Barnack

Wanda is selling Legendary ? Cannot find anything online about it. Ah has a distributor: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/detective-pikachu-moves-universal-warner-bros-1129589 Would be natural fit for Dune, would it be just as a distributor or taking a stake on it.

He is obviously not really commenting/analyzing on a movie box office. He is promoting the movie and itself and that will be what he will do with every message he ever write on a social media platform that is what they are for. (like everyone, speaking is a biological evolutionary tool human developed to show their value to the group and use almost exclusively to do this) It will sound very much the same than when a deadline publish a report the distributor give them, with the only mention made are to make the movie look as good as possible, it openned in 27 market they mention the 5 over which they can compare it to a movie that was an nice hit or 5th best opening for Sony in Hungary for a spring release type of sentence. Or when Fandango talk about pre-sales/records for a hyped next release, they will sound ridiculous because they are not trying to do the best prediction here, just trying to promote sales, because a lot of people that goes to the movie have has number 1 or 2 deciding factor what is the buzz around the movie and is it popular/banking at the box office.

In the past I would imagine yes (if some service had a transaction price based on the amount of stock you own), nowaday in the digital age stock split or merge is really often purely a show that we do not care much about. Being an investor I would like it I think, penny stock look bad by itself.

Heading into the weekend, Hollywood's leading tracking service, NRG, shows Mission: Impossible 6 debuting to $50 million. Other services show it opening in the $52 million to $57 million range. 75m is probably about the franchise ceiling ? Can see beat this and do 68m (10% more than the last one adjusted)

Outside something I does not know, that movie made more than 2.5 time it's rumored budget Baywatch Production Budget: $69 million Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $58,060,186 32.6% + Foreign: $119,796,565 67.4% = Worldwide: $177,856,751 With no China box office here, so far from a bomb that it would not surprise me if it turned a little profit.

You seem to understand is strategy quite well but at the same time thinking it is not one. He said biggest domestic ever: " “You guys officially made Jumanji Sony's biggest domestic movie ever." Unadjusted it seem accurate: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=sony.htm Does he have a bomb yet post Fast five release ?

I agree at least for I would imagine most humans, there is reason they spend so much making us know it is actually him. A scene like this: Must play quite differently to an audience that think the train was added by composition or was actually there and really doing forward. Even just a giant battle scene like this: How it would play for an audience that think they are CGI after the first 3 row versus all humans could be different. People for who it change nothing are lucky too (if it is in the sense of not loosing value). Face replacement over the star is getting close, but being the real same actor than the character and us knowing that it is, do change something in how it does play.

Not sure how IMDB / guild casting for stunt double is exact they are really often uncredited, but Cruise has some movies with even a credited stunt double, like this guy: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1341724/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr1300 The Mummy (Stunt Double: Tom Cruise) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (Stunt Double: Tom Cruise) Edge of Tomorrow (assistant stunt coordinator) / (stunt double: Tom Cruise) Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (assistant stunt coordinator) / (core stunt team) / (lead stunt double: tom cruise) Or this guy before: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0642110/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr232 Jack Reacher (stunt double: Reacher) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (stunt double: Tom Cruise) Knight and Day (stunt double: Tom Cruise - uncredited) / (stunts) ission: Impossible III (stunt double: Tom Cruise) War of the Worlds (stunt double: Tom Cruise) Collateral (stunt double: Tom Cruise) The Last Samurai (stunt double: Tom Cruise) Has for that the studio go, apparently they have to fight but has long the assurance cost is reasonable and that an insure accept the bet, I would imagine they do not mind too much. I think like pretty much anything people say on the Internet, Cruise make an impressive amount of stunt (even drive the car in some car action sequence while acting and son), but for stuff the camera does not need to be close to is face or not even with is face in the shoot.....

From what I understand, the article is simply relating (in a very unclear way instead of a table) how a bunch of people voted on a movie platform that asked people what they would save and keep. There is quite the recency bias (The Post making it for example) of what will pop into people mind, how you offer people to vote if they do not type the movie but pick picture of the movie on a scrolling type of presentation will affect the result, etc.... It could be (and I expect it to be) not well done at all, without even taking into account being a non-random sample.

