Barnack

!?! She is definitely one of the most gifted and effortless actress imo (arguably the best crier for example), she more than hold her own on Big Little Lies (not easy thing to do with those co-star)

Still 6 nomination for a foreign language movie is really rare in modern time and he was never snubbed yet, nothing else he did was of oscar caliber he is probably still loved in many guild branch.

I think they already fully well known, was he ever used has a movie star in a movie ? City of Z he was not using a movie star persona in that and King Arthur is a franchise movie those work all the time without a star in them (it does not mean they thought he was a star because he was cast).

Hard to say because all the other movie on that list are comic book sequels/ star wars/ fifty shade monster they also have more international appeal. It is almost 50% bigger than Kingsman and Kingsman was a 414 million world giant blockbuster, that sound extremely high for a non-sequel/domestic heavy title. If those number are worldwide conversation, if they were some non franchise movie on that list I suspect that number would look really high.

Well the record was already broken 3 time in 2017, poor Emoji movie didn't hold that record for long. The mummy: $7,853 PTA, 4,035 theater Emoji : $6,020 PTA, 4,075 theater Nut job 2 : $2,084 PTA, 4,003 theater That said it is not everyday that a record is broken by that much, you could be right (but has theater become many screen multiplex more and more, simply getting one in a multiplex will mean less and less, so that record could still go down easily)

Well for a movie that made 500m when was the last time you ever heard of it (reference in any way) outside the franchise war Internet ?

Except for the niche gore horror, mainstream horror movie became the last date movie in the last decade and that why the genre work so well commercially even when it is not good or big budget. Annabelle had a 48-52% male-female audience this weekend according to cinemascore. While a movie like Glass castle was 24-76% male-female, definitely not a date movie.

King adaptation never reached 60% oversea I think, I do not expect IT to do better than 55%. But stuff popular in the US tend to be more and more popular everywhere, with the Internet and all buzz travel, it could be able to pull close to 50% and double is giant domestic. That said IT is one of those rare movie that should be successful from domestic alone. Worldwide (Unadjusted) Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 The Green Mile WB $286.8 $136.8 47.7% $150.0 52.3% 1999 2 1408 MGM/W $132.0 $72.0 54.5% $60.0 45.5% 2007 3 Secret Window Sony $92.9 $48.0 51.7% $44.9 48.3% 2004 4 Carrie (2013) SGem $84.8 $35.3 41.6% $49.5 58.4% 2013 5 Dreamcatcher WB $75.7 $33.7 44.5% $42.0 55.5% 2003 6 The Mist MGM/W $57.3 $25.6 44.7% $31.7 55.3% 2007 7 The Dark Tower Sony $53.6 $34.3 64% $19.3 36% 2017 8 Carrie UA $33.8 $33.8 100% n/a 0% 1976 9 Hearts in Atlantis WB $30.9 $24.2 78.2% $6.7 21.8% 2001 10 Stephen King's Riding the Bullet Inn. $135k $135k 100% n/a 0% 2004 11 Cell Saban n/a n/a - n/a - 2016

That is a good topic I imagine. An other candidate could be Borat ? Is viral bit before the movie were big on the Internet I think.

That is a bit of an exaggeration, the birth was at least since, many movie did it in the 60's/70's at least: For example in 1961 https://www.fandor.com/films/the_connection But it was really popularized and became a big deal in 1980 with Cannibal Holocaust (the found footage bit was really pushed by the marketing, actor that played roles of people dying in the movie had in the contract a close that they could not shown themselve in place were they could have been took in photo, public, in Italy for quite a long time, so much that they had to stop at one point during a trial for murder and bring them back to show that it was fake). Blair Witch was a re-popularization/boost of an already existing genre, a bit like Avatar with 3D. I would imagine story like those overshadowing Phantom Menace not getting close at all to Titanic and being expected to be a monster, but in hindsight it had ridiculous long leg, still the biggest second biggest ever for a 50m or more opening I think, with an over 6.0x multi.

That sound like good numbers.

I watched the first one for the first time not long ago (so much of it was parodied over the year that it is not a fair way to judge a movie really) but I feel like it would have failed today and like Harry Potter for the shift toward unsaturated color palette and color-grading in the 2000's, the Mission Impossible franchise is a good one to track how much humor was added and getting away from dry adult drama blockbuster shifted over the last 20 years.

