Barnack

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%.

The remember the name exercise is not a particularly good one, it has a lot more to do with how memorable the name is than the character quality, every one that saw Death Race remember Machine Gun Joe, because it was Stallone and an awesome name, nothing to do with the character being a particularly good one. All example using real life scenario like Casablanca are a bit of a special case, history created the treat for you, better in many way than any fictional villain could ever do. What matter is the goal you root for and the challenge the hero face, if the movie do not rely on a great villain for those because a general situation is the challenge like Casablanca or acclaimed science-fiction film acclaimed science-fiction film Gravity it will work without one. If the challenge/conflict is caused by a villain, now the movie can rely on that villain to be good for the movie to be good.

Some are in all of the classics list thought, Godfather is a classic.

There is older films and older film, maybe that yes most of the 360 movie on 1943 are like that, but not those who passed the test of time, it tend to not be purely reputation base why people have a nice subjective experience watching them (it certainly play a role and will make the viewer accept some issue at the beginning of the movie more easily, give the movie a chance and so on), but usually there is something there. In term of structure, older movie did tend to have solid one, in term of running time older movie often went all in at the beginning exposition wise, placing the situation and all character clearly to save money, time and leave the running time for the story (The beginning of The Adventure of Robin Hood or King Kong being good example of that).

I think most people on a box office message board have a lot of blind spot on that list (I know I have a lot of them, some easily available to rent and yet I took time to watch suicide squad instead of one of those): http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_allfilms_table.php That would be someone Blade Runner, it is a box office message board and even on a criterion message board, there is so many classic to watch.

there are five studios in the running to pair with MGM and EoN Productions. The contestants are: Sony, Warner Bros., Universal, 20th Century Fox and Megan Ellison’s Annapurna Pictures, which is a newcomer to the distribution battlefield. ? I don't think they gave up on Bonds, would not surprise me if a Rothman have little interest in all that trouble for a terrible ROI type of deal like the previous deal thought.

? Who got it, didn't even heard that a deal was done on 007, it was not that really profitable franchise for Sony anyway, 13-15m a year or so.

I would think he is powerful, when Kinberg said to Fox make that Deadpool movie, it did happen (after year's of not happening) He produced for 5.3 billion at the box office of movies (and credited writer on 3.5b), almost all at Fox.

Not so sure, everything has is price in a way, Star Wars, Pixar and other Disney acquisition could have probably been profitable without selling to them, different need for money, different ability to generate profit (making a situation that Disney can you give more than what you can realistically ever made with the franchise and still a good deal for Disney because they are better a monetizing franchise), make sale usually for almost anything. I mean, there is rumor of Disney itself being bought by Apple (a bit of the same for some Sony divisions).

Maybe, Marvel did send comment to Sony about their amazing spider-man 2 script, and that was one of their comments: . I don’t buy Electro’s hate of Spider-Man. Feels manufactured, convenient, undeserved. It’s part of the whole formulaic issue I mention above. Why do we always have to witness the Spider-Man movie villain be created from scratch and imbue him with all the reasons why he should hate the world and especially Spider-Man? Why can’t there just be some evil out there already and Spidey is the first and last line of defense? Use some flash backs to prove out the ruthless, blood-lusting, darkness of the beast but don’t bog down every Spider-Man movie with the complete creation and backstory of the innocent victim that we can’t even come to fully despise because his evilness ain’t his fault. In any case, we need to develop some rules around the scope of Electro’s powers. He seems to be able to do whatever he needs to do when he needs to do it. It could be design to have a villain (if he is to be vanquished) that the audience do not like, to have the movie be just about the actual heroes.

That must be rare cool&hip people complain about weak villain from Suicide Squad to DrDoom/Lex Luthor to some in the star wars prequels, to Mr Freeze. Sound like a strawman.

$102m would be really great for a movie like that (that had a very long pre-production hell). That article is talking about something closer to what Tarzan rumored cost was: http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-movie-projector-king-arthur-20170508-htmlstory.html $175m

What for ? Only to protect the ego ? I imagine it could be hard to do in some case, if you sign a lot of people (and proposed role to a lot of people including that they would have to accept to be in sequels) with options on future movie to keep it a secret and talked about it to your financier presentation, offering them option that they would have priority to invest on sequels if they want, it can become a lot of people external to the studio with little control that know about it. It does work a lot of the time they announce them (Marvel, Star Wars, Jurassic World and so on), almost everyone assume that their is sequel plans for movies like that like you said, so if no sequel happen people will know your planned one was cancelled anyway. Or do you think that it is because it would be bad marketing, audience knowing the movie will be again an open ended affair and a big committeemen to get on, 6 movie, for something that would probably not be worth it ? But I agree with you that the effort on the first one narrative seem weak, I doubt they would have put a different amount of effort on that first one, I don't think it was the people currently doing the first one developing to the other one at the same time (probably little work was made on those). That comment would make more sense for the next Avatar 2-3 or the Peter Jackson Lords of the rings trilogy , or any other project were 2 or more movie was shot at the same time and not the full focus was put on the production of the first movie.

If they fudge a US distributed movie, don't they risk to have to pay them more money ? Just to have a nice round number for a movie they didn't have made themselve ?

