Barnack

Rogue One was an obvious attempt at pandering to the China/Asian audience and trying to gain ground there too, they just failed.

The reporting is saying Universal got the Physical home entertainment, not sure if it is for all market too.

I had, misguided maybe, confidence that this movie was one great trailer away to turn the momentum around, never got close imo.

9:00 PM previews.... from 2013 with an over 11 previews to OW multi is quite the odd comparable yes.

How hard could it be to distribute a Star Wars movie in the US ? Bond did very well recently there lately, but the marketing done in that market has been really crazy also and giant (the 2012 olympics moment for example)

Do they have a good distribution presence there ? Looking at the yearly box office in 2017/2018, nothing seem to appear under the MGM name : http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/uk/yearly/?yr=2017&sort=studio&order=ASC&pagenum=4&p=.htm Even Deadwish this year does not seem to have been distributed by them in the UK. Keeping Craig, deal that come with Boyle for the director, that quite the package would be nice to have detail on the distribution / financier term they got with Universal....

Maybe the Bobba Fett movie will be a NC-17 mostly silent version of a bounty hunter a la Only God Forgive. I would imagine it will still be a Mangold movie, coming from Logan/Greatest Showman projects.... he must have had a nice array of options.

Having seen the movie that sound really possible, felt like something that they fought quite a bit in the editing room with.

I will point to even better up to date insight in the people that responded to me: It is apparently less rigid now but I imagine a very similar dynamic (you know they will accept only a limited amount of movies you submit)

6 is Bumblebee probably: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers7.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=transformers6.htm

Exactly and have more upside than a Ocean 8 if it was down to a choice like that for the studio / Distributor in China. Ocean's was a franchise that was doing very well before China box office was an expression.

To have tracked that website a little bit myself and talked with the guy that provided us that running script. Fangando update a variable on is website everytime they sell 1000 ticket, it can take 20 minutes it can take more than a hours a 4:00 am. So the last hours show can update itself a couple of times (I think that script check every 5 minutes or so to see if fandango variable updated itself) and will add the new latest 1000 sales, using the saletimes variable to attribute it to the good hours category we see, counting them as they come. You can see fluctuation for that reason, but the last 1,000 sales to enter will not have very old sales in them, so has you say the older hours will not move.

All today sales according to the fandango link (early in the morning when people were not going to theater it was ahead) Solo A S 12940 Deadpool 12418 Avengers 2747 Book Clu 2549 Life of 553 Incredib 325 Breaking 309 A Quiet 246 Show Dog 225 Overboar 198 Porco Ro 135

2 different type of movies and that is important with the very limited revenues sharing import slot system in the China market. There is certain film a studio will accept to be played in China without having a share of the gross, they will not engage in that practice with a movie like this, really bad precedent to set. And if you want to get 25% of the box office, you need to have access and burn an import slot: http://chinafilminsider.com/how-many-import-slots-does-each-studio-get/ https://sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2016/10/sabrina-mccutchan-dje.pdf There is around 36 slot in a year, for the 6 studios and a couple of other player to share, Warner achieved to get around 5/6 a year in recent year's. You release Rampage, Tomb Raider and Ready Player One for sure, that is already 3 slot. For sure WB will want to release The Meg, Mowgli, Potter, Aquaman (or maybe one of those will be next year to save one), but that is already 7 China movie for just one studio, I would imagine they simply could not fit a movie like Ocean's 8 in, would not be surprised if that franchise would mean little there. Like I said if you do not achieve to qualify for the revenues sharing program you can have a buyer that you can sell to for a local distributor for a fixed fee, but those are really small amount and not a practice studio want to encourage, specially not for a small-mid budget franchise movie like this.

Mind blown gif.

This is true. But like you said our language is not just fully adapted to this franchise world, in Star Wars term there is destruction of value of the brand that can happen, there is huge opportunity cost vs a different scenario to such an high level. A bit like a movie called original or not, some of the box office vocabulary is not yet fully adapt to this current heavy franchise world.

It is true looking at that weekend multi: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/md.htm?page=MEMOPEN&sort=date&order=DESC&p=.htm Not good, but lot of tired / not that well received movie in that list lately, and Star Wars tend to be leggy for a franchise. Still realistic to not expect a great multiplier here. Little points here. JL made more than that JL did more but was China heavy, not saying Disney is getting a 65% on Solo like those Awaken/Last Jedi type of deal but it is still probably getting really nice retention deal and play mostly in good revenues by box office dollar market. 600m on a Solo making 290/310, would probably be close to 285m in rental about the same has a Justice League was probably around 280-285m with a budget less than these reports we're getting for Solo's Curious what the sources are of that ?, after JL production issues the number I have seen and that i have seen by those estimating it lost money was about a net 300m production budget and a 350m production + bonus budget. Solo does not have Affleck level of actor, except for writing/director and producer it probably is quite light bonus wise in comparison. I feel like what is reported is a Solo is smaller specially when accounting participation bonus to JL. and we know WB took a loss. I am a bit curious, how would we know this ? It is probable but I am not sure it is known, they were no reporting that Sony took a lost on Men In Black 3 or Angel&Demons back in the days and many perceived financially loosing movie ended up not to be. We do not know that much, specially if you talk about an individual investor on a movie like WB and not the movie in is totality. Distributor are often the last one in the list of people taking the loss if one occur, paying themselve first. Make this mental exercise, if a movie released today would to make what Amazing Spider Man 2 just did. Net production cost of : 263.95m (over 300m gross budget) Talent got in bonus: 44.25m World theatrical release budget of: 191.79m So a 500m production/bonus + releasing cost on a 709m WW domestic light box office. It made 307.82m in rental from it's 709m box office the way the market breakdown/retention rate played (37-38%), not much more than a 600m domestic heavy Solo would do. And underperformed on home video, not being very well like. Reading that, would you have thought Sony took a loss considering it does not has access to merchandising revenues on SpiderMan ?

