Barnack

Spider Web is a flop, Widows is more borderline than that. It is a bit early to tell with 10 markets (with at least 3 major one) to go for a movie that could make close is budget at the domestic box office alone, but legs seem to be mediocre in many market. And that the bigger issue, a movie flopping do not necessarily matter much at the Oscar, Hugo was one of the biggest flop ever that broke major relationship and producing houses, still got nominated. It will still do more than the Phantom Thread, Room, Brooklyn, etc.... The bigger issue is the what look like timid reception from the old audience that saw it (79% above 25) that usually match a little bit the Academy in taste. Taste between people tend to be quite correlated and if the older audience do not like something, Academy voters also does not like it almost systematically. For all the talk above about the box office of Oscar movies, they almost are still well liked by the people that actually watched them in theater and have good legs. Now, there is so many new voters from so many country, that precedent in what they like and how they vote is not necessarily a strong metric.

The main characters is a woman in the movie and she blackmail a bunch of widows into risking their life into a heist to pay money back her criminal husband stole (and she not only knew about it, lived the very life style and she was particularly happy the morning of is criminal activity), there is reasons she simply do not go to the cops. Pretty much everyone is quite bad in the movie, Davis character obviously but Carrie Coon character is quite something also.

Nothing about this talk about once the age limit of the contract expire and they are literally using interviews (i.e. sign they have not seen the actual contract). No one doubt that Sony cannot use Holland during that contract (would not surprise anyone they cannot even use SpiderMan at all during it), that was not the question.

Sound quite speculative (considering no one know anything about the deal outside pure speculation from interviews), specially considering Marvel will not be able to use him either, I doubt it is setup to be certain that a characther-actor pair cannot be used in any way.

That is for the duration of the deal or forever ? (and during that time I imagine it is possible they cannot even recast SpiderMan)

But the drop is from a movie without a hugely popular book spin-off already, sure Fantastic Beat having a 80% retention would have been nuts (would have made over a billion)

That was quite the different situation, first Harry Potter was like the second biggest movie ever behind Titanic when it released almost doubled everything that was not an other Intl monster in Lord of the Rings, it was probably closer to a 2 billion movie today than a 1 billion movie. Going down from that was more like coming down from Jurassic Park, Force Awaken or Avengers and 879 from 975 is an excellent 90% retention rate, 650 from 812 would be 80% in comparison.

Considering movie with world release ambition can loose more than their budgets when things goes wrong, it mean that it probably had potential to loose more than Solo did.

Gross budget on that was over 130m.

Or not that well liked, even if it was not prime Millennium it still did sold over 2 millions of copies quite fast and went number 1 in many markets: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/15/stieg-larssons-millennium-series-sequels-david-lagercrantz According to its publishers, Lagercrantz’s The Girl in the Spider’s Web has sold 2.3m copies worldwide, topping charts in the US, UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.

At the same time, the big franchise material aspect of it make it's lower multiplier expected. The domestic failure was expected by pretty much everyone, what is arguably more embarrassing are the number in the traditionally solid market that was Scandinavia for the franchise. The Girl Who kicker the Hornet's Nest the previous smallest entry of the series vs Spider Web OW Denmark: $1.415M vs $0.097M Sweden: $1.45m vs $0.226M Norway: $1.02m vs $0.06M Those are some 7x to 17x time smaller opening Weekend, that is quite the spectacular rejection (not being from the same author is probably part of it, but still), for a franchise that was a 80 millions book sellers able to make a small budget swedish speaking movies a 100m blockbuster and sustain the release of 3 movies in the same 8 months not so long ago.

Well that should work.

Almost all movies now have many entity involved splitting profits, it change from movies to movies and often part of a slate type of deal, for example it could be a studio must propose to MGM 4 titles during the year on which they have the right to invest has highly has 25% of the spending (if you want people to take big risk you usually need to let them choose to invest in some safer hit). With 2 major studio sometime it is really clean cut, say Monument Men, cost were 50/50 split almost perfectly, domestic release and domestic revenue with one studio and the rest of the world to the other studio. Robocop was a movie MGM financed with Sony can give you an example: https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/MKTGFIN/Pre Release Memo/SNSITIVE/FY 2014/Robocop mktg pre (3).pdf There is a column called WW (third from the right) where you can see what the scenario would look like if Sony would not have been in a co-production deal that you can compare with the MGM scenario's, you see how much of releasing/production cost MGM pay and how much MGM get from them.... You can read some leaked co-financing contract to have some idea how they divided up money in case like this: https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/RISKMGMT/Margie Salcido/Kate/Acq-to be entered/Columbia -American Hustle- Fully-Executed.pdf Section 7 at the page 19 they go in detail, for an example of a co-production with a non-distributor partner (Annapurna here), you can look in numbers what it look like here: https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/MKTGFIN/Kathy Binder/2014/FY14 Sensitivities/FY14 Sensitivities 2014-04-24.pdf (And monument men an other example just below it) Hustle was: (50/50 Split with Annapurna (50% P&A backstop), U.S. Rights Only, R Rating, 12/13/13 rel. date), heavily financed by international pre-sales. Monument men was: (50/50 Single Pot w/ Fox - SPE Distributes Domestic;

