Barnack

Casablanca is not that good of an example, the play was made before the Americans were involved into fighting Germany, it was one of the most politically charged movie of the time that some argue influenced the level of war effort and was a piece of war propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)#Timing_of_release The Office of War Information prevented screening of the film to troops in North Africa, believing it would cause resentment among Vichy supporters in the region. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/award-winning-film-reinforces-allied-war-effort-nov-26-1942-216182 http://brightlightsfilm.com/casablanca-romance-propaganda/ Although World War II began on September 1, 1939, as late as the beginning of December 1941, the time at which Casablanca is set, most Americans believed that the United States “should stay out of that phony war in Europe.” In fact, a Gallup Poll taken during the first year of the war indicated that an overwhelming ninety-six percent of all Americans wanted the country to remain neutral.1 However, by the time Casablanca premiered in November 1942, the bombing of Pearl Harbor had already occurred, and the United States had been at war for almost a year. Nevertheless, many Americans continued to support an isolationist foreign policy, and were uneasy about U.S. participation in a war that was thousands of miles away. To counteract this negative public sentiment towards American military participation in WWII, the Department of War established a “War Films” division, and hired filmmakers John Ford, Frank Capra, and Casablanca‘s screenwriters, Julius and Philip Epstein, to travel to Washington, D.C. to create a series of seven American war propaganda films, grouped under the umbrella title of Why We Fight. Warner Brothers also produced some six hundred training and propaganda films under the supervision of Owen Crump, a member of the studio’s shorts department.2 For a modern audience, now that the war is long gone and isolationist during WW2 is not that popular, it can be watched as a crowd pleaser, but at a time it was a tool to challenge audience into changing their mind about the role the US should play in WW2 against Nazy germany.

In live action there is some exception, domestic ranking since November 8 (comedy over 1 million), according to the numbers: The Boss Baby $172,169,543 Why Him? $60,323,786 Office Christmas Party $54,767,494 Baywatch $53,547,500 Captain Underpants: The First Ep… $50,613,660 Snatched $45,276,729 Going in Style $44,658,044 Fist Fight $32,187,017 How to Be a Latin Lover $31,981,297 Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul $19,756,995 Bad Santa 2 $17,782,176 Table 19 $3,614,896 The Resurrection of Gavin Stone $2,303,792 Paterson $2,141,423 The Comedian $1,658,706 Toni Erdmann $1,478,960 3 Idiotas $1,161,485 Why him, Office Christmas party and Going in Style did well (more than comfortably doubled their big budget, while being domestic heavy)

The Edge of Seventeen, The Nice Guys, even funny good movies have an hard time it seem. Baby Driver and Big Sick look excellent, people are not predicting big performance from them either. Pop star was at least average to, and it had a hook, some brand, nearly 2500 theater... didn't do 10 million.

I agree with both of this, it is not like pure action, hardcore Sci-fi or pure romance is doing that well either, more and more you need to combine 2/3 genre together to open a movie. There is theater becoming the big spectacle affair phenomenom, combined with strong competition of action-comedy, adventure-comedy, dramedy, and less and less but rom-com from the Force Awaken, MCU, Pixar and other high quality+high spectacle movie that are for the most part really good comedy. I think my audience laughed more in Wonder woman than Rough Night, certainly the case for Force Awaken or Guardian of the galaxy.

Not so long ago a movie like Neighbors could do 150m.... Will have a clearer idea with Will Ferrel comedy, they both could do really well (if even him don't open them, then yeah crisis would be the good word). Despicable me 3 should easily win the comedy of the summer title.

Besson has already 4 movie in the top 100 biggest movie of all time in France Le grand bleu: 9 194 343 ticket solds 5th element: 7 727 697 Arthur et les mini moi: 6.4m Lucy: 5.2 m Is last 2 big movie made over 40m in France alone. The Euro went down since, but it still sound overly pessimistic.

Yeah that is the budget I'm talking about (the one in "") that people with bonus after cb0 type of contract will all know (the rest only if the want to follow that by curiosity on how it work), but the directors will often know something close to the budget and will be offered some option on how to spend it (do you want more days or that crowd for that scene, etc...) I would think.

Why especially after the movie opens ?, movie approximate negative cost tend to be talked at contract level for big director/actor/writer, maybe they do not have that good sense of the actual budget, but the net budget used in their how much money they will make formula, I would imagine that they know. They probably have seen graph on how much they would do depending on the movie performance (using comparable) before signing on. Reading the negotiation between Paul Feig team and Sony for Ghostbuster writing/directing/EP credit in talks for example: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/81364 How the interest rate paid on the movie financing will affect Feig bonus is talked about, what to do with the tax credit when they will come in year laters and so on, what to do if he bust is signed and agreed production budget (penalty or not and of which kind). At those superstar level I think they will know a lot even on a studio movie (if they are interested to know and if they have penalty if they go overcost, they certainly are aware). Director in those THR roundtable or writer/director on The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith often sound like they know the budget of their movies (Goldsmith systematically ask them that question and often get a response).

Modern star often don<t get first dollar gross (particularly on a movie like this), but when they are big like her they often get a bonus after estimated break point type of deal (never on real profit), that calculation will usually use budget, release budget and so on to determine when they start getting money (when the movie is expected to turn a profit), they are often close to the director than know the budget and so on (when they do not have a producer credit). When they get participation profit, budget become something that affect them.

