Barnack

Star wars Force Awaken and Jurassic World were the 2 biggest movie 6 year's ago, Cinderella, MadMax, Bond, Strait outta Compton, etc... it is hard to quantify but it has been really common since I am aware. Critics of the pandering craze around that time Force Awaken was extremely common, it was the Member berries run on Southpark

If we use James Bond has an example (outside star wars /fast and Furious, etc... it is up there has the biggest partner promotion machine). On those the actual money involved when there was used to diminish the movie production budget, when the $350M to make movie ended up a $250M in the press, it was after incentive/a little bit of product placement money and so on. On Bond 25 they still planned a $156.82m WW P&A, 112.7 million of those in Marketing. Maybe a speak for myself but at a certain time (first teaser maybe), The Eternals did feel like a A (a bit below but in the style of Black Panther) non-sequel in the Marvel new non-establish Avengers entries, BW a B (like a first Captain America-Guardian of the Galaxy) and Shang Chi the C type (like say the first Ant Man). In term of ambition, budget, scope, assemble cast, it felt like the potential to be a tier above BW (and that had the potential to be a tier above Shang Chi), let alone all the day-and-date versus full on theatrical exclusive. The movie should have beaten the other MCU release handedly imo and would probably have with better trailers/review. Now it can be than day-and-date was vastly overrated has an impact, but Widow was a 131.6 millions dbo after it's second weekend to 118m for Eternals before even taking it into account.

It has been too long from the last leaking of relevant info for me to have any special edge by now, specially since the post April 2020 world. At the time, for Sony at least, Japan-Korea were 2 of the most Domestic like market, high release cost, high theatrical rental rate (47%). Higher return during OW in the US stopped to be common in the early 2000s has OW became larger and larger, back in the days the system did tend to end up in a near 50-50 anyway, it was an incentive for theater to play by then unpopular movies longer and they lacked the negotiation power to pass on OW, but has the industry become more and more frontloaded it was not sustainable. I did look between 2010-2013 release and did not find any difference in studio share of the box office with the movies legs and I am not sure the Christmas season would have become such a popular time for blockbuster with the giant OW share much lower on legs one.

2010-2015 he was certainly a name, Juno printed so much money and Up in the air did extremely well. But yes I imagine the Star Wars family tree type connection played a role because is name is more prominent in the trailer than it was for Tully or just the benefit of being the son of the producer

They do not use a different link for those who click than the video of people seeing it without having asked to see it I think, it make for a very jarring experience for the actual clicker, I imagine it help that video perform on youtube recommendation to combine the unwanted view with the explicit one and it is worth worsening the experience for it.

Is that purely having been online for so long or it is also (or mostly) local distributor making a dismal release ? Because that do sound spectacularly low in China for a giant adventure Dwayne Johnson movie.

The only actual poll I known to have been made about favorite movies (and movie star), the Harris one: https://theharrispoll.com/it-may-have-premiered-75-years-ago-but-it-would-appear-that-wind-has-still-got-legs-when-asked-to-name-their-favorite-movie-of-all-time-the-septuagenarian-civil-war-epic-gone-with-the-wind-is-ameri/ Not sure if they continued to do them: https://web.archive.org/web/20160203102308/https://theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Tom-Hanks-Favorite-Movie-Star.html Confirming the notion that it was extremely hard to become one if you were not known in the 90s 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Tom Hanks 2 2 7 5 =6 4 3 1 5 1 Johnny Depp =7 3 8 2 1 1 =4 6 4 2 Denzel Washington 1 1 1 3 2 =2 1 2 1 3 John Wayne 3 6 =3 7 3 5 6 7 2 4 Harrison Ford 10 * 5 * 4 8 8 * 9 5 Sandra Bullock * 9 * 4 10 7 * 5 * 6 Jennifer Lawrence * * * * * * * 3 =7 7 Clint Eastwood 1 * 2 1 9 =2 2 8 6 8 Brad Pitt * * * * * * =4 =9 3 =9 Julia Roberts =5 4 6 10 =6 * * 4 * =9

Not sure they convinced many (I think it would be hard to find a single ranking not open to the public or made scientifically that would have it at the top) Among critics and other curator it is obviously not that high and among the population it tend to look like this: 2008 than 2014 Gone with the Wind 1 1 Star Wars 2 2 Titanic 3 The Godfather 9 4 Lord of the Rings 4 5 The Sound of Music 5 6 Dirty Dancing 7 Wizard of Oz 6 8 It’s a Wonderful Life 9 E.T. 10 DROPPED OUT OF TOP 10 SINCE 2008 Casablanca (#3), The Notebook (#7), Forrest Gump (#8), The Princess Bride (#9 – tie)

