Jump to content

Barnack

Free Account+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15,067

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Barnack

  1. Barnack
    And Titanic was number 2 in China the year it got a release there (2012?), close to being number one of the year, really impressive for a re-release of a 1997 movie.
  2. Barnack
    Is fudging to 250m a thing ? There is no movie ever at barely over 250, I don't think there is any tv contract bonus that kick in at 250m to have any reason to do it. 100 and 200m seem the only benchmark worthy of doing any unprofitable in theater return effort for TV deal.
  3. Barnack
    Maybe but it could be a 4 parter, all the movie being the sequel to the previous one, like a Lord of the Rings or the original star wars trilogy. One reason could be financial, shooting and making 4 movies before releasing a first one could be just to much expense to make before making the first dollar back, with possible raising interest rate during that time frame, he could have failed to raise that much money. And other could be technical, maybe some reason for the delay is technological and he compromised to have some technology only ready on the last 2, or some fear that those movie need some new technology to maximize their appeal, the time break make it possible to make it happen (the first movies with X new theatrical trick) 2 times.
  4. Barnack
    Why, what can they loose ? Logan was not made by Ridley Scott and is production company, the studio probably had total control to do what they wanted with the cuts.
  5. Barnack
    Prediction that are not in market share % make little sense to me, at least it require predicting the 2020 world box office, in US dollar.
  6. Barnack
    I would imagine that it work a bit like when theater chain offer some kind of movie pass deal (see as many movie as you want for 30$ a month, with some big movies from time to time that will not accept the pass the first week of release). You still use your pass to get a specific ticket for the specific movie you want to see at the door and studio get a percentage of the studio pass money relative to how much their movies were seen by movie pass users ?
  7. Barnack
    In some market box office total and attendance can be a different ranking, because the average ticket cost change a lot for different movie.
  8. Barnack
    Alarming ? I doubt anyone is taking any decision based on those numbers. It not like they ever report studio rental in modern days, they are always reporting how much customer spent on tickets I think, I don't think they remove the 10.72% special tax in France on movie ticket either. How much customers spent on a movie is also a valid metric to have when talking box office I imagine, as long as both are easily accessible.
  9. Barnack
    I would imagine he would finance the guy next movie, why would he care about the box office (and dilude is money to many party instead of giving it to the director/studio that made is movie ?) But yes he certainly could, rich people do it to a smaller scale all the time, rich people bought tickets in bulk to church group for them to see Hidden Figures for free for example. You just do that but at a larger scale (he could buy a ticket to every US credit card older with an Xbox gold account for a movie for example as a promotion if he wanted, a bit like Apple did with a U2 album, I think it would be legal)
  10. Barnack
    What with the Internet hyperbole, energy consuming, needing to be exciting ? Nobody does not need to do anything or feel anything, it is just a movie. 11 year's is not that specially big amount of year anymore, it is the same time as the last 2 Bridget Jones movie. T3 and T2 had a 12 year gap. The last XXX had 11 year's too. Monster University: 11 year Die Hard 4: 12 year's Jurassic World: 13 year's Incredible 2: 14 year's There is 32 project with a planned 2020 release, it is not that special to have one: http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2020,2020&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter,asc
  11. Barnack
    Ok it did look like a strange progression, when in reality it is probably a more linear one (SM2 already had 64 million made before it's first weekend).
  12. Barnack
    This, it jump a lot from WS, but it was a bit down from Ultron (191.2 to 179.13). Spider man 2 to 3 had a crazy jump, 88m to 151m, I wonder if the era changed that much between 04 and 07 or just a sign on how much the first 2 were loved.
  13. Barnack
    Seem to be: http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2022,2035&title_type=feature&sort=release_date,desc It did beat Fantastic beasts 5, a 2024 release. Obviously that is if we do not consider Robert Rodriguez movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5174640/?ref_=adv_li_tt To be released 18 november 2115.
  14. Barnack
    I don't know about that, google trend is maybe not a wise metric to use, and maybe being a small one word film title it does work as well for is algo, but Avatar interest online since 2011 has being going strong: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2011-03-23 2017-04-23&q=%2Fm%2F0bth54,%2Fm%2F0gmbk1g,%2Fm%2F0125zrjx Bigger than Captain America civil war interest in most of the year 2015, for a 6 year's old movie vs a big marvel future release, specially outside the US. the avengers infinity war vs avatar 2 vs avatar google trend in the last 12 month is also very telling: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 12-m&q=%2Fm%2F0bth54,%2Fm%2F0gmbk1g,%2Fm%2F0126b8kn If google trend is right, Avatar and Avatar 2 enthusiast online without a clear movie, with a very far away release date is bigger than the next Avengers, similar to Wonder Woman this year (and much more popular outside the canada-us-uk-autralia market). I never seen any argument to support the no one care about Avatar after it release, it is the best bluray sellers of all time with Frozen, it has a strange online presence for such an old movie without any material (picture, teaser, trailer, storyline) for is sequel. It is something people say freely without pointing to any form of source to support it.
  15. Barnack
    Agree (but I give it a much lower score), when he goes with a metal bar instead of is gun also did felt a bit forced. At least they went serious enough as a reason for the fight with the people involved high on serious drugs, didn't bother me, my only issue was that they made it a full feature length, when it could have been a good sitcom episode length affair with that premise (I could have seen a community episode doing this for example). For this to work you really need great action sequence and it was not there.
