Barnack

That was my point the production design and costumes using expensive glorious technicolor as much as they could instead of trying to doing the best design, the best costumes, etc... feel a bit too gimmicky to me (obviously very well done)

Does it not felt to people a little bit over the top, hey people we have color now versus the previous Hood movie and other release, look how much we have colors show off, more than good production design ? A bit like a 3D movie content to have 3D for 3D ?

Maybe better to wait tomorrow to look at today tweets, must be an heavy process (that they probably do not fully pay at least no need to be near real time efficient) for generic words movie like Downsizing, you need to look the tweet context if they are talking about a company downsizing or the movie.

King Kong this summer did 566m maybe for an other example ? I imagine that they want franchise to reduce fear, that studio without them will turn toward those public domain one (Arthurian, Robin Hood, religious classics, etc...), they are free.

Link (cannot find it) ? Maybe they give some explanation, like not real time or a number that is a metric score about the volume but not the actual number of tweet or something ?

Bit curious when you say that, have you found a study or did some study over a large numbers of the last year's release ? All study I have read did show twitter volume has being one of the better source for box office. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5699.pdf Our initial analysis of the correlation of the average tweetrate with the box-office gross for the 24 movies considered showed a strong positive correlation, with a correlation coeffi- cient value of 0.90. This suggests a strong linear relationship among the variables considered From the results in Table 4, it can be seen that our regression model built from social media provides an accurate prediction of movie performances at the box office. Furthermore, the model built using the tweet rate timeseries outperforms the HSX-based model Study has shown that you can beet the hollywood stake exchange by stupidly using tweet traffic about a movie in the past... Now that people are able to score sentiment of the tweet (positive / neutral / negative) I would imagine that it is even better that in the past. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.06134.pdf Previous research linking SM to movie sales has demonstrated somewhat less predictive power than might have been anticipated. When [136] correlated box office sales for particular movies with SM information they found only moderate correlations (r 2 = 0.29) when using positive sentiment on blogs along with volume of blog posts. This represents a 12% increase over using the volume of blog posts, but still is far from impressive. Better results are reported for a volume-based analyses by [3]. They predict daily box office revenue for movies as well as sales rank for music albums achieving r 2 = 0.74 and 0.92, respectively. Baseline features such as movie budget, genre, or number of theaters, which may hold greater predictive value, were not provided by [136]. Further work on movie sales was done by [186] who monitored official Facebook fan pages for 50 different movies. They achieve an r 2 of 0.88 in forecasting total box office revenue when incorporating social network features, essentially modeling the influence of each movie’s fan page, a significant improvement over using just the number of theaters showing each film (r 2 = 0.68). Much more positive results are reported by [9] who correlate Twitter volume with opening weekend box office sales achieving r 2 = 0.93 with SM data alone and r 2 = 0.97 when incorporating SM with the number of theaters showing a film.

Flatliners if it is that list they are talking about (I would imagine): http://www.imdb.com/scary-good/most-anticipated-horror/ls020270828/mediaviewer/rm1981687808 (why is the link not in the twitter link, how terrible Internet has become with people making jpeg of text etc...) Would have lost Venice Film Festival (cannot play here if you had a public screening before) and I imagine even too TIFF will play anything with big names, not a movie in theater. And the movie post-production was apparently completed just 2 days ago.

To make an extreme example, do you think you can do what you want with the word Apple on computer hardware/cellphone/software because it is a public domain word ? Amazon on something that do reselling, etc... ? It is more complex then that, if a consumer could be mislead and someone take profit of a word/brand you did put a lot of money promote it can become an issue. You cannot put someone that look like a old captain like captain Morgan on a Rum bottle for example, even if everything is public domain about being and old ship captain and that you can do it on anything else than a rum bottle. They are case by case element that need a judgement to be made. https://secureyourtrademark.com/can-you-trademark/common-words-phrases/ Why was this allowed? Because the word “apple” is an arbitrary word when used in connection with the manufacture and sale of computers and computer programs, or tobacco products, or educational materials. That is, there is nothing about these products that relates to “apples”. Accordingly, the term “APPLE” is actually a pretty strong trademark, as is the case when you apply a completely arbitrary term (however common it may be) to promote your products or services. Context is Everything Trademarks are not about owning a word or phrase. It is about providing companies with distinctiveness and preventing consumer confusion. If another company producing computers or computer programs called itself Apple Hardware or Apple Electronics, then Apple Inc. could sue them for trademark infringement. But if Honda wanted to create a car called the Honda Apple, then Apple Inc. would have a very hard time getting them to stop. There is little to no chance that consumers would confuse Honda’s car with Apple’s computer products. Further proof that registering a trademark does not bestow total ownership of the word: six different companies have trademark registrations for the word “TRADEMARK”. There are another 10 going through the process with the USPTO. Yet each company uses the mark for its own distinctive products, and none confuses consumers by using the term in association with said products.

