Barnack

The precision was about using the star power excuse (who is using that excuse ?) Same for justifying (who ?) That comment make my difficulty to understand your previous comment: Are people still trying to use the star power excuse with Scarlett Johansson a year after proving that same excuse futile with Ghost in the Shell and Rough Night? What do you mean by are people still trying to use the star power excuse while executive and financier believe that she is a start who is able to sell anything (I kind of doubt that, why such a small budget and why no studio and it is common for her project to get no studio support on board then and why do all those marvel movies small role stuff is she was able to sell anything.... I mean you must be doing an Internet hyperbole right ?) What do you think the intl pre-sales could look like ? If it follow American Hustle financial structure that one was almost fully financed by pre-sales.

Looking at a couple of betting site First man / a star is born / widows / mortal / If Beale Street Could Talk

Not sure I agree, non sequel/universe good blockbuster that 60 year's old can enjoy very often get in, Inception, Gravity, Martian, Dunkirk, Lincoln, The Revenant, Fury Road, Django Unchained, Life Of Pi, Wolf of Wall street, Inglorious Basterds, etc... There is just not that many of them getting made. Which blockbuster of the past would not get in today ? Titanic, E.T. Lords of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Few Good Man, Platoon, Green Mile, Silence of the lambs, Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, As good as it get would get in, maybe The Sixth Sense ?

Do you mean Justice League or Solo ? Deadline (if this is the they people are talking about) had BvS quite profitable (105m net) even without merchandise boost: https://deadline.com/2017/03/batman-v-superman-box-office-profit-2016-1202049201/ Has for a 100m net profit from a 162m movie with a 150m World P&A making 600m WW... This could somewhat similar to a movie like Hancock, that made 624m from a 166m net budget and a 168m world release. The studio made 78.5m of profit on that one, third party investor around 11m and Will Smith and other with points made over 110m, for around 200m in profit going around. Taking into account China factor, bit weaker dbo, weaker home ent. than a 2008 release it does feel a bit low 100m but it depend on the above the line participation deal a lot, if Feige make 40m on a movie like this that eat at your bottom line, Reed, Rudd, etc...

Nope it is mentionned: Currently, the highest-grossing original live-action film of the summer is Book Club, which opened to $13 million and went on to rake in $66 million total. So Skyscraper could easily beat out its competition in this specific (and sadly, diminishing) category in the summer. But in the winter and spring of this year, we had surprise hits like A Quiet Place($50 million opening, $187 million total) and Game Night ($17 million opening, $69 million total). Expecting China will push it over AQP

Worldwide I guess ? Source ? In the US The results of the 2014 Harris Poll The pollsters asked 2,276 U.S. adults to name their favorite movie of all time. The participants were questioned online between Nov. 12-17. 1: Gone With the Wind 2: Star wars series 3: Titanic 4: Godfather 5: Lords of the rings series (of this century) 6: Sound of music 7; Dirty dancing 8: Wizard of Oz 9: It's a wonderful life 10: E.T.

The reported budget is "north of 30M", and because that was a project on a bidding block I imagine reporting is probably accurate: Sources said the hope is to start production in February at a budget north of $30 million. I am saying 20M for a rough cost if you didn't had to pay a director/actor combo (I imagine them making say 12m on this at the most but with large back end). It is not an independant movie ? The barrier is really muddy now but I doubt Fox have must say in those New Regency distribution made by Films is a co-production between Silver Pictures, Maguire’s Material Pictures and Johansson’s These Pictures banners. (And that usually when having a star attached must be so important, they needed to convince a lot of people to invest maybe sell some market also) Legend (Studio Canal) was 20-25m and that was a way to make a period mob movie on the not so expensive side. Really hard to judge without reading the script how much it should cost to make obviously, but if it is similar to American Made / American Hustle going to cheap tend to hurt those story quite a bit.

I would be curious about your reasoning here, isn't a 20m-30m movie not in a strong genre that sell itself (like horror / SH /etc..), no IP etc.... the kind of project that worry the most about commercial appeal ? WIth studio doing less and less movies that would be an hard problem to fix. But you can get cast in movies without being a huge stars 1) Strong franchise often does not need star powers (Solo will maybe make them more cautious but you get it). 2) The very small budget (the excellent Tangerine for example) 3) Supporting roles 4) By becoming big enough on TV 5) Crowdfunding (you do not need that many people investing that much to make a 20-30m movie), if people want to see it happen they could eventually just make it happen, we starting to see it for nerd/fanbase franchise, but a project like that could caught up. The obvious possible entry door today for writer/director and actor is small budget horror, that were we will see very diverse casting I think (and studio franchise affair), Crazy Bitches (2014) had a trans-actor for example. The mid-budget affair award possible is maybe the hardest place to start with, all the big name will fight for any chance to be in those even cutting their quote sometime, they are often the hardest sales, attract often an irrational fanbase that is not just there to make money but to be financing movies, for who the chance to sit a the golden globes with a star or having star name to drop when talking about the movie they are involving with is a plus.

