Barnack

I was going to say, who are these people buying ticket for a baywatch movie days in advance.....

Not all of them for sure (otherwise preview would be purely useless and studio would not try to make them larger and larger), but you cannot just remove them from the BO, because a lot of them would have seen it in the weekend (for some movie you have people going to the preview and going with other people like their kids during the weekend thought)

Good think they never did that third entry of the franchise, because you are almost certainly right: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Tom-Selleck-Confirms-Three-Men-Baby-Sequel-18884.html

That make more sense, I went with the imdb tag and google definition: Fantasy is a fiction genre set in an imaginary universe, often but not always without any locations, events, or people from the real world. Most fantasy uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting. Magic and magical creatures are common in many of these imaginary worlds. But I suspected that it must have been a more restricted genre in a box office discussion (particularly that almost all big box office movie have magic and not set in the real world now)

Almost all big movie success are fantasy movie, recently we had the potters, beauty and the beast, Jungle book, middle earth, Star Wars, MCUs, etc... It is rare movies without magic set in reality that become a really big franchise now (Fast & Furious and Bond are the 2 counter-example that come in mind), it is a really successful genre overall: http://www.imdb.com/genre/fantasy One attraction for many of them is that they are old enough to be fully in public domain, in a world that some can pay 4,5,6 billion for a franchise rights, to have it for free is attractive even if they are far to be has powerful.

Obviously, the point was that they were already more than pretty face at the time, already experimented and acclaimed actors.

I would be curious what percentage of franchise first weekend total sales they are (if we are purely talking about predicting first weekend from them), if online sales are now 13% of the annual sales(I'm going from memory here), they must be a significant percentage of movies first weekend sales (like 20+%). It is not China market were they tell almost everything, but still a solid ground as long as the reader of them like you said does not compare a Marvel movie to going in style without taking into account audience buying habit.

Those people were over predicting imo that does not made pre-sales a useless metric, the trade did put it at 40 to 45 and studio too was aiming way below prometheus. Prometheus had a 3.56m Thurs when they were midnight real preview numbers, Alien Convenant started at 7/7:30 pm and did a 4.2m, that was a clear sign that it would be below it Prometheus. It the movie would have been really good (like Fury Road that did 45m from a 3.7 million Thursday), it could still have made 40-45m like expected.

Not buying what ? Aliens still opened number one destroying the other 2 new release and 36m is just 10% lower than 40m, all this with a mixed reception. IT would not surprise me if we look at the ranking of the new release and how they ranked on those different metric, will see a strong link between those 2 ranking, same for the holdover.

Source ? If I am to look at pre-sales of 200 movies and their first weekend, you think I will not found a strong correlation ? You have an R2 of how much in mind, below 0.4 ? That would surprise me a lot, did you find a study or did one or this is just a feeling ? Convenant had high pre-sales that did lead to a high thur, if the movie would have been good that would have turned it in a nice 40m OW, it did not. Obviously pre-sales will be much more correlated to thursday, than OW, than total run, but they are not a useless metric, they are one of the best it is actual people buying actual ticket.

Didn't follow them at all until very recently, but the correlation is extremely strong between those sales movie ranking and actual BO ranking no ? I think people are wise enough to apply a target audience/sequel or not/genre adjustment.

To be fair to the tracker, almost 100% of is competition underperfomed and got a mixed to bad kind of reception, same for this weekend and it could still over-perform a bit.

I meant by that, with is last 2 movie Blomkamp maybe lost is big budget greenlight power, the studio will not go with is movie simply because they have the chance of doing a Blomkamp movie, but I don't think they will cancel a movie because he is the one attach or change him either, he still have a not bad overall (and a profitable overall track record).

I think you have some idea why they did (also I think Hasbro have a lot to say on that franchise). Inflation adjusted transformer result: 1: 836.97m 2: 953.19m 3: 1221.65 m 4: 1140.42 m That an adjusted average for inflation above 1 billion by movie, that a really impressive track record. The exec don't want to be the guy that fired Bay and have him not work ever again for Paramount (and why would he consider removing him with that track record), many of those franchise Power Rangers, GI Joe, didn't come close. Also he is very good at putting is money on screen.

