Barnack

Justice league just 19 million more than Deepwater Horizon 156m production then and 60m less than Dawn of the planet of the Apes.... So those CGI were not because of fast turn around and rushed to release troubled post-production, but because they spent on one of the biggest above the line movie of the year Snyder Terrio Whedon Affleck Cavill Adams Gadot Miller Momoa Irons Lane Simmons Heard Berg Roven Deborah Snyder Elfman + the original high cost composers With long reshoot. That would mean like Logan below the line cost for the first principal photography. Saying that it cost 450m to cost and release after tax rebate (that what Amazing Spider Man 2 did cost to produce and release after tax rebate), is from from saying that BvS (smaller cast, smaller and more intimate story), costed $500m to just produce (and I remember $400m, not an impossible rounded gross cost to be honest not $500m).

7.5x legs in 2017 with an over 25m OW would be nice !, that the kind of movie that can do it obviously, but Blind Side legs would push it to 193m, probably a bit too optimistic but not impossible. Hidden Figures had about the sames multiplier also but in December/January.

Average A+ cinemascore multiplier is 4.8 That would put Wonder at 27.5 * 4.8 = 132m And it opened the weekend before thanksgiving being probably not a bad place for longs legs (Coco, The stars, Man who invented christmas, Ferdinand is not bad competition but should have place) Maybe it will not reach the average 4.8 multiplier, but holding strong for it would be above 120m I think.

Oh my: CF: -64.3% ($12,321,72) MJ 1: -65.3% ($8,978,318) MJ 2: -63.3% ($8,540,357) FB: -63.5% ($6,758,059) Seem like 63%/65% drop would have been the expected norm, yeah 6m would be terrible. Even FB made 6.7m after a much smaller 74m OW. I would imagine that more and more, if it does not open well and that become the news, it will hurt movies even more than before, studio will try to manufacture bigger opening weekend even more next year (even bigger Thursday release opening if not even starting special franchise marathon Wednesday counting toward the new entry) and very high ticket price in some screening were demand get really high. Just to not have that terrible weekend news playing at the radio the monday.

Ok thanks, with school out and what should have been a movie for kids, you are probably right (but not too surprising I think the post-track showed it played still quite old)

Is it specially bad thor 3 felt 74% is first monday, many movie felt in the 7x last monday, a 6 million monday would be a 73.5% fall, isn't normal for giant comic book movies ? 7 million would be 69%.

I imagine there is many different inflation number outthere, money purchassing power not being an exact science, but this web calculator http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ give 91.60m 2014 dollar -> 95.44m 2017 dollar 506m give 527.22m overseas.

The-numbers say 31% drop on Sunday: http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-chart/daily/2017/11/19 1.0% Sunday drop would be relative to what ?

How much does a studio need to get involved for a Tarantino movie..... He would have asked total creative control and got in any scenario, the movie is not supposed to be much different from a studio to studio for an auteur director like that, would not surprise me if he also asked for creative control on the release also (Like Edgar Wright did on Baby Driver or Fincher on is Sony movies). Specially with one of the most powerful producer in Hollywood, David Heyman in charge, WB do not get involved almost at all in is Potter movies after a couple of entries and was able to shield Gravity on any major modification. Him doing a Tarantino movie, Paramount, WB, Sony, should be pretty much the same movie at the end of the day no ?

Yes I would think so because of the era of the dvds peak, an other one that was maybe below being a hit line was Captain America First Avenger making $370m on an 200m to 205m gross budget would not be a hit nowaday. But during that 2004 to 2010 period, maybe it was (and is once you consider the sequels)

Tree of Life was done before Malick did it ? Yeah, at least for mainstream stuff, 2000's could have been the worst with the 80s. That could be misleading, what also changed with the frontloading of the box office. audience taste and box office is less and less linked. When every movie with the biggest box office of the year needed good legs to reach it, box office was a much more relevant metric to access audience taste than now. People that liked Spotlight / People that watched spotlight (or Hidden Figure, la la land, most of Oscar movies) was way superior to a long list of movies that ended up in the year top 20 at the box office.

I could not invest in them (or would need billions to buy the right of doing it) I doubt disney is seeking investor for Guardian 3, an Aladdin without Disney brand/songs and seal of approval would also be really hard to make profitable (and would be somewhat original). Your question sound more: If you were Disney CEO would you do something different. Obviously no, I would continue the momentum, no one is talking about what studio should do with current world audience demand, we all fully understand why they do it, when Baywatch still do more than almost every original entry of the year, the mummy of all of them..... We can always explain why anyone do what they do, the wish is for world audience to become risk taker and then studio to follow suit (with them opening the door by from time to time proposing them to do it).

I would be curious to see the percentage of money that goes on franchise&Adaptation&sequels (season 2, 3, 4, etc...)&filler episode&by committy on TV vs Movies. They do not live or die by first weekend, people that do not have to displace themselves and pay a baby sitter are more open to take a chance, 10 minute on something for sure, but TV has also became extremely IP and format heavy.

