Barnack

Limitation can often be for the better, lot of creative way to get around the Hays code was nice for example, but the question was about trusting them. Not sure you bring movies like a Star wars movie, they are certainly like MCU one (if not worst, they didn't trust the vision on Rogue One at all) or stuff like Logan, why use those benchmark, why not Cameron, Nolan, Lee, Miller, etc... Your statement was: Do you think Marvel trusted Edgar Wright on Ant-Man more than Sony did on Baby Driver ?

It was more the only place to do so, do you think Paramount do not trust Bay, Fox James Cameron, WB Nolan and Eastwood, Weinstein do not trust Tarantino ? That a Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk happen without Sony trusting and giving total freedom to Lee ? That Chazelle was not trusted by liongates ? Blade Runner, Interstellar, etc... seem to be made with more freedom that would ever happen on a Marvel movie. Do you think Edgar Wright got more trust on Baby Driver or Ant-Man ? I mean Shane Black told the story about is script needing to be read by the toys department and them forcing change on it, it really give that you get trust as long you fit a very tight box that fit a big plan.

1) Major studio marketing spending vs Liongates 2) many do not believe that 110m budget going around for GITS, rumors put it in the 180m range. http://theplaylist.net/ghost-shell-projected-lose-60-million-20170407/ 3) Domestic BO is considerably better than OV, seem like a 1.3:1 type of ratio.

Are you trolling or serious ?

Isnt all prediction absolutely pointless ? Deadpool is one of the most predictable movie in term of look and marketing, it is a sequel.

I used domestic in the context of US-Canada market there (I imagine that once we are in the China board domestic mean China)

I have seen none of them, but Transformer 2 was one of the biggest domestic movie of the year, all the star wars prequel were number one or close to it, since the mid 80's at least it is not like we don't have many shitty film smash the bo in the US market, just look at Suicide Squad and The Secret Life of Pets last year.

Where does those 200m+ budget come from exactly I have seen it mentionned a couple of time ? The Martian did a giant 630m at the box office, it would certainly be more than enough for a 200m production.

You need to adjust with the movie marketing reaching the good audience or not and you will find exception to any predictive model that does not make them useless, the way to judge them is to take around 1000 movies, see the legs with their rating: Apparently until very recently at least the correlation was extremely strong between cinema score and legs. Has any of the movies that got an A+ had bad legs ? I mean when Hidden Figures got an A+ people predicted great leg and it happened.

Indifference and simply silently not watching stuff is getting underrated those days.

French industry too: César Awards, France

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3829920/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1 L http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6199572/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_1 Your example show that it is still possible for the Huntsman/Ghost guy, 50% of is directed movie were big success at the box office.

Domestic that is not the industry impression apparently: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/hollywood-summer-box-office-prediction-a7732976.html#commentsDiv

Yeah they were not really that big of a bomb (except if those 180+M budget rumors for GITS are true), Arthur has the potential to be something like Pan/Ben-Hur, a movie that does not reach WW is large production budget.

Won't be better than the avengers does not necessarily mean thinking it will be bad. It include every scenario from believing chance are good that the movie will be terrible to as good. Has for the No and No answer, if the second no was just repeating how much she could no spoil or to the second question (like it seem to be) we will probably never know, only her would know something like that, and her publicist explanation does not mean much about it.

The competition from local movies was also there in that 18.8b of 2016 too, I'm sure Hollywood percentage of the global box office went down (and I would guess continued pressure to receive a smaller part of the BO from struggling theater chain, down from 58% to around 53% for the big title on the domestic side). But with the OS market grow of 50% during that time frame, it would need Hollywood share of the OS BO to have felt a lot to endup having grew by just a few percent. We would need to look at the 6 studio, but for WB you seem to be right, not really a clear grow in rental despite the 32% global box office augmentation (that most of it is from China is probably a good reason why, also a good reason why the expense not going up much either, releasing there being really cheap). WB annual film rental Revenue (if someone do it for the other 5 studio, we could add them up and see the annual studios rental revenue) 2016: 2,180 2015: 1,578 2014: 1,969 2013: 2,158 2012: 1,894 2011: 2,101 2010: 2,085 2009: 1,861

