Barnack

So essential ? Attack ? Nothing essential here, it is just movies, the worst case scenario we watch the ten of thousand of good one we have yet to see that already exist at home. Disney don't have to make them or get involved into the making, funding and world distribution infrastructure for them like they were doing until very recently (via say Miramax) would be great and would not use much of a brain power and impact they current franchise slate at all. Audience would only gain, and loose nothing. Obviously that is not an advise for them, just a purely greedy on my part wish.

Touchstone was really an extreme case of just being purely a label From a 2006 letter to the SEC: Moreover, Touchstone is not a separate and distinct business operation but a brand used in the marketing and distribution of live-action films that are generally geared toward a more adult audience (e.g. PG-13 rated) than those released under the Disney-brand. Touchstone-branded films are produced and released using the same infrastructure support and the same operating assets (e.g. production facilities, distribution network, etc.) as the Company’s other film brands (e.g. Walt Disney Pictures and Miramax Films). The only significant assets that relate exclusively to Touchstone are capitalized film costs. These costs are accounted for in accordance with SOP 00-2, Accounting by Producers or Distributors of Films (SOP 00-2) on a title by title basis and evaluated for indicators of impairment quarterly. Impairments are determined as the excess of a film’s carrying cost over its fair value based on future estimated cash flows. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001039/000100103907000090/filename1.htm Marvel Studio is probably still more than that.

Avengers and Star Wars are maybe an exception (specially because of Merchandising), but the profit margin (even absolute) on a mid budget success and a large budget success are not necessarily that different, the big difference is that the large budget are much safer investment. Sony made more profit from the 168 million at the box office Superbad (88 million net profit) than the 769 million at the box office movie 2012 (62.8 million net profit, Emmerich is the one making the big money with is share of the 120m participation bonus not the studio), 2012 was a much much safer investment thought. When you look at what the Avengers made, you need to consider that they paid 4 billion upfront for it.

Indie vs studio is obviously not relevant, it is well funded and produced, nice production time and playing in a convenient location near me that are and that usually need a studio to get involved. Competition is certainly good, but the studio output goes down and down every year (movies side)

Couple of points: 1) Sony studio removed an accounting extra value they gave to Columbian that they had since they bought for a bigger amount than is market value back in the days, because studio movie collection, not linked to last year result in particular. 2) There is little bit of strawmen going on imo, the statement is now Disney make or distribute less than 12 movie a year in total, all giant franchise usually already establish and that it is a bit sad to have nothing else - The statement is not that it is wrong to the Jungle Book or SW 8, but to do nothing else so no need to defend those movies, it is not advanced that they are bad, no need to point out that all studios do some of them it is not advanced that is bad to do franchise movies. - Pointing out to Disney tv movies instead of the Kill Bill and others much better stuff they were releasing via Miramax. 3) Yes there was 700 release if you were in a big cities, a lot of wide release too, the number of release is already kind of too big, certainly big enough in numbers, the numbers of original (or more importantly director movie) movie that get 80+days of shoot, rehersal time, a real score, something like Gone Girl level of production is getting rarer and a modern Disney funded Miramax would be nice to have more of those. There is more and more movies, but less and less studio movie. 4) Movie being a purely for profit business, street creed, ego being in the star system, etc... play a big part of movie financing (probably much less in Disney that finance much by themselve than elsewhere) but it is an industry in general that is one of the less just for profit out there (versus say roads building or chair making). 5) It is certainly true that a franchise title may as well be original and be an original movie, like pointed out Pixar is a brand in itself and it did Inside out, Disney Animation is a brand too, Zootopia, Star Wars/Marvel could too, they did on Guardian of the Galaxy and maybe Lord&Miller star wars will be a Lord&Miller movie, maybe Thor 3 will be a giant Waititi comedy and that awesome. 6) Disney will probably need to, they will not be able to release in 2025 a slate of movies that are live actions wise star wars, marvel, jones, live action remake of classic, pirates, they will need very soon to launch new one (or buy new one) or they could get in really big trouble.

