Barnack

Not sure which would be that, but you in the shoes of a median academy voters (that was a 63 year's old in 2014), was there any Titanic or ROTK for them since ? Avatar maybe, but not really and that did really well.

There is less sweeping going on has the voting body get more international, but something like Titanic would do close to it if not more (and probably have both leads get nomination this time, in 2022 DiCaprio starring in a movie that destroy Avatar box office by a giant amount probably get a nom). Lord of the rings won has many in 2003 and Lalaland got has many nomination in 2016 with 14 (an all time record tie with All About Eve and Titanic). La la land was not 40% of what Titanic was and achieved to do this: Oscar Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role Emma Stone Best Achievement in Directing Damien Chazelle At 32 years and 38 days of age, Damien Chazelle becomes the youngest winner for Best Director. Best Achievement in Cinematography Linus Sandgren Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score) Justin Hurwitz Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song) Justin Hurwitz (music) Benj Pasek (lyrics) Justin Paul (lyrics) Song: "City of Stars" Best Achievement in Production Design David Wasco (production design) Sandy Reynolds-Wasco (set decoration) Nominee Oscar Best Motion Picture of the Year Fred Berger Jordan Horowitz Marc Platt Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role Ryan Gosling Best Original Screenplay Damien Chazelle Best Achievement in Film Editing Tom Cross Best Achievement in Costume Design Mary Zophres Best Achievement in Sound Mixing Andy Nelson Ai-Ling Lee Steven Morrow Best Achievement in Sound Editing Ai-Ling Lee Mildred Iatrou Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song) Justin Hurwitz (music) Benj Pasek (lyrics) Justin Paul (lyrics) Song: "Audition (The Fools Who Dream)" That award body is really hungry for the next Titanic and if they ever remake a movie like that that work like that it could easily beat all the record (has more category exist now I think) imo

When was the last time they shun all audience friendly movies ? I mean, this is filled with them: Best Picture Ford v. Ferrari The Irishman Jojo Rabbit Joker Little Women Marriage Story 1917 Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood Gisaengchung Has well: The Shape of Water – Guillermo del Toro and J. Miles Dale Call Me by Your Name – Peter Spears, Luca Guadagnino, Émilie Georges and Marco Morabito Darkest Hour – Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, Anthony McCarten and Douglas Urbanski Dunkirk – Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan Get Out – Sean McKittrick, Jason Blum, Edward H. Hamm Jr. and Jordan Peele Lady Bird – Scott Rudin, Eli Bush and Evelyn O'Neill Phantom Thread – JoAnne Sellar, Paul Thomas Anderson, Megan Ellison and Daniel Lupi The Post – Amy Pascal, Steven Spielberg and Kristie Macosko Krieger Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri – Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin and Martin McDonagh This is almost 100% easy audience fully friendly cinema with 1 or 2 exception sometime getting in. Anytime something popular that is remotely artistically good and pleasing for the average 60 year's old it get in. Has for why they lose audience every year I think that a bit of a simplification, TV tend to lose audience every year and award shows that invite the biggest names in different industry (VMA and other in the music industry for example), bleed audience even faster.

It depend who is the target of that marketing in that sentence. Oscars for many movies-campaign, often cost more than the added revenues they brought, the Globe are often to be a better return and yet receive less effort. There is ego involve, but there is also an attraction of certain talents, those who care will be more open to go with a strong award team place for their next project (and from the Producers has well, not just writer-director big actor with choice). Now that the competition will either soon be nill or from not perceived as not that good for the Oscar (netflix-amazon-apple, etc..) it could become rapidly a non issue, but back in the day a studio would pitch an project. For example look at WME talent agent Newman pitch to DiCaprio to make the Steve Jobs movie: Certainly on Danny's part, he's long wanted to work with you again, and>in the 15 years since "The beach" you have both grown immeasurably in>your craft and abilities.>With this text, Danny feels he's found a script that can be as enduring>a character study and portrait of our age and times as 'Citizen Kane 'was>for a previous generation, from a writer who is the equal of Paddy>Chayevsky.>With Scott Rudin, you have a producer who is perhaps the greatest ever at>making intelligent, important films in partnership with Sony who, as>we've seen with films such as "the social network", "Capt. Phillips"and>"Moneyball" ,will spend the necessary marketing and publicity money to>get audiences and award attention.>Steve Jobs was a man who came from nothing and nowhere to change the>world ,as surely as Thomas Edison did, and and there's no better actor>than you with the artistry and talent to help people understand what that>must've been like.>Further, the production isn't set in the middle of the jungle, nor>require a physical transformation, but will be shot in a city such as San>Francisco, allowing you to give your sole creative focus to exploring>the richness of the dialogue and character, with your pick of costars.>Just as you must surely feel great pride in helping bring Marty his Oscar>on "the departed", everyone involved in this production desperately wants>to help bring you the Academy award you so richly deserve.>I remember speaking with you years ago about 'boogie nights', and all you>could have done with that wonderful part, and I truly believe this is an>opportunity we will look back on with regret if we don't make happen.>Your pal,>Robert Award track record is part an attraction magnet to certain talents, part ego for the different studio that care, part platform release that make certain movies possible or bigger. They often during greenlight negotiation have a pre-agreed award season marketing budget with big name talents like the Scott Rudin of the worlds.

