Barnack

Seem to have been around that mark, if not a bit cheaper: https://deadline.com/2023/11/box-office-hunger-games-songbirds-and-snakes-1235616095/ Not necessarily, and at a $100M-plus production cost, 65% of which is funded by foreign sales, with another $20M+ in German tax credits, the Lionsgate Francis Lawrence-directed movie is structured completely differently financially than the $200M The Marvels.

Does that describe 2023 that well ? There is 2 movie above 500 millions on 117 wide release of 1600 theater or more In 2019 there was 2 movies above 500 millions all year, all the talk and people checking was on the premise that 2023 was really top heavy.

I have not that feeling at all. On launch, it was considered a game changing masterpiece, maybe the best action movie of all time, got nominated for 10 Academy Awards won 7 of them. It is hard to grow from there, it did maintain its spot on the They shoot pictures don't they list so I do not think it went down.

Was it even a little bit necessary to watch shows, usually studio spend a lot of thought to reduce that kind of resistance to a maximum, specially with production of those budget.

That cast can turn the charm and some does not even seem to have to,

Liongates movies are heavily market pre-sold, their concept of WW bo break-even point could be quite fuzzy or at least for who ? For Liongates that could be a 40m movie with Uk-Domestic and couple of others market and one co-financed. Why 250m for something domestic heavy ?

2019-2013 have thanksgiving + december to help a bit here, to date I imagine number 50 in 2019 would have looked closer to 45 millions dbo, Midway for example finished this weekend at 43m. This was already pretty much saying the same 2023 $7,892,109,288 - +22.4% +138.4% +293.4% -18.3% -24.1% 2022 $6,446,004,999 -18.3% - +94.7% +221.3% -33.3% -38% 2021 $3,310,553,920 -58% -48.6% - +65% -65.7% -68.2% 2020 $2,006,236,345 -74.6% -68.9% -39.4% - -79.2% -80.7% 2019 $9,659,822,644 +22.4% +49.9% +191.8% +381.5% - -7.1% Despite 3-4 years of aggressive inflation, only 80% of what it was in nominal term (and 2019 was a down year)

Easy to overblow the industry difference, but The dvd bubble suddenly popping and loosing 56-57% of its income in just 2-3 years combined with the financial crisis changed risk management-spending quite a bit. There always a bit of a delay between market change and what get out because of the time it take to make movie, but what was greenlight in 2009 and certainly by 2010 would have seen the shift. the amount of liberty Peter Weir had on Master and Commander the amount of resource to make a movie like Fun with Dick and Jane, little movie like Dwayne Johnson Gridiron Gang turning a small profit for the studio doing 41m at the world box office on a 30m budget (or Batman Begins being a printing money machine doing 350m on a near 200m budget), that was all over. You want to control cost and feel if you push them in pre-post production cutting down on the number of main photography day you will have more control, movie that could have had 100 days in the 70s-80s went down to 80 than 60, etc....

I think Doctor Strange is one that do not necessarily fit the narrative, it had a 187 millions OW, multiverse in the name, post Endgame TV show angle I think with Scarlett Witch and what not. Probably boosted by how little competition there was and some movie are back energy after Spider-Man, but that classic MCU-connected affair doing almost 1 billion in 2022. Would strange,-Thor, ant-man were close to Guardian 3 reception and maybe the whole current conversation is different.

Yes watching tv always been (well outside some cable option) cheaper than movies even renting a vhs movie always been cheaper than going to the movies (specially if mentally not all the cost are being amortized). By cheaper it is relative to all going out of the house options that movie has been and is still cheaper, there 12inch subways sub that cost more than movies tickets. Competition is bigger-better, free by the air tv was much cheaper than YouTube via broadband internet, just less addictive.

That has been true for a while too and considering how restaurant inflation, sport ticket, concert ticket and the other close equivalent it is still a very popular for the mass option and maybe feel cheaper than ever in some way. Many subways 12 inch cost more than many movie tickets now.

Those are often not exactly true Hollywood legend and it tend to be more ruthless than this, they made creative contract with talents and do not need to even claim they were not profitable and usually never share their contract details. That not how people that signed their contract will tend to tell the story, the Forest Gump one has been honest about it, studio never claimed Forest Gump did not made a fortune (Hanks and other veteran on that movie bank account will be clear about that), he signed a contract that explicitly give him points on the producers large slate of movies points, not on Forest Gump. Bref, people without strong representation and no previous success usually sign stuff that make it possible to not pay them without having to make stories about the movies not being profitable up, contract never gave point on profits to start with always a net gross as defined in its term, which become in interview simplified as anyone saying that a movie made no profit, which they never do. if you access only 20% on home video on your contract and that Will Smith-Spielberg gross participation count in the cost of the movie, that there is a 30% distribution fees even if all the distribution expense are counted, the studio is not telling you the movie was not profitable when it is telling you the agreed formula to calculate net proceed amount to 0. Sometime small movie sell most market in advance, when they turn huge a lot of people wonder why the profit are so low.