In 2017, not a strong genre / franchise live action movie with a rumored budget of 25-35m were (According to the-numbers) Queen of the desert: Kidman/Franco/Pattinson Foreigner: Jackie Chan Snowman: Fasbender/Ferguson/Kilmer/Simmons, well that was a popular book series also I think Baby Driver: Good example here of not necessarily a strong lead, getting it done with a really strong director and very strong star loaded supporting cast. He was still paid 500k and even asking for a pay or play deal so I imagine studio felt all that divergent/fault in our star build some awareness (he had 3 movie doing around 300m before Baby Driver, one co-lead), far from an unknown for sure. Hitman Bodyguard: Reynolds / Sam Jackson Atomic Blonde: Theron / McAvoy Collide: Hoult / Jones (release timed to be after her Star Wars lead movie + Inferno co lead) Logan Lucky: really big assemble cast, Tatum/Driver/Craig/Stan/Gleeson/Holmes/MacFarlane Girl Trip: Pinkett Smith, Queen Latifah, acted in over 1.5b at the box office Hall, etc.. Bad Mom Christmas: Well sequel do not count obviously, but still 3 names actress here. Dog purpose: Quaid / Robertson Fist Fight: Ice cube / Charlie Day Chips (Well a franchise): Pena, Shepard, Brody, Onofrio, et.c.... Father figure: Wilson, Helms, Simmons, Tulip Fever: Vikander Going in style: Freeman, Caine, Arkin Battle of the sexes: stone / carell In that price range you almost never see an unknown lead, we could try other year's to try to find some, I could have missed it (was manually made) or the-numbers could be missing some budget obviously, but people that say that it happen all the time, would be nice to see some example in the price range period piece mobster movie to be well done cost.

In the US Cox is known at least I knew her, had to google the others one, but I imagine being on Transparent make you know at least a little bit in the US. I am unsure how you would be received at the bank or by a japan/france/greece/russian/south america, etc... buyer, looking at the filmography has anyone ever appeared in a 2,000 wide release or an acclaimed significant role in a movie ?

And an over 100m production value, an very proven concept + a clear use of anthropology study firm's of what humans love to see used by the movie team filled with crowd pleasing populism in a perfectly calculated money crab. It is not particularly an hard sale.

There is a reason I said or book sales/home video performance Twilight was one of the biggest home video monster ever: https://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/packaged-media-sales/2009 Second most sales (biggest for dvds) in 2009 despite being #7 at the domestic box office the previous year. According to the sony leaked e-mail twilight had "only" sold 3.892 million book by the time the first movie opened in the US (versus 2.6m and 2.3m for fault in our star and Divergent). After the movie release in 2008 and in 2009 it was breaking Harry Potter sale records even at some UK vendor: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/6590249/Twilight-book-breaks-sales-records.html The teen vampire books by Stephenie Meyer have sold one million copies in little over two and a half years – beating the previous record set by Harry Potter author JK Rowling. "Popular doesn’t even begin to describe it – the Twilight Saga is a phenomenon in its own right and like Harry Potter it has generated a global sensation that crosses several media.“ First one success was a surprise to many people but the huge OW weekend increase for the sequel was clearly on people radar. If we would compare ticket sales for the FSS between the 2 incredible the difference would be quite smaller than the absolute numbers, I doubt it doubled sales at that level.

Not sure why I didn't liked it much. I expected more over the top action violence ? Too little people in the theater making any humour attempt fell quite flat ? Cast didn't work much for me (something a very rarely mind) except for the detective that was really good and sometime the lead. With that budget you probably need to do it that way and having all that verbose exposition with the cheat of having to talk out loud (or the chip making you believe you had to talk out loud) was a solution. It was still impressive what they could do with that low budget now a day. It start on an interesting premise (that we saw recently and will see more and more) of that more and more jobless post AI world transition, nice backdrop but does not do much with it (or I missed it). The lead does not seem to be quite aware about how much people are cyborgs or not (like the audience) while is wife and one of is client he is friendly with work in that industry seem a bit force, enough to make us think is wife was killed by her own company and that the movie will take that scandal direction, to finally just create a misdirection. Couple of mechanics were just strange, like when the chip owner would at distance loose/close a percentage of control on the chip ? Do we ever get why the upgraded guy killed is wife ? None of this would have mattered (or even remarked) obviously with better actions scene and camera (the video game like third person following...).

Do we know if she is the one that chose Rupert or if he came up to her with the project idea ? There is always a bit of a "risk" (not that any of this matter) into projecting choice to someone without knowing the actual options or chain of events. Maybe the realistic choice were: Pass or do it pretty much like this.

Blade Runner 2049 went from 43-45m prediction with headline like ‘Blade Runner 2049’ Pacing Faster In Advance Ticket Sales Than ‘Gravity’ & ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ to sustain that 43-45 estimate after 4m previews night number to an 32.7m actual weekend.

2.5 multi would be disappointing and Dr Strange dbo is a nice bar of unqualified success for this. Recent MCU sequel multi Thor 3: 2.566 Guardian 2: 2.66 Civil War : 2.27 Considering those movies level of hype and size of their OW, Ant Man could easily do 2.65 and 210 with an 78-79 OW I would imagine.