  16. Barnack
    The biggest movie worldwide of all time unadjusted got sequels in the past, Empire Strike back, Jurassic Park 2, it is not 100% without precedent, but different era enough and extremely small sample size to make it not that different than unprecedented. But they can easily drop by a huge amount. Not saying you are wrong because I feel like you (but what 4b will mean in 2020 will depend a lot of the exchange rate and China market), but I'm sure personally I would have said that 2.78b in 2009 was ridiculous for a movie if I was following box office back then, and I would have said that over 1.8 billion was non sense in 1997, etc... Not loosing much from the first one for a movie that saturated the market like that would already be an unheard accomplishment.
  17. Barnack
    If people that still buy bluray today are still in the general audience, it is a very small amount that is a special one. I would imagine that a lot of those BR sales goes to the franchise fans, not the general audience. When talking about something less than 2% of the population do, I don't know how general it is. Streaming, tv rating and renting numbers would give us a much better idea than sales about the GA.
  18. Barnack
    That is the issue the highest grossing movie of all time has never been a sequel, and there is probably some reason for that, you limit your audience, you have resistance from everyone that have not seen the first one, plus you loose everyone that didn't like it (well that part seem less true today, you can now read people complaining about a movie sequel and about the first too). 3B in 2020 would be Cameron worst box office performance in a long time, a good drop from Titanic and Avatar, but the movie is a sequel big limitating factor is not to be underestimated.
  19. Barnack
    The moat is also extremely different, western many small studio were making them, they were not expensive, they were not always franchise, you had a peak of like 150 western movie a year. Superheroes, as long as only the franchised one does big and cost a fortune to make, the competition should naturally stay low, with some Russian superheroes movie that do not reach worldwide audience and some Super/Kick-Ass/etc,,, small title that do not really make that much. The genre can not be flooded with b-movies like Western.
  20. Barnack
    Some hyperbole here, I imagine people are joking when they talk as if they could predict the future, we are terrible at doing so, past just 15 year's, why say superheroes movies will never go away, films as we know them could go away before 2300. Back to the subject, there is 2 different type of peak regarding superheroes, their overall popularity/market share, their profitability. Many thought 2008 (13.7% market share) would have been the superheroes peak, then 2014 did more (8 movie 13.86%), then 2016 was the best year for the genre even and did much more with an almost 17% of the domestic market share. When that real peak will happen, it could be far away, it is a bit modern mythologies, it invite itself to the world blockbuster genre and not be set in time/current politic and limit is audience. Also a bit like 3d animation actor in mask must be much easier to dub worldwide in local language, making it even easier for the product to travel. The profitability peak is different, what is saving the genre for the moment is that almost exclusively 2 brand controlling it DC/Marvel and few studio, with how much it cost as long as they are playing nice together it can continue to be very lucrative, the high cost limit the entry possibility of competition a bit like the 3d style animation Pixar genre. But with so many entry, the overall cost of making them and even thought a bigger year total a smaller box office by movie should be expected, making it less profitable and more risky, the bad one should eventually start to fail, without needing to be fantastic four bad.
  21. Barnack
    65m OW does sound like a lot for a first weekend, even the original ultra star stacked OT didn't do it adjusted: Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adj. Gross / Theaters Opening / Theaters Date 1 Ocean's Eleven WB $283,540,800 3,075 $59,518,200 3,075 12/7/01 2 Ocean's Twelve WB $177,471,300 3,290 $55,735,200 3,290 12/10/04 3 Ocean's Thirteen WB $150,530,200 3,565 $46,427,200 3,565 6/8/07 Not saying it is impossible because some comedy like pitch perfect 2 did some crazy 69 million OW, but it is a lot.
  22. Barnack
    That would have been a bit careless for them to do that, say a small Liongates 20 million domestic release type with a movie like that. A different distributor did is UK release, and the movie didn't work there at all either (and it was a very natural market for it), it opened low and had a terrible 85% second weekend drop, easy to see distributor not having faith in other market that open after that. Cutting their loss like they did was not a bad option.
  23. Barnack
    If Universal would do anything in their power to cut Mama leg short or any other movie they would simply remove it from theater, why would they ever do something like that. Not sure how special that Mama treatment is, pretty similar to the purge: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=purge.htm Not that they have all the power on what theaters do, but I'm pretty sure they are optimizing profit the best they can, but with Get out having a Amazon Video/iTunes deal release may 9, it will end no matter what pretty soon.
  24. Barnack
    Really felt that 1) Not enough to justify a feature film, 45 to 60 minute version would have probably been better than a 90 minute, but it needed to reach conventional feature film length because it does not really exist a model for a 40-50 minute movie at the moment 2) Or would have needed greater action set piece, there was creativity and good humor from time to time, but it lacked spectacle in the actions.
  25. Barnack
    Wide release of indie movie can still easily cost a lot, it is getting a nice tv push. Sometime that can work a bit reverse, like both Tom Hanks release that was not Sully last year, people did had their Hanks fix. It can be hard to sell 2 movie close together if they are to share similar audience like that. Having Hanks/Watson will certainly help the movie have visibility but it is not an automatic, a STX movie like that without reviews would normally have none I imagine.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept