Barnack

Often, specially outside comedy, drawing power tend to show a bit more overseas than in the US, where American movies have to compete with local and all around the world movies and a star help make it separate itself. The difference between American Made having a a-list lead actor with a movie like War Dog not having one will express itself much more oversea than in the US. The reason Suicide Squad did more than most Superheroes movie in a market like Japan is probably in good part having Smith in it. Brazil&Mexico are 2 of the best Will Smith Market (both is awareness and popularity among aware metric in those market are in the best there is), Suicide Squad did really really well there also. I guess this is pretty much the only very imperfect way to try to evaluate someone drawing power, did the movie do specially good in their best market vs market where they are weaker.

Make you wonder if they were not put into a corner, if they make realistic animals then it become a direct copy.

Well that sound very trivial, does not really require a insider talking to a journalist to imagine people thought that, specially with BvS multiplier.... LA Times reporting is: Additionally, the studio has endured heavy criticism for its creative stewardship of its key DC Comics franchise, facing dismal reviews for this year's "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" and "Suicide Squad." Both were considered financially successful, grossing $1.6 billion combined. However, the studio likely would have made more money from the superhero epics if the quality had been higher, said a person close to the company not authorized to comment. When you are trying to build a Marvel like decade long success story movie universe, the quality output failure is a big enough reason to loose your job, because chance are that it will lead to Justice League / Transformer 5 type of box office direction instead of Marvel Phase 3 box office direction. People at the studio thinking that it would have been likely the movies would have made more would have they been better is not really indicative of anything.

They did had some special case were they used knowledge specific for a movie instead of a general rules. For example for the hunger games movies they used at the best of their knowledge the international market pre-sales instead of using a % of the oversea box office, on the Amazing Spider Man 1-2 they used the knowledge that sony didn't had access to merchandise but that they got around 25m from Marvel: http://deadline.com/2015/03/amazing-spider-man-2-profit-box-office-2014-1201389608/ But it is not systematic, specially recently, at the time they did seem to put more effort into it. Has for Men of Steel there was a lot of Internet talk about product placement paying for all or most of it, being profitable before release, etc.... I think there is a reason that this type of talk never occurred for other movies after that (even for the giant product placement affair a la Bond/Marvel/Minions), it was probably quite false and people mistaken product placement for marketing budget deal with actual money transfer, it can be 10 marketing dollar for actual dollar if they even occur according to the leaked Sony product placement deal on a James Bond movie. On the Bond movie, product placement help those budget down, but they can still go over 200m net after rebates, help them being just 220m instead of 240m.

Loosing nearly half it's theater + coming from an inflated mother day weekend last week (only -24% drop) would give an harsh drop.

If you ever binge watch the Potters movie, the color disappearing will even be evident on the logos at the beginning: I will imagine chance are average/good I will prefer this one, really not a fan of Favreau output. Must be challenging, not using the Jungle Book name, so close that wondering if people will think it is a re-release / special home video release ads of the recent Disney one must be a real ordeal.

I imagine you are probably just trolling at this point, but under your evaluation how many millions does those movies lost ? For example those movies made money and got sequels greenlight: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beforesunrise.htm Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $5,535,405 100.0% + Foreign: n/a 0.0% = Worldwide: $5,535,405 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beforesunset.htm Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $5,820,649 36.4% + Foreign: $10,171,966 63.6% = Worldwide: $15,992,615 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beforemidnight.htm Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $8,114,627 72.6% + Foreign: $3,061,842 27.4% = Worldwide: $11,176,469 Before Midnight with is 3million dollar budget and a 10.5m marketing + prints cost made a small profit for Sony Classic: Before Midnight revenues: Domestic theatrical: 2.862m (just 35% retention unlike regular studio release or more popular genre like horror can get) Intl theatrical: 0.396m Domestic home ent: 5.903m Domestic PPV: 0.629m Intl home ent: 0.496m intl home ent ppv: 0.081m domestic pay tv: 2.01m domestic free tv: 0.6m Intl tv: 1.7m Airlines & soundtrack: 0.15m other: 0.34m Total revenues: 15.167m Expense Net production: 3m participation: 0.1m residual: 0.4m Marketings: 9.141m prints&Others: 1.01m manufacturing: 1.154m Total expenses: 14.805m Profit: around 362k Why movies with similar production budget more than doubling that box office performance (and almost quadrupling for The Witch) would loose money ?