By how much it diminish the chance to save the world is it still the good thing to do, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30 % ? When does it shit to selfish (saving that one life to be sure to not feel bad after, not giving much value to the world and you own life if you have to live with that culpability, even thought you are risking the world and 7 billion other people for that).

Before the movie started to test, there was some talk about the possibility of a Arthurian movie universe yes: http://screenrant.com/king-arthur-legend-sword-shared-universe/ According to producer Lionel Wigram, there had once been talk of a shared King Arthur universe that would have included origin stories for other important characters (via Collider). This talk however was very preliminary at best according to Wigram and there are no plans to further explore Arthurian mythology via a cinematic universe. But it is dead now I think.

It should end up doing at least a little better WW, some major market to open: Russia 11 May 2017 Hong Kong 18 May 2017 Italy 18 May 2017 Spain 19 May 2017 Brazil 15 June 2017 Maybe it will reach The Blind side 17.2% intl business to not be the first one on that list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=1&sort=ospercent&order=ASC&p=.htm

Thanks a lot for those long explanation by the way, and like I suspected fan of the genre are different than me about this (they must be). But superheroes could save many of the 150k+ humans that die everyday, they are always (like you and me also are by not financing the installation of mosquito nets right now) not saving many life by choice of having something else they want or have to do, when it is fighting and saving the world at least (and not doing a party, shower, etc...) it is pretty much the only time they are not being terribly selfish and maybe not the best time to save some particular individual (and certainly not if that mean significantly hurting the chance you save the world). You would know way more than me, I only seen those movie at most one time and not all of them, but that was my point, you need the avengers in that setting, destroying them (or them fighting each other when they are a needed force to be ready in all time) fell childish and yes selfish. I would probably cringe if same team hockey player do not put everything behind them the time of winning the cup, imagine if they were protecting the world instead...

Sure, it is easy to get why they are piss at them for that, but as long as you have world ending stuff happening that need them, what you wanna do, no the world is not safe without the Avengers (while maybe with the theory that universe supervilain come just because they<re is some powered good guy to fight for fun and worthy challenge) If you make the villain to powerful and is treat high enough (like the world existence) by default yes doing anything that go out of the way of taking him out as fast has possible tend to be cringe worthy and totally irresponsible. But like I said I think that it is deeply rooted in the genre and fans love/do not see it anymore. I could not watch Jessica Jones because they do not shoot with a gun (when you often see them at a short enough distance to do so) a super villain that could destroy the world and is currently destroying many life just to help one person falsely accused of murder, by making the bad guy too powerful it make look stupid and irresponsible (and usually selfish) any plan that does not take it down has false of possible imo. You want the hero to have some moral question about what he do and if the mean is justified by the end, don't put a possible eminent end of all world scenario. Post 2001 at NewYork city ? (pure semantic here, but I would think jet answer time to obvious treat must be kind of short now). But it is a fantastic world that can say that they are not as good, they don't seem to be, in Ultron the military is not used much either.

But the world was just attacked by aliens around 2012 in that MCU universe no ? Aliens that absolutely need superpower to deal with them, at least the movie really do not show humans even trying to fight them back like we see in a War of the Worlds movie. Who in that context would consider the earth being safe ? (Fully admit total lack of knowledge on my part on this, was the source of the ET invasion identified and officially eliminated ?) In that context, it sound really selfish, childish (and unbearable imo) to see them fight among themselves for personal stuff. At least the movie recognize this and address this, with Vision saying that super aliens attack and superviliain that humans cannot deal with, by definition exist only since the Avengers assembled and that maybe they are triggered them. Raising the stake almost always mean that almost all means are easily justified, when the world was saved from destruction it make people look stupid to complain that a building was destroyed in the process, but that just a general issue with the movies in general, they put a giant stake but want to keep morality issue about that world ending treat was avoided (when they are by definition all easily justifiable)

Stake ? That is a bit an issue with end of the world type of stake, it make the plan to break them (or them breaking up over anything) always feel a bit strange when the world is literally in jeopardy from threat only them can act on. I imagine that is an aesthetic comic-book reader are used to (and after a decade or so, the Avengers will too and go back to act has if saving the world was not the only important element, people getting use to anything).

With almost all big Hollywood movie being fantasy movie that is not a good sign, it is getting rare to have a big budget movie set in the real world now. Some of those Marvel/Star wars/Potter/Pixar/Disney animation and fairy tale remake/Avatar fantasy movie were not all bad. But yeah not much faith in the next big fantasy movie (Dark Tower, The Mummy, etc...).

And because it is mostly outside the US.

Experiment show that a lot of people decision making change when they hold a hot beverage, I would not assume that I really know why I do what a do, specially if it is something than almost everyone else do (and to not think that social conditioning/pressure/social status does not goes into, 0% into why I'm doing it)

Maybe it match the movie (high school friends that didn't really stayed friend and just get together for a special night because you must do something for a wedding, that grew appart over time), it gave that impression a bit when Johansson try to call it an early night, has if she didn't want to be with them and making that odd cast/don't seem to be friends and will re-become friend during the nigh adventure work. But then right after they all do coke together, so I don't know.