Barnack

I thought the movie indicated quite a bit that Dixon was a closeted gay.

After watching a Kamiński interview on it, I think he did put in words the main issue I had with it, by juggling among 3 theme not related to each other directly they all lost of their punch, all diluting each other. Vietnam scandals and lying about it Press and the fight over the 1st amendment with the White house. The fact the paper was run by a woman in that era. You can dilute the winning against the WH aspect if you split your screen time with being a woman that did it aspect and so on, while Spotlight was more all about the Boston Church scandals and the work to get it out correctly in the paper.

Seem across the board among the family title, Paddington 2 -84%, Coco -80%, ferdinand -85%

That is often true on that sense (Some exception obviously, like Avatar did reach people that didn't agree with it I would imagine, Casablanca was seen by isolationists, etc...) But movie are not about learning things at a rational level and political opinions and even more so actions are not rationally motivated, they need an emotional involvement to push people into actions. If you poll people, almost everyone is for an healthy, good and free press, I imagine but it is not all of them that subscribe to newspaper's and read them to take responsibility to make that happen, that is were a movie can "work". Take for example, everyone that saw that Alan Kurdi photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alan_Kurdi Had already the opinion before seeing it that the refugee crisis was terrible and their country should do some minimal effort to help, rationally seeing that photo changed nothing at all for 99% people (or any figure), emotional involvement to support/put pressure on their government and agreeing to have their tax money spent on it is what changed and not for any rational reason, they learned nothing new, they felt something new. That was cinema can do.

Not sure I fully agree, it was super bold and showy (no one watching that movie does not remark it), and it was just Oscar, critics circle and guild nominated (Delbonnel is a 5th time Oscar nominee).

Oscar nods outside best picture usually does not make theater give you screen, specially for a movie out of home video. you can look at a couple of year, even for those getting in best picture: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm MadMax didn't get any tracked box office (edit: apparently only 450k or so, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=madmaxfuryroadbc.htm), The Martian only 2.2M 8m post nominations for movie out on home video would be huge and more for a best picture winners.

You are right about that I think, the more similar the experience the more it influence the price. And it would probably go like this is monthly theater is $10 why Netflix or HBO want $17, they have to keep the price low, those low price make the price of a bluray or rental look too high, how a single movie is more than a complete month of all I can see Netflix (I am pretty confident the customer will not amortize how much of is Internet monthly bill is use on Netflix in that price, making look much cheaper than it really is, unless ISB start charging Netflix for traffic) But it obviously depend of the price point no ? The studios could do like the music industry and put almost new movie for free on youtube and try to get a bit of YT ads money, would it not be a bad thing ? The price people are ready to pay for the latest movie is quite artificial and that fully made up rarity by the current system is in major part responsible for that. (thing about how fickle it is to be ready to pay more for a movie for the only very fact that it is new, even if a 2007 movie didn't do perish or lost any value)

Combined with less Tuesday rebate maybe, but it is also no 3D/special screen right ? Making the average MP ticket maybe a bit under the average ticket price by regions. It would be yes, having a Canada/US split for more movie in recent year and this year would probably show a visible difference. It is more for say a year like membership, if growth settle down (because the craze is first months like gym membership), it it end up being a group of 2.5M going to the movie 30 times a year instead of 15 in average for around 270m at the box office in bonus, on a 11b market. A nice 2.5% boost, maybe bigger than the inflation factor (will probably be around 2.2% in 2018). If it end up snatching most regular movie goer and has 18m member doing that, that is a game changer (around 2B)

That is a 21$ average ticket if you go from 1x to 2x a month for 1 million user no ? probably meant 10.50M extra BO a month. Not nothing but the average month was getting close to 1 billion, so it is not far from a 1.2% or so boost (that will be a bit overweight over a certain type of movie) but it will be hard to see industry wide.

You could be right but it is not obvious how the USA military intervention in Irak made the United State a better place or augmented the security of any of is citizen (particularly on their home ground), that seam highly speculative and argument that it made the US a worst with giant dept place and less secure to be an US Citizen (specially abroad) could probably also be made. I am curious if you are just repeating that without much thought or you really have built a argument on how it made the USA a better place what he did.