Will need to read the trial, but a lot of it is about if a consumer could mix them up (if you start making toys/movie with Bumblebee name/color/etc... it would be different than a cake named bumblebee for example). Creation date matter but is not all the story, reducing confusion in the market place is what those plaints will be about, and even if you were created after if you are much more popular that will be taken into account (say someone made something made Microsoft in 1960 say on some micro technology that handled wind noise better, he would still be limited in how he could use that has a brand in the software/IT hardware world), there is some use it or loose it logic into those things also: http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-4-no-2-2-mcdowall/ If you do not make a continues use of the mark and effort to generate sales with it, you can loose it.

Not necessarily relevant in this case (the person that received the 1 million dollar can do as well for those kids than the person that had it before hands) this is a pure exchange of money, nothing was spent yet. "Judge" when it is actually spent on humans worked hours/resource are spent by the incentive the money created, like when humans make a big movie and thousand of peoples are working on this for months instead of helping those kids or a rich make people fabricate a nice boat and extract fuel to make it work and so on. 2 rich exchanging money/painting in a afternoon no one worked a long time for them, no resources was spent on it, nothing at all was actually spent, no "harm" can possibly have been done, there is no opportunity cost.

Hard genre for sure. And Lord of the rings is fantasy-magic world like GoT, much easier than actual period movie. Black death made 265k WW. Nick Cage Season of the witch did ok, 91m on a 40m budget. Medieval Times movies (according to box office mojo) after Robin Hood in 1991: Robin Hood 105.27 Braveheart 75.61 Ever After: A Cinderella Story 65.71 A Knight's Tale 56.57 King Arthur 51.88 Dragonheart 51.37 Kingdom of Heaven 47.40 King Arthur: Legend of the Sword 39.18 First Knight 37.60 Robin Hood: Men in Tights 35.74 Black Knight 33.43 The 13th Warrior 32.70 Season of the Witch 24.83 Quest for Camelot 22.51 Your Highness 21.60 Timeline 19.48 Tristan and Isolde 14.73 Joan of Arc 14.28 A Kid in King Arthur's Court 13.41 Army of Darkness 11.50 The Last Legion 5.93 Just Visiting 4.78 Othello 2.84 The Reckoning 0.26 Black Death 0.02 Average 31.54 Even adjusted Robin Hood in 2010 was still one of the biggest after Braveheart and Cinderella story, considering they tend to be costly.... Not many hit since Braveheart (and that one was a giant VHS hit/good intl, but not a domestic theatrical one).

And ? Not sure how would that matter, can you explain the precision you are making. Take January of this year, Live by Night/The Funder/Gold/Silence/A monster Call/Patriot Day/Collateral Beauty/Assassin Creed/etc.. were know to be weak relatively close to their respective release and not 6 month in advance, Monster Truck was know to be weak months in advance. Does the amount of time it took to be known they were under-performer change anything on the impact they had on the late December release/January release ? If 4 or more of those movie end up connecting with audience, some of those Hidden Figures/Passengers/Sing/Rogue One/Fences legs would have suffered. If you are saying that studios didn't know when they scheduled them they will end up being bad movies nor people when they predicted box office, well sure but that is not what EmpireCity is talking about.

It really benefited from the superheroes craze and for some reason becoming popular again (big bang theory, Social media Internet?) A lot of the progression is probably due to how big franchise opening weekend became in general, specially for the Star wars / YA / Super heroes type of stuff, superman progression was above average but not by a strange amount considering is genre and the marketing push. Franchise Circa 2006 Circa 2013 Jump Batman 48.75 160.8 230% Star wars 108 248 130% Superman 52.5 116.6 122% James Bond 40.8 88 116% Harry Potter 102.6 169.1 65% Pixar 60.11 82.2 37% King Kong 50 61 22% Mission impossible 47.7 55.5 16% Average 63.8075 122.65 92% opening weekend of Franchise movie with both had a release around 2006 and 2013 used for that comparison. Superman 52.5m (2006) -> 116.6m (2013) Star wars 108m (2005) ->248m (2015) Batman 48.75 (2005) -> 160.8 (2012) King Kong 50 (2005) -> 61 (2017) Harry Potter 102.6 (2005) -> 169.1m (2011) James Bond 40.8m (2006) -> 88m (2012) Mission Impossible 47.7 (2006) ->55.5 (2015) Pixar 60.11 (Cars in 2006) -> 82.2 (Monster university in 2013)

From an interview with the people that made that movie it is apparently it became a bit of a personal for the Pixar veteran people, for almost everyone there Pixar was a backup plan because they did not achieve to make it in live action feature and they ended up in a better work place, more happy, or at least more than ok at the end, almost certainly better than in their dream movie live action feature career, that movie is really about that.

