Barnack

Which one was successful according to you (that create enough buzz to garner enough new member/sustained them to justify is investment ?) I know their intentions are different and I'm judging them by that angle.

Could be the twitter being such a bad platform, but I'm not sure he is saying much of anything outside triviality and liking Nolan, the only possible interesting door: industry conspired to prize "content" is not really developed. Arguably Netflix still has to do there first successful movie release imo, the closest too was Beast of No Nation, but the talk about those movies never got close to relevance (versus there tv show). Making it a bit obvious that for the moment the netflix model does not work for movies.

Well there was terrorist attacks on some theater that played the movie I think and manifestation try to force the studio to cancel the production, if there is just boycott this time it would be a nice progression. (But The Last Temptation of Christ was going much more far controversy wise than Jesus having a love life and childs, that the myth of Jesus has known today is mostly a creation of Paul, mostly lies with Jesus disagreeing with it)

For a while EuropaCorp is owned at 62% by Luc Besson through his company Frontline and at 8.06% by Pierre-Ange Le Pogam; 23% is public. Now it is in part owned by a China holding: Besson holding company: 31.58% China fundamental: 27.9% That group also had a direct equity stake in the movie itself apparently, not just has co-owner of the production company.

Which company are you talking about STX or Europacorp ? Europacorp lost "only" in market cap after that opening flop of a 200m movie, that does not scream being poorly run.

That what is "nice" with the few public studio still existing like Liongates/EuropaCorp, were box office talk could be useful, the stock react to the movies (unlike those 30 billion a year in revenue conglomerate that happen to own a movie studio that do movie, but also video games and tv and have their stock drop even when Force Awaken just opened) It was almost sure that it would open like that, we should have shorted the stock guys.

I could imagine why they would never goes that low for a movie like Dunkirk, the RT target audience (18-34 male) were Titanic/Dicaprio haters at the time and are Nolan lover now.

I think you would be surprised by how popular tv show like Roots or Mash were in the past. Roots in 1977 for example: The miniseries was watched by an estimated 130 million [14][15][16] and 140[17][18] million viewers total (more than half of the U.S. 1977 population of 221 million – the largest viewership ever attracted by any type of television series in US history as tallied by Nielsen Media Research) and averaged a 44.9 rating[17] and 66% to 80% viewer share[17] of the audience. The final episode was watched by 100 million viewers and an average of 80 million viewers watched each of the last seven episodes In the past they were show watched by everyone, almost nothing is watched by 15% of the population now, it is really not close.

He does not appear in the movie before a good while (McConaughey got a lot of praise and got cast in Interstellar by Nolan because of that movie, but in supporting) True, like I said transition after teens age is never assured (so I understand your skepticism) I did before commenting and didn't find one great director in is filmography, but I was not familiar with all the names (it is why I asked which great director did cast Courntey you had in mind, as a counter example that being cast by a list of great directors is not an indicator of being a good actor) More than fair enough, but I would recommend you to watch Joe and Mud, both are great movie.

How Joe or Mud were small role ?, specially Mud he was the lead. I would expect a correlation between acting ability for unknown actor that great director choose among hundreds candidates, it is not a direct demonstration but an indirect one, why would a great director that every agents want all their clients to work with choose a bad actor to be in their movies ? When was Jay Courtney ever involved with a great director movie ?

A bit similar (if you mean less vocabulary/slower pacing), specially bad monkey (1:30) that speak like in the original version, maybe Serkis caracther is a bit closer to regular human.

Tye Sheridan is an Marcelle Mastroianni award winner that was excellent in everything I saw him (He was particularly impressive in Joe and Mud), he already worked with Malick, Jeff Nichols, David Gordon Gree and now Spielberg, that an impressive list of director that casted him. Growing up from teenager does not always work obviously, but he was an obvious candidate.

Still has the Janusz Kaminski/Spielberg usual grayish color palette look imo, specially the city at the beginning . The DeLorean car sequence with the tree with fall color leaf would not have been totally out of place in AI and the sequence right after in War of the Worlds look wise.

And it is not really a break of 3 year's, not only he started to work on AI November 1999 just a bit over a year after SPR release, but he produced like 4 movies and a video game (Medal of Honor that did a bit of the SPR big scene moment in a video game format) that got a release between those 2. Was also involved in documentaries, Shrek, some tv movie, Jurassic Park 3, Animaniacs, Band of Brothers and other tv series, etc...

Eastwood track record in the 2000's before those 2 blockbuster was still excellent (specially considering time between spending of the money and release, trouble/work from the studio pov), only 2 flops on 12 movies but also 3 breakout extremely profitable success with Gran Torino/Million Dollar baby/Mystic River, a 83.3% non-flop rate. Title Budget DBO WW DBO/Budget WW / budget Jersey boys 40 47.00 67.00 1.18 1.68 J edgar 35 37.30 84.60 1.07 2.42 hereafter 50 32.70 105.20 0.65 2.10 Invictus 60 37.50 122.23 0.63 2.04 Gran Torino 33 148.00 270.00 4.48 8.18 changeling 55 35.73 113.00 0.65 2.05 Letters from Iwo Jima 19 13.75 68.68 0.72 3.61 Flag of our fathers 90 33.60 65.90 0.37 0.73 million dollar baby 30 100.49 216.76 3.35 7.23 Mystic River 25 90.00 156.82 3.60 6.27 Blood Work 50 26.00 31.79 0.52 0.64 Space Cowboys 65 90.46 128.88 1.39 1.98 Average: 46 57.71 119.24 1.25 2.59

Some tax credit accept above the line cost, in those case you are probably better to look at Nolan salary vs the gross budget. Also that 20m is maybe Nolan directing fee, he also has a producer and writer fee.