You are right, but except for the lowest possible common denominator type of movies, you will always do, make a movie a musical you are alienating the majority of ticket buyer that would never see it (but interesting musicals fans) , have Adam Sandler you are alienating half of the ticket buyer (but interesting the other half one of the biggest fanbase ever) and so on. If you sales a ticket to 10% of ticket buyer, you are making around 250m at the domestic box office, you are not trying to please more than half of that (so trying to get 5% of the audience) most of the time and it can be better when you are not some giant blockbuster that need to do nothing to be sure to not displease any group to have a strong appeal among a smaller percentage of the audience than a moderate one among a larger one. To test that question, imagine how much more (or less) The Post would be making if it was not perceived as a political charged title, a drama about the Washington post in the 70s, without any of the moment angle to it. Is the people lost by the political angle really larger than those that are gained by the free press surrounding the title (and maybe award attention) and by those interested by that angle ? I am not sure it is clear cut easy to answer that it is hurting is box office performance.

Not sure I would call Tree of Life, Manchester by the sea or Beast of no Nation particularly political, it can be about seeing a point of view of life experience to live it a little bit by empathy for a little while in the protection of a seat in front of the screen and have a little bit different view of what child soldier, grief, meaning of the life experience, etc.... is. I do not think most of non disposable pop corn movie are political, take Moonlight it was seen as important and is pretty much apolitical, arguably much less than the usual Transformer. that is seen as popcorn fun while being used by the US military for an Army publicity. Yes that is my main point it is something people say without testing if that 50% figure used is close to the truth.

It is doing significantly more than the much better and best picture winner Spotlight, I am not sure about the Post not making the what it should message. Drama like those will not gather mass audience, it is certain. Political message can help in some case, would a movie like The Post not based on a real story and absent of any political message have made much more ? When Fox news goes on to promote them (like American Sniper) it possibly can I imagine. Maybe (I am a bit astonish each them some element of liberal political like free speech or even more so free press does not seem to make consensus or bit that controversial), but it is just I have very often read that split the audience in 2 or 50% on a side and every time I see the MPAA breakdown of the ticket buyer I feel like that statement was never calculated and just repeated without taken time if it hold up and being curious about doing that calculation to see what it would look like. There is something there, but it can of work both ways, saying that : I can keep watching them every year and derive the same enjoyment and fun out of them. Is a bit saying that it changed absolutely nothing to watch it, it was simple popcorn fun to the extreme that the rewatch is the same experience, i.e. that you were the exact same person before and after, that it was completely useless outside the having fun during that moment and that is probably what they meant by that expression, not the literal made to be consumed only one time like a disposable camera. That said I imagine that the Back to the future type of classic loose that disposable popcorn aura around them, we are talking about a movie that 33% of the metacritic reviews are perfect score with a 86MC vs 68 for Sophie Choice.

Nobody would have cared about a new martin mcdonagh movie ? It was already a frontrunner before october. the Guard and more so In Bruges fanbase grew over time and the fact McDonagh was nominated for a movie like In Bruges do show he is getting attention by the industry and would have for any new movie. He is an oscar winner with an impressive track record. The writing of 3Billboard is undeniably elegant and brilliant imo. This.

Is a bit much on the good guy type of cast if I remember those game well enough (maybe he will break is 6 to 11 year's old kid friendly/hero persona, will see if the movie ever happen). Younger Mickey Rourke would have been a good casting also I think.

NFL playoff games ?

Some joke about you playing with one of those instead of a nintendo when you were young: Or something like that.

This, a big reason the odds tend to be against them is a creative team trying to respect the game and what not (when the video game studio that know nothing about movies is not in part in charge like Assassin Creed), there is nothing of that here. Pacific Rim can make 400m, last King Kong did very well, giant stuff fighting each other can work, the video game aspect will probably be non-existent and how it will play and tracker will not necessarily even use them for their bank of comparable here. But yeah monster movie tend to be really frontloaded.

I imagine one element, would it miss the above 25 woman quadrant that is so big with many Johnson movies ? Lot of Dwayne Johnson success came from making many quadrants products (like Jumanji/San Andreas). San Andreas scored a massive 64% woman opening weekend crowd for example with a 70/30 above/under 25 Jumanji :51% males to 49% females, with 54/46 in the above/under 25 (pretty much as 4 quadrant as it can get)

Did anyone ever collected those comscore data ? would be nice to see how strong the correlation is with OW by genre.... For me those numbers are a bit hard to read, is an International Tomb Raider franchise video game movie below Love, Simon for the cumulative talk opening the same date for example is a really bad sign, or does the comscore is only for the US and missing the market were the game is well known and not the YA book ?

