Barnack

Good and original is vastly different, Cinderella was really excellent for example. Very few will doubt Disney high level of execution on is unoriginal output, it is extremely well done. That said, it still made Tomorrowland, Zootopia and some other original stuff, but the number live action wise is really going down.

Like those, but usually studios still made non franchise/remake movie from time to time, Disney was making 40+ movie a year not so long ago. Now it is around 12, and getting close to 100% only franchise movie for the live action fiction. I imagine a lot of other studio would be doing the same if they were owning and successfully monetizing them as Disney is doing thought, not much of a real issue, just a different product for different audience. And it is hard to blame them when pretty much live action wise they tried since the first Pirates of the Caribbean kind of failed, they were a bit pushed in that direction, a bit like letting go of 2D animation for 3D, they resisted for a long time but the audience clearly decided for them.

@Tele Came Back Little question Tele, when the WGA propose to change the Dvd residual to 0.36 to 0.72% for example, if there is more than one credited writer on a movie does both get 0.72% or it is split among them ? And does non credited writer or those shifted to story by get nothing or less than full credited one ? Because when I try to estimate how much it would have cost to studios that big conflictual measure, it would not have been much, like 3 to 5 million a year for the average studio.

The metric were there that Bad Moms would be big, the trailers was extremely well received: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/bad-moms-trailer-tops-sisters-the-boss-trails-trainwreck-1201771616/ and had a better title/high concept. I would also imagine that Bad moms was playing really well with the test audience (it got a A cinemascore after all), the studio did seem really confident and gave a big domestic release marketing push, with over 5000 national airing, spent money to get the big popular song and so on. I doubt that it was a surprise tracking wise. Rough Night would be one imo, surprise.

I think so, and they are getting older (so he is a perfect combo with Watson to broading the appeal if the movie would have been good) and this movie seem like a hard sale for the baby boomers and target a younger audience than the usual Hanks movie. Like say Sully, Captain Philips and is other blockbuster. The other movie being very recent (in this case still in theater) is also an element, Hanks last year achieved to open only one of is 3 movie, it is not easy to open 2 movie in a short window.

And you can add Lion King, more chance than Frozen and Toy Story imo.

I would assume that the fact they would continue to renew the rights to declare a strike was already fully accounted by the market, it was 99% certain, the members support is really clear on it. It was a continuation of the statue quo more than something new.

Language once you translate in a other language is easy to "fix", it is very violent and gory, but that it is easy to remove the violence is short, (13 minute sound more than enough to remove anything R in it).

I doubt that (or they are really good people to just not let them strike forever), all those fat cat have stock options are other performance incentive and some of the best jobs of the world that they loose very easily, they will be hurt by a strike that impact the bottom line (but also hurt by a deal that cost them more than the said strike would), thus the negotiation). Striking is an effective pressure strategy because it is bad for the owners and executives.

That distinction is important, Peter Jackson started Lords of the Rings in 1995, and the story already existed, it is normal for 4 giant blockbuster pushing boundary to take a long pre-production time. He finished the dvd release of the last Hobbit in like april 2015, 20 year's later.

Movie like that usually get re-write/re-shoot and punched by writing room that will had those out of screen voice joke they tend to have.

Japanese or 10 people in japan ? Because the movie didn't do very well in japan, has for the WS BS, it was never about Japanese people, they have 400 movies a year in Japan, for them, by them, showing them on screen, lack or issue about representation off Japanese on screen will make 0 sense to them, a bit the equivalent for British/American being played by africans/japanese in africans/japanese production, for sure American/British do not care when it happen they will never watch those movie/tv show anyway.

You think Ridley Scott do not have final cuts on a movie like this one, I really doubt that but you could be right he often did not have it in the past, it is rare studio have full control over a movie with a big name director with a recent excellent box office track record and co-produced by his company with him has producer on it. It could be true that he do not care about China and airlines cuts and let them do what they want with those. One big difference between a Logan and a Aliens, Logan is really easy to cut to a pg-13 version, it just a bit of ponctual gore that you can remove, an horror movie can have general tone issue that cannot be fix.