This is a bit nuts, lot of those example are studio release with giant marketing budget, The Witch and IT Follows didn't flop at all, they were even successful.

That what happen when fatigue narrative get away.

Not sure to follow you here, who talked about movie profitability ? I think there is a misunderstanding here.

It is extremely rare for a movie to get close from breaking even with a theatrical run alone. There is a bit of a litigation on how much that movie cost, but it seem to have been quite higher than is 157m planned budget (final net cost after rebate) If it made 154*.53+224.8*.4 = 171.5m in rental with a 100m WW P&A, you are still 80m+ in the red, depending of the actual cost overrun if you consider overhead, participation bonus and so on, more than 100m in the red. A movie like Guardian of the Galaxy 2 is lucky to break even in its theatrical run if that happened (according to deadline estimate it did miss that mark, rental of 383m not fully covering a 200m production, 163m WW P&A, 28.5m interest and overhead without counting participation bonus): http://deadline.com/2018/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-box-office-profit-2017-1202346285/ Not something "normals" movies have a chance to do.

And if you remove the China market from them, how many is left ?

Does it not make it worst competition wise for family audience ? Not sure how it help that much that it is a fellow Disney title.

Last Jedi did 28m OW, 20m would still be a near 30% drop. Star wars china OW trajectory 52->30->28->20 if 20 happen.

That does not look like you usual Star Wars pre-sales non sense, right ? The R1 comp above, seem to confirm that.

Not sure about that, it is hard for comedies for sure, but with Internet and Netflix we have many example of recent growth from home media success, Guardian of the Galaxy/John Wick just did it, Pitch Perfect just before that, Jump Street..... There is a bit of destruction in revenues from a shift from buying DVD units to a cheap Netflix account, but in term of volume I am not sure if there was much of a decline and 2017 was bigger than 2016 in the US home ent (for the first time in a while) decline seem over. It was always difficult to see a substantial increase from a big predecessor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_sequels_by_box-office_improvement 2017/2016 were not bad year's at all for those, home video era wise.

Expect a around 60% to become common. Sully: 57% was over 50. Woman in Gold was 82% Jack Reacher 2, Taken 3, A Walk AMong tombstone, had an over 50% audience aged over 50 year's old.

A bit could be world market shifting what uber expensive can be for movies that can play in China and everywhere ? At a certain time uber expensive was 100-150m, now that mid-budget affair with the uber expensive way above 300m. Other factor could be how much money there is in the kids toys and other stuff market, that make it more logical to spend a lot on movies that give access to that ? Final factor is how much adult now like movie that also appeal or even directly made for kids, you do not loose much audience with a pixar, marvel, star wars movie and you get to sell pyjamas to 6 year's old that loved them. Not sure what you mean by still ? It is an early/mid 2000 very new phenomenom, the Matrix were R not so long ago. Before the early 2000 franchise push (X-men, spdierman, Potters, Lords of the Rings, Pirates, etc...) R rated movies were the biggest box office rating in term of market share: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings With a 40% market share, it is new they are seen as risky over a certain budget I think. And it is comming back, audience being older and older and the big teenage group going to theater together era did dye down quite a bit, go family or you can go R now it seem like.

Looking at those preview/od ratio: http://www.boxofficereport.com/previewgrosses.html Does not seem to be very telling, if at all. For one it is a lot a measuring of the hype much more than the legs, Force Awakens has arguably the best blockbuster legs since Avatar, it's preview were almost 50% of the opening day. I know that now Word of mouth is much faster than in the past and does not require monday at work/school to start to kick in, will affect even the opening weekend now. But the Friday ? OD/PG ratio Suicide Squad: 3.166 Civil War: 3.02 Black Panther: 3.014 BvS: 2.944 Civil War/Suicide Squad had a better OD relative to the previews than Black Panther...... virtually the same for BvS It is a lot a hype measurement and a lot does it play for a night audience vs a day audience measurement also, DP 2 had a lot of both those factor.

