Barnack

And ? Does that sounded like Jonson trying to appeal to some east-Asian market ?

There is a lot of speculation going on here. Johnson watched and used a lot of Kurosawa for Last Jedi: https://www.fandor.com/posts/i-the-last-jedi-i-and-the-infinite-appeal-of-akira-kurasawa The sequence with the bombing were a big homage to the WW2 movies and actual events, I think that were the casting simply came from to make it sure audience have the pacific war / kamikaze in mind during some shot (and that will come back again toward the end of the movie in an other scenario). I am not sure he was thinking about Asian market appeal by casting an unknown American in the role, when they go for the Asian market they do like Magnificent 7 remake, Dark Knight, Rogue One, Days of Future Past, Mulan and cast Asians stars. Asians is the richest demography in North America over whites and a relatively big one, when they cast black actor in a movie people do not assume they are catering to the world black population. Studio ask their local distributor office about casting and feedback and get explaining what local market like/dislike by people from there and working in movie distribution there all the time, you are talking about a Disney studio that just spent fortune casting real big Asian stars in some movies and assume they think casting random American actor with Asian descent would work as well ?

You are probably mixing up using American movie ticket price change over time and applying it to the world box office and using US dollar inflation when comparing US dollar from 2 different year's. Using inflation make about the same sense than using exchange rate when you look at the gross made in a movie in Yuan, comparing 1993 US dollars to 2018 US dollars box office gross is quite similar to comparing Wolf Warrior 2 box office in Yuan (5.57b) and saying it was 2.75 time the box office of Avengers Infinity War 2b US dollar. It made absolute sense to use inflation when comparing 2 different year and there is no issue that the amount if for a worldwide box office either with using inflation. Inflation is a giant factor among long period, between 2015 and 2018 it is only 6%, not something that is usually enough to make up for the usual sequel decline.

I doubt we know the payout for the talent (if you are referring to deadline estimate that one of the line they can get the most off, I have seen a 200% difference between actual and their estimate on that one). They could even be (probably be I would say) gross point and not profit point. If it is like the Transformer franchise (from the leaked e-mail of Sony talking about Mark Wahlberg transformer deal evaluating what offer him on an Uncharted movie): Because of all the players (Hasbro, Lorenzo, Bay, Spielberg, etc) and a 25 point first dollar cap. a 16-17% of the gross going to talent and player on a Jurassic World (Frank Marshall, the writer-director, Pratt, Spielberg, Tull, Crichton ?) would be quite standard. Last Jedi payout is not necessarily much smaller, specially if you consider that the 2B cash + 2B stock going to Lucas is kind of the same, a in advance buyout on the franchise profits and amortized that amount among the movies that will be made while projecting that 4B amount value over time using a regular Disney ROI.

And Toy Story was smaller than Casper oversea despite being 80% bigger domestic. It is a bit funny yes no Pixar in the top 5 despite all the success, to be fair I would imagine Nemo was the biggest animated movie intl when it released right ? or must be close to, 559m in 2003 was huge. Just a bit of timing of when their biggest success occurred and no much china success pre-Coco. 1: Frozen: 875 2: Minions: 823 3: Despicable me 3: 770 4: Ice age continental drift: 715 5: Ice age dawn: 690 6: Zootopia: 682 7: Toy story 3: 652 8: Despicable me 2: 602 9: Coco: 596 10: Nemo: 559 11: Dory: 542 Humor and pop culture reference are more present in those Pixar movie and translate not was well ? Zootopia did it quite well too.

I do not think it was from the same studio. Witch was made by: Parts and Labor RT Features Rooks Nest Entertainment Maiden Voyage Pictures Mott Street Pictures Code Red Productions Scythia Films Pulse Films Special Projects Hereditary was made by: PalmStar Media Finch Entertainment Windy Hill Pictures A24 only happen to be the one that bought both the US market after the movies were made in on the selling block for everyone interested to bid on them . The Witch was bought after it played well at Sundance https://variety.com/2015/film/news/sundance-radius-twc-a24-circling-the-witch-exclusive-1201414043/. Hereditary was bought before sundance, but both were fully independant film, I think. But it is not surprising that they would both be bougth by the same distributor and that one would imagine that they made them both. They are just now starting to make movies from what I understand: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/a24-picks-up-first-ever-spec-script-for-horror-fil.html

Professional career expert in marketing like Ava DuVernay or people that have been just on the other side of selling a movie than consuming it, when they talk about audience encountering other voices are not thinking or even implying that those voice on the Internet social media world are not existing or impossible to find for someone looking explicitly for them on an Internet search engine. They talk about the relevant voice to sell a movie, the mainstream reaching on mass consumed platform one, those who generate the general zeitgeist tone surrounding a movie, those who make the RT score. Now for some stuff it is true that you can simply advocate for new voices (say RT Scores, you do not need to kick anyone out just invite new critics to be certified in), but in a world of little media consumption by audience on some platform the difference between shutting people up and inviting new voice could be pure semantic. The fact is clear: In relevant critics voice, it is not much diverse, last year a bit above 75% of reviews of the top 1000 movies on RT were by males. What to do about this ? Not easy to say, but one of the best thing that could happen and that would in zero way be discriminative against men or anything like that. Make film Internet way less toxic in general. Could be the hardest thing to do.