There is some legitimacy to that rhetoric, but it is also usually a ridiculous one. We should use western government resource to help Syria stabilize the region: take a gun and go do it then. We should reduce the impact of food producing: Send your new genius crop and Technic then. We should strive for a more open Internet access worldwide: Go reverse the Chinese regime. Do you respond: Go make good movie with good roles for minorities every time you hear some lambda person without any talent and/or resource saying that about Hollywood ? If it was Alan Horn posting on the message board, your respond would make more sense.

Look like it is California heavy: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1620680/locations They spent below the line in california: http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/CFC-Approved-Projects-List.pdf $85,393,000 Add above the lines cost/other cost that didn't qualify for the tax credits,, add New Zealand shooting cost, add outside California special effects cost (some of it was in the Great Britain), probably quite comfortably above 100m.

They are certainly original (at least until he started to repeat is film making a bit too much), now what does boring/not boring has to do with original or not ? And who here are you talking about ?

Not peoples at large, he is talking about the small group of people that say they want original, those people do not mean a movie not being an adaptation/inspired by something. Obviously world audience is clearly showing, at least in theater, they want known narrative/presentation they know from the past they will like and do not want ambitious/original in that sense (or will take a chance only if everyone else ostensibly do before them).

Adaptation can be really original and franchise also (Fury Road has an example, There Will be blood/Cloud Atlas for other example of adaptation one could call "original" in the sense we are using it) Innovative vs recycled is often what people mean yes, not original vs adaptation.

Not sure how relevant this is, it is still an obviously gray scale between pure copy and something farther that what was ever thought before and because nothing is ex-nihilo we can still call stuff on the spectrum farther from a clear copy-paste side original and use the word copy for stuff extremelly similar even if perfect copy precise to the atom level cannot ever be made. Nothing is black or white (except for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack being really close to black), we still call dark grey car black cars or the sky at night black.

Original is not necessarily about the story, it is much more about how it is told, Avatar visuals were originals. Cloud Atlas was not original in the sense that it was a book adaptation, it is still in many aspect one of the most "original" giant budget movie of the 2000's. Same for MadMax Fury Road shooting/editing technics, cinema is not much about narrative.

Movies we cannot predict because they come from someone mind, 12-15 more movies like Inception/Matrix/first Star Wars/first Jurassic Park/Avatar, not really new take or anything but a different presentation for classics stories/human questioning.

700 movie getting a release, if you live in a city there is usually between 50 to 70 different movie playing any given day. Yes the one you go see among all of those is usually because you have been influenced (you have not seen any of them so....), would it be influenced by a giant marketing campaign that showed you a trailer you liked or a giant marketing department that created a franchise / studio that bought and put a franchise logo on the movie, critics/friend/people you trust online that said good things about the movie, by the distributor and theater chain that put the movie on the multiplex easy to reach from the highway and the best screen, influenced by the people behind the camera that made the movie or people in front of the camera that you trust their script picking judgement. You cannot see a movie before seeing it, you tend to see at maximum 5% of the movie you could see, you tend to be influenced by what you choose to see if it is not random (how could it otherwise be ?)

It played also in the US in theater this weekend (just 17), not so sure if that has anything to do with being a Netflix original or not. The movie was simply bought once made after Sundance by Netflix, so not really a Netflix production, more of an Netflix exclusive.

Deadline make gross estimate from what is publicly known, but they cannot know how much the movie cost to do for example, that is private, they can have some clue from some public tax credit from some jurisdiction that make them public. Deadline understimated the movie cost a little bit, they had production cost: $255m Participation: $10m (that is one of the hardest to estimate, how much actor / director are paid and their bonuses is usually really private) World Releasing cost: $175m Total: $440m In reality it was: production cost: $263.95m Participation: $44.25m World Releasing cost: $191.79m Total: $499.99m (500million production+bonus+release is quite the expensive movie, depending on peoples deal could even be higher than justice league) They also overestimated the revenues by almost 40m (all their estimate are almost spot on, expect foreign home entertainment were the movie under-performed quite a bit). Deadline are really good, pretty much the best we see out there, but even their numbers must be taken has just a rough estimate, specially in the spending that they cannot obviously really know the actual budget of the movie even less the above the line back end deals, estimating home video performance is not easy has well, it follow the box office quite well (correlation R2 of around 0.8) but far from a direct linear formula, loved movie do significantly more than so-so or not loved movie there. If the movie would have achieved a 12% return on a 70m profit (like the first amazing spider man did) than yes you would be right, it would have not been too far from the studio objective of 110m for total success and would have been a moderate success, but that was not the case. That is why, that it is funny when people make some declarative statement about a movie making money or not (when it is not obvious case like Star wars or King Arthur), we do not know, they are each their own story.

Visionaries are perfect for people with money to launder: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/20/us-justice-department-1mdb-fund-seizure-fraud-investigation