Quite far from the magic of the first one imo, too much convoluted story with a lot of it (if not all ?) just useless you know there will be a everything back to normal bbq moment a la Simpson even if they try very hard to invent/sell some stake. Lot of strongest element of the first movie are just underused here, and the movie accuse it with the staring someone that does not like sharing the spotlight, did seem a bit true. Always liked Reynold voice / voice acting and again he is really good in this, some of the jokes were really just saying reference without a comedic element to them, people in the crowd laugh to show they get them but many felt flat. Lot of money here, lot of action/location, I think that did hurt the movie quite a bit for me, they were not that good and usually pointless fight involving 2 invincible being clearly loosing their time. The being lucky action sequence being a nice original moments too. The bad guys were just ridiculously way too much bad guys and boring (maybe that the parody of the genre and the point ?). The movie high were really high, the legs, when the taxi driver guy was there, the generic, the credit sequence, some lines (isn't that Canada ?), but it was a difficult flow storywise, felt overlong, lot of the exposition was incredibly lazy, lot of the movie was incredibly lazy, like if it was reworked a lot and filled with really cheap to do narration to fill the gap.

Deadline do not include all ancillaries since around the year 2015 in their profits estimate, maybe the industry became too franchise heavy so to give some chance they stopped include merchandises sales, also I would imagine some franchise output so many movie that it became hard to amortize the side business among them. http://deadline.com/2017/03/batman-v-superman-box-office-profit-2016-1202049201/ But yeah 105m in profit was their estimate, excluding any impact on the toys, games, tv series and so on impact if it had one (that would be more the movie year's of hype than the actual movie).

Well probably, but 300+ would not particularly big for a movie like that if you include world releasing cost, that Total Recall remake cost adjusted in 2018 dollar, that is much cheaper than a movie like Hancock ($334m in 2008, around $388m in today $).

Yup that big jump was fully on is own first movie home video giant success.

Not for a lot of people, crowd laughing can make stuff much more funny, what is funny bar get lower with a crowd often. Comedy is a genre that get a lot of advantage from a theater experience, but you need a crowded room. Same goes for jump scare horror, watching a movie like IT in a near 100% full theater is a different experience than at home.

Reshoot (and I suspect even if they are bigger than expected with that type of cast) does not necessarily add that much to the cost, a lot of the cost (lot of the above the line, post production, set construction, and so on) will not double even if you reshoot the movie from scrath, some will not even change. The re-shoot on a movie like After Earth for example did cost 3.3 million. MadMax giant massive reshoot + principal photography overrun together with the location issue apparently did cost a bit under 30m: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/04/17/box-office-a-sequel-to-mad-max-fury-road-is-a-huge-risk/#2ca544005f65 Has for a 450m production cost + P&A that would be possible I guess, if they go for a near 200m world giant release. I can imagine that revenues by box office dollar rules are a bit different for a Star Wars movies (and some SH movies as well), they have so many more ways of being moneytized than the rest of the field, but because they make them every year it must become hard to pin point the revenues added from a particular movie. Some of the most expensive Sony movie in term of Production cost + World releasing cost we known about Spider Man 3: 542.98m (656m in today $) Amazing Spider Man: 460m (501.98m today $) Amazing Spider Man 2: 455m (481.54 in today $) Da Vinci Code: 398m (495m in today dollar) 2012: 397.2m (463m) MIB 3 (426m) So Amazing Spider Man 2 is really close to your estimate, but a bit of a bad comparable because Sony didn't had access to merchandising revenues like a Disney do, but if you are interested in the if you do not consider Merch revenues in your break even estimation a really good one. Studio estimated a 9m profit would be made on ASM2 life time, 14m for them with a 5m lost for the other investor, with a 44.25m bonus. If Solo is more a profit participation type of deal with people (and with a lot of people just happy to be in star wars not asking for points) and if Solo box office is near 0 in china (vs 94m for ASM 2) and much more domestic heavy it should break even with a significantly smaller box office total than 708m. ASM 2 took almost 700m to break even because the net budget + talent bonus got over 305m and was 70% intl box office and a disliked movie that performed badly on home video, a Solo even at a 450m prod + WW P&A cost would probably be closer to s 600m GP break, like a 300/305, 605m or something. (well the usual doubling it's budget+creative share rules should easily apply for a SW movie, they are domestic heavy).