Comics Creators

Box Office Mojo


Why with that kind of dough he could buy Aunt May her medicine!



TV, but all about the money;

‘Stranger Things’ Brings Surprise Windfall to Netflix as Stars Seek Greater Share

With Stranger Things nominated for 18 Emmys and season two set to drop Oct. 27, the series is pulling Netflix into a new business and into a new negotiation with key players, including the show’s child stars.

After the homage to 1980s horror movies became a surprise sensation in summer 2016, Netflix — with unauthorized merchandise selling on the internet — made quick licensing deals with clothing company Hybrid Apparel and retailer Hot Topic. T


A source tells THR that Netflix is making deals for the second season of Stranger Things that will dwarf the efforts of the last one. With the show returning the week of Halloween, costume sales likely will be boosted, but the main focus is the holidays. (Sources say the deals in place include agreements with Funko for collectibles, Trends International for posters and paper goods, McFarlane Toys for action figures and Hybrid Apparel for clothing.) Netflix declined comment.

The big streaming services have been primarily focused on attracting eyeballs; licensing related to shows had not been a front-burner consideration. But a source says Stranger Things has “changed the thinking” at Netflix about the potential of its shows.


The entry of Netflix and other streamers into licensing presents a strange new world from the perspective of licensees, who are used to getting some reassurance about the popularity of a franchise — that is, some transparency about ratings — before they commit to a deal. “The streamers have not had a lot of data out there or been willing to share it,” says Marty Brochstein, senior vp industry relations and information at the Licensing Industry Merchandisers’ Association. “It’s a hurdle for them to overcome.”

Meanwhile, knowledgeable sources say Netflix faces a possibility that some if not all of the Stranger Things child stars will band together to negotiate deals for upcoming seasons of the show. One source says kid actors Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown, Gaten Matarazzo and Caleb McLaughlin each got $30,000 per episode for the first and second seasons with a bonus — less than six figures — once it became clear that the show was a phenomenon. While the cast is signed for six years, talent reps say a renegotiation will happen early next year. One question yet to be addressed: whether the show’s breakout, 13-year-old Brown, will negotiate separately from the other young stars.

A source with knowledge of the Stranger Things world says Netflix had hoped to shoot seasons three and four back-to-back to get ahead of any potentially awkward adolescent transitions for its young actors. “Every time you have a show that relies so heavily on the charm of kids, you want to capture that,” says this person.

But the powers involved — including, of course, show creators Matt and Ross Duffer and executive producers Shawn Levy and Dan Cohen — are said to have vetoed that idea. The writers room is small, as is the roster of producers, and a source says they did not deem it possible to turn out episodes that quickly. (All declined to comment.) Instead, says the source, the plan is to create stories that feel true to where the actors are, in terms of age, at the time the episodes are shot.

As for the prospect of a group negotiation, this person can’t anticipate how Netflix would handle that but notes that Stranger Things clearly is the streaming service’s most important franchise. “If the series has any luck at the Emmys,” he adds, "that will only intensify."


I would have thought Finn Wolfhard would have more cache.


Especially with a name like that!


I hope this means good things for Millarworld and Netflix will be poised to fully capitalize on everything involved.


They’ve joined forces when they’re both on the way up. :slight_smile:


Stranger Things comic book series?


I’d write it for peanuts


With art in the style of Peanuts?




You’d write It in the style of Peanuts?

Actually that probably would end up something like Stranger Things.


Yeah, it would be quite a strange thing now that I reflect a bit.


So now you’re tying in The Thing too? This is sounding ambitious.


A one dog play starring Snoopy directed by Woodstock channelling Kurt Russell.

Sounds perfectly reasonably Snoopy dance-y to me.
Not remotely Prometheus-ambitious. Maybe a nice theme tune for the end-credits to end it all. Here’s the needful thing, no call for Bacon Hasselhoff. Fassbender could play his flute.


‘Mother!’ Dying With ‘F’ CinemaScore And $8M Start As ‘It’ Becomes Biggest September Release Ever With $212M+ Cume

Well, it’s clear: Moviegoers officially hate Darren Aronofsky’s mother! The film scored a rare F grade from CinemaScore audiences tonight, and there were many rivals heading into the weekend who were expecting that type of reaction. As we heard at noon, the bold Jennifer Lawrence pic is crashing well below its projections with an estimated $8M in third.


It’s very simple what happened here: Paramount backed an audacious auteur’s twisted genre film and aimed to sell it to a mass audience. You could say it’s high art and that only specialty houses would appreciate it, but then — would they like it? It’s obvious why Paramount went wide with this movie and didn’t roll it out: They knew it would greatly divide moviegoers. Going wide was the only means to make any amount of money, especially with Lawrence as headliner. There’s no winning in a platform release, because bad word of mouth would have crept up fast. Paramount’s marketing team was passionate about the movie, worked closely with Aronofsky on crafting something cool, and they knew the best place to tee the film off was the fall festival circuits where it was greatly embraced by critics (70% certified fresh). While we’ve dinged Rotten Tomatoes continually for impacting a wide release’s ticket sales, that’s not the case here. What mother is an example of is the disconnect between RT and moviegoers’ habits. RT organically favors auteurs. We saw this with Alien: Covenant this past summer which was 70% certified fresh and wasn’t one of the marquee tentpoles of the summer, falling short with a $74.3M domestic take.


Some will argue that it was suicidal for Paramount to put mother! right behind It. True, horror films are generally spaced out on the calendar by four weekends or more, but it really didn’t matter if you put mother! in the dregs of August: People were still going to hate it. These edgy auteur films are meant to be made as works of bold cinematic art; any distributor is lucky to make a buck off of them, and they never make money, read Nicolas Winding Refn’s Neon Demon ($1.3M), David Lynch’s Lost Highway ($3.7M) and even earlier Aronofsky works like The Fountain ($15M global B.O., $35M production cost). It’s just about who is brave enough to invest in them.

Another problem with mother! was that Lawrence was playing against type as a frightful woman versus the heroic, kickass we know her for in Hunger Games, Joy and American Hustle. Her fans, who turned out at 38%, didn’t appreciate that and gave her an F tonight. Forty-three percent came out because they thought mother! was a horror film, and they gave it an ‘F’. Females showed up at 56% with 82% over 25. Both demos gave mother an ‘F’. Aronofsky fans provided mother! with its best score of C+, and they repped 10% of Friday night’s crowd. Oh, Paramount, can’t you catch a break?

It is the obvious champ with an estimated $54m, -56%, still a great hold in weekend two. That estimate is based off East Coast cash registers, so by the time the West clicks in, we could be seeing a bigger number. Current B.O. through Sunday is now at $212.7M, and It will become the highest grossing September release ever,



The main reason for Mother!'s faliure at the box office is that it’s pretentious shite.


Yeah I personally have no desire to see Mother but some of my friends have and the news isn’t good.


It seems very divisive, movie of the week and 5 stars in The Guardian.

Which makes sense if Steve’s article above is right, they’ve dressed up an arthouse movie in blockbuster clothes.


Wait…it’s not?
Nuts to that then in terms of advertising.