Premium Large Format (like Imax and the special bigger room with 3D and special sound offer many multiplex have with a surcharge)

Free Guys seem to have reached special status now: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Free-Guy-(2020)#tab=box-office Now outside the expected maximum zone of the-numbers, with an almost 4x multiplier after a 5.086m weekend.

Was Dune opening being OK (with thursday being good even) but killed by bad legs only a domestic affair ? Imagine if this start significantly above $13M after it's first friday domestic... would that be bad ? That would be Jungle Cruise start.

Do you mean for the actual market it opening in or for the global europeen run ?

Really unsure but I think it was backed-archived an deleted account (I could be fully wrong)

I really do not understand the message posted here. Seem to be in complete opposition.... In the same thread (or elsewhere) he say: Yeah. That one is real. Honestly everything except the “moderator of an anti-black women subreddit” is in some way based in reality. As I said earlier, this is really the only outta pocket thing he posted. But I genuinely believe it was just a poorly made argument, not malicious

One would not have predicted a non WB Nolan movies a couple of year ago.

And those are non adjusted for inflation figure. In grossly adjusted (using release date) for 2014 dollars it look like this: Amazing Spider man 2: 14.5 millions on 603 millions in revenues on 708 millions WW box office Amazing Spider man 1: 72.1 millions on 725.9 millions in revenues on 781 millions WW box office Spider man 3........: 214.9 millions on 1,282.20 millions in revenues on 1,021 millions WW box office Spider man 2........: 350.7 millions on 1,363.52 millions in revenues on 996 millions WW Box office Actual revenues wise it was down to about making 44% from their biggest success Spider Man 2. Yes it explain I think the deal they made, their profit was lower than the check they got from Marvel to have made a spider man movies on the last one, it was a net negative one in reality. And their co-financier were loosing money ($5 million) on it, making the number above look better than reality.

It is not I think it is really good, that not the movie profit, that the part of the profit going into Sony pocket, deadline and other do not tend to estimate the studio part of the profit and show total profit the movie made (outside the very publicized pre-sold affair like the liongates Hunger Games where that distinction is sometime made). They tend to be either co-financed or pre-sales some markets in advance to diminish risk, help cash flow, etc... but that reduce the return that goes to them when they work and investor will like to sign option on sequels when they invest on property or have option on total slate, making so that even if a franchise became riskless you either are obligated to let them invest in the new entry or just to keep it happy if it is not contractually forced can to do it, (sometime studio like Warner when they get partner with a slate deal will exclude Harry Potter from them in advance, which is a very rare non Disney big movies fully financed) It is not an high profit industry that much, those 25% type of return are really in the upper side type, they are what they which for when they greenlight movies. Spider man profits look like this (from Sony point of view, including merch when they had them or the 25 millions they get from Marvel after they sold them back to them) Amazing Spider man 2: 14.5 millions on 603 millions in revenues Amazing Spider man 1: 69.9 millions on 704 millions in revenues Spider man 3........: 188.2 millions on 1,123 millions in revenues Spider man 2........: 279.8 millions on 1,088 millions in revenues That goes from 25% to 2%

I must admit that at one point the past I thought both Sony and Microsoft would have one by now, directly on the console has either a plus or in their Xbox pass or Sony PS now-ps plus, with their own show. That said they were right and concentrating on game and streaming game was the way to go with them and it did not took long for the media part of console to be almost completely and utterly irrelevant part of them has either what come with a smartv or a $25 dongle took care of it for most customer now, now if you would release a console that do nothing else than game it would not be an issue, interest for them has a Blu-ray player or device able to stream movie on your network or usb drive, Netflix, etc... is irrelevant. When it was a giant part of the PS2 and PS3 success story the dvd than bluray part of them (The Xbox release that focused on that ended being an error, that hardware part became a cheap commodity). Apple showing and even Netflix in some ways show that it is hard to make content, more to it than giving a lot of money to creator like it was fun to just repeat and say in the past.

They did try to go mid budget after the success of Apocalypse but scaling down after. From Sony point of view: Extinction: 44.45 million profit on 197.76 millions revenues Afterlife: 62.28 million profit on 252 millions revenues Retribution: 10 millions profit on 198.422 millions revenues (budget was 75 millions) Apocalypse: 57 millions profit on 201.36 millions revenues Screen gems title can tend to pre-sales some markets and like almost always have co-financier that shares the profits, what is really nice is that the profit is usually higher that the money put on the movie in advance during production.

