Barnack

Very international title and youtube is a bit of an international metric, that movie still opened close to 100m ww minus China and went over 300m WW minus China, not bad at all for a movie with a first trailer with 40m and a second trailer down to 13M views (or I am missing something ?).

You are right I think: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2991785?hl=en https://www.quora.com/If-one-person-watches-the-same-YouTube-video-twice-does-it-count-it-as-one-or-two-views It is just if it detect you are a machine (by watching a trailer over 300 times for example) that it will stop counting them.

It made 64 times it's budget at the box office, it opened very well with this low amount of tv ads: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7eal/unfriended-movie-trailer 1) Are we really cherry picking example on a message board called box office theory ? we should be way above that, we should be talking about a large sample set and look what is going on. 2) Unfriended did extremely well at the box office

He probably is, but that is true for all of them. I am not sure why having such an open non-data conversation about a subject like that at all, people can take 200 movies look the R2, if it give result without even having to do any work to just compare apple to apple (genre, mpaa rating, release date, theater count, views in general or just 4 weeks before release) it make it obvious that it is an interesting metric, if the R2 is below .5, than it need work to look if there is something there. I mean there is a extremelly strong correlation between views and OW, the biggest I have ever seen in public data, and people are talking about Rotten tomatoes on this site when predicting when it never shown statistically to be a factor of OW (really low R2 and it require work to not have one of about 0).

Is that true, did you really find out it balance out to a correlation of zero ? I always have really impressive result everytime I tried to look between a link between youtube views and box office. Unfriended was giant success that made like 64 time it's budget with a low P&A and extremely frontloadded, not sure how it discount the predictive value of trailer views.

Why do you say that, every study I ever saw show a strong link and ability to predict OW with them. Looking at this: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/owyoutuberatios.html Excel give me a correlation factor between views and OW of 0.84 (that is really high with doing 0 work for genre, release date, theater count nothing, other platform views, etc... while it require a lot of work to not have one near 0 with Rotten tomatoes score for example) I am sure someone that has the views breakdown by market score the emotions (with like/unlike, twitter, comments), use genre/theater count/budget in is model that use youtube views would have a good track record to use trailers views to measure box office potential.

Youtube will count multiple views from the same IP adress as one I think, for non logged account with different machine/ip I imagine it is impossible for them to know. Edit: http://www.replayscience.com/blog/understanding-youtubes-view-count-policy/ Apparently it is just after a large amount of views from the same machine that it stop counting them to avoid manipulation.

Not sure what does that even mean for a virtual entity like a movie to have pressure, what happen to the movie if it open at 195m vs what happen if it does 208m ? Part 2 is already shot anyway no ?

Not sure about that it is an adaptation of one of the biggest book phenomenon in a quite reviews resistant family movie genre. In that genre monster call, The BFG, Kubo and the 2 strings, Pete Dragoon etc.. got good to excellent reviews and didn't do so well, Miss peregrine did much better with worst reviews. Trailers/ads are really important. How much the giant fanbase of all age will show up/marketing is probably more important factor than critics.

This is the expense for the project that are qualified for a tax credit by the state of California, not the total production budget. It include usually most of the bottom the line expense like crew salary spent in California and fx works, but usually none of the above the line salary, cast, producer, director, script, movie right, etc... You can see here the list of expense that do not go into that number: http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Yr-2-5-Alphabetized-Chart-of-Accounts.pdf The NQ ones. It can be a good estimate for movies that shoot only or mostly in California but you still need to add the above the lines. California only consider the first 100m or so of expense for tax credit, so movie with a number close to that maybe spend a bit in other jurisdiction also, but they must shoot 75+% of their days in CA or spend 75+% in the state. Yeah the 22m number is the expected tax credit I think, cannot be sold, transferred or reimbursed here, but I imagine studio can usually use them directly and 100% of them in that state, they have 5 year's to use them.

Have you ever seen it on the big sound at least ? That movie is quite the sound experiment and large part of the experience, not just Zimmer but what Nolan did with the sound design is quite bold, maybe my favorite aspect on that one.

The decision is much more to sell those market than caring once it is sold what the buyers do in those market I would imagine, having no impact on them (Paramount like most non Disney studio very often sell or pre-sells a long list of market to finance the movie production). This time instead of having their movie bought by theatrical distributor (like for Suburbicon) it was bought by Netflix, I would imagine if exhibitor/distributor would have offered the same as Netflix they would have sold it to them. The decision to reduce risk (or even just access cash flow for a studio going as badly and loosing money the last 2 year's has Paramount) by selling some market for a movie like this make a lot of sense to me.

One little trick to have some clue 1) Look at where it is shot: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2935510/locations?ref_=ttrel_ql_5 If it is New York, Louisiana, California it is possible to have some good idea 2) In this case it is a California movie http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2.0-Website-Approved-Projects-List-Online-12.11.17.pdf 2016-2017 Ad Astra Lima Project Films Feature Film Indie 60 1252 272 99 $ 49,751,000 $ 2,500,000 50 million below the line accepted cost in California, so probably a 65m to 90m type of movie. Has for an expensive cast, except Pitt look pretty on the low cost no ? Lee Jones can make a fortune in a Men In Black but outside of those , I doubt Sutherland is that expensive.