I imagine Dr Strange could have been a logical top potential for this ? Already 75m so much in advance, could even beat it I guess.

It certainly miss an ending and probably why it was disliked by many, people give more a pass in a weak beginning than a weak ending it seem, specially on the first watch (and that tend to show now in the distribution on the movie budget).

Could be my favorite live action Disney with the first Guardian of the Galaxy in the last 10 year's.

Does stand up even exist without an audience too ? That one is purely audience feedback mechanism even more so that movies, I would imagine that many people spend very small resources making small movies no one will see, but not jokes.

Is that much different than say music, stand up comic or any other art form with an actual audience ? The feedback from the audience being much longer from the production ? I would imagine everyone make a movie for audience and from the audience point of view too, no one would spend 6 month in a dark editing room making a movie if they were the last man on earth, even Malick. Like every stand up is seeking an audience or musician. How big of an audience they want and aim for and is type can change too obviously. Or maybe you mean you make a movie for pleasing an audience with proven to please audience formula. Because making a movie to shock an audience is still for audience.

I thought we were in the spoiler / review thread... you could do it there. I think the very fuzzy rules and it's absence of them even is what people that were not fully captivated / entrenched by the ambiance set had issue with (at least my main issue) and after reading an interview

Not understanding, finding slow or disliking something does not mean it is subverting the genre.

What ?

I am not sure if that in respond to my message, so I will ask do you believe anyone is actually pushing a narrative that all star wars fans are hating an actress that happen to have appeared in one Star wars movie ? And not pushing a narrative that so many of them do and express is online that it is an issue ?

That is one big distinction between a 400 movie a year critics and an 4 movie a year for sure, not that the 400 movie a year having see so many misfire do not appreciated a well executed cliche to the max movie like Halloween (that a good example of a movie without any story, just a tension and atmosphere built to live in), Titanic, It's follows, etc.... But in this case, was Hereditary working because it subverted the genre or surprised critics ? How was it not a straightforward horror movie trying to make you feel creepy and horrified ? Except for the unclear rules and it is destiny to happen anyway we just witness the way it did (thus the over the top complex plan finally working). And I will agree, even thought atheistic and cinematic vision is much more important than story (something you can read on wikipedia no need for a movie at all, to just tell a story what a waste of time and money), the best movie are those you achieve to find a story just not bad enough to not distract you against the rest and that match the movie making.

1) Invent a narrative that all fans are just hating her. 2) Easily destroy the narrative you just invented. 3) Never have to address the actual narrative. Do sound quite similar to what people are accussing LucasArt and cast of doing... I mean what kind of strange made up so easy to look if it is true people believe outhere: You’ve not mentioned that @JohnBoyega hasn’t tweeted since the exact same date When Boyega litteraly answer to him directly with twitter with is validate account, the person respond if I am wrong about that....

Yes those are 2 of the reasons why it got easier to reach 2 billion, the world movie goers population exploded. Ticket price (specially 3D title like Avengers) probably help box office a little bit, for the event movie at least. That is the only people point when they say it is easier now to make 2B with a movie, much larger moviegoers world population, much richer one overall (specially in China but in many other place) with higher price ticket and obviously simple inflation. If at least the conversation was in the same value, comparing making $2B in 2018 to $1.3 billion in 1998, now that could be a reasonable possible debate to have. That is true, Cable is much much bigger in revenues/profits right now, not at the same level. Disney charge people for ESPN and some other channel, TV is not just from ads and endorsemment, people also pay a lot monthly for it in the united state (I do not know you are in which country, but in the US tv is crazy (https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/directv-average-customer-bill-tops-102-per-month-1200797613/). Pay TV is a 108b industry in North America alone bigger than free TV + streaming, it is in a different level than streaming revenues: Those people starting those streaming platform, would it be AT&T, comcast, disney were people owning the tv channels when not also owning the cable/satellite distribution, and that in good part what they are buying with FOX in some markets. People pay for HBO, Stars and those movies channel and have been for decades.

