Jump to content

Barnack

Free Account+
  • Posts

    15,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Barnack last won the day on September 3 2018

Barnack had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Barnack's Achievements

Global Phenomenon

Global Phenomenon (9/10)

11.9k

Reputation

  1. That the nice aspect of them voting alone in a secret-anonymous way... Room a la critic circle-Cane have also their advantage, having both existing at the same time making it easy to have the best of both.
  2. Birdman I can see that, but Spotlight ? All the president's men was a giant success, it was very mainstream I felt like (hyper mainstream subject, the way the story is told and so on), hard for me to imagine an adult not liking it or not caring about it if it start to play.
  3. Green Book felt quite classic for a winner as well, your A+ cinemascore movie that audience just love. Argo not too far either.
  4. Studio were possible to close because they were not part of a media empire and the market place was different. Now a studio loosing money would not be wreck necesarily, AT&T, Disney, Viacom/CBS (I am not so sure who own who anymore) would have a lost on their movie division line, well maybe TV did well or video game and can survive multi-billion lost some years. When it is smaller more independent of a larger conglomerate like Liongates at one point could have, but they never took a big risk on a single movie, their record by a good amount was the first Hungers Games I think in term of jumping and with co-financier, selling the international markets and so on where in for $20 million dollars, they sold movie rights and some assets to make it happen, but that give an idea they rarely jump alone on big risk if they are not Disney. Titanic risk-reward being split in 2 intl-domestic or Braveheart being good example
  5. Pretty much why stockholder give them those option (they loose their jobs usually, really good jobs, without those option they would not have took the decision that was good for the stockholder)
  6. It is hard to tell how much it is the awards voters (for example people voting for their own studios movies type of talk went away, reaching voter with your movie got cheaper in some ways they did not needed to having seen it in theater like before) that changed or the movies. Make a movie like Titanic in 2018 instead of 1998 (or a gone with the wind, gladiator, etc...), probably still win it all. And the bigger they hit at the box office the better for their change to win I would still imagine, it was not the star wars empire strike back that won best picture back in the days either, in 1972 the giant box office hit was Godfather. Giant movie that happen to among the best well mad movies that the average 60 years old voters like, just got quite rare and an explosion of small movies that can reach them. Maybe in some voters it installed over time, this is to make people discover movies type of institution and like to vote for less seen affair, but it would get counterbalanced by the success being in 100% of the voters mind and industry people inherent respect for success in that very hard world for the type of movies that get oscar attention.
  7. Feel that for supes, I just feel this could be very low friction, Guardians of the Galaxy/The incredibles trailers and reception, well play the 60s astheatic, etc... can see this making 800m. Terrible trailers-reception can see that easily go lower than Ant Man, closer to the Marvels.
  8. I would imagine that kind of deal have a pay scale determined by the movie box office performance and it is a first look type of deal, they do not have to pick them all up. https://variety.com/2021/film/news/netflix-sony-pictures-pay-1-starz-output-1234946413/ The deal is said to be structured in a relatively traditional form with the fee that Netflix pays for each title determined on a sliding scale by each title’s domestic or worldwide box office haul. Movie always had second window post theatrical for revenues since Television got big enough (late 50s ?), and I doubt it is particularly great (but maybe not particularly bad like it was 10 years ago) historically right now, like say 2005 when the dvd bubble could make a lot of things work. Spider Man movies franchise schedule between reboot had this in mind but with their cadence I am not sure it could be an issue. If it did not change, the expectation was: Sony must commence production on a new "Spider-Man" film within three years, nine months and release it within five years, nine months after the release of preceding picture. They have like 6 movie since 2018 released, it is more a long hiatus between reboot type of window to worry about (if you look the release date between Spider-man 3 may 2007 and amazing spider man production start december 2010, that was 3 years-7months almost on the nose of the limit), if things did not change dramatically in that regard. I am not sure if it was live action - animation or budget size, I do remember when reading it that the production needed to be a big one to count. And you would still want to make them really good regardless.
  9. I think this is a low floor, high ceiling affair. Yes CBM does not guarantee success and it will need for its trailers to convince people, but if it does, that period, the machine around to sell it and distribute it, the 4 quadrant, action-comedy, it can be big. FIrst time movie director,,, we will not know until we do.
