Barnack

That sound optimistic both OW and legs, that is the Town box office and not too far from Wolf of Wall street. Recent crime/criminal bio type of movie, ow is the biggest weekend on expansion for limited release: 19.1m / 150.1m - American hustle 18.3m / 117m dbo - Wolf of Wall street 27m / 75.6m - 2 guns 22.6m / 62.5m - black Mass 20.2m / 49.8m - Pain and Gain 14.6m / 43m - War dogs 10.4m / 32.38m - Nightcrawler 9.1 m / 33.68m - Gambler 5.8 / 27m - Hell of high water 5.7m / 14.7m - Criminal 6.1m / 12.6m - Triple 9 5.1 / 10.3 m - Live By Night That would put American Made second in opening weekend, below only Denzel and number 3 in domestic box office below only Russel assemble and Scorsese-DiCaprio, both acclaimed movies with a lot of buzz and Oscars nominations. ---------- Liman Cruise collaboration Edge of tomorrow: 28.76m / 100.2m dbo (3.48x legs) Tom Cruise recent non mission impossible opening: Mummy: 31.6m Jack Reacher 2: 22.8m Edge of Tomorrow: 28.76m Oblivion: 37m Jack Reacher: 15.2m (Christmas release, I would imagine an equilvant of a 25m regular weekend) Rock of Age: 14.4m Knight & Day: 20.1m Valkyrie: 21m Average: 23.85m Predicting (25/90) is predicting nearly the same performance than Edge of Tomorrow (a 168m summer giant blockbuster with a nice High concept) and above average Cruise opening (in a list of movies than include franchise and 160m+ action movies) for a movie that seem to be getting a bit of a strange world roll out with an 63 metascore (that could go down once the American reviews get int). It is not a bad weekend at all historically that last september weekend too and flatliner should not be a strong competition for adults, but War Dogs/Pain&Gain does not seem bad comparable for American Made imo, 18m OW/53m dbo +/- 25%.

Where theater owner make it stop (as long as it is purely non violent / non intrusive demand and boycott campaign, and not like the Interview, Last Temptation of the Christ, Dogma, etc... with death threats or other threats), maybe harder now that they are chain that do not care much but they have a role to stand-up. That in part were the balance come from, that and show of supports from people that want to support free artistic speech and distribution. That balancing should create some resistance to the domino effects but it is a good question and good fear to have, movies with North Korea in development were all canceled, Putin was removed from movies, once it is normalized to not make/distribute movies for their content it can be hard to control where does it end. Will King-Kong (1933) stop to be shown one day ? Indiana Jones, etc...

