Barnack

I think that a vestige of the past and that you are right, now that loaded front weekend has been the norm for so long and the multiplex is the norm, they can give enough screens to not loose sales to almost anything I would imagine (outside the giant movies and giant peak new release time a la Christmas time maybe). Back when most theater had a single screen it was really relevant.

That included in the 4% fee if there is one I think, virtual print fee where a part of the deal to incentive theater to pay for new equipment and share the cost saving happening. In very new market where movie are playing in screens that did not exist before digital distribution happened I am not sure it is has relevant: http://www.chinagoabroad.com/uploads/v2/images/2015/07/screen count.png China is getting to what 80,000 screens now, they had less than 5,000 screens before digital projection did became the norm for a good time for new construction (I imagine that was less than 10 year's after Phantom Menace release) .

There is virtually no analogue film print showing in a market like China, the approx is net what goes to studio. That 21% net box office from China is the world average and not bad at all, calculate what is left off a movie with a $100M domestic run with a small $40m release in comp, it is less than 17% usually. The difference is the after theatrical windows revenus that is better in many markets. That was the annual slate rental by market for Sony shortly before the leak: Total Retention rate Profit margin UK 40% 23% Germany 44% 22% Australia 41% 22% France 39% 19% Spain 44% 13% Russia 42% 22% Japan 47% 15% Brazil 40% 13% Italy 41% 11% South Korea 47% 19% Mexico 37% 13% Switzerland 42% 29% Netherlands 40% 28% China 25% 21% Belgium 43% 26% Austria 42% 27% Average 40% 20% Nothing special for China (low risk, average return) at least slate wise, studio release is almost free in exchange of the low return that end up being quite standard net wise.

Well yes, is the communist party of China deny that is parent grew up in communism China ? It was socialism not communist if people get technical about it, but it is the common language way to talk and was the official one I think by the authorities.

Sam Jackson and Joaquin Phoenix were going quite a bit more extreme in their comments around that same time from memory and there was very little click money to be made with those, if you paid your due and were perceived has impossible to move, it make it quite little appealing from the sharks, they need to smell bloods and feel like people can get hurt to get exicted.

The situation (about what we are talking about) was massively better in the early 70s than now, no ? Truffaut, Bergman, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa were somewhat cultural big deal even if they would not have made Hollywood movies, 40 year's ago, in a way it is hard to think to similar example. Maybe it is because Hollywood is getting better at getting them early from Besson-Villeneuve to Bayona to Bong Joon-Ho but anyway I am not sure in what way there was progress between now in 40 year's ago in that regard (has you study cinema, you would have a grasp on that). That could be complete revisionist history and those were has niche if not more in the USA than Cuaron, del Toro, Iñárritu, Ang Lee, Bayona, Ho and Villeneuve pre Hollywood output in reality and the feeling that you become a big deal in the US just once you make something for that audience was always true and not just a more recent thing, but Oscar success and box office do seem to point to the opposite, that it got much worst over time.

And even there it is really hard, most giant oversea success franchise, will try US market at some point, few work. Take the millennium movies even when the book were doing twilight-hunger games type of numbers in the USA, that book store were living of them. Terrible dom to overall BO ratio Release Date Title Production Budget Opening Weekend Domestic Box Office Worldwide Box Office Apr 30, 2010 Luftslottet som sprängdes $251,778 $5,427,684 $41,179,660 Dec 25, 2009 Flickan som lekte med elden $204,471 $9,081,782 $70,697,112 May 29, 2009 Män som hatar kvinnor $13,000,000 $12,749,992 $109,421,91 When the domestic version made 102m domestic it was considered a flop and there were no sequel. I wonder if there was no some big global shift over time, like I am not sure I can easily name popular French, Italian, Japanese, Russian or Swedish current working director in their market without an Hollywood specifically made success, while I would imagine anyone in the 70s that followed cinema even less than me currently could. In reverse South Korea got bigger, but it does seem a clear net lost.

