Barnack

It is mostly in 16mm like Black Swan I think. The world is now mostly digital (95% of the world screen were digital in 2016 according to the MPAA vs 93% in 2015). US/Canada had 872 screens that were still analog in 2016 according to the MPAA (on a 43531 screen total), 1481 in Europe, 6506 in Asia. Almost 9000 analog screen around the world. Big movies still had a good expense in prints in 2014, Amazing Spider-man 2 spent almost 30 million on movies prints.

The level of income is vastly different (income per capita in China is almost 300% what it is in India, by household almost double), also in China spend a lot of their income in tickets, in that is a part why the china box office grow stopped immediately when the China economy stopped to explode, there was not much room to grow in term of popularity, it will grow again only if wage goes up significantly.

Looking at Talisman number, it openned in an excellent average at 70% of what Civil War did, if it follow Civil War legs it should do about 388 oversea - China, if it does 120 million in China, it should do over 500 million oversea alone, if it achieved 350m Dom, that could be an impressive giant 850 WW box office, even more than the first Guardian. Putting those guys in the next Avenger movie should definitely help it a lot and could even stop the going tendency of avengers-ultron-civil war, would not surprise me if Avengers 3 achieve a box office performance between Ultron and Civil War, instead of less than CW.

It is still playing at a dollar theater near me, probably more stopped reporting the number than fully stopped playing, is it the studio that stop a movie playing in theater or not more the theater chain ?

The budget is just 53 million more than Deepwater Horizon, I think it attracted such a reaction because we are not used at reading real gross production budget that much for blockbuster, it is a good 100-110 million less than the usual Spider Man movie and 30m cheaper than the first Guardian of the Galaxy. If you want to compete with those, it will cost you close to them (could be foulish to try to compete with Hollywood studios and it is certainly a big risk) but competition would be great for us the consumer.

It depend who the they in that sentence (I'm not sure who it would be), I doubt Besson playing is company on is dream project did consider actor career much when casting.

Not sure it imply that, PG is not even G, PG mean that some parents could not like some content about the movie to be seen by child. Arrival was PG in Canada. MPAA is about appropriate or not I think.

Yes the theory here being that it would hurt the movie more in the developing world than in the US, it is a really weak theory I just cannot think of any other.

Does someone know why so many Marvel movie have a release in the US after a long list of oversea market ? Best strategy piracy wise or something, what could it be?

Would not surprised is the US market is foreign grosses from their point of view, it absolutely need to work in Europe were Besson is somewhat a big deal.

I would imagine you want those experience to have a full or almost full theater, not only for the better ambiance and people liking their experience more, but because like you said what it would look like if it is not even able to get people in when it is free, I would imagine that the ideal number depend a little bit on the demand.

Not to subtle way to market it: Hangover with woman, the title change (from Rock that Body) and the tag line.

At least in the past, Marvel was helped a lot by Dark Knight broadening the audience and changed the view toward superheroes movie among a lot of people, after that the DCEU release were probably helped by how big the genre became worldwide with Avenger. They each can help or hurt the others. Movie being good make people come more in theater in general, even more for similar stuff. The dystopian YA adult genre would have probably stayed strong a little bit longer, if the level of quality would have been 15% better in average for example and everyone making them would have been better off by a better overall competition.

We never know home media numbers, there is some estimate made by the numbers.com about physical sales, but now that they are less than half of home video sales (and even less when it come to rental+streaming) it could be a misleading metric to use (always has been but even more now). Older star probably sales more on physical than younger one, but it does not mean that they sold that more overall on HE or getting better price on Netflix.

I don't know, almost every actor that are a draw today are people that were already stars in the 90's (even Dwayne Johnson but in wrestling instead of movies), the new crop of actors do not seem to affect the older one much yet, specially on the male actor side, there is no star male actor below 30, and below 35 they are not common. Youth will normally starting to be smaller and smaller part of the BO in the current demography trend, the over 60 is the biggest growing demography of ticket sold (it went from 122 million ticket in 2005 to 184.8 million ticket in 2015 in that demography), at least domestic and the proportion of above 25 year's old first weekend metric are getting bigger and bigger. Liam Neesson had is best drawing power in is late 50's early 60's, he became for a while an action movie star at 57 when the first Taken movie was released, Keanu Reeve is making somewhat a comeback, the new crop didn't really take the place of the 80s/90s stars yet and maybe will never do, that younger generation of film goer not caring about actor/director has much has the franchise name.

