Barnack

How can something actually happening could not have been on the table.... by definition a table to sustain the event must always been there (how drunk am I ?).

Sadly for him that could be true...... Someone mentioned that a fully growth up adult getting in fight with child and insulting them on the Internet (and fully realizing that he was doing it) about a subject as benign as movies was not a good sign was almost certainly right. It is just movies, if you are fighting about them specially spandex/Disney stuff it is probably with some fanboy... that is not healthy.

Really turned a corner with F8, JW 2, Transformer 5, just expecting automatically an significant better result in China for a sequel of a movie days are really gone, the market despite still growth matured and the growth are not those 30-40% insane level either. And China will not take care of the general down trend for a franchise.

Far from perfect or even good, but it achieved mediocrity and the really good ending made it worth it imo.

Not pissing of people with bonus they obtain a 100m dbo could be part of the motivation, but just the TV/streaming contract that tend to have 100/200 benchmark changing how much they pay for playing the movies is more than enough to explain those behavior I would think.

Sure (well in part, for big studio you are right but for a small one you often still has to get the money somewhere). But that was not the conversation, were talking need to go back a bit of messages, 1)Someone: Would it not be for disney box office would be death 2) Me: I think Pixar, star wars, Marvel would still be making movies right now if not for Disney. 3) Long conversation about what it could look like if they were stayed independent or bought by someone else, pointing maybe they would have less production/marketing budget, leading to smaller scope and smaller effects/spectacle and smaller box office. 4) Me: Talking about how much other studio give their superheroes and how much money they would get for making movies if they would have stayed without disney, would it have been big enough production budget to deliver the same kind of movies they made. For that budget number in that type of conversation(i.e. how much we get on screen), the relevant numbers is the gross budget and purely the gross budget, audience cannot have any or influenced by the net nor the final product on screen. The fact they could get nice tax credit back then or now is just a plus about being able to do the same movies without the help of Disney. If the conversation was would they have been has profitable, you shift to net budget (well kind of, I would not even put net of pre-sales there necessarily), conversation about how much they would have made at the box office it is gross budget, imo. A bit like marketing, gross budget matter more than what the actual studio spent net of product placement deal I would imagine.

Sure sure, but the conversation was how much money at the box office those movie would be making in a no Marvel Disney distributed movies world versus now, on that it is only how much gross budget they are able to put on them that matter I would say, right ? No one would even think mentioning net of intl pre-sales for example or of third party investor when trying to factor a correlation/causation between box office and budget, even thought it is absolutely taking into account when greenlight.

In holiday weekend at least it is common, Finding Dory did it not so long ago. Some holiday weekend have one movie with a big expansion every year trying to take advantage of it. For example: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/laborday.htm?page=LABOPEN&sort=date&order=DESC&p=.htm 1 16 18 Finding Dory BV $2,932,001 +363.8% 2,075 +1,730

When talking about box office success scenario between 2 budget (or here studio ownership/distribution scheme), net budget is a bit irrelevant no ?, budget is relevant talk with box office because it is affecting what is on screen and in the trailer spectacle and scope and for those only gross budget matter. Net budget only matter when talking profitability, outside of that I am not sure it should be brought up as much as people do (or at all). A bit the same reason almost no one ever talk about net of pre-sales budget or budget minus third party investor commitment. Also we pretty much never know the actual net budget, sometime we know the gross.

That an all time line, 75% theater drop, +41% box office: 13 51 54 Spectre Sony $41,979 +41.1% 16 -47 $2,624 $199,948,480 $245 19

(just 33% financed) For small guy with how long an uncertain tax credit can be depending of the jurisdiction, they can have it very much in mind still need the cash flow to actually do the movie. Could you imagine how easy it would be to sell OS like Liongates could on their franchise for the Marvel studio post Iron Man 1 success or to get loan, for example the same deal of financing Iron Man 2 33% part of the budget was still in place, it was very easy for them to get it. Liongates had to sell stuff like library part and rights to future movies to fund the first Hunger games (despite financing 75% of the production by OS Rights), but the second one was a breeze. Eon goes a lot like this and reached the same international high as Avengers in 2012 with Bond. With a distributor doing very little money from Bond. They would still be probably making movies no ? That was the starting point, I would say that anyone that can think they can run a world simulation under which Disney does not buy them and know with authority what happen in it is probably delusional.

The non Disney buyer would have done pretty much the same no ? Iron Man got what a 200m budget at the time ? And in a non-disney world Paramount do nothing of such and treat it in a very different way, Paramount made Transformer world BO explode with a much inferior product in the same time frame, who knows what they would have done if Viacom have been the buyer.

There was a general international market growth also happening for pretty much everyone around that time, Days of Future Past also more than doubled any previous X-Men. Many franchise jumped, many even doubled their international box office in the international box office boom (and I imagine for some helped by 3d) in the around 2005-2010 release versus the 2012-2014 type release. Batman 2005: 167 2008: 469 2012: 636 (despite a much weaker movie) X-Men 2006: 225 2009: 193 2011: 207.2 2014: 513.9 Bond 2006: $431.6M 2008: $417,7M 2012: $804M Transformer: 2007: 390.5m 2009: 434.2m 2011: 771.4M Pirate: 2003: 349 2006: 642 2007: 654 2011: 803 Would Sony have loss the right to an other studio we could have thought that the 100% jump for Skyfall was no accident as soon as Warner/Disney/Fox took over. Same for Transformer Intl box office going from 18.1b in 2008 to 23.9b in 2012 a 32% jump is a big factor in itself. The first Disney distributed movie being the game changer Avengers (if I am not wrong) inside a moment from which many franchise were exploding their world box office make it really hard to isolate Disney great marketing from the other factor. Avengers 41/59 dbo/intl ratio was not better than Thor for example, the movie was also just much more appealing to audience like it showed on the domestic BO, it would have almost certainly exploded intl like Bond/Transformer/X-men/pirate did around the same time, by how much no one can say.