Which like for Italian dubbed movie is a bit strange choice and feel very Anglo-saxon, the rest of the non english world dub movies much more than subtitle one like the US and for an animated movie it is really strange. It could be than for the rest of the world, foreign language movie is the norm and not some niche audience things and everyone, 100% of people, when they were kids watched dubbed stuff, movie, tv, cartoons, etc.... There is many cost to subtitle versus dubbing (and vice versa), constant spoiler or late information almost impossible to not be either the case, splashing on text on the screen when the movie is beautiful that is a bit of an insult to it and so on.

From memory Tarantino used is name to push that one in the media pre-release and maybe they even used it in the marketing. He is not in either movies, Jesus being a giant IP is somewhat true but Jesus movies often do nothing in the US has well, it is the biggest subtitled movie ever in the US market I think (and for a while if not to this day the biggest R-rated movie has well). But in term of being exceptional, certainly, and for all the above needed strong people pushing them certainly. And for non passionate people (like all the above are in drove) or for people that have their own product to sales like a Disney-Universal-WB today.... why anyway ? Netflix could and the fact that people do not sell them for very little to netflix and them turning it into big word of mouth success (I guess it is even happening without us knowing, proving the point) is showing that it is audience driven, imo, otherwise they would big success on youtube.

Biggest one are the Mel Gibson movies I think (and by far would be appropriate here). Mel Gibson did 370 millions and 51m with not only foreign but "death" language stuff and with distributor refusing to help in any way, it was a 4th wall type of deal I think for Apocalypto and a tiny independent for Passion with no one wanting to get involved on that one. Miramax-Weinstein brothers was able to sell them has well, they did more adjusted that Parasite I think with some of them, like The Artist. Sony produced and distributed Crouching Tiger above 120m has well.

It was common to try to release foreign movie (La Dolce Vita did really well in the USA box office in 1961 and so on) I think, like for giant budget 2d animated movie it seem that something audience taste pushed distributor choice. Maybe it will have changed and they could make a comeback. But take les Intouchables, 471 millions worldwide giant success absolutely everywhere, Weinstein gave it all you can reasonably do and it only did 13m domestic, he redid an American version good but clearly inferior with one of the best domestic draw in Kevin Hart, went over 100m domestic (and that was a post Weinstein scandal release), that your clients screaming loud and clear they want the American version.

A bit like when they did it with some Jackie Chan movies back in the day, I think Miramax-Dimensions Film-Weinstein is something they did for non Hollywood but Americans (new-York based) companies. I wonder what changed: https://www.indiewire.com/2014/05/the-lonely-subtitle-heres-why-u-s-audiences-are-abandoning-foreign-language-films-27051/ https://www.indiewire.com/2014/05/american-provincialism-and-the-disappearance-of-foreign-language-cinema-134168/ Could have been audience.

Could you explain how Shang-shi 71m make the 80m Widows OW with D+ and easy case of money left on the table (do not forget D+ figure are rolled over the BO numbers for bonus calculation in her case) ? It is not like Widow domestic OW was particularly low, leg and intl was the particularly weak element no (and where the test will be) ?

