Barnack

CRA could have been but the legs tend to show some "took the audience by surprise" going on (late embargo right ?) that should match a weak pre-sales ratio, considering how much Star is Born beat it despite openning 2 days after and CRA small 400-450k in irregular tuesday previews. ,This was really buzzed among the frequent movie goers/cinephile (they type that has an app to buy ticket installed on their phone), combined with some star power and a bit of a known title, it should have a more pre-sales heavy opening. I agree with your Deadpool 2 being the best comparable here, not a sequel but such a franchise and webpresence that it should be has heavy, if so it should take off for a 60-65 start and maybe go down with a bad internal multiplier (or up if audience eat up is from the past idiosyncrasy a bit like for The Meg)

Not sure WB was much involved production wise or needed specially good marketing with that festival / review reception or why the would be Razzie mention.... It is not that surprising with is official past involvement and rumored past involvement that Cooper/Philips movie filmed by Libatique do not deliver a disaster first movie using such a well established formula. It is with the David O Russel editor he worked with in the past in the editing room also.

Because it is destroying 08 in presales that day and is more in the others named category. I feel like it will be more pre-sales heavy than 68% on RT 70% over 25 Ocean 8, very casual audience movie. (i.e. I doubt it will make a 120m OW and that Ocean 8 is the best comparable of the bunch in the very early pre-sales heaviness)

Star is born compared to Jurassic World 2 / Ocean 8 / Solo / Ant-Man / Deadpool 2 look impressive. Venom seem ok compared to Ant-Man / Solo / Deadpool 2 (considering that a 125m opening and Venom doing half of that would be really good)

If this is the optimized hand picked for the best possible social media reaction people reaction, I imagine actual critics review could be wild one way or an other (I suspect the bad way)

Not sure I buy that the lead of a movie with such a good multiplier, getting such review , A- cinemascore can have been so bad (depending of what people mean by that), he is without a doubt dynamic and was well cast (with the needed strange mix of being in an unconventional way tough enough to put himself in that situation but still feel like a little kid on the surface versus the Hamm/James/Berntral). Or acting is just irrelevant enough that you can so bad has the lead and in almost every scene and the movie being a huge success without any franchise pre-awareness and on the word of mouth work....

Suicide Squad 2 has a lot of moving piece assemble cast wise too, a Will Smith movie sequel not happening does not necessarily mean the studio does not want to make it, a bit like Salt 2 never happening was not necessarily because the studio didn't want or didn't got the ball rolling (they even wrote a couple script for it) same for the fourth Damon Bourne taking so long. Not sure Will Smith locked itself for a sequel without a director, script or even just a treatment. That said what was the last movie with a terrible multiplier and big only for OW reason that got a direct sequel ? Godzilla has yet to get one. Specially in the context they can use the most popular character in Suicide Squad (joker and Harley) in so many other movies, I can easily imagine them not minding not doing a Suicide Squad 2 anytime soon or at all.

Was it not always a bit of a somewhat 3 strike system that reset back to zero with every new success. Time between a shot and a release is long enough for an actor to have been signed with a least 1 if not 2 project the time something has flop. Tom Hardy has Fonzo already in post production, War Party announced has a a Ridley Scott production at Netflix project: https://deadline.com/2017/03/war-party-netflix-tom-hardy-andrew-dominik-ridley-scott-jules-daly-1202044894/ and a possible Mad Max sequel. If all of those fail and is career seem to have took a hit after Venom, if will be because of a somewhat long string of failure not that single project. Director rarely have something already in post production by the time a failure get in theater, making the impact of a specific failure more strait forward and identifiable. That said career certainly do rise and fall based on perceived ability to draw imo, look at the speed Dwayne Jonhson greenlight original project, what production and releasing budget he is able to secure for them, look at Will Smith ability to get 50-60m for an original Will Smith movie or even 30m after Concussion/Collateral beauty, he is now in full franchise movie mode. How much budget, how fast you acquire it for what range of projects, how much creative power and ability to shield the director from studio interference can still all move with your box office clout.

20m is specially hard when we consider that the previous one had a wednesday start, that 29m OW is not really reflective for a regular friday openning, it was at 42m by the end of is first sunday and would have done I imagine 35m with a regular friday start. And that the multi should be a lower one, a 20m start could easily an near 50% drop I imagine it is based on the first one being a Ryan Coogler movie with a, 95% rotten tomatoes score 82 metacritic with a fresh proposition + the giant brand and a A cinemascore, that achieved a good internal multiplier. This one seem way less fresh and should have a worst reception, just from how high the bar is.

