Barnack

Would not surprise me if for 2016 release going upward we will have an hard time making the difference (specially if a lot of the stuff on screen is not in camera anyway), apparently http://realorfake3d.com/ Fake 3D 2017 ✝ Beauty and the BeastGhost in the ShellGreat WallGuardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2Kong: Skull IslandKing ArthurValerian and the City of a Thousand PlanetsWonder WomanxXx: Return of Xander Cage Transformer being a rare title in native 3D. And having to use a large double camera come with some limitation for some production (Miller spent a lot of R&D money trying to create a 3d camera for MadMax, that would fit inside of the vehicle, survive the harsh desert condition and so on, to simply decide that it will not be ready in time and too costly)

Apparently he really take few takes to work with.

Bustle Fans Line Up for First R-Rated Comedy Directed by a Woman in 20 Years That sound a bit much Bridget Jones Baby ? In a world.... Nancy Meyers movies, Half Baked, Bachelorette, etc...

Only from Sony release made between 2005-2014 (simply extracted from the Sony leak accounting and Liongates annual total slate), I will make a thread about them (and probably break even point rules of thumb formula)

Without a new leak it is hard to know post 2014 (it was getting to the point that movie that big 3d release movie were getting close of doing only 50% from post theatrical). Liongates annual report break the result down by release year and that show that the overall slate still do more than 50% from post-theatrical, but that include small title. According to deadline estimate last year for some big movie (without merchandise) it was getting often lower than that, but those are only estimate. Between 2005-2010 the average Sony movie total revenue was 176% of is World box office gross total, that was significantly lower between 2011-2014 (around 116-120%).

The space mission involve living on the destination planet, no one would go on a mission like that without their spouse, normal to expect a disproportional amount of couple in the crew.

It was a bit of a different era than now 2010, it turned a reasonable profit (usually if you have a big budget movie that achieve to make close to is budget or more at the domestic box office it will be in good shape). Sony made a 25.61 million profit on the Other guys, people involved a 4.62 million in bonus. It had a big 98.455 million budget, but by being a domestic heavy title that didn't try to become a world success it did kept it's world P&A at a reasonable 73 million. It made 73 million from world TV contract, 95 million revenue from world home entertainment, for nearly 250 million in total revenue. Different era because that movie made 68% of is revenue post theatrical, that would be exceptional for a big movie now, but about the norm back in the dvds days.

High 60 would be similar net budget than those comedy for a comparable: That my boy: 69.88 m 22 jump street: 69.7 m (I imagine a really good recent comparable despite being a sequel of a successful movie) Step brothers: 68.4 m Much cheaper than a prime Sandler comedy, Grown up/grown ups 2/Jack and Jill/Just go with it/Click were all about 90 million to buy for the studio. The Other Guys was 98 million net. People making those tend to be really well paid it seem, star power is probably still really important in that genre and one major difference with Central intelligence is that Baywatch has worldwide franchise appeal, if you are ready to have a large world wide release that will cost you between 95-125m, you are more open to spend 60-70 net on production.

Pirates: $230m budget That a massive cut from the last one (or once again a massive deflating budget for Pirates in the press). Good for them if true, favorable exchange rate for all those Australian and other oversea expense, letting a very long time for the post-production to not have to pay surcharge and handle a lot of SFX shop to make the date and I imagine other factor can explain a lot of that cost going down.

I think that they still feel really stupid to me a lot of time, but a lot of it is my own limitation, I need to actively remind myself that it could the 10 times they get down on a planet for the very first time in their life and nothing happened in any of those and that they have much more advanced scanner technology. For a large of the audience (or at least me), going on a unknown planet for the very first time without glove and mask is extraordinary wreckless and arguably stupid, not being amaze to see trees (anything) on that new planet a bit strange and so on, but for those 22th century explorer I imagine it is day to day work by then. At least they let sick people on a small explorer ship and not the main one, but it is still strange to let people with an extremely violent alien unknown sickness goes on it (instead of an external hazard quarantine controlled tent that feel like should be the common protocol). It almost feel like part of the genre that they act like they do by now (that movie played with it, extremely poor leadership and all around incompetence was a wanted part of the story this time) .

A I see, completely misread you, yes every window tend to be heavily correlated with the BO performance for movies like that. One good element for them, is that they will not be hurt by exchange rate like an US company.

That more realistic with that cast/(and I imagine some story rights to someone to pay) than the previous 40m figure. Very close to 22 jump street net budget of 69.88 million, that movie needed around 121 million for Sony to break even (in a very domestic heavy scenario of 74m dbo 47m ibo) and a good return for the risk at 176m WW.

