Barnack

Not sure how accurate it is, but that would go in my impression that both Sony/WB will not loose much if anything on that movie, 100% of the hit on the independant producer that took all the risk really here. And that why the number is so high I imagine, would not surprise me if Sony didn<t made a bit of a profit.

Weinstein distribution. But the Sheridan made a very public move about asking the Weinstein co. to not make a dollar with is movie and removing every logo/credit of Weinstein on it. The movie profit will go to a charity I think. http://deadline.com/2017/11/wind-river-harvey-weinstein-scandal-taylor-sheridan-jeremy-elizabeth-olsen-oscar-plans-video-1202202852/ “I called TWC president David Glasser and said, ‘I’m going to demand something of you and you are going to get absolutely nothing in return,’ ” he said. ” ‘And you’re going to do it, because it’s the right thing to do. To David’s credits, he agreed.’ ” Among the conditions: “[Weinstein] did terrible things, and they affected a lot of people, and they affected our film. And now, the profits he would have made are going to benefit people that endured exactly the abuse that he doled out.” What would Sheridan have done had TWC refused? “I said, if my movie’s going to die, I’ll be the one to kill it,” Sheridan said. “I will Alan Smithee the film, take my name off it, and publicly denounce it. I would have said, don’t go see this movie, don’t rent it, don’t watch it. If he was going to remain publicly attached, if he was going to benefit from a film highlighting the atrocity he perpetrated? No.” http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/how-taylor-sheridan-scrubbed-weinstein-co-from-wind-river.html To David’s credits, he agreed.” In addition to removing all mention of the Weinstein Company, Sheridan also demanded money from the film be rerouted to charity, It should not be affected at all, with those very vocals move to distance Weinstein from the movie.

Could not explain the Ghostbuster/SS ban but not Mummy/Warcraft (have not seen it), but for FBeasts it is not paranormal/magic/witchcraft the issue in general I think, but possession and ghost stuff in specific. This, it is not anti-goverment/anti-central government like the last Hunger games and in SS1 the operation of the main plot, the action of the Squad were not really shady and not sure how much of a big deal if it was revealed the saved humanity from destruction (or until the Justice League take care of it). The Squad itself didn't much stuff reprehensible, only element around them and in flashback of their life before the squad, they were the good guys in the narrative.

Not sure what you meant by that in the first one they were saving the world not doing anti-government thing and it was not playing in China either, leave the enchanting/possession stuff and I can see that play, if suicide squad 2 are again the good guy doing good stuff all movie long.

Would certainly be very pleased, that is a big 20m above The Martian. Is the book that more popular than the Martian ? Adjusted Sci-fi from a book opening weekend top 15: 1 3 The Hunger Games LGF $454,208,900 4,137 $171,987,900 4,137 3/23/12 2 2 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire LGF $456,453,800 4,163 $169,054,300 4,163 11/22/13 3 4 The Lost World: Jurassic Park Uni. $445,695,900 3,565 $140,336,800 3,281 5/23/97 4 5 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 LGF $363,691,200 4,151 $131,150,100 4,151 11/21/14 5 8 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 LGF $289,346,300 4,175 $105,380,100 4,175 11/20/15 6 1 Jurassic Park Uni. $820,863,000 2,566 $101,437,100 2,404 6/11/93 7 6 I Am Legend WB $327,945,200 3,648 $100,217,600 3,606 12/14/07 8 7 War of the Worlds Par. $326,384,300 3,910 $90,384,900 3,908 6/29/05 9 10 I, Robot Fox $208,224,300 3,494 $75,034,800 3,420 7/16/04 10 14 Divergent LG/S $165,266,700 3,936 $61,262,200 3,936 3/21/14 11 15 The Divergent Series: Insurgent LG/S $139,105,400 3,875 $57,477,200 3,875 3/20/15 12 9 The Martian Fox $234,517,100 3,854 $55,744,300 3,831 10/2/15 13 13 Congo Par. $166,328,100 2,676 $50,588,000 2,649 6/9/95 14 17 Starship Troopers Sony $106,643,200 2,971 $42,916,100 2,971 11/7/97 15 11 Contact WB $196,343,900 2,314 $40,048,600 1,923 7/11/97 The only one to do 75m adjusted or more outside the HG movies were Jurassic Park, Cruise/Spielberg combo, and peak biggest movie star in the world around that time Will Smith 2 time. Good news here is that Spielberg appear on that short 3 list times making it possible obviously. But it is still a very rare level to achieve outside solid franchise, unadjusted live action movies that reached 75m OW without a solid franchise are: Avatar: 77m (would have done more without a snow storm) I am Legend: 77.2m Passion of the Christ: 83m And except for Avatar the other 2 also had some form of franchise awareness (obviously for Jesus, but also I am Legend). The trailers views on youtube: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/trailerviews.html At 8.332M is not much higher than Annihilation in february or the next Maze Runner (8.5m) or Alpha that also has a march 2018 release (7.28m) and is reception (at least the vocal one) was not great. It would need great reviews and at least one great trailer before release to have any shot to a giant 75m OW, Speilbergh ultra wide release in the 2000 had in average a 3.9 multiplier. The Martian 55m type of opening would be great imo for that movie, 75m is Harry Potter franchise type of opening and would need something really special to happen for RPO.