That will change from market to market and what you watch on TV so we could be both right here, but my exposure I had for the marketing of that movie (the only TV I watch are live sports event) and from my local radio, that how it was marketed. They said from the Gone Girl and even pushed with a Gone Girl like twist in the radios ads I heard. Look at the most common TV spot around 15/16s: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dnw5/widows-movie-trailer From Gillian Flynn the writer of Gone Girl was there and they used a trailer guy action movie big voice. Has for the heist movie that it actually is, the percentage of screen time of actual heist footage isn't really that big, no classic heist montage either.

Not sure I agree with any of this, this want and can be a global franchise with attraction park all around the world and obviously one can't just sack JKR, who is her boss and traditionally she tend to sell story/book adaptation rights but not the characters that she like to own, not sure if she achieved to hold own to them all this time or if I understood correctly how it work too.

Will have to see, Disney Renaissance is still to this day printing them a lot of money (the actual title and all the activity around them) but the "live action" remake making billions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leeseymour/2017/12/18/the-lion-king-is-making-more-money-for-disney-than-star-wars/#75b0174a1ff0 WIll have to wait some decades, before calling it a bigger success. But that WDAS revival that came with buying Pixar and making Pixar mentality / talent take control of Disney is what making Pixar price tag look really good for them.

Could be right, but even for him that sound like a stretch.

I think Valonquar was joking, 55% score when you were seen by only your most enthusiast audience on a website filled with the movie perfect audience is quite bad. Has for Robin Hood box office even the best leggy movies can have -46% type of drop the weekend after thanksgiving (say a Coco or Wonder), that could easily drop 55-60% next weekend even from that ultra low start...

That A cinemscore (and low OW) should start to translate into good multiplier.

They probably spend 15-20m on the production before P&A spending if that much. Maybe we will have some detail and if we do it will look similar to God of Egypt will be my guess: https://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/gods-of-egypt-box-office-flop-1201716160/ “Gods of Egypt” had been pegged two years ago as a franchise starter. Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer asserted at that point that the studio’s exposure was under $10 million, thanks to pre-sales of foreign rights and Australian tax incentives. I doubt that Liongates ever spend 100m on a non franchise movie (and probably not on the franchise one, they had to sold properties to finance the release of the first Hunger Games even too they had 75% of it's 80m production budget covered by International market sales), they have a strong rule to just greenlight stuff they can get co-financed + pre-sold 80-85% of it at least. The Intl movie market and venture capital financier still buying into those Liongates trying to get back into the low budget blockbuster genre too, what were they smoking and for how long will they continue ?

Much lower than the Cloudy Meatballs one, 90M could be a minimum according to the Marvel deal that it would not surprise me..

Spider Web almost reached that 2,000 theater drops bad like we suspected. ASIB loosing 800 theater 2 week in a row is a bit unfortunate and probably very competition needing screens based, the PTA was still good.

Study in the past did show a strong correlation between year's between sequel and retention rate, if I remember correctly 3 year's was the bar not too cross to not see a big effect. Decades will be a different case, one where inflation obviously will play a bigger case and need to be more took into account but also if you wait long enough now you enter some nostalgia return and it will work for the very iconic affair a la Star Wars, Nemo, Bond, Lord of the Rings, Potter, Jurassic park, Toy Story, Incredible, probably Shrek, Rocky, etc.... not necessarily for your more middle of the road success/pop-culture imprint.

I have the feeling that those news do not do a screen comparable comparison but use absolute numbers of sales even if they added thousand of screen between the movie release: https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2018/10/23/atom-adds-1000-screens-to-movie-ticketing-platform.html

People saying television is death general discourse really does not match with how much Fox was sold for.