Apparently because a large portion of Europe were conquered by Romans army and that it was common for Romans to have sub-sahara Africans in their troops, black people were not that uncommon in western europe, even in England after the 3rd century. Now with new ability to determine from a skeleton bones someone origins they are finding a lot of Africans in old cemetery. And before the western europe-american slave situation, how white people viewed blacks in Europe was really different apparently (because Africa was renown to be rich in gold and linked to wealth they were seen as exotic/erotic figure apparently and the concept of race like it europeen had in the 16th+ was not yet invented). http://www.jstor.org/stable/23053734 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_Ancient_Roman_history#cite_note-Cowherd-4 https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-black-romans/

But 15m would be doing great at the box office (and a bit unrealistic), that would 115% of the movie budget in one market in one weekend, could have 0 legs if it follow Arofonsky recent 30/70 dbo/intl ratio to be a big nearly 4 time it's budget total success 50m at the bo. More than acclaimed arthouse movies like Her (47m) or Ex Machina (37m) that had bigger budget and did seem more accessible. Closest recent comparable could be The Witch, that became a bit of a phenomenon art house horror wise, over 13m trailer views on youtube, acclaim in 15+ festival with a year of build up hype from Sundance 2015 to release, it made 8.8m on over 2000 theater wide release. It come at night made 6m on 2,500 theater wide. The Witch: 91% RT It come at night : 88% RT Cannot do much more than this RT wise, probably less, except if they ramp up P&A beating the Witch domestic OW would not be bad at all. Doing well at the bo need to take into account the type of movie it is, is budget and the size and length of is marketing campaign.

When did that strange phenomenon started, Batman V Superman ? is the first time I remember seeing those strange number. Funny things we went from the very funny MoS paid for all is budget/made money before playing in theater because of the product placement in the movies in 2013, to that strange 4 time the budget / 2x (production+ marketing) in less than 4 year's.... Do these people really think that a movie like moneyball World P&A: 78.14m Net production budget: 55m Needed 266 million a the box office to only break even ? In reality it made a profit doing just 41% of that. Titanic, Avatar, force awaken, Get Out would be the only kind profitable movie in history.... Has a rules of thumbs someone that is not specific were (in term or market) those box office dollar are made in is break even / profit calculation, is probably not really thinking too much about it or ever work in distributions, never seen a break even point calculation from a studio/anyone serious that do not at least specify the dbo/intl configuration. The fact that it needed 78m (and not 78 to 88 or something like that) to go into profit when it did 55 or 65 as of now is an other clue. When you are talking about a Liongates release that tend to pre-sales at least 70% of the movie revenues sources and need deal to distribute everywhere that it didn't fully pre-sales except US/UK, it become more obvious. But for a very domestic heavy comedy like that (that do usually well on rental/world tv) not small movie with reasonable P&A, double your budget rules of thumb would usually get you close to reality. 143m just to break even sound like madness imo, that is more than what Let's be cops did, close to Ride along and more than Ride Along 2, no one called any of those movie money looser for good reason, they were huge success.

https://www.lionsgate.com/uploads/assets/2017 Annual Report.pdf It is Liongates business model, from La la land to Hunger games/power rangers/God of Egypts: Through our pre-sales and output arrangements, we generally cover the majority of the production budget or acquisition cost of newt heatrical releases which we distribute internationally. Hitman being a movie with movie stars at 30m and a high concept that they say: To highlight a few, The Hitman’s Bodyguard, starring Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson and Salma Hayek, is well-positioned for its August 18,2017 release after scoring are sounding hit with exhibitors at this year’s Cinema Con convention. All is budget (or even more) is maybe a bit optimistic but possible, expect at least 75%+ of it. Production budget is not necessarily the majority of a total movie expense thought.