Like said above, look like a compromise reached between people that really wanted to use that painting and people not wanting the bloody heart.

Could they not be data from different theater chain ?

Yep we should not derail the thread created to diminish fan wars derails in other thread's.

Both those number were rounded up estimate I imagine, but it would be a 87.5% of GotG. 146m * 0.87 = 114.61m (87.5% of Guardian 2) 121m * 1.25 = 150m (25% above thor 3) Being ahead of BvS but trailing Guardian 2 / just 25% above Thor 3 seem to show that online pre-sale ticket got more popular like Tele said.

Also there is a resistance force after so many movie that WOM cannot really reverse, Guardian of the galaxy, spiderman, etc... were clearly movie you could watch without asking yourself if you should watch x or y before. Great word of mouth for a Logan or Civil War can just limit the drops, cannot really transfer into great multiplier because just a limit amount of people feel they can see the movie. Thor 3 seem to be in the middle of those 2 extreme, look like fun with a bit of a new setting that do not require to have seen Thor 1-2 necessarily or much of the entry, but still not a first entry either. Star wars can translate opening in great legs with WOM because, well the base of people that have seen them is just so vast. The sat/sun hold seem a better metric to use than WOM on that one.

It is true that it tend to play funny (like the V of Tarzan) instead of creepy, maybe a bit for why ex-strippers (Tatum, Pratt, etc...) are not perceived to have a dramatic past vs a woman stripper and the mood at a strip club for woman is quite different more party than for men. A male critic can say something very similar but he will need to do it with elegance. One possible reason is that Hemsworth got roles without that body (like is drastic weight lost in the Mobby Dick movie) and is not reduced to it by the movie world, he is considered funny and so on. And other reason could be a bit of a historical sophism, male objectified woman a lot until recently now it is their turn. It is perceived that the consequence for a male to not fit the objectified one in that profession are less than for woman or at least the array of possible of what can pass for hot for male is way larger (a director can make is male love interest sexy to the female audience in a lot of way, humor, quiet and solid leadership, taking care of an animal that was hurt or a kid, etc....) And the other way around, it is more ok to always say that a male politician is really hot and it seem to be much more ok to laugh about a fat male politician (like Trump) than a female one for many people, probably for similar reason, because in reality they are less reduced to what they look like or at least that is the perception.

Really common for company to remove all access/ads buying/etc... in a publication they do not like, it is really to the publication to be ready to get those consequence and not change what they write because of it. There is some exception were it must be controlled military access, government access, well anything public, could not be cut or accorded freely by them or at least strong reaction must issue if they cut access just because they do not like what is writing in a publication. I think that it is rather common and not much of a precedent, journalist acting in solidarity about it is the way too go.

I think it was completely different than Feige in recent year, Weinsteins was financing movie without Disney knowledge and they refused to distribute some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11#Production Disney had blocked Miramax from releasing two films before: Kids and Dogma Disney announced that Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein had personally acquired the rights to the documentary after Disney declined to distribute it. The Weinsteins agreed to repay Disney for all costs to that point, estimated at around $6 million. They also agreed to be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by any third-party film distributors.[10] A settlement between the Weinsteins and Disney was also reached so that 60% of the film's profit would be donated to charity During their tenure, the Weinstein brothers ran Miramax independently of other Disney subsidiaries. Disney, however, had the final say on what Miramax could release From what I understand they were really a financier of the distribution with Miramax being really independent and what movies were made and how those movies were made. They were makings movies, when they were done Disney I doubt it is Feige that is deciding to put Audi ads in is movies.

That could be misleading, not sure it is really representative to say Disney release under Miramax banner, like it was disney releasing stuff through the Touchstone banner and now the Marvel banner. Was more that Disney was contractually obligated to release R-rated or less Miramax production, Miramax was still independently run by the Weinstein if a remember correctly, often going to court with them. Now I would agree that they're is a chance that at least at first than Fox would keep some independence (specially say Fox Searchlight), what the point to acquire it if it is to remove what make it work right (well outside the library of movies for your streaming platform). An other example going you way would be Disney animation becoming Pixar and under Pixar creative brain trust much more than the other way around. Chance are that part large part of Fox would stay what they are right now, but stuff like Family Guy and more probably Marvel Superheroes stuff could change over time for example, going under Feige umbrella.

Think so yes. One issue with lower ticket price, it become harder to sell high concessions price, I'm pretty sure that all 1$ theater for example have much less expensive food, and in rebate tuesday tend to have cheaper food at the same time. If tickets are $60 for family of 4, paying $40+ for foods shock less than with $25 and $40+ food. Same for beer price with concert/sport event ticket price, it is a bit counter intuitive but often with human nature the more you already spent the more you compare new cost to that total and instead of wanting to pay less for food if you already paid a lot for the tickets it become the other way around.

The theater chain profit is certainly smaller than the concessions revenues, but they keep close to half the ticket sales and make more money from ticket than concessions. http://investor.amctheatres.com/AsReported/Index In 2013 for an example: Revenues Admissions 1847 Food and beverage 787 Other theatre 115 Total revenues 2749 Operating costs and expenses Film exhibition costs 977 Food and beverage costs 107 Operating expense 727 Rent 452 gross profit margin movies: 870 Concession: 680 Remove that 680m from concession gross profit and the 180m annual profit would turn into a 500m loss, but the ticket sales is still the biggest revenue source (although with much small margin)

Is that not a bit of a dramatization over one bad quarter result ?: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMC/financials?p=AMC

IT is no really CGI bashing, like you said he is praising a franchise that is full of them with Bond, it is much pro interesting locations, set piece than CGI bashing, people do not mind the CGI pick-ups in Arrival they love the slate Deakins/Villeneuve build from. And some do a lot in camera/pratical, like Micheal Bay without ending up with a good movie necessarily, while Avatar 2 will probably be spectacular, it is certainly not a rule, fun to look at is the name of the game, in general those nice locations shot are much better than what a big amount of superheroes set piece are shot in nowaday, specially the big boss at the end fight in the destructed / abandoned dark generic locations tendency, hard to imagine a worst possible location/production design and more boring possible set piece.

It is a modern movie it had tons of VFX/CGI, like all big Nolan movies, Awaken had more CGI shot than the prequels almost every scene of MadMax had them, almost every scene of mother! had them, CGI existence/nonexistence was not the point made I would imagine, but how much they start with the slate and what percentage of the screen is CGI vs just augmentation/composition, how much is the movie crew going on an actual nice location/set/building From previous entry: A lot of those after rendering past do not look much different than the in camera slate. Compared to the : Type of background on a flat simple ground with a couple of rocks: A typical Mission impossible fight scene location:

Again not sure if I understand you at all but: Craig era Bonds have been locations heavy and practical heavy also no ? Look at Spectre filming location list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/locations Mexico, Morocco, Austria, Italy, UK, etc... 157 filming locations I do not remember any movie getting numbers like those.

I imagine the runners yes, I am talking about the employee there, apparently it is around 50/50.

Also apparently around half Fox News employee were sad to see Trump win, many are Democrat (workplace in the state of new-york...). A bit like false news creator and click bait stuff, you do not need to have much passion and believe in it to produce the content Fox News produce, just need / want the paycheck.

Those critics are pretty much only read on the Internet by now, we start with what say 15,000 feature film made in a year, a curating system of buyer/festival judge audience will pick up around say 700 worthy of a theatrical release. How do you curate that and go to a movie is first weekend without critics ? Specially in a world with first weekend being so important. What is issue with critics saying to people : Among the 450 movies I watched this year, Lady bird is really good people. What would be better than that ?

How does a 700 movie a year without critics would work ? There is always will be some curator model, are reviewer better than critics (if that what you have in mind here) ? It is true that for the movie Disney currently do, they do not need them very much and maybe can make it without the free publicity giving by the platforms critic work for, but for everything else, we need curator's, what will it/they be ?

For a studio that barely need the free press awareness for any of their release it is hard to stick it to them (and why Disney can act like that in the first place, for smaller movie that need journalist attention and does not have a long list of platform that will follow disney no matter what and would love to see a major publication talk about their movie and before it release wide it would be different)