There is an honesty and clarity personnal bias (to the point to already call in advance the movie you will call the best in 2020 a year that 15 000+ movies will be made, as long as it is an ok movie they don't mess up, and I don't doubt that it will be true that it will be your best experience in theater) that is refreshing, I'm sure that many has but will lie to themselve saying that they think it was the best movie for is craftmanship and qualities, not fandom. But that is not best movie or at least a bit of a strange definition of best movie. We do not need anything it is just movies, the Disney brand is perfect for family movie and no want one ask them to hurt them by ever selling a movie not good for a 7 year old like all their movie are right now with the Disney logo. You could want them to finance and distribute a Miramax output like in the past, zero effort letting the creative control to a Weinstein, as for why whishing they would do it is simply whishing every studio would to have more well funded with enough shooting days an playing in theater near you movie for adults.

Would not surprise me if that was purely because they were contractually forced too on that old Dreamworks deal (it was the last movie of that deal) and they did a strange wide first weekend release with that type of movie.

But those studio have branch dedicated in buying original stuff worldwide to distribute them (and producing some of them) Universal via the Focus Feature arm has Monster Calls, Nocturnal Animal, Zookeeper wife and yet to be released this year: The Book of Henry Focus Features 6/16/17 The Beguiled (2017) Focus Features 6/23/17 Atomic Blonde Focus Features 7/28/17 Victoria and Abdul Focus Features 9/22/17 Darkest Hour Focus Features 11/24/17 Fox via fox searchlight had playing this year, Jackie, Gifted, United Kingdom, Table 19, Wilson and yet to be released: My Cousin Rachel Fox Searchlight 6/9/17 Patti Cake$ Fox Searchlight 7/7/17 Step (2017) Fox Searchlight 8/4/17 Battle of the Sexes Fox Searchlight 9/22/17 Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Fox Searchlight 10/13/17 Goodbye Christopher Robin Fox Searchlight 11/10/17 The Shape of Water Fox Searchlight 12/8/17 And there is also a bigger and more important point arguably than franchise or not, creative control/final cut, Warner Brothers doing a "franchise" movie like Blade Runner 2049 or an big name historical event like Dunkirk or a book like Ready Player One but letting the director do what they want have final cut. It would not even surprise me if in some case the studio will see the movie for the first time and know what it is really about when they see a rough cut, not that different than the final we will see is way different than having the toys department reading the script and making change, the product placement deciding shot composition so we see the brand of the car (a perfectly clean one even during destruction) correctly and longingly like on a Marvel movie. And making a Guy Ritchie version of Arthur is arguably being nuts.

If there is a studio that can sell a trailer, it is WB. Is there is name to make people don't mind the YA genre and still go it is Spielberg and he is a bit of a good meta choice director to do a movie that have a lot of pop-culture nostalgia in it, being a big part of it himself. But it is still an hard sales, imo, and not only execution need to be good, recent excellent Spielberg didn't do that well, marketing need to be great.

The dystopian young adult book adaptation genre went down a little bit, I imagine Stranger Things success bold well for it thought, but maybe it would have stole a bit of is thunder 80s nostalgia wise with at least 2 season released before RPO.

Right now that would be mostly in the animation side, Zootopia, Inside Out, etc... The genre giant 3D computer animation can sell original movie, much more than live action at the moment. Pixar at over 8 billion was a good investment because it not only "saved" disney animation but updated it in something has big if not bigger than Pixar with Lasseter and Pixar brain trust in charge of it. Pretty much everyone see what is going on and many (that have money like Universal/WB) are trying to mimic it with less success showing how Disney has been good at it, that said Disney didn't launch a live action franchise (and almost any live action success, that they did not bought/sequel) since Pirate in 2003, almost 15 year's ago, depending on how healthy the Marvel/Star Wars/Pirates/Indiana Jones franchise in 5 year's, the Disney era could already be something of the past. There is a limit on what there is to buy out there. Not so long ago (late 90's, early 2000's), Disney were the other way around in term of strategy, they thought they could eliminate risk by having a giant diverse slate, they were often the studio with the most movies released, 40-45 a year, the 10-13 movie release a year but only giant budget one ended up being not only much more profitable, but much safer too. A bit like Disney decision to stop doing 2D animation for 3D (they did continue a long time even after Monster Inc. / Shrek year) the movie going audience dictated Disney business model much more than Disney changing audience. I think there is some hope, there is a chance that audience start to see anything with a MCU logo, star wars, etc... and if so, there is a possibility that they take chance fearing that if they do not it would become stale and being sure to have a first weekend no matter what anyway. But there is so much certain money to be made on them if you just don't mess up, just deliver a good product without needing it to be special, that it is unfair to not expect them to aim for that, the ball is in the audience hand, if more people go see Fantastic Four than Sicario or Kubo, the franchise model would continue to grow and grow regardless of Disney success. Wishing for high quality franchise/remake output and being happy when they are good (like MadMax, Godfather 2, etc...) is probably an healthy mindset to get in.