That was the old sliding scale system that must be taken into account for older release, older than at least 2007, now almost all studio movie work with a flat percentage fee for is run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_distributor Distributors typically enter into one of the two types of film booking contracts. The most common is the aggregate deal where total box office revenue that a given film generates is split by a pre-determined mutually-agreed percentage between distributor and movie theater. The other method is the sliding scale deal, where the percentage of box office revenue taken by theaters declines each week of a given film's run.[2] The sliding scale actually has two pieces that starts with a minimum amount of money that theater is to keep—often called “the house nut”—after which the sliding scale kicks in for revenue generated above the house nut. However, this sliding scale method is falling out of use. Whatever the method, box office revenue is usually shared roughly 50/50 between film distributors and theaters. Industry became to front loaded to continue to use it. I did not achieve to see a difference in retention % for movies released the same year with different legs pattern. Say for example the small OW with extreme good legs Girl with a dragoon tattoo, the regular opening weekend/legs Just go with it or the big OW with bad legs like Battle of Los Angeles, all 2011 release, they all had a 52% retention rate. Just go with it weekly gross: Feb 11–17 1 $42,555,964 - 3,548 - $11,994 $42,555,964 1 Feb 18–24 4 $25,698,858 -39.6% 3,548 - $7,243 $68,254,822 2 Feb 25–Mar 3 5 $13,445,248 -47.7% 3,544 -4 $3,794 $81,700,070 3 Mar 4–10 7 $8,281,511 -38.4% 2,920 -624 $2,836 $89,981,581 4 Mar 11–17 9 $5,737,628 -30.7% 2,398 -522 $2,393 $95,719,209 5 Mar 18–24 12 $3,021,612 -47.3% 1,708 -690 $1,769 $98,740,821 6 Mar 25–31 15 $2,051,686 -32.1% 1,116 -592 $1,838 $100,792,507 7 Apr 1–7 18 $859,472 -58.1% 597 -519 $1,440 $101,651,979 8 Apr 8–14 24 $348,750 -59.4% 320 -277 $1,090 $102,000,729 9 Apr 15–21 24 $403,371 +15.7% 326 +6 $1,237 $102,404,100 10 Apr 22–28 29 $277,059 -31.3% 265 -61 $1,046 $102,681,159 11 Apr 29–May 5 33 $172,863 -37.6% 199 -66 $869 $102,854,022 12 May 6–12 - $117,525 -32.0% 133 -66 $884 $102,971,547 13 May 13–19 - $56,562 -51.9% 89 -44 $636 $103,028,109 14 Dragoon tattoo weekly gross: Dec 16–22 5 $8,376,473 - 2,914 - $2,875 $8,376,473 0 Dec 23–29 4 $32,383,831 +287% 2,914 - $11,113 $40,760,304 1 Dec 30–Jan 5 4 $24,775,610 -23.5% 2,914 - $8,502 $65,535,914 2 Jan 6–12 4 $15,644,935 -36.9% 2,950 +36 $5,303 $81,180,849 3 Jan 13–19 7 $9,844,219 -37.1% 2,674 -276 $3,681 $91,025,068 4 Jan 20–26 11 $4,970,045 -49.5% 1,907 -767 $2,606 $95,995,113 5 Jan 27–Feb 2 17 $2,886,352 -41.9% 1,202 -705 $2,401 $98,881,465 6 Feb 3–9 19 $1,439,324 -50.1% 668 -534 $2,155 $100,320,789 7 Feb 10–16 24 $699,082 -51.4% 269 -399 $2,599 $101,019,871 8 Feb 17–23 27 $503,233 -28.0% 189 -80 $2,663 $101,523,104 9 Feb 24–Mar 1 34 $259,432 -48.4% 125 -64 $2,075 $101,782,536 10 Mar 2–8 23 $408,022 +57.3% 256 +131 $1,594 $102,190,558 11 Mar 9–15 30 $253,268 -37.9% 211 -45 $1,200 $102,443,826 12 Mar 16–22 - $71,967 -71.6% 108 -103 $666 $102,515,793 13 Battle of los angeles Mar 11–17 1 $46,001,706 - 3,417 - $13,463 $46,001,706 1 Mar 18–24 3 $18,977,838 -58.7% 3,417 - $5,554 $64,979,544 2 Mar 25–31 7 $9,986,587 -47.4% 3,118 -299 $3,203 $74,966,131 3 Apr 1–7 10 $4,734,246 -52.6% 2,263 -855 $2,092 $79,700,377 4 Apr 8–14 14 $1,985,437 -58.1% 1,408 -855 $1,410 $81,685,814 5 Apr 15–21 20 $759,790 -61.7% 554 -854 $1,371 $82,445,604 6 Apr 22–28 28 $277,841 -63.4% 220 -334 $1,263 $82,723,445 7 Apr 29–May 5 44 $92,564 -66.7% 102 -118 $907 $82,816,009 8 May 6–12 - $268,786 +190% 229 +127 $1,174 $83,084,795 9 May 13–19 - $256,308 -4.6% 225 -4 $1,139 $83,341,103 10 May 20–26 41 $142,483 -44.4% 170 -55 $838 $83,483,586 11 May 27–Jun 2 - $68,414 -52.0% 96 -74 $713 $83,552,000 0 Studio domestic rental Just go with it: 53,499 (51.9%) Dragon tattoo: 53,412 (52.1%) Battle los angeles: 43,276 (51.8%) Even thought 68% of the Sandler comedy BO was in the first 2 week vs 40.7% for dragoon tattoo vs 77.7% for Battle of Los Angeles, they almost had the exact same % going to the studio (I imagine we cannot fully trust box office mojo, 1$ theater legs and so on)

It could be true would need to look at what the latest deal was (they have a lot of respond with notification and notes to that document), I'm not sure the actual signed one was leaked.

