Barnack

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%

If a knew that I forgot, the guy is also doing Deadpool 2 is credential should definitely be used marketing wise. The release is still far away thought.

X-men apocalypse did 120.76m in China, Iron Man 3 made 121m. After Logan made more than 100m this year, I would imagine some expected more than 120m from Guardian 2 there. It was probably unfunded (with Dr Strange doing 109m, beating this for Guardian would probably already be real nice, considering that Dr.Strange did had some appeal for the China market, Cumberbatch, Asian setting, etc...)

Once you consider the change in the Yuan to USD exchange rate, it become a bit more than that. In august 2015, 1 yuan = 0.157920 Now it is 0.145013 96,45 million in 2015 was = 610.75 million Yuan Doing 110 million US now would be 758 million Yuan a 24% increase, in a movie market that didn't grew has much the last 2 year's versus is crazy expansion just before that.

1 yuan is around 0.14 USD right now So 700-750m is around 100-110 million US

I join the sentiment that using your social group/your Internet interest to judge demand can be misleading. Nemo is I think the best selling DVD of all time or close to it, Dory didn't do much ads and opened like crazy, the demand was giant.

Maybe in some intention ? But how is that slate: Not vastly different to that 2017 one 11 year's later: Beauty and the Beast (2017) BV $480,525,828 4,210 $481,708,819 99.8% 3/17/17 Born in China BV $8,819,843 1,508 $9,252,632 95.3% 4/21/17 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 Buena Vista 5/5/17 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales Buena Vista 5/26/17 Cars 3 Buena Vista 6/16/17 Thor: Ragnarok Buena Vista 11/3/17 Coco Buena Vista 11/22/17 Star Wars: The Last Jedi Buena Vista 12/15/17 I see some major difference 1) Volume it was around 28 new release in 2016 movies (it was often over 40 for Disney) vs only 8 in 2017 2) No distribution of indie now, only in house production, in 2006 they were distributing Mel Gibson movies, Miramax Movies and others outside production, they were not releasing those title looking for them to break out and be turned into franchise. 3) No more R rated movies. It is a bit hard to believe that people see no difference between the mid 90 to mid 2000 Disney, to the Disney of the last few and few next years. Disney made a conscious (and their CEO did talk about making that transition), from a large volume diversified slate, to an extremely concentrated one of their own production.

I do not follow you at all, no one is talking about the extremely different 2006 Disney, Avatar is a random example of a giant budget original movie that the poster claim Disney now would not do (something a disagree with)

As an original movie Disney would not make anymore, Disney around 2006 distributed Apocalypto in the domestic market (well Gibson pay a fee form them to do so I think, but still) They were releasing 3 to 4 time has many movies around that time versus now, Miramax title, death language violent Mel Gibson affair, etc..... That said not sure I agree that today version of Disney would not made a giant original family movie with franchise potential like Avatar if post-Titanic James Cameron would have come to them with it. Pretty sure that any studio with the money to be able to wait a long time would have watched a Cameron presentation about is next movie with interest.

42% what the awareness in the trade press not so long ago, apparently it is a really high number for a movie. I remember when Glenn Beck runned a will you go see Beauty and the beast in theater with your kids during the gay moment controversy, and a giant high 18% said yes, people thought it was low, if 18% of the domestic population go see your movie in theater one time it will do over 600 million at the box office, it is huge.

What ? (is that is referring to my message), what part to you disagree with ?

Those conversation without defining risk can be a bit empty, everyone not talking about the same thing. What was the chance for any MCU release during that time to do Transcendence type of BO and for Disney to loose all the money invested, yes it was about 0%, even Fantastic Four still did 167m WW. But was there a chance for the movie to do less than your average really copying the formula like Ant-Man and Dr Strange, to be perceived as too nerdy and strange ? Possibly, it is always hard to judge after the hindsight of success (and of the really good first trailer), but Valerian is judged as a crazy investment, how could it have happened, etc... ? While the more expensive Guardian is now perceived has if it was an obvious cash cow ?

Depend what you mean by "in doing", if you are the writers/directors there is certainly a big difference. The toys and marketing department didn't go over your script and ordered change, the product placement department didn't do some of the shot composition, you had final cut and didn't had any change forced on you by exec/brain trust or by the result of a test screening. You didn't had to setup and have a manufactured ending that make sure spin and/or sequel are possible. If you mean that it is not less work that is obvious, it is much more work to do a Fast 7 than Her or Manchester by the Sea, if you mean that it is not easier that is also true, but it is different. Add Suicide Squad to that list of movie and see if that statement still hold up...

