ElsaRoc

Network (dir. Sidney Lumet) Lupin the Third: The Castle of Cagliostro (dir. Hayao Miyazaki) Watership Down (dir. Martin Rosen) Star Wars (dir. George Lucas) Alien (dir. Ridley Scott) The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (dir. Liu Chia-liang) The Rescuers (dir. Wolfgang Reitherman, John Lounsbery, & Art Stevens) Mad Max (dir. George Miller) The Warriors (dir. Walter Hill) Wizards (dir. Ralph Bakshi) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (dir. Steven Spielberg) The Wiz (dir. Sidney Lumet) The Muppet Movie (dir. James Frawley) Oh, God! (dir. Carl Reiner) The Lord of the Rings (dir. Ralph Bakshi) Being There (dir. Hal Ashby) Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (dir. Vincent McEveety) The Jerk! (dir. Carl Reiner) Heaven Can Wait (dir. Buck Henry & Warren Beatty) Grease (dir. Randall Kleiser) Animal House (dir. John Landis) Added some more. Still a work in progress.

Depends on what you mean by similar. Marvel has basically tried to make a new Spider-Man character every decade or two: Nova in the 70s, Darkhawk in the 90s, Ms. Marvel in the 2010s. (in the 2000s, they made a new Spider-Man character with Ultimate Spider-Man.) (There's also Jaime Reyes, who is another character of the same vein in the DC universe as the third Blue Beetle.) Nova's a pretty straight-forward addition, since the background was introduced in GotG. It's more cosmic than Spider-Man, and there's a chance they just go with the Green Lantern Corps side of things. Cosmic has been very good for the MCU.

I believe the only thing the latter three have in common that the first five don't is a producer credit for Amy Pascal.

If the split happens, maybe we'll finally get a Spider-Man film that isn't about Iron Man.

I think Disney might have killed my interest in movies this summer.

They may have learned the lesson of not starting the marketing too soon. Shazam could have started its marketing with Aquaman, and it would have been fine. Also with Shazam, Joker, and BoP, it's pretty clear that WB is looking at different ways to do CBMs rather than 4 quadrant tentpoles that cost so much that anything less than a billion is losing money. They don't need to go all in on the marketing in order to hit ridiculously high break even points. They can try new things and take risks. They can get movies done faster. They can do more of them. If there's any good lesson for the past several years its that trying to copy Marvel's playbook isn't a great idea. So many cinematic universes have faltered. While DC is probably the best other property to take that approach, direct comparisons are to their detriment. They've finally gotten to the point where they aren't only making Batman and Superman films. That's a good thing.

Except in that case the quality of Ant-Man is considerably greater.

Shrek adjusts to 426m. Shrek 2 did 640m adjusted. Frozen adjusts to 441m. A sequel above 600m isn't hard to believe.

Two countries are probably going to be quite a bit weaker than they were in 2013: The UK (it was at $1.6 to the £, now $1.2) and Russia (33 rubles to the $ then, 63 now.)They were the 4th and 8th strongest markets for Frozen.

Yes, but we don't need to reiterate personal opinions about it.

The recent Pixar entries are all interesting to examine. They've all done gonzo business. All gotten pretty good to great reviews. And all have basically generated no conversation. Like, "Hey, here's this thing I liked with a sequel. Yep, still good. Peace out." The last one that really got into the cultural conversation was Inside Out. Even Coco, with all the accolades and people loving it got quiet soon after release.

Fascinating as it is, we don't need a discussion of TLJ in this thread. There are others for that.

If SW 9 matches TLJ's OS, the is probably a lot easier for Frozen to win.

How? That's a drop of 300-400m.