But I would imagine that only exist in the context of running for some other studio, right ? And must be really new and in reality more rooted into rooting about a franchise (that just happen to randomly own by a studio and not some other).

There is some natural contrarian tendency that can be in place, but for unseen movie almost always vested interest or not direct competition but precedents people want to see stay on top. Some of it can be sometime rational thought about were the industry would be heading if movie Y is a big success and not a direction that people want the industry go, but that I would think would be rare exception. If you are talking about public figure, than yes getting traffic by being different can help.

Directly from the movie world box office caping at 35m by movie (if they reach 1billion WW), and at a maximum of 130m for the next 10 year The leaked discussed deal (for sony to sell to Marvel is merchandise revenue), Marvel had to give back: Economics and Terms: Upfront: Marvel shall pay Sony $175MM. Backend: Marvel shall pay Sony a straight proration up to $35MM based on a sliding scale on WWBO of up to $1B on each future initial Spider-Man film release (excludes re-releases). (E.g. WWBO divided by $1B multiplied by 35 = payment). Specific WWBO language to be discussed in long-form to address potential of in-home viewing during theatrical window and include those revenues in determining WWBO Backend Cap: The backend payments shall be capped at $130MM per 10 year period. Marvel Participation: Marvel shall not participate in the Spider-Man film revenues (box office and home video), music, and Sony promotions or co-promotions Sony Participation: Sony shall not participate in Spider-Man merchandising and Marvel promotions or co-promotions

Icarus: It is awesome, start has a documentary about someone that will try to take enhancing substance and compete at the biggest amateur cycling competition (see if he will get cautch, how much he will improve, etc...) and because of the anti-dopage experts he work with to help him to cheat the system it turn into some cold war spy/thriller, the story is still going on.

And more attracted to the first thought about a movie. But embargo should diminish the issue many made their first public thought about the movie a long time after seeing it I would imagine, needed to respect the embargo...

I expected something like that 7-8 vs 12 would follow a bit the relative size of the phenomenom (400m vs 650m) while boosted by WW bigger leg and expansion more toward 75 than 60%. Also WW home video release is here, august 29 on ITunes, could it have some effect or people are not aware really until they see the actual release pop up ?

I'm not sure how much control he had distribution wise he would have liked the very first trailer/material way closer to the release date. It is maybe him talking in hindsight... https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/interview-steven-soderbergh-logan-lucky/?utm_source=wordfly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FC08-25-17&utm_content=version_A I’m of a belief that for a certain kind of film, putting the trailer out four months in advance is ridiculous. A movie is never as hot as when the first trailer drops. I’ve been having conversations about radically reducing the time between announcing the movie and dropping the trailer, and releasing the movie. People consume culture now at a faster rate. If I had my way I’d compress all of that, at least for a genre movie. Another thing I learned is how many people don’t make the decision about what they are going to see until very late. Three days out, 30 percent of people don’t know what they are going to see on Friday. Waiting for this thing to drop has been the longest four months, because there are just so many questions I want answered one way or the other. He probably would have loved the trailer to release more july than may I imagine the reviews out 24 july was a bit far from release also.

