Barnack

@Harpospoke Has expected it is the female over 25 that felt down. http://deadline.com/2017/11/justice-league-opening-weekend-box-office-lower-thor-ragnarok-wonder-the-star-1202211094/ Also, realize that the Gal Gadot quotient could be slow to show up here. Older women were there for Wonder Woman during opening weekend, with PostTrak showing females 25+ (37%), followed by guys over 25 (34%), females under 25 (17%), and men under 25 (12%). However, the share of women grew over time for Wonder Woman. Gadot’s Wonder Woman does have her moments in the movie. For Justice League last night, PostTrak showed men over 25 in bulk (41%), men under 25 (25%), females over 25 (21%) and females under 25 (14%). Female over 25 went from 37% to 21%. Wonder woman OW estimated box office by demographic: M+25: $35.105 F+25: $38.203 M-25: $12.390 F-25: $17.553 If Justice league open at 97m and keep those ratio (I imagine they could mode quite a bit during the weekend, but a rough estimate): M+25: $39.770 F+25: $20.370 M-25: $24.250 F-25: $13.580 Justice League is much more popular with male under 25 (double is box office) a bit more popular with older men (around 15% better), but does not make up for the giant 18m fall from woman over 25 (a 46% drop) and the one with woman under 25 (22% drop).

Seem right in the middle between BvS and Wonder Woman the friday afternoon reception wise according to that metric (I imagine has expected with the reviews): JL : 86% liked it Average Rating: 4.3/5 User Ratings: 89,809 BvS 74% liked it Average Rating: 3.9/5 User Ratings: 139,268 Wonder Woman: 93% liked it Average Rating: 4.6/5 User Ratings: 58,02

Didn't knew that it was that big, Fault in our star sold like Hunger Games according to this (23m books), a bit above Gone Girl/Girl on a train that are just below those 2 20m book): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Those movie performance tend to be greatly linked to the previous movie reception than the current one, X-3 made more than X2, Wolverine much more than origin and even more market adjusted than Logan, so yes after the deceiving Apocalypse a reception rebound and not falling too much domestic and make a sequel possible is probably the best case scenario.

When you global opening include the China opening and almost all market, big drop for a sequel are to be expected, Guardian 2 had "good" legs in china for what it was, 70% drop in China. It could do better than the 67% drop, but 442m just from the weekend ? (So a what 600m oversea total) is way too optimistic.

If you are talking about the Division http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5776468/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_5 ? There is a nuance that the games are based on the Tom Clancy novel universe, that has a video game adaptation and a movie adaptation, but the way it is setuped wit the studio being Ubisoft, it could be exactly like a standard video game adaptation. Not sure about that, was it not just a post Prince of Persia trauma (and probably good career move) to not play leads in giant commercial movie for a while, not superheroes in particular. And him ready to comeback.

as an eventual $215M-$235M overall overseas opening weekend. BvS made 254 with a couple more markets (BvS had a 4.5m in Japan for example), we could see more something like a 10% or less drop oversee, for an around 500m result (instead of 545m) if it start with 225. If so, an above 750m would be locked.

1 seem to really be the norm post 2012 and standard for expected one to miss the mark, Superhero's movie iby year n the top 5: 2017:1 2016:1 2015:1 2014:1 2013:1 2012:2 2011:0 2010:0 2009:0 2008:2 (one of those being Hancock, not Iron Man) When looked like that (a very arbitatry cut-off and probably bad metric to use), the superheroes domination/saviors of the industry/etc... does not look has impressive under that metric, 9 top 5 in the 10 year's since the Dark Knight/Iron Man era started the latest modern post SpiderMan big era. Young adult popular book adaptation in comparison 2017:0 2016:0 2015:0 2014:1, 2(if we count The Hobbit I am not sure) 2013:1, 2(if we count The Hobbit I am not sure) 2012:0,1 (if we count The Hobbit I am not sure) 2011:2 2010:1 2009:1 2008:0 6 without the Hobbit, 9 with them (like superheroes)

He said the movie demolished millennial society and an Hillary Clinton era bad movie: After destroying the prelapsarian world in Noah, indie director Darren Aronofsky has returned to his formula. In his sensationalized allegory Mother! Aronofsky sends a nameless woman (Jennifer Lawrence) through a gauntlet of masochistic paranoia, blames modern male chauvinism, and then demolishes Millennial society. ..... Instead, White and Aronofsky, in their upscale locales, indulge the bourgeois insecurity and self-protective envy that link conservatives and liberals of a particular class. Empathy and moral consciousness are what’s missing from both movies. Until these kinds of entertainment are recognized for what they are — and refused — the Hollywood Left will always win the culture war.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451398/mother-brads-status-explore-inner-demons-insecurities

Age of Ultron, The Wolverine, Kick Ass 2, Blade: Trinity, The Crow: City of Angels, Incredible Hulk did less than Hulk but I do not think they were sequel, Superman 3, superman 4

Preview numbers can be hard to find (not on mojo, the-numbers.com,etc...) That website has most of the recent movies http://www.boxofficereport.com/previewgrosses.html Guardian 2: $17.00M Spider Man: $15.4M Thor: 14.5M JL: 13.0M Logan: 9.5M

That one is easy to imagine the over 25 female quadrant that went in drove for Wonder woman: Screen Engine/ComScore’s updated PostTrak shows more women than men watching Wonder Woman, 53% to 47%. Older women over 25 are still the predominant quad at 35% IF that movie do not reach 103m, expect that quadrant to be much smaller, even if the movie does 115m I would not be surprised if that quadrant would make less than 36.05m of the box office. Justice League is much more geeky/nerdy in comparison. Wonder Woman attracted audience that do not usually go see Superheroes movie at the theater, and that was not just about Wonder Woman being in the movie, being the main protagonist was a main reason for them to show up, grounded in some reality setting with WW1, the romance, the reviews and so on. It will not have a lower Thursday previews, but maybe a lower weekend (would be surprising if he does not reach 110m, but who knows).