? 2016 Box office 11.4 billion domestic + 27.2 billion = 38.6b 10.6 billion domestic + 18.8 billion = 29.4b The box office went up by 32% since 2009. That is considerable. Has for all budgets, studios are releasing less movie now, 158 studio movies in 2009 vs 136 in 2016 If we take one studio in particular, WB 2009 cost of revenue: (7,805), operating income: 1,084 2016 cost of revenue: (9,266), operating income: 1,734 Adjusted for inflation 2009: cost of revenue for WB 8,895, 4% lower than in 2016 Because they separate income between tv and movies in their annual report, but not the expense (that how impossible to have even a gross idea on movie budget it get), I don't think anyone except them have an idea on the total cost of a studio slate (Except for Liongates on other smaller studio that are public and not private entity of a public conglomerate). But the TV+Movies studio cost didn't grow that much faster than inflation, while box office did grew way faster, if the dvd market would not have collapsed it would be a golden age in profitability right now.

20m is a really big opening weekend (the big movie star cut-off) for mid budget non franchise movie, I don't think it will reach it, but woman over 50 is not that small of a demo, 25% of the ticket sold last year were to people over 50, and has the demo get older woman become a large part of it (has they do in percentage of that population age), that is probably easy to grab that weekend. Hot Pursuit did 14m, Mother day made 11m on a second weekend during mother day weekend, , I imagine we can expect a 13m to 17m opening for Snatched.

Kids are not really the target for movies like that (and not a big part of ticket sales in general) Like Tele said the target demo is mom over 50, with girls old enough to invite and drive their mom to theaters, not really kid that do not have money. It will probably be younger but close to a movie like Hot pursuit. Hot pursuit: 46% of those shelling out for Hot Pursuit were over 50.

There was rumors of a possible movie universe, so it probably limited casting choice to a list of actor that would accept to do a movie without any script now and unknown director in maybe 9 year's at a reasonable price. The concept does sound also a bit of a big risk, that could limit who would accept to do it.

With A Dog's Purpose beating the last Star Wars by 19 million and now Guardian 2 not reaching a movie like Logan, the China market is getting really interesting and not easy to predict (and not helping just what we would expect easy to export big spectacle not attached to the current US society)

We did for all the time, everything I predicted that Guardian 2 would have a hard time to improve over Guardian 1 significantly worldwide, was by pointing out that Guardian 1 was released in august 2014, just before the exchange rate drop went really big, Guardian 1 performance would have been significantly lower with an october 2014 exchange rate, instead of August. Everyone take it into account for every movie with big oversea BO, all of them. It is useless to talk about exchange rate when comparing OS result of movie released with similar OS/ and DBO/WW ratio obviously.

I thought you were about to say it also can help to have lower production cost/world release cost.

What why ? Box office following is pretty much only about taking stuff into consideration and the challenge of it for the pure fun of doing so. It is pretty similar to people trying to adjust athlete performance among era for people into sport statistics (at least if you are not into a franchise wars mindset and don't care much about what those movie actually do). If you do not take exchange ratio into consideration you could make the mistake to think that Guardian 2 was not more popular at the box office than the first one in the UK/Aus and some other market and would lead to not predict the next one result correctly if the exchange rate change between time. What is the flaw about exchange rate argument ?, unlike inflation it is a pretty much objective and clear metric, that do not require much more than a good exchange rate table to adjust every movie performance by it without any issue.

There is 2 opposing narrative going on at the same time, the studio should put all their effort on the first movie of a movie universe they launch to be sure to nail it, and also they should not spend to much on i being an unproven yet concept commercially. That must be seem like completely opposite from a studio point of view, that would agree to reshoot and vast post-production fix on a movie, trying to nail the first entry of a possible franchise. Planet of the Apes went the really big budget road (last one was 236m) and it did work great for them. The King-Kong also went giant budget and go film in real world location, and it paid off really well for them. We would need to see the lower budget one, the one without rework made on it to judge if they could not have just released it, but I would imagine that it was not good at all. As for the revenue stream of WB, 2016 report was just released, operating income 22% in 2016, 1,734 million on 13,037, 13.3% way higher than their usual very good 8-12%.