Barnack

Look at the amount of sports stats in north americans sports vs Europe, not putting number of stuff and ranking them would make us crazy. That and the loose way to count time remaining to the game, we go to video replay for half second.

Free awareness brought by mediocre reviews is maybe still better than none (for non franchise movie that need to build awareness), The House didn't open much better with their no review at all strategy.

Without having any causation, metacritic is an somewhat predictor of a wide release legs thought. Same for RT (stronger correlation with legs than OW), they tend to be a good predictor of audience WOM.

Batman by 4m

Lupita would be a logical choice, both for Mattel toys sales and Sony (Vikander is an other recent winner and she is making franchise movie with Sony already)

Yes, I get why it did pop up, but it is still a movie far far away that just have some set photos, not actual marketing spent, not sure it is a good comparable for a movie about to be released to use, it would be better to use similar movie during their month leading to the release date.

Infinity war is released 277 days after Valerian, it is not supposed to be on list like that.

It does read a lot like false concern trolling, specially with how much the movie was pre-sold and out of EuropaCorp hands.

There is some chaos/unpredictable element that can happen, but yeah a result between JW 1 and 2 is the most probable output imo. Date Title (click to view) Studio Lifetime Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Rank 2/10/17 John Wick: Chapter Two LG/S $92,029,184 3,113 $30,436,123 3,113 1 10/24/14 John Wick LG/S $43,037,835 2,589 $14,415,922 2,589 2 reviews of the 3, RT than MC: RATING TITLE CREDIT BOX OFFICE YEAR 78% Atomic Blonde Director — 2017 89% John Wick: Chapter 2 Producer $92M 2017 85% John Wick Producer Director — 2014 68 Atomic Blonde Jul 28, 2017 Director tbd 75 John Wick: Chapter 2 Feb 10, 2017 Executive Producer / Producer 8.2 68 John Wick Oct 24, 2014 Director / Producer 8.1 Other recent comparable (tend to goes between JW 1 and 2): Title (click to view) Studio Release Gross* / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date^ Sleepless ORF $20,783,704 1,803 $8,344,128 1,803 1/13/17 Jack Reacher: Never Go Back Par. $58,697,076 3,780 $22,872,490 3,780 10/21/16 The Accountant WB $86,260,045 3,402 $24,710,273 3,332 10/14/16 Older ones: 4/16/04 Kill Bill Vol. 2 Mira. $66,208,183 3,073 $25,104,949 2,971 5 10/10/03 Kill Bill Vol. 1 Mira. $70,099,045 3,102 $22,089,322 3,102 4 From Focus Feature release (they never released a 100 million domestic yet, it is an Universal studio division so they could go really big, but they probably did choose the Focus brand to make a less expensive release): 3 London Has Fallen Focus $62,524,260 3,492 $21,635,601 3,490 3/4/16

Don't know how true is that, in a parallel universe world with Transformer 1 failing and no sequels being made, do we really have not one different movie being made made/released by Paramount in it ? They are such giant production, using such a big amount of resource, I doubt Bay would have not made other movies. That said it does not mean that those parallel universe movies would be any good.

Is Hancock not considered a pure superhero movie ?

There is always something at risk (how much you will make, how much the sequel will make, etc...), but I don't think there is any reasonable risk of Star Wars 8 not making is money back, as long as theater still exist and have electricity during it's release.

Sony Marketing cost Underworld Evolution Total: 51.6m domestic theatrical release: 31.6m international theatrical release: 7.572m Underworld Rises of the lycans Total: 42.7m domestic theatrical release: 26.6m international theatrical release: 7.9m Underworld Awakening Total: 51.4m domestic theatrical release: 28m international theatrical release: 16.13 Resident evil retribution Total: 62.127m domestic theatrical release: 28.52m international theatrical release: 26.79m 30m on marketing for a world released movie would be on the very cheap side.

Well it matter a lot if the conversation is: What is a risk, not was it perceived by some exec at some studio as one. It would not surprise me if it was considered less of a risk to many executive with a female director at the helm (that would be why they did choose one and has for other female superhero movie too, it remove at lot of possible issue for them). What was perceived as a big risk in 2010 did change a lot by now I would think.

What are you implying by this, that it is inherently more risky to put a large budget in the hands of a woman director than a male one ? I doubt you are.