It is easy to forget Sony is in the smarthphone business: https://electronics.sony.com/c/mobile That I imagine will tend to be year's in and out the lowest ROI, I imagine always negative. Karate Kids has been really big for them on youtube than Netflix, Atypical, The Crown, Breaking Bad before, The Last of Us on HBO is coming up, Community is probably a nice seller on streamers. Sony Picture television side and media network together is bigger than Motion picture in revenues, TV alone is smaller but not that much to be a different tier than the movie side (specially operating income with the higher margin). I remember not so long ago talk that Sony should sell everything and become a bank, their financial service being so much better in every way than the rest in some quarter early pandemy they probably liked being diverse. If they could get a good price could be a good move, but...... could they with Disney I presume out of the race (getting Fox than Sony being just too much) and I imagine At&t. Amazon, Apple, MIcrosoft, there is big money outthere for sure so maybe, but those unlike Disney do not have the expertise to do better with Sony Picture than Sony (nor that ability to fire has much redondant people than when a studio buy an other one), making their ability to overpay Sony for it (to give them more than what the studio is worth to them less obvious, except for the really deep pocket making it still possible).

Some already have been paid a lot and can at least act has if they did care quite a bit.

Maybe they are seeing something, because in most market it is true that the numbers do seem quite bad, getting beat by Suicide Squad, Space jam and or Tom and Jerry. Cruella being 30% bigger intl minus China is strange.

Imdb tend to be good for this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10838180/technical Red digital cameras (6 and 8K).

Not sure I ever heard it (maybe during debate about the Bourne and Batman Begin influencing Casino Royale versus Bond influencing the future), but that combined with how long the series went on does make it an nice time capsule entity, like the tree rings on the tree stump of cinema history.

Love a lot of his body of work but that a bit generous: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0688847/ From memory he did tend to be a bit more down on home ent and tv revenues of movies versus theatrical versus what Studio annual report or sony leak said back in the days.

It a studio that get home ent distribution deal of many title that they did not distribute in theater themselve, also it is a studio that has a bigger part of their business being domestic than the more international reaching one, a market that is quite distinct on how big home entertainment revenues are by theatrical $.

With the acquisiton of Fox being integrated in 2019, does it make looing at years around it a bit hard ? (like looking at warner around At&t shift) ? Or they kept the financing report separated the 2 first year ? Maybe the destruction of home ent would have been more apparement without a giant acquisition bump if their sales became merged post acquisition. Liongates from 2018 to 2021 fiscal year's in the motion picture division it went like this: 2018: Within the Motion Pictures segment, revenues were generated from the following: • Theatrical, 15.4%; • Home Entertainment, 42.5%; • Television, 15.3%; • International, 25.1%; and • Motion Pictures-Other, 1.7% 2019: Within the Motion Picture segment, revenues were generated from the following: • Theatrical, 14.7%; • Home Entertainment, 40.4%; • Television, 18.7%; • International, 23.3%; and • Motion Picture-Other, 2.8%. 2020: • Theatrical, 21.3%; • Home Entertainment, 42.2%; • Television, 14.8%; • International, 20.4%; and • Motion Picture-Other, 1.3%. 2021: Within the Motion Picture segment, revenues were generated from the following: • Theatrical, 1.1%; • Home Entertainment, 55.6%; • Television, 21.3%; • International, 20.1%; and • Motion Picture-Other, 1.9%. The home entertainment split between packaged and not went like this for feature film: 2017: $247M packaged vs $192m digital 2018: $213m packaged vs $206m digital 2019: $108m packaged vs $157m digital 2020: $155m packaged vs $276m digital 2021: $67m packaged vs $241m digital Packaged media went from being 33% of the domestic motion picture business for Liongates has recently than the 2018 fiscal year to (if we exclude others) to being only 15.5% in a year without any theatrical revenues in the 2021 fiscal year and 20% the year before.

One of the most powerful cultural group on the planet part of the giant cultural bulldozer that is the USA popularized ways to speak in general and more so in some aesthetic (rap being one of them), people that partake in them get extremely influenced by that extremely influenceable group. Is there much to explain, is there an issue ?

I feel there is some list of possible when that happen 1) Did not know in advance how it would play with critics being an obvious one. 2) Less obvious, that calculation is I think sometime based on tracking, the lower the tracking the more chance you have an leniant embargo, you need to take chance. I think that why It and Wonder Woman had so extreme last minute embargo lift, the tracking was excellent and WB did not had to take any chance with it when some other movie goes early and get bad reviews. It is not like you can have reviewer feedback before deciding your embargo (or if that happen that terribly corrupt), well sometime they do by moving it after letting them having a twitter non-embargo (people that partake in twitter commenting without having the ability of posting actual review are the lowest of the lowest of an already ultra soft belly industry, but they already have destroyed any serious credibility before doing that for the most part)