Barnack

Would have made if the 90 million figure was accurate, but the Sony leaked accounting showed it was more expensive than that, almost 120m with participation bonus, more than half of is box office, with a near 110m world release. Lost around 11m, to quote myself a couple of message above: With is 111.87m net production budget (almost 120m with the parcipation bonuses) and 107.5m worldwide release cost, it didn't turn a profit, it made a small lost both for the third party financiers and for the studio.

With is 111.87m net production budget (almost 120m with the parcipation bonuses) and 107.5m worldwide release cost, it didn't turn a profit, it made a small lost both for the third party financiers and for the studio.

Guardian of the Galaxy got industry traction, Art director guild winner, Costume guild, make up, publicist, and the WGA. It is a bit risky to use 2008 has a reference for the Academy, the Academy is getting close to 10,000 members, they were 5,783 in 2012, probably around 5,400, 5,500 in 2008 ? Take the death one being replaced and all the new one it is possible that the 2008 class is less than 50% of the voters for this year ceremony, that said they went international for their membership quite a bit so there is also a chance they hate comic book affair even more than the domestic voters.

Having seen Spider Web, I would not expect any good multiplier legs either, could be hard to reach 2.75x

About the same than the other giant 2005 fanbase movies, Potter and Star wars of that year are in the 33-34 million also. More an different reviews count wise that anything particular to those movies, now even Force Awaken has just 250k. How people votes, need to register to vote, people having now general platform like facebook/twitter to talk about movies and does not need specialized one ?

I have no doubt for the 2 others as well to be well set, but yeah the Friend casts and Simpsons voice cast, must be quite something, Friend is still one when not the biggest scripted TV/streaming show on many market most years I think.

Certainly true, even the biggest tv success a la John Hamm, Brian Cranston, almost all the Friends/Lost/Game of Thrones casts, etc... can have an hard time

If you look at the director, writers and producers of John Carter box office track record it is quite phenomenal, from Avatar, to Toy Story/Wall-E, Incredible, Finding Dory, Monster Inc, etc.... Saying no to the Pixar people was not easy (thus the giant over the budget), but can they're technics of filmmaking giant success and perfect track record transfert to live action and trying to do it in the space adventure action genre just after Avatar made 2.7 billion, sound crazier in hindsight than when the decision was made I am pretty certain. For King Arthur, I can imagine WB could have been influenced by their Games of Thrones success and trying to do it on movies + possible for it to be an movie universe + being a free IP even if it is limited, giant pre-awareness, a good King Arthur movie would have big potential.

Wasn't the budget exploded because the director try to make the movie using the Pixar way's (and Pixar/Lasseter was much stronger than Disney movie at Disney at the time) ? That include for example doing iteration and redoing the movie instead of doing it in one go, costly but normal with computers, really costly in live action. Has for a movie with an unproven fanbase not should not get a 175M budget, come-on now, what about Inception, 2012, Tangled, Titanic, World War Z, Pacific Rim, Brave, Wall-E, Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, Troy, Armageddon, etc... There is a lot of scenario that fanless or small fanbase affair are worthy of a 175m budget in 2012 money.

That category will be filled with Rom-com and comedy greenlight between 2004 and 2009, when the risk was really low and would look crazy today, but were relatively safe and sound business back then. How do you know real net budget was a bit lower at 111m and was a production hell type of experience + huge salaries. Fun with dick and Jane was over 123m at the time, Takin of Pelham: 115.4 million Don't mess with the Zohan: 102m The other Guys: 98.5m Matthew McConaughey Sahara had quite the (contested) high budget: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-movie15apr15-story.html They hired 10 writers in total and had an alleged production cost of over 210m in today dollars, the cost included paying bribe to local politicians to get the permissions to move rivers around and other really expensive decisions like that. Stuff green lighted after the economy crisis + dvd bubble collapsing say after 2010, tend to be more strict budget wise, specially for stuff without franchise/sequel appeal.

I think you would be surprise, when Black Panther get out I heard some very casual viewer at work saying: The best movie I have seen in theater since the blue people in space movie. I am not sure non-geek people talk less about Avatar in our day to day than Zootopia, Gladiator, despicable me or The Incredibles.

