Barnack

Phantom Menace would be that I think in 1999 the DVD took of around 2001, Phantom Menace did 72% of what Titanic did. By comparing to movie released in the movie era you get pretty much rid of all the thing that changed between era and Titanic dominated every movies of is era, like Star Wars did, like ET, like Gone with the Wind, like Force Awaken. It achieved to get in theater people that didn't went for decades of all ages and all types. Force Awaken is not that far from Titanic, Avatar made 79% of what Force Awaken did, Titanic was a bit bigger but those 2 are in the same category and comparable imo. In term of pure money inflation Titanic first release made about $886.04 million in 2015 dollar. In 1997 the US (272.6) + Canada (29.99) population was 302.59 million In 2015 the US (321.4) + Canada (35.85) population was 357.25 million adjusted by capita and inflation (not ticket just purchasing power), Titanic run was about 1046 million, bigger than Awaken 936m but not by a being in a different category amount.

Titanic run look a lot like ET runs, not sure about unique there is at least 3 other movie in that category. Gone With the Wind, first Star Wars, ET, and maybe a couple of others, with very similar run (in term of market share of their respective era) http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/bestranked.htm?page=WKNDSAT10&p=.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/bestranked.htm?page=WKNDSCAT10&p=.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/bestranked.htm?page=WKNDSAT5&p=.htm

That a really good comparable you are using (wednesday opening). Daily box office Baby driver / This is the end 5.7 / 7.8 3.32 / 4.492 6 / 6.9 7.665 / 7.57 7.335 / 6.195 5 / 3.418 Baby driver almost got is lower start back Total after 6 days (35.029 v 36.445) This is the end made 101.47m

Exchange rate would eat a lot of that increase, it could grew in China a little bit (but ASM 2 was already close to 100m). A guardian 1 to Guardian 2 could easily still happen thought (+7%),

Was it not the same than Guardian of the galaxy that far from the release ? That tracking number indicated that WW was on is way to open between 95-105m

And using only the multiplier for judging legs is a huge mistake (the absolute size of the legs matter a lot too) Look at the HG franchises for an obvious example: Title DBO OW Ratio Absolute legs The Hunger Games $408,010,692 $152,535,747 2.674853 255,474,945 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire $424,668,047 $158,074,286 2.686509 266,593,761 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 $337,135,885 $121,897,634 2.76573 215,238,251 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 $281,723,902 $102,665,981 2.744082 179,057,921 Mockingjay part 2 had much worst legs than Catching Fire (that had the best legs of them all by far), the Ratio is misleading and simply "reward" a movie legs for is lack of enthusiasm on the first OW. Dark knight had crazy long legs but not a special multiplier. Give me more money (absolute legs) over any multiplier, always (obviously it is more money).

I would guess extremely low (almost impossible for that king of margin). Not necessarily that tracking is more accurate but that the poll of superheroes movie similar to Spider Man is much larger than Deadpool (that was arguably a novelty), to the release date pattern, to the target audience, to the characters involved themselves being in their 6 or more movies in modern days, it would be really surprising if a title like that take tracking service by surprise. Precision of tracking models are usually as good as the poll of comparable they have to work with (that why they had so little clue about Jurassic World and Force Awaken, those result never happened before).

That spreadsheet is impressive presentation nice jobs.

Row Rank Title (click to view) Studio Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 1 Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Fox $208,545,589 3,969 $72,611,427 3,967 7/11/14 2 3 Rise of the Planet of the Apes Fox $176,760,185 3,691 $54,806,191 3,648 8/5/11 3 2 Planet of the Apes (2001) Fox $180,011,740 3,530 $68,532,960 3,500 7/27/01 That would be a solid entry, 65m.

But it is not like they would have a better grasp on units sold.

Would you really pause a great movie to post on a forum....

Maybe just outside the top 10, by MC score of the third movie of a franchise (I must be forgotten some, particularly outside Hollywood production). Three Colors: Red: 100 Before Midnight: 94 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: 94 Toy Story 3: 92 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly : 90 Bourne Ultimatum: 85 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: 82 Skyfall : 81 The World's End: 81 Once Upon Time in America: 80 War of the planet of the apes: 79 The Dark Knight Rises: 78

Isn't that mostly a Disney thing, were it is so big they have they have a division just for it, studio like Warner& Sony have have a consumer product line in the studio division revenue (at Warner the video games are also in the Warner Brothers studio division) and a consumer product line in the individual movies accounting helping that movie result. For example: http://deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886/ (soundtrack and some merchandising revenue are there on that potter distribution leak report) and every sony released movie had one. That said they are not impressive amount for the most part, so they could be just a fraction from third party licensing that used exact imagery from the movie and sold them around the movie release time, with a lot of it not being accounted to the movie itself outside of those.