I just fund new older data about movies going back to 2004, so I will have 2004 to 2006 Sony output numbers soon and will search for even older one. Some possibly interesting one Resident Evil apocalypse, they made 201.5m in revenues on that one, 58m in profit. Around 2004-2006 time it was around the average to have a movie revenues be 170% of it's world box office. HellBoy 1: 13m in profits, 203.5m in revenues Spider Man 2: 1089m in revenues, 280m in profits (for a movie total cost of 800 millions !, Spider Man 2 world theatrical release had a budget of 240m , it's home ent release did cost over 175m, it's net direct production budget was of 237.487m) In 2018 dollar that a total cost of over 1 billion, a 315.85m net (not gross net) budget with a 550m worldwide release including home video, that put the panic over a 250m Solo or 300m BvS into perspective.

It achieved an over 300m opening too. It probably was perceived has a good weekend in many important market.

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bomb In the motion picture industry, a "box office bomb" or "box office flop" is a film that is considered highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, often following significant hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts.[1][2] Generally, any film for which the production and marketing costs exceed the combined revenue recovered after release is considered to have "bombed" And The Witch didn't underperform it did 10+ times it's budget for a movie speaking old english. What is The Witch ROI you think and what ROI would it have not under performed according to you ? Remove the horror genre aspect to that release and I really doubt you would be talking about a 40m+ box office movie on a 4m budget has a flop, was The Gift a big disappointment (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blumhousejuly2015.htm), if The Witch was a flop I would imagine you think that it is the case.

I do not think anyone would argue with you that it is relevant to talk films before the Internet box office, but there is never (for people not actively financing them or otherwise) any relevance to any of this. It is obviously a 100% irrelevant conversation to engage into a Lebron vs Jordan debate, Ali vs Tyson or the most successful movie of all time, but useless conversation of stuff we should not talk about is this website very goal. This a website dedicated to the box office talk, like website dedicated into sports will spend a large time into the completely useless talk of trying to rank athlete of all era between them and rank team of different era between them, a website dedicated to the box office will engage in useless mental game of ranking box office performance of all time, not thinking that it has any relevance to talk about it (to say try to make a prediction model when trying to make money predicting box office). If you mean by that, only comparable from the last 2-3 year's should be brought when trying to predict Ant Man 2 performance, that the rest is irrelevant, well for sure but no one bring old movies into those conversation (except for maybe the Avatar bunch).

Extremely commercial high concept horror with good reviews and MCU entry are becoming hard to get surprised by them, but still BP OW was quite something. Some: RPO China performance (a bit in the other direction pacific rim in China). Sony Peter Rabbit is #3 of the year in the UK and is getting over 335m

How can talking about the history of box office would exclude a movie like Gone With the Wind ? One of the biggest moment in box office history. Depend what you mean by relevant here ? What can ever be the goal of a conversation were Gone With the Wind will be brought up, I would imagine that conversation is playing a 100% useless game of trying to determine: What would be what is the most successful movie of all time ? What is the most loved movie of all time ? What is the most impressive performance or biggest box office of all time ? For all those conversation, Gone with the wind seem 100% relevant here, what kind of conversation you ever hear Gone With the Wind being brought up you feel was not relevant ? If you mean by there one should not use Gone With the Wind opening weekend, pre-sales, multiplier legs, re-release, etc... to try to make a prediction model about how a 2018 release will play out, well you are obviously right, but no one ever do that.

That a very strange statement. How is Titanic box office 20 year's ago relevant for example ? Those conversation tend to have no relevance at all (no decision by anyone is made on them). A bit like saying Babe Ruth should never be brought up when talking about baseball history or Eddy Shore when talking hockey.... The movie you are talking about is still the most common favorite movie of all time by american adults in 2014, is still watched all the time including in theater.

It is hard to imagine how it would play today, even if we do not take into account the ultra feminist aspect of the movie mixed by could you imagine the think piece about downplaying slavery, specially if you time the release with a confederate statue going down.... But releasing a movie that epic, that incredibly good, but 4 hours ? Not sure how much of a problem it would be once it became a must see if it does people bing watch longer series in a setting the Lords of the rings were quite long and so on, but otherwise could be an issue, does not fit on a IMAX type 70mm projector for example.