The more you have the more you have too loose, that why the pressure was so high to play it safe with Force Awaken, the cost of opportunity, the difference in total revenue between a badly received one, prequel level and what it will do now is giant. There was no risk to flop on Force Awaken, very small on Guardian to actually loose money or any release post Avengers with how strong, but a bad one would do much less and possibly hurt the brand. There still a vast difference in result between what would be a relative failure and success, Pixar brand did feel a bit invincible until A Good dinosaur too. The risk is not of the same nature has a Jupiter Ascending, but the cost of opportunity in a bad release is giant. Guardian was certainly on the risky side of the MCU release, versus obviously the sequels but also those who follow a clearer superhero journey like Ant-Man/Dr Strange. A risk they paid off and one they will need and will take from time to time.

Even thought the by capita attendance by age is lower showing they are not going to movies as much because the western world is getting older adult are now by far the biggest audience and a growing one. The 50 or more audience was bigger than the 25-39 last year, bigger than the 17 or less. 27% of the ticket were sold to non adult in 2016 according to the mpaa, while 39% were to 40 year's old or more. And because the annual attendance is really low, there is a lot of room for growth in that demography. http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final.pdf The 50 year's old+ market had a nice progression since 2012. Has for A24 and stuff like that doing what they do really well it is true, but A24 will not do a drama with 80-100 days of shoot and 60m or more budget like Gone Girl or at least I do not have an example of them or small player like that doing os, there is more than enough movie for adults in numbers most movie released in a year are r-rated, it is those with a high quality of production and release that are getting rarer, that is why big studios getting in the game or not can change what we are able to see.

Well sure once the Weinstein went away after the big fight surrounding Michael Moore movies I imagine it started to become a money looser (it had accumulated a nice value in is movie collection thought, it was sold a bit over 600 million). But Fox Searchlight is still running, Focus Feature, Sony Classic, etc... Many studio did keep theirs Division created during the 90's indie craze.

A bit like when Disney owned Miramax, Disney was not involved into their production at all it was all Weinstein, they gave them some money/loan line guarantee, distributed the movies they liked if they R or less, it didn't impacted Disney slate of movie much (if at all).

That sound like a false dilemma, obviously no one is suggesting to make movie just to dump them, but yes to elevate the release we can see in lower box office season. Disney release less than a movie every 3 weeks (that would be about 16/17 movies), they have released just one fiction and one documentary in 2017 and we are in May. It will be week #19 of the year when Disney will have release is second non documentary movie of the year, they seem set to be releasing a bit less than a movie a month in the near future 2018 for example has 11 planned release: Black Panther 2/16/18 A Wrinkle in Time 3/9/18 Magic Camp 4/6/18 Avengers: Infinity War 5/4/18 Untitled Han Solo Star Wars Anthology Film 5/25/18 The Incredibles 2 6/15/18 Ant-Man and the Wasp 7/6/18 Untitled Disney Live Action Fairy-Tale (2018) 8/3/18 Mulan (Live Action) 11/2/18 Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 11/21/18 Mary Poppins Returns 12/25/18 They could easily have an October and a September release instead of a 2 month hole, same this year with February and April.

