Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation
- Thread starter Brian G.
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Status
- Nov 3, 2015
- 2,198
- 3,693
The same way I reconcile two New York’s at USF and Diagon Alley being across from SpringfieldI created a new thread for these rumors specifically...
Returning somewhat back to EU, how would they reconcile the fact that there will be two Londons across the parks. Also, should they change Fantastic Beasts to the MOM, will our portal to this wondrous land be a luxurious London toilet?The Future of Fast and Furious: Supercharged
Ever since Fast and Furious: Supercharged first tripped into the sunlight, rumors have abounded of potential fixes, replacements, and reworks of the Fast and Furious concept. Recently, certain rumors about the ride's replacement/rework have gained more traction, so I figured that a thread would...forums.insideuniversal.net
- Jul 13, 2018
- 3,130
- 5,444
- Nov 3, 2015
- 2,198
- 3,693
I mean, within USF alone you have multiple New Yorks, aliens, and dragons.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,753
- 48,281
- Aug 18, 2017
- 5,127
- 6,190
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,753
- 48,281
- May 26, 2012
- 1,949
- 2,701
The rule of thumb is 2X the cost of the film was marketing. And, theaters don't get 50% of tentpoles on the first two weeks. - its usually anywhere from 70%b to the studio to 60%. Never 50%. (Disney even yanked 75% for Star Wars TFA). Beasts did just fine. They haven't reduced the number of films, and they're still making a bundle. That does not mean the film wasn't a disappointment. But again, it's on 2/5 of the series that's been released so far. As for EU, I'm not sure change back to Potter would be a draw - for Potter fans yes. For the GP, it';d be more along like "More Potter? ugh"
I feel like everyone just forgets how bad some of the HP movies were because the books were so good that they kept the popularity up. I've been doing a universal movie marathon and i just started the 3rd movie and was already annoyed by the 1st 30 seconds of the movie and just keep getting more annoyed. Its my favorite book and i remember leaving just pissed. All that saying Crimes of Grindewald wasn't great but it wasnt the worst movie in the franchise. So, I think they coukd still benefit by doing some world building in the theme park. But I love HP so I'll take any attraction.
- Feb 2, 2020
- 156
- 294
All the speculation and trying to prove your points are admirable. But in the end, does it really matter? First off, we don't know what they're putting in the land... could be anything. Second, if it is Potter or FB it's a win either way. Third, what if it's something way better? Personally the only place that MOM belongs is where Fear now stands. It makes the most sense. Sure they could put it beside F&F...and maybe that could happen. I find that the fact that we're now four years away from experiencing EU and we're bickering over semantics of what is going where or when or how. In the end it doesn't really matter. We're getting something, hopefully amazing... can't that just be enough? As far as I'm concerned Alicia is probably the best source for info on the subject aside from Universal Creative and possibly the entire Orange county permit office. I tend to listen to what she says and follow up with my own investigation of permits and patents. But I guess that's not good enough for most folks. Well, between now and when they actually start building the lands in the park a million things will get changed and y'all are going to get your knickers in a twist over every little thing. Oh joy. Y'all have fun with that. I'll happily be watching with a closed mouth. Last post for this guy. But whenever we get aerial footage and anyone has questions about what they're doing or what something is... feel free to ask. I'm an engineer.
Not to be that guy, but the Potter/FB films aren’t Universal, they’re Warner Bros.
Universal as in movies in universal parks
I was suposed to go in April so decided to watch the movies instead.
- Sep 10, 2017
- 2,735
- 3,517
Since
Nah, Fallow's right, usually it takes about 2.5x to 3x the budget of a film to breakeven depending on how much money comes from overseas (the revenue split is lower for Overseas markets compared to domestic ones due to middlemen, currency differences, etc). Obviously, every film is different, but for almost every blockbuster out there, the marketing budget is at least as big as the film budget itself.
Wrt to theatrical splits, it's alot more ad hoc than people usually acknowledge, but remember, the amount a studio gets goes down as time goes on. For most blockbusters, studios make about 33% of the total BO on opening weekend; for the rest of that 67% of the BO, their split of the revenue steadily declines each week. Usually the average split shakes down to about 55% for domestic theaters and 40% for overseas, which is what the rule of thumb is. FB2 is actually pretty interesting because it made a much bigger percentage of its overall box office on opening weekend than is usual, but also, you gotta also remember that FB2 had the lowest opening weekend of any Potter film and also the lowest Cinemascore. People did not turn out for this one in very high numbers, and they didn't tell their friends to go in very high numbers either. Comparing international gross is tricky because the international market has grown so much in the past ten years, but in terms of domestic gross at least, FB2 is the lowest by a wiiiiiiiide margin, and that's a worrying place for the franchise to be in imho.
