Barnack

Or less, he would be paying is salary no ?

Other way around imo (not that it ever really mattered, but less and less it do), it is when Disney that does not win it that it does not mean they really did not, Disney distribute less and less movie they did not produce themselve and finance more alone what they do, if an other studio edge them by a bit, that do not make that other studio the winner over Disney (without even taking into account the slate side and the expense here). It is, until recently (say for as recently than the 2013 slate) it was more common for a studio to finance larger title alone and now the conversation cannot ever be: Oh the studio loss X million on that title looking at is box office and cost, just need to change the conversation at: Oh the movie loss X millions to 9 different people (intl buyer, co-financier, co-producers, the studio, etc...) and a less clear narrative is a bit more boring, a bit like car makers all co-operating sharing factory or even co-making some model or samsung making lot of money on every IPhone sold making those watching industry like a sport event duller.

Well yes, New Line has been in WB bottom line for a while now: Production Companies New Line Cinema (presents) KatzSmith Productions Lin Pictures RatPac-Dune Entertainment (in association with) Vertigo Entertainment https://www.warnerbros.com/studio/divisions/new-line-cinema New Line became a unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment in March 2008. There is no different section for New Lines vs Warner Brothers in Time Warners annual report: http://www.timewarner.com/sites/timewarner.com/files/related-articles/TWX_2015_Annual_Report.pdf Feature Films Warner Bros. is a leader in the feature film business and produces feature films under its Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema banners. Would be a bit like saying Disney didn't produce Force Awaken or Thor 3, Fox didn't do Fox Searchlight production, Universal didn't do Focus production and so on, kind of right in some case I imagine but it could be hard to know how independent those banner really are of the parent company in greenlight power and operation's, when it is not clear like Pixar or Miramax in the Disney era.

Except for the great debater Denzel always achieved to get 2,000+ theater since 2002 too.

I think you could just be a case of miscommunication here. You are right that are not relevant according to (B), but for (a) and (c) they certainly are. 1a :having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b :affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion relevant testimony c :having social relevance If they were irrelevant, homophobia would not be an relevant issue anymore.

"Mohler’s viewpoint depends on a fairly rigid moral universe, one in which people are commanded by God to act in a specific way, including when it comes to sex acts, wearing “male” or “female” clothes" I am really not sure how this is any different than every other religious view on the matter, fail to see how is take is different in any way.

Is loosing 21% of is Theater count (and I imagine what around 30+% of is show if it was still on 2 screen in many place last weekend) for the weekend could make that drop bigger than the weekdays indicated ?

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons-extended/Blade-Runner-2049/Elysium/Oblivion-(2013) Third weekend Elysium: 6.93m (-49%) Oblivion: 5.6m (-68%) Where they were at day 14 Oblivion: 70.17 BR: 66.85m Elysium: 61.9m Where they ended: Elysium: 93.05m Oblivion: 89.02m Is it really officially death, if it does 7.4m it will be above Elysium by around 5.5m (if they do the same legs after that would put BR at 98.5m, does not need much better legs to reach 100m) and there is not much going competition wise. Elysium had some great 4 days weekend hold after that date to help is legs too, so yeah I guess you are right.

Lot of people has yet to know that the movie is bad (not sure about timing/circumstance you are referring here, competition limiting is theater count ?. I am not talking about terrible legs/total here, but is opening. And when I am talking about how low the floor is getting for non-ip movie, that is part of it, in the prediction it need to take into account that the movie could end up to be a bad one, those were often opening fine in the past. Only the brave was not much marketed that is true (only 1,707 tv airing for a wide released movie according to isppotv, and a movie that had a tv watching audience that could have used live sports spot), but the reviews/platform release could have built some words out there (I guess the movie is just not good enough for that)

If it would be overperforming we would analyse it the other way around, that it is helping the movie to feel particularly relevant right now. (like if Battle of the sexes would have done great the heavy political talk mixed with news when it opened would have created a narrative that it helped the movie, when it under perform the other way around). It is a movie without an high concept hook for the audience in the trailer, title, synopsis, without a clear hero journey story line, they are very hard to sell.

Snowman just show how low the floor is without a strong IP (even with a book / nice appeal genre for Snowman here), the talk about "cannot see this open below 10m" for any movie without an IP, or a clear list of precedent never going under 10m will more and more stop. Only the Brave has a well timed/relevant heroes with the actuality, 90% on RT, emotional movie, nice theater count, not able to get close to 10m would be sad.

