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.

No China market (and much smaller world cinema market) at the same time, Titanic made 145 million in China in it's 2012 re-release while people had bluray of the movie available and easily could have find it online before it's release, who knows how it would have done last year... In 2012 Titanic was almost number one in the China market, ended #2 not far from the top, that is probably not far from a 400 million performance today in 2017 China market. Avatar was in that different era and still made a crazy amount, every other movie in the 90's was in the same era of Titanic, none came close to Titanic not even Star Wars. Not saying that Titanic would have made 2.75 billion in 2015/2016 and I fully understand your point about how hard it is to translate performance over different era and those lighting in the bottle positive loop are probably full of chaos, but Titanic world market share was at a special level and dominate is contemporary competition pretty much at the same level as the first Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, E.T., it is at the very top level.

Fair enough (like I said ultra subjective, that why they make people vote on those and it often end up close to 50/50), I don't remember Force awaken second half very well, maybe it is just the first half that play for audience laugh.

You put Force Awakens in the comedy category or drama at the golden globes ? It was really funny specially the first half. Dr. Strangelove is a comedy almost every humans die in it in a nuclear tragedy, comedy is not much about content/story, it is about enough people laughing enough while watching it.

Well sure they are action or adventure comedy it was in the context that a romantic-comedy was called simply comedy (so I was thnking that we were talking about comedy at large even those combining other genre), there is rarely a pure genre big movie these days, always a mix. Fury Road was a rare pure action movie. Still in the comedy side of Drama/Comedy, Force Awaken was in the comedy side, Rogue One drama, in my opinion, but like I said it is extremely subjective.

People laugh a lot in my theater during them, not all but Guardian was one, Thor 3 will probably be one, etc... You would have placed Guardian of the galaxy in Drama instead of comedy at the golden globe ?

Not sure it is worth it trying to name some movies, there was 186 movie playing in theater in 2017, you can name many failure and many success. Best metric to know if the box office goes well must be simply looking at how much it did in total: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare&view=releasedate&p=.htm Best adjusted start of a year since 2013 and by a good mount, even better than the 2016 start and that was a specially good one with Force Awaken+ Batman V Superman +Revenant+Deadpool+Zootopia+kung fu panda 3+jungle book first weekend. 2017 $3,477.5 - +2.9% +6.8% +7.8% +16.6% - 2016 $3,379.5 -2.8% - +3.8% +4.8% +13.3% - 2015 $3,257.3 -6.3% -3.6% - +1.0% +9.2% - 2014 $3,225.3 -7.3% -4.6% -1.0% - +8.2% - 2013 $2,981.7 -14.3% -11.8% -8.5% -7.6% - -

? Not all from hollywood and comedy is a fuzzy category, but there was like one every week last year, 128 comedy with theatrical release in 2016 according to the-numbers: Ride Along 2, Zoolander 2, Dirty Granpa, Borthres Grimsby, The Boss, Bad Moms, Central Intelligence, Keanu, Keeping up with the Joneses, Sausage Part, Why Him, etc... This year we already got Fist Fight and Boss Baby and we will have a Baywatch comedy, Daddy's home 2, Downsizing, Pitch perfect 3, Super troopers 2, Snatched, Captain Underpants, Despicable me 3, Girls Trip, Rought night Arguably the Mcu are comedies, maybe not all of them but most, Force Awaken was mostly one too, big animated movie are often comedy. It is rare we get a large budget release without a good amount of comedy in it (there is Rogue One, Silence, Fury road, Skyfall, mockingjay 1-2, but they are not common).

Has good as it was (better than the Nice Guys imo, and is Black favorite movie he ever made according to him in a interview) it did flop completely box office wise. Like this And after had a chance to a nice other 1-2 punch of a nice broadway show + a Woody Allen movie, http://www.slashfilm.com/bruce-willis-leaving-woody-allen/ http://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/did-bruce-willis-just-get-fired-from-woody-allen-s-movie/story-sjETbmWqcNs3CXJfzBGPhO.html Blew it completely.

That relative i think, he certainly is strict about what he does not want to do but i'm not sure how much he has a vision of what he want, all Die Hard movies were script for completely different projects that they took and put the die hard characters in them. (except for the last one, the first attempt at an original die hard movie). Die Hard 4 for example was a studio project called WW3.com that was in a super long development hell because 9/11 made terrorist a touchy subject that was adapted into a Die Hard movie franchise. http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/die-hard/21313/the-strange-history-of-the-die-hard-movies

It is not hard to believe, when you have headline like this now (and being friend with Vladimir Poutine): https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steven-seagal-sued-for-driving-tank-into-arizona-home-killing-puppy/#6dc5a4fb7489 Imagine when he was a star.

Twilight was not made by someone has powerful and respected like Apatow (and like you said talking again Twilight could maybe hurt you among some fans, but not really director/producer industry people in general I would imagine, an easy target) and probably more importantly Pattinson is not making any studio movies. And he made only one movie by a MPAA studio since Potter, with Fox in 2011, I imagine that is comments were after that. When you are 100% fortune independent like him and do not want to do studio movies (or did lost hope to ever get cast in them) you are more free to talk as you want.