Both actor were academy award nominee (Kate Winslet was a Bafta winner) and had received critical acclaim for more than a performance in their career before Titanic.

Elysium was still above 6/10 on metacritic and still made a nice little 20.5 million in profit, far from is District 9 that made over 100 million in profit and it did a bit lower than the expected by the studio 300m WW box office, but not by that much, probably does not hurt a director C.V., but does not help it much either, specially that the studio was sued and got in a bit of trouble from a screenwriter that said that Blomkamp copied is movie(The studio won, I don't know if it was more serious than the usual legal issue over copyrights). Chappie was massively made from independent funding (by MRC) and had a relatively low break even point (123m WW), it was probably a project people considered a huge risk from the start. There is a reason that Blomkamp received a serious offer for an Alien movie, he is not the director you still go ahead because he is involved, but could have kept that movie if Alien Covenant was a big success.

Probably not by much (once you remove the inflated online fee and the exchange rate drop): http://variety.com/2017/film/asia/hollywood-lifts-china-four-month-box-office-1202404454/ Seem to have a 3% grow in USD from 2016.

Jurassic Park just did a 14 year hiatus, Rocky took a 16 year than a 9 year one, Indiana Jones was an other very long one one, Beauty and the beast was 26 year, there is probably a short list but still a list of franchise that could take a 10-15 year's break and not be completely forgotten (Bond I would imagine too),

The BGF still did better than the Tom Cruise movie of that year. It would not surprise me if Spielberg name is part of the reason it almost doubled Pete Dragon oversea, still it is the first movie to fail for Spielberg financially I think, since 1941 (and that was not a real flop just considered one because it wsa a Spielberg movie underperforming).

The distinction between a factor and draw seem thin, it is always factors (otherwise the BO for every movie with the Draw would be all the same).

Scott was at 34%, I simply missed him while scrolling the list. John Woo at 17% is an other one I missed. (also to note I don't have data on James Cameron, he would be there too)

Or Bay, that a home made list from hundreds of people or things ranked, I will check if I didn't omit them. And to note director that went in front on the camera a lot like Eastwood, Clooney, Jolie, etc... were omitted on purpose.

I'm not sure of that, Nolan was already well known (for a director) worldwide in 2011. He is arguably the biggest draw (if he do a Nolan big movie) after James Cameron right now. Last time I checked the ranking worldwide (not up to date around 2011-2013), the director awareness * popularity among aware ranking looked like this: 1- Spielberg 73% (obviously and in is own league) 2- Tarantino 46% 3- Scorsese 44% 4- Burton 40% 5- Allen 37% 6- Almodovar, Pedro 24 % 7- Howard, Ron 23% 8- Peter Jackson 22% 9- Luc Besson 20% 10- Soderbergh, Steven 16% ... Nolan 12%, already getting close to those legend with much longer career in the spotlight. Nolan awareness by market in june 2011: Nolan, Christopher Australia 0.274694262 Nolan, Christopher France 0.412835249 Nolan, Christopher Germany 0.347663551 Nolan, Christopher Italy 0.388475836 Nolan, Christopher Japan 0.254545455 Nolan, Christopher Korea Nolan, Christopher Mexico 0.37037037 Nolan, Christopher Russia Nolan, Christopher Spain 0.360113422 Nolan, Christopher UK 0.322674419 Nolan, Christopher Int'l Average 0.34142157 In 2017, I think most of the frequent movie goers know Nolan, and that to them than most ticket are sold for movies like that.

You cannot have a unless X (that is reasonable, not large scale power grid failure, like the movie being terrible) scenario where it does not do it and say that someone is wrong when he say that it is not a lock.

A Dog Purpose is hard to beat imo.