Barnack

Other way around, because people are able to make that distinction (and thus are not considering all of them a joke and see that it is not just a joke or made just for laugh) is the issue, if they would all consider them as joke sin and never take any for granted there would be no issue. (People fully understand the joke sins, there is no trouble with them is issue is that he hide behind them to make is serious one un-argumentable and claiming that it is just a joke) They certainly do, is point is went they do their well funded critics they do it well, unlike CS that is (according to him, lazy full of mistake and lack of knowledge in actual filmmaking).

Not sure how "fair" it would be too look at the final product, Ayer seem to have rewrote a lot of the movie if the rumors are to be true and lively signed on The Shallows before Ayer was official announced of Squad. The 2011 version of the movie: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7KOogudEi7ubVJmUGpWVXNZeTA/view No Quinn, no Joker, no Enchantress either I think at the time. When that decision was made maybe it was really unclear what her character would be and not much on an script. And I imagine generally lead role on your own movie would be really attractive vs a small assemble part (outside a great director movie opportunity).

I think it would happen if filmmakers ever heard cinemasins point from the mouth of someone else, the RLM of the SW prequels for example did influence the views of those movies for many people and when they are talked about the points they made are often heard (they are almost the definitive take on them). If that is the case for any sins from cinemasins, if you ever read/heard a conversation of your movies that seem to have been influenced by those videos (watched by millions) it start to be serious (has serious anything movie legacy related can be) Is idea is that even if he hide behind the boobs meme, not nude, etc... it make it look like/sound has if it was full on non-jokes in them has if they were mixed with serious film critics points in them, he is not going 100% jokes and if he want to mixed with some serious filmmaking flaw he should do it seriously like RLM.

Would be a perfect one, but it was a Wednesday release making it a bit harder to translate directly.

The girl who played with fire was my example of that, but the 3 movie got released so close that I must imagine were all shot in the same time and would mean very little. Others: Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay sequel from the 18.2m dbo Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle The Devil's Rejects sequel from the 12.6m dbo House of 1000 Corpses And both those movie didn't do 33% of Skyline oversea, didn't have necessarily a much cheaper production budget. Other not too far Transporter 2 sequel of Transporter (24 million budget): Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $25,296,447 57.6% + Foreign: $18,632,485 42.4% = Worldwide: $43,928,932 Whitout knowing how a movie played on video/tv (that were 65 to 80% of the revenue for movies like those) it is really hard to judge them, we know just a little surface that was always only a publicity for the home video window and that did cost more than the rental.

Not sure to follow here, how 78m box office on a 10m (if they are saying the truth) not a giant success story ? That was bigger than say: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=girlwhoplayedwithfire.htm Not sure what would be the best comparable but a movie like: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grantparker09.htm Did You Hear About the Morgans? Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $29,580,087 34.7% + Foreign: $55,700,163 65.3% = Worldwide: $85,280,250 That sold less dvd according to the-numbers made 119 million in revenue.

Box office mojo often does not track intl number correctly for non studio movie: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyline#tab=summary Domestic Box Office $21,416,355 Details International Box Office $57,277,016 Details Worldwide Box Office $78,693,371

Are you talking in estimated profit ? it made almost $80m at the box office (and being a 2010 release I would not be surprised if it had interesting dvd sales)

Seem has independent has it can get: Production Companies Beyond The Mothership Infinite Frameworks Pte. Ltd. Head Gear Films (In association with) Infinite Frameworks Studios Metrol Technology (In association with) North Hollywood Films (in association with) Distributors E Stars Films (2017) (China) (all media) Eagle Films (2017) (Non-US) (all media) (Middle East) Mongkol Major (2017) (Thailand) (all media) Splendid Film (2017) (Germany) (DVD)

Isn't the sequel financed by the people that made the first movie with their money, no studio involved ? For projects like those, they are not necessarily rational decision but people using the large fortune they made on the first to have fun on the sequel. And the first one was such a massive giant success 78m on a 10m budget in the year 2010 ! (and a small 500k physical production), even in the studio world a sequel would have been contemplated.

Average ticket price in 1939 was around 23 cents, Gone with the wind is at 198,676,459 million domestic alone if they would have done that they would be over 860 million tickets sold, they probably made some effort for GWTW considered how much higher is ticket price were versus the average of the, re-release factor and so on.

True the giant budget colorful animation genre is such a big the draw in itself (a bit like MCU brand) and can open original story/concept really high, I just tend to remove it by how much different the genre is currently on that aspect.

It got a lot of major re-release, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1989, 1998, 2013, 2014, some of those were massive success.

I was wondering (when forbes make some estimate of 12 month revenue for a star) how movie payment usually work out (guessing that it was not a just one time single paycheck): They are saying for director: That’s usually paid out as 20% during pre-production, 60% during production, 10% during post and 10% following Make sense to me.

For people that do not need the money (like James Bond craig) but for other it is a bit of gamble, if the movie do not work you get 0 (like a Blumhouse) I think people worked for scale on this. They were mostly rich people that can take that hit too (and I imagine why it is such a big cast), that can take a chance to work for a director like that like you said. It release strategy still has to make any money.