If that was on a number of movies deal signed before he was a big deal, it is not really a valid comparable. They will happily extend those (or compensate with other projects) but they still have a big side of the stick with the signed original contract. To give an example, that was Wahlberg Transformer contracts according to insider, option of 19-20m for the 2 sequels: $15M + 4%GP starting at $225M ww AGR, then escalated to 5% @ $425M ww AGR, 6% @ $725M ww AGR, and 7.5% @ $825M ww AGR. Is Other guys contract: 12m V 12% 2 Guns $10M + 12% after $105m AGR (domestic and foreign split, $45M on foreign set) Lone Survivor $3M to keep a low budget but 15% at $78M AGR going to 20 points at $95M AGR (domestic and foreign split, $45M on foreign set) Jennifer Aniston deal history: Horrible boss 2 $3.5MM fee (15 days over schedule of PP; includes post days) + Bo bonuses: $500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM $500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM $500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM $500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM v. Participation: 5% of SG @ CB 0%. 5% DG @ CB 0% until artist has eraned an amount equal to $2.25MM there from + perks of bringing for the move of hiring some of her personal crew (stylist, bodyguard, costume designer, etc..) We're the millers $4.5MM fee (schedule of PP) v. bo bonuses: $250k @ DBO $70MM or WWBO $140MM $375k @ DBO $80MM or WWBO $160MM $375k @ DBO $90MM or WWBO $180MM $500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM $500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM (non applic) $500k @ DBO $100MM or WWBO $200MM $500k @ DBO $110MM or WWBO $220MM $500k @ DBO $120MM or WWBO $240MM $500k @ DBO $130MM or WWBO $260MM + Credit: on screen, main titles in first position; paid ads + Perqs: $500K covered travel, personnel, housing, food, transportation and security Horrible Bosses $3.25MM fee ( 8 consec days of PP + 3 free days) + bo bonuses: $250k @ DBO $85MM or WWBO $170MM $250k @ DBO $85MM or WWBO $170MM $250k @ DBO $85MM or WWBO $170MM $250k @ DBO $85MM or WWBO $170MM v. Participation: 3% DP @ CB 0% (defined with no ad or production overhead and HV @ 100%m less a 12.5% distribution fee and less costs for purposes of calculating breakpoint and 35% for payout). Agreement that no participants shall be entitled to first dollar gross I doubt we ever saw any of those reported (or any actor compensation that did look like that ever) and it would require lot of explanation (or would reach a niche audience) in generals it does not exist an actor-writer-director-producer that make large money without a backend deals, before Netflix. We also see that big name with good agents when they get "profit" type contract they will defined what can be removed for cost and how revenues will be counted. And I would suspect their free to negotiate solo movie if they made one entry got quite similar deal for talents (outside not having to share it on Widow like they do on theirs, their obviously a limit on how many points can go around)

Outside the rare leak or if it goes to actual trial on this one, we do not know what kind of deal people got (and I think what matter is what they got once they were "free agents", not bound by their entry contract of X movies they signed has unknown). Look at what she was reportedly getting according to some of the lowest belly press before the trial, was it not really strange never seen before 22m with a possible 4 million performance bonus, in reality (in the pre covid world this is lock to making 800m or more) it was a more standard and reasonable over 50m+ type of compensation deal. In general the reporting around Marvel compensation tend to make little sense and filled with made up stuff, that goes viral in that world, I think many would remember that one: https://www.cinemablend.com/new/What-Marvel-Paid-Each-Major-Avenger-Age-Ultron-93117.html The salaries for Avengers: Age of Ultron have just been released, and they are incredibly telling. The rankings are as follows: Robert Downey Jr. - $40 million Scarlett Johansson - $20 million Chris Evans - $6.9 million Jeremy Renner - $6.1 million Chris Hemsworth - $5.4 million Mark Ruffalo - $2.8 million Making the exercise of what is the source used for every site that reported that (from memory it was an anonymous blog entry on a fansite). Evans never made a 3rd solo film, Civil War was a giant assembly of big names, less but still impressive on Thor 3, Johansson was possibly virtually all alone outside Feige from script to director to in front of the camera to be paid significant money. I easily imagine talents having a very similar similar contract (with the points more split with the big name he share the screen with like Pratt, Portman, Bale, and Waititi behind the camera etc...) on Thor 4 and bound to make the over 100m figure bonus if it is a giant success. Contract of big headliners tend to be a little bit complicated with most of the money on the backend and not upfront and virtually are never reported, Dwayne Johnson Red Notice being a very rare exception to get out in details. True, if the trial turn around what would it have done with an exclusive theatrical and not what would it have done if the movie was hold until a unknown return to the normal world, saying it would have done more than F9 without a China release seem has impossible has those theatrical world get.

For the court case the more Shang-Chi do theatrically the better, similar second weekend drop (adjusted for holidays weekend) would be bad for example. The better it does and the better it does in high piracy market the better for the suit.