Playing a real life war hero, in a lead role that was a good casting for him, in a big budget studio movie involving Coens/Deakins/Desplat/etc... Hard to consider that it was not a good opportunity, the movie doing over 100 million domestic shown that. But true for money monster, was not using is forces (and I did not saw Tulip Fever but I would imagine)

I think so, Sony developing an Uncharted franchise around him even before Spider Man hit theater was a big sign.

Was it San Andreas ?

He has great potential, could be a physical actor that use is body really well.

Effron was pretty much the only star under 30 before he turned 30 this month (Danield Radcliffe is probably more well known, but not really interested in being a star it seam). Now that Micheal B Jordan turned 30, the list is getting shorter. Hoult with MadMax did show nice potential. Other possible candidate: Boyega Jack O'Connell Will Poulter (was great in Detroit imo) Tye Sheridan Alden Ehrenreich

He is a proud one, Fincher level of wanted control is a bit legendary Sony/Rudin/Sorkin conversation about giving Fincher total control over the movie (that for Fincher include release/marketing campaign, etc...) Scott Rudin wrote: You don’t think $40m to shoot three scenes is enough? Do YOU want every control given to him, including the entire marketing campaign? This is the director who refused to put the girl with the dragon tattoo in the ads for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Sorkin: You're not going to get an argument from me on that. I wrote the least expensive movie I know how to write. And while I think he can be of enormous value when it comes to marketing (the materials for TSN were fantastic), no, I'd be uncomfortable with him having control because there's always the risk that the billboards will say, "Anyone who doesn't see this movie is an asshole". But is there nothing in the middle that would make everyone happy? Not sure why you are saying that, he often made other strong writer script (like The Social Network and was in conversation for Steve Jobs) and never had a writing credit on is feature film.

It is hard to distinguish if it is : 1) People are less interested about a movie if they hear someone they do not know is the star than when it was just unknown who it would be 2) Do not like him 3) Imagined a list of possible name they would have preferred when the question came up and he was just not has popular than those in their heads.

He had some reshoot time and even with it, he could not fix it apparently. The cutting your lost strategy over a movie that do not work is not necessarily a bad one, and they did seem to have maximized the Norway tax credit already.

That cannot be possibly true, it is hard to have more studio movie than a Disney movie, even harder for a Disney franchise movie, even much harder in a recently acquired 2b cash+2b dilution Star Wars one with sequels planned (sequel to be made by other people) that is even harder. Not even sure how you can have pre-planned sequel to be made by someone else and the movie be the director movie at the same time.

When he is directly ask about sequel potential regarding box office disappointment and owning a lot of share of a public company that could be affected by is answer ? Will wait for all the market to open and the first cycle of home video to asses the situation, I have received lot of enthusiasm and demand for a sequel is a perfect and responsible response for someone that is a fiduciary of other people (and is family) money, imo, specially when it is not a Transcendant/King Arthur type of bomb.

Usually that number for Netflix content is all content acquisition cost, not just for original content (that is a marketing spin), at least always has been in the past. For a reference a studio like WB in 2015: Film and television production costs ...... $ 6,152 Print and advertising costs .............. 1,989 Other costs, including merchandise and related costs ....................... 1,278 Costs of revenues (a) .................. $ 9,419 Netflix is now spending on is content (production + acquisition), like an actual giant studio does when you include is P&A.

Was it just higher than ET first release oversea performance or also above ET including the re-release up to 1991 also ? ET accumulated around 350/360m over of the year's oversea.

San Andreas did extremelly well (other that did well stretch from the classical take on the genre like Gravity)

Test audience has a lot of possible issues and can be very misleading. Sample size, test audience that does not match the movie target audience at all (specially outside mainstream blockbuster, Black Swan, Boogie Night, etc... tested just terribly) and humans are terrible at knowing why they like or not like something (the rationalization of it is often all made up after Ad-hoc you didn't liked it for an other reason you are just not aware off or able to vocalize, there is some magic about tone/flow that you do not why it work so well) Never thought about lack of times, a 3 days after feedback maybe could help in some ways, there is some critics screening that kept them inside with a a 30 minute or so Q&A and embargo so they do not react online immediately now I think.