Barnack

Or the giant buzz making it reach and overextend is natural audience, if people that do not have seen most of the recent MCU see it, it will show in ratings.

Avengers in 2012 made 1.657billion 2018 dollars. Infinity war spent maybe more I would imagine expending the cast that much, but still many expected Avengers to be the peak, for franchise that popular any form of growth (so above 1.66b) become huge success imo (we are talking about growing over one of the biggest success of all time to put that in proportion). That below 2B is disappointing only in hindsight of it's world opening weekend and early China pre-sales numbers, before those information that was not the case at all.

Both seem to make no sense if it would be a average/weigthed score. Being generous and give a 10 to all the 29.6% 0/10 for Thor and 7.9 for all the 38.9% giving 7/8, it would be around 7.5 weighted score. Must be a percentage of people above a certain passing mark ? Or some scorer are worth more ?

"A fanboy knows a hater,"

Not making any work and not looking at public data for commenting on box office (specially when you have a platform) is a 100% legit blame, make it almost sound worst that misreading the data.

Not sure if 50m is that much for a movies, many actor got giant deal like 20m + 10% gross (to 20m + 30% for Cruise/Arnold best deal), making 50 to 150m on a movie. Not sure how much Will Smith got on a movie like Hancock, but it was 20m or so + is share of the 113m bonus, that was easily over 50m. Tom Hanks on Da Vinci code got 20m + is share of the 130m that went in bonus, probably again easily above 50m. In the case of the Matrix, that type of deal gave Keenu Reeve a rumored 150+m for the 2 sequels. There is many instance of 50 to 100m for a movie rumors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_film_actors

Yep the Isle of Dogs, Love Simon, Greatest Showman studio, Hidden Figures, Miss Peregin/Trolls, Alita Battle Angels studio... Predator's was pretty much always R, not sure why they would change this (specially that movie going audience is less and less under 17)

We are talking about a group EON need (or at least) use many studio like Sony/MGM to finance at lest half of the production and releasing cost here, and they do have participation, but they would not for the actor/director ? Not sure if that is realistic.

I disagree a little bit here (adjusting for ticket inflation is much better than doing nothing) but not necessarily the best way to do an apple to apple comparison. Many big issue with the adjust by ticket price inflation, one being if the ticket would have been cheaper they would have probably sell more of them. Depending of what people tried to calculate, that would be my opinion on how to do it: 1) What movies made the most money, that one is easy adjust by purchasing power, using regular inflation. 2) How popular/successful the movie were, the best apple to apple way to go about it is to compare how much the movies did relative to the blockbuster of their era, this way take into account constant change like inflation and population growth, massive sudden change like TV + urban sprawling of the 50s and smaller change like home video, you take pretty much everything into account using that. Say you look at the top 10 of the 2 year's before the release and after removing that movie, average and std dev and you score how much they did relative to that group, also for the total annual box office. That will give you an idea of the relative size of the phenomenon. That usually what people do to compare athlete in team sport of different era, for sport that statistics changed over time., how much they dominated their contemporary peers is the main variable use. And when you use that metric, it give a chance for all movies of any era a chance to the top, the market share of the first run of Gone With the Wind is really close to Star Wars/E.T./Titanic first run's.

That quite the misleading presentation here. 1) Not sure who came with the take the $100m loss title, but the article linked in the URL does not say that: which means Disney lost between $86 million and $186 million on “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Yahoo Finance has reached out to Disney for comment on the film’s losses.) Disney did not disclose a writedown on “A Wrinkle in Time,” 2) The writer do not know the particular for this movie here, talking about deadline/times estimating cost that vary by 100m. It is like someone posting on this message board. 3) Not sure they know anything in general about the movie business either. Seriously their calculation seem to be : 126.85 million box office * .5 = 63.425 The movie did cost between $150m and $250m in production + P&A So profit would be between 63.45 - 150 = 86.5m lost 63.45 - 250 = 186.55m lost Wow..., talk about not considering the cost of a movie that are not it's production or is theatrical world P&A and is revenues that are not rental push to a new extreme level. That a profit analysis that look at just 35-40% of the revenues but at 72-75% of the expense. Where do they find those people to write about this.....

