Barnack

They would still be able to lurk no ?, the message board would need to be readable by member only and new member to be vetted (or a section at least). Maybe it is possible to make a test, that extremist comic book fan cannot resist to give certain answer to certain question.

It does feel a bit like the war was the second movie and now the movie seem to be more war ? A feel a bit like it could have been told in 2 movie instead of 3.

It is a clear false flag attack by the mods to gain an advantage in it.

A bit like with what Trump allegedly did, it is fun to be "in the know", have peek behind the curtain, and it is tempting to let it know to others, a bit the same reason that motivate people to post those things here in the first place. The conspiracy theory business work in large part because of that human nature. Has for tweeting it to theater chain owner, one possible reason is being someone that was piss at those info being leak (maybe people working for studios ? or the theater chain) and wanted them to crack down on their employee doing it ? Those ticket sellers want to conserve the ability to make headline news about new movies by presenting them has big has they can (selling better than Age of Ultron in pre-sales, if that is the biggest movies they can find that it is the case).

That why that study it is a good idea to compare movie from the same year that had a pre-release nice quality leak online versus the rest, they are in the same landscape to take everything into account. 2002 had piracy too anyway, so it would not be a comparison to a market without piracy either.

Just found the good thread I don't know if that study had been posted here yet: There was some study that show that pre=release leak would particularly bad: We find that, on average, pre-release piracy causes a 19.1% decrease in revenue compared to piracy that occurs post- release https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1782924 I think they are using the best possible technique to evaluate the impact, ticket sales and tickets sales by capita went down since 2004, when torrent and others started to be really popular, but there was already bootleg piracy before that, so it has been so long that piracy was installed and you have it for every movie since at least the 90, that you do not have a movie box office/Home video performance without piracy to compare with those with piracy. But what you can compare is for when a good quality leak appear, because many movie do not have a good quality leak outthere until late in is theatrical run and many you have before it's theatrical release. If the sample size is big enough you can compare how bigger the effect of piracy can be. Some element, domestic it is mostly on HE, that the effect is big, not BO: In 2002, when the BitTorrent protocol was first introduced, the theatrical window represented $9.2 billion in revenue to studios, compared with $20.3 billion in revenue in the home entertainment window (through DVD and VHS sales and rentals). In comparison, in 2012 theatrical revenue represented a slightly higher proportion of studio revenue, with the theatrical window representing $10.8 billion in revenue, versus $18.0 billion in the home entertainment window (through DVD and digital sales and rentals). HE went from 25.91 billion in 2012 dollar in 2002 to 18 b in 2012, a 30% drop. The US population went from 287 million to 315 million in that time frame. It is a drop by capita of 36.7%. Day and date release seem to be a really good idea, for piracy: The first, Danaher and Waldfogel (2012) analyze the impact of delaying the release of movies in international markets after their initial release in the domestic market, finding that delayed international release windows reduce box office revenue by an estimated 7%. The US didn't adopt broadband Internet everywhere at the same time, study that look at different region movie industry performance seem to show that with broadband Internet adoption goes us, movies sales goes down, but rentals/BO didn't move significantly (a better study would have used peer-to-peer volume instead of broadband access, but those 2 must have been heavily correlated). Pre-released movie were much more frequent than I thought they had 52 cases (available in average 7 week before theatrical release), they are mostly award season screener too, so in that sense it is logical. It is small sample size, without perfect comp, the method used to estimate how much those movie would have made without a screener leak cannot be perfect.

According to RT, after 80 reviews if it is steady at 75 or more: Rotten Tomatoes awards the Certified Fresh™ accolade to films and TV programs that have a steady Tomatometer® of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for films in wide release, 40 for films in limited release, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 70%.

People and media mention views in the first 24 hours and it seem to give traction if there is a zeitgeist around a new trailer being released. I imagine those teaser (and also announcing a trailer release date, I mean that also make no sense at all just release the trailer....) are for that, to get all the colliders type social media machine ready to help push your trailer the moment it get out and help those metric. The little teaser in front of the trailer is apparently for when the trailer play as an ads on youtube (that you are force to watch the first 5 seconds if you don't use an adblock like 99% of people), thus if they put a mini 5 s trailer in front of the trailer you will have seen it, even if you skip the ads.

