Barnack

I really do not think 25 to 30m type of possible compensation is specially high with her track record for an established cannot be recast character, it even feel really low (I imagine Marvel has that great power of being able to have success with anything and not having to say yes to people and can still them about how good publicity it is for them and so on). Walhberg deal on Transformer series kind of sounded better to me and they could have cast someone else, making the negotiation easier. Or Denzel on a Mag 7 type of movie is getting better deal. I really doubt she is getting paid less than her male co-star except RDJ like he is saying, Disney said she was getting around the same has them on Ultron if I remember correctly and they never had anything close to Lucy type of success outside the MCU that would make sense for them to make more than her. Maybe he mean for her role on something like Winter Soldier vs the lead her wage was close... Not sure I understand correctly is statement. Regardless, saying a 25 to 31m would be higher that the 20m + 10% gross and ever bigger deal the biggest actress (Roberts, Jolie, Bullock, etc...) used to get (not profit, starting at gross) fell a bit like playing with semantic here, because there is virtually no way when you had gross point on a big movie getting a big wide world release that you would not get much more than 25m even in the worst case scenario. Maybe that why they could give her so little potential bonus (6m is not much more that a Bill Hader doing voice on a Cloudy 2 maximum bonus to give how extremely little it is) if there is any truth to it, her team valuing that rumored to be highest before production unadjusted for inflation salary deal for an actress type of press.

There is a lot of marketing material with TR release date outthere too: The last trailer (#2 I think) also mention March release date, a bit too late for that.

Will it end up above all of them except BvS 873m ? maybe even BvS ?

For one, the deal is reported to be a hefty $25 million, with potential bonus revenue bouncing that up to $31 million. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5284293/Scarlett-Johansson-25m-Black-Widow-film.html Marvel and Disney have agreed to the $25 million deal which will make the mother-of-one Hollywood's highest paid actress for a single movie. That is a bit of click-bait wording/reporting, how much do they think Bullock made on Gravity or Jolie on The Tourist/Salt, some actress of the 90s got some of those giant 20m + 10% of the gross type of deal (Jolie, Bullock, Roberts) over time, making it possible for them to make 30m to 45m on movies (or more went they went absurd hit like Gravity). Cameron Diaz made over 40m for Bad Teacher (she was rumored to have made around 43m and the leak from Sony show a 53.39m participation bonus that went to the talents for that movie, matching those rumors). But that rumored deal would be quite strange, no one in Hollywood is making only 20m on a movie and I imagine the same would go for 25, maybe the MCU and is certain to be profitable franchise movies could try to buy people out of their participation bonus, but still a capped to 6m (less entourage, perks, etc... paid out) bonus sound extremely low for that kind of deal. If the movie make 900m you make 31m if it make zero you make 25m, seem quite useless.

Americans use the word: world in very strange ways....

And everything until Avenger also, nice all alone for every special screen windows, how big Avengers is for a third weekend competition is obviously not ideal, but that is still a really nice window. Mowgli is an other one that could take WB domestic crown I imagine, Jungle Book is still one of the biggest franchise outthere after all and recently animated talking animal has been really big.

In lead in a vast array of movie yes, but in a supporting comedy role ? He is a not a poison (in today world why a poison would ever appear in a studio movie it is not the golden era were the studio were contractually forced to use an actors a certain amount of time), he just did 150m with Neighbors and about the same I imagine with Showman. Before Jumanji Johnson achieved that once outside the F&F franchise, with a giant budget destruction movie.

Commuter did really brought to the theater people that didn't went to the theater in year's if not decade !

Avatar made a lot of money that is for sure, but....... Fox filmed entertainment division (movies + tv + merch): Year are june 30 to june 30 Operating income 2008: 1,236 2009: 848 2010: 1,349 (that Avatar moment record breaking moment) 2011: 927 Depending on how much FOx are financing the 4 news one, I am not sure it would be fully covered by what they made out of Avatar.

Calling Silence, a passion movie Scorsese took almost 30 year's to do that we would have I think an hard time to come up with a list of best picture winners similar to it ? (Cannot think of one) an award baits is a pretty special one but so is saying Pablo Larrain making award baits (specially something like Jackie......)

Competition for screen and that direct of a competition certainly matter here (that -62% JL weekend was is worst by far is not a coincidence) but would still be not by that much, like you said maybe just a regular 2.7-2.8 type of run. Well received non long into a number of sequels SH type has more chance to go in the around 3.0x legs type of run, even when they open at 175m like beauty and the beasts or above 200m like jurassic World.

