Barnack

Yes because the previous one made is 440m just before the exchange rate drop of late august 2014, I thought that outside a China burst it would be already an accomplishment to do that number again (felt the saw way about beating is DBO performance and WW total).

C-minus cinemascore, not far from Blair Witch 2016 D+ and like you said it had only opened to 8.8m and had great/excellent press to support it and still didn't triple is small OW. Hate is maybe a strong word, but very mixed at best (my audience match that cinemascore score, with some vocal reaction at the end)

This people often point American reviews / World box office when talking if reviews matters, like say using Transformer doing a billion has an example (instead of doing it market by market)

I imagine it was, it probably often is (if studio seem not sure with their embargo release date strategy), people that accept to go see unfinished movie for free are maybe a different audience a little than then general audience that end up seeing it, added the factor of being in the first of seeing a franchise movie, the room being full, etc... (that and simply small sample size). Many movie did test terrible too and ended up great, like Boogie Night, because it can be hard to match the good audience to a movie you screen. For studio exec that have seen 22 different version of the movie, knew the script for a long time, it must specially for comedy, just become impossible to tell after a while, if it is funny or not.

That is exactly what their post-mortem is saying no ?: The reviews really hurt the film No where does Paramount seem to talk about that comedy was maybe a bad option, it was one with the best precedent and the only one to go with that brand imo. But if it is true that the movie was testing well, it was perfectly legitimate for them to think they had a good product in their hands (B+ cinemascore isn't that bad either)

Higher the tracking worst the prediction model tend to become, those tracking depend a lot of comparable previous performance with the metrics and those giant movie have a low sample poll to build a model from. Guardian of the galaxy 2 tracking of $150m was not far off. Moviepilot digital tracking predicted 165 OW for BvS: http://variety.com/2016/data/box-office/batman-v-superman-box-office-digital-tracking-1201739710/ More common movie tend to have a more impressive tracking (Lego batman did almost exactly is 50m tracking with a 53m OW) Apparently tracking achieve to be within 15% of the actual gross around 75% of the time.

not that many: That search on IMDB gave me only 10 titles: Most Popular Titles With US Box Office At Least $90,000,000 and Running Time of At Least 180 Minute http://www.imdb.com/search/title?boxoffice_gross_us=90000000,&runtime=180, 1. Titanic (1997) 7.7 RATE 2. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) 8.2 RATE 3. Gone with the Wind (1939) 8.2 RATE 4. Schindler's List (1993) 8.9 RATE 5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 8.9 RATE 6. The Green Mile (1999) 8.5 RATE 7. King Kong (2005) 7.2 RATE 8. Pearl Harbor (2001) 6.1 RATE 9. Dances with Wolves (1990) 8 RATE 10. Doctor Zhivago (1965) 8 RATE

I doubt they gave money to Scorsese on that movie production (or knew the runtime when they acquired the movie distribution at Cannes), it was independently made and financed with many partners (at least 5 different financiers). Production companies SharpSword Films AI Film Emmett/Furla/Oasis Films CatchPlay IM Global Verdi Productions[1] YLK Sikelia Fábrica de Cine On April 19, 2013, it was announced that Scorsese would begin production on Silence in 2014, after a reputed 23-year wait. Irwin Winkler was announced as a producer the same day, as were Randall Emmett and George Furla, who would finance the production through their company Emmett/Furla Films. Paul Breuls' Corsan Films was also reportedly funding the project.[22] Additionally, it was announced that the film would be shot in Taiwan. Paramount was probably a distribution deal on some market (a bit like WB with Cloud Atlas).

I don't know in general, but not particularly if it is a case of fangirls, Twilight, fault in the stars, 50 shades, Sex and the City, etc... got some of the most frontloaded release.

I'm not fully sure what you are asking there. (It had much more than just 60m to recoup, that movie total cost was over 250m Every revenue stream in that picture is put into other revenues and by seeing the presence of round number I would imagine it is deadline with studio people of the time estimating them by using the rule of thumb formula for a movie of that genre that had that type of life on TV. 37% of your revenue from theatrical was probably about the average for big release of that era.