It does, by being on a different world and not showing many characters from the previous 2, it does make it look like you can watch it without having seen thor 1-2/avengers/ultron, I never seen Thor 1 and it does feel like I don't need to see it before. It does feel a bit like Gunn with Guardians, it could be a Taika giant budget comedy. If it is excellent it has break out potential a la Guardian 1, 750-800m WW imo.

Below the frog, a little bit on the right it look like there is square with there is a symbol, look like a Mahjong game piece a little bit. Could all be to mess with people.

134 million world P&A for Sing does sound a bit on the low price but still in the realm of possible (because they do not split dom/oversea and that we don't have much grasp on the rest of the world marketing it is hard to fully judge it) Couple of example of known world P&A for animated movies: Smurf = 133 million Smurfs 2 = 120.16 million Cloudy with a chance of meatball 2 = 112 million Hotel Transylvania = 108.17 million Cloudy with a chance of meatball 1 = 98.5 million

That would put it at number 2 all time unadjusted for Focus Feature and close to John Wick 2 (92m), it is Universal so they can push if if the metric made it look like it is worth it, but I'm not sure the floor is that high. The first John Wick was excellent (85% RT), had a giant release including an IMAX one and did only 43m domestic. Haywire was a really well received Soderbergh movie that started on 2,400 theater and did only 18m domestic. It has breakout potential, but the floor for original action movie is not really high.

Mixing up with Melissa Mccarthy maybe ? Not only 100% of Schumer movies were huge success before this one, but also she co-write her movies, not really choosing them up has of now.

Thanks for the mods to have shift the message here, and Panda for the graph. Some general with the trailers views and more specific to the sample used. 1) Youtube Views are a pure worldwide metric (except if breakdown by territory), correlating with dbo could be misleading 2) I suspect it is better metric to evaluate the opening weekend performance than total run. 3) Using the Top 50 of one year, a small enough sample than starting with the answer could be misleading (maybe in a good way, using the 700 movies released of the year would certainly boost the correlation between BO and views to at least a 60-80 R2 instead of 30-40, but not necessarily useful), but it is starting with the successful movie and looking amount successful movie, not what are the chance to open for a movie depending of is trailers views. Using this very small sample size (that will make those trend really easy to calculate in the near future and track by year's the correlation strenght): http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/owyoutuberatios.html The R2 between trailers views and domestic opening weekend this year (available in that list) is at 0.6956 And that using domestic box office with all the noise of worldwide trailers views, an even stronger correlation must exist between domestic views and dbo. I doubt any metric would have a much better than 0.7 correlation, the best one before we had trailers views was number of screen the movie open with I think.

All study I have read on the subject show an extremelly strong correlation, R2 as high as 0.8 ? I would be astonished if I would see a R2 of 0 between trailers views and box office, that sound impossible.

I suspected that those 5 second teaser in a trailer must have had some technical reason, could they not do 2 versions thought, one for when it play has a ads and one when you actually go see the video directly ?

But isn't youtube views the one correlated with BO ?

Why ? Is has a high view count, but far from the biggest one, Spider man has almost 3 time is number of views: http://www.boxofficereport.com/trailerviews/trailerviews.html

That is counter intuitive, people simply do not talk about stuff they do not care anymore usually (specially without an event to trigger it like a trailer posted or something) and do not feel the need to go around saying it (and to who they would be saying it ? No one would be there to listen) Look at the Internet activity about avatar 2 worldwide, it is massive, similar to a movie like Thor Ragnarok before it's first trailer: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 12-m&q=%2Fm%2F0gmbk1g,%2Fm%2F0126b7q0 While there is nothing about Avatar 2 at all out Except for when the movie was released, Internet talk about Avatar 2 was bigger than alice of the wonderland too: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F0gmbk1g,%2Fm%2F0126b7q0,%2Fm%2F0y4m_xb Once again with nothing at all known about the movies. It could be a large group googling avatar 2 to find place to make others know they do not care but I doubt it, it is one of the best selling bluray of all time, with some of the best legs of all time, not a flash in the pan first weekend movie.

