Barnack

At a certain point (say Buffet level) how much you made is in large part use as a comparative with you competitor at the game of making money, you did good always in relative term now versus them (a bit like Xbox points). You are good at making money and you are being judged and highly regarded at doing something you are very good at doing, that is usually extremely rewarding. It is not much making money to have more of it, but because you love being good at making money and making money, you social standing come from it, you fame, etc... I imagine that there is reach people making money in large part to make money (not much to have more money, but really to make money)

Except if those 2 bus leaving space are is own bus with is own drivers on is payroll. But he will fight someone that is adult and have bat ears on is suit in the movie, the silliness of that need to put everything in a silly enough world to create some balance (or you need everyone to react like they would in real life to an adult dressing in a batsuit to fight crime with gadget.....)

All all clear, if you would understand is motivation it would be a list of reason why he did what he did (the movie to not give them, it seem like because he like it has a game for an eccentric person, Joker like)

That was my question, a strait version would be with which book ? The french romance one I imagine ? Or a mix. The "story" could feel long for just a movie too I imagine.

Not a bad question, I wonder if being public domain and that anyone can release a strait king arthur at any time (and beat you too it, like for Jungle Book) make it a risky endeavor, you probably feel to have a twist than the previous version didn't have and next version close to yours will not have.

You are right, money is only a tool for something else and not many work only for money (their is a list of reason and people are not good at knowing why they do what they do, but social pressure, social status, long list of motivations go on for why we work)

Not sure what the distinction would be, motivations == reason for people's actions

Long life dream movie, had casting decision and not imposed by a studio, he must have cast people he ultimately like in the role and did work in test scene really well. I would wait to watch the result before judging that decision. I tend to like is choice that some others dislike (Tucker in 5th element for example and I imagine Oldman way to play a villain in Léon was seen has a bit strange to many at the time), he earned the benefit of the doubt imo.

Apparently the first Avatar spent over 200 million USD in New Zealand alone (well the exchange rate is moving so much around 2009-2010 that it is hard to know, really depend when the money was spent): http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-world/nz-tax-credit-for-avatar-defended-20100124-mspq.html The New Zealand government has defended the scheme which saw blockbuster film Avatar get nearly $NZ45 million ($A35.55 million) of taxpayer money. The LBSPG offers a 15 per cent rebate on production expenditure over a certain value within New Zealand. But Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee said on Sunday the grant delivered more than $NZ307 million ($A242.54 million) in expenditure to the New Zealand economy. That fit with Fox advanced figure of 237 million very well (if the New Z tax credit let you put all expense like salary paid to non-citizen on their tax credit) otherwise the real budget was 230m + all the money spent outside New Zealand, above the line salary, etc.... I doubt they reduced the budget of the sequel.

Not is last one, Lucy made 463 million, that would have been a nice success with a 209 million gross budget (after those 30 to 40m tax credit come to help) 5th element made 401 million adjusted (for US inflation, not ticket) too.

I doubt you checked how bad Chips box office was before sawing that. Or do you really think that Baywatch starring Dwayne Johnson will not do better than 25 million WW ? It will easily make much more than that, in is first weekend alone.

Well he probably had split the vote with himself a bit that year.

Highly doubt that, not just because many big name involved have participation bonus directly affected by the BO, but also Villeneuve hability to do a Dune movie for example would be directly impacted by this movie performance. The more success you have the more power (liberty) you gain, if you want to maintain final cul privilege and low notes on large budget you need success.

It can, but it need a virtuous circle to kick-in and trigger our heard following of the brain, like The Revenant achieved to trigger on us. Mainstream is a bit relative, if you get 10% of the 360 million of the domestic population just one time in theater and get a good average ticket price with special screens, you will do 325 to 350 million at the domestic box office, it is rare that a movie need to convince more than 5% of the population to go in theater to be considered a huge success. A movie like that can reach a bit over 5% of the population with a couple of rewatch like The Revenant did, but I'm not sure that is enough to make it mainstream.

Exact same for me, do not care much about the story and the movie, but the concept is nice and world too, so to have a sequel set in that world and concept is pretty much just a positive, nothing to spoil about the first one.

It is probably that the production money come a lot from non-studio fund, even thought they are pre-engaged to distributed it and will fund the distribution expense. Studio is not involved before post-production and will see the movie pretty much once it is done without getting involved, it was one of the condition for Scorsese to accept to do Wolf, independantly made/funded so he would not fight with studio notes, it ended up that a lot of the fund came from government official fraud and organized crime at the end. Lucas star wars prequels were also like that I think. Not sure what the director has to do with independent status ? More powerful the director, closer to independent from external influence the process then to be no ? With all that said, is statement does not indicate a 200m budget (or there is independant R-rated movie costing more than that, that I cannot think of, the Matrix sequels maybe ?)

Where does the 200m come from, if I remember Villeneuve comment he said that is producers liked to remind him that he was doing : One of the most expensive independently funded R-rated movie of all time. Was any of those above Wolf of Wall Street 100m budget ? Exact quote: “My producers are finding it fun to remind me that it will be one of the most expensive R-rated independent feature films ever made,” he said. The biggest one I can think of is Wolf of Wall street ? That does not sound like a 200m movie.

That is extremely similar to a movie like Civil War: When comparing territories that opened last weekend to this one, the overall drop-off was 55%: The Marvel mash-up followed last frame’s $200.4M international opening with a second weekend estimate of $217M. The offshore cume is $494M and the global haul is $673.1M with North America getting its first taste this weekend. Significant new markets to enter the picture this session included China, Russia, Italy and Argentina. When comparing territories that opened last weekend to this one, the overall drop-off was 55%. That’s following what was a holiday weekend in many markets last frame. Considering that Guardian 2 took advantage of an holiday weekend and now that the previews inflate the first weekend more and more, it was probably to be expected to have a drop like that.

Toy sales are apparently really linked to toys movie franchise box office (but it could more a number of movies effect than BO of the individual movies)

And it is not something the books really committed too, in the second book it is not really important or even mentioned that often.

IF I understand the Q&A clip correctly (short sentence without the question) it does seem that: Good decision imo, it would have been hard to pull off and the marketing could have made it look like magic/superhero stuff and be misleading.

When people say stuff like instead of rebooting Indiana Jones, reboot it in reality but do not use is name or is iconic item, do it a bit differently, etc... I think about the Mummy. It was well executed and I rewatched it not so long ago, it did hold up. Do not remember the sequels at all, if I have seen them.

So now it is above US (not domestic but just US) ? United state minus puerto Rico was at 40,174 screens in 2016

Always do, but the objective is biggest box office, not much when it is made.

By tracking the below/above 25 year's old average on recent movies versus the past, I'm not surprised the studio went R-rated with it. In 2010, a movie like Salt had 59% of is audience above 25 in is first weekend. The last Jason Bourne, 60% of the audience was above 35, probably not that many below 17, so why get into the trouble of making it pg-13. Ticket sold by age group show a tendency toward less and less need to try to have the 12-17 age group, it will be close to only 10% of ticket sales in not so long. 2010: 2-12 : 11% 12-17: 15% 18-25: 17% 25 and above: 57% 2016: 2-12 :11% 12-17:13% 18-25:16% 25 and above: 60%