the highest-ranked movies of all time but that seems implausible to me. At a cost of ten bucks per disc, that would mean sales of ten million copies in the past ten years. This and this pages list the top 100 selling DVD and Bluray discs for 2019 and that movie is nowhere to be found on those lists.
The site (cite?) looks familiar, I think I was looking at this page:

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Go...ab=video-sales

I'm adding "total spending" for the DVD and Blu-ray sales which seem heavily concentrated around 2013-2015. My idea is that there are a lot of potential future revenue streams for movies we can't even properly fathom. We're a long way from melting movies for silver and celluloid for shoe heels after their theatrical runs.
  #115  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:20 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
I know 1939's Gone With The Wind has made a $100 million on DVD and Blu-ray sales alone in the past ten years, but let's assume this won't be the case here 80 years from now, so final guesses on numbers by the end of 2019 for?
Not sure if you realize that not all that money goes to Time-Warner (who owns Turner Entertainment which bought the the MGM library except for Gone With the Wind TV rights which they had to bargain with CBS to gain back).

The studio might make up to $10 per disc. But old films like this are often sold at discount. There are unsold stock. Etc.

Some info on the specifics of Ad Astra's video income will eventually come out. So we go based on comparables. The range for those isn't high enough to put this one over the top. We're talking about a $20+M loss here with the "+" looking bigger and bigger.

To say that GWtW is not a comparable to Ad Astra is an understatement of epic proportions.

BTW: Ad Astra's box office was down 58% from last Friday. That's Yet Another Bad Sign.
  #116  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:32 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Gone With the Wind may even be in the public domain, that wasn't my point. Once we elide towards "Is Ad Astra an artistic bomb?" or "Did Return of the Jedi ever really turn a profit?" there's no convincing some people.

So I'm forced to settle for a vast majority being reasonably satisfied this vacuous movie that was purposely crafted as a risk-free empty shell has turned a profit even before interest is spiked yet again by a second wave of "Keep Calm" memes featuring Brad Pitt in a spacesuit, before the controversial unpopular original cut "leaks", before the final cut, before all these are put in a boxset and re-released on a heretofore unknown formats, before Brad Pitt's Oscar meltdown or surprise gay May-December romance with Prince George of Cambridge, or before a human actually goes to Mars. It's a shame the click-baity thread title will persist to be bumped through all of this though.
  #117  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:39 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Not sure if you realize that not all that money goes to Time-Warner (who owns Turner Entertainment which bought the the MGM library except for Gone With the Wind TV rights which they had to bargain with CBS to gain back).

The studio might make up to $10 per disc. But old films like this are often sold at discount. There are unsold stock. Etc.

Some info on the specifics of Ad Astra's video income will eventually come out. So we go based on comparables. The range for those isn't high enough to put this one over the top. We're talking about a $20+M loss here with the "+" looking bigger and bigger.

To say that GWtW is not a comparable to Ad Astra is an understatement of epic proportions.

BTW: Ad Astra's box office was down 58% from last Friday. That's Yet Another Bad Sign.
Friday is the first day they cut the theater count by 500 screens. That’s neither a bad sign or a good sign.
  #118  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:38 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
Here’s a clarifying way to frame it:

If the executives who greenlight projects had some way to know in advance that it would do exactly as well as it has at this point (but their crystal ball would become cloudy after the first five weeks), would they still pull the trigger? Or would they look for something else to invest the studio’s resources in?
  #119  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:41 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Here’s a clarifying way to frame it:

If the executives who greenlight projects had some way to know in advance that it would do exactly as well as it has at this point (but their crystal ball would become cloudy after the first five weeks), would they still pull the trigger? Or would they look for something else to invest the studio’s resources in?
A lot of those executives are Chinese, and the movie hasn't yet opened in China so might it be a tad early to ask?
  #120  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:11 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,742
I thought the movie was good. There was one moment when I realized it was moving kind of slow, but I was neither sleepy or bored.
  #121  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:14 PM
Half Man Half Wit's Avatar
Half Man Half Wit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,856
So it became clear quite early on (with the antimatter-thingy all the way on Neptune somehow causing power surges on Earth) that this really wasn't trying for Sci-fi, much less hard Sci-fi, but instead, only used the setting as a backdrop for the psychological/character drama of Brad Pitt's character coming to terms with the legacy of his father. Which would've been perfectly fine, and a good enough reason for me to ignore the overall terrible science, but that completely exhausted itself in trite commonplace armchair psychology. By voiceover.

So he has to go deep into space from where the malign influence of his father that threatens everything he holds dear originates, then has to literally let him go... Yeah, either I'm missing something, or this thought it was a lot deeper than it actually was.

Still, it looked spectacular, and many of the individual scenes where amazing, both visually, and from the glimpses they offered of the larger world and Brad Pitt's character. They just never really came together for me.
  #122  
Old 10-05-2019, 07:53 PM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
Gone With the Wind may even be in the public domain
No.
  #123  
Old 10-06-2019, 08:44 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
Friday is the first day they cut the theater count by 500 screens. That’s neither a bad sign or a good sign.
???? So they cut screens. And this alters the fact that the money coming in is dropping at a rate that implies no legs at all means what?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
Gone With the Wind may even be in the public domain, that wasn't my point. Once we elide towards "Is Ad Astra an artistic bomb?" or "Did Return of the Jedi ever really turn a profit?" there's no convincing some people.
As already noted, GWtW is not remotely public domain. That you think it could be is quite surprising.

Ad Astra is not an artistic failure. It is certified fresh at Rotten Tomatoes at 83% with top critics approval at 89%! Those are some pretty good numbers there.

OTOH, RT has a fan rating for it at 40%. Yikes city. As I previously noted, it has a CinemaScore of B- which is not good at all.

Artistically it rates very well. But the audiences are generally not loving it. And that means the money side is going to look poorish.
  #124  
Old 10-06-2019, 09:34 AM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
???? So they cut screens. And this alters the fact that the money coming in is dropping at a rate that implies no legs at all means what?????
My point was you picked the only day-over-day comparison when they happened to have cut theaters. Its per-theater drop was 50%, which is about average for a film going into the third weekend. This film doesn’t have “no legs at all”, but it doesn’t have great legs either.
  #125  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:15 AM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
As already noted, GWtW is not remotely public domain. That you think it could be is quite surprising.
Again, that wasn't the point, but nice to know it's still making profits over 80 years after it was released.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Artistically it rates very well. But the audiences are generally not loving it.
It's almost as if critics and audiences were working for different people!

Last edited by eunoia; 10-06-2019 at 11:15 AM.
  #126  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:17 AM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
More "comparables" lol.

https://i.imgur.com/fEOu20c.jpg
  #127  
Old 10-06-2019, 04:55 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
My point was you picked the only day-over-day comparison when they happened to have cut theaters. Its per-theater drop was 50%, which is about average for a film going into the third weekend. This film doesn’t have “no legs at all”, but it doesn’t have great legs either.
Again, so what? Films lose theaters over time. Some faster than others. But the bottom line is box office in this context. Losing theaters is an effect of declining ticket sales, not a cause (in most cases). If it was selling tickets all over the place it might have gained screens. If was an all-out bomb it would lose more.

Per-screen average is a useful data point in predictions at the very beginning. Esp. for slow rollout films (which this isn't). But we are well past that point.

I don't see anything special about Ad Astra's screen losses for a film doing this poorly that sticks out compared to ... comparables.

eunoia: cool image.
  #128  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:53 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
I finally got around to seeing it this weekend, and it will probably get the theater run it deserves. Outstanding SFX, lots of space machinery for geeks like me, but wooden acting and too many ridiculous plot points - for the latter, even more so than Interstellar. Fair enough?
  #129  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:13 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by vertizontal View Post
What happens when we attempt to go To the Stars?
I think the movie tried to present these 3 sub-points:

[quoted spoilers redacted]
This is a great summary of the film, vertizontal! I do have one nitpick of your summary: the film had nothing to do with going "To the Stars." Instead, it was a glorified SETI project set on Neptune for reasons that were never explained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I thought about starting a category in the "Movie Marathon" thread over in Thread Games. It was going to be "Worst Movie Titles in History". I was going to start it off with "August: Osage County", which sounds like an interminable flick about downtrodden characters straight out of a Faulkner knock-off, trying to survive the oppressive heat of late summer in the south. "Ad Astra" is even worse. Who the hell came up with that?
Exactly. What did this title have to do with the film?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I finally got around to seeing it this weekend, and it will probably get the theater run it deserves. Outstanding SFX, lots of space machinery for geeks like me, but wooden acting and too many ridiculous plot points - for the latter, even more so than Interstellar. Fair enough?
I agree with this as well.

My wife and I saw the movie over the weekend. She loved it. I did not. I liked the effects and the world building, but could not get past the scientific illiteracy of the film.

I can watch and enjoy a film like Star Wars and understand that it is not science fiction. Instead, it is space fantasy. Star Trek purports to be SF, but is certainly not hard science fiction. It's also basically space fantasy.

I liked Gravity and loved The Martian, both of which were marketed as hard SF. Both had a few plot holes, but were at least trying to be scientifically plausible.

Ad Astra purports to be hard SF, but wasn't even trying to be scientifically plausible. As far as I'm concerned, it falls into the same category as The Core and 2012.

I couldn't get past that, and so did not like Ad Astra at all.
  #130  
Old 10-07-2019, 10:57 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,971
Saw it this weekend on a whim. It was good but wasn't really what I expected. It had elements of hard sci-fi, adventure shoot-em-up, and noir, but didn't really excel at any of them. I had a lot of nitpicks with the plot.

I saw it in a theater but other than the low-orbit shots of Earth and the shots of Neptune, it really wasn't beautiful like Interstellar was.
  #131  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:54 PM
Eyebrows 0f Doom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
I do have one nitpick of your summary: the film had nothing to do with going "To the Stars." Instead, it was a glorified SETI project set on Neptune for reasons that were never explained.
Quote:
Exactly. What did this title have to do with the film?
The title "Ad Astra" literally means "To the Stars."
  #132  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:53 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
I do have one nitpick of your summary: the film had nothing to do with going "To the Stars." Instead, it was a glorified SETI project set on Neptune for reasons that were never explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Exactly. What did this title have to do with the film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
The title "Ad Astra" literally means "To the Stars."
I know. What does this have to do with this film?

The film was about a SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project located on Neptune. Nobody in the film went to the stars or left our solar system. Instead, the scientist on Neptune found a decided lack of evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. He did evidently collect extensive data on extrasolar planets (which he said were uniformly bereft of intelligent life and he was therefore uninterested in), but this seems like a pretty thin basis for naming the film "To the Stars."

Star Trek (the original series) is about traveling beyond our solar system and was pitched to NBC by Gene Roddenberry as "Wagon Train to the Stars." Instead of Star Trek, Roddenberry could have called his series Ad Astra and it would have been more appropriately named than this film, which quite literally had nothing to do with the idea of traveling to the stars.
  #133  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:00 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,981
The space station that the main character's father was on was not literally on Neptune. Instead, it was either orbiting the sun at about the same distance from the sun as Neptune is, or was in orbit around Neptune.

And I didn't have a problem with the title, even though no one actually traveled outside the Solar System. The project that the main character's father was working on was literally looking and listening to the stars for signs of intelligent life. And that the story stayed within the Solar System was, perhaps, a sign of its relative realism, since travel outside the Solar System by manned missions is outside the realm of possibility at present and perhaps the near future.
  #134  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:05 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
The space station that the main character's father was on was not literally on Neptune. Instead, it was either orbiting the sun at about the same distance from the sun as Neptune is, or was in orbit around Neptune.
Right, the SETI space station was not literally on Neptune; it was instead in the vicinity of Neptune, as you say. Since Neptune is an ice giant, it’s not actually possible to land on Neptune.
  #135  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:34 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Now we know Tommy Lee Jones didn't stop at the Moon at the end of Space Cowboys. He kept on going.

