Barnack

At least he has a point (parent that let kids with male adult when not pushing them because they are star struck is a real problem). That do really sound like a confession.

Yeah I imagine my copy-pasted table is full of mistake here (started with the dbo list by mistake of mojo and tried to put the WW numbers in automatically).

They were studio movies with a big star, usually a rather big name director and many of those during the home entertainment "bubble", 100m was not considering outside the norm even for a comedy with not much actions if it had big names, Jim Carrey could have an over 120m net budget of a Dick & Jane for example, same for action movies like those. There was just more money and less risk in those days. A movie like TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, THE, still made 212m in revenues from that 150m box office performance (despite not being particularly beloved and pretty weak domestic for him), 66.42 from theatrical rental vs 145.5m in the ancillary markets after, it was not uncommon for a movie to make around 170% of it's box office in revenues 9-14 year's ago. The press covering language is often just not fully nuanced enough to take the by market/genre/etc... into account when covering movie performance, but it does start to be, it was refreshing to see it talk about movies like Den of Thieves and 12 strong performing well enough without doubling their budget because of being domestic driven and in a performance range/genre-target audience that overperform the industry average on home video and TV relative to their box office.

Except for The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, that lost quite a bit of money making 150m on a 115m budget (120m with bonus), but then again the way the Denzel movies business work a small lost to the studio itself, I wonder what is the batting average on those Denzel action flick, must be quite high. I imagine out of time was an other one. Using rumored net budget (probably some massed down, but some higher than reality like Mag 7). 2000s Denzel rumored performance (didn't saw a great debater budget anywhere so I skipped it), I think it did 30m on a 15m budget or so: Title Budget WW BO Ratio Flight $31.00 $161.80 5.22 Remember the Titans $30.00 $136.70 4.56 Inside Man $45.00 $184.40 4.10 The Equalizer $63.00 $192.30 3.05 John Q. $36.00 $102.20 2.84 Fences $24.00 $64.40 2.68 American Gangster $100.00 $266.50 2.67 Safe House $85.00 $208.10 2.45 Deja Vu $75.00 $180.60 2.41 Training Day $45.00 $104.90 2.33 2 Guns $61.00 $131.90 2.16 The Book of Eli $80.00 $157.10 1.96 The Magnificent Seven (2016) $85.00 $162.40 1.91 Antwone Fisher $12.50 $23.40 1.87 Man on Fire $70.00 $130.30 1.86 Unstoppable $100.00 $167.80 1.68 The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 $115.00 $150.20 1.31 The Manchurian Candidate $80.00 $96.10 1.20 Out of Time $50.00 $55.50 1.11 Roman J. Israel, Esq. $22.00 $13.00 0.59 You can see why he did show up in most overpaid actor list (being the most consistent will make you earn the most relative to the revenues, lower the risk lower the accepted ROI by investor will be) and why many do not get the Denzel film business. 20 movies, 45% didn't double their budget only 25% tripled it or higher. 1) Domestic heavy, until very recently domestic heavy movie could turn a good profit without doubling it's budget 2) Between 2003 and 2010 or so, DVDs and one would imagine Denzel is a good home ent performer and the genre is (like Staham). 3) Because he almost never flop fully (arguably never), the financial third party deal studio achieve to get on is stuff are just great, making up for the lack of good international pre-sales you can do with him.

Who is the alleged pedophile ? The scandal are popping so fast, cannot keep up.

Even for the China heavy performance ? Warcraft for example. If it is true that they are not getting anything from the ancillary market for it in China, a $105m box office there is "just" 25m or so in revenues for them after expense. That is so for far from the revenues of doing 100m say domestic. Has for the secondary market covering the 100m or so marketing cost, maybe.

Often what you make while being paid by an employer to do so, is owned by them, that will tend to be the case for project like that, by which the writer is paid to write the script and not tying/having to sell it after having wrote on spec. https://www.wga.org/contracts/know-your-rights/creative-rights-for-writers If you are hired to write a script under an employment contract, you are creating a "work for hire" which, under U.S. copyright law, vests the initial copyright with the employer. This is true whether the script is original or is based upon material assigned by the employer. A contract could return the copyright to the writer, but in practice that is rarely done. Ownership of the script copyright, whether by acquisition or under the work-for-hire doctrine, is the practical means by which the companies preserve their rights to exploit the scripts they pay for. The transfer of copyright from the writer to the production company is a custom in the United States entertainment industry; it is not common worldwide.

Mojo is saying 55m for the first one while it was 63m in reality, so Mojo saying 62 this time probably mean that the high 70m deadline is hearing is probably the truth. Legs could be good A cinemascore, Mags 7 made 93m from a 34.7m start without summer days, making 100m possible. But it is a direct sequel this time.

When your profit are smaller than the International TV revenues it is quite standard to turn in the black during year #2 and the insider made that opinion not thinking Rampage would hit the 100m bar the way it is written and well not a much bigger budget but 140m is still a bit bigger than 129m, 11m for performance like that do matter. If we assume almost no ancillary market in China to make things simpler Say RPO was at 175m making 582, if we remove China of the equation because of that market particularity we have a $123m (175-218*.25+China release cost) movie making 364m WW, that a movie almost trippling it's budget without a China release. You could expect revenues of at least (137*.53+227*.4) * 2 = 326m, to cover 123m production, 130m world release, Spielberg bonus, etc... Skyscraper, let say it does 105m in China, with again $0 after theatrical, we can look at it like a 105m movie that didn't get a release in China instead of a 129m one. If if does 65m domestic and 126 intl, that way different than RPO 3x is budget WW without China, that a 105m movie making 191m worldwide, not that bad if it was not for the weak 34% dbo share, but when you are intl heavy you need to at least go a bit over 2 time your budget not under.