Quite a bit more, not only it is a book with a long history of adaptation, but the evil clown trope is also a strong already established american meme (a bit like a giant ape movie is) A classic Stephen King is not any book either in the state (it is not A Girl on a train or Life of Pi level either, but above the any book level). It should play much more like a franchise entry than an original movie. Has for what is the last original movie to open at 100m, never happened I think. American Sniper is the closest thing: $89,269,066m but the hero and the book it was based on were really popular and was not really an original movie and used a platform release to build momentum before the wide release. I am legend could be a good comparable (a book but not that much of a big deal), did 77m ow in 2007, that how big Will Smith was. (90m in today dollar) Avatar is the biggest truly in all the sense original movie first weekend, it did 77m in 2009 (87m today), for a december release during a snowstorm limiting some region performance that would be close to the equivalent of 100m today in the summer I imagine.

Salary is just one part of an actor compensation conversation, I doubt she got close to Nolan or Leo compensation deal on GITS. Someone like Leo start at the very minimum 20m + 10% of the first dollar gross and probably much more if he would ever accept to do a movie like GITS without a great director/producers, what SJ got is probably closer but still lower than Brad Pitt on the movie Allied (he was at 17.5m v 20%) and more who you be a better comparable if that rumor is true. Or Mark Walhbergh first offer on Uncharted (12 million + 20% of all revenue after profitability is made) Even if the movie would have made only 170m WW, Dicaprio type of deal make at least 30m Take prime Angelina Jolie, she was making the classic 20m + 10%. For example on a movie like Salt (movie that made 358.57 million in revenues) gave 39.28m in participation bonus and if you look at : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944835/fullcredits it is ok to suppose that most of it went to her, she made between 40 to 50m on that movie. I doubt Johansson is getting those Cruise/Arnold/Denzel old school big first dollar gross deal like Leo or prime Jolie.

I would not use rumors salary too much, but I doubt it was undeserved. Would have to ask them for sure, but I suspect they achieved nice presales like those: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-ticketing-service-weying-takes-stake-paramounts-ghost-shell-987261 The deal gives Weying a 10 percent share of global ticket revenue, along with a logo in the film's end credits. We would need to know for how much they sold 10% of the movie gross, how many market/investor got in and how less they would have got with an unknown actress to know if she was worth it, but sometime those star paid for themselve before the movie started to shoot (studio got enough co-investor/market sold because of them to make the project much less risky even with their added salary).

Apparently non-action movie targeting white male between 18 to 45 would be the most affected by RT: In fact, the only group that seems to play close attention to RT scores are white males, 18-45. Surveys suggest that the percentage of men in that demo checking RT before deciding on going to a movie has grown from 26& to 36% in the last couple years. And that seems like a big chunk of the audience. So this is the kind of movie that could be affected (by 10-15%) I think. Not seeing that it will behave a lot different than if it was 70 on RT (comedy tend to work as well as people find their trailers funny for the most part), but if it would have had Baby Driver reviews maybe it would have opened bigger (by 10-15%).

Considering Brie Larson is getting an MCU movie I'm not sure how much that argumentation hold scrutiny (most would bet on Johansson getting in a fight with Larson I think). In general using movie project that require individual to say yes to judge a studio intention is also misleading (we don't know if post Ike MCU didn't try to convince Johansson to make one, if they did try 2/3 development project and nothing good came out or would have depending on schedule).

It is a bit of an muddy one, IMDB has it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/ Crime, Drama, Thriller for is 3 biggest genre association over horror and I think I would agree with them, but it is considered horror by many (some feel 2001 a space odyssey play like an horror sometime), comedy and horror are really subjective because on how unreliable being horrified or laughing can be.

And I think that why that the fantastic era we are in is in part why there is a little jump with female in action, in a world were everything is magic (star wars/superheroes/robots suits etc...) and nothing come from actual talent/muscle mass, but a magical - robotic strength, male or female become more and more irrelevant in term of physicality because even thought the actor are human male/female they do not plays humans at all, they often play a god/robot/fantastic magical being not a woman.

5 days after Netherlands/Taiwan release (quite the weird release pattern on that imdb page, not surprised it was a mistake).

I disagree, it about the complete slate imo. Action genre is where click bait, female half the number of lead part men have across the board not just action. That is again cherry picking example, and Johnny Depp was nominated for best actor on a lead role on that movie. Look at the top 1000 released movie between 1997 and 2004 and make percentage, if you want to assess the existence or non existence of gender inequality not 2 of the 1200 wide release. I doubt you really believe any of that, you really think that if in the next 10 year's half the speaking roles in action movies are ladies that people will still care for individual success of release with ladies and still have an argument that they are under-represented. Do this exercise, do any of those arguments exists in the world of book ? About gender inequality in term of publisher/writer/protagonist ? No right, why ? Because woman are not underrepresented in that world. Why would it be any different if it become true in the movie world ?

Maybe not the typical affair that get only the horror crowd, but movie that break out: Split/Get out/Black Swan (we could debate how horror they were vs other genre) had great staying power. Don't breathe made 3.38x, Conjuring made 3.3, exception are not that uncommon.