That's all I could think of when I saw Donald Sutherland in a spacesuit - "They're putting the band back together".
  #136  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:50 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It's up to $92 million but that is as of a week ago; it'll clear $100 million pretty easily.

Whether that is a "bomb" depends on how you look at it. It will not lose money. I think, however, that it's fair to say Fox was hoping for more from a sci-fi spectacular starring one of the most famous actors alive. In terms of opportunity cost, one could argue their production money would have been better spent elsewhere.
Just to throw in one more offbeat comparison: consider THE MUMMY. No, the one with Tom Cruise. You know, the one where they hoped for a hit — but according to Box Office Mojo all they got was $409m on a $125m budget, which provoked any number of well-deserved jeers and apparently caused the filmmakers to scupper other movies that would’ve been in the same vein.

Do we figure AD ASTRA will make back 2x its budget? (2.75x? 3.25x?)
  #137  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:22 PM
N9IWP is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 6,313
Interview with the co-writer (admits it is more "per Aspera" than "Ad Astra")
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/...-ad-astra.html

Brian
  #138  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:51 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Just to throw in one more offbeat comparison: consider THE MUMMY. No, the one with Tom Cruise. You know, the one where they hoped for a hit — but according to Box Office Mojo all they got was $409m on a $125m budget, which provoked any number of well-deserved jeers and apparently caused the filmmakers to scupper other movies that would’ve been in the same vein.

Do we figure AD ASTRA will make back 2x its budget? (2.75x? 3.25x?)
Variety had THE MUMMY at $190m in production cost plus $100m in marketing (which wouldn’t surprise me). But even at $125m, you have the conundrum of foreign box office...of that roughly $400m, only 80m was domestic, so figure half of 80m and a quarter of 320m gets Universal about 100m to cover 125m plus their share of marketing.

They lost a lot of money.

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/t...se-1202465742/
  #139  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:15 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Right, the SETI space station was not literally on Neptune; it was instead in the vicinity of Neptune, as you say. Since Neptune is an ice giant, it’s not actually possible to land on Neptune.
But it was still unnecessary IMHO. Or if it was necessary, I don’t get why it had to be a multi-year manned mission. Could they not just set it up and go, with a combination of automation and remote (albeit time-delayed) control from Earth?

To add another nitpick, the whole rescue mission en route to Mars seemed implausible. I mean, how do the physics of that work out? Was Baboon Station also on its way to Mars? If so, did it just happen to leave the moon (or at least pass the moon en route Mars) a short time ahead of Pitt's mission? Or were they just floating there between Earth and Mars, in which case, 1) what are the odds, really, of them being so close to their path (space is huge), and 2) just how much extra fuel did Pitt's Rocket have to be able to accelerate/decelerate first to come alongside the station, and then to resume their trajectory to Mars?

Yet another reason why I don’t think this movie is worthy of being labeled as hard sci-fi, as much as it pretends to be.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 10-08-2019 at 06:17 PM.
  #140  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:39 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
Variety had THE MUMMY at $190m in production cost plus $100m in marketing (which wouldn’t surprise me). But even at $125m, you have the conundrum of foreign box office...of that roughly $400m, only 80m was domestic, so figure half of 80m and a quarter of 320m gets Universal about 100m to cover 125m plus their share of marketing.

They lost a lot of money.

