Barnack

How can the very first day of a well reviewed movie box office can have anything to do with the movie being good or bad itself, no one had seen it yet no ?

It is true that it is a lot about marketing for non franchise movie, for sequels obviously much less people already know what whats. But I am really not sure why the So and conclusion when looking at those numbers. Average of all the 4 score (Critics and audience) by cinemascore on that list of Disney movie A+: .86 A : .81 A-: .68 B+: .54 B : .49 B-: .43 When there is such strong clear pattern correlation between the RT critic score and AUdience score with cinemascore. It is true that a Drive/Boogie Nights getting a bad cinemascore is marketing getting audience surprised by the product in the theater, but in case of Disney products, the proposition tend to be so clear or so well establish products that the correlation will be strong, specially for their franchise outing.

In the not interest comment on RT one just said: Meryl Streep is in it.

Well..... Do not thing it ever got beloved enough to get people nostalgic of it thought.

Yeah I am not sure how much the final product will look like set photos, once it goes through all what the image go through.

2.155 is pretty much like an average horror movie, even horror movie sequel no ? Insidious: The Last Key Uni. $67,560,690 3,150 $29,581,355 3,116 1/5/2018 2.283894 Insidious Chapter 3 Focus $52,218,558 3,014 $22,692,741 3,002 6/5/2015 2.301113 Insidious Chapter 2 FD $83,586,447 3,155 $40,272,103 3,049 ######## 2.075542 Insidious FD $54,009,150 2,419 $13,271,464 2,408 4/1/2011 4.06957 234 movie openned 50M or above of those only 11 had a worst multiplier than Godzilla: Watchmen WB 1.947136 Fifty Shades of Grey Uni. 1.950973 Valentine's Day WB (NL) 1.963816 Paranormal Activity 3 Par. 1.978931 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice WB 1.990034 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 Sum. 2.036508 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 LG/S 2.072231 The Twilight Saga: New Moon Sum. 2.076627 Halloween (2018) Uni. 2.090039 X-Men Origins: Wolverine Fox 2.114829 Hulk Uni. 2.127484 Many of those being sequels unlike Godzilla.

Yup that also my tricks, 1/10 vote on IMDB and reading some of the users reviews on imdb/RT, delta with cinemascore/deltascore/multiplier, if the imdb/RT score goes up instead of down has more people see it is an other strong indication, regular movies see their audience score go down has the best target audience for it see it first. That say it just tell if it was hit not: Like glass said.

The distinction between looks and talents is not an obvious one when your jobs is a really good part about what you look like when being photographed all day.

There is more to a movie total actualized to today revenues than is box office. Not just the direct after theatrical movie revenue, but specially for a franchise entry you have the power to influence how much merchandises, video games sales, sequels, spin-off, etc... will make. It is not reviews that matters obviously, but how much people liked the movie certainly do not just the box office and box office for franchise movie is not that good of an indicator of that, because so much of the ticket are sold before anyone even saw the movie. And you tend to see a correlation between tent poles reviews and how much people like them.

Yes but more reasonable estimate is more in line with that for a person alone it is around 45-50k to live comfortably (still a incredibly huge number and can just give an idea for people with children and actual responsibilities). That 67K Canadian for a person alone, that put you comfortably in the top 10% of the highest revenues were I come from. So many people ready to live in a car to work in a special industry just show how much demands there is and why those kind of price can be asked of them.

If you have read the next sentence that started with: Reviews does not matter, it would have made for a better response.

I am also curious, I imagine that while the American studio get 23% or so net, the buyer does not necessarily get the same amount specially if the buyer are exhibitors and it could include post theatrical rights, making that figure quite lower. But maybe the movie needs to make 240M for the deal to become a bad one for Paramount too, making obvious why they would take it.

RT I agree, without distribution it is hard to say, IMDB make trolling effect if any: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5028340/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt Much clearer by showing the distribution, it is probably fair to say that movie with weird amount of 1/10 that go down over time had received vote from people that had not watched it.

