Barnack

Does the movie with those excuse have worst legs than the average success too ? Baywatch tripled is first weekend already with those reviews for that example (maybe that 3day weekend number is diluted too, because of the 4 days weekend opening), at what multiplier would we start saying it played ok with audience and the issue was a too small opening weekend ?

uwe boll ? Most of is movie didn't get review on RT, but when they did never got over 25%, never did he sold out with some good reviews from time to time: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/uwe_boll/ And he literally beat critics up: http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Uwe-Boll-Kicks-Crap-Out-Critics-1121.html In video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swg4SshYx2E And he mick dropped is exit like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1J65KHX8E

whatever happen, this should be a great club.

Didn't saw that one coming at all, they felt like a natural fit for the material.... Sony would love to see them come back sooner than expected, loosing them and the Russos to Disney was a small hit on them.

They just had one of their best year ever in term of profit. Home video didn't do to good because of 2015 weaker year and 2015 video games were at a record level, but theatrical was really good. Operating income for Warner brother: 2014: 1159 million 2015: 1416 million 2016: 1734 million Studio do not show profit breakdown between tv production and movies too, just revenue by division and total cost for both division.

True that is not going that well for Paramount. Filmed entertainment division of Viacom (Paramount) 2015 (year ending September 30): 110 million profit Filmed entertainment division of Viacom (Paramount) 2016 (year ending September 30): 445 million loss Has a comparison, Sony still did a 243 million in profit from their Filmed entertainment in the march 2016 to march 2017 fiscal year (would it not be for the giant 962 million goodwill lost), and bigger profit than that the 2 year's before And they started the year like this, only xXx being an success and Baywatch will not loose money, but GITS and Monster Trucks... Rank Movie Title (click to view) Studio Total Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Open Close 1 Baywatch Par. $55,158,487 3,647 $18,503,871 3,647 5/25 - 2 xXx: The Return of Xander Cage Par. $44,898,413 3,651 $20,130,142 3,651 1/20 3/16 3 Ghost in the Shell (2017) Par. $40,563,557 3,440 $18,676,033 3,440 3/31 5/25 4 Monster Trucks Par. $33,370,166 3,119 $10,950,705 3,119 1/13 3/16 5 Rings Par. $27,793,018 2,931 $13,002,632 2,931 2/3 3/23 At least the rest of the year should go well enough with Transformer, Cloverfield and Daddy Home being 3 good safe franchise for them. Next year as T6, MI 6 and a Paramount event movie, really testing how much juice is left in their franchise.

Are we writing off Tom Cruise already, even from the Mission Impossible franchise ? It is quite big. Terminator is a bit of an interrogation point, but it could bounce back. I wonder how much they share revenue with Hasbro and other partners thought for Transformer (is it really that big versus say the Daddy Home franchise): That starting to be quite a lot of people involved: Production Companies Di Bonaventura Pictures Hasbro Huahua Media Ian Bryce Productions Paramount Pictures (presents) Tom DeSanto/Don Murphy Production Plus I imagine investor with a production type of credit involved, it is far from a almost all the profit goes to Paramount type of scenario, in a way it is nice they will loose nothing the day a transformer flop and don't need to search for money to make them, it make the adventure extremely safe, but they are not making necessarily as much as we think from them, specially after Bay, Spielberg and others make first dollar gross points and Walbergh bonus start after just 200m at the box office.

That could a bit of a stereotype, would not surprise me if a lot of that franchise fanbase is educated: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/enjoyment-of-trash-films-linked-to-high-intelligence-study-finds-a7171436.html Ironic viewing is obviously what is at play here, and the researchers found it is mostly film buffs who watch trash films, Lot of people that are in movies so much to the point to participate in message board about movies seem to watch them (thus in a trivial way you can assume they like them, not hate them).

Some chinese company are heavily invested in paramount slate, but I'm not sure if that make them out of the import category that get the 25%, it is probably still the case, let say it is. You are only looking at theatrical revenue here and only at the production budget, the total picture is quite different. You can start with that estimate as a starting point and adjust for this one different information, those tend to be pretty good: http://deadline.com/2015/03/transformers-age-of-extinction-profit-box-office-2014-1201391233/ The total cost before participation should be above 400m (was over 500m for T4 with an estimated 250m budget). T4, did around 850 million in revenue from a 412 million theatrical rental,using a similar ratio for t5 and your theatrical rental estimate it would do around 520m in total revenue, for an around 50 to 100 million in profit (shared between people with participation bonus, hasbro, the many investor and to the studio)

Fast is a bit of a special case, each entry grew at the domestic box office between Tokyo drift to 7, and the reviews when up too. It got down with Fast 8 but so did the reviews. Hard to distinguish toxic critical reception from natural franchise fatigue, pretty much impossible to know, but the general point is that the franchise went down domestic overtime, a pit like Pirate did too, it is not certain that it is completely 100% robust to bad reviews.

