Barnack

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.

Still not true (did about 5.6 million). It did pretty much the same as spotlight post win, more than Birdman, not far from Argo.

Saying that a movie made less than 4 million is not an opinion.

Nope (I did check it was my right thought too) for both: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?view=fulldetail&yr=2016&catid=1&sort=post&order=DESC&p=.htm 12m post nom, 5.6 post win

I wonder what movie you are mistaken Moonlight with while looking at is box office.

Any is maybe a bit much, but you are right, I don't remember much movies not getting a China release because of the quota last year, nor any movie that was still playing strong removed from theater because it expired is time (and not because local movie competition took all the place, that would still happen I imagine)

It make a lot of sense to me, the only think that matter about a movie is enjoying your experience, if it achieved that you will not care as much about is issue. People like or dislike a movie first and are not good at knowing why and will put a list of reason why ad-hoc while the exact same element will work on a movie they like, Rogue one didn't do more fan service stuff than Awaken (probably less), it was just not as good, not as fun for people. People didn't complain as much about the ultra orange and teal palette of MadMax FuryRoad or the massive CGI in Jackie, it is because orange and teal is an excellent palette and CGI now are extremely good, those exact same thing will be pointed as negative on other movies, with people thinking they are the reason they disliked the movie.

well no, if a director hire a writer room to write is movie/movies, but that is not how I understood the conversation, it was about a writing room writing a arc for multiple movie, in advance. With that hole story arc writing by producers/exec/writers in advance, and then they hire a different director that need to fit in that box to put an "episode" in the can. Making them hard to watch one without the rest of the movies in that arc. That said that is what Lucas did on the OT and that is what making a Sorkin movie look like, the lords of the rings movies was exactly that so yeah you are right it does not mean necessary make them like TV at all, that only a bad reputation that Marvel created in my mind. But if a lot of the staff stay the same on those movies, they tend to end up in control more than the changing hired director.

Reynolds is a good talent in voice acting, really good in both The Voices and Deadpool, at least he is non generic in one element.

Transformer is a franchise designed to sell toys by Hasbro, you are not gonna get Cameron (not sure how you got that from my message), but they have the chance of having Bay in charge, and it is impossible to have him without letting him have total control of is movie, he is as auteur as it get in blockbusters. Transformer is the type of series that can easily be "sacrificed", stop being movies and turned into a large scale tv series for sure with an hired director raising is hand a couple of time during the shot to say suggestion like a tv director.

Not saying that you are right or wrong, but that sound dangerous to me, that would be turning movies into tv series and like tv into a producer/writer medium instead of a director one, well a bit like the MCU became, making the narrative and story more important than the movie itself like it tend to be on tv. Franchise, at least some of them, should be tool to give director large budget in the safety of a sure first weekend to take filmmaking chance, they can let every Cloverfield or Madmax entry be is own thing without having some larger story arc that restrict the director (and will greatly restrict the pool of director that would ever accept to have to respond to a writing room). It is ok if the director is in charge of that room and keep all control like Cameron on Avatar or when a director do all the episode of a tv mini-series of course.

The giant success of star wars combined with an iconic failure of a giant really 70s director movie failure at the same time, make it really a 1-2 punch of a change of time to come. I'm not sure but I think Fox had home video distribution deal of star wars for eternity: 20th Century Fox owned full rights to the original film until they sold it to Lucas in 1998 in exchange for a lower distribution fee for the prequels and broadcast rights to Episode I.[135] In late 2012, The Walt Disney Company announced a deal to acquire Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion, with approximately half in cash and half in shares of Disney stock.[136] Although Disney gained the ownership rights to all six Star Wars films, under a previous deal with Lucasfilm, the full distribution rights to A New Hope will remain with Fox in perpetuity, while the physical distribution arrangements for the remaining films are set to expire in 2020 (Lucasfilm had retained the television and digital distribution rights to all Star Wars films produced after the original). When they did the recent 2015 re-release home video on Itunes, they had to make a deal with 20th Century Fox. Now I'm not sure what the difference is between owning full rights, versus just distribution rights (I imagine they cannot do any modification to the movie or use is image in anything else and stuff like that)

Oversea Batman V Superman opening last year was of 256.5 million, 47.2% of is 542.9 million total. Fast 8 made a giant amount 432.3 million but it is rare that a movie open absolutely everywhere like it did, Batman V Superman being an other rare example of that. If it has the same legs has BvS it would miss the billion by a good amount, 432.3 / 0.472 = 915.9 million But BvS did fall hard in some market like China making it possible for Fast 8 to do it, but it is really not a lock imo, it could be really frontloaded in some market including is biggest one China.