It is quite bigger than a $70M movie more in the $125M+ range, they are spending in California qualified cost alone $102.5M

Some "bad buzz" around that movie like Roussey talking part of the movie having been cut to be more fair to her ability according to the producers and upped Wahlberg one (I guess the producer thought she would have been a bigger deal at the time of the release UFC wise), not that the rework cannot have worked, it is a high profile director after all that turned really good movies with Wahlbergs. But they are such the same R-rated action movie audience and one is a sequel and has Denzel. You can have 12 strongs / Den of Thieves aiming at 12-15m OW cutting audience between them, but Equalizer 1 was a really big 34m OW movie and 22 miles being a Berg/Wahlberg that went on location must be a good budget, quite the different competition.

The male lead is a very very big deal too (in that movie budget range), that make a solid base for a movie like that. He made 100m with this small 5m non studio movie recently: 62m with how to be a latin lover.... It does sound like a very safe movie, that could turn a profit from the Mexican market alone.

That is quite common for comedians outside Jim Carrey, Murphy and Sandler to play bigger in the USA than the rest of the world combined http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=sethrogen.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=zachgalifianakis.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=willferrell.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=stevecarell.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=kevinjames.htm Specific comedy does not travel that well usually and the actor presence if dubbed become useless.

What color is Gal Gadot ?.... Has for talk about Schumer not being pretty, it is true since when does woman with that kind of breast are not considered pretty by society ? What happened to what was the one consensus ? Has for casting someone else I do not know, it is really common and fun to see hot woman just not the hottest around like Tina Fey/Schumer make fun of their appearance in a comedy, to cast a real ugly person it could go dark and unpleasant.

Box office pro has really high prediction for it too and the trailer views are impressive. http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/trailerviews.html 3/2/2018 Death Wish $13,500,000 NEW $34,000,000 NEW Annapurna / MGM Top 5 trailer on youtube has like 18m views: https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAM%3D&search_query=death+wish+trailer

If I understand correctly you give 100 to the region that is most interested relative to is Internet presence size and you go down, 50 is a country that is internet activity "by capita" is half the US. It is the average level of interest on google of the last 5 year's. If you click the little ? sign google gave the explanation: See in which location your term was most popular during the specified time frame. Values are calculated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the location with the most popularity as a fraction of total searches in that location, a value of 50 indicates a location which is half as popular. A value of 0 indicates a location where there was not enough data for this term. Note: A higher value means a higher proportion of all queries, not a higher absolute query count. So a tiny country where 80% of the queries are for "bananas" will get twice the score of a giant country where only 40% of the queries are for "bananas".

So many movies making $0 domestic, less than 1 million WW or never made in that filmography since Sin City 2. 7/21/2017 First Kill $0 $73,707 $73,707 6/6/2017 Once Upon a Time in Venice Steve $0 $259,108 $259,108 12/31/2016 Wake $0 $0 $0 12/31/2016 Magic City $0 $0 $0 12/31/2016 Untitled Bruce Willis Action Comedy $0 $0 $0 7/1/2016 Marauders Hubert $0 $920,156 $920,156 4/22/2016 Precious Cargo Eddie $0 $575,822 $575,822 12/18/2015 Extraction Leonard $16,775 $959,051 $975,826 10/23/2015 Rock the Kasbah Bombay Brian $3,020,665 $336,605 $3,357,270 1/16/2015 Vice Julian $0 $1,467 $1,467 8/22/2014 The Prince Omar $0 $0 $0

I think some mistake here is to thing movies are about stories, story can be told for free on a short wikipedia page, there is no need to take year's telling a story, we do not like The Big Lebowski because of is story (I guess many people do not remember what the story is one weak after seeing and loving the movie) and it is not a big deal that you take it's beloved character, dialogue, interaction out and that the movie fell apart, is Tree of Life so good because of it's photography, special effects and use of music, would it exploration of what it mean to exist in this universe still interesting without that elite craft level ? Those are fun question and game to play, but the only goal of a movie is to have a nice subjective experience by a certain amount of people and there is no easy to achieve that to a discernible audience, if the music in the art piece is necessary, is seeing it in theater with a crowd is necessary, if having seen the previous movie of the entry is necessary, whatever that.... it is what the artist created.... Remove the visual of MadMax or The Raid ....

Not sure about that equivalent: Look at the google trend interest by country: For the book: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 5-y&q=%2Fm%2F02q83r For the movie: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11c5h3v9j3 For Oprah: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-02-05T12\:00\:00 2018-02-08T23\:15\:00&q=%2Fm%2F0grwj https://www.the-numbers.com/person/153520401-Oprah-Winfrey#tab=acting It does seem like it would be domestic heavy for the genre this one, if it is meh domestic and what is the book/cast most natural market, I imagine it will be meh everywhere. I think it could be possible for it to do 160m dbo and still not go much more over 200intl for example. Compare to Tomorrowland: https://trends.google.com.sg/trends/explore?date=today 5-y&q=%2Fm%2F0gywk0k Was much bigger in Europe/Russia than US

Illusion created by what get exported.

Around the same time yes, could not find any talk of sequels for both case but Robocop was a bit more a MGM entity than Sony and Sony didn't had that high hope for it, it was greenlight with them making 12.2m in mind vs 53m for The Equalizer.