Don't know for the rest of the domestic market, but it has been marketed a lot in canada and it also often played during the nba finals game. It is getting the blockbuster domestic release (there is a toy company and many extremely powerful people behind that movie, I doubt they would let Paramount not spend a fortune on the marketing)

I don<T think we have much idea on how GITS did cost, the rumors were has high as 180m, to has low as 110, I think Scarlett herself said around 140m..., a bit like for The Mummy lot of spin made around that movie production cost. http://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/ Besson is a really big deal in many market and the visual look really good, it is far from certain that it will not do blockbuster business and turn a profit, it need to do around is previous movie Lucy, not impossible.

They recent transformer entry to adjust their tracking (they use different formula for different type of movie and must take that walk up friendly into account, like for a fast and furious)

What a strange strawmen (who ever said anything like that ?), the King Kong/Jurassic Park tend to have some "political" angle or commentary with the dino being an allegory for something, so did Jurassic World, but not that particularly heavy. Who ever said anything about that ? Jurassic Park is one of the best movie of the 90s imo, is it because it is edgy, political, confrontational ? Was the Lord of the rings trilogy particularly any of those ?

Has a teen a while back he: At 15, civil action was filed against Wahlberg for his involvement in two separate incidents of throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets at African-American children; the first incident was against two siblings, and the second incident was against a group of school children on a field trip At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man named Thanh Lam on the street, and using a large wooden stick, bashed him over the head until he was knocked unconscious while calling him a "Vietnam fucking shit". That same day, Wahlberg also attacked a second Vietnamese man named Hoa "Johnny" Trinh, sucker punching him in the eye. According to court documents regarding these crimes, when Wahlberg was arrested later that night and returned to the scene of the first assault, he stated to police officers: "You don't have to let him identify me, I'll tell you now that's the mother-fucker who's [sic] head I split open."[18] Investigators also noted that Wahlberg "made numerous unsolicited racial statements about 'gooks' and 'slant-eyed gooks'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Wahlberg#Arrests_and_conviction But he was beating up people of all races I think.

Out, but good club imo. Star wars entry were all the biggest domestic movie of their respective year except for Attack of the Clones (the worst of them all), even Rogue One made a freak 530 million. The strength of the brand, one of the most popular character of the franchise history, Lord and Miller that has yet to do a bad movie imo, too much going on for it to bet against.

Probably this (in a trolling way): http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-banks-steven-spielberg-female-movies-2017-6

You already pointed one reason, that he became the always go to poster boy of the white male privilege subject I think (a bit undeservedly and not just in hindsight of is financial result). Specially with how he responded to it (saying that a big part of the difference was women director not pitching franchise entry / trilogy to studios, and it was I think probably true and a valid point, it match what Kennedy said for Star Wars, that no serious woman director made a serious pitch to them while receiving tons from men) The second reason, is many really disliked that movie and thought he was a terrible choice for star wars, so him getting bad reviews they see some chance of him getting the boot or less control on it (or just see validation that they were right and so gloat in it)

In the 2000's 2005: Batman begin: 4.24 2004: Spider man 2: 4.23 (not a friday opening thought) 2006: Superman : 3.8

I was asking what is the interest, if Cena and Gibson have big role, it sound like a nice project.

Would wait for a Disney "live action" remake to not be a giant phenomenon before predicting that. I would expect Mulan to be a really big deal, X-men too but a 500 million one.

Well we will never know how much this movie did cost, but even at 170 million, it will double that, that is usually put movies outside the flop category (flop is for movies that lost a lot money, studio lost some money on Men in black 3 and Angels & Demon, that does not make them flops). King Arthur is a flop, Mummy will see but with that start it is almost impossible for it to really flop.

It did over 170 million no ? The worldwide total is $172.3M through Sunday. http://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-wonder-woman-international-box-office-weekend-results-1202111212/ Does it not have a shot to reach something like 400m and at least 345m ? it is far from a flop imo, it already did more than what flop tend to do on it<s first weekend alone with still some market to open.

That would make sense, Dwayne Johnson is a good as it get to help a franchise entry (if you go toward action or action / comedy). Mummy being a flop (not sure how much that would end up being true, it did had a giant opening) make it even more important to intent to get him no ? Not less.

That is gross rules of thumbs of the percentage of the revenue that came from theatrical over those time periods (even if each movie is an individual story and that it change a bit by movie genre, all there windows revenue tend to be heavily correlated), more and more revenues come from theatrical. If you look at every year deadline most profitable blockbuster list, the total revenue vs the box office is going down and down every year. It is also a clear trend in the sony leak accounting, the total revenue for a movie / world box office changed quite a bit, it went from 199% between 2005-2010 to 123% between 2011-2014 (for big movies alone it went from 145% to 107%) A movie doubling it's big budget was a success story around batman begins because of the giant dvds market (and in the 90s the TV market), not anymore, it would be misleading to compare movie from different era without taking into account the complete evolving portrait.

I doubt they were there total cost were close to be that low, but if they were in those range they certainly made a large profit (without even merchandising/video games/etc... being considered). Salt for example made 358,571 million in total revenue with $0 from consumer products sales, with that box office: Domestic: $118,311,368 40.3% + Foreign: $175,191,986 59.7% = Worldwide: $293,503,354 It's theatrical rental revenue were of 57.783 (dom) + 77.462 (intl) = 135 million (37% of it<s revenue were from Theatrical not particularly good), significantly lower than Batman begins or Captain America, those 2 movie made significantly more than 400 million in revenues, 300 million total budget would mean hundreds of millions in profit for them.