Barnack

The delta between success for a large risk (usually between 10 to 20% ROI) and the break even spot is often quite big, specially with people getting points. If we take one of the most similar Sony project to ghostbuster for example, After Earth (that one was more intl heavy and without merchandising too, Ghostbuster needed a bit less WW): Net budget: 148.8 million Studio estimated GP BREAK (that is break even point): 87.5 dbo/ 175 intl: $262.5m WW (those are gross estimate and someone powerful like Smith could deal an estimate on the low side to where the "profit" bonus start) Studio estimate Return break (what the movie need to do to give a 12% ROI): 276.2 dbo / 414 intl: $690.2m WW (Smith/Shyamalan/Lassiter accepted to do the movie without first dollar gross but would have made 159m in bonus if the movie was breaking out) The movie was greenlight with doing 400m in mind. The studio needed to do 430m more (or 162% more) between just break even and doing a 12% return, using the success bar to have an idea of the break even point could be extremely misleading. If I remember the leak document and Feig interview 400-450 (or 450-500) was that success bar the studio making 12-15% after everyone taking their large bonus, the break even bar was probably around 265m-320m WW with a strong domestic performance and no China and very dependent of the merchandise/video game/etc.. performance.

It was an hard cast/humor style to sells oversea (the excellent Spy was still close to 50/50, despite the spy genre) and if I remember correctly (I cannot easily refind it) but I remember an excel document budgeting the success bar at 400-450m WW (considering the domestic heavy nature of the project I assume the DBO success bar was at least at 175m), that is probably were Paul Feig that movie need to do 400-450 to be considered and all in break out success comment in an interview came from.

I think it was less than 2 minute of footage to make it PG-13 if they wanted, the removal of the baby from the death woman body scene would have needed some edit (disturbing imagery that got it the R-rated) and one other I think.

Depend versus which era, because loosing thousands of location in the process: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188643/number-of-us-cinema-sites-since-1995/ Probably countered the multiplex benefit a little bit (not for first weekend blockbuster, but in general). But the ticket by capita peaked in the early 2000's with 5.7 (around 40% more than today), more than the 80s/90s, so maybe the added comfort of the multiplex experience played a role. Page 9 of that MPAA document: https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MPAA_US/M050309M.pdf

That is probably because Fury Road kept the option of an pg-13 release until the very end (they did screen test one).

Are they ? John Carter still made some money at the box office and will see for Valerian but it should too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Needs_Moms Did not. NutCracker 3d and the legend of Oz return are 2 other candidate.

Pretty much, since 2009 in the US alone: 2016 40,174 2015 40,006 2014 39,956 2013 40,024 2012 39,662 2011 39,580 2010 39,520 2009 39,233 7 year in a row moving from 39.23k to very low 40.17k screen's, has for marketing cost I would also imagine that it is the case since the dvd bubbles went away, I would imagine the last push on first weekend growth were the digital distribution + online sales of tickets/online buzz in general + longer OW that include thursday 7pm to late sunday show, other than the movies themselves. Force Awaken record could stick for a very long time, specially if the last Avengers with the original cast does not beat it and if Star Wars itself does not do it.

That a good place to look at, theater screens could be an other one: 2002 35,688 2001 35,506 2000 36,379 1999 37,131 1998 34,168 1997 31,865 1996 29,731 1995 27,843 1994 26,689 1993 25,626 1992 25,214 1991 24,639 1990 23,814 11,000 more in 2001 than 1991, big push in 1999, that maybe does not change much the box office total (number of theater is maybe more relevant for that than screens), but number of screen and the number of screen by theater going up probably change the first weekend a lot. Lost world in 1997 openned in 3,281 theater, Harry Potter in 2001 in 3,672 theater, and if we had the number of screen that both opened on the difference would be a bit larger. And other one was marketing selling the movie before more than the word of mouth over time after the openning ? in 1995 you have article like this: Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (around 26.45 million today dollars), in article called: Average Cost of Making, Marketing Movie Soars http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost I imagine that was for the domestic market alone, but that was still much cheaper, by 2007 it was up to 36m (around 42.5m in today dollars). If ticket did cost around 23% more in 2001 than 1997 and you openned your movie on around 10-15% more screen/theater, you can already see were pretty much all the 67m to 90m jump come from.