If Spielberg is involved, if he is interested JJ Abrams is probably seen has a deluxe option to revitalize a franchise. I only see producing type of gig on is IMDB page, no directing one, maybe he is free.

Part of the embargo could also be to make people doing junket promoting the movie more comfortably (must be less fun to do them when the movie is getting trashed on RT), has the movie being critic-proof I'm not sure it is the case domestic. The franchise went significantly down entry after entry after the second one.

I would have thought that China would be were presales are the most reliable, a much bigger proportion of the ticket buying is presales/online versus the rest of the world and the only market that we know the numbers I think. People on the BOT China message board using them for prediction tend to be really close, much more than prediction people make domestic.

If you know that reported budget are never what they really are (they often are outside in-house studios too), I,m not sure what you mean by the budget as it stand is 125m, you know more than most how very likely untrue that is. Are you more that the movie people playing box office fantasy game should use or really mean that is likely the actual movie budget ? They rarely (i don't remember a case) repeated it as often, but I think they often did that in the past point out rumors of budget way bigger than reported, Ghost in a shell recently for example they did the same: http://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/ Some sources even assert that the production cost for Ghost is far north of $110M and more in the $180M range — if that’s the case, Ghost is bleeding in excess of $100M. I think it was Hollywood reporter, and they were quoting someone "industry veteran" that were telling them that and they were saying that other disagreed with that point of view I think: Another veteran says the goal is survival: "The movie's got to do $750 million, $800 million to break even. If they get anywhere close to that, they'll consider it a win." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693 Deadline is saying that the movie made over 150 million in profit without reaching 800m: http://deadline.com/2017/03/suicide-squad-box-office-profit-2016-1202052792/

There is different level of secrecy/ability to spin, many movies were bought in a more public fashion made more independently and not in-house planned affair, with a lot of studio bidding on them and a lot of people knowing the planned budget. And it is not the only the site saying that, variety was saying from the beginning: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/ With terrible reviews, “The Mummy,” which insiders say cost as much as $190 million to make and more than $100 million more to market and release worldwide, http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-cruise-control-the-mummy-box-office-flop-2017-6 In the wake of the disastrous domestic opening for Universal's "The Mummy," which at a budget of around $190 million only took in $31.6 million (though it did much better internationally), the finger-pointing has begun. The way it stands the movie does not have a known budget, that 125m in the trade at release time mean close to nothing and yes most in house studio film budget tend to be inaccurate.

Apparently in Europe theater are not all with AC like in america (and that would explain why the business goes down a lot when it is hot)

I imagine normally it would have been the counter-programming option, expecting everything else playing to be father day's friendly, not expecting Wonder Woman to steal any of that.

And maybe some theater chain will not include that new movie in their usual rebate.

I wonder how it work, a studio cannot give theater chain ticket to anyone they do not own them or tell theater chain what to do. The deal must involve Fandago and theater chain that deal with Fandago, and I would imagine if they get some kind of lower price bulk deal on the movie ticket a deal with the movie distributor.

The Smurf 3 project with an summer 2015 release (that never happened) had planned budget: 77.42 million release cost: 99.87 million 177.29 million The studio estimated break even point for that project was 47.2m domestic / 139m intl, 187m WW, for the co-financier a bit over 200m WW. It was already a good cut from the previous 2 expense: Smurfs: Budget: 124 m Release cost: 133.47 million 257.47 million Smurfs 2: Budget: 114m Release cost: 120.16 million 234.16 million If they went even smaller with a close to 60 million for the budget, it would not surprise me if they went as low as 80/85 million on that releasing too, with a break even point close to 165m or so.

Both Matrix sequel were below 140m ? talk about a good price.

Or probably more in the like of what Susanne Bier did with The Night Manager, Fukunaja on True Detective or David O Russel on is next giant amazon series, just one director for the whole series that play like a long movie, Fargo used 4-5 different director I think. Those were awesome too.

thanks for that recommendation, will certainly do (here the links for people): https://www.dga.org/Craft/Podcast.aspx

Paul is completely paranoid at that point (and that why they survived) and the movie give their reasoning of why he and is wife cannot let them go, they know were they live, they know about their setup (solar panel, water purifying gear, good water source near by, gazoline, working truck, etc...) and when they will go back in survival trouble (last time was lack of water) they will come here and try to take it out of despair or if they are really sick, could be right away while being sick. Really love it (but I was spoiled to not expect anything to come at night by this message board and didn't look at the trailers, so I didn't had any expectation). Quite similar to the Witch, but with a different paranoia and without character arc.

Pirates 4 did a bit under 700 oversea minus japan, pirates 3 did 560m minus japan, they are probably talking after the same number of days after the release if 3-4 had great legs vs how frontloaded it will be in 2017 I guess it is possible, exchange change quite a lot from so long ago. The spin would be to include China and some other market that exploded since in the calculation, outside those even with the exchange rate it must have dropped.