Probably not for a 60/70s Tarantino movie too. Swap Hardy for Pitt in the The Drop (10.7m/7.9intl), Child 44 (1.22m/11.7), Fury Road (154m/224.8), Legend (1.8m/41.1), Revenant (183m/349), Dunkirk (190m/337m) Except for Legend in the UK market, not sure any of them does less. Put Hardy in Allied (40m/80m), chance are good it does less.

Agree that the movie loose steam and does not necessarily know how do end (the multiple and different ending sequence..... do not work) But the start is so good and I liked the rest until the very very end. Talking of sloppy technical work, was it my theater but was the movie full of ADR with lips that didn't match the voice ?

It is to show that (depending what you mean by better), that is not necessarily better to try to launch something new and they are rarely half hassed made by incompetent people even when they do not breakout. Look how well not trying to do something new like they did with Jumanji or IT went. Mission Impossible musical theme, name, high concept are also attraction that would be why it could work better than trying to make something new if they ever do (for example turn it into a Rebecca Ferguson vehicle). They could make a marketing study that show too little interest in a Cruise less version (would not surprise me), but maybe not.

Yes they are bigger than this now I would imagine and can make something where they have complete control (timing and so on).

Terminator without Arnold. Independence day/Bad Boy without Smith, Pirates without Depp, there is a list of case that are not easy, MI being an obvious one. But for something like Bourne, Damon less failure do show how safer it can be: Worldwide (Unadjusted) Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 The Bourne Ultimatum Uni. $442.8 $227.5 51.4% $215.4 48.6% 2007 2 Jason Bourne Uni. $415.5 $162.4 39.1% $253.1 60.9% 2016 3 The Bourne Supremacy Uni. $288.5 $176.2 61.1% $112.3 38.9% 2004 4 The Bourne Legacy Uni. $276.1 $113.2 41% $162.9 59% 2012 5 The Bourne Identity Uni. $214.0 $121.7 56.8% $92.4 43.2% 2002 Bourne Identity made $273m 2012 dollar, Renner Bourne 276.1m Was Edge of Tomorrow untalented half-assed job the reason it did 300m less than the established franchise Cruise Mission Impossible entry ? Or Jack Reacher (that was the same director/writer....) ? Should probably not except if it give financier courage to give interesting budget to interesting director (pretty much the same for all movies after the first one or first 2) or if it is to be Cruise official directing debut ;), I mean why should it last with Cruise ? What would be the answer to that ? Because they find a team and a rhythm that deliver good movies ? If that the reason they could continue without him as the lead star.

For the star wars movie I would imagine so yes, but last year in the united state they bought for 4.7 billion worth of bluray/dvd Say an average $13 price tag, that just 360m sale, getting close to 1 by person.

If it does a near 3.0x and again play close to a 1:1 intl, Sony certainly will. If it does 2.65x (thus missing all those juicy 100m bonus) and 58% dbo/42% intl (like Denzel often do) from a 34m start for a 155m WW total and if the rumors of a high 70m net budget are true, I imagine what the third would be and at what cost will have to be taken into consideration. Outside big first dollar gross deal (that are possible with the name involved), would still possibly be a success despite doing only 2.01/2.05 times it's budget performance because it went significantly higher than it's budget domestic, but not much margin for the next sequel expected drop.

Going above Iron Man 3 (that made 406.5m) while starting 26m lower make it pretty clear, should reach 415+m

Which porn ? He produced and made small series named PG-porn, what out for misinformation.

People making the company that kind of money for something the employer knew about and public apology were made when they started the job and didn't do again once employed ? For less than that ? It must be rare, Disney wanted to cut ties with a guy that made hundreds of jokes, knew about and now is surfacing again and is being contrasted to Rosanne firing. For Slava that was so long ago that the people that took this decision were probably not working at Disney at the time, not sure it can be really relevant to analyse today decision, Horn, Iger, etc.... were not at Disney at the time.

I imagine you are being a bit rhetorical here, very similar to why they do MI/Bourne/Bond/MadMax sequel instead of trying to do something new, to use the value of the brand / pre establish awareness / score and other series trope to help sell the movie. They do try to spawn new action franchise one in parallel a la John Wick/Black Panther/Guardian/Upgrade/Atomic Blonde/All you need is kill/tomorrow/repeat, etc... but it is riskier specially if you do not plug it in anything.

Yes like I said you are clearly conflating the first amendment and the concept freedom of speech together (something americans often seem to do), they are 2 different things. State does not protect freedom of speech obviously. First amendment, american law does not protect civil consequence of saying a joke, the principle of freedom of speech aspire to do so. Gunn was never involved in any child pornography or incitation to commit a crime that we know off, has for being obscene because it lack artistic value.... that would fit in there obviously (or at least could he does not seem to be a good comedian at all), but that is such a subjective and hard line to judge, would have been said be a characther in a R-rated cartoon by someone funny no one would have thought it would not have been covered by the 1st. It is an universal human right concept, not an american one or something defined by it's constitution or law.

Free speech is exactly freedom of consequence: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction You are conflating freedom of speech and american law / first amendment concept they are 2 completely different thing, first amendment is not freedom of consequence, freespeech is the idea of less has possible consequence for expressing an idea, let alone a joke without any.

If not lame but good pedophilia joke are still ok to do, then no people will not die on that hill, but who is the judge ?

He made a big public apology about them when he got the gig I imagine everyone involved thought it would be enough and it was until last week, 2012 was already a different era.

https://deadline.com/2018/07/mamma-mia-here-we-go-again-equalizer-2-summer-weekend-box-office-1202430132/ Deadline saying they are hearing the real net budget after tax credit is in the high 70s, that would make sense the sequel of a very profitable movie with big names costing less than the previous one would be rather strange.