100m total. After the simultaneous release was announced, Ms. Johansson’s team made an opening bid: Pay the actress $80 million. The calculation was based on what the star would receive in a hypothetical global box-office take of $1.2 billion, a sum in league with Marvel hits “Captain Marvel” and “Black Panther.” (Hobbled by the pandemic and at-home release, the movie has so far been one of Marvel’s worst performers, with $371 million grossed world-wide.) It was an eye-popping sum, but her team saw it as a starting point. That give some idea about how off deadline tend to be about this line, if that would have released in 2019 and did those a bit above captain marvel numbers, they would have put for everyone bonus compensation in the 40-60m type of range I imagine, went it would have been over 100m after Feige and everyone else get paid has well. If it would be an first windows gross point only deal that would have been getting around 15% without anything off the top. 80m / (430m * 0.6 + 590m*.43 + 180m*.25) = .144 That could explain why it took time to greenlight has well

Will see, there is some synergy in it and with all the backlog at some point at one time there is no choice to feel a little stuffed (if it is really particularly or if we are just so used to the empty landscape that make it more than it is).

Over Ant-Man unadjusted in Delta time, do sound quite good (to me at least) May 2, 2008 Iron Man $186,000,000 $102,118,668 $318,604,126 $585,171,547 Aug 1, 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy $170,000,000 $94,320,883 $333,714,112 $770,882,395 Nov 4, 2016 Doctor Strange $165,000,000 $85,058,311 $232,641,920 $676,354,481 Jul 9, 2021 Black Widow $200,000,000 $80,366,312 $181,462,957 $369,868,792 May 6, 2011 Thor $150,000,000 $65,723,338 $181,030,624 $449,326,618 Jul 22, 2011 Captain America: The First … $140,000,000 $65,058,524 $176,654,505 $370,569,776 Jul 17, 2015 Ant-Man $130,000,000 $57,225,526 $180,202,163 $518,858,449 Jun 13, 2008 The Incredible Hulk $137,500,000 $55,414,050 $134,806,913 $265,573,859 Maybe the equivalent to in between Strange and Guardians in regular time business (i.e upper tier of new entry).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1095372/disney-plus-number-of-subscribers-us/ Q1 2021 was there best quarter growth wise I think. This I doubt the noise match the actual caring.

When Jordan retired for Nike or their kids sweatshop making shoes story were a PR nightmare, when I read that sentence I was not sure what it was exactly. Those 2 were far from nightmare level or company hurting level: When I look at this: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/DIS:NYSE?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqyLGlndryAhXMg-AKHb3UA-0Q3ecFMAB6BAg6EBo&window=1Y I do not even know when those occurred, when Nike stories occurred: https://www.forbes.com/2001/02/22/0222disasternike.html?sh=6c1446b85ee9 When you look at their stock: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NKE/nike/stock-price-history It took them like 8 years to get back at their value adjusted by inflation. BP oil spill, Toyota accelerator scandal, The Weinstein Company, were PR nightmare, those 2 above I feel like you could enter an baseball game and ask about it in the crowd and those who would know what you talk about would not care much by now already.

That part (like on the Twilight sequels) was more when the first movie was heavy co-financed and now that the risk was gone the studio financed more if not all of the sequel and wanted to rise the cost of the first entry to reduce the share going to co-investor I think, for Disney it risk to not change much of anything to use that little trick (and I imagine that loop hole was closed, both not having an option to opt-in in the sequels and trying to hide the price of sequels in the original after the fact). Sequel should always go for potential, there is some nepotism that install itself and to keep a good reputation and they can greenlight a bad potential sequel, but it should not be purely based on the theatrical success of the first entry. Has for how much a movie has to do, there is not a WW hard rules like that necessarily, a very domestic heavy non china release like JC from a studio that has the best rentals deals like Disney will not have the same bar than some others, specially if it has high synergy with the Parks side of the business and help them.

I think you are mixing movie reviewer and film critic, it make sense for a reviewer what you say, but a critic job is not just (or mostly) access if the average people have a good chance to like a movie. A film critic is helping is reader (listener, viewer) contextualizing an oeuvre in the context of it's time (social, cultural, etc...) and of it's auteur body of work and so on. In short critics often produce content for people that have seen the movie already, reviewer is more before you've seen it. And for both the movie and food critics, there is never poisonous food or high stake danger involved.

Easy to mix up August calendar box office vs August release box office.

Not for long if that the case, those place are getting close to 90% of the 13+ population being vaccinated (one dose) and they will rapidly become fully vaccinated. Less than 17% of Canadian the pass would apply are completely unvaccinated (and those numbers are more than a week old now) and those province are among the most vaccinated.