How costly support media after opening weekend would be in a normal scenario versus a cutting your lost scenario ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#Ratings Fair to assume at least 100% of the over 6 millions audience still care, quite far from the peak but still a lot for an AMC channel show.

If you are not Nolan or Cameron I do not think you really can do what you want, even Tarantino need movie star and Spielberg have to fight to get an Lincoln movie in theater , in is commentary track Scott say that even on Aliens sequels he has to fight for 100-200k $US decisions with young Fox exec, I doubt he could have green light a giant budget Roman movies without some hook to help pre-sales.

? https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2017/05/07/global-pay-tv-revenues-to-peak-in-2017/ Pay TV (cable + satellite) was an over 200 billion business in 2017 the most ever, a good growth from 143 billion 10 year's ago in 2008, Netflix was 11.7 billion last year, to put stuff in perspective, TV didn't end it is still about 4-5 times bigger then all the over the top stuff and should still be 250% bigger in 2022. How high of a price Fox world tv assets just got in a sale do show that cable was not ended. Projection are for a slow decline and still be a 200 billion business in 2022.

Do sound like garbage (Tom Hardy bad in this or This Means War...... what ?), but he is not a critic. I echo the sentiment that your average critic do not care a second if a marvel movie is part of the MCU or not, he will often prefer when it is not too connected to it and need to remember a bunch of previous movies to get what is going on, the Black Panther getting much better reviews than the Avengers type.

Still do not get the comparison, if Outlaw King would make 10m on a giant wide world release, that would be a sign of audience interest and a sign that it add no value to the platform, the content need to create new users or retain users to be worth anything to a streamer. If an Outlaw king movie would make 10m at the box office would it have been released it is worth about nothing to Netflix. Movie always played forever on streaming service (that was TV) and for every studio, there is nothing much different here revenues wise. Netflix has yet to make profit while having most of is platform populated by cheaper to acquire already moneytised product (and it is not like they were making that big of a profit with those)

Netflix: Headquarters: Los Gatos, California, United States Netflix is not not Hollywood either.

Not sure if the model for content paid over 1 million a minute for on low fee monthly stream is feasible. If it is just a fraction/flagship of your content that bring massive viewers but your day to day on you are filling it .... ? A family can easily spend an Netflix yearly payment (that they often share to someone else anyway) on a movie like Star Wars alone with the theaters/rent it or pay for tv or netflix to rewatch it/toys model.

Not sure I agree, people remembered that bomb for year's: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/03/09/famous-flops-john-carter-became-shorthand-for-box-office-bomb/#7c142daa6828 https://www.cinemablend.com/new/John-Carter-Cost-Even-More-Money-Make-Than-We-Thought-67881.html (2014) Books were released about it: https://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-Hollywood-Michael-Sellers/dp/0615682316 People that greenlight the movies lost their job (Dick Cook), than the people in charge of Disney movie when the movie got released lost is jobs https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/disney-film-boss-quits-after-200m-john-carter-flop-1.1284276 The director never returned to live action. There was even a strange conspiracy among the fanbase saying that Disney invented the fact if flopped to not do the sequels for some absurd strange reasons that went on for year's I think.

It is hard to say trying to google prediction list for 2018 top domestic box office movies, I see Halloween popping up from time to time and never CRA, but that could just be nature of the geek crowd making such list.

There is some not set in stone like Dark Tower,

That an piece by a food critic with a bachelor degree in English and Creative Writing that is mostly citing Paul Dergarabedian a bachelor in film and TV, with a communication management degree saying that Solo still made a lot of money and a success by any other measure than being bad for a Star Wars franchise entry.... You should really not think much of it and no where in the article it say that it took 6 year's to recoup the 2 billion cash buyout + 2 b stock dilution, it is saying that it made it back and more in just a few short year without any detail.

It is people love millenials since they saw what they the post 1994 born look like in comparison.... But more seriously how young millenials wanting to see the 56% on RT troubled production just because of a brand name goes against being stupid or not ?

It is at least 130m gross.