I think you misread my point, I was pointing out how big the over 35 year's old share of the audience became since the 80s, is now a really large part of the audience, getting close to become 50% of it, the biggest in history ? https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/13/movies/film-hollywood-pays-court-to-the-young-adult.html In 1980, teen-agers made up 42 percent of the audience, and studios were catering, almost solely, to them. It is now around 16-17% (a drop from the 42%) In 1989, teen-agers composed only 30 percent of the audience. In 1985, an insignificant 14.2 percent of ticket buyers were over 40. By the end of 1988, 22.2 percent were over 40. In 1985: 14.2% of the audience was above 40, in 1988 22.2% in 2017: 41% of the audience was 40 or more. Teenager is a demo that declined incredibly since the late 70s and 80s and I feel studio mostly stopped catering to them outside some small budget horror and nicher product. It is rare to have a big budget movie for teen's nowaday, they are either family friendly if not made directly for them (for example every Disney release, the Potter, DC Superheroes), even what we would think has recent teen movie playing were usually not at all, twilight in 2011 OW for example (and the OW play younger than the total movie run): The audience was also 30% under the age of 18, and those folks gave the movie an A-minus, while those aged 18-24 (20% of the crowd) hit it with a B-plus. Those aged 25-34 (22% of the moviegoers) were least impressed, delivering the shrug of a B ranking. Once you reach the 35-49 range (16% of the group) things tick up to an A-minus, but go 50 or older (11 percent) and feelings fall back to the B-plus department. Movie audience getting so much older than the 80s is I imagine a lot due to many phenomenon: 1) Biggest and obvious one, simply an aging demography 2) Teen's that work less and date less 3) New competition for entertainment dollar more popular with them than the 50+, like video games / Internet stuff. 4) Cinema are father from people with a smaller percentage of them at walking distance (urban sprawling + way less theater in general) and ticket getting costlier than the 80s to mid 90s

GOAT post contender ?

It got so big in term of media coverage of the industry now and many of is reporting/commentor online must sound so bad for someone really in the know (if often does for us, imagine for him), must be hard to not want to correct people about it. Specially when so much of your persona and defining has a person is about being ultra successful and beloved.

Would human trafficking stop without drug money ? That seem a bit of a easy way to look at it. Has the cartel got richer they started to take control of the human traffics business, but it existed outside of them already. Remove drug money would not be surprising if it would not augment human trafficking: https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/study-examines-mexico-drug-and-human-trafficking-overlap/ If the chance at big revenues pulled in the drug gangs, two other factors from within Mexico also pushed them in the same direction. First, the crackdown on the movement of cocaine and other drugs encouraged them to diversify their revenues. Human trafficking was an obvious new revenue stream, though not the only one. As InSight Crime has documented, gangs like the Zetas have engaged in extortion, oil theft, kidnapping for ransom, and many other illicit activities, where in years past drug gangs focused almost exclusively on trafficking. Or maybe the ability to corrupt authority so much to make trafficking a safe business for the criminal would not make it possible to start a big ring to start with, without drug money.

Hard to have figure for post theatrical but at the box office, do you have a source for this ?: percentage of ticket sold by age group: 2016 02-11: 11% 12-17: 13% 18-24: 16% 25-39: 24% 40-49: 11% 50-59: 12% 60+ : 13% 2017 02-11: 10% 12-17: 11% 18-24: 12% 25-39: 26% 40-49: 13% 50-59: 12% 60+ : 16% Around 42% of ticket sold were over 35 in 2016, 48.4% over 35 in 2017 with the trend going up every year toward older audience. In home ent, TV, physical buy, VOD, would not be surprised if it is even holder where the revenue come from then the younger population.

Portugal is a type case experiment going on about this (no drugs are criminal there anymore, even heroin). Seem to be a success has of now, usage among adult went up, drugs problems went down and usage among teens went down (maybe having the illegal/cool aspect completely removed made them a bit less popular)