3d, China, Inflation, maturing of the intenrational market are all 100% included in the global market being 38.5b instead of 27.7B These movie were trully massive domestic, but Dark Knight oversea performance in 2008 was exactly the same than a terrible indiana Jones movie, lower than Shrek 3 much lower, 100 millions than The Davinci Code 2 year's before. Still today DC movie oversea are not that special, not sure why it would have changed.

Not sure how BvS would be a good indication on how a When/if done well, solo Batman films will challenge $1.5b on their own. Would do too. My point was the best possible scenario is Dark knight, Dark knight didn't do a 1.5 billion performance in 2016 market share, so I do not see why a done well Batman movie would have done it in 2017. Do you disagree with my narrative ?

That sound suspicious to me and not what I have seen on screen at all. Could be biased because it is my favorite of the 3 (I suspect that if I ever rewatch it one a second time that could change), but that movie had a lot of work. I also have an hard time that: 1) Nolan was obligated to do it contractually 2) That even if he was, WB would have enforced the contract after is dark Knight/Inception giant success, no way they sue him just for not wanting a movie (it is 2 year's of someone life, he need to want to do it, no ?) and automatically loose him for ever to a competitor studio after that. Got into a lot of trouble with those giant Imax camera, writing the movies themselves, 1000 extra in a fight scenes, planes stunts etc.... not something you tend to do when you just do it to be over with it.

Also not sure even Dark Knight that went has well has it could, did 1 billion in 2008 without a China release but it was not a big market then. It is a bit below 1.5 billion in 2017 performance. Not a perfect metric but Global Box office : 2008: 27.7b 2016: 38.6b Using the ratio in market size, that is a 1.4B performance and now the competition is quite big in the genre and Batman was used a lot recently before that new iteration. That is a good point, in 2012 batman was making 1 billion in is solo movie, Iron-Man without RDJ/MCU brand helping it ? Maybe, maybe not.... A bit like Wolverine, Iron-Man has a superheroes is totally untested vs the many recasted, often giant Box office that are Batman and Spiderman.

I doubt that at that level that making bad films is ever a decision. On some pocket, rushing and making bad films (horror, sharknado, etc...) is sometime a decision (more will make a lot of movie and we are ok that most of them will not be good) that can work.

If it was a public company it could have been a good idea, but I doubt giant conglomerate Time Warner that own WB stock can move much for something like that (and both ways when after IT or WW success the stock didn't move at all).

Wonder Woman had a much better multiplier than the average superheroes movies (specially DC ones) and could be misleading to use it has a reference. SS and BvS had around 33% less, WW = nearly 10 internal multiplier BvS & SS = between 6 and 6.7

He has 30 project listed here (with at least 21 yet to release): http://sevenbucks.com/projects/ If him and DiCaprio make 65% the projects they are apparently attach too in the next decade, they will rival Disney output quantity. At least Jumangi should have a different enough audience than the other 2.

If you ever saw people sitting on it, you have your answer I think.

The word analysis seem a bit click-baity here (or is the link not to the good page ?).

Those are movies that some people go see and re-see like 3/4 times in theater than buy the bluray (even at 10$ by tickets that would be around 65$), they will find a lot of people to pay 30$ for the very first screening of those fanbase movies, even more for a star wars (people waited a day long in line, most will pay 150$ and not have to wait). Theater/studio were leaving a lot of money on the table by not charging ridiculous price for the first day of those event movies and I suspect those system will be much more for that, than for giving rebate to smaller movies. Look at how much they achieve to charge for a pop-corn, people are ready to spend fortune to see a movie.

Reporting really seem strange: Nonetheless, Universal Pictures, the film's distributor, submitted it as a comedy with Peele's reported blessing. It appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press, the governing body behind the Globes, offered the option and Universal took it. And, let’s be clear here, it was submitted as a comedy. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association won’t just be voting for it in that category for kicks. It’s also important to consider that the only other alternative at the Globes would be to call it a drama — and the 2017 sleeper hit doesn’t quite seem to fit that descriptor either. While: http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/jordan-peele-response-get-out-golden-globes-comedy-1201897841/ The director had no input in submitting the film to the HFPA in the comedy category and explained why he felt no genre could do it justice. ? Does feel forced a bit, because there is no category really for movie like that. Peele is a credited producer on the movie, is production company is credited as a production partner on it, I imagine if he wanted it to be drama he would have said so to Universal, never seem to say he would have preferred a drama placement outright, sound like he just want to sound like he understand people complain and see how those movies does not mach being put in a category for those stuff.

real ? Saying the globe are racist to have respected the distributor (Blumhouse) choice of a comedy sound a bit made up outrage to me. At least that what the trade are sating, it is much harder now for the Globe to go against the distributor choice, they need 66% of the vote to reverse a category placement decision.