It does not look like a 140m affair, more like a 70m one. Has for the budget not being absurd, that is arguable but I think true, Pixels 3D was $120m net without a franchise name for it, but at that price tag one could have expected names with a bigger intl ouphm, a bit like that exec was pointing out about their future Pixels project: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/40707 On Pixels Sony has a huge tent pole idea. It could be an event picture. But Sandler and James limit its upside and make it the same thing those actors always do, a double when it works. And Chris Columbus hasn't had a hit in a decade. The choices are not aiming at the huge event tent pole, which this idea clearly is. In fairness, I believe Happy Madison brought the project to the studio. So Sony may not have had much choice without blowing the relationship with Sandler, and they want another Grownups, although after That's My Boy they could have dumped him (not saying I would have, but it was worth considering). Another example of a variation of the same problem are two of Sony's projects. If Pixels was at Disney or Warners it would be an event science fiction picture. Candy Land, litigation aside, would be an event family picture at those same studios. Instead Sony is going with Adam Sandler and Kevin James -- solid, not too risky, but aiming at a double when other studios would go for a home run -- make an event picture and try to create a franchise. I believe Sony has fewer true franchises largely because of the way they think early in the process, not solely because a few big pictures failed during the last few years. I feel the same was going on with Blockbuster, going for a double, but with a big price tag.

US generally do tend to be a bit older than OW crowds for Marvel movies I think and movie going audience in general is less white than the American average (probably simply because the younger people goes significantly more by capita). For both your question, those can maybe give some clues https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MPA-THEME-2019.pdf https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/MPA-2020-THEME-Report.pdf Comparing in ticket sold 2019/2020 (with the * that a lot of the audience was pre-lock down in 2020, Bad boys being the big movie of the year) 12-17: 11% / 13% 18-24: 13% / 12% 25-39: 25% / 28% 49-49: 15% / 13% 50-59: 11% / 10% 60+..: 15% / 10% (that was going up and up in recent year's, could be no award season but seem like a massive drops of the elderly will see with the 2021 numbers) White.: 54% / 49% Latino: 25% / 29% Black.: 11% / 14% Asian.: 7% / 6% Others: 3% / 2% A strong latino turnout would be above 25% I think, Venom for example: Diversity demos were 40% Caucasian, a very strong 29% Hispanic and Latino turnout, 16% Black and 15% Asian/other. Needless to say, those demo for a movie OW can be off I would imagine (I never took such survey in my life, not sure they do them in Canada much) When it play young with family it can look like that: Diversity demos were 38% Caucasian, a strong 34% Hispanic and Latino turnout, and 16% Black and 12% Asian/other. And when it play much older (Soprano prequel): 67% Caucasian, 20% Latino and Hispanic, 5% Black and 8% Asian/other showed up.

IMDB users are by a giant majority males, loved by males movie making it's top 100 would make a lot of sense, but I am not sure what to conclude from that (how would it be otherwise ?). How much influence on the cannon of what is good something like the IMDB user base really has, a lot ? or disregarded as neck beard basement dweller voters, we cannot say that the cannon has Shawshank above Godfather and Kubrick output because of IMDB influence or Dark Knight better than all of Scorsese output either. If we look at world critic, the top 10 most acclaimed movies of the 21th century look something like that https://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury.htm The 10 Most Acclaimed Films of the 21st Century1. IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE Wong Kar-wai2. MULHOLLAND DR. David Lynch3. YI YI Edward Yang4. THE TREE OF LIFE Terrence Malick5. THERE WILL BE BLOOD Paul Thomas Anderson6. SPIRITED AWAY Hayao Miyazaki7. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND Michel Gondry8. CACHÉ Michael Haneke9. TROPICAL MALADY Apichatpong Weerasethakul10. UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS PAST LIVES Apichatpong Weerasethakul Same goes into box office talk, it will tend to be a very male conversation (and a bit numbers obsess people) where the giant success of the Nancy Meyers of the world will not have has much attention has Tarantino. But I am not sure that the people talking about box office success on the Internet decide anything.