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/t...se-1202465742/
But that’s my point: apply that metric to this movie likewise. Figure, as you say, half of AD ASTRA’s domestic take (currently, under $44m) and a quarter of the foreign (under $68m) and as of today we’d be at, what, a little under $39m? Wiki puts its budget at somewhere between $80m and $100m (which, as you say, presumably doesn’t include marketing); so, what, how much more could AD ASTRA make and still, by that same logic, fail to break even?
  #141  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:19 PM
Maserschmidt's Avatar
Maserschmidt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 5,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But that’s my point: apply that metric to this movie likewise. Figure, as you say, half of AD ASTRA’s domestic take (currently, under $44m) and a quarter of the foreign (under $68m) and as of today we’d be at, what, a little under $39m? Wiki puts its budget at somewhere between $80m and $100m (which, as you say, presumably doesn’t include marketing); so, what, how much more could AD ASTRA make and still, by that same logic, fail to break even?
Ah, got it, sorry. Ignoring marketing, figure it gets to 70m domestic box office, of which they keep 35m, add (call it) 15m in streaming/hard media of which they’ll keep about 10m, leaving about 35m international box office net; at a 25% net, that’s 140m international just to get to your lower bound, or 210m total theatrical take.

Marketing is a little tricky because the distributors are different from the production companies, so there is likely some cost sharing. But they may need to cover something like another 25m.

A lot depends on China! Fortunately some of the production companies were Chinese, so the market is available.
  #142  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:43 PM
eunoia's Avatar
eunoia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Outside Poker Flat
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maserschmidt View Post
add (call it) 15m in streaming/hard media of which they’ll keep about 10m
Quoted 2019-10-08 prediction.
  #143  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by eunoia View Post
More "comparables" lol.

https://i.imgur.com/fEOu20c.jpg

Funny coincidence: the other movie being compared there is the one in my Blu-ray player right now (it came in the mail from Netflix Tuesday afternoon).


Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
This is a great summary of the film, vertizontal! I do have one nitpick of your summary: the film had nothing to do with going "To the Stars." Instead, it was a glorified SETI project set on Neptune for reasons that were never explained.

It was explained. I am not qualified to judge whether the explanation was valid, but what they said was that they had to go out that far to get past the light pollution of the heliosphere in order to get clear distant telescope images.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
To add another nitpick, the whole rescue mission en route to Mars seemed implausible. I mean, how do the physics of that work out? Was Baboon Station also on its way to Mars? If so, did it just happen to leave the moon (or at least pass the moon en route Mars) a short time ahead of Pitt's mission? Or were they just floating there between Earth and Mars, in which case, 1) what are the odds, really, of them being so close to their path (space is huge), and 2) just how much extra fuel did Pitt's Rocket have to be able to accelerate/decelerate first to come alongside the station, and then to resume their trajectory to Mars?

Yet another reason why I don’t think this movie is worthy of being labeled as hard sci-fi, as much as it pretends to be.

Yeah, I wondered about the expenditure of fuel for that rescue mission as well. I would say that this movie qualifies as hard science fiction in relative terms because there is so little out there that truly does in absolute terms.
  #144  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
Was Baboon Station also on its way to Mars?
Even more implausibly, why did it even exist? And why would Norway focus its space efforts on baboons?

That was just one of a number of cases of "This would make a cool shot, let's fit it into the story somehow" - along with the Mad Max buggies driven by the Moon Pirates, the swimming in a spacesuit scene to get to the underground (?) launch site on Mars, the parachute jump from the SETI antenna on Earth (why no safety harness?), why not send the Cepheus to Neptune with enough fuel to return (so there could be a cool riding-the-explosion shot, I know), never mind, let's just move on.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 10-09-2019 at 08:33 AM.
  #145  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:47 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,689
I don’t see why primate research in space is so implausible.

The Mars station commander found a way to sneak him under the launch site. It wasn’t underground.

A safety harness would not have been safe, since the antenna itself was falling apart.

They presumably did not have any way to bring enough fuel on Cepheus (or any other rocket) to be able to make the return trip from Neptune, considering that no one had gone to the outer planets in decades.
  #146  
Old 10-09-2019, 05:35 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,216
Pitt's character, which he played well, was written as this very low-key guy. Nothing gets him really excited. His resting heart rate never gets above 80bpm. As such, since his character is in every scene, the movie never gets exciting, never gets a rush.

I enjoyed the character development.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017