Bruce Willis is a bit of an extreme example of that, as long as he was a draw he got many pass, not only he was getting out of movie late in pre-production, sometime he was quitting them once the shoot started, he made The Sixth sense and 2 other movie for Disney to not get sued from contract breach because he did quit a movie after the principal photography was started. That combined with all is terrible behavior on the press junket. Now he is doing direct to video Canadian movie by first time director. If you are an really loved professional with perfect track record and cheap to insure like Ryan Reynolds, Clive Owen, Gerard Butler, you can continue to work for a long time without any financial success (for people easy to cast that is).

I was going to say, I'm not sure the Judd Apatow type of rom com like Knock Up didn't completely die. Trainwreck was a giant success, that was in 2015. then I took a look at the-numbers genre stats: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/genre/Romantic-Comedy That a violent drop, I imagine there is a big combined reaction to this, many of the big rom-com star like Diaz, Bullock, Heigl, Witherspoon, Roberts, Renée Zellweger, Meg Ryan, etc... kind of faded or even retired of the genre, hurting it. Also sometime successful rom-com like Trainwreck or Silver Lining playbook are not considered as such (explaining how drastic the fall of the genre on that the-numbers graph, from 6-7% to 1% of the market share in a short number of year's)

It would not surprise if it is completely different for Disney and their very huge documentary (that still do a lot for docs at the box office), but it is a genre that theater give very little back to the distributor anyway (except if you make a documentary on Micheal Jackson or if you were a prime Micheal Moore). I imagine that the audience tend to be small and not eat much pop-corn during them, making them uninteresting for theater chain. Sony on a movie like Inside Job for example Domestic Rental: 1.452 million (33.6% of is 4.32 million bo) Intl rental: 1.344 million (37.8% of is 3.55 million ibo) The money come from Netflix and other platform like that, it did 21.55 million in total revenue with a large 10 million profit, with 87% of the revenue made after theater. The Disney more spectacle oriented doc are probably more theatrical affair thought and maybe they play more like regular movies, but they seem to be doing quite well for those kind of release.

I'm not sure it is as simple as that, an actor can help a movie without being a leading men draw, the obvious example if he helped make the movie better, thus helped the reviews and word of mouth. But also when you compare him with other leading men, the conclusion is just that he is not has big has a draw has the others are, not that he is not one at all, a bit like a "bad" starting pitcher in the MLB is not necessarily a bad one in absolute. It would not surprise me if Micheal Pena helped Ant-Man significantly (i.e. 1% or more) not that it is possible to know, he saved the movie from being below mediocre to me, I think he is a loved supporting player by the audience, but Chips flopped hard and War on Everyone even more (made about 0$ in the US).

Will be hard, but I doubt that it is that low but you almost never have someone that see a movie because of someone, it is always a reason not the reason. But If I remember exit poll, even someone like Franco on Spider-man 2 had like 7% of the audience naming him as a reason they went to see it, there is a reason those establish face often make millions on supporting role on movies like that, I imagine they have some form on impact, that could go as high as 1% (i.e. like 600k people on a movie like that).

The judge 47 million is not bad at all for what that movie was (a 47% on RT drama named the Judge). It is not that far than what Tom Cruise make on a 96 million budget action movie sequel from a very popular book series that get bad reviews, Jack Reacher 2 made 58.7. It is 10 million more than the DiCaprio last bad reviewed drama J.Edgard (37 million domestic) and that had Eastwood name and a well known figure biopic angle to help. It is far to be some definite proof that he is not draw on a action blockbuster type of movie like Sherlock, selling a badly reviewed drama over 50 million without a particular high concept hook is just almost impossible, it was even for DiCaprio not so long ago (maybe now he could, but we don't know). Fences was excellent and did really well, it only did 10 million more than the Judge domestic (and less worldwide) and that is freaking Denzel Washington in a best picture nominee from a popular play.

They already just did it in Fast 8 (at least in the trailer, don't know if it made the movie), there is a "We're gonna need a bigger truck" when the submarine get out of the water.

They change the eye-line apparently sometime.

With the re-release I imagine ? Titanic made 1,84 billion on is initial theatrical run, it took Force Awaken (2.07b) to beat it in term of nominal, but it was not that close of Titanic 2.75 billion adjusted for inflation in 2015/2016 money (not ticket price, just purchasing power)

It could be Dwayne Johnson not wanting to work with Vin at all or some contractual issue in term of control to give Diesel like have him as a producer (probably not easy to just make is role smaller) on a Fast 9 movie, that you get rid of on a spin off. Also those movie tend to be sold before anyone saw them, with most of their money made the first weekend, you can probably not make the change you need only in the actual content of the movie like role size for it to work, how it will be perceived before being seen is really important.

With how much Fast 8 seem to be dropping from 7 in some market, not a bad idea, just trying to do more of the same but even bigger in a 9 could be hard to pull off.

Well it made 123 million in revenue and close to 40 million in profit from a 23 million production budget and a small 39 million world releasing cost (pretty much no oversea release), in the industry it must be considered a nice hit, 42% ROI.

Well surely, characters can have any negative trait, the movie being racist or homophobic would be different. Many racist people in Inglorious Bastard, Schindler List, American History-X, that does not make a movie not ok. I don't think any (good) critic have issue with Pratt character, but in how the movie decide to present and how it judge what it does, for example how third party character react to it, how is character is presented as an hero in the movie and never loose is good guy status, etc..