Barnack

That tend to be common I think, that why a certain category of movie (say adult drama) are almost completely dead on arrival without good reviews, even an Allied type of reception is a kiss of death for them. Those still need the critics, for the big blockbuster they could do without them (and often do, not letting them talk about the movies hours before the release to audience, you cannot do that outside the blockbuster/genre movie).

No, obviously, Baywatch is opening above most wide release with terrible reviews, pirates will be a top movie of the year with bad reviews, The Founder, Kubos, NIce Guys, many good reviewed movie flopped. You need much more than good reviews (and bad reviews for a certain type of movie is not a death on arrival), but it would help a lot a movie like Valerian, a movie that people have look fun, look nice but suspicious about it being actually good.

That exactly what metacritic is doing no ?, people already has that option available to them. Because both site use the same reviews doing the same thing they need to create some artificial difference between the 2, and which system is more popular with people is already a bit of an experiment going on.

If you click for most movie on the RT top critics they are almost the same as the metacritic, one or 2 different in the whole bunch. And like you said the RT average score tend to be really close to MC (and the percentage of MC review that are 6/10 or more tend to be the same as the RT Score).

It is not just laziness, there is just way too many movie now to have zero curating going on (not to the extreme of books or music, but not that different once it reach more than 100 movie a week): http://www.imdb.com/search/title?release_date=2016-01-01,2016-12-31&runtime=80,350&title_type=feature&sort=runtime,desc Over 6000 feature film in 2016 alone, people under the illusion that they picked by themselve without influence what to see among them (I doubt many saw over 2% of them), without a curating system would it be your nearest theatre chain, a studio exec deciding selling some of those to you, festival acclaim, critics, etc... are under, well an illusion. A bunch of critics watching more than a movie a day doing recommendation is a necessity (outside the franchise world) RT score is not a particular bad one among those way to curate your watch list.

They use the cinemascore a bit, a website audience score would sound just unreliable to people I think, moreso if it start being used in advertising (why not make automated bot vote ?)

I'm not sure how much more money they can put in them to add quality, they are most of the time already trying to put the maximum of quality into their films.

When you are franchise heavy, you probably don't need review and certainly don't need critics to have your movie outthere, I doubt Sony give away is relation with critics, it actually need it, at this point Disney/WB would probably be happy without them (look at WB history of embargo so close to the releases).

It is a really good way to have 0 spoiler for people that love going to movies 100% blind (no trailers, no nothing tend to be a nice way to experience a movie imo).

The last James Bond movie did beat Sony marketing target/expectation by 110m at the box office a large oversea overperformance, you can see (also @FantasticBeasts) the expectation (at different time for it), page 13 of that document: https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/MKTGFIN/Kathy Binder/FY16 sensitivities 2014-09-03.pdf They were mostly interested at the BO because of the nature of that contract (they only distribute theatrical), but they still did an estimation of the movie total revenue for 769m WW scenario, and at a budget+participation bonus of nearly 300, the movie was expected to made around 120 million in profit with that BO performance (most of it not going to them).

There is a combination of possible factor 1) Worst reviews of the series at that point 2) Not liked book/no high concept like the games to sell it 3) Part 1 factor I imagine, if it would have been the last movie of the franchise it would have probably made a bit more But also apparently the marketing was smaller than the previous entry or the usual blockbuster, Liongates did try a new low release cost approach for the last 2 movie of the franchise: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/media/hunger-games-studio-lionsgate-punches-above-its-hollywood-weight.html

That must have been in large part troll, there is 170 million men in the domestic market, that would be a 1.5 billion box office just from them, a large number of them don't watch movie at all or very few a year, I doubt anyone ever said that seriously. The practically must be a oversimplification or what they were saying. I did read some click-bait article, and none ever (that I have read) said something like that, but I was talking and specified that I was talking by everyone involved in the movie, not people in general (everything that can be said will probably exist on the Internet in some small amount) and the strawman was about people being criticising for thinking the movie look like shit, no one can know what you think, you are never criticised simply for thinking something.

If the monster universe survive long enough for is movie to get out, he will have those 2 big franchise, but still, without Pirates maybe he will need to go down to 20k a month of wine and only 23 house.

I think many didn't watch the video and just assumed stuff (I doubt many that actually watched the video went after him). But out of the hundreds/thousands of movies he does not review every year I wonder how many he make an announcement in advance that he will not review them, if it is almost none, I wonder why he made a video about that one in particular (I imagine that could be a reason why people went after him, projecting potential reason). I think that a total strawmen, no one can know what someone else think, it is impossible to be labelled anything for any thought, the label was for people that made any type of deal out of a summer movie. I don't remember any comments from anyone involved about someone that didn't find the movie looked good (and many going out of their way that they understood that and had zero issue with it), only about people making a big deal out of it.