I would think very few people, but how many time people use name and how easy the name are too remember play a large role in that test. I remember Sam and Rick name in Casablanca and I'm not sure of the others, not because they are better character than (now looking for their name) Captain Louis Renault and Ilsa, just that the movie say those name really often and are easier for me to remember. I'm not sure the weak if you take away the visual for a visual medium is really fair, John Wick/Fury Road/Alien/The Raid 1-2, many movie would be weak if you remove the production design/visual quality, that said many movie had gorgeous visual and failed to reach an audience completely and create word of mouth, it must have been more than this to the success of Avatar.

But wasn't the 1938 remake a case of modernization ?, they made a very big deal of the movie being in technicolor (marketing wise but also in production design), it had sound versus the very popular previous silent version. And didn't they went for a more recent batch of book version, that were made for kids ?

If that is the true budget can you imagine Johnson profit/revenue deal..... (if it is a first dollar gross deal, the movie can end up costing much more before reaching break even point). It depend a lot of the world release the movie is getting, if it is getting the average typical studio release (like say the movie Sex Tape got) that around 70m and that had a total cost of around 138m for a 45 million budget. Baywatch world franchise power + Johnson, it is hard to imagine that movie not doing 150m ww and turning a small profit (Johnson deal being an obvious possible exception).

The project was good enough for Johnson that must receive a lot of offer (King of Kong was a lot of fun and Horrible boss was good too imo), an impressive co-star goes a long way as a good reason to attach yourself to a project if your value their judgment and track record (look at movie 43 for people saying yes without knowing that the movie is about but Winslet and Jackman signed on) It is always hard judging what someone said yes too, without seeing the list of what they said no.

In a world with lot of people having high speed Internet and free Internet porn ? And lots of T&A available, I'm not sure how much of a draw to the theater it is. Most people will want this to be funny to watch it.

It should be a much more accessible Sci-fi (and "classic"), as accessible as it get, compared to something like Jupiter Ascending with Tatum or Cloud Atlas with Hanks. And Tatum was in a character not used as a movie star.

Without a doubt, even if the net budget after tax credit is about 175m (and the 207m figure a gross budget) and that it get a small for that type of movie 105m world P&Aand say a small 16m overhead (around 300m expense before bonus and home release), the 195-200 million theatrical revenue of a performance like Lucy will not be enough. But that is true for almost every movie ever made in the home video era, the vast majority of studio revenue still come from ancillaries, very few movies business model would made any sense without them.

We did saw them grow massively no ? A much smaller movie like Alien Covenant did much more than Promethus for a recent example, before you needed a really strong franchise to have midnight numbers now a minions will have a nice one. Ultron made much more than Avengers, even Civil war made 25 million in previews versus 18.x for Avengers. I am not good at finding those numbers, but if I remember the list correctly the top 30 is over represented by movie after the previews started sooner (you have 2 show by screen instead of one now that they start at 7:00 pm and they are more accessible)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wallstreet2.htm ? Obviously there is repercussion, but he still worked a lot after (and at least a couple of time on studio movie, someone like David Ayer will not mind stuff like that and there is a list of director like him, that can get Leboeuf if they want is special intensity and what he bring) Look how much studio movie work Gary Oldman got after speaking against a Spielberg movie he was in during the award season (and is many reference to the Jewish people in different interview), if you have something special that can make a director want you over what studio would prefer, you can still work from time to time on big director with casting choice on studio movie.

Fury was a big Pitt studio movie with a wide world release from not too long ago, he also had a big Fox movie in 2010. I imagine part is bridges burning not being a draw anyway, but I also imagine is sensibility rarely match studio output (they don't do Nymphomaniac or American Honey type of movie very much) and being fortune independent anyway.

For some yes (say you go camping or a weeding the weekend, but you have Thursday available), many people have something planned every weekend or almost in the summer. Do you think 100% of them that goes Thursday would have gone that weekend ? Having no effect at all ? Can you explain what is the point of having them at all, that sound counter intuitive, more screening, more box office. Saying that, I fully agree that a large part would have went that weekend.

? He has 12 non Transformer feature film credit on IMDB since the release of the first one on IMDB. He works a lot.

But at the very least you diminish double watch during the first weekend, but still it would be surprising that adding 7pm showing have 0 impact for a 2-10m previews, what would be the points of having them at all ?