You are probably looking at first weekend instead of the movies totals or something like that ? Joy Domestic: $56m WW: $101m The Judge Domestic: $47m WW: $84m

Budget is not that good indication to calculate a person draw, specially if a large part of that budget is the person salary (bottom the line budget could be, those help to have nicer trailer). Firstly, it is rare that we known the movie budget, but moreso people do not go see that type of movie knowing is budget or caring about it, if tomorrow there is a leak that The Judge net budget was in fact of $27m and that it made a nice little profit, that change absolutely nothing about RDJ star powers. How much the very same movie frame by frame and trailers would have made with unknown actor relative to how much it made is more what determine the star power, not profitability (that why people will say that X that had the lead role in the last Harry Potter movie is not necessarily a draw even thought the movie made 200 million in profit).

Has for being type casted and only be a draw in a thin margin that you cannot get out of, it is certainly true, one other aspect is your fanbase movie going habit. When you became a star in a large blockbuster franchise type of movie, there is a chance that a vast part of your audience are the type of audience that go 4 time or less a year in theater and only for the biggest event movie. You can still be a draw in an other event blockbuster, but not necessarily outside that type of release. When you achieve a couple of success in something that are seen among people that are more the type to often go to theater and watch say every movies The Coens will do, without having any rules about not watching X type of movie in theater, they will follow you more easily and their need of an spectacular trailer threshold that make them go to theater is much lower.

My syntax was probably bad, I meant he is involved a lot in the actual direction of is movies (when he is with is directors, not collaborating with a big name), not that a lot of is movies were directed by him.

For the brand creator, Tom Cruise is also an interesting case, not just that he often pick Tom Cruise type movie (like some of the other named), but he always bring is own writer on is project that will re-write the movie (he is ready to make exception for Kubrick, PTA or Aaron Sorkin but not for that many writer), he will also be involved in the writing, he even direct a lot of is movies, to the detail of having enough coverage for editing and so on.

A bomb is a bit of a strong word for a movie that made money for the studio.

Miracle sound a bit extreme, lot of those are by some really big name director, Clint Eastwood Jersey Boys had a better opening weekend than J. Edgar, Ridley Scott, Sam Mendes, Those movies are not some anomaly in their filmography doing extremely well for them. Rt score: 67% Revolutionary Road 62% Blood Diamond 54% Body of Lies 43% J. Edgar Arguably stronger project than Smith recent failure, 12% Collateral Beauty 60% Concussion 56% Focus Dicaprio past disappointment would have done much better today if they would have been Dicaprio latest movie, he was not has strong has draw back then vs now imo.

Like they said in the Sony leaked email: If it were Will Smith at the time of Pursuit of Happiness or Seven Pounds it could be different but now I would be cautious. Also: Will Smith is a difficult proposition these days….his commercial popularity is waning….and is best suited for big SFX/action adventure films….& his appeal is more limited to an older , discerning audience. He certainly was up there as arguably the biggest movie star in the world for a good while, between say Independance day and After Earth. But now he seem to be in that step lower with Pitt, Damon and the others big name if he goes out of the big SFX/Action adventure movie, while Leo seem to have gone to is own space above them with a wider array of possibility that he can sell. He did not achieve a 20m opening since After Earth (well excluding SS) and is last 2 non franchise movie didn't do 35m domestic, that said those Christmas release for adult are really hard sales if they do not have great reviews and not the end of it all metric, a 70% RT one would have given us a better idea. Concussion did a solid 60% RT, but few people are seeking movie that could possibly diminish their pleasure of watching the NFL for a Christmas season movie. I imagine he will still be a big deal in Bad Boys 3/4 like he was in SS and even thought he is not as good as a draw among older discerning audience type of release, in a summer blockbuster he is still arguably the biggest draw in the world.

I didn't say they were consistent draw has Leo is. I asked if they were not movie star ? Denzel has been more consistent than Leo, in the 2000's Denzel has opened all is wide release over 20m except one, he is batting 17 on 18, Leo has much better world peak potential, one thing Denzel has is clock work consistency. Are you saying that you need to be as big as Dicaprio to be a movie star ? That the minimum bar ?

Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Dwayne Johnson are not movie star ?