Barnack

At least above Thor: Ragnarock ?

Adjusting oversea box office in ticket price/individual market exchange rate change must be not too easy to do, that thread is a good resource to do it too, @Jason made a lot of work on this subject, with a lot of market having a 2007-2009 ticket price :

By not having much of a worldwide distribution infracstructure (if it didn't change they only released movie in the UK), Liongates does it for their smaller movie also, say like La la land and even for their very low risk franchise entry like Divergent or the Hungers Games sequels. https://deadline.com/2017/03/la-la-land-box-office-profit-2016-1202047487/ https://deadline.com/2015/03/divergent-profit-box-office-2014-1201389595/ https://issuu.com/pmcderek/docs/filmmatchup-hungergames2-vs-ironman/1?ff=true&e=5873864/7236518 La la land for example: Foreign contribution of $55M accounts for Lionsgate’s pre-sales on the original musical plus the profits it generated in the UK where they control distribution of the film. They do not have much of a choice I imagine. You are right, there is no doubt they pre-sold many market on this a la God of Egypts and would have not made it before being quite sure they will get buyers: https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/lionsgate-kicks-off-cannes-film-festival-with-unprecedented-array-of-new-and-extended-output-deals-20180508-01205 Has a general rules, they do not do a movie without at least 50% of it's cost covered by pre-sales if not 75%: We relocated our international sales and distribution executives to London to be closer to key markets. We renewed and expanded output agreements with leading independent distributors in Germany, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Benelux, Eastern Europe, Australia and Canada, helping to assure a stable and reliable market for our slate of films with minimal overhead. In the process, we strengthened the centerpiece of our risk mitigation strategy through international pre-licensing of films to cover between 50% and 75% of our production costs and dramatically limit production capital at risk, even on our biggest releases.

It a sequel, it should be way more pre-sales than Skyscraper and maybe a bit less than Soldado (we can expect better internal hold with better word of mouth). Not a lot of denzel franchise movie to look at, Mag 7 being pretty much is only one, no sequel before. Easy to imagine the movie making a weaker multi than Mag7 but still going over 90m, needing a 37-40m type debut for that. Last 24 hours Fandango sales: Hotel Tr 13152 Ant-Man 10701 Skyscrap 5981 Incredib 5709 Jurassic 4897 MammaMi 4246 The Firs 3441 The Equa 1618 Sorry to 1522 Mamma mia should be much more pre-sales and previews driven, it is a much much more hyped fan based affair, but it is running at a 2.6:1 sales ratio.

Who knows how much Battleship & Valerian do without her. Valerian was Owen biggest box office of is career and did 40m above Jupiter Ascending: Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets STX $225.9 $41.2 18.2% $184.7 81.8% 2017 The Bourne Identity Uni. $214.0 $121.7 56.8% $92.4 43.2% 2002 King Arthur BV $203.6 $51.9 25.5% $151.7 74.5% 2004 Inside Man Uni. $184.4 $88.5 48% $95.9 52% 2006 Sin City Dim. $158.8 $74.1 46.7% $84.7 53.3% 2005 Battleship did more than John Carter for Kitsch: 2 Battleship Uni. $303.0 $65.4 21.6% $237.6 78.4% 2012 3 John Carter BV $284.1 $73.1 25.7% $211.1 74.3% 2012 It is easy to underestimate how lower those title could have went.

That why it is a really good tool imo. Over 90% with under 7.0 tell a lot for a movie. Percentage: Chance you will enjoy it. Rating: Chance it will be in your annual top 5.

Even with summer days, not surprising for a Johnson movie to play on the family title side, with better than expected internal multi good sunday and Monday drop on the heavy side. I am sure Rampage -75% first monday created some commotion also.

Why do you go from someone saying he had no impact to him claiming he was supposed to be responsible for it's performance ? Glover could have been cast even without is music career, he was a good choice for that role imo and it is not like Star Wars thought they needed stars for the US market. Has for the claim pop star has no impact on their movies. I would be curious for Harry Style in Dunkirk for the UK and US exit pool metrics. Eminem obviously had a giant impact on 8 miles, Elvis back in the days, Whitney Houston, Prince, I think it can work specially if it is a event debut and the role match perfectly like Eminem. And you need major stardom. For a role that has nothing to do with singing/stage persona, less obvious.

6.8 vs 8.1........

The franchise is built on assemble and having the amount of people in the heist in the movie title, making one demand for it (and it was a little amount of them). So you could be right, some could have been put there just because you absolutely need by default to have a group. It can have many purpose, in 11 they provide some comic relieve and the movie being all about the 2 lead being cool (Clooney/Pitt) making them look cooler in contrast to very uncool character like Damon or the brothers. How much from each survived all the script, during shoot and editing/reshoot process can make some of them look useless, when they had a role in the movie at some point. Palson being the suburb mom is a way to ground it for audience versus some of those more superheroes type character, you need an electronic/hacker person in the crew, the pickpocket and other trope of the genre, having a group make it possible for a sub-group to know something the rest does not and have twist/conflict and so on. Has for recast or extravagant demand, I doubt it happen. Chance are good some does not return like a Rihanna that could be very busy around that time and certainly didn't lock herself into a sequel and Helena Bonham Carter that was forced into it a bit has an unwilling participation without any heisting skill and went back to legal life could easily become a cameo if she is still there. I think there will be natural to have a group of 9 with 3 new face + new villain without having to make any special effort.