I could not be certain has for creative share were MGM administration and not discussed much, but According to the sony leaked sensitivities for Bond 24 at 770m worldwide, looking at the movie accounting if they would have been the only player but without merchandising, they would have paid 72m in creative share. On skyfall at 1,106,000 WW they were giving 0) 152.69m. Do not know the breakdown among the writers, producer, actors and so on... but I would be quite surprised if they didn't all get some like pretty much everyone do specially when signing on sequels. Also not sure how we would know more than from what we can find in the leaks, those information tend to be private and unknown, and unlike for production cost much less people know about them, no need to insure them, no need to summit that info in tax credit form and so on. Paying a lot upfront seem cash flow intruisive for little reason (specially for the amount a Craig 100% free agent coming back for more movies should fetch, we are not talking 25-30m here..... much much more than that). And the net budget on those movies does not seem to reflect a specially high in advance no back end type of deal.

Was this ever rumored/metionned, with how much is family affair do versus is R-rated stuff (Baywatch, Pain&Gain) it would have been surprising if they would have not decided to go with a family movie for this, like they did for San Andreas.

In the Sony leaked email, a 5 million cash / 50 million ads for a product placement, I think cellphone (samsung was battling Sony for it), they had to deal with Craig for it. Will try to find it. There it is https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/93796 I will call you Monday morning your time, but here are my thoughts. Legally EON is required to negotiate with us first and is not permitted to take offers from any other party. I believe that the Samsung offer was unsolicited but cannot be certain of this. My understanding is that the electronics company had already had monies budgeted to pay for some sort of fee in the range of $5mm with about $1mm going to Daniel Craig. They also mentioned in some others e-mail that they would have to deal with Craig regarding the cash part of a placement deal in some other e-mail previously. Participation bonus were less prevalent before than now at the beginning of the franchise, when he resigned it would really surprise me if there would be really 0 form of participation bonus.

Good occasion to change the pricing model to some something more sustainable. Offer no movie limit + IMAX while raising the price quite a lot.

Considering he is also getting part of the merchandise money (for what Bond use/wear), that could rack up to a nice amount even before the participation bonus.

In that case it is not just Hollywood too, it was a french production and like many of those non studio movies: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/companycredits It was probably massively pre-sold I would imagine, like Valerian, vastly diminishing the difference for them between a failure and a success. Will tend to have a difference between profit and bonus zone for talent, i.e. for the better it is clearer and they cannot manipulate it to cheat them out of their profits, but CB-0 zone is not == profits (can kick before real profit or after). Probably a case of pre-sales most market with maybe a if it goes over X you end up sharing a part of it. We cannot mix the it was a safe project a la Logan Lucky financed all by pre-sales type of discourse and have a if it breakout it didn't pay enough at the same time.

So little sample size, Well Avatar made 1.34 billion in 2010, no other movies around that time on that list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China Foreign or local... but it tripled the foreign biggest gross of 2009: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/china/yearly/?yr=2009&p=.htm 1 2012 $68,670,540 11/13 2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $65,837,290 6/24 3 Chi bi: Xia - Jue zhan tian xia (Red Cliff: Part II) $38,043,199 1/7 Made about 3x time what the biggest gross of previous year foreign film did, in 2018 that would be a bit over 1 billion I think, but the sample data size seem small around those time.

Wonder if anti-trust wise if it does not make it harder to pass, they did seem to think like it has less chance to pass.

An cash offer would be much more interesting too.

Family audience was still 17% of Avengers (that a 43.35 million OW from family audience, bigger than Rampage total), Marvel are still a bigger competition for family movie than almost everything outside the biggest Disney Animation type of stuff. For a comparison, despicable me 3 a family movie monster opening weekend was 52m family audience box office, 20% higher than Infinity war. Coco 51.83m Boss Baby: 33.63m, 22% less than Avengers.

A movie with that cast that go bought by Image Entertainment and Arrow Film... bad reviews are really surprising. Bold prediction considering that about when we will get a suicide squad 2 no ? That movie was made before Suicide Squad released.

I would have though you woulld have been a more above that franchise war / twitter non sense teenager engage in bunch......

How many of your gang are out there you would think ?

Avengers made 2.42 times it's second weekend in legs, that would push Infinity war at 731.6m if it's second weekend is 115m. Avengers legs were great too and got summer days during the end of it's run.

Appropriate to be proud about multiple movie watching (or anything movie related really) !? Not sure what does that would even mean..... It is normal to be ostensibly want to make other of your clan known that you are on their team and at a high level (look how much pro-sport fans will spend to achieve that), but proud is a strange word to use for anything that you have zero accomplishment in, like movies other people made.