Being rich and with not a regular hours type of jobs and among people that are ok with it and partying in general, I am sure that celebrities use it more than the general population. Same for some type of pro-athlete, but that would probably be also true for some boiler room wall street type job without the people being famous (that part would not surprise me is totally irrelevant, rich/type of workplace being the main factor). When they started testing athlete in the NHL for example, it is apparently crazy how common cocaine usage is ( enough that it is not regulated and not considering has doping and a secret help program is offered to them), bunch of rich young guys on the road, with the Canada big party culture that small cities have, that will do that. But in line of work in general in which drugs is not seen has too much of a big deal (some construction type of jobs has a very high % of use): Among those who reported using opioids in the past year, prescription drugs were the most common type used, Enomoto said. An estimated 3.8 million people in the U.S. currently misuse prescription pain relievers, according to the report. An estimated 830,000 people in the U.S. used heroin in 2015, In 2014, there were an estimated 1.5 million current (past-month) cocaine users aged 12 or older (0.6 percent of the population). I would imagine drug abuse (outside pot, alcohol) is at least 1% of the adult population, there is over 170,000 member in SAG not sure how many are famous all around, but a 1/50 of them using hard drugs would not be that specially high.

Actor that are active on the producing side or just get back end point in a vast array of different type of movies probably are in quite the different category in that aspect than others. Johnson is particularly involved and obsessed with the business side for sure and probably know quite well the retention rate by market, prints & ads cost by market, etc.... the tv / netflix deal and all of it.

Not sure what being a celebrities has much to do with this, everyone see celebrities dying from abuse all the time and many still use them, the dangerous aspect of it is probably well know by all users (not having a standard 9-5 lifestyle that really do not support substance abuse with all it involve is probably an aspect, but that would also be truth for certain construction job). There is over 65,000 death by drug overdose annually in the USA now, I do not know the survival rate from drug overdose and cannot seem to find non-lethal one stat, but it must be quite common and not a celebrity phenomenon.

He didn't said that, if people are referring to is last post: Our film will cross $200M this coming weekend and eventually become profitable for all investors - and that’s all that matters in the end game. Sorry MAMA MIA 2 and EQUALIZER 2, thank you both for the fight, but there can only be one #1. Now of course, I’m preparing to take a right cross KO to face this weekend by Tom’s Mission Impossible 😂😂 but hey, BRING IT ON, because I live and love to compete. THANK YOU FANS WORLDWIDE for making us #1.

While Jumanji was a clean remake (with some small throwaway to not use the word) and made 900m. The memory flash device can make it possible, because the price to not have your protagonist being a bit of a fish out of the water and discovering the men in black existence and so on is a big one (i.e. making in fact a remake even if it is set in the same world and having even Jones in the film). Same for a Ghostbuster in which you do not start with a bunch of people not too good at this and building the formula on how to do it (and having the world not use to the ghost either), would also be a big cost to pay on the movie. That could be the way to good, Jurassic World, Jumanji, make a remake does not call it so, put 2/3 some fan reference throwaway in there, that give you some free non-Internet going at it. Just like not naming your multipart movie part 1, 2, 3, etc.. in the title when you do them.

First reflex was to adjust for inflation some early 90s Denzel openner like The Pelican Brief / Crimson Tide to give me an idea, and yep even them do not match. The industry became way more frontloaded too. Pelican Brief made 30m OW in today dollar, but in just 2,000 theater when the USA had 7750 theater opening in just 25% and sharing prints around for a long time vs 3,338 for Equalizer in the state with now less than 5,800 theater. Canada is maybe not well taking for in those numbers, but that give an idea.

A bit surprisingly, but Mel Gibson seem to have missed it ?: 80s: Lethal weapon 90s: Lethal weapon, Ransom, etc... 00: What woman want, sign, etc... 10: Edge of Darkness by a freak accident of loosing to Avatar week number 7 still going above 30m lol. That the think for the stars between the 20s to 70s, do we have weekend data somewhere ? Eastwood was in the top 10 movie star according to movie theater in the late 60s, all the 70s, 80s and 90s, but no OW before 79 on mojo, he must have done it.

Connery: 60: I imagine the Bonds and other 70: Great train robbery and Imagine the Bonds 80: Time Bandis , Never Said Again, etc.... Indiana Jones 90: Hunt for the red october, Entrapment, The Rock, etc... 00: League of Extraordinary gentlement missed it because of Pirates

Someone had suggested Mamma Mia bad hold could be a sign is target audience is busy in the weekend do girl night during the week.... Interesting to see how strong those summer days end up to be. 1.2m above Equalizer 2 (that is not really the family movie weak weekdays type) is quite something.

I imagine a that Gunn gave a cut of is salary, Disney cannot do something like that, it is not a weird work outside the law environment like north american professional sport.