She was paid 625k on All the money in the world (well +$1000 for the reshoot), I doubt she made much more on this or that she could not choose a life style that let her send her one kid to school with the salary and life long residual of acting in 10 studios movies + many indies, and that is if Ledger was irresponsible enough to not cover all of this with a life insurance (even without one if he did give some reasonable part of is asset to is only child she should be covered, just 50% of is Dark Knight points with 15-20 year's to build equity from it should cover the most expensive ivy league school) Would be hard to beat the Greatest Showman total compensation at least (if she was able to get a v 3% of the profit type of close that a lot of money, that I doubt she can get on a movie like that). I think the honesty do not go fully, they hang with very rich people all the time and want more than be able to be set for life + pay for their kids school, they want to be set for an high life style + pay for their kids school + build something that can set also their kids for life. Has for the strange racist part (I imagine elitism ?), were you not also shitting on that project since the beginning ?

If I am a financier/anyone with a participation bonus on the movie, yes, even thought junket is probably not that important if at all, marketing is part of the high salary. Has an audience member of the said junket, can be fun or not, if it is entertaining they can do pretty much anything, but I can understanding how it could frustrate the distributor and other people attach, like McCarthy doing nothing at all for the Muppet movie, it is easy enough to say you wanted to work with X co-star even if you didn't like anything about the project. It is something that also change with age it seem, when a Jeremy Iron is buying castle and painting them pink and start making a bunch of projects and say it is for the money, that does not seem to create any issue.

If you are watching the 171 minute extended edition that probably normal.

Considering how crazy well BvS opened, I am not sure Men of Steel was such an issue (not like if they built on Green lantern instead of rebooting right away) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35909299 Batman v Superman takes $424m at global box office Imagine if it would have been good

Christmas was is choice and part of the issues they had with him. There is a difference between giving some control and total control to someone regarding a movie release and it's marketing, in that case one issue about giving total control is possible legal problem with Apple and Jobs estate, studio love to have wording to be able to control that. The financial failure was intl, it did fine domestic that is true. But the first small budget Sweden version did considerably more than this one with 100m marketing and 125+m budget in many markets (and not just in Scandinavian ones were that was expected).

Looking at the 2004 numbers, that was an impressive time when you could do less than 1.5 time your budget at the box office and still turn a profit like Hellboy did: Studio Box office revenues Domestic rental: 29.19m Intl rental: 15.39m Rental: 44.58m home ent: dom Home ent: 76.75m intl home ent: 46.815m home ent: 123.565m Also seem to have sold domestic TV to fox for a good amount, it made 220m+ (203.8m + domestic TV) in revenues from a under 100m box office run, domestic heavy obviously but still impressive for the time (I think around 170% of your box office in revenues was average back then, that was 225% or so).

I do not understand was is written and how can possibly someone put write offs has a cost....... or think that the money put in by KMM was not going toward the movie budget and not already in those numbers.... The studio in a trial is saying the movie did cost 185.1m (thats the 154m + 31m extra cost that one claim should not be put in the budget the other say it should, no need to re-add them) The production company has claimed Fury Road cost $US154.6 million; the studio claimed it blew out to $US185.1 million. Those number being net cost. We see where the 150m rumors came from (still on mojo), we see where the rumors of going over 200m also come from, if it ended up 185m net it probably went quite comfortably over 210m gross

He maybe lost some of those privilege after Dragoon tattoo debacle (say being able to choose strange release date and try to sell it has the feel bad Christmas movie), but yes he apparently got full marketing control on some projects. Rudin and Sony speaking with Sorkin that really wanted to have Fincher on Steve Jobs Scott Rudin wrote: You don’t think $40m to shoot three scenes is enough? Do YOU want every control given to him, including the entire marketing campaign? This is the director who refused to put the girl with the dragon tattoo in the ads for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Sorkin to respond: You're not going to get an argument from me on that. I wrote the least expensive movie I know how to write. And while I think he can be of enormous value when it comes to marketing (the materials for TSN were fantastic), no, I'd be uncomfortable with him having control because there's always the risk that the billboards will say, "Anyone who doesn't see this movie is an asshole". But is there nothing in the middle that would make everyone happy? Has for the lack of being able to use the franchise name in the ads for the Girls with the dragon Tattoo movie, we see that Sony is getting all that itch fix with the new one..... Or is stunt of using real metal to do razor shaped posted that apparently back fired for the studio after some theater staff cut themselves with those and had to be removed from circulation:

There were a couple of porno that made the top 10 of the annual box office in the 70s, really different era in that regard, so I guess it could be possible. I doubt there is anything close to an official response or even just serious response to this, considering we have almost no profit data to make a profit/budget stats and relative to the budget is a bit of a misleading/useless stats when budget is a really small part of a movie expense like in those example. Trying to come up with how much profit the first Star Wars ultimately did in the last 40 year's is quite the hard question to answer but it must be quite a lot. Blair Witch had that reputation, but it's budget figure thrown around were just a marketing device and were referring to the cost spend to make the print that was sold in Sundance (those less than 30k figure), not the movie audience saw in theater after the distributor that bought the movie ordered some reshoot, made professional sound mix/editing, professional editing work, etc.... According to the director in more recent interview, he actual movie budget was much higher than the small one and using the actual over 500-750k budget I am not sure if it still has that title but it is certainly in the conversation.

Depending of your definition of profitable maybe (Absolute, ROI or a mix of those 2, does the profit going to the talent and not the studio count in the being profitable part I would say yes personally, etc...), but it has some good competition: Went just so ridiculously big: Infinity war Black Panther Jurassic World 2 Incredibles 2 (those can sell well and for a long time on home ent) And more in the relative to their budget category, those has stronger dbo result: Hotel Transylvania 3 (508m on a 80m budget, with a 166m dbo ) Deadpool 2 (734m on a 110m budget) A quiet place (188m dbo / 332m WW on a 17m budget)

Seem to be again the later.

The article seem to clearly imply Warner didn't own the property and Peters getting money (probably first dollar gross): Warner Bros. released a brief statement Tuesday saying it will have to continue calling Peters a producer: “Jon Peters’ attachment to this property goes as far back as 1976. Legally, we had to honor the contractual obligation in order to make this film.” Not sure which part of maybe didn't have to pay for story right much because Peters is getting points does not match with those article.

? The story they went with is that they did not own it, they had to go through Jon Peters company, maybe they lied to downplay is involvement and they owned the story rights... but I doubt it. But like I said, with the movie made by is company and him getting first dollar gross point, maybe he didn't charge much for the story rights. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517451/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_ql_4 But he and is companies are very well credited for this movie Production Companies Warner Bros. Pictures (presents) Live Nation Productions (in association with) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (in association with) (as Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures) Peters Entertainment (as A Jon Peters/Bill Gerber/Joint Effort Production) Gerber Pictures (as A Jon Peters/Bill Gerber/Joint Effort Production) Joint Effort (as A Jon Peters/Bill Gerber/Joint Effort Production) Malpaso Productions Thunder Road Pictures Produced by Bradley Cooper ... producer Robert J. Dohrmann ... co-producer (as Bob Dohrmann) Bill Gerber ... producer Lynette Howell Taylor ... producer Basil Iwanyk ... executive producer Sue Kroll ... executive producer Niija Kuykendall ... executive producer Ravi D. Mehta ... executive producer Heather Parry ... executive producer Jon Peters ... producer (produced by) Todd Phillips ... producer (produced by) Michael Rapino ... executive producer Courtenay Valenti ... production executive

At first I thought you were serious, well done.

34M below the line in California: http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/1.0-Website-Approved-Projects-List-Online-12.11.17.pdf 2016-2017 A Star is Born WB Studio Enterprises Inc. Feature Film Non-Indie 45 2725 135 39 $ 34,158,000 $ 7,076,000 Around 27M after the tax credit, that would leave only $9M for all the non qualified expenditure, the UK shoot, maybe the story rights aspect of it is not showing because the producer owning it was ok with just getting big first dollars gross, but yes that is quite a low budget if it is not massively massaged down by the press. To give what one could have thought relevant low budget studio movie example, Brad Pitt Moneyball: http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/1.0-Website-Approved-Projects-List-Online-12.11.17.pdf 29M qualified cost in California, 24M after the tax credit, total net budget was 55M Same for Social Network, 24M in qualified cost in California, 19M net of the tax credit, total net budget 44M. I would have expected 50% of the cost of a movie like this to be story right and other above the line type for a 50m-60m budget also. If this is not the case and that rumored budget is close to true, that do show how much they are squeezing the budgets versus has recently has 2010. Or the industry got better at shifting all is cost into what can pass as qualified cost to the tax credit over time.

2015 was not that long ago, Boy Next Door did very well ( I imagine very few know about that Lila & Eve the Davis & Lopez movie exist, not sure it got released at all).