Fully got what you were saying, I was putting doubt that if it happen (specially on a China heavy scenario) that it would not be a disaster, at least if we define disaster bar as = putting doubt into the 3 sequels plans. Imagine a 150dbo/300intl/300 china type of run, for an around 275 to 290m in rental for Avatar 2 in a over 40b global market place... Alice 2 retention Domestic: 23% intl minus china: 24% Avatar 2 retention Domestic: 20% intl minus china: 16.5% Lot worst retention than Alice does sound like a disaster. And a good 20% worst than that adjusted for inflation (and a imagine around 40-50% worst than that adjusted for market share).

No resistance broaden is potential audience way more than a comic book fodder with all that history behind them. Being good or not cannot change Thor 3 result that much, is 2.56x multiplier is better than is 2.42 previous entry, but not by that much, the word of mouth cannot give sequels movies like that the type of run a Jumanji can have, there is an ever growing crowd that will not go see a not origin story superheroes movie.

If I followed that production correctly, no movie studio ever did bet 150-200m on him thought, and probably would never have. It was funded outside the studios, it took a bunch of people throwing their Blind Side profit money on him. Do you believe he does not know that and that it is not what he is trying to do ?

That is a really strange assumption to project into someone (as if someone could know something like this, how could you ?). I am pretty convinced he cared a lot how much those movies will make at the box office, when he made the studio double Titanic budget it must have been on is mind and the way him and is team talked about that (it will play action for the boy and romance for the girl and be the biggest movie or look like too romance for the boys and too action for the girl and flop) it was a very calculated pulse on world audience and a very calculated attempt at making a lot of money. It shows quite a bit. Seem limit to me, below 30% retention rate with a world market that grew quite a bit in that time and an industry that got more dependent on theatrical, specially in the context they want to make 3 other sequel with giants budget (and be worth Cameron time money wise, if he want to keep is 20% first dollar gross point deal and making 9 figures by movies) with the usual drop sequels tend to have, they probably want more room than that. You can expect what, a 33% drop from Avatar 2 to Avatar 5 for a not bad run for a franchise, that would put avatar 5 at 495m WW. P.S. And yes, I also doubt very much that 500m is the catastrophic worst case scenario in any market, including China.

Not sure Avatar was bigger than Titanic and that JC achieve to top is own record, and that is without taking into account Titanic re-release giant success that I am not sure Avatar will ever have. You can even see Titanic impact on the global industry statistic of is time: To give an idea, the top 10 ww in 1996, 1997, 1998 average without Titanic was: 372.96m The top 5 of those 3 year's had a : 614.5m average Independence Day Fox $817.40 The Lost World: Jurassic Park Uni. $618.60 Men in Black Sony $589.40 Armageddon BV $553.70 Twister WB $494.50 Titanic: For Avatar, 2008, 2009, 2010 top 10 movies WW without it averaged: 700.65 Top 5 of that era: 998.04 Toy Story 3 BV $1,067.00 Alice in Wonderland (2010) BV $1,025.50 The Dark Knight WB $1,003.00 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 WB $960.30 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince WB $934.40 Titanic first run was: 4.94 times bigger than the top 10 average. 3 times bigger than the top 5 movies of that time. 2.25 times is biggest competition Stayed number 1 domestic for 11 year's Avatar first run + the 2010 special edition was: 3.96 times bigger than is era top 10 average. 2.78 times bigger than the top 5 movies of that time 2.6 times is biggest competition Stayed number 1 domestic for 6 year's Pretty comparable runs, Titanic was clearly bigger domestic but Avatar was maybe bigger intl, really achieved to get better performance among the new market than Hollywood average movies. Not sure yet is the good word here, the biggest movie always have been original one probably for a reason, having a fanbase also usually mean having a list of people that will not see it (have seen the previous one and didn't like them or not having seen them and that create lot of resistance), the floor is much higher for franchise movies but they probably have a lower ceiling. The next movies to have a E.T. Titanic or Avatar type of run will probably be an first entry also. Arguably being a 40 year's old franchise is a reason SW will have an hard time ever doing what Titanic/Avatar did (stuff like setting a new record that will stay for year's in the China market).

Update from those 2016 figures in 2017 (to give an idea of the rate of dying): Physicals Disc sales: 5.490b->4.716b Physicals rentals : 2.550b->2.117b 8.04b down to 6.883b (huge 15% drop, could go at only 5b in only 2 year's at that rate, was above 20b in 2006, at the peak of the bubble the average american family was buying 14.4 dvd a year !) Physical is for the first year smaller than SVOD (estimated to 9.55b last year), still surprising will all the talk about it that it was still smaller than the disk industry in 2016, that can give a bit of an idea than the bloggers/active online person are not the average customers.