I think it's instructive to look at the profit breakdown for the first movie. Despite having a 150m higher worldwide gross, FB1 only made about 164.7m in profit; nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but that's less than A Star is Born. Using the 55%/40% rule of thumb, FB2 made about 76.7m less at the BO on a budget that's 20m higher. It still made money, certainly, but like, Shazam profits.
And as for it being movie 2/5, well, franchises tend to go down with each successive installment, with a few big exceptions like X-Men and the MCU. I think FB3 is a big risk right now.
Nah, Fallow's right, usually it takes about 2.5x to 3x the budget of a film to breakeven depending on how much money comes from overseas (the revenue split is lower for Overseas markets compared to domestic ones due to middlemen, currency differences, etc). Obviously, every film is different, but for almost every blockbuster out there, the marketing budget is at least as big as the film budget itself.
Wrt to theatrical splits, it's alot more ad hoc than people usually acknowledge, but remember, the amount a studio gets goes down as time goes on. For most blockbusters, studios make about 33% of the total BO on opening weekend; for the rest of that 67% of the BO, their split of the revenue steadily declines each week. Usually the average split shakes down to about 55% for domestic theaters and 40% for overseas, which is what the rule of thumb is. FB2 is actually pretty interesting because it made a much bigger percentage of its overall box office on opening weekend than is usual, but also, you gotta also remember that FB2 had the lowest opening weekend of any Potter film and also the lowest Cinemascore. People did not turn out for this one in very high numbers, and they didn't tell their friends to go in very high numbers either. Comparing international gross is tricky because the international market has grown so much in the past ten years, but in terms of domestic gross at least, FB2 is the lowest by a wiiiiiiiide margin, and that's a worrying place for the franchise to be in imho.
I think it's instructive to look at the profit breakdown for the first movie. Despite having a 150m higher worldwide gross, FB1 only made about 164.7m in profit; nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but that's less than A Star is Born. Using the 55%/40% rule of thumb, FB2 made about 76.7m less at the BO on a budget that's 20m higher. It still made money, certainly, but like, Shazam profits.
And as for it being movie 2/5, well, franchises tend to go down with each successive installment, with a few big exceptions like X-Men and the MCU. I think FB3 is a big risk right now.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,753
- 48,281
I remember the Divergent series being planned as a four film series.
They did three.
They did three.
- May 26, 2012
- 1,949
- 2,701
Studios definitely get way more that 33% during the first few weeks, especially on a tentpole. Depening on the film, it can be anywhere from 60-75% for the first week or two (hence the 'no discount passes'). When I worked for Wometco in the 80s the retirements for the first 4 weeks for "Empire Strikes Back" were staggering .... $1 million in advance, 70% of the box-office for 4 weeks, and you had to be able to show the film in 70mm. As a result, only 3 theaters in Florida (Winter Park & 2 in Miami) had the film for the first month.
Eventually it might work out to 50% but there's a reason why studios want the grosses front loaded. As time goes on, their share goes down.
Eventually it might work out to 50% but there's a reason why studios want the grosses front loaded. As time goes on, their share goes down.
- Sep 10, 2017
- 2,735
- 3,517
Oh, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the total box office for a tentpole movie usually works out to about three times the OW (so a movie that makes 50m OW usually gets 150m at the end of its run). Yeah, studios can get insane revenue splits for the OW, but like you said, it usually shakes out to a little more than 50%.
Also I'm not sure if studios *want* frontloading, with very few exceptions like Endgame and Deathly Hallows high-frontloading is a sign of bad word-of-mouth more than anything.
Update: Lofty is saying that the Kongfrontation ride system is the old ride system they're bringing back.
Am I the only one who's underwhelmed by the possibility of Harry Potter MoM replacing Fantastic Beasts? I mean, it's the Wizarding World equivalent of a City Hall. Visually, it might be gorgeous, but as a concept, it's as exciting as a visit to the Star Wars DMV. At least with FB, we could have gotten some killer animatronics. Now, if it's Harry Potter characters mixed with Newt's creatures, then meh? :shrug:
Warner Bros definitely saw Crimes of Grindelwald as a flop. After all, this is the same studio who claimed they lost $167 million on Order of the Phoenix (a $150 million dollar film that brought in nearly a billion worldwide).
Warner Bros definitely saw Crimes of Grindelwald as a flop. After all, this is the same studio who claimed they lost $167 million on Order of the Phoenix (a $150 million dollar film that brought in nearly a billion worldwide).
- Status