Cannot find her on this: https://apps.wga.org/agency/findwriter.aspx Or the east wga thought. She tend to be using writing name maybe ? How does a movie become a WB movie, instead of a Heyday film distributed by WB ? Are the rules clear on this ?

Kinberg is a WGA members and everything (full studio movie, that the kind of movie surely impacted).

Struggling tv, but growing streaming/HBO/Fx type tv and if I understand that were the argument lie, I would imagine the industry (and the writer) suspect that in 10 year's that were the money will be, couple of percentage of difference now could be a 2025 fortune. Last time I think the studio won by holding off and writer did loose, no ?

It really depend what the % of streaming would mean long term, a bit like last time went they hold of on the 8% on dvd revenue demand and won, I wonder how much it saved the studio the last 8 year's (someone know ?) it must be an impressive fortune. Also I imagine that from the studio perspective, they know that the writer lost a lot last time, not just during the missed work, but they made much less after the strike than before it. Maybe they think they will accept something much lower because of it.

This must be part of it, for example Japan had a giant Godzilla movie release last year, Shin Godzilla, did 75 million in Japan, number 2 of the year at the BO.

I think f6 like legs (F6 ended up with 139% of what it made after 10 days) would put F8 to 226 million (maybe I'm not using the good formula thought)

*Already posted

My first thought is that they would be useless because of say 20-30 A-lister writer making 1-2 million on big movies, skewing everything. But the 33% drop since 2007 in the average pay (once adjusted to inflation) must be a tendancy that is not particular to the biggest writer. And we are talking about a almost 2000 people and 383 million total, it should keep some relevance (even thought median pay would have been necessary here) If say the top 30 writers are making 50 million in 2015, the average of the others go down to 176.4 from 199.6, so yeah I don't know what the top 100 total look like but it would affect the average a lot. Not sure to fully get that part, normal employee also owe a fat chunk of their salary to taxes, usually more not having the liberty to mix dividend from their own company paid to themselves over time/salary to optimize taxation, specially if the money come in splitted up over time.

For a reference WGA West screenwriters earning, last strike was 2007, going down pretty much every year, but a large part of that is because studio are doing less and less movies. Year # Writers Employed Total Earned Average pay Adjusted for inflation pay 2000 2,154 $392,662,713 $182,294.67 $250,749.20 2001 2,002 $388,816,935 $194,214.25 $259,992.31 2002 1,876 $413,099,071 $220,202.06 $290,121.30 2003 1,900 $434,195,402 $228,523.90 $294,489.56 2004 1,903 $438,005,013 $230,165.53 $288,789.88 2005 1,961 $455,555,295 $232,307.65 $281,926.76 2006 1,998 $437,053,720 $218,745.61 $257,045.36 2007 2,054 $526,427,934 $256,294.03 $292,907.46 2008 1,830 $375,219,419 $205,037.93 $225,812.70 2009 1,873 $438,997,103 $234,381.80 $258,985.41 2010 1,759 $408,016,771 $231,959.51 $252,129.90 2011 1,707 $375,148,657 $219,770.74 $231,581.39 2012 1,691 $368,003,182 $217,624.59 $224,586.78 2013 1,754 $350,534,617 $199,848.70 $203,304.88 2014 1,767 $357,521,786 $202,332.65 $202,535.18 2015 1,922 $383,762,685 $199,668.41 $199,668.41

I would imagine they can still change dialogues, decides to not shoot a scene and small stuff like that.

From a lot of interview, it does look like those franchise movie rarely have a script when they are greenlight and often not a final one even when the principal photography start.

Look like those close together strike are a normal result to how fast the industry changed. Dvd revenues exploded, 2007 had a strike about them, now the industry changed again rules need to be updated to reflect how big some new revenue stream became.