Well Jackie had a very nice run, maybe this exhausted itself a bit with how much all the Royals stuff has been in the news since the project got greenlight, but release that at the peak of the first season of the Crown and with the old people not fearing covid, with a strong reception and awards buzz/win, could have seen it beat Jackie and reach a 50-60m WW

Could be right obviously, but does not seem quite scientific On a recent episode of The Take, my colleagues Clayton Davis and Elizabeth Wagmeister agreed that the “Eternals”-as-MCU-disaster idea was, on some level, not unrelated to the fact that the film’s director is a woman. “Anytime a woman takes on the action genre, which has been made typically for men to helm,” explained Davis, “people come down harder on that filmmaker.” I think there is much truth to that assertion. A recent example: We saw the same kind of gnashing critical overstatement when Cathy Yan directed the 2020 DC film “Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). Bird of prey is at 79% on RT (78% audience), seem a bit misremembering that people went overboard with the critics on that one Wonder Woman was completely raved Captain Marvel is at 79% on RT Point break ? Would reviews for Birds of Prey, captain marvel, Charlies Angels, Wonder Woman, Eternals better if the director would have been anonymous... maybe but that do not feel obvious at all. The harder question would be more the woman sensibility (the actual movie) that influence and not at all some critical bias from the reviewer looking at the name and picture, that are in general hungry to love a good woman directed action movie, that maybe but that touch was in good part what made Wonder Woman such a smash hit. Again could be true, but the large budget sample size is so small and you have the 93% general acclaimed Wonder Woman, the middle of the pack well reviewed Captain Marvel/Bird of Prey and the lower review one like WW84 and Eternals not sure any explanation is required here, is that different than if we would look at men action movies reception distribution ?

So if someone loved Jackie quite a bit.....

I have not seen it, but I imagine being a Larrain movie not being far off those, and I am assuming here, but the fact Diana, Lady Di, etc... is not in the title a sign they did had bought all the marketing rights to use the IP here (like Selma for MLK, not having the I have the dream and so on available) There numbers are way lower, the message is not saying it did good because it did has much has them, I am saying maybe doing 3 times Pig or similar to I Tonya best weekend would have been good. That a strong second message ever on a message board by the way Mister Flopped

I imagine Lauren previous Jackie (that was so good) big success was something they had in mind to reproduce, it is rough out there for the elderly crowd targeted movie (and trying to open that large instead of growing up, with the Oscar type run being maybe a bit of a past thing already). To give an idea it took week 7 to Jackie to get has low per theater than Spence opening, but it never got to 400 screen by them while spencer opened on almost 1000. That said disaster ? I tonya peaked at 3.3, Pig at .97 million, Titane at .53 million, LadyFire at .75, The Lodge at .63m, Neon is not used to big numbers. 4-5 would have maybe be a lot, maybe 3-3.5 would been a real nice success.

What did 50 shades of grey looked like in Lebanon with all scenes of intimacy removed ?

Is that a typo or did BW opened that much bigger than Shang-Chi and ended up still finishing lower ?

Not sure about the fans part, but it is certainly in large part audience that pushed and decided to look at aggregate score instead of reading the NYTimes, they would by a giant amount much prefer if people still bought the paper and read reviews in them. There is a bit of dance, but industry adjusted to people speaking their preference here I think, RT/metacritic/imdb became a thing a good while before youtube and click bait article click money about them existed.

Could be just random that 2 counter force (one leggier-bigger than expected one underperfoming) ending up with the exact same number yes

Looking a Widow and Shi for expectation that is quite nuts: 7 Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings $417,728,620 $223,152,296 $194,576,324 53.42% 8 Venom: Let There be Carnage $397,289,483 $192,114,061 $205,175,422 48.36% 9 Black Widow $376,951,484 $183,651,655 $193,299,829 48.72% 194.6 vs 193.3 that virtually the same, Venom at 205 being really close has well (have yet to be done so could distance, but that seem to indicate hard to reach 250 without China for the genre right now

Very few vote in (122), but that higher than Widow first day after 320 votes in: https://web.archive.org/web/20210708005226/https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=230783.html Well received Chi was around 4.2 after 500 something vote: https://web.archive.org/web/20210903175510/https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=270144.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210901202634/https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=270144.html

I was going to say something in those vein, but the statement being What makes something in a huge cinematic universe needless and I think I understood what is meant by that, a tv episode need to advance the story or reveal character type of thing

Not seen the first thing about any of this outside this message board I think. Big is quite relative here. Bad Box office and crowd reaction, would be a giant story in comparison I feel like. If you go do a vox pop in a baseball stadium asking them what they think about a critics were not enthusiast over a 200m action movie blockbuster.......

We can argue about quality, but in term of success story John Watt had made two very small movie, James Gunn biggest movie was Super I think, the captain marvel director, there a list of those. And I would be really unsure about how much NomadLand being an Oscar bait, would it have had a good chance in a normal year, nothing like that won in recent history.