Captain america 1 got an over 200m budget before Disney, Sony was giving over 300m budget to the Raimi/Amazing Spider Man 1-2 and over 200m in world release P&A, If they would have had that kind of box office I think they would be getting big budget and big marketing, the only think almost certain is the post theatrical windows would not be handled as well to the park attraction, the rest good luck creating a what if simulation for such a chaotic world.

Not sure what would be so different. You think Lucas does not find a buyer in a Disneyless world or that the buyer would not be making as many movies ? Same for Marvel ? The buyer would probably not be as good as moneytizing those (Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel if they would have sold instead of staying indie and still doing movies) from the toys to the Park, but on the movie side it could be quite the same, worst or better not sure on that side how one can calculate that. And if they would be doing nothing right now on a pause, people would have not feared those disney event weekend/months and not released anything in them as much.

Pretty sure without Disney Marvel Studio , Star Wars, Pixar would still all exist. No Wrinkle in time maybe.

If you include Searchlight early year award season movie gross (Shape of wtaer, 3 bill , etc...) they did a while ago, just went over 800m. Still the only studio to have reach that bar too (or Avengers bar): 1 Black Panther BV $699,468,354 4,084 $202,003,951 4,020 2/16 - 2 Avengers: Infinity War BV $658,903,950 4,474 $257,698,183 4,474 4/27 - Rank Distributor Market Share Total Gross* Movies Tracked 2018 Movies** 1 Disney 34.0% $1,766.1 7 4 2 News Corporation (Fox) 15.5% $803.7 13 6 3 Time Warner (WB/New Line) 11.3% $588.7 23 12 4 NBC/Universal 9.4% $489.9 16 11 5 Sony 8.3% $430.0 21 11 6 Viacom (Paramount) 6.4% $332.4 7 5 Disney new 2018 release averaged 407m lol, if the acquisition would gone through Disney would have had 50%+ of this year domestic box office after this weekend....

Trolling is not an easy jobs.

That generous way to put it, it was less than 1/10 of their income in 2017, filmed entertainment was 7.63b of the over 80b comcast revenues and just 15% of their ebidta. But filmed entertainment division is also less than 1/3 of The Century Fox annual income....

You think Comcast biggest competition is Disney ? My reflex would have thought that it was something like AT&T ? But I must admit and declare my vast innocence and distributor of content business here. Comcast is mostly an Internet, Phone, TV providers the second largest behind AT&T, it is a 85 billion dollar revenues a year company, Universal movies is a tiny bit of that, a particular movie vs an other particular one opening weekend ? For an acquisition about how media are distributed around the world that is part of a many decades long vision and plan's would be affected and people planning it would care a lot about the second weekend on a Pixar movie influence on a Jurassic World opening ? And buying one of the biggest distributor of world media and library of content in Fox would have anything to do about Incredible 2 box office ?

Shrek 2 opening on a Wednesday make it a bad example to use leg wise, 4x days still happen for Wednesday openers. But in general legs in 2004 were stronger for also those 2 factor: No previews/smaller weekend Saturation of the release. (I would imagine because of digital vs prints) In 2004 in the USA alone there was 6031 cinema cite, Shrek opened in a really big for the time 4,163 theater (in Canada + USA), Garfield 3,100 theater. Lot of theater didn't open those movies and will play them later in the runs. In 2018 there is less cinema cite (5,773) and yet movies open in more of them 4,410 for Incredibles 2. (less than 76.3% of the theater playing it vs less than 69% for a Shrek 2 or just 51% for a Garfield). And if we would look for the screen counts, we will probably see much more screen for the new opener we went from 36k screens to 40k screen. The movie open for a longer time on more screens, you can buy your ticket online it is much easier to see a movie opening weekend than before and in a mini-China way that will inflate it / reduce the legs. Has for Shrek low competition, it had a giant days Potter movie in is third weekend (were unsurprisingly it got is worst drop)

Hard to be surprised by this, but still if this play nearly like an animated movie it will be such a monster.

In a vacuum not but for a franchise movie with 4M previews inflating the OW and playing against a mass appeal (with a crowd that play more female than male) 185m opener.... Some long time reboot/sequel/who knows how to call them. Blade Runner 2049 with A- cinemascore -52.7% against happy death day and foreigner (quite the different audience, so no competition) Magnificent 7 with a A- cinemacore: -55.0% against a good competition in Deepwater horizon but that was a 20m opener. 50% from O8 B+ cinemascore/high previews figure and the huge competition, do sound close to good for it, I could see a 20m (-52%) easily happening.

Maybe, but she is the sister of someone used in a scene that used a lot of WW2 era movies/Kurosawa aesthetic with a Kamikaze aspect to it (and that will be a theme of that movie and spoiler alert re-used at least 2 times after that if not 3). Needless to say, sound like pure speculation supported by no arguments that it was some Disney exec thinking it would help the east-Asia box office to cast an unknown american actress. People invent that speculation base on what look nothing, from a studio that just cast actual big Asian stars in their movies including the very previous Star Wars movie and than play to destroy a strawman they just made.

Never sure if people are serious on Internet.... but to think that a 60b transaction would take something like this into consideration.......