Global box office: 2002: 19.8 b 2016: 38.6 b SM1 WW bo in 2017 US dollar: $1,118,077,913.90 (not ticket inflation/market inflation, simply using the same variable has the $ when talking about Spider man in 2017, using $ from 2 different year is a bit like comparing a movie in Euro and an other in US dollar without transferring them to a similar value, it make no sense) 2017 unadjusted global box office will be almost the double of 2002, it is just less obvious than an 80s movie how the comparison are using different environment but it was still a vastly different environment, we would need to check but I would imagine SM1 WW performance was close to say what Age of Ultron did in is year. Would not surprise if you are right about Spider man budget (spider man 3 had an almost 300m net budget only 5 year later) But in 2002 (and specially 2003), theatrical was a smaller % of the industry than today, it was less than 30% back then (and less than that for studio revenue), they were sometime paying 100% of their big budget movie from the TV revenues, the first TV run revenues:

George you cannot just use the fact that people used goal to make them significant (that is a bit of an circular argument, people are doing it with SM1 and WW to start with). Talisman, a lot of it is not about significant it is just about the number/being in the top X, a bit like talking about round number milestone, obviously they have no real significant and would have been different with a different exchange rate that day.

I am talking saying one characther is better than an other by saying stuff like: One has no troubled backstory/external motivation, has female friend and not the others, need help from a male character from time to time, etc... Those type of rules are interesting when looking at a situation, of the last 100 female protagonist 87 were helped by a men while men protagonist are helped by female character only 37% of the time type of analysis, but often they are not interesting or good analysis at a case by case level, a bit like the Bechdel, quick rules of thumb to talk about 1000 movies and give some idea, but criticizing Gravity or Locke to fail it make no sense at all.

Would also be my take if you are talking about their movies incarnation Wonder Woman having her own movie give her quite the head start for that over the others, hard to judge Widow (cinematically) before seeing her movie. I would also no use thumb-rules (like type of background or anything) when speaking about specific character in specific movies deeper and more fun analysis that do not rely on rules should be used imo. But in a vacuum wonder woman was designed from the start as a feminist propaganda tool apparently (the movie about is creator could be fun), so I would imagine that she would be the one.

I think it would have been a good idea, but that the movie goes a bit into the laughing at that demographic and they will often reject it (a bit like faith audience if they feel it is not authentic). Do we have some stats in ticket selling by state/region in the US ? If we look at where Hell of high water (27m) was popular: Hacksaw ridge (67m): It is still probably possible on a budget to get your audience outside the coast.

Like you said it opened quite below Suicide Squad in almost all markets outside domestic, not sure why expect something different in Japan. Wonder woman opening weekend % of suicide squad opening weekend by market (If Box office mojo is correct): Market WW/SS Lithuania 23% Finland 25% Slovenia 29% Ukraine 32% Russia - CIS 34% Poland 35% Czech Republic 37% Slovakia 38% Turkey 40% Germany 40% Portugal 41% South Africa 41% Bulgaria 45% Argentina 47% Hungary 47% Australia 48% Romania 49% Norway 53% United Kingdom 54% Netherlands 56% Italy 57% France 58% New Zealand 61% Brazil 63% United Arab Emirates 69% Iceland 70% Spain 73% Mexico 79% South Korea 105% Thailand 120% Average: 52% Of course WW legs are much much better, (SS finished with 405m oversea minus china and Japan, WW is already at 306 and still going) Expecting WW opening somewhere to be over SS (would be 3.8m in Japan) is already predicting a lot and rare exception. No american live action achieved 80m in Japan since Force Awaken, 100m was not achieved since 2011. Someone can say it could (of course it could) but that not predicting it will or even saying that it is 20% chance likely to happen.

OW: BvS : 3,288,349 Suicide Squad: 3,800,457 Total: BvS WB $16,531,874 Suicide Squad WB $15,607,713 I would have thought pretty much everyone expected a 3 to 4m OW with a 14 to 18m Japan box office, even a giant intl affair like Civil War didn't do much higher with 4.2m / 24m total. Does not seem like a flop or a specially good performance, but what non-Spiderman giant SH movie tend to do in Japan.

That why it can be good to not have an end of the world level of threat when it do, they would often at least ask and if the hero is not busy with a world ending one come to help. Or I imagine that why they make all of them end of wordy.... so other heroes are currently busy saving the world from a different villain.