Stallone made is far share of try in oscar bait drama I think, maybe Johnson will do some he received a massive amount of critical praise for Pain&Gain and he is building a giant social personnality that a great director could use one day in a movie. Has for the writers admitting deception on the first weekend and not him, they are not the face of the movie (and for a writing by commitee like that, maybe not getting point eithers), very different situation (a bit like Jeremy Iron speaking against BvS and not Affleck the amount of coverage and overall trouble caused are totally different) Also positive guy, pushing the product and specially clause to the fans is Dwayne personna, I'm not sure why he would change it, franchise aside it is a good openning number for the budget.

It arguably it should be less and less something people say imo, critics are a small part of the total reviews made about a big release movie now, lot of them are from reviewer/junketeer than actual critic, they are casual movie fan that built up an audience, that have no problem to say that they loved those fast and furious, Jurassic world, Kingsman type of over the top non sense fun like audience did and are usually not ashamed to say so when they do, and the other way around when they didn't like stuff like The Neon Demon or Silence. Rotten tomatoes score: multiple Oscar nomination Scorsese comedy Wolf of Wall street: 77% Hangover: 79% Palme d'or winner Tree of Life: 84% Melissa McCarthy comedy Spy: 94% Has for the no shame in liking something they didn't, it must be rare for any adult to have any of that (and certainly not when you are not a public figure, and does not apply to anonymous people online)

If it was on race it would be different, same would be true for a gym for whites only versus some Gym for women only, not all segregation example are equal and interchangeable (few have issue with a women only restroom or changing room for example, almost everyone would for a white/black only restroom). Not saying you are wrong to have an issue with that segregation case and there is an argument to make against it for sure, just saying that the change the sex for race rarely create a really equivalent situation. Also women projection of movie is a bit common I think , Rought Night had some women night out early screening and many movie in the past in my market had some women promo girls night out type of event too (pitch perfect, 50 shades), it is making some noise now probably just because it is a SH movie. Has long as those people made more noise and never took the side of a bakery that didn't want to serve gay couple for their marriage (or other example where they were pro business serve who they want), I don't have a big problem with people that are against segregation like that but sometime it is a bit silly (people that goes in court against women only gym in a city with other gym for example, or recently we had a women that went in court for the right to participate in a men only Carpenter club for divorced men). And in this case it does feel a bit silly they create a environment were woman can go see the movie close to the release date without having any chance to encounter fanboy-ism issue (people got in a fight and the cops came in a BvS opening weekend in the theater I usually go to for example), it is a couple screening at a speciality theatre chain, there is other movie theatre playing the same movie at the same time in the same city...

Kevin Hart have good opening weekend for is stand-up show playing in theater, him all alone. He was one of the most proven box office draw.

I imagine you can easily sell a break out hit marketing if it achieve to be the biggest WW2 movie ever unadjusted, that would be 482 million WW I think (so pretty much close to you 500 ww figure), saving private ryan was 481 and pearl harbor 449 million.. That a worst case scenario, the maximum needed for any good PR team.

Im really not sure of that, of last year 165 wide release, only 40 did over 24 m in their first weekend (and Baywatch is opened a wednesday/other factor that will hurt is 3 day opening quite a bit). Jack Reacher 2 did 22.8 m, Melissa McCarthy the Boss did 23.5m, remove the franchise factor and opening around 20m is usually a sign of great star power. Last year non sequel/Marvel/DC/remake/reboot/prequel live action that openned above that Baywatch movie: Central intelligence: 35.5m Sully: 35m Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children: 28.8m Don't breathe: 26m 10 cloverfield Lane: 24m Accoutant: 24m Girl on a train: 24m Warcraft: 24m Arrival : 24m Has you see reaching 25m is really not easy, and those who did had some franchise awareness like Baywatch and much better reviews (except for the Johnson/Hart movie).

That one that Besson himself talk about when he presented is movie early footage in a Q&A (but by saying well we will not beat Cameron, but will try to be in the mix for number 2) Both Avatar and Valerian are giant space action adventure movie, long time dream of powerful auteur director in full control of the process, with a bit of Sci-fi/fantasy element, from IMDB category: Avatar (2009) PG-13 | 2h 42min | Action, Adventure, Fantasy Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) PG-13 | 2h 17min | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi Both will try to be franchise of movies, will need to wait and see the movie (and Avatar 2) maybe in hindsight the comparison will feel silly, but it is a possible one to make.

I think Will Smith reaction to Suicide Squad reception is the benchmark of what is the best position a movie star can take (combining the interest of the movie and himself) “I think people had expectations that may have been different, but I’m excited for the fans to get to vote,” Smith said. Not defending the movie at all, is probably not the best for the movie, is investor and yourself, but you need to take the good approach (I liked it, I'm excited about people reaction in theater, etc...).

To take into account, is audience is made 100% of people that don't mind (or look at) critics thought (or even prefer movie with bad critics and just go see those). If it was a more general audience, that score would be probably lower. It is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Avenger is in a more frontloaded genre thought, I think we would need to compare home video sales over year's to have the full picture.

It is pretty close to one to have read the beginning (young protagonist, struggle with is parents, centered around is point of view,etc...) It even won some book with special appeal to 12-18 year's old award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Awards