Invalid ?, not sure Internet hyperbole are needed. It is similar to those horror movie fan that say that reviews of them are not has useful has other genre that critic prefers (or anime fans, superheroes movie fans, etc... that sometime say the same thing) etc... 73% of Rotten tomatoes reviewers were men in 2015 and: They accounted for 80% of reviewers writing at entertainment trade publications (Variety‘s two full-time movie critics are men), 76% of critics writing for general interest publications, 74% of individuals writing for movie and entertainment magazines and websites and 71% of those writing for the biggest U.S. newspapers. Stats show that female critics tend to write more about movie with female protagonist, other way around for men critics so it does show expected and natural interest bias that could have some factor when they review popular movies, even if they had no interest in seeing them but just because they review almost everything with a wide release. With all that said, if there is any interest bias in play it is a small one (but could be in part because male critics do not reviews those movies as much overall), male reviews female directed movie 3% lower than male directed movie, same has woman critics: In addition, neither male nor female critics award substantially higher ratings to films directed and/or written by those of their same sex. Female critics award the highest average scores to films directed and written exclusively by males (67%), followed closely by films directed by a woman and/or employing at least one woman writer (64%). Male critics assign higher average ratings to films with exclusively male directors and/or writers (63%), followed closely by films directed by a woman and/or employing at least one woman writer (60%). http://awfj.org/blog/2013/05/24/gender-the-movies-on-line-film-critics-and-criticism-by-martha-m-lauzen-phd/ No number for the protagonist gender thought.

It depend were those 800m come from and the definition of big success (the big success bar will change a lot for different project, anything above the market average of 7% will be a huge success for many movie, for other it will be 10, 12, 15, or even at 27% for some movies). Amazing Spider Man 2 big success bar for example was set at 850m WW by Sony, for a 14% ROI, comfortably above 800m, and was budgeted to do 865 million WW. I'm not sure the next Avengers would be a big success if it does 830m WW, with 305m of those from China and less than 300m domestic. Obviously that Amazing Spider Man 2 had a 461.73 million net production cost + P&A budget and I imagine that the next Avengers will probably have something similar if not higher and are exception, but there is some movies made with a success bar above 800m for sure, Avengers, Star Wars 8, Avatar 2, etc....

That again an Internet hyperbole (in the context that the toy division is stronger than your writers on important aspect of the movie I'm not sure what you mean by trust exactly), Duvernay, Wright and a long list of director that quit would not have quit, but that was not the question. Does Marvel trust is director more than Paramount trust Bay ? More than WB trust Yates/Rowling on a Potter movie ? Why are you not answering any of those simple question ?

SImply because you don't want to say clearly what you mean. Do Marvel trust more is director than Paramount trust Cruise on a Mission Impossible franchise movie, Paramount with Bay movies ? What do you mean clearly, certainly not Marvel is the only place that trust auteur at the moment, what it the real non trolling, trying to shock type of your idea on the subject, maybe we agree, hard to tell.

Miller don't do big branded franchise, he just did Fury Road, Nolan just did a Batman trilogy, Ang Lee made a giant adaptation of one of the most popular book of all time that did over 600m at the box office, has for Bay at paramount not doing big franchise films or James Cameron not sure about that. Your statement didn't mention big branded franchise (you made it sound like studio movies in general, thus sounding like trolling), but sure in the big branded franchise world Marvel is probably above average (because I imagine the very powerful producer create a nice buffer between the creators and the studio head), but your statement was about being the only one trusting director, when someone like Miller had final cut privilege on MadMax Fury Road and Denis Villeneuve is doing a Blade Runner.... And the same is true for the Potter franchise past the 3-4 entry in it, Warner Brother was almost not involved at all in them.

Also George of the jungle 2, I imagine the Futurist was being sarcastic and saying that it is done all the time by everyone.