Barnack

He was a bigger star than Steven Spielberg in the late 70's and 80's ? Jaws, Close Encounter, E.T., Raiders, were all massive (all biggest movie of there respective year, except Close encounter with only the freak Star wars above it)

Is that true ? https://www.criterion.com/people/5796-michael-bay Michael Bay is one of those auteur with more than one criterion release, I think he was vastly respected (industry and cinephiles) before failing to renew himself and pass to an other level.

Superman is not either making the argument of using MOS instead of those has reference point a bit strange. The selling point of WonderWoman is not a human either. Anyway I would need to take you word for it (I have no way to say if a woman is a negative or a positive in a market like China, it is not like we have many precedent of SH woman since China is a relevant market) it was simply to point out that a female lead franchise can make a lot in China.

They put the park in a island outside any jurisdiction and in what seem to be a fantastic world different than ours concerning security, were parents lets kids touch dinosaur and lawsuits probably stopped to exist (specially if they ever acknowledge the existence of Jurassic Park 2 at some points). A bit more like say Europe (were you can still launch a bunch of Bulls in the street and not get sued) than the US. Or the http://nomadgames.co.uk/ Where you can have competition of killing wolves with your eagles or horse wrestling or chassing a girl to kiss her competition without getting into legal trouble

The UK number is so out of line of the others market, that it seem to indicate a huge impact from that terror attack. Total: BvS: 134 m / 542.9 total (4.05) Mos: 80m / 377 m total (4.71) WW: 80.4m If WW follow MoS it should do around 380m intl If WW follow BvS it should do around 325m intl

Well he also get a producer fee and a writing fee on is movies usually, it can ramp up I doubt he reached 40m on most of them but maybe on Click and some other. Click: net budget: 94 million Bonus: 36.2 million Total: 130 m Grown up Net budget: 81.7 m Bonus: 35.8m Total: 117.5 Grown up 2 Net budget: 93.48 m Bonus: 12.04m Total: 105.5 m Just go with it Net budget: 87.13 BOnus: 5.9 m Total: 93 million Zohan: Budget: 102.7 m Bonus: 18 m Total: 120 m Jack&Jill Budget: 90m Bonus: 4.35m Total: 94.35 My boy Budget: 69.88 Bonus: 0 Total: 69.88 m

If only it was 79m, Jack and Jill net production budget was 90.04 million from the studio pov. I think those are a bit independently made by him and sold to the studio at a pre-set price (a bit like Netflix or a Sundance buy out), so the studio price for it is pretty much 100% disconnected to what the movie cost to make. One group of people that are paid much more than people suspect is producers, I think people assume movie star make a lot, but producers (not necessarily known name) can make 2 million + back end points on a movie and writers (you often read people saying that studio should spend on the writer instead of X on a Transformer movie for example, the studio probably spent 7-8 m on script&story on a Transformer movie)

That is a nice rebate, but that is probably not that big, opportunity cost of not playing others ads is still the cost of the ads they play on their own network (same for the VFX work, it still cost a lot and they are doing an other contract instead)

Specially when you are housing them on location, having crew member living 10 month in Namibia for Fury Road with cost you over 100+k for each of them (specially those with a family). At the peak of production a movie like MadMax had 1700 crew member: Big’ doesn’t even begin to encompass the sheer scale of the Fury Road endeavour. Want some quickfire numbers? At the height of filming, there were 1,700 crew members – with an average of 1,000 people on set at any one time – as five 8x8 German military transport trucks hauled gear across three football-pitch-sized distances six times over 138 days. Even if you spend nothing of SFX, material, etc... just having over 1000 people on set every day will cost you over 1 million a week in salary alone,+ living expense, + travel expense. It must easily go to over 3 million a week for 1700 people, before you shoot an build/destroy anything.

It is more about explaining audience resistance and why word of mouth cannot really work, that complaining I think (at least in my case).

Those website tend to be run by a couple of guys and do not necessarily update their numbers, they write what studio told the trade near release date and don't often update them. For example we know it got from the UK a tax rebate of $32.1 million US, to give a bit of an idea on the range tax rebate can look like (that were the estimate of a net budget of 378 million come from) The estimate for the net budget of the previous Pirates movie were of 341.8 million (matching the a bit over 700 million spent on production Tele heard from someone). An easy rules of thumb then to be, if it is perfect round number, it cannot be the known net budget they never are round number.

