Barnack

Because it is for one movie (I would imagine the last Craig), Sony probably start favorite, the Bonds never been has big (and arguably has good) than the Sony era since 1965. But that is Rothman, no way he resign a deal like this, were sony pay for 50% of the expense, get only 25% of a part of the profit with no access to anything after the theatrical release type of deal, making it very possible that they do not find agreement. It seem really hard to make prediction if Sony pass on it, would be pure speculation made on no reasoning for me.

Because I searched it and did end up on this message board. Yeah it could be hard to predict or useless for fan movies (that will still get a good cinemascore while being terrible), but when Hidden Figure got A+ it was perfectly valid to predict solid legs to it. Like this It tend to often get none. When at least in the past it had an extremely strong correlation. One possible issue is people not using fan franchise big weekend cinemascore and the rest of the slate cinemascore as 2 different entity. A bit like when people just graph metacritic score and box office and find a negative correlation, instead of just comparing metacritic score among similar size release.

They made what 15 million a year on Bond, spending a lot of money and work, I'm not sure they need Bond much, outside the nice perk of having your product placement in it.... not sure it is worth the trouble that much. They start making a great ROI if they make 1.6/1.7 billion at the box office. Sony profit: Quantum of solace: 22.65 Skyfall: 57.3 million Spectre: around 30 million. That 110 million in 8 year's, 13-15 million a year, the 2 grown ups movie made more profit for Sony than the 3 James Bond

Sony didn't provide 100% of the production cost on ASM2 it was the first spiderman movie they used co-financier partner on, 66.63 million came from financing, at the moment of the Sony leak Amazing Spider Man 2 was still 49.9 million in the red, but was expected to do a 14 million profit for Sony (and a 5 million lost for the third party investor) once the 66.6 million tax credit would get in to reduce that 312.2 million production cost to something more reasonable and the TV revenue still to come in. Deadline estimate is really good, Sony expected a profit of 30 million on a scenario of 200 million domestic, 845 worldwide. Loosing that current deal is probably not a big deal at all for Sony, Adam Sandler was a much better revenue source.

'I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.'

That seem a bit of a bad way to do it, taking 1000's in many year's, and ranking them by cinemascore seem the better way, it give this: If you look only at the year successful movie, with all of them at the top having the same A cinemascore, it will be hard to isolate the cinemascore factor, I really doubt there is no correlation at all between an A+ cinemascore and a lower than C one with box office legs (maybe not for the few giant franchise movie that still ended up a year top 50 despite being terrible, but for the usual case).

That sound a bit extreme, it become muddier but not useless.

Not having the first blair witch, no sixth sense and saying the next 3 year's, I think the list is for of the last 2 decades are movies from the 2000's and the 2010's, not from the last 20 year's.

Horror (or any genre) will often have some classification issue but that statement seem a bit strange, not many saw Get Out coming, horror genre is a good one for small movie exploding at the BO, we could have a surprise 200 million hit. But also one of the Alien/WorldWarZ/Cloverfield/Universal Horror monster universe franchise could make an horror entry that would have a chance at beating Get out..

Well a movie will never break even then (not make or loose 1$ dollar, just do the exact amount)

Sorry english is a second language to me, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, what deception would have been used ? Yes it worked again to pre-sales a sequel of a franchise movie that did 160 million oversea, sure.

Allegiant was not profitable according to deadline, it broke even with an estimated small 3 million profit for Liongates. It is better to pre-sales if your product underperform on the market you pre-sold, Allegiant dropped by 32% oversea from the second, a predecessor that had grew from the first entry, they probably got a really good price on Allegiant for what it ended up doing.

For superman 1 huge budget, didn't planned to do both superman movie at the same time thought ? Principal photography began on March 28, 1977 at Pinewood Studios for Krypton scenes, budgeted as the most expensive film ever made at that point. Since Superman was being shot simultaneously with Superman II, filming lasted 19 months, until October 1978. Is that high cost in part because two movie was shot (even thought it didn't work correctly to have both really completed) ? Maybe today 300 million before marketing would be rare, but 10 year's ago that was Spider-man 3 or a big X-men, and 107 million less than Pirate 4. Arguably it would be much more than 300 before marketing if it would be an amount no one was spending in the 2010's on a movie, 300m would be extremely cheap for avengers 3 part 1.