You could be right for a movie that target old white people, but in general that cutting in half your audience does not hold up that much. Specially for a movie like The Post or All the president men, people are mostly for a solid and free press, Trumps supporter that would disagree on that question are bit on the extreme fringe and far from 50% of the US + Canada population. It is not really a hot issues that does not make overall consensus. In the general case Before Trump election, there was around 248m moviegoers in the domestic market, young, black, latinos are over represented in it, only 51% of the ticket are bought by white people. https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report-2.pdf And Young are vastly over represented. Ticket sold white : 51% hispanic: 21% black : 14% asians : 14% Ticket sold By age group: 18-24: 12% 25-39: 23% 40-49: 13% 50-59: 13% 60+ : 13% Trump support by age group and ethnics group in the 2016 election: 18-24: 35% 25-29: 39% 30-39: 40% 40-49: 50% 50-64: 53% 65+ : 53% White: 58% Black : 8% Hispanic:29% Asian: 29% Now if Canadians for the most part really do not care (only 13% of Canadian like Trump presidency and it is just a foreign country affair) and if they are around 10% of those 250m movie goers, that leave us 225m in the US and say around 10b. Say if it we would have around 10b of domestic box office from the US was by age: 18-24: 1.2b around 0.42b from Trump supporter age pro-rata. 25-39: 2.3b around 0.92b from Trump supporter age pro-rata. 40-49: 1.3b around 0.65b from Trump supporter age pro-rata. 50+ : 2.6b around 1.378b from Trump supporter age pro-rata. That is 3.388 billion from Trump supporters vs 4.012b among americans adult if we adjust by age or 46% not 50%. Adjust by ethnicity of the tickey buyer. That 7.4b box office was from: white : 3.774b that 2.18892b from Trump voters hispanic: 1.554b that 0.45066b from trump voters black : 1.036b that 0.08288b from trump voters asians : 1.036b that 0.30044b from trump voters So that 7.4b among american adult end up being 3.03b from trump voters vs 4.3771 for non Trump voters or just 41%. Now if we add the 17 or less and Canadian, it probably get closer to 35% vs 65% And that is using peak Trump + republican no matter what support, December 2017 Trump numbers were Approve of Trump 18-34: 26% 35-49: 33% 50-64: 42% 65+ : 41% Using those number instead of those who voted for the republican candidate, we would probably end up more 20-25% vs 75-80% There is part of the reason I imagine we saw no down effect for the very openly and loudly anti-Trump Disney in general or MCU title and that movie like Patriot Day flopped, Trump strong base is not a big portion of the domestic box office and the vast majority of people probably do not follow or mind stuff like that thatmuch, the very vocal always triggered by cultural product Breitbart crowd is not necessarily representative.

That sound like really great hold, specially before any Oscar help.... Depending on how typical hold look like when you gain 50% theater at those theater count level.

Not sure about Forest, like most actors lot of is movies make $0 at the box office: https://www.the-numbers.com/person/1690401-Forest-Whitaker#tab=acting 23 of is movies in the 2000's made less than 10 millions worldwide vs 20 that made more. Lee Daniels/Dany Strong (extremely popular Empire tv series co-creator and writer), Weinstein selling magic were a big part of Butler success. Not sure about Oprah, feel like in the good product like The Butler that she can bring a lot of awareness. The 2 big to disappear in character is true, but true for any movie star (except a bit Streep/DDL), Tom Hanks is always Tom Hanks on screen same for Cruise or Arnold or Dwayne Johnson, that why you use movie star you want to use what they project to audience by never not being them on screen.

Now imagine the budget of Avatar when you include James Cameron total compensation ;), people residual, share that went to third party investor, etc... (I imagine he got 20/25% of the gross or something like that), real total cost must be at least 1B, maybe much more. That why you only see the studio making "just" 400-500m more than their usual year, not some billion more type of figures.

I am not sure how we could have an idea of RDJ compensation on something like Avengers or if the others get points or not, say like someone already fully establish they really wanted like Cumberbatch for strange. I imagine Feige and some others like a returning Whedon must have got them also. If he RDJ have old school gross point on the theatrical rental of the Avengers that was of around 700m, 5% being around 35m and 10% around 70m (they sometime remove some of the top 10% distribution fee or others condition on that rentals when it come time to calculate it) You could be right about Marvel special place of negotiation power, it is just strange to see high salary but no participation combo, didn't thought it could exist.