Which historically help not hurt the cheapest entertainment option, like going to the movie theaters (Avatar box office was during the financial crisis). Giant TV have been cheap for a very long time now, I am not sure if this is a new variable. I too am a bit suspect of the discourse around VG adaptation, one of the biggest franchises just got a 98% audience score on RT just released and it did not reach 45m domestic. Uncharted was already a movie trope made into a game like Tomb Raider, did really well but nothing special, less obvious to adapt stuff into movies like Warcraft big nothing outside China, Minecraft does not seem like a sure thing at all. I am sure a billion dollar was thrown around when Pokemon Detective Pikachu was announced during the Pokemon Go mania and got Deadpool to do the voice... Monster Hunter did not work, last Mortal kombat didn't. China market aside, it is easy to overblow how much box office changed for the non top of the food chain affair: The Equalizer franchise 2014: 101m / 185m WW 2018: 102m / 190m WW 2023: 92m / 193m WW Creed: 2015: 109m / 173m WW 2018: 115m / 213m WW 2023: 156m / 274m WW John Wick 2014: 43m / 88m WW 2017: 92m / 171m WW 2019: 171m / 326m WW 2023: 187m / 432m WW Guardian of the Galaxy, excluding China 2014: 685m 2017: 769.8m 2023: 758.6m AntMan, excluding China 2015: 413 2017: 503 2023: 424 Mission Impossible, excluding China 2015: 562 2018: 606 2023: 519 All those change (positive or negative) seem like they could have happened in the 2019 world.

Still Hunger games-Potters-Percy Jackson I guess.... https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/28?ref_=Oct_d_obs_S&pd_rd_w=rW8AX&content-id=amzn1.sym.64a9023b-57cb-4cca-be91-e6361229d063&pf_rd_p=64a9023b-57cb-4cca-be91-e6361229d063&pf_rd_r=9CMGYYTR8E71E315JYDJ&pd_rd_wg=JQkbQ&pd_rd_r=ae8927d6-7ec8-48d5-b77d-fac14e38e7c1

Youth Book reading in generals I would imagine Big drop in reading has social media start to pick-up among them around 2013, would have probably been sooner without the Lords of Rings and specially Potter phenomenon. Hunger Games without a Hunger Games is a harder sale (and you cannot do the games 3 movies in a row either) and those high concept affair are almost always better in a barely explain world that are just a metaphor for a real one, would it be the cube or something else. Do again the director change to have one that have time to do the movie, a single one, etc... if it is really good maybe it match Catching Fire but that already exceptional. The first Potter was probably the biggest one of the whole franchise, but even without taking inflation into account not every Potter movie opened bigger than the one before, maybe you meant the first Lords of the Rings ?

Casting a white actor (Pedro Pascal) could also played a role here.

Maybe I am a very audience with trailers with song a like, but I envoyed it quite a bit. Long time tv First time movie director, but Sony spider-man universe has been more good than bads for what they try to do, obviously the animated reaching more superbe high than live action, Lorenzo and other really big names producing. Assuming Rothman keeping price down was applied here.

I am not sure what could be the closest comparable, maybe Fantastic Beast give some idea, it kept the budget closer, just 5 years after the last movie instead of 8, finished on an high note instead of a low note and a franchise that is more like Star Wars, put himself in stone forever, solid trailers and reviews. Opening weekend of Fantastic Beast was 43% of the last Potter movie, which I would imagine Liongates would have jump on that deal. 43% of the last HG opening would be around 44m a la Marvels, going over that would go into the not bad category. Liongates seem to have kept their habbit to going low risk and pre-sales international rights here, the 1-2-3 post theater windows already in place, etc...

That was a mix of giant streaming content war money project with Weinstein getting cancelled with metoo and Covid, not because Joy did only $100 millions. Is why the director that made 129 millions with half the budget the studio expected on the Fighter, 236 millions on SLP, 257 millions on American Hustle, Joy doing 101 millions, could keep doing movies after that ? A serious question ? If true, director would 2 flop would not exist and their single flop would be their last one, that not really the case. If we just look at movies currently playing you will see director with flop on their resume, Antoine Fuqua not woriking after King Arthur failure would be been quite the lost, Alexander Payne after Downsizing failure, obviously Scorsese, Coppola after Marie Antoinette, Chappie was not really a hit (too weak domestic). Eli Roth has been hit and miss (single hits could pay for a lot of those miss). I imagine Slumberland was maybe quite the misfired (Netflix make things not obvious, but considering it is a 150millions project that I do not know about...), Francis Lawrence with his track record (both at the box office but also putting movie in the can without story and problems) will still find work.

There also just the average review creeping up agnostic of the movie themselve, everything is rated much higher now versus 2000 As for the Academy I understand why we would speculate this, but it is not like a Gladiator level movie was released in the 10 last years and did not do well. "Dad" movies still do really strong, Dunkirk was not as accessible and did not had that role of a lifetime matching perfectly the actor, sfx revolution going for it as much. Maybe Gladiator win more today (director and Phoenix for example)

Rewatched it a couple of months ago for the first time in a while, it is aging incredibly well, the CGI are in that perfect spot of the late 1990s early 00s like Titanic, first Lords of the Rings the mountain Troll aside, where the filmmakers assume their big limitation.

This either AI is not really a big factor Or Ai is a big deal and if studios are not free to use it they will loose to the world competition that can freely use it and deal to secure studio revenues by labors will not mean much. It is not an easy dance. And not necessarily the tech company that use AI, those would be tool easy to use by creative studio, small one from all around the world, it could turn over a long enough window filmmaking-videogame making into something not that dissimilar to bookwriting in how much open it is to everyone that want to do it, no more you need to be a giant corporation or state to make movies affair.

How can that be possible maybe I am misreading, but it seem they wanted to put incentive on making TV shows that reach giant audience (20%), showing that they obviously want more popular product. The money they will directly receive will be more than enough for them to try to make more popular streaming shows.

Their website is called sonypictures https://www.sonypictures.com/movies vs https://www.universalpictures.com/movies On that big of a movie, Sony Picture /Rothman will be involved

Big names will usually have a minimum of theater release written in the contract, but in the real world enforcing them is quite the ordeal (see Black Widow release)