Would not surprise me if both the exchange rate and tax incentive got better between those 10 year's also. http://filmingincroatia.hr/en/production_incentive/rebate_for_film_and_tv_production Croatia introduced Film Production Incentive in 2012

You must have many typo in there.

If they do not need a script to get Bullock to say yes to a sequel they probably need at least either a very good outline or a director on board. And being a soon 60 year's old franchise on it's second reboot, it is probably not perceived has a flash in a pan of the moment need the sequel next year before it fade away type. Last time they went 01/04/07 without any problem, they are working on such classic trope that you do not need to really remember the previous entry much, specially when they create a complete new heist that they will wrap around in the new movie.

A bit above $1 by followers.

That what I challenge, you say most critics consider Dark Knight better than Lords of the Rings, I am asking you base that on what ? If the different critics aggregate method (you it be counting critics top 10 type of list with they shoot movie don't they method or scoring average like metacritic) show that it is the other way around and you do not believe them, can you at least offer an argument ? What else is there ?

How big of a consensus among critic that Dark knight is better than the Lord of the Rings, Wall-E and some others ? It if not above them here: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_allfilms_table.php Not above them here: http://www.metacritic.com/feature/the-best-movies-of-the-decade (Ratatouille, Wall-e, Up, Nemo, All the 3 Lords of the rings, Spider man 2, Avatar, Shrek and many other are above Dark Knight in critical reception on Metacritic in the 2000s) Are you doing the logical fallacy of constructing a group of dudebro critic in your mind (say those that make videos because they stick in mind more), remark that this subgroup of critics are considering Dark Knight the best movie of the 2000s, than asking are critics dudebros in disguise ? Or what is your source that this is the critics consensus ?

Have not seen Rampage, but it did seem to be a lot of him and that he carried it quite well according to the reviews.

Leo has many release that were not smashing success post Titanic (not counting movie released after Titanic but that he agreed too before), Dicaprio movie that didn't double their budget. Gang of new york: 194m on a 100m budget Aviator: 213m on a 110m budget Blood Diamond: 171m on a 100m budget Body of lies: 116m on a 70m budget And some were limit Revolutionnary road: 75m on a 35m budget, but only 23m dom J Edgard, 85m on a 35m budget Not all failures because of the strength of the home video market of some them specially Aviator/Blood Diamond in the dvd peak, but no actor has all smashing success (DiCaprio has big financial success am impressive around 60% of the time and never flop). Has for Johnson longevity, yes he became a star in the 90s in the wrestling world (becoming known in the 90s seem an almost 100% prerequisite to have box office success now), thus a very long time, but has a big movie star front I would agree that it is around Fast 5 that it occur, before Fast 5 was released he was still releasing non studio small movie under 10m at the OW like Faster and accepting role with pre-hunger games mini-studio Liongates on movies like Snitch. That said high on top for 11-12 year's in not specially short if it happen either, Jim Carrey was 1994 to what 2003 ? 2005 max.

I thought about Theron in Fury Road but that was a may release and would have it missed the summer blockbuster cut-off for some definition ? Mojo count it as summer but they start extremely early for release that do not get summer days for a long time: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/seasonal/?view=releasedate&yr=2015&season=Summer "Fury Road not a event", Dwayne Johnson.

But he certainly knew to cast warm people (going for the extreme that is Jackman)

Yeah I think we could see some risky high budget happen, just wanting to get street creds among the industry, like Netflix is doing with Scorsese. Profit being obviously nice but not the only objective in mind.

Like he did on Arrival, Prisoners, Sicario, Incendies ? Or go more juvenile/cheesy ? Blade Runner was just a specially cold and dry world.

I think it is Chinawood (wanda group via legendary) for this one, do we have a name for this new trend. A bit like for Blader Runner 2049 I do not expect studio's to get involved with this, could happen but would not be surprised if they do not.

For that one we know the studio expectation. They expected a 51m net budget from a 62m gross cost. Break even point at : 29.6m dbo / 118m intl, 147.6 WW Expected to do: 35m dbo / 140m intl, 175m WW. Return break: 41.5m dbo / 166m intl, 207.5m WW They expected to need around 64.5m in theater rental to break even. They expected do get 17.15m in domestic rental and 59.5 in intl rental, 76.65m They set the full good return break financial success level at 90.89m in rental. The movie made around 105m in theatrical rental. And if they ended up to really a 20% cheaper than expected small 40m budget you can remove a 6-7m on all those box office target figure. It was not Afterlife performance or Retribution (75m budget) performance, but it was a much cheaper movie.

When the press didn't care about international BO you had some weird things like, Rambo 3 tripling it's budget but being considered a flop. When they didn't care about post theatrical (say like for Cleopatra) you also had strange things. The biggest ever I could think of would be Warcraft, because of is ultra high China percentage being considered by many a flop with a 2.7x ratio. 3.7x would be really pushing it, obviously you can find BvS was a flop crowd (and now X-Men: Apocalypse being called one ?!, a movie that did 150% of is direct predecessor First class while costing about the same), even for the mainstream Internet.