You type sentence without providing any numbers, anything really just declaring that people don't think it's worth going to the cinema anymore, while they go more than ever before worldwide, at least in dollar spending. Hundreds of millions of people became movie goers since then. TV is an over 150b business in the US (https://www.statista.com/statistics/184176/estimated-revenue-of-the-us-broadcasting-industry-since-2005/), Netflix is what 8 billion worldwide ?, Yes real profit always has been in TV for the conglomerate that own the studio, including even Disney that is not new (that we can call streaming now, but that almost exactly the same). We are seeing a shift from streaming with satellite/Cable TV to Internet streaming, what is changing is much more in how the home entertainment spending is made than theatrical vs non theatrical, at the end of the day we went from around 13-14b 20 year's ago to now over 40 b: Making 2b in 2018 is achieving to get a bit under 5% of the world market share, 20 year's ago it would have been around 14-15% and Hollywood share of the world box office didn't change much over that time and the top movies share of the box office grew, didn't went down. Even domestic went from a 6/7 billion to 11 billion now a day.

Do you really think that making 2b in a 40b market place is much harder than 20 year's ago in a 13.5b market place ? Or it is part of your trolling ? Most of what you say do sound like trolling so it is hard to say sometime. Again, numbers would be nice in france for example ticket price grew a bitslower than inflation between 1998 and 2011: UK: https://www.statista.com/statistics/285783/cinema-ticket-prices-average-annual-price-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/ 2000: ticket were 7.04 2017 pound vs 7.49 pound today (I imagine 3D vs no 3d ticket could easily explain most of that 6% higher price difference).

He is a semi-troll type over the Internet.

I could see something close to 50% of the profits happening. It would not surprise anyone here, but Johnson having an executive producer credit and is Seven Bucks Productions company listed as a production company do sound like a nice back end deal being in place. For some reason someone leaked Johnson deal on RedNotice to the wall street journal (maybe is own agents...) On that he is getting either 30% of the profit or 4% of the world box office after a certain threshold, the biggest of the 2 amount. If he had a similar deal of Jumanji that could be quite the payday, would not surprise me if he accept a lower deal to be equal with Kevin Hart, with each getting say 20% and leaving 10% for the rest. https://www.imdb.com/search/name?roles=tt0113497,tt2283362 Couple of producer of the first were on the new one, many writer also, they could have got points.

I imagine you are not serious like for 95% of your output, but why the amount of resources those movies take and the amount of screen they takes is quite low, it is quite easy to create the exact same world that if they do not exist by not watching those movies ? That start to sound like someone that would say: I hated each transformer more than the previous one, instead of just not watching them after 2/3 bad one in a row and the new one getting the same type of reactions.... I get the curiosity factor and that ok, but why go whine about it on the Internet....

The amount of studios movies didn't went up too it went down, of those 311 movies this year only 52 reached 2,000 theater. Digital opened distribution to a lot of small movies from small distributor that will not cause an issue for the blockbuster of today to reach a milestone. It is even the other way around, the top earner of today get a larger proportion of the pie even if there is more release today. Year Produced Rated Released: https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MPAA_US/M050309M.pdf Year Produced Rated Released 2004 611 871 483 2003 593 940 473 2002 543 786 467 2001 611 739 483 2000 683 762 478 1999 758 677 461 1998 686 661 509 1997 767 673 510 Yes less movies back then, but actual studio movies Films released by MPAA studio's decreased massively in resents year's. 2016: 139 2004: 199 2003: 194 2002: 220 2001: 188 2000: 191 1994: 166 The numbers of movie making 100m adjusted at the dbo didn't change much in the last 20-25 year's.. 100m in 1998 was 65m dollar, a list of those listed has 100m movies in today purchasing power, movie above 130 are 200+m movies today, 97m are 150m today: Armeggedon: 140m Lethal weapon 4: 140m Godzilla: 125m Ennemy of state: 85m Meet Joe Black: 85m Deep Impact: 80m 6 days, 7 nights: 80m Lost In space: 80m What Dreams May Come: 80m Mighty Joe Young: 80m Babe: Pig in the City: 80m Soldier: 75m Snake eyes: 73m Sphere: 73m Doctor Dolittle: 71.5m Star Treck: 70m The siege: 70m Hard Rain: 70m X-files: 66m Saving Private Ryan: 65m You<ve got Mail: 65m Zorro: 65m Primaries colors: 65m That 23 movies or about 2 month, because studio movies output declined so much it would not surprise me if the amount of 100m dollar's movies in a year went down or at least not that much higher. Titanic was the first movie ever to reach 1 billion, it did 1.83b, that was almost doubling the all time record at the box office. Yes well maybe, I am not so sure about world admission, but I was not talking about admissions, Titanic made much more money, not just admission, it made around 2.8b in today money in is first release. To think that making 2 billion in 97-98 was easier than in 2018 when no movies ever made 1 billion is really a stretch, to me, 2 billion would have been making around 15% of the world box office, that 6 billion today) . There is many difficulty now, but the world box office still almost tripled and the studio's top title market exploded in the last 20 year's. Jumanji just made about the same than Jurassic Park in 1993, it was no where close to be the same phenomenon.