Barnack

I'm a bit curious about it (I have some issue with it, but not sure I would go in obviously all time poor type)

And I imagine the day the reviews get out: Get out for example (if you click ...more statistic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRfnevzM9kQ Took a long time to reach 5m, got a visible uptick in february and then reach 12m Happy death day (October friday the 13th): https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CANQFA%3D%3D&q=happy+death+day Has around 7.5m views (that said it took 1 month to reach that and that movie should be big)

There is a chance, 100% original movie without a proven selling high concept or a clear proven genre to attach it too with low marketing does not have really a "low" nowaday, the movie need to deliver (or a new trailer/marketing spending change) to up that low bar. 5.5m (6.6/6.7 with the teaser) youtube views is not bad at all for a 13m movie (without much exterior help like reviews or other promo push) in 3/4 days, but not something that special either: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/owyoutuberatios.html Big Sick had 5.32 million the Saturday before it's release, Detroit 6.726m, Dark Towers 17.5 m, Atomic Blonde 7.52m. And some of those probably didn't get outside domestic market views that much vs an Aronofsky movie.

Look like they made some type on Blade runner or I don't read correctly ? Blade Runner 2049 Warner Bros. CONS: Facebook growth has been stagnant recently, making it something to keep an eye on in the weeks ahead. Still, with nearly 1.4 million total fans so far, it has tripled the number of ‘likes’ Mad Max: Fury Road generated by the same two-month pre-release window. How is this not a Pro ?

I think there is 2 asterix to put here, the animation genre is not big in general, giant budget Pixar/Dreamwork/now new Disney post Pixar takeover genre/type of 3D animation is really big, but not one small-to mid budget animation ever broke out in the domestic market, only really giant production and marketing budget affair ever achieved it, specially outside franchises, I think none ever did 100m dbo outside that really expected aesthetic and giant colorful spectacle. Same for horror, horror is really big and a bit of the last date night genre, but with an asterix also, it is big for their budget, they don't do 200m dbo. It would be a risky proposition considering those 2 limitation, it would probably be an animated horror-comedy movie (a la Get Out/Split) more than an horror one if they would go big budget animation, and low budget animation is really an unpopular genre in north america.

When it is a sequel, great review often work more in term of conserving audience than gaining new one (like for Logan vs Wonder Woman). Annabelle 2014 had a larger audience (84m bo vs 50 and usually home video tend to be proportionnal) and that universe has a large audience also. One other aspect for Ouija is the name (and the first movie) that is a huge hill to climb to be taken seriously, even with good reviews (i.e. was probably not a discerning audience that care for reviews that went for the first one and they didn't start to care between the 2 movie release).

$50m!, 4 weeks in advance ? I guess we need to not use normal possible growth too, the movie awareness was so high since the first trailer made like 170m facebook views that maybe tracking will not move much.

People already pre-ordered it on itunes for an august release too I think: iTunes has Wonder Woman available for pre-order right now and says that the movie is expected to be released digitally on Tuesday, August 29th https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/wonder-woman-2017/id1235765633 Expected release: august 29, 2017 Is it worth it to push a planned dvd release when the movie would have been available online for nearly a month. But they use the word expected........ so I guess there is still some possibility that exist (and amazon do not seem to commit for a date in the movie dvd pre-order either)

I don't know were to put this, but with Detroit release maybe the controversy didn't significantly affect Birth of a nation box office after all. Detroit Date(click to view chart) Rank WeekendGross %Change Theaters Change / Avg. Gross-to-Date Week# Jul 28–30 16 $350,190 - 20 - $17,510 $350,190 1 Aug 4–6 8 $7,125,601 +1,935% 3,007 +2,987 $2,370 $7,641,083 2 Birth of a Nation Date(click to view chart) Rank WeekendGross %Change Theaters Change / Avg. Gross-to-Date Week# Oct 7–9 6 $7,004,254 - 2,105 - $3,327 $7,004,254 1 Almost the same, but Detroit had nearly 1000 more theater and was helped by a 20 theater first weekend to create awareness, Detroit TOMATOMETER :84% Average Rating: 7.6/10 Reviews Counted: 158 Fresh: 133 Rotten: 25 Birth of a nation TOMATOMETER :72% Average Rating: 6.7/10 Reviews Counted: 223 Fresh: 161 Rotten: 62 Detroit had the bigger director, better reviews, bigger assemble cast, bigger promotion: National Airings: 1,589 Networks: 42 Most Spend On: NBC, ESPN Creative Versions: 18 Est. Lifetime TV Spend: $21.63M Studio: Annapurna Pictures Started Airing: 06/09/17 A bit like Ghost in a Shell having not much metric demonstrating any harm done by the whitewashing (apparently less than 1-2% of the total internet traffic about that movie was about that aspect), it will stay hard to know if Birth of Nation was affected significantly (more than doing 10% less that it would have without it) by the controversy.

If theater say yes because there is nothing else, it must cost close to nothing in the movie on a server uploading to theater if you can expand (in a death period where many theaters will accept your movie even if you do not commit to marketing).

Self-fulfilling prophecy or studios were wise to put no tentpole release this august finally and that would answer all those why did they not push X-Y-Z in that death space ?

I imagine that is the case for most didn't, before it was integrate to a youtube account a Imagine almost no one was on the site with an account at all to do anything. Even less so ever wrote a comments under a video, who does that, who would try to a meaningful conversation there ? It is a very special subgroup of people that do thinks like and it is easy to over-interpret those, not only they are a very small number of people but far from a random sample of the general audience of the video. Videos often have more than 1000 views for every 40 likes, that give an idea of how small the population that votes is.

You could test it: With that list of views before release and OW performance: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/owyoutuberatios.html And building say 25 movie from those getting their number of likes, you could maybe see which has a better correlation (it is important to use the number of likes before release) Has a warning, all metric like that need to be adjusted by how much the audience are in the demography that go like youtube video/use RT, say how much it target white young male for example, and I feel AA is particularly in that demo.

Propaganda is a pejorative word derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Specially for all-time list, market that do count ticket for movies instead of money have really "clean" ranking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_France Really diverse in released year like france The year of release of the Top 10 movie ever in France in ticket sold 1997 2008 2011 1938 1966 1950 1969 2009 1967 2002 Does not seem to have much of an era bias here, 1938 to 2011

We should not start using circular argument like using other message board user opinion ? I mean we are not a source, an other Smurf movie could happen and also we don't know the budget of the newest Smurfs movie, it was post sony leak. An important point is Nut Jobs doing 50% more than is budget on the domestic market, that is a really strong performance, in comparison the last 2 smurfs didn't come that close to their budget on the domestic market. Depending on how much they sell foreign and how well grand parents buy those in store, it could have been an impressive performance for term (remember the non-studio context, that was there biggest release ever)

I do not know about that Smurfs 2 didn't triple it's budget at the BO, was weak domestic relative to the nut job, made 17m in profit (25 million including participation bonus) and got a sequel. Without knowing how much they were able to pre-sold some market (and the home video performance of the first one) it is hard to judge that decision imo, too close to call for me but movie that do more than their budget on the domestic turn out usually at least ok financially, significantly more on DBO alone (50% more than it's budget in this case) it is usually a success. Smurf 2 71 dbo performance made around 94 million in revenue in the domestic market alone without considering merchandise for an example.

The Nut Job was the biggest movie ever of Open Road Films, making it an obvious choice for a sequel in their point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Road_Films#Filmography

That graph show the decline of the genre: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/genre/Romantic-Comedy From almost 10% of the movie ticket sold in 1999 to almost 0% in 2017. Compared to the others genre market share: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/genres

I think they are overestimating how much product placement reduce marketing cost vs the movie that does not have them as much (versus the movie getting much more marketing without costing more like I think it tend to be). For example Spiderman homecoming: According to them Production: 175m World theatrical Marketing: 100m P, shipping, tax, others release cost: 0 Production + all releasing cost: 275m Amazing Spider man 2 Expense Theatrical marketing: domestic: 70.9m intl: 75.4m Prints domestic: 8.46m intl: 21m World WPF, dues, freight, other: 16.03m Releasing cost: 191.76m Net direct Production: 262.95m Production + P&A: 454.74m (180m more than their Homecoming estimate) Revenue Amazing spider 2 rental: 108m dbo + 199.82m intl, 307.82 on a 709m world box office or 43%, it would have been 468m using their 66% formula, over estimated the revenue by 160m.

Did France audience didn't get the reference in Guardian of the Galaxy 2 ? She certainly is in the UK/US market, the same can be said Beauty and the beast 1991 was not big in France (a rare market that didn't had it in it's top 100, versus other Disney classic), the remake was not really big their either but that didn't affected it's world result much.

That was probably always planned to have no 4th film with that group of protagonist, but there will almost certainly be a 10th Apes movie in the future, they're is a very long time between the end of that movie and the beginning of the first one to play with.

It is terrible imo, theater keeping just 33% of the gross, that is Gone With the Wind phenomenal debut of is run crazy rental going to the studios level. And he is using that number for the worldwide (i.e. even China rental)... For example, for, say Transformers, perhaps Paramount takes 90 percent of the money from first week screenings. In successive weeks, it may take 80 percent, then 70 percent, then 50 percent, and so on. With each week, their cut goes down, and the theater cut goes up. It’s different for each movie and each week, so rather than try and dig into that for each film, we figured we’d go with a rough estimate. The one we’ll go with comes courtesy of John Campea in a recent video he posted — 33 percent of the overall grosses. That old model is never used today and do they think that Paramount got 90% of Transformer first weekend in China ? (also even peak of that model I don't think it was 90 percent for the first week or crazy number like that, more 70-75% no ?) I doubt they are being serious with that exercise, they probably want to be able to stay on theatrical box office revenue alone because it is more fun (current movie people will click, public box office numbers, and using home video/TV make it like you are making stuff up and speculating a lot and that would be true) but still want to show that some movie make profit. Because using better formula with an 53% from DBO/40% intl/25% from China and including all the cost the movies has and they must know have like overhead and participation profit, they would end up with 0 movie being profitable on that list that do not take all the windows revenue into accout (except maybe for Beauty) Just the fact that they use P&A and marketing has if it was exactly the same number is not good sign, in 2016 nearly 20% of the world screen were still 35mm, the P of P&A didn't went to 0 suddenly, actual print or conversion to digital help to theater chain tax that replaced them still exists)

It is true It 4 trailers have 45.6 m views and has yet to open, The mummy trailers had 53m views, but I would suspect that the domestic number of views would be in It favor. Because of the strength of the aesthetic, brand, 2 year's of promos and genre, I would be really surprised if it does not break out in a giant 40m OW, even with bad reviews. It feel like the rare event type of movie that will bring back old people that almost never go to the theaters anymore.

Black swan was a 13m movie, the low P&A strategy (if it stay that low, look like they are maybe going for an extremelly small 10m domestic release budget), Black Swan being a total success bar with a strategy that they would considered worked great was probably around 35m domestic (I imagine mother! is around that great return point also), specially considering that the director track record is making twice oversea than domestic with is movies. The big difference is IT is certain to be a monster, it will open like crazy, the actual movie is not irrelevant but close too, it will open no matter what even it is has 0 on RT. Maybe Mother! will be a surprise hit and do 5+ times it's budget domestic alone, but it need to have legs, to have festival buzz, etc... IT is a done deal.