Not sure it even need 78m in total at the box office to reach is expected break even point and it is already at 60.9m worldwide sunday. How do you calculate that 139m break even point for a 30m dollar movie playing heavily domestic ? 4.6x the budget sound quite extreme, why not a break even point between 55 to 65 ? What made a profit ? Do you mean he made a profit ? the movie has hole has yet to make a profit for all the party involved.

Agree with that, would extend the comment to John Wick 2 vs John Wick 1 also. That world make very little sense at all and was better off not to be explored but stay in surface/background if it is to hurt it instead of making it more interesting, like for all the MadMax movies. (At least even if it make no sense is aesthetic was nice, like MadMax)

Around one month after respective release Rotten tomatoes audience score Atomic blonde 68% liked it Average Rating: 3.6/5 User Ratings: 26,142 John Wick 82% liked it, now down at 80% Average Rating: 4/5, now down at 3.9/5 User Ratings: 37,391, now has 79k votes Imdb score Atomic Blonde : 7.1/10 John Wick: 7.9 (November 15, 2014), now down to 7.3 Will see how much it will drop after the home video release and arguably John Wick had more appeal to the IMDB/RT demography and could be overrated on those platform, but the difference after a month is quite big. Atomic Blonde still seem that it will do significantly better than JW, more than enough to make up for the bigger publicized budget, but I would not expect some boost like JW had if they ever do a sequel, maybe a drop.

Hitman bodyguard was a somewhat strong competition for Logan Lucky, not that different than Neighbors 2 (maybe a bit stronger), hard to be a more direct one. Sure Logan Lucky weekend had no comparable to being in civil war 3 weekend big legs (Annabelle creation second weekend was about half of Civil War), but a nice May weekend (137m) vs a moribund August one (66m) probably make up a bit of the difference. Remove Civil War or make it is 4th weekend, Nice Guy does not necessarily reach 12.5m

Not sure about easily, The Nice guys had a little bit more going for it imo, and it was released by the giant Warner machine, arguably the best to release a movie like that with the biggest releasing budget it could get and it only did 11.2m OW, Shane Black / from the guys that gave you Lethal Weapon/Iron Man 3 didn't really had less appeal than Soderbergh. Comparable release distributed by MPAA studios: Lucky number sleven : 7m Nice Guys: 11.2m Hot Pursuit: 14m War dogs: 14.6m Lets be cops: 17m Will Smith focus: 18.6m Bay,Wahlberg,Dwayne Johnson Pain&Gain: 20m And most of those movies had a bit of a clearer high concept sold to the audience, some of the biggest movie star of the 2010s, bigger production, etc... 15-20m for a movie like that is not easy specially nearing on 20m that would have been a great result hard to achieve for a movie like that, even from a traditional distributor. If you look at a list of comparable since 2012: http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=comedy,crime,drama&release_date=2012,&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc&title_type=feature

He is a co-owner of the Marvel toy company and still the chairman of Marvel entertainment, LLC.

Spectre probably made them a bit less than 30m, the big budget is in good part (50%) paid by the co-financier: SPE funds 50.0%; MGM 75.0% equity; no fees; SPE distrib. WW Theatrical only, 11/6/15 Release Hustle was a bit like Logan Lucky/Valerian for Sony, production budget paid by market pre-sales, heavily co-financed, lot of people paid on the low range in exchange of back ends points, not that big of a profit. Well 25m is big versus the almost nill risk and the almost $0 budget, but not that big on the Sony bottom line, the movie was a split 50/50 production with Anna Purnana (that paid for half the releasing cost and so on) and with about half the profit pass a certain point going to the stars, the movie made probably around 100m in profit, but only 25.5m went to Sony. Some of the profitable 2014/2013/2012 release (purely from Sony pov) Hotel Transylvania: 88.5m Amazing spider man: 69.8m 21 jump street: 58.6m Skyfall: 57m Cloudy 2: 56.75m The vow: 53.4m This is the end: 52m Heaven is for real: 50.9m Django Unchained: 50.86m Captain Philips: 50.16m Grown Ups 2: 49.9m 22 jump street: 45.54m Think like a man: 42.8m Underworld awakening: 32m American Hustle: 25.5m Insidious chapter 2: 21.48m Evil dead remake: 20.9m Elysium: 20.45m One direction This is us: 17.4m Smurfs 2: 17.1m Last year you can add The shallows, Angry Birds, When the Bough Breaks to that list of nice profitable movies, in 2017 I imagine Resident Evil did well, they have a nice track record. p.s. looking at that list show how loosing Lord&Miller and Sandler were big hits for Sony, not necessarily smaller than say loosing Bond distribution deal would be.