They will be very soon if it is not already the case. In 2017 according to the mpaa: 2 to 17: 21% of the ticket sold 50 and above: 28% 50 and above (28%) is now bigger than the 12 to 24 (23%). The first nights of tentpole tend to be much younger (and male heavier for somes) than the complete OW through Sunday and even more than the complete movie run, just looking at those cinemascore demobreak down can make us underestimate the +50 audience. Specially if they bring grandkids during the holiday, there is a huge market there.

That figure is using a 50-30-20 model too (just 50% of the spending on necessity, it is living really comfortably and putting a really nice 1,450k a month away for retirement, historically that would mean becoming a multi millionaire well before retirement), I think it is a bit misleading to not say amount needed for living comfortably + build a huge retirement equity.

The people that finance the sequel, the merchandise, the spin-off. Reviews does not matter but how well loved and all the revenues that will ever be made or not made influenced by a movie matter if you talk about money, not just the first 2 months after release.

100M was the qualified expenditure in California alone. That make more sense. That sound like a really good deal for them, how much the movie would have to do at the CBO for Paramount to loose significant money here, over 200m USD ?

Oh I would take your word on this, nothing would be surprising and fit with the little I saw about it, I never go on reddit or other kind place with that kind of talk that I imagine is popular. Fit with that era reputation.

Hum didn't seem to hurt either, 2 of the 3 gave them Twitt they can use plus that video above: https://geektyrant.com/news/the-initial-reactions-to-justice-league-are-in-the-general-consensus-is-that-its-a-fun-movie I think Faraci had exploded before Justice League release too. Collider still gave it a bad D+, slashfilm at good 6/10. What the second soda reference here and the relation with Last Jedi ? But yeah that, the kind of nice level of access and content studio give to people that is dangerous, specially to people who work for people that really need it (a bit like the videogames industry review business that was financed almost all by video games/hardware ads revenues or the Deadline/Variety that was all financed by Weinstein type awards season ads placement) or the more serious US press that get a lot of access with the military/lot of ratings covering the wars. That a constant source of dangers and not something to ridicule. That said, for those that make money from an audience volume and have a direct feedback, their audience is a bigger source of pressure than anything else imo.

Slashfilm are really popular but do not have any access to loose right ? I have not listening to them in a while and but they do the movie review once they are in regular theater and about never get big talents promoting stuff on the show ? Those people do feel fully free yes, same would go for a Filmspotting (sometime they have interview but I heard them destroy a movie in their review of director they just interviewed). For example their Tuesday show reviews were venom/star is born, movies that were in theater for 5 days, does not seem like a situation were it would be possible for them to get in a cold relationship with their personal contacts in a studio that would hurt them, if they have any. I think the word critics would be pushing it here, more commentator with a platform that review movies deep in the fan/franchise stuff material that would hang out with that type and talk about star wars. The comibookdebate.com type of critics (this is a pure random example) https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/sheraz-farooqi/movies But RT take so many reviewers now that we get some members like this, that do purely fandrivens (Nolan , super heroes, Star wars) stuff. The fact he does not make any type of precision (even some critics at some major publication, well followed, etc....) without naming them, make the statement quite empty. Could be blue ribbon tweeting opinions about movies not even registered on RT level of "critics"

That is a strong argument against the idea they can buy them too, if they felt the need to create one.

The allegation he is making is not about pressure/paid (nothing is ever said or even implied by the studio), people fearing to loose access: interview with talents, invited on set, first screening/etc... if they blast the product without ever knowing for sure if it would be actually the case. And it is not about the critic working in some big publication, but those without employer or one that rely on access for revenues. I doubt it is the New York Film Critics circle member type he is talking about (if not outright lying), did Collider and other of the sorts menaced Disney to not ever talk anything StarWars/Marvel/Pixar on all their channels over the La Times ban ?

Thus proving all he was alleging.

A sorry I got mislead by the International mention in the thread topic, didn't know it was the movie title I thought it was the Intl thread.

You are right on both point.