The Sting not only made a fortune, it also turned Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid into a blockbuster when it was re-released after the Sting success if I'm not mistaken. You rarely get a better proof of star powers than this, the chance to have the same movie-released before and after your cast became draw with totally different box office result.

Will wait to see how much they will get from Louisiana, that number sound reasonable but it does show how it help to shoot in place like Louisiana, Logan had a 126.5 million gross production, that would be a nice 23.3% rebate from the gross, it was also very heavy on the product placement (a bit much on the corn flakes shot, a bit much too on the cars but nicely done)

One aspect of the DCEU darkness is that it tend to often not really be at all. Suicide Squad is probably not a good example to use because of how troubled it seem to have been, but the movie need to tell us that those are bad people, because they do not show it at all, no one in the squad do anything bad that is not told or in flashback (except steeling something once), that is far from the Wild Bunch or others movie that follow a group of vilain. A movie like The girls with all the gift pushed the boundary of your hero your root for doing terrible action much more than Suicide Squad and never had to told us. The wanting to do 700 million+ worldwide PG-13 format is not necessarily the best one for a dark and gritty movie. It is really not that I dislike the idea of one.

I don't think liongates got co-financier for the international, they probably sold those market, I'm talking like a Lone Star co-financier on a Ghostbuster movie type of deal, people that shared the risk and revenue with Liongates on what they did not pre-sales.

What a movie bought oversea make domestic do not matter that much about what we are talking about, the point is that buying movie in advance is often a risky game, sometime you hit a jackpot with the first Hunger games or La laland and sometime you loose, what matter is the total bought slate over a large amount of time performance. Lionsgate could make like 3 la la land for the cost of 1 power rangers, well not necessarily. The cost of one Power Rangers is not necessarily that bigger with how easier it is to presales something with a franchise name and even thought you can make 3 la la land for the gross price of one Power Rangers, you cannot make 3 of them and release 3 of them for the price of making and releasing one Power rangers. The difference in price in distribution is not necessarily that big between small and big budget movie. Movie like Moneyball/Social Network got an over 50 million domestic release, not that much different than the 200 million blockbuster that use product placement deal and pre-awareness for the franchise name to release their movie.

The issue is we don't know how much of that 75% they are not on the hook for is pre-sales or co-financier, if a lot of it is co-financier they are getting a share of the 90 million or so revenue that movie will do domestic. If it is pure pre-sales, well then it became a small 25 million movie with a very small 9 to 15 million release doing over 80 million at the box office, i.e. a really nice success.

Maybe some thought the people buying La la land were dumb.....

With a 2013 exchange rate pretty sure AOU does Avengers oversea money if not more yes, but it will still have been a market share decrease but compensate by overall market growth.

No simply looking at public domain (and leaked) info, they are usually well documented for the tax payers that are financing them after all (and the producer looking to compare between jurisdiction).

It does not mean much because it is not an adjusted box office figure, but only 5 movie that made 300 million or more domestic on their first entry saw a progression on their sequel (and only 2 movie achieved to growth from number 2 to 3 of the series while the second movie did over 300 million, Lords of the Rings franchise having 2 of those): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_sequels_by_box-office_improvement Gotg 2 has a good shot to join that list, but it would not be that surprising (specially in the context of flat ticket price) if it does do less than GOTG1 in term of precedent.

I did thought about it and wrote specially with the bad exchange rate, but the global box office is in US dollar and not in world ticket sold, it must already have converted every revenue in US the year they happened and already fully take it into account. Despite a worst exchange rate, the market still grew overall, but the exchange rate fall of late 2014 is probably why the good progression almost stop between 2013 and 2014.

Not bad at all it is true, around what 10-15% ? 2012 global box office: 34.7 billion 2015: 38.3 billion Avengers market share: 100% * 1.518 / 34.7 = 4.37% Ultron market share: 100% * 1.405 / 38.3 = 3.66% 16% decline in world market share is really good, if the Avengers can succeed at declining by just 10-15% and the market continue to growth they will continue to do ridiculous number for a long time. Imagine if Avatar 2 do just a 16% decline, it will do over 3.3 billion at the box office. Avatar 2.787 / 30 = 9.29% 7.8 * 44 /100 = around 3.4 billion