Barnack

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

We were talking about universal draw, put Dwayne Johnson outside an action/comedy movie and he is not bigger than Denzel/DiCaprio. He is certainly bigger oversea than Denzel when he is in is element you are right for that. If we go for people that are a draw in the right genre there is a long list, Kevin Hart in a comedy being a really big one.

Marketing study show that audience prefer Denzel playing the protector of weaker people (a role he will often rely on from time to time), but he still opened Training Day over 20m, Denzel broadening is accepted image in cinema is maybe one of the difference with Will Smith that took a very long time before playing a non charismatic hero/good guy and don't seem to be able to sell anything else.

Well true Dicaprio will not do a 18m non studio movie from a director of that track record. Someone in is position and ambition will do movies with a chance of being the best movie of the year, with the best available director/producers, etc.. And that track record of great movie is the reason of is success. That a big reason why it is hard to isolate the star powers factor, a large part of the difference come from having access to the best projects. That Dicaprio scenario in that Circle movie made like it was made and released like it is released, is pure fiction and would have never happened.

It is a bit hard to make the mental experiment, because most big stars tend to change the movie a bit, the answer most of the time would be Dicaprio right now, but it is hard to imagine that they would not have augmented that 18m budget once Dicaprio come on board, and that no studio would have picked the movie distribution, it would have opened much higher but it would have been realistically a different release too. In a vacuum, still 18m production, still a STX 25m or so domestic release, still this mediocre release date, that being a DiCaprio movie in the role of Hanks would have opened bigger, but less so that if you get the full real effect (better release date, better release, better production) that come with having him on board.

It is not has certain has it is for Denzel, because is track record of opening anything all the time is not that long (is performance seem to vary much more movie to movie depending on their quality than someone like Denzel or Sandler in is days), but if I would have to guess I would guess that he reached that level by now,is recent track record is extremely impressive.

DiCaprio would be true but it is really new, not so long ago j. Edgar and Blood Diamond flopped, even a runion with Wintslet in revolutionnary road peaked below 6m for is best weekend. I'm not sure about this either : How is Denzel a so called draw ?, since 2000 he opened all is wide release over 20m except one, he has a 17 on 18 domestic opening success track record. Take today Dicaprio, is he only a draw in something that fits is image ? Maybe but Dicaprio and Denzel have a really wide array of possible image that fit them, they are for sure better draw in the best fit, but they can go large in the movie genre and the role they have.

Apparently: A key area of contention has to do with work rules for television. Right now, writers who are hired for a show are "held exclusively" to that show, even when they're not writing (this is also called being in "first position"). So while the show is being produced, the writer sits around waiting to see if the show is going to get picked up for another season, and that wait can be months or even a year. In that time of limbo, the writer can't take a job on a new show without getting permission. And that other show may be reluctant to hire a writer "in second position" — that is, a writer who may have to go run off to his other show at any moment. I imagine that it is some protection from the studio side, to be sure to have the option to reuse the writers of the first season on the second if it ever get greenlight, if they get fulltime on a second show they will not be able to come back right away as you please. That reservation window has value and should be paid for.

Both stars do not seem to be pushing it as much as they could thought, quick google show me no late night show or much of anything with Hanks promoting the movie, making their presence not as effective as it could be. Maybe they are not getting participation profit or something like that. In 2016, movie with a release between 2000 and 3500 theater opened in average at 13.4m, median 11.2m, stars in a average movie can open it at 20m (Like Denzel always achieve to do, the only one being able to do so) but one with below mediocre review it will be hard.

I see, different exchange rate.

Mermaid, F7, Monster hunt, all did over 380m in China I think.

Maybe not the majority, but a vast amount of people take a look at the average rating. Anyway it is just to say that everything is right there on the main RT and MC (consensus level and average rating), one is not really better than the others, most movie have almost exactly the same score. One site put one of those number on a bigger font the other website the other number is an bigger font and on top of the page, doing it make them look both relevant even when all the review of MC appear on the RT Top critics page.

The AMPTP is negotiating: http://amptp.org/ They represent over 350 entity on the production companies side, tv distributor and so on, including all the MPAA studios.

Well no, Many when they read RT read it like that: Tomato meter: What are the chance I will like the movie (consensus) Average Rating: How good it is Same on MC, MC score how good it is, the distribution of green/yellow/red change to like it.

That difference is because you are comparing one average rating to the others % of good critics The Circle on RT right now 4.6/10 (6.2/10 for top critics) Metacritic: 51 (33% of them being above 5/10) Not that different, they almost always really close (often the RT top critics section are exactly the same than those on MC)

There is rumors that it didn't achieve to make a approved cut in China. I have no clear idea on how it will do, Prometheus did show that the Scott/Alien movie brand was still extremely strong 5 year's ago, but is it still true today ? Maybe it will not as good and giant business like is 400m in 2012 performance (specially without china), but I still expect it to do really well.

Not doing less than the first one would already be huge, let alone 800, 850m+ With the exchange rate drop since the first one release (that released just just before the drop) and China that stopping to grow, sequel will not automatically grow when they tended to do between 2013-2015 when they made a shift to 3d and took advantage of exploding growing market

I think that is more it the stars not having good participation bonus in that pre-sales of the movie models or them not liking the movie and didn't want to burn themselve with the audience promoting it.

STX seem to be spending at least 20M on this domestic release, I'm not so sure it was being scare and not taking a chance on the movie, it is just bad execution, no ? Did Watson push the movie on her social media platform and Hanks on TV ?

It would be probably true: The figures were reported today in the 19th annual Celluloid Ceiling report, released by Dr. Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, and they demonstrated that the opportunities for women working in top behind-the-camera roles haven't improved in nearly 20 years. The percentage of women directors in 2016 — 7 percent — was down by two percentage points from 1998, the first year of the study, and the percentage of women who held various behind-the-camera roles on films — 17 percent — was even with the percentage achieved in 1998. And Studios were making 180-200 movie a year back then (220 in 2002), it is usually below 150 now (only 114 in 2013, 84 by the studios, 30 by their subsidiaries)

I clicked on the circle hashtag, lot of message with that hashtag are promoting Trump.... ? Are they robot/AI message simply using popular hashtag in a automatic way ? Or there is a link between the movie story and Trump ? Clicking on some of those profile, they match exactly the description they made from the typical automatic robot account pushing message.

8m is Only Canada + US market, I would imagine they had deal like that all over the world, movie star like Hank really help to achieve to sell your movie a bit everywhere.

I imagine that it is a bit estimated, but how much it cost to buy ads on a channel (and the rating for the price bracket) is pretty standard and how much it play on tv is not difficult to track. The estimate must be really close it is the easiest estimate to make I would imagine (more than movie budget and others), 20/25 million is pretty standard for small not major studio wide domestic release (it can go 35m+ for popular genre like horror when Screen gem does them) The movie had nearly 3000 national airings for the trailer, a some of those in good expensive live sport even spot, like the NBA playoff. A really big push.

Promotion is the big expense for a movie like that, probably 20-25 will be invested in that domestic release. They were at 13.33m in the US tv spots alone last Sunday. http://variety.com/2017/more/news/snatched-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1202393991/

From EuropaCorp USA point of view how much the movie did cost to make are not impacting them, how much they pay for the US distribution (8 million) become the movie budget from their point of view. How much the movie need to do for them is not easy to estimate, it depend if they got home media at that price (I would imagine so it must be, with Liongates doing the home media distribution for them) If they give the movie a small 20-25 million domestic release like they seem to be going for, the total cost could be below 33/38.5 million for them. Sound like a safe enough bet.