You can look at the temp score used in editing/screening process comparison vs the final product use in a list of recent blockbuster, and it can be extremely close (getting sued a lot type of close): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfQ_9DIItI&feature=youtu.be Even the biggest name in the Industry, seem to often have has a task to do just do enough different from the temp score to not get sued, throw at the end of the project with very little time between the end of screening process and the release date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP793Rw1cIQ They talk about the situation in that roundtable and how it is rare to not work from a temp and stay close to it now, it was pretty always the case from the beginning but apparently it is getting worst. There is exception for sure, Reznor on a Fincher movie, people working with Nolan, etc... but for your average blockbuster (even MadMax Fury road) a lot of it is a modified reused score from the past.

American Sniper had Eastwood ridiculous low number of shootings days (for a story involving 4 tours, childhood feedback, ending, etc...) stamp on it and is recognizable style imo.

I'm not aware too much about the polling demography and strategy, but I would assume that it is mostly movie going audience that accept to participate in them or that interest studios, people that never go to theater are probably of not much use or hard to reach.

Figure like that are somewhat surprising, less than half the movie going audience know that a Guardian of The Galaxy 2 is coming out. And it is considered a through the roof figure, that show how big is the media fragmentation.

Is it not more than ever changing the temp score enough to not get sued ?

Looking at the cost for the studios for this deal, I wonder how much it is about fearing what the DGA/SAG will ask next. As for the previous strike, it did seem to have hurt the writer more than the studios, that could explain why they are cocky.

That may be true (even thought exaggerated Delaware is 0.27% of the domestic population, Portugal is 1.35% of Europe). But every conversation about box office is pretty much 100% irrelevant for people that are not getting a percentage of the gross, it is all pure trivia just for fun, if we start to talk about stuff that are important, well just shut this site down. Also when building prediction, it is how big of a market you are among what has been released and if you correlated with a zone, it can make you relevant for prediction even if you are small part.

It seem to be common when a deal is struck with a director has a movie on the way to have conditional close on how big it would be, because obviously if Wan wait for Furious 7 to open before doing is next movie he could potentially make much more than signing in 2014 on a Conjuring sequel. Lot of writer/director leaked contract with the Sony leak had clause like those, if you movie yet to be released do X, your bonus goes from 4% CB0 to 6.5%, etc...

http://deadline.com/2017/03/the-conjuring-2-box-office-profit-2016-1202049196/ Really hard to believe that a movie like that (with a giant big name director coming back, returning writers and so on) gave only 6 million of is 280 million revenue in participation bonus.......... 2.15% ? Would not surprise me that this was Wan producing fee, not is writing pts + directing pts + producing pts. One thing is for sure all is bonus that were conditional on how much Furious 7 would do kicked in.

But like I said, it does not matter at all or almost not at all, The Matrix premises also make no sense at all (human will never give nearly as much back in electricity energy than the energy used to feed them and keep them alive, who cares...)

No a syntax mistake, mean them.

It could be that I didn't got it at all, but:

Looper has one of the highest good movie/stupid premise ratio ever imo, you just need to go over how ridiculous the high concept is, a really good movie.

Is it not a bit weird to see a list you don't have to adjust for inflation or market size ?