That pretty much the interesting question of this thread (not why they are doing the 10 franchise movie a year they are doing, that answer is obvious to everyone) but why not have at least a Fox Searchlight equivalent (Say reviving Touchstone to do it), and buy / make / release a couple of stuff on the side, it could be a nice way to make a deal with director to attract them on their franchise, we give you one touchstone passion project with full control if you do the next Marvel movie without final cut kind of deal. Some theory: 1) Just became too irrelevant on the bottom line, if that division does well or not it does not matter for them. Unlike other studio with lover profit for who the 40 million profit on their specialty division is a really nice and large part of their total 270 million profit of the year, When a Sony classic picture make 5 to 20 million they care, Disney probably would not know, lost in rounding error. Specially when you consider those movie would not sell merchandise or help sell ticket at Disneyland with attraction. It could just be a bad allocation of capital, the 200m spent on smaller release is just a 200m not spending on the next giant one and movies ROI are not that good versus Disney average return, movies is not that good of a business margin wise, Disney movie are. Now movie studio are often under control of a media conglomerate that will not care about movies and can even take decision to help their cable division that would hurt the movie studio, that why some studios can be seem has if they pushing to remove the theatrical studio even if that would hurt them, it would help AT&T selling monthly subscriber if they had new movie release to their package. 2) Competition to themselves, all the attention put to them and all the screen Disney non franchise movie would take would only be competition to their own more profitable Disney franchise movie, they do not want starting to think about not pissing a big name director off because is movie award season release got buried by the last Star Wars. A bit like IMDB getting rid of is message board, it would too much energy and trouble for too little. For an example of that Apple didn't release a smaller Ipad mini until they didn't had any choice, the reason was simply that it would be the biggest competition to their own bigger, more expensive with better margin large Ipad. 3) Overall, the tent pole studio finance smaller movie and make them possible (often said, it is because of those Transformer that the studio is making those small artistic movie) is probably mostly a myth for most studio (not for Annapurna obviously but the MPAA ones). Every type of movies, every category of movies, every movie specialty division of movies they make need to be profitable on their own (with money directly and reputation to attract directors) and would need to still exist and be profitable even if the blockbuster would not be made by that studio. Otherwise they would not be made, there is no "charity" of studios diminishing there bottom line with the smaller one. Sony classic success rate was not much smaller than the Sony studio release. All of them would start favoring the type of movie that make more if they could do it almost all the time.

Well everyone that took time to say that it is not because it is not original that it cannot be good, did assume that maybe it was not clear for someone (I think everyone did that useless "warning"/comment, if you all agree and I think we do)

That is often by design (you can sell your movie project to the studio/studio think only about projects if sequels are possible), trying to turn Hidden Figure, La la land or Black Swan into a franchise it would not work that well. That is certainly true at the moment, could change soon. (, even then they probably still need it animation wise to keep Pixar aura alive), is anyone suggested that they needed to make them ? That is for sure, from Empire Strike Back, Godfather 1-2, I don't think anyone suggested that totally original was something that mattered (who care if the movie is an adaptation of a mostly unknown book like Guardian of the Galaxy it is just the think that inspired the filmmaker), I think that a vaster array of more precise expression would necessary for a subject like that, when a formula/genre movie like The Nice Guys is an original and something has fresh has Cloud Atlas is not, the distinction is certainly not what the person talking mean. Not using a frequently recently used formula is probably closer to what people mean by that, not that it is wrong to have well made proven concept movie, but if one day only those get nice production budget I'm not sure it would be for the better.

I think almost everyone understand that part and that thought was expressed in like 33% of the message in this thread. No one is asking why is Disney doing this ?

Is there any reason to hit 500 ?

So much craft went on on most Force Awaken frame, has if a big amount of the people involved dreamed a part of their life to do a star wars movie and got the chance, lazy/souless do not apply to Disney (playing safe sometime would apply, but they work a lot on that output, they will redo the movie if needed), specially not on the Animation they are closer to "Magic" than "soulless". The output would not work as well and resonate decade after the release if it was soulless or bad, they are certainly good at doing what they are doing and there is best in the world artisan loving what they and the material involved in those production. But then went from distributing Tarantino movies, to bully theaters to play Star Wars in special screen they had previously signed a contract to play The Hateful Eight on. The market force pushed them, a natural response to success and reaction to failure, yadada, all true, it is just sad that one of the best force to create and/or distribute a movie is not currently doing it for stuff you like (and the complete other way around for Star wars/Marvel fan obviously), it is jealousy that they are not putting resource and the best people doing the McDonagh brothers output, the next Mel Gibson, instead of superheroes stuff.

You need to put all the revenue back to the date of the expense of the transaction with a wanted ROI (say 10%) to see how good it really is (I cannot imagine Marvel doing better than it did, so it must be a nice amount) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discounted_cash_flow (for example if you 3 billion in 2020 on something you paid 1 billion in 2009, you made 10.5% annual ROI and did beat the 10% return annual value you gave your money by 0.5%) That is just to say that once you consider all the cost, an Arrival is not a small profit versus many giant budget, giant acquisition franchise rights or point given to those who own it. What paramount is left with after a Transformer is not necessarily much bigger (once Bay, in some case Spielberg, Hasbro, etc... got their share) than the profit on a Hidden Figures (but they had a near zero risk in the case of the Transformer).