Creative risk will be really hard to define and most of all our mind will be in hindsight of result polluted a lot by them. A movie like 2014 Godzilla had a lot of "creative risk" imo, Having a really likable and cute CGI tree with a funny raccoon are some type of risk (what will they look like in live action for example) that you have a good amount of control of, I'm not sure being in the source material or not is that relevant for judging risk. In general how safe something successful was would tend to be overrated and the other way around for failure.

One thing that could go well for Spider-Man, is being spider man 6, third reboot, etc.... people were not necessarily excited/enthusiast for it (or maybe like I suspected all that who asked for it online chatter mean little and often come from people that end up watching it anyway, they even talk as if they will watch it). But if that was the case it could have really good legs. It is a 6 movie in a short time yes, but being a reboot it has 0 resistance (it is even better if you have not seen the previous one in fact).

What do you mean by lie ?, the movie had one of the biggest global opening, almost 150m, it is an other example of an high trailer view high first weekend box office. The correlation between trailers views and first weekend is extremely strong and easy to look at: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/owyoutuberatios.html If you copy paste it in Excel and graph them you will see two line that follow each others almost exactly, a strong R2 over 0.65 (while using a domestic metric to a world views one)

According to the leaked deal negotiation, 5 year's and 9 month between release date, 3 year's and 9 month before production start after the last movie release if I remember correctly for amazing spider man. They also had 90 days after the release to announce to them the intention to extend their rights and do an other one (and pay something) Amazing spider man principal photography started 3 years, 7 month and 2 days after SM 3 release date. Amazing spider man was released 5 years, 1 month and 29 days after SM 3 release date. Respecting both cut off.

No particular hindsight, but it is a similar drop to godfather 1 to godfather 2. Sequel huge drop were not that uncommon. Rocky 4 in 1990 would also have a massive drop, I would imagine that those movie were driven a lot by Stallone massive star powers that went from biggest in the world in the early/mid 80's to much smaller in the late 80's.

I doubt 8% of the world audience will watch it.

I simply used money inflation over those time frame: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ To give a rough idea of the money grossed performance.

After VHS became popular I think you are right, only Force Awaken came close (is it close enough to not make Titanic unique ? it would still have a very different performance pattern anyway in term of legs versus first weekend). Force Awaken Awaken Box office: 936m (966.47m after inflation) 2015 Yearly box office: $11,129.4 Awaken vs the year total BO ratio: 936 / 11,129 = 0.084 Box office movie average for the movie ranked #2-11: 326.32m Awaken ratio versus the next 10 biggest movie of the year bo average: 2.86 (it would be of 3.22 without Jurassic World massive bo) Titanic Titanic Box office: 600.788 (916.09m after inflation) 1997 yearly box office: $6,365.9 Titanic vs the year total BO ratio: 600.788 / 6,365.9= 0.094 Box office movie average for the movie ranked #2-11: 162.42m Titanic ratio versus the next 10 biggest movie of the year bo average: 3.7 Titanic performance is very comparable to the performance of E.T. in 1982 (and I think people have made the same type of exercise with Gone with the wind, Star wars and Sound of music to find very similar number between all those gigantic run in term of market share, with Gone with the wind being the best by a little bit): E.T. ET Bo: 359.2m (910.96m after inflation) 1982 yearly box office: 3,453.0 ET ratio vs the year total BO : 359.2 / 3,453.0 = 0.104 Box office movie average for the movie #2-11: 95.176m ET ratio versus the next 10 biggest movie of the year bo average: 3.77

Jaws seem to be missing on that list (nearly 200m down I think). Rank Title (click to view) Studio Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 Jaws Uni. $260,000,000 675 $7,061,513 409 6/20/75 2 Jaws 2 Uni. $77,737,272 640 $9,866,023 640 6/16/78 3 Jaws 3-D Uni. $45,517,055 1,311 $13,422,500 1,300 7/22/83 4 Jaws IV: The Revenge Uni. $20,763,013 1,611 $7,154,890 1,606 7/17/87 5 Jaws 2 (1980 re-issue) (Re-release) Uni. $4,028,735 26 $1,382,756 26 2/15/80

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188643/number-of-us-cinema-sites-since-1995/ With the number of theater that went down not up, theater count probably affected weekend number size, but maybe not total run total (in the sense that maybe more theater played the movie in is run, not just at the same time, limited by the prints count), I really do not know: 1997: 7480 2015: 5833 Adjusted by population size probably take care of that in some way. 3D factor is one valid element I would think. I think the new Ape would be a good indicator of your theory, if it open below the previous entry it could be explained by looking a bit similar to the previous entry of the franchise, while the sequel had a totally different look and setting than the first one.