  10. We had this since at least the 90s, PPV, and it was tried many time to play with the windows, the pandemy create a buzz and did put it on the forefront, but I imagine it crawled back and will need to get closer and cheaper to sustain itself. There is not many things that was not tried already in the not box office as a first window movie business and nothing was that successful. There was even talk to install stuff in people home theater to receive movie file the theater use and be able to watch them on the day they launched for like $500 a pop or $20k a year (with a plan to cut price after early adopter and the movie distribution tech go down, back then handling 150-300 gigabyte theatrical quality movie file was a big deal) or some other really high price for a while: https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/prima-cinema-brings-movies-to-the-home-on-the-day-of-the-release/ Audience having been trained to shorter windows anyway and netflix, D+ pricing made the paying $30 to rent a movie for 48 hours less attractive than in the 90s if anything.
  11. I do not get the cosnumer advocate language here: shelved to take advantage of an unjustified $30 million tax write-down. “Americans paid Warner Bros $30 million for this movie A tax write-down is not taken money from anyone and obviously not tax fraud, if they receive actual money from a state for the production then it is money exchanging hands but for a movie like that a state was only interested in the economic activity around the making of the movie and not the movie existance or being seen (unlike when it is to attract tourist because the movie promote a region) And nothing about this is for profit obviously, it is for cutting lost.
  12. Depend how it is packaged, but acquisition cost can resemble movie budget (it can change how bonus compensation work quite a bit though). A bit like Kevin Smith speech about independant movie financing, you make a movie for 4 millions, if all goes well it sales for $6m at Sundance (and everyone that worked for nearly free to keep that cost at 4 get paid) and after a $20m theatrical release the studio that bought it want to make $25 millions or more at the box office, for a movie that did cost only $4 million to make. Those relatively small $80m Adam Sandler movies did that much to acquire from Happy Madison not necessarily to make. As for the UK incorporation cost, usually no, we are not looking at a demand for film credit but the whole company, the way there credit worked in the past made people wrote all the cost in them, even talent participation (you can see the cost continue to go up post release), unlike when you look at California tax credit where you only see the below the line on location that can access credit being listed. Maybe it did change... To note the 92 or millions pound spent is up to june 30 2022, between now and then it is possible for money to have been spent post-production and what not, but maybe not that much, could have been sleeping in the strange theatrical world and then push for timing.
  13. Even more than Guardian of Galaxy (that was seen a bit to be its own thing) or Aquaman for the DCEU, Deadpool is not much coded MCU. I would not imagine Sam Raimi was in the cheap and never made a big movie group. It could be a necessity with how much tv series episode it could have got in terms of process, for many of them you need someone ready to not cast the main actor, respect tone establish in previous entry, be grateful if they accept to only have 2 cameras in some scene, amount of privilege gained because your first MCU movie made almost a billion domestic (try to talk to a Tarantino-Richardson combo about not being in control of how many cameras are rolling when they film there movie or what those cameras will be). We can interpret the comment you are responding too as they need to change those movies for journeyman director to stop to be a necessity, if they conclude that the once very successful established formula-tone-asthmatic MCU stop to be an automatic winner, they will need to find new ones, which could require great director, cinematographer, etc... Once you get a new one, you can think try to replicate it with journeyman.
  14. I am not sure if people believe that Iger would be the one out of touch and know more about Disney movie making than us. I imagine people more believe he know way more but that he is lying. Netflix should have removed all talk that you can just greenlight project and have good result, without the creative tension between studio and artist, that happened pretty much on all the big movies you like. They shown that all the talk to just greenlight stuff, put money in a bank account, let artist work and have success that people without any clue repeated was false. It is complicated. It can be little supervision (but there still always is) if you work with Spielberg-Cameron-Nolan-Tarantino and others well tune machine that have as a goal to make the most as they can at the box office. You can have Mother! with no supervision if you work with an Aronofsky production company (but there exec will be on set). Yes one could believe that the best producers-exec in the world with a vast experience of working on more than 20 big movies in their life can help a first time movie director. Was there ever 200 millions budget movies made with negative pickup deal ?
  15. Not having followed the box office for a while, what are the expectation for a giant James Wan blockbuster for 410m WW to be above it ? That more Conjuring than Aquaman for him.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.