I'm not sure what you doubt exactly in my message, but that was my point, the Han Solo movie will be much more independent than the usual movie (or at least possible to sell has stand alone), Solo does not believe in Jedi older so he was not exposed to the mythology at all has a young person, he was not involved in the rebellion or anything much that we known. That give the movie no minimum in new market, but no limit like a franchise movie tend to have, with a lot of resistance from people that have not seen any star wars movie and feel that you must have. Has for the SW being weakened by so many release, that is really probable, if they stay good it could be not so bad (Lords of the rings got 3 movie in 3 year's and they all grew).

Possible reason is Lord&Miller and easier to sell more has a fully stand-alone movie for the newer market

Very true, Baywatches execution and reception went as bad as it could, and look like it could still end up making moneys, that show how safe movie like that are versus almost everything original ever made.

There is usually 500+ peoples working on those giants movies, chance are there must always be assholes (and much more serious stuff than not liking their Instagram post or what not Delevigne ever did, I could be talking out of my ass on this one not following celebrities necessarily that much), you would not be able to root for any movie if you start caring for the personality of people involved. I would understand for the main creators, but just the actors... Imagine someone saying cannot root for a movie (with hundreds of millions in play, probably a nice movie production company and many investor) because of the movie editor or one sound guy, not being a nice person.

I didn't saw everything obviously (so I could be wrong) but I agree with this, it is not like may 2016 with The Nice guys, Neighbors 2, A bigger splash, The Lobster and other movies worthy of a watch failing to reach mass audience (or any audience).

This has more chance than most comedy to do so, you can make an action heavy trailer, you have star with international appeal with Johnson (and possibly Priyanka Chopra I do not know how much she is really big in Asia), and the franchise awareness on what was often said to be the biggest scripted tv show on earth, that show was number one on many market. Many of those R-rated comedy have domestic only star and not much intl appeal, Baywatch is a bit different and if things goes well should even do more intl than domestic.

Depend of the market, a companies like Sony get around 47 to 49% in South korea or Japan, versus around 53% in the US, Disney big movie were getting 47.7% from Germany box office, not that big of a difference now that they don,t get a large share of the domestic box office first weeks, but flat rental fee. One large difference is the after theatrical windows/toys market that is bigger for them in the US too, maybe it changed but in the recent past the value of domestic box office was around 1.3 time the value of the intl box office in my opinion.

It is one of the biggest and most popular modern franchise worldwide: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/business/la-fi-ct-cars2-20110621 In the five years since its 2006 release, "Cars" has generated global retail sales approaching $10 billion, according to Disney. That ranks the Pixar film alongside such cinematic merchandising standouts as "Star Wars," "Spider-Man" and "Harry Potter," as well as its own paean to playthings, "Toy Story," according to researcher NPD.

Uwe Bolt fuck you all is up there for the greatest title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1J65KHX8E

Didn't got much chance, The Weinstein seem to be a bit in financial trouble lately and when this and Gold didn't get any award traction (that they probably felt was needed for the movie has any chance) they kind of cut their lost and gave both kind of cheap release. The Weinstein company (distributor of The Founder on the domestic market) is getting sued by the movie producers over that release: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/document.pdf

The number 2 is probably Sandler I think (really impressive and really long run), but still prime Carey was a clear step above: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=adamsandler.htm http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=jimcarrey.htm

Some candidate: Taken 3 (326 million on a 11% RT Score !!), Suicide Squad, BvS, 50 shades of Grey, Transformer, Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

31% should end up a bit lower, will see if Transformer China can beat this, some recent movie were more China heavy (outside the obvious Warcraft/The Wall) like Hacksaw Ridge (35.4%) or a dog's purpose (45%)

If the movie can open without them yes, but otherwise I think they can in the current market place it is not easy to overturn a terrible first weekend for a wide release.

I think that except for small exception, for wide release at least the first weekend is now definitely the king and has a bigger impact than WOM. Guardian 2 was a success before anyone saw it.