There is the long wait sequel with inflation/add 3d/add one more day of box office in the weekend that came close, Dory did 135m from 70m. Those who did not already named: Incredible just did it 182 from 70.4m Batman went from 48m in 2006 (big at the time) to 158m in 2008. Shrek from 42 to 108. Twilight went from 70 to 142. Almost did Hangover 45 to 86 First Ant-Man movie was not a phenomenom (legs, home video relative to it's box office, book sales after the movie launched) anywhere close to any of the above obviously.

Not that I often understand your cryptic message, but are you saying that VFX action set piece are not fun fun !? Or character having huge hearts or story ?

This message board is quite good at formatting, just a simple Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V often do the trick, make sure to select all the column and rows thought with the title one, it will keep their format and look pretty: # TITLE WEEKEND LOCATIONS AVG. TOTAL WKS. DIST. 1 Ant-Man and the Wasp $79,000,000 — 4,206 — $18,783 $79,000,000 1 Disney 2 Incredibles 2 $31,000,000 -33% 4,113 -297 $7,537 $506,361,414 4 Disney 3 Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom $30,890,000 -49% 4,349 -136 $7,103 $335,647,665 3 Universal 4 The First Purge $18,460,000 — 3,031 — $6,090 $32,365,945 1 Universal Pictures 5 Sicario: Day of the Soldado $7,300,000 -62% 3,055 0 $2,390 $35,302,070 2 Sony / Black Label 6 Uncle Drew $6,300,000 -59% 2,742 0 $2,298 $29,623,620 2 Lionsgate / Summit 7 Ocean’s 8 $5,400,000 -35% 2,604 -822 $2,074 $126,866,228 5 Warner Bros. 8 Tag (2018) $3,300,000 -44% 2,157 -1019 $1,530 $48,525,681 4 Warner Bros. 9 Deadpool 2 $1,775,000 -50% 1,267 -827 $1,401 $314,646,400 8 Fox

It is not insane, everything that actually happen isn't obviously (only wild prediction can be), but doing that much for what that movie high concept is (imagine releasing an Ant Man movie in 2006 for example), with that cast and reviews and a reported small 100m budget opening over 60m ! Arguably the best James Bond ever opened at 40m back then, a giant Superman return did 52, well X-Men went over 100m too.

Looking at a graph of Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man 3 and Hunger Games versus Jurassic World: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons-extended/Jurassic-World-Fallen-Kingdom-(2018)/Hunger-Games-The/Dark-Knight-Rises-The/Iron-Man-3 It does seem likely, OW / at day 15 / where they ended Rises: 160.88m / 328.4 / 447.9 Iron Man 3: 174 / 311.4 / 408.8 Hunger games: 152.53 / 282.14 / 405.3 Jurassic World 2: 148 / 313.86 / ? 2 movie that opened higher than Jurassic World 2 and lower than it at day 15 did go over 400m. It started at 92% of Rises and was at 95.5% after 15 days, showing better relative legs, if it stop gaining on it it will do 428m. 400m is certainly on the table, missing it would require a really steep drop on it's box office graph relative to those 3 other movies and JW 2 has only summer days for the rest of it's run.

Define excuse, she just got that project picked-up no ? Why do you think people accepted to invest in a Rupert Sanders movie like this one, you think Johansson being a big star (specially if the project release next to Black Widow) was not part of their decision ? People need some level of precision here or we will be talking over each other, some seem to simplify the situation as if the people making the movie, financed it, distributing it and the exhibition were the same people so that a decision can easily be made by "they", like in the golden age. At least if this was a studio project (but now even those are almost always co-financed in part pre-sold to share risk) that would be closer to the truth but there is no studio involved here. But they are all different group (and even each category splitted in many different player, that all need the ok of the all the future one for it to work, often before even making the movie for it to get a go if the story require a big enough budget) Do you mean to say world buyer's/pre-buyer and third party investor to not really care in reality about star attached to a project (director or actor) specially outside proven genre ? That people bringing that point are lying and that it is a film Internet made up myth ? Or do you mean that maybe they do but they should stop doing so ? As for Gits or RN, movie with a 44% RT rating not turning successful financially is not really that indicative of an audience rejection of the lead, even freaking Denzel movies can flop when they go rotten nowaday like Roman J Isreal, Bullock with Our Band is Crisis or Ferrel with The house (that did considerably less than Rough Nigh), you still need a movie obviously outside the franchise / well establish trope/genre that audience already love to work with.

20 year's ago the movie paid by itself with ads, no that big x amount was in free advertising for the movie not actual cash online talk was already made, could have been only copy pasted....

From what I understand it is a spec script. https://theplaylist.net/fantastic-woman-filmmaker-rub-tug-20180706/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter ‘A Fantastic Woman’ Filmmaker Defends Scarlett Johansson Casting As A Trans Man In ‘Rub & Tug’

Have you read the script and find there was a nice role in there for a co-star to go into that endeavor of creating work for herself because there is almost nothing outthere made by studio anymore for her to get cast in, to ask that question ? If there is, that a good question to ask here, if not..... that is a moot point. You want to create material a great role with an arc and many notes usually.