Looking at Valerian detailed budget plan made to ask for French tax credit of December 2015): http://www.youscribe.com/BookReader/IframeEmbed?productId=2697713&width=auto&height=auto&startPage=1&displayMode=scroll&documentId=2862608&fullscreen=1&token= They seem to be both right (at least at that point maybe he did sold more market between december 2015 and the release date) It is in french, but number/title should be mostly understood, if a understand their Devis (all in euros), it is clear breakdown of all expense and the amount of revenues they already had before starting to make the movie. Budget 197 million Euro (including a 8 million reserve for surprise) It look Valerian SAS (I imagine the company created own by eurocorp just for that movie like studio usually do) financed only between 108.22 to 127.36m of those 197 million, co-investor financed around 36 to 45% of the movie from the start, does not say who ventured all those million probably a lot from that China co-investor Fundamental films. TF1 is paying 1.2m has a co-producer Pre-sales 7.8 million from TV 4 million from theaters 3 million from HE 54 million from world market (is nearly 80 million sales is talking about) Total: 68.8m pre-sales + 1.2m co-producer = 70m So of that 197 million they were on the "hook" for between 38.22m to 57.36m euro (20 to 30%) that match the statement of the guy that said 20m / 86 coverred. Before tax credits..... with those I imagine that Besson (before domestic P&A and France P&A is taken into account) was not too far off, but it is playing a little bit, Eurocorp is pre-sales to Valerian SAS part of the dvds revenues, part of the theatrical revenue in advance, they are very reasonable figure but still.....

Not that big of an argument between the 2 sides it could be true, if pre-sales covers 60% and tax credits get around 20+%, one side is saying 80+% the other 90%.... Also their annual report do show a drop down from last year in pre-coverage: Annual global pre-coverage of production budget cost: 2013-2014: 85% 2014-2015: 107% 2015-2016: 101% 2016-2017: 70%

I did try to understand that one, but could not, you still have to spend some money for the movie production in Belgium or not ? The reporting in that article is a bit fuzzy: Throughout last week and the weekend, we heard that STX, which distributed in the U.S., was on the hook for only about $5M, had a distribution fee of about 10%, and that the P&A was being shouldered by EuropaCorp. Then that was disputed. Others said the roughly $60M in P&A was being shouldered by STX. What’s true? Read on. 60m does feel a bit high for that movie (maybe we are just not used to blockbuster without much product placement deal in north america anymore), at least is tv presence was on the low range for wide release: http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/the-emoji-movie-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202505688/ Impressions: 318,485,756 Attention Score: 88.57 National Airings: 1,505 Networks: 41 Most Spend On: NBC, Adult Swim Creative Versions: 14 Est. Lifetime TV Spend: $21.43M Studio: STX Entertainment Started Airing: 03/29/17

There is a DC universe, and a particular DC shared cinematic universe. Movie that share element that are from other particular movies, not just DC universe related. Maybe there some point about all the movies being by definition in the DC universe yes, but not what is called a shared movie universe. Nolan Batman share nothing with Suicide Squad/BvS they are in a different movie world, with a different set of rules and established element, batman are 2 different batman, 2 different jokers, Batman parents are different, Alfred and so on.

6M for Besson writing/producing/directing fee for a project of that many year was already taking a huge cut. And by casting all unknown (and Clive Owen) it was certain that he would be the biggest paycheck involved. That could explain that 150m net they are talking about you referenced, 30m Euro is the maximum help in France but if most of the movie spending was in Canada and other VFX places around the world he probably got tax credit from 2/3 other jurisdictions.

I don't know, I'm not sure it seem WB did propose role to cast member before Ayer was officially hired. I'm not sure why you bring WB up ? and worst a WB franchise-universe rushed movie has some example. At least look at Dunkirk, Revenant, some of the Potters/Lords of the Rings, Matrix trilogy, Dark Knight Rises, MadMax Fury Road or others like that. Usually the job of the director to choose it and collaborate with him. While yes did you notice that casting is considering a major director decision (and many say that it is one of the biggest decision they take) same for production design and all creative aspect.