Barnack

Why anyone would suggest not a good drop (say 20-30% drop or so) ? Maleficent was a 750m monster, there is a lot of room here, what is suggested is that it should not drop by 70+% like Alice 2 did, not that it has a good chance to go in the short list of sequel that did more than the first very successful movie.

Did any of this happened with Beasts of no Nation ?

That is to be expected, just one time second showing right and in a limited amount of theater ? Perfect candidate for pre-sales (who does buy flatliners ticket in advance... really. just why ?)

I imagine some of the success of Lego movie was the interest/curiosity to see that asthetic, a movie based on Lego animated, only the first movie can have that factor helping it, would be normal for the rest to all do well below. Not much of a point to make more than one (I am probably not the only one to only have seen the Lego movie among all of those)

Alice had some key element of a special case that should happen less to Alice 2 ) Longer time, if Maleficiant 2 is released in 2019 or before, that would be 5 year's or less since the first in 2014, Alice 2 had a 6 year's window ) Alice 1 overperformed by the peak of 3D popularity big time, the movie was the second biggest at the domestic box office for example, but on home video those 2010 video sold more: According to the numbers, was number 9 of that year release on US home vide sales: Toy story 3: 248m Tangled: 231m Despicable me: 210m Twilight eclipse: 210m How to train your dragon: 195m Iron man 2: 177m Inception: 161m Potter: 154m Alice: 118m 2014 release home video performance Guardian: 144m Lego: 130m Big hero 6: 99m Ninga turtle: 99m Maleficiant: 80.17m Look like it is in the top 5, for a movie that was number 8 domestic, excellent. Alice in Wonderland imdb: 6.5/10 RTaudience score 55% liked it Average Rating: 3.5/5 User Ratings: 479,941 Maleficiant imdb: 7/10 RT audience score 70% liked it Average Rating: 3.8/5 User Ratings: 175,367 Legs were also a bit better on Maleficiant but started with a much lower OW, making the comparison not really telling. It should drop quite a bit, but I would not expect anything close to the spectacular 70% drop of Alice 2.

Probably Profit (loss) (by release date) ----------------- Cloudy 2: 56.75m Smurf 2: 17.13m Hotel T1: 88.5m Pirates band of misfit: (33.3m) Arthur Christmas: (96m) Smurf 1: 94.93m Cloudy 1: 3.3m Surf up: (61.6m) Open season: 4.9m ----- Just 75m of profit in that 8 year's windows (to put it in perspective the movie Superbad alone made a profit of 88.5m), remove Smurf 1 and HT and it would have been quite in the red overall. Trying to compete with Pixar/Dreamworks in big animation was a costly business (big 9 figures budget, big 9 figures world release)

2009 was a bit of a different era how much studio were ready to spent and I think how much help (tax credits) they were getting, I imagine rendering farm and others cost related to animation went down in the last 10 year's to explain that amount of difference between Cloudy 1 and 2 budget. That nearly 150m for budget and overhead is high it is true (wonder if non experimented people didn't get played for that Overhead cost or if there was a special situation to amortize some general investment made a sony animation studio or something). Open Season Total revenue: 330.83m (a strong 115m on domestic home Ent Revenue) Net production budget: 99.56m Marketing cost: 124.285m Net Profit: 4.92m

Surf Up was a big money looser (61.6m loss), 97m production + 120m marketing budget doing only 58dbo+90ibo. But Cloudy got a sequel for a reason (didn't loose money) and Cloudy 2 made a nice profit Cloudy: 116.8m net budget, 87.7m marketing budget, 3.3m profit (the profit is small because of a suspiciously high 30m overhead, when it is rarely above 12% of the budget, that is more a 15-18m type of profit) Cloudy 2: 79m net budget, 101m marketing budget, 56m profit

Because of the level of effort ?

Buena Vista brand I think: According to the news Universal will handled domestic, Buena Vista International the intl market.

It has an 102.46m budget in tax credit qualified expenditures in the state of California alone. That do not include all the above the line expense and if there is some outside state VFX works done. It is still a massive production (probably considerably bigger than say Logan production), that could I imagine if it is successful become the main branch, with Mark Wahlberg having quit or the studio not using the option for a third movie of is contract and Bay saying he will not do Transformer 6 (for what is worth, feel like it is not is first announcement like that) I am not sure what would be the point to continue that storyline and make a T6, who is left still following/understanding it exactly ? A form of reboot would be I imagine appreciated.

Those number are way too to be true (4 movies with 1$ of difference each). Seem like a ranking decided than applied no ?

Certainly again a completely unqualified success story, like the first entry. The lower budget than the Bonds was really visible along the way and they seem to get away with it, no problem. If peoples are ready to do an next one and if Tatum fish out of the water in the UK work in the script, I imagine a third one is an easy greenlight for the studio. .

Yes apes, transformer, X-men, guardian, Spider-man would be the peak affected franchise I would think. (Lucy 2 in US dollar also, but being a french movie it is probably different, making their revenues in Euros), those who the sequel would have looked much better to the 2014 summer release if the exchange rate would have stayed the same (while benefiting the least of market growth to compensate like the 2013 and earlier franchise release).