But they already did split the sequel of Return of the Jedi in at least 3 already. They are still splitting movies and spreading them and spinning off them as much as ever (avatar sequel for example, look like as a plan to be split in 4 movies). The particular case of a released and well known book in a franchise not getting split anymore, is a particular case.

That make sense, we know pirates 4 was 410 million for the production alone before tax rebate.

Maybe you are right, but that would be because of the number of people getting large amount of points, more than a difference than 120 million difference in the budget, if you are right for that 300m budget in mind. (the first 160m or so made at the box office over Guardian should take care of that)

Lord of the rings were as much part-1-2-3 as it get, cut in parts for practical/commercial reason (runtime), same for the book when they were published to the movies. Many when making all time ranking put all of them together has just one movie. Everytime movies start with sequel in mind it is a bit of the case, the distinction made (of putting part 1 in the title or not) are pure marketing/presentation consideration. The new star wars sequel was split in 3, if it become split in 4 or 5, pretty arbitrary cut-off amount of movies.

I would imagine that it will be over 900m (and possibly around 1100m). Sony spent 531.45 million 10 year's ago on Spider-Man 3 production and marketing (after tax break/others think reducing the gross budget, probably closer to 600m before those), the total cost of Spider-Man 3 for Sony was a bit over 930 million. The last 2 much cheaper Spider man combined: Amazing spider-man Net production cost: 261.56 million Marketing: 187.45 million Amazing Spider-Man 2: Net production cost: 263.95 million (gross of 312.25 million) Marketing cost: 167 million Total: 880 million Hard to imagine 2 movie with that crew list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/fullcredits/ Costing significantly cheaper than amazing Spider man 1-2, Feige and the Russos probably cost more than pretty much everyone involved on those.

More than well imo, particularly domestic. No MCU did suicide squad minus China bo without Iron Man getting involved I think ?

Pretty much this, I have not seen thor 1, all the iron man, but Avengers, ultron and both cap, I could kind of keep up I think.

We have a good clue to that answer, with the fact that Aquaman was the superheroes movie used in the Entourage universe (they choose that one thinking that it would never exist), they even needed to use James Cameron has the director to bring some credibility to the fact that it had an over SpiderMan first weekend.

Well China/India could start to grow like crazy, US dollar could lose 20% and some Avengers sequels could beat Avengers unadjusted one day and one solo SpiderMan Mcu could beat Iron man 3, open future projection bring lot of unknown.

Probably this, they are at a point that they are bringing a lot of people and spending a giant fortune for it not to decline from Ultron, that it should work outside a bad movie scenario. Guardian brought a bit of a different audience (massive difference adult vs kids proportion on those first OW) to the MCU, maybe black panther will do to, those case of a different audience can bring new people in to those team up movie. Same (I imagine much more so) for WW with the Justice league.

Because the message board will have well one message. Do not expect any of this to have any purpose or anything useful come from people talking about Box office (or baseball stats). This and the MCU is not automatically growing, there is a chance that nothing will beat Avengers and no solo movie will beat Iron Man 3, etc.... A franchise being young, is not usually bad for it's box office (no Potter really did beat the first Potter, usually the first Star wars is the biggest of it's bunch) it is special case when you do not go down.

Comparing leg in pure absolute or pure relative to OW can both be misleading way to do so, to score "legs quality" both number need to be used imo. CW legs: 228.9 million MoS legs: 174.4 million OW % CW: 43.9% MoS: 40.1% That is pretty similar leg performance indeed. CW excuse is being by now very far in a story line that create a lot of resistance among people that have not seen previous movies from 2 different branch or didn't like them, with a huge opening weekend (a bit like an Harry Potter movie toward the end), those are to expected to be very front-loaded.

Exactly, why not use more recent one (if Man of steel not being particularly more relevant). Hollywood big Solo SH or DC movie since 2015 Solo SH Ant-Man $105m Doctor Strange $109m Logan: $105.9 million Dc entry: BvS: $95m For the female part with how well RE is doing in China, is it that much of a negative box office wise in that market ? Resident Evil: The Final Chapter: $159m I think the result are good (better than Rogue One) or at least not bad at all, but not particularly really good vs recent big solo entry, both Ant-Man and Dr Strange I think had a better sales to Asian market and we can understand why they did better, but not Logan.

I imagine Nolan trilogy was too recent (or some hope that Bale/Nolan would do one more), dark knight rises was in 2012.