SFX work did apparently, it will soon by too late to have it cancelled. http://screencrush.com/avatar-sequels-vfx-production/ Avatar 2 hits theaters on December 18, 2020; followed by Avatar 3 on December 17, 2021; Avatar 4 on December 20, 2024; and Avatar 5 on December 19, 2025. IndieWire reports that all four Avatar sequels are heading into VFX production simultaneously. Cameron recently finished writing the scripts for all of them, so it makes sense that they’d start this stage of pre-production at the same time, so that they all keep to the same look. Said Cameron in a statement:

They did cut it in 2 block with 2 movie made/released at a time to diminish the giant stake a little bit (or give room to breathe to re-add something new technology wise in the last 2 movie)

I expected a 850m-1000m dollar movie to possible really fast (around 2013/2014 I thought it would be possible by around 2018), but then after the recent slow down to an almost stop of the last 2-3 year's, I thought it could take Avatar 2 in 2021 to have a chance or something like that. The progression of the top movie was still strong to: Avatar aside: 2009: $69m 2013: $197m 2014: $320m 2015: $390m 2016: $526m 2017: will see but a lot Adding and other 100-130m to make a new record around 650 would not have been that surprising, but destroying it is. P.S. Depending where it stop, we will need to update our Avatar 2 box office in China ceiling potential, maybe it will be closer to 1.2/1.3b than 800m.

50 shades darker OW was around 145 million, Tf5 above 200m, those 2 movie had big global opening.

Well you used the opening weekend of one of the biggest best seller book franchise of a 100 million budget movie as if it would be easy to reproduce with American Made. Edge of tomorrow was one of the best reviewed movie of the summer,a giant 168m net budget action movie with a nice high concept, Oblivion was a 160 gross budget million movie Sci-fi, the previous 2 were with a much "stronger" Cruise. A ok, yeah we are close, I thought when you said it would not open below 20m, that you had in mind will probably do 25m +/- 20%

Nut Job is an august. 11 release, Coco is an original movie November release, Ninjao sep 22, I'm not sure if it is fair to compare them (would probably need to compare with Nut job views count of 3 month ago.

Does those facebook views correlate as well as youtube views to predict box office too ? From what I understood of them they were really unreliable and would count anyone scrolling them and having them on auto-play or something, I don't know as much about twitter/facebook. Youtube is a bit different it show someone clicking on the video, often having searching for it manually on google and consciously, a clear interest.

1) Jack Reacher was a big popular book franchise, Jack Reacher 2 was a sequel, it had a nearly 100 million gross budget and did 22.8m OW not that far from 20. 2) Cruise fan just got The Mummy for their Cruise fix already (look at last year's Tom Hanks movie that were not Sully) I think it could open at Atomic Blonde level.

Are they at that special of a level ? According to this: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/trailerviews.html Youtube views of upcoming release (In millions): Thor: Ragnarok (Disney) ** 79.973 Justice League (Warner Bros.) ** 68.772 Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Disney) 45.325 IT (Warner / New Line) ** 41.37 Blade Runner 2049 (Warner Bros.) 33.677 Black Panther (Disney) 32.218 Kingsman: The Golden Circle (Fox) 27.612 Annabelle: Creation (Warner / New Line) 18.973 Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (Sony / Columbia) 18.629 The Dark Tower (Sony / Columbia) 17.578 Pitch Perfect 3 (Universal) 15.079 The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature (Open Road) 15.031 Kidnap (Aviron Pictures) 14.065 Coco (Disney) 11.309 The LEGO Ninjagoovie (Warner Bros.) ** 10.671 Jigsaw (Lionsgate) * 9.652 1.5x more bigger than Kingsman, but Kingsman open 2 week after. 1.22x more than Blade Runner that open a full month after. What OW do people have in mind for those 2 movie ? Thor as double of view and open just in november, and the last Thor movie had that an 85 million OW. It is big as a phenomenon, but 60-70m seem more than 80m+ imo.