Also have that feeling that Ghost protocol will be that franchise peak unadjusted (except for an exchange rate shift or a China burst obviously). Domestically Except for MI-3, the franchise went down every entry since the first one: Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Release 1 Mission: Impossible Par. $364,011,000 $180,981,856 5/22/96 2 Mission: Impossible II Par. $355,286,400 $215,409,889 5/24/00 3 Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Par. $236,365,200 $209,397,903 12/16/11 4 Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation Par. $210,034,300 $195,042,377 7/31/15 5 Mission: Impossible III Par. $181,912,200 $134,029,801 5/5/06 Yearly domestic ranking: MI-1: 3 MI-2: 3 MI-3: 14 MI-4: 7 MI-5: 11 I would expect the small decline to continue (it has a really robust history of sustained success, it should not drop pirate/transformer style).

Do you have a list of comparable for non franchise horror movie after 5/6 days ? That show that it is in the average. http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/trailerviews.html Get out got less views for all is combined trailers over like 6 months, Split did 12 million over a long time (and both those movie got a little boost when they reviews came out, when ticket started to sells, etc...), Happy Death Day started over a month ago and is at 5.2m, Mother is already at 7.26m in comparison. It does seem to be a bit above average.

For some like Dunkirk it is obvious, but it is me trying to get what was your level when you said a movie does not need a lot of hype to reach a 20m OW. My question/proposed exercise was: what would be the last 5 live action (non-ip/sequel/horror) that according to you didn't had much hype that achieve that mark (say 19.5 to 20, because you are right that the difference between 19.8 and 20.2 is nothing). I think by doing it (I could be wrong) you would say that the movie needed to have good stuff going for it (good level of hype) to reach it. Hype would be hard to clearly define, media presence, star/director clout, reviews early word of mouth hyping it, trailer that get huge score on ispottv, people responding to an high concept, etc...

You did the important part of the message that you would say did not had not that much going for it, I already listed all the movie to do it (All eyez on me was a biopic about a big name to do that first weekend big number) The statement was, you do not need much hype to get 20m OW. I said that you need a lot of hype for a non-ip/non horror live action to do it (relative to the 500 or so of those released every year), you need either the great trailer + high concept that gather lot of positive traction like Bad Moms/Accoutant, giant budget/director (Dunkirk), lot of buzz like Baby Driver, Arrival, Hidden figures from is platform release.

Not that obvious, Jack Reacher 2 was a 96 gross budget movie from a giant book franchise that should be an easy sell that made 58m dbo/103m intl. Collateral beauty probably costed around half of that and made 31m dbo / 57.4 m intl, more than half of Jack Reacher 2, still advantage Reacher but it was a much easier sell has a franchise movie.

Look at Cruise director list in those, Cruise brought a minimum level of quality and effort, audience like Cruise movies much more than Cruise (at least domestic audience) in the last 10 year's. As for Pitt not being a box office draw, I mean come-on he was for a while up there has the possible biggest oversea. A movie like Burn after reading did over 100m oversea !! From 1994 to Fury in 2014, Pitt had 12 movies than made over 200m How can someone look at this: http://www.the-numbers.com/person/730401-Brad-Pitt#tab=acting And doubt if he was ever a draw in is prime ? He is not what he used to be obviously, but from Interview with an vampire making 223m to the 486 million top 5 in the world Mr And Mrs Smith (and because of an huge opening weekend, not great movie having great legs stuff) and the 530 million WWZ he was obviously a huge box office draw worldwide.

Maybe I'm looking at it uncorrectly (Not following box office for a long time), but could you list the last 5 non-ip/sequel non horror live action movie to achieve an 20m OW that you would say did not had not that much going for it (or at least a mega box office draw in a lead role) according to you ? I'm curious how far you will need to back for that.

Pre-release Hype/talks for Atomic Blonde was quite big, Baywatch, Ghost in a shell, BFG, etc... You are going a bit on the reverse here, yes movie with massive hype that didn't reach 20m OW (outside christmas release like Wolf of Wall street) will be rare, that is not my point, my point was that you need quite a high level of hype to reach that big 20m OW mark, almost no non-sequel/ip live-action achieve to do that, those who did it had quite a big hype. Try to find the last non-ip non horror live action to achieve a 20m that you would say did not had not much going for it, you will probably see a big box office draw involved (and that has quite fans that do not participate to the zeitgeist much).

A Non IP or sequel live action movie need a good level of hype to achieve a 20M+ OW wide release, it really rarely happen and they are the exception. in 2017: Dunkirk: 50.5m Split: 40m Get out: 33.3m Girls Trip: 31m Baby Driver: 20.5m In 2016: Central Intelligence: 35.5 Sully: 35m Don't breathe: 26.4m Accountant: 24.7m Arrival: 24m Bad Moms: 23.8 The Boss: 23.5m Lights Out: 21.688m Deepwater Horizon 20.2m Of the 250+ wide release that occurred during those 83 weekends, it happened to only 14 movies (I could have forgotten some, I looked at all the 20m OW quickly) but not many. Remove the horror genre that can still often do it at a lower budget without a movie star/big name director and you end up with: Dunkirk: 50.5m Central Intelligence: 35.5m Sully: 35m Girls Trip: 31m Accountant: 24.7m Arrival: 24m Bad Moms: 23.8 The Boss: 23.5m Baby Driver: 20.5m Deepwater Horizon 20.2m Only 10 non horror live action movies achieved this in more than 18 months: they either had giant 100m+ budget like Dunkirk/Deepwater Horizon, or had one of the biggest movie star playing the perfect role that the audience prefer them to see them play at the domestic market like Hanks as the father figure hero/McCarthy raunchy R-comedy/Kevin Hart-Dwayne Johnson in an action comedy together playing their exact usual movie star persona, etc... or a very high level of acclaim buzz reviews with a big name director like Baby Driver/Arrival/Dunkirk or trailers that were giant hits and scored extremely well to audience like Accountant/Bad Moms/Girl Trip with an very easy to sell to co-workers/friend commercial high concept, that marketing made really clear. That part Hitman bodyguard has it (same for the star actors playing what audience want them to play). It is something that only happen around 12-13% of the weekends to achieve that 20m bar (that is why it is still the bar of who are the biggest rare superstar box office draw of Denzel Washington level if you achieve to do it for a movie that is sold mostly on the star), considering there is almost always 3 wide release every weekend, those who do achieve that rare bar tended to have a lot of buzz, top 5/10 of the year for movies without IP helping level of buzz. That why I rarely expect non-IP movie to do it (say I didn't expect Atomic Blonde to reach it and I do not expect American Made/Mother to do it either before some type of appeal is added to the movie to make them stand out of the 80+% of the weekend where it does not happen)

Will Smith was arguably the biggest movie star in the world (with Pitt, Cruise and other name up there, but him clearly a contender to the title) from 1996 to 2012/2013, not a bad prime in term of lenght. Some theory are up there, that turn around not having played a controversial role until it was too late http://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/on-will-smiths-seemingly-strategic-aversion-to-controversial-roles-167656/ In interview Smith said that for a long while every movie he made he wanted to make the biggest movie on earth of the year (until Wild Wild West happened), making him really averse to risk. And after Ali happened (one of is rare big flop), both those things made him confined to a bit narrow extremely likable movie star persona it look like and those tend to have a form of limited time, great movies audience like is pretty much the only way to sustain clout for much longer than is really impressive 16/18 year'a at the top 3 to 5 of the world status. A clear "mistake" that probably hurt him quite a bit was the combination of After Earth and the opportunity cost of not doing Django Unchained (again motivated by some risk averse/disagreement with Tarantino). Even in something supposedly filled of villains like Suicide Squad he still played it some charming/likable funny and good guy. Imagine a parallel world in which Smith is in Tarantino biggest unadjusted movie ever, Oscar nominated and so on and not in After Earth.... I think he would sustained is high wattage stardom a bit longer. Also here the list of director he has an repeated collaboration history and there average metascore: (2x) David Ayer (56 MC average) (2x) Michael Bay (42 MC average) (2x) Gabriele Muccino (50 MC average) (4x) Barry Sonnenfeld (nine live director 55 mc average) Compare that to the other contemporary contender of movie biggest star: Brad Pitt (2x) Tony Scott (2x) Ridley Scott (3x) Soderbergh (2x) Tarantino (if Manson family happen with him) (2x) Malick (3x) Fincher (4 if WWZ 2 hapen) Johnny Depp (8x) Tim Burton (2x) Terry Gilliam (5) Verbinski Hanks, Dicaprio, Cruise are obviously full of impressive director, he didn't had a stage were he developed an interesting collaboration with interest directors like those did, to help is filmography.

This for me too, but it has became so rare to have so much money spent to tell the days of days of someone going to work (from is morning routine) to is work place like that, they're was a scene with like 16 real Helicopter in that first half, we are maybe easy to impress now.

Yep a bit sad Agree with this.