I wonder how much of this is true, 94% of 12 Strong audience were adults, or look a Den of Thieve/Commuter. if we take a look at the top 100 of the 2017 domestic box office, non-family, not aimed at the teen audience but not conceived for the award season: Rought night Victoria and abdul the house Home again Life Blade Runner Logan lucky American Assassin Snatched American Made Atomic Blonde Baywatch Alien Mummy Girl Trip 50 shades Orient express John Wick etc... Maybe most of them on that list outside the top 15 were aimed at the 18+ audience, the thing is that the teens movie going audience market share did shrink so much since the 90s: 2016: 12-24: 29% (with the 12-17 being only 13% of the audience now) 25-39: 24% 40-49: 23% 60+: 13% In the 2016 only 24% were sold to non adult and the over 60 are 13% same ticket share than the 12-17 now. Some of the 76% of the adult audience were taking there kids to see a kid movie, but adults are now 3 quarter of the theatrical audience. What changed a bit is maybe more the adult taste ? That stay more like teenager's now that give that impression or that they do not reach some big impression outside the awards winning one.

Will see about that, will see in the future if Netflix model can work (at those price). Netflix annual net income 2012: 17.15M 2013: 112.4M 2014: 266.8M 2015: 122.64M 2016: 186.88M At that price point (and that without paying full price for most of the content, it would not work if they would have had to make all the content that they offer, that price point need for the content to have been already monetized before hand elsewhere), Netflix has yet to make any money, it is not crazy to think it could grow it's membership to a point that work or raise the price one day to make it work but this is yet to be a proven working model. From an industry future stand point, I think we have to wait to see if it work before saying it is a good idea or a success vs a flop. Has for the ever increasing average ticket price, they were much cheaper in the past when people went over 40 times a year, they were more expensive in the 70s, not really in a historical strange place prize wise right now (we almost see Avatar imax, 3d, ticket uptick looking at this it seem like) One big different the movie industry had with music was the large array of options, from the 15$ IMAX offering to the redbox $1.20 for a movie or something like that and it will be forced I imagine into what you describe. But MoviePass move could have make it impossible (specially if it take more than 1 year to close), will people want to pay the sustainable $19.99 to $27.99 (with more or 3D movie available or sooner type of platinum membership) after being used to 10.00$ ? That is exactly the type of value destruction of the current experiment model that is worrisome.

Life of Pi and Catching Fire also.

Not at your deal price point obviously, moviepass existed for a while now, but it was $50 a month, at that price it was not devaluating anything, someone paying $50 a month for all you can see in theater will not be shock at a 4.99$ price for an HD rental or $14.50 Bluray or $17.50 a month HBO or Netflix. Someone growing up paying $10 a month for all you can see movies in theater (or the $8 a month for it + fandor streaming service type of deal), could find obscene paying almost half of that for a rental or more than that for a streaming service. There is nothing wrong with MoviePass model, existed quite everywhere for a long time, when we talk devaluation of the perceived value of watching a movie we are talking mostly if not only about the new really low price point, not the pass.

Look like all very good numbers... (specially with how similar target audience 12 strong and thieves seem to have)

That 11.09 is for both the USA and Canada I think, I was talking about the US alone. Revenus from the industry are by the vast majority not by theater ticket, you need to take all revenues into account, if you have 92M subscriber to a 10 a month system all you can see movie deal, those people will normally not accept to pay what they are currently paying in the future windows, the destruciton of the value (streaming, dvd, tv deals, etc...) need to be taken into account (not sure if one can evaluate what it look like).

The $50 moviepass that existed not so long ago can give us a certain idea of that market (or the 25-30 pound one in the UK and many other market having them). Last year in the US the movie industry was around what 10.5b in tickets, 20.5b in home entertainment and I imagine close to 10b in tv. That a bit over 40b in revenues (or 333 million subscription to movie pass at a 10$ a month price point). It certainly exist some possible scenario were it is all to the better, a massive destruction of the 30m (75%) of the industry that happen after the theatrical windows (and have a lot of value gained from it) but compensated by a lot more people going to theater all the time with a unlimited subscription model. But at that price point, it would probably take an unrealistic amount of users, that would be obviously be really nice too.

Annie an other recent musicals did cost 77m could give good clue on how the movie is spent in movie like those: https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/RISKMGMT/Production Files/Annie/Budget/Annie FINAL Budget(9-19-13).pdf Major spending: Story rights + writers: 8.34m Producer: 2.75m Directors: 2.7m cast: 17.2m Above the line travels/living: 0.6m Production staff: 2.3m extras: 1.55m set construction: 2.47m set operations: 1.94m set dressing: 2.14m wardrobe: 1.48m Lights: 1.62m camera: 1.76m sound production: 0.600m transport: 3.98m locations: 4.47m secont units: .93m stage: 1m SFX: 0.85m Editing: 1.4m Music: 4.3m Post production sound work: 1.95m post production film: .76m insurance: 0.42m screenings: .12m