Well that is one good looking movie and such a shame that it does not work very much imo. I think there is a clear list of element the movie failed at (and some scene seem to have been a challenge in the editing room and could have used a re-shoot) The first 30 minute or so are such a nice visual, but when it start to require for you to follow the story, it does seem like a suite of cool scene more than anything coherent.

Box office mojo do not really commit itself that much to say if the budget they show are net, gross mix of the 2. They simply say on their website: Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures. The cost to make a movie would be the gross, but they seem to often put the net the trades are talking about the week of the release. Lucy they didn't use the public gross available (over $60m USD) from the same source like they just did for Valerian for a very clear example of that. Valerian net budget will probably stay secret (those are pretty much always really unknown unless of a leak). It is around 180m-185m after then french credit, but depending on how much VFX work was made in Canada/New zealand and other place that give tax credit for them (because France cap at 30m it is a good idea to make after a certain point a lot of the work elsewhere) maybe it is maybe closer to the 150m throw around that we think (say 167 would not be surprising). But I doubt we will ever know.

Versus anything regarding box office predicting and commenting on it that is useful and helpful for who ? It is all 100% futile, useless and a pure waste of time at is core. People on this message board will tend to have some idea of the impact of the ER, some people did really great work about it:

It does play that line (it was seen has a pro-conservatism movie by some and exactly the other way around by other), everyone that has a dream in that movie has it crushed (usually get killed), while people that wish to die young on the battlefield or go with the wind get billionaire. Apparently the book and more so it's sequel was very dark humor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gump_and_Co. Gump get ruinned, loose everything, they work on a pig farm were they feed them with garbage, and in it he is a big star because of the first movie, really weird and the movie is in development hell since forever.

Couple of difference like release date but I think one big element is that the majority of people going to see The Revenant knew it would an exhausting borderline hard to watch experience, it was sold has one and had a constant tone. War of the Apes was a PG-13 summer action flick a little bit, with poster selling a war with an army of apes against humans and delivered a bit something else, that does not necessarily match the franchise of the previous entry and being a second sequel of a prequel cannot really reach new people that would be interested in that knew proposition, it pretty much only can keep is previous audience at best and not gain much new one.

I doubt the rights will ever become available, the Bond franchise is own by a private family company (Dajaq) and the movie are produced by their company Eon Production, both co-owned by the daughter of is founder that exercise the creative control and the production. If you are talking about the theatrical only distribution in some market only right that Sony currently have and are up to be renewed soon, they are only that distribution rights, they don't give you much power necessarily on the movie nor home video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danjaq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_Productions

I think pretty much everyone care for almost every movie they make (some exception for some extreme case). 1) In a general way no one would pass month in a editing room or like Iñárritu said that question of for you or the audience make little sense, no one would be passing months editing a movie in a dark room if they were the last human on earth with no one to ever see it. It is a communicative medium purely made for an audience and to be seen, at a basic level you want it to be seen (and is just extremely correlated and a abstraction away from doing a lot of money), they want it to be experimented in theater and by a large living reactive crowd. Like a Chef still care if is food is eaten, at the right temperature and people having a good time even after is client paid. 2) In a more practical way, you want the investor and often take it on you for them to at least not lose money, it is a responsibility that most put on themselve at least to make it easier to greenlight the next one

Nolan still had like 700 VFX shot on Interstellar and the movie won best visual effects, it is very relative to the days it is low now, but that is the same amount than the very epic Master And Commander movie used, it is more than the very epic Titanic, it is much more than the little 240 VFX shot Armageddon and other old Bay movie used. Dark knight rises had CGI faces instead of make up: http://media.indiatimes.in/media/content/2015/Apr/darkknight_1430290171.jpg The Joker hanging out in a green room: http://www.enfilme.com/img/content/5c4044b4197ec3edfbb084b6f5a2df9038.jpg Phantom menace today would be held as people going crazy with miniature and practical effect (it had much less CGI than force awaken, phantom menace had more physical miniature model made than all the original trilogy movie together) : https://www.google.ca/search?q=phantom+menace+practical+effects&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA733CA734&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8YSfh5vVAhUI9YMKHWAPCncQ_AUICigB&biw=1866&bih=1060 http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-prequels-miniatures/ And that was considered CGI heavy back in the day. If Private Ryan battle could felt epic with 1996 technology I'm not sure why it could not with Nolan using much more modern technology than them.

He played a great one in Killer Joe imo.