Isn't a big crowdpleasing movie build around a build up to the big speech ? The Crown on netflix was very accessible to audience, what was on paper imo much less accessible Dunkirk did very well. All Joe Wright movies except one did over 35m adjusted domestic: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=joewright.htm

Depend of the currency, the pound still went down after Brexit. But for some main one it was a late 2014 dip than a stabilization (even a bit up in 2017 versus 2016), the Euro for example: 2010 1.327386 2011 1.392705 2012 1.285697 2013 1.328464 2014 1.329165 2015 1.109729 2016 1.106560 2017 1.113815 Russian rouble: 2011 0.034088 2012 0.032218 2013 0.031425 2014 0.026539 2015 0.016510 2016 0.014993 2017 0.017169 Australian dollar: 2012 1.035937 2013 0.967915 2014 0.902813 2015 0.752124 2016 0.743664 2017 0.766027 While for the pesos the drop is recent. So it really depends on the release date/market that did well, Kingsman is on the line/during transition and not affected like a summer 2014 movie would (for example Guardian of the Galaxy 1 was definitely just before the dip).

Felt like I Tonya could have been a candidate, but with how little the distributor were ready to buy it after seeing it and with Battle of the sexes opening weekend, I was maybe too optimistic on this. Del Toro track record is not an optimistic one and depending how weird the title end up to be, I'm not sure how much more than 31m Crimson Peak is movie is certain to make. Doubling that would be great. Darkest hours seem like a good candidate, could see a 70m a la bridge of Spies happen over a 60-65 Shape of Water.

Those complains are mostly for release of movies released august 2014 or before (when the big ER dip happened), not really for 2015 movies no ?

I watched it for the first time way too late (last year or beginning of this year), was a big deception for me, the trick used because of the lack of resource show too much, it was far, very far from an The Raid 1 or 2 or even a HardCore Henry for me, action movie wise. Preferred the first Transformer and Pain & Gain much more from Bay.

I thought it was the Lion kings, Beauty, Cinderella, etc... bunch, what I do not get is who do not care, do not care about what exactly and how it will bite Hollywood.

In that sentence who are the people and what the do not care about what exactly, and how will it come to bite Hollywood ? (Serious question, I do not understand what you mean)

Felt like one of the worst script (for a well funded talently made/cast movie) I ever saw in theater (I skipped a lot of bad movies too). Felt like they kill all the Kingsman just so loosing time trying to re-program Colin Firth character will not seem completely stupid that is paying a lot of time just for that, but nothing in the movie make any sense. ) Trying to go public and establishing a brand to sell drugs legally like that, except the obvious she would be arrested right away there is no such thing as like she ask that would not be reverted in a second, but also she think the consumer would go for the product of the crazy company that poisoned everyone, that made no sense at all. ) The over complicated made on the spot individual cage prison, what was the point of that....... ) Everything was fixed with some magic deux-ex machina to problems that made no sense, yet the movie is so long they could have made a good setup for everything (for example what is the point of having a deathly spinning aerial tram and the solution is a magic lasso cutting it loose over the air (couple of feet later would have been too late) to then be saved with a convenient parachute... ) Everyone had the worst motivations ) Oh that fragile glass with world saving antidote, I will just pass it around and out of is very nice casing for no reason at all...... ) They changed a room to make it so it would be filled with water (remember they just learned who he was), really ? The statemens care that much about him , why ...? A lot of the actions/production felt way too CGI, completely weightless and overused shifting speed imo, once you have the people dying at the beginning and people being resuscitated the notion of stake became all strange. Some of the last one were good, but some of the first like the very first one was terrible. And all of this so a magical robot hand can hack a car (has if any of this was needed for that) I thought I would have still liked it despite the mediocre reviews because I really liked the first and still had the same director, but no, should have went full austin powers if they wanted too go that ridiculous imo, that in between serious tone but completely everyone and everything make no sense didn't work for me (that said, still well made in many aspect maybe an other day it would have work better). The president was also a good character in this (probably the best by far).

What are those ? We were talking about movie that exploded on their sequels, not those who augmented (I just gave a wikipedia link with all of those).... has for going on yes, there is over 4,000 sequel listed on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/search/title?keywords=sequel&title_type=feature&sort=release_date,asc My point is that more than half of those did less than the original and that was something true in most era, listing 10 sequel for which it is untrue is not an argument against that point (my point is not that it never happen). Even in your list of example, Many bourne sequel did less than the previous, many marvel movie did less than the previous, Hobbits did less than the previous and cancel out the 2 LOTR sequel, 2 Ice age sequel did less than the previous entry and cancel out the 2 that did more, Despicable me 3 did 136m less than despicable me 2, etc... Come up with say a list of the 300 last sequels released and show that more than 50% did more than the previous entry (or just the second vs the first if this is your point) and will see, naming a bunch of counter example is not a solid argument here, because I can easily find 50 sequels that did less than the original (and that would not be a good argument to support my point either). There is many study on sequels box office out there, I'm not sure why you are arguing with a couple of cherry picked example.

Those 2 definitely: Using that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_sequels_by_box-office_improvement And ranking them by original year of release, those 2 are the most recent with a giant 100% jump Before those 2, movies that will have a spectacular jump on their sequel: 2005: Batman Begin 2004: Harold & Kumar 1999: Boondock Saints 1997: Austin Powers 1995: Desperado Pretty much it post 1990.

my statement was more often than not sequels do less than the previous entry, that is something that yes should be true or false by looking at say 700 sequels and looking at the percentage that did less vs than those that did more. Has I said I looked at many study (released in different time), and from what I can remember they were all telling this. Now, you could look at all the sequels made between 1970 and 1980 or find a study that did it, showing that more than 50% of sequels did more than the previous entry to contradict what I am saying, but I'm not sure what would be the point of bringing a list of sequels that grew over the original has an argument, I could easily bring a bigger number of sequels that didn't and we would not be more advanced.