Probably meant medieval fantasy type, because yes almost all big movies are fantasy now, almost none are set in the real world, to the monster universe reboot,all Star Wars/Superheroes/Transformer/Pirates/King Kong/Beauty and the beast etc..

Not that I disagree that he had an ok performance among an extremely strong cast around him, but he was a perfect casting choice (the show in general was)

Not sure what you are saying, Suicide Squad was announced in 2009, no one was saying that the idea of a suicide squad movie come from Guardian of the Galaxy. And they are not totally original movies to start with, but adaptation so it is certainly not the combined studio's coming with all ideas. But the writer/director Ayer was announced the month after Guardian release, at least 5 year's after that project started, could be 100% random, but that sound like it motivated WB to go ahead with it.

Not the idea of the movie, more the the idea/courage of actually green lighting it or influencing when it happen in the slate.

If that is true (from wiki): The film was announced in 2009 with Dan Lin as producer. Stephen Gilchrist as co-producer and Justin Marks as the screenwriter.[33] David Ayer signed on to direct and write the film in September 2014 It is rarely more obvious, movie in development hell since at least 2009, 5 year's before, and a director/writer is signed on it the very month after the release (august 2014) of a similar type of movie doing 700+ million WW.

The best actor win has the reputation to be the less valuable win of all major Oscar i think: http://boxofficequant.com/the-value-of-an-oscar/ That does fit with the leaked Sony oscar value estimate. The bonus studio gave to people for a nom or a win were not big (relatively) to, 25k for a nomination, 50k more for a win on American Hustle.

The franchise and the vast importance of the first weekend created a giant gap between quality and what the public end up seeing before oscar night (at least in theater). The non-franchise/was not a success because it pre-sold a lot of ticket before anyone have even seen the movie that do big at the box office like The Martian, American Sniper, acclaimed science-fiction film Gravity and so on tend to still do well at the Oscar. Not sure the taste of the academy changed that much (or even the public), what determine what they go see in theater changed a lot. If it stay that way, it will probably not change soon, if it become netflix/amazon title for who the franchise power and the first weekend has no importance in how much they are seen by the public, but it is build up on quality and word of mouth like Stranger Things, it could change extremely rapidly.

Apparently Golden Globes tend to be the big boost box office wise, because they arrive first. http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2013/01/15/golden-globe-films-are-worth-millions-more-than-oscar-winners/ https://mic.com/articles/164766/how-much-is-a-golden-globe-worth-how-the-prize-compares-to-oscars-and-other-awards#.pfnnxv6Kc Helmer found that on average, Golden Globe winners receive a bigger boost at the box office than Oscar victors: about $14.2 million per film versus $3 million. In the Sony leaked e-mail they talk a little bit about the value and for big movie that already had achieved some saturation like a Captain Philips the Oscar phase 2 (winning) it is not that impressive, after you remove people bonus/residual and all their expense from the added potential revenue Hanks winning best Actor was an expected added studio revenue of something like 1 million, much less than the movie 3.5 million award campaign cost and the impact of the screener leak.

That is just half of Slumdog, but King Speech made 21m after the win.

They certainly do, both are probably really happy and playing together quite a bit to feed some made up feud between them, they are stronger together in a competition than alone I imagine. A bit like console that always time up their new generation release (can you imagine the difficulty otherwise for big multi-platform game developers), I imagine both studio time themselve a little bit (those movie with the same release date, that no one really believe and other stunts). Must make thing more fun and feed those fanbase/hundreds of platform decicated to "movies" but talk almost just about franchises that do a lot of publicity for free for them.

That is not an opinion on the movie either, don't play the victim card of you just expressed your opinion about a movie. Just assume your statement (nothing wrong with it), but it could be normal for people asking to back it up with some arguments. You are talking about an award body voting group that nominated 0 black actor the year before and didn't go that much for Selma, and that was the year right after #OscarSoWhite, the group composition changed a little bit but not that much, combined with the fact that the votes are secrets (so no cost at all to just vote freely for who you want), it does not show that they care that much about what people think when they sit to vote.

Fair enough (obviously for that part of you thinking that it is not a good movie), but is post win performance (20% of is total box office) is not particularly low at all and over 4m. Thinking that it is a bullshit win is a different statement, that seem to imply that some voters voted for it high on their ballot without really liking the movie more than the others.