If we compare with an other movie that made most of is business oversea and did not had much of a great reception like Amazing SpiderMan 2 Amazing spider-man 2 Domestic: $202,853,933 28.6% + Foreign: $506,128,390 71.4% = Worldwide: $708,982,323 Net production budget: 264m (312.25 million gross budget before tax credit) with 44.25 million going into participation bonus, making it effectively an over 300 million net budget. Domestic marketing expense: - theatrical: 70.9m - home video: 14.27m Domestic Prints: 8.46m Domestic others release cost: 5.25m Was expected to do around 14.5m for the studio (and loose third party investor/partner's around 5 million), they have a low consumer product revenue because of the marvel deal (they received around 25m from Marvel for making movies) for a movie like that. That was a 335 million production budget + theatrical domestic marketing (nearly 380 with bonuses), 55 million more expensive than Pirates, if those really reasonable number for the production (230m) and marketing budget (50m) of Pirates 5 are close to the truth, it does not look bad with that performance (and it still made 3.7m last weekend, so maybe it could reach 785): Pirates 5 Domestic: $171,157,528 22.1% + Foreign: $604,901,687 77.9% = Worldwide: $776,059,215 Is bigger oversea performance more than compensate for is 31m less dbo, being considerably cheaper and being in total control of the merchandising would obviously help also. I would like to see how much gross point Depp&Bruckheimer and how much it help with Pirates special ancillary revenue like the park attraction before calling it a success, but I suspect it has done ok.

In North America, less than 20 percent of movie tickets are sold online and I would imagine a lot of those sells are for the big night of blockbuster when it can be hard to have a good seat when you buy the ticket just 5 minute in advance, for the type of movie playing this august can online promo have much of an effect ? Or did it change recently, it was only 13% of the ticket sales in 2014 that were online.

Specially strange considering that Universal is releasing it in many euro market themselve: Universal Pictures International (UPI) (2017) (Belgium) (theatrical) Universal Pictures International (UPI) (2017) (Germany) (theatrical) / 7 September 2017 Universal Pictures International (UPI) (2017) (France) (theatrical) / 13 September Universal Pictures International (UPI) (2017) (Netherlands) (theatrical) / 17 August Universal Pictures (2017) (USA) (theatrical) / 29 September Maybe because of some difficulty to get a worldwide release when they changed the date ? In May 2015, Universal set the film for a January 6, 2017 release. On August 8, 2016, the film's release was pushed to September 29, 2017 with a new title, presumably to avoid competition with Amityville: The Awakening and Underworld: Blood Wars Maybe it will be platform start in some of those early market that will go wide at the same time ? Must be really uncommon for a major title to open a hole month in advance in a big and compatible/same language market like the UK, if it was not a big budget Cruise/Liman movie that release schedule and the fact that it was independently made would make it look like a dumped title a little bit.

I think it would be hard to distinguish the chicken/eggs here, in term of correlation/causation. Great PTA is always a good sign, because it show an interest and word of mouth working locally, but does the great PTA news have much reach and any impact (does anyone that would care about such news not already knowing about the movie ?) Except for American Sniper/Revenant level of PTA, I don' think the news of such numbers has much reach.

Has for Detroit cast conversation, I didn't knew Krasinski was in this and agree that those name are far from household name like Hidden Figure had.

New CEO making some change in the slate, apparently it was the around 50m cost of the project he didn't like (but that is something McKay will achieve to get somewhere and 10 year,s ago it would have been much more than that).

Could you explain why ? Who would be affected by the fact if it open in 25 vs 18 vs 4 theater ? Very few people would have a conscious difference between those scenario. There is some success story of limited release over 20 theater: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lostintranslation.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nocountryforoldmen.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=descendents.htm

I do not know how much damage it did, but I think it is more a long series of uninteresting movies in general. Between 2000 and Cloud Atlas(2012) The only director I did recognize (not that I am a perfect metric I could easily miss great name) are: -Singer (in her from what I remember terrible role with a terrible wig/accent X-mens movies) -Marc Foster -Susanne Bier That is it, in a very important 12 year's window. It is one thing to have all those great opportunity like James Bond, X-men franchise, giant blockbuster Gothika, but if they all are between bad and mediocre it will not necessarily translate into drawing power, cultivating great working relationship with good director is a big part of it (except if you get big roles in many franchises).