We don't really have studio CEO anymore to make a direct comparable (specially not studio founder like him), but the studio owner CEO are getting paid more than he was (adjusted for inflation) and are still in the most well paid people in the US http://www.businessinsider.com/highest-paid-ceos-2016-2017-5/#8-ginni-rometty-3 Last year: Bewkes: 32.6 million (Warner) Roberts: 33 m (Comcast) Iger: 41m (Disney) Moonves: 68.6m (CBS) Louis B Mayer was doing at MGM around $21,657,639 in today money according to wikipedia

That is not 100m USD thought. More like 88m no ?

Really big blow for their movie division, but from the studio point of views it created new extremely profitable studio TV division, TV is a giant revenue source for studios and they are still the one making the TV money, it is a big competition to the movies theater but a competition from the studios themselves. Around that time you also had at the same time urban sprawl happening that really made going to the theater not has easy for a large part of the population. World TV had a lot of money in it.

Would be hard, I think during a certain era marketing was made locally by theaters, not a movie distributor, and cost also did change a bit, looking at actual hold annual report of some studio (if some ever were public company back in the day) to see actual profit and adjust those for inflation would pretty much the only "clean" way to goes.

Not that simple imo, studio didn't had TV product, not has much merchandising, no video game franchise, no dvds, not has much oversea revenue. Many says that the small windows of around 2002 to 2008 or so, when the DVD craze was at is peak was the most profitable time for the movie segment of studios, that was a time when they were making 90 to 110 million net budget comedy + gross points that would be made at 40m or less now and still be seen as a risk. Looking only at the domestic box office when for a while a studio revenues pie was looking like this Would be extremely misleading. At least we know it is not the 60 or 70, when studio were closing on one big flop and had to take huge risk, if it is not that dvd bubble it would be at some point at the golden age.

But TV and Home video are mostly product from the studios.

That is a lot, do 1) the local distributors get a better return than 25% ? 2) has to pay for the marketing ? If the answer is no and yes, it would have needed to do quite a lot to reach a 10% ROI. Say they spent 7 million on that release in China. that a 107 million cost, they need to think they have a good chance of getting 117.7m back. Theatrical alone with a 25% return, that is betting on the movie doing over 470 million US in China, would that be close to The Mermaid record with today exchange rate ? IT must have a bit more than that like they own part of the movie like the Ghost in a shell deal or some merchandising taste, otherwise such a non brainer for paramount, they did pretty much as much it could ever do and with 0 risk.

The franchise (and Disney in general) has a recent history of massively under reporting budget, (not that it is necessarily this case this time, there is some tangible element on why this one could have had a so much lower budget than the 407 million gross budget pirates 4)

It not that clear because of world box office vs toy sales (that are a lot US) That one seem clearer (broke down by franchise), the year with a movie are very clearly helping the sales (and the domestic popularity of the movie also seeming to be linked to the toys performance): Spiderman: X-Men:

Well no, the movie merchandise sales can be affected by how loved and successful the movie output is without being the only factor, like you said a car franchise is one of the best to be merchandised to young boys (versus a movie like Moana that is harder to turn into toys). Hard to believe that Cars merchandise sales worldwide would not have been 1% higher in the last 5 year's, that they would have been the exact same amount if Cars 2 was a Toy story 2/3 level beloved movie that made 900 million at the world box office. We would need a by year breakdown to see if there is a jump in the movie year and if it is lower than for franchise with more liked and bigger output. Someone did try to look for Hasbro toys sales and Hasbro related movie box office and the correlation was really strong: Hasbro could be an extreme case, I doubt that would be the same for every franchise, but it is hard to imagine zero link between movie popularity and their merchandise.

Safe to put the Arthurian movie universe in that list also, it is the most death of the bunch (the only clearly death one).

I would imagine that the merchandising performance is linked a lot to the movies performance and how well liked they are (otherwise they would not even have to make them at all probably). What is true is that those cars movie could have 50% rebate on their ticket with Disney getting no rental and still have been some of the most profitable movie ever made.