When can we expect news about Alien: Covenant sequel?

[Biomechanoid]

Are you talking about the Charlie Hunman King Arthur or the Clive Owen King Arthur?

The Charlie Hunman.

Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.

I assume you're referring to Excalibur, which isn't the original King Arthur film, but I agree Williamson was the star of that film for me.

[monkeylove]

To recap and conclude what I said, just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it's not a flop. It could have made a dollar, which is money, but that would probably not make investors happy, especially if they put in $100 million and were expecting a 7-percent return. Call it greed, but that's how business works.

[SiL]

Good God, you really are having a conversation with yourself.

It's a flop if it loses money. It underperforms or doesn't meet expectations if it doesn't hit the profit margin it was hoped for (which can actually be a good thing for the studio, since they can often get out of repaying their financiers on an underperforming film.)

[TWJones]

Just saw this on Imdb:

In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment's Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty.

The Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.

Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.

Probably would've benefited from an R-Rating so he could go full Guy Ritchie.

I dont thing that would have mattered, I really don't think gore would have added anything. An extra 20 minutes though would have filled out the middle. Everywhere you look people really liked this movie, everywhere but RT that is.

You know what though I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad, it was quite entertaining. I think two things have happened, I'm so over saturated with Super Hero films that any type of fantasy/sci fi thats not that, is refreshing and also an epically low score like 20% in my mind is like Battlefield Earth, a total disaster, these movies like King Arthur don't deserve such low scores.

Everyone's a wine sniffing cheese muncher these days.

I agree with you completely. Guy's films have their own rhythm, and some of his shots are so creative (remember when they're running through the alleys, and the camera is tilted and pointed right at their faces? And their breathing is a part of the soundtrack...genius.)

The middle of the film did seem a bit rushed, and I think you're right, another 20 minutes of Arthur actually battling his way to become something more would have given the rest of the plot room to breathe. Sometimes a film needs to be a little longer if the story demands it.

That said, big freaking Murder Elephants, Charlie Hunnam hustling on the streets of medieval London, a killer score, and Guy Richie's energy...I had a great time, which is more than can be said of many movies.

[Denton Smalls]

Hey Guys, off-topic, but can someone explain what a "flop" is? 

[Baron Von Marlon]

The Floppening.

[Denton Smalls]

Three Billboards Outside Flopping, Missouri.

[426Buddy]

Hey Guys, off-topic, but can someone explain what a "flop" is? 

"Informal
(of a performer or show) to be completely unsuccessful; fail totally."

[monkeylove]

Good God, you really are having a conversation with yourself.

Except that you are responding. Why is this point worth noting? Read below.

It's a flop if it loses money. It underperforms or doesn't meet expectations if it doesn't hit the profit margin it was hoped for (which can actually be a good thing for the studio, since they can often get out of repaying their financiers on an underperforming film.)

How do they "get out of repaying their financiers"? More important, how does that affect plans for sequels?

[SiL]

They can get out depending on how the financing was structured and what sort of contracts were used.

You see it a lot with independent filmmakers when they're offered distribution. They're told that they'll get X% of the earnings for the film "after expenses" or something along those lines. In these types of contracts, the filmmaker almost never sees money because, suddenly, there are an awful lot of expenses in getting their film shown. Just so many.

Something similar can happen with film financing. Contracts can be made whereby if the film flops, underperforms, fails to make back X amount, etc. then the producer doesn't need to repay the money. It basically becomes a write-off and what money the film does make ends up in the producers' pockets.

The film The Producers is based around those kind of dodgy financial dealings; in their case, two stage producers oversell shares of a production they're sure will be terrible because of a loophole where if it flops, they keep the cash and walk off with everyone's money. That's a thing that can actually happen (unless they've closed that loophole lately.)

[SM]

'Hollywood accounting' leads to filmmakers taking legal action against studios.  There was a long running dispute between Peter Jackson and Newline over unpaid monies on LOTR that held up The Hobbit films.  I think Scott Mosier held up Clerks 2 because there were still issues around money on Clerks with Miramax despite the film turning a few million in profit.

[SiL]

Which typically only happens when the films actually do really well by any definition, and the studios try to get creative. Covenant made less than $300million total on what would've been a ~$150million spend (distribution is typically 1/3rd the spend of the film; if the production budget was $97m then the distribution spend would be ~$50m), so even if the movie technically made money, nobody would contest it if the studio said it didn't make "enough".

Even if $97million was the total spend, a $240m lifetime cinema return still isn't all that great and, still, nobody would argue.

[Biomechanoid]

I recall reading about an actor or two complaining about this very thing. Their agent negotiated say, a 1% payment of the net profit. The actor sees the film grossed 500 million or whatever, thinking he's going to get 1% of 500 million. I'm guessing the studio came up with creative ways to include as many expenses possible to whittle down the net profit. The actor is then given a paycheck of say, 1% of 50 million or whatever. I think Eddie Murphy was one of the actors complaining about this, but I can't say for sure.

Time to shop for a new agent.

[monkeylove]

They can get out depending on how the financing was structured and what sort of contracts were used.

You see it a lot with independent filmmakers when they're offered distribution. They're told that they'll get X% of the earnings for the film "after expenses" or something along those lines. In these types of contracts, the filmmaker almost never sees money because, suddenly, there are an awful lot of expenses in getting their film shown. Just so many.

Something similar can happen with film financing. Contracts can be made whereby if the film flops, underperforms, fails to make back X amount, etc. then the producer doesn't need to repay the money. It basically becomes a write-off and what money the film does make ends up in the producers' pockets.

The film The Producers is based around those kind of dodgy financial dealings; in their case, two stage producers oversell shares of a production they're sure will be terrible because of a loophole where if it flops, they keep the cash and walk off with everyone's money. That's a thing that can actually happen (unless they've closed that loophole lately.)

I don't think investors operate like independent filmmakers. Rather, it's the studio who acts as such. Remember, it's the studio who's courting the investor, not the other way round. Given that, any contract will also have to be favorable to investors, with the one trying to attract them making all sorts of concessions.

Finally, your reference to The Producers is bizarre because it refers to criminal activity.

Which typically only happens when the films actually do really well by any definition, and the studios try to get creative. Covenant made less than $300million total on what would've been a ~$150million spend (distribution is typically 1/3rd the spend of the film; if the production budget was $97m then the distribution spend would be ~$50m), so even if the movie technically made money, nobody would contest it if the studio said it didn't make "enough".

Even if $97million was the total spend, a $240m lifetime cinema return still isn't all that great and, still, nobody would argue.

That's my point! Creativity in accounting only increases or decreases expenses on paper. Those who are paid, ranging from investors to personnel, are still given actual money. For me, the latter ultimately determines whether or not investors (the same or others) will fund future films. It's either that or no due diligence on the part of the latter will take place.

[SiL]

I don't think investors operate like independent filmmakers

I explained that it was an example of the types of clauses that frequently get put into contracts that use creative accounting.

Finally, your reference to The Producers is bizarre because it refers to criminal activity

The illegal part was deceiving and not paying back investors, but the loophole they exploited can be used in legitimate circumstances of underperforming films.