Barnack

In the 90's most of the BO was made from R rating: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/mpaa-ratings It is early 2000's were it shifted to pg-13 (with Spiderman, Lords of the rings, Potters (PG), X-Men, well franchises)

The way I understood that one it must be a separate deal, but media reporting was not clear on it, some say it's worldwide gross, others is global revenue (making it unclear if it was just the box office or also the rest)

I think it was a bit obvious Civil War: 1150 BvS: 873 Deadpool: 783 Suicide Squad: 745 Doctor Strange: 677 X-Men: 543 And all of them stronger domestic.

Oh, thanks a lot. 600 million Yuan would make around 87 million US, are they getting more than 25% has a Chinese distributor or some other source of revenues ? Because that would be less than the 22 million they paid for, I guess you loose and win some at buying movie in advance before the reviews are out.

That would depend of your definition of draw (they are never the sole reason of a movie success you build your drawing success mostly by an audience that follow you because of your movie choice, otherwise they would not need a real movie at all, just do like Elvis Presley or John Wayne B western movie back in the day when that was true with a 1-2 million production and them in it). If movies can be making significantly more because of your presence your are a box office draw imo. It depend of the market (there is some draw in China, South Korea, etc...) but if talking just at the domestic market there is 2 universal draw in the sense that they could help any movie, whatever what they are playing, audience prefer seeing him playing a defender but they show for Denzel in play like Fence and it is recent but seem assuredly now DiCaprio (is last documentary he produced broke some online record of views I think to show how universal he is). If you expend to draw in a certain genre of movie, there is a lot of them in comedy. Kevin Hart is without a doubt a draw in comedy, him alone doing stand up that he play in theater do good box office, he is the only one that we know for sure "sole reason of some of is movie" Dwayne Johnson in big comedy-actionner (not sure he would work in a pure serious action as well) Melissa McCarthy Will Ferrell A good long list. Tom Cruise in a Tom Cruise movie (he still openned a 37% on RT Jack Reacher 2 over 20 million after all) Tom Hanks playing something grounded (captain Philips, Sully, etc...), he is american Baby Boomers favorite actor after all and they show 1 time a year or so for him: http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-and-life/Tom-Hanks-Favorite-Movie-Star.html

There is 2 stunt double named Moneymaker (sisters)

Is there a good source to see which movies are sales vs others and the amount ?

I imagine that would be the 100 million Wolf of Wall Street ? But yeah I didn't even saw the independent part of the statement, make the 200 million rumors even more strange, good way to create some buzz around the movie.

It is a lot 200M imo, Villeneuve said in a interview: “My producers are finding it fun to remind me that it will be one of the most expensive R-rated independent feature films ever made,” Villeneuve disclosed. The Matrix sequels/Fury road are the biggest R-rated budget ever I think, and their "official" budget are considerably smaller than 200 and normally Blade Runner would be below those title according to that statement. http://www.screendaily.com/news/blade-runner-2049-will-be-r-rated-confirms-denis-villeneuve/5112413.article?blocktitle=LATEST-FILM-NEWS-HEADLINES&contentID=44435

For us normally bigger the budget the better (all things being equal in term of director having creative control and not frozen by the pressure of the financial stake), as long as the movie ticket stay the same price.

Sony is one of the biggest if not the biggest and best distributor (with Fox Searchlight) of indies/world acquisition via Sony Pictures classics, it is most of their release in a year, Whiplash, Foxcatcher, Mr Turner, The raid & The Raid 2, Son of Saul, Take Shelter, The Guard, Skin I live In, Carnage, A Separation, Woody Allens movies etc... They make almost no blockbuster. I think many people would take Baby Driver, Darren Aronofsky movie, Downsizing, Fences, Silence, Arrival, etc.. and other risk Sony/Paramount take over all the Disney live action slate.

I think 2 conversation is a bit going on, it is not about studio that should make them (because obviously like you say, there is so much safer, even with a giant 50 million domestic marketing budget when a Live By Night fail, it fail much more than safer movie). But that it would be nice if audience would watch them, like they did in the past, so we would have more of them, with more resource put in them in theater to watch.

Those 2 movie were full of humors and probably why they worked with audiences.

Rogue One: Net Profit: $319m Deadpool: Net Profit: $322m Less than 1% difference, should probably just put them equal with a who knows...

In 2016, 73% of the ticket sold in US theater were sold to an audience 18 or over according to the MPAA, 89% of people were 12 or over, we don't know how much of those ticket were to parents/guardian being there with the kids at a family movie, but still at the very least 50% of the ticket are sold to adults that are not with kids. Size of the audience is more than big enough for a movie like that to be a giant blockbuster, smaller audience size because you cut yourself from the 2 to 12 and their parents the time they go out with the kids is not the reason Hell or High Water did less than Skyfall, The Graduate, The Sting, The Godfather or American Sniper domestic. Look at the 1970 biggest movie of the year: 1970: Love Story (1970) 1971: Billy Jack (1971) 1972: The Godfather (1972) 1973: The Exorcist (1973) 1974: Blazing Saddles (1974) 1975: Jaws (1975) 1976: Rocky (1976) 1977: Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) 1978: Grease (1978) 1979: Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) And the population is much older now than in the 1970's (median age in 1975 was 29 in the US, it is 38.1 now, movies like Hell or High water could do much more than The Godfather or Kramer Vs. Kramer) It is a multiple of factor 1) I would that yes, it is about a kind of movie being preferred over the others in some ways, specially when talking about the theatrical experience, people prefer the giant spectacle and the movie with comedy in them now. 2) The quantity of spectacle offer, it is hard to compete among the adult audience, at the same ticket price and hassle with a small budget product vs a 200 million budget one and is marketing, but even when they do offer that, a giant 150 million dollar movie like MadMax or The Revenant, they do not come close to Star Wars even among the non family audience.

I am not sure I get the importance of what the pre-sales money is actually used for (collateral for bank loans or Liongates building municipal taxes where the money was from for an enterprise when paying Y is a bit pure semantics no ?), Liongates will made is money back on that project if the amount of revenues they made because of that movie existence is more than the amount of expense that the movie caused + a part of the overall studio administrative cost when actualizing those revenue and cost at the same date. It must be rare that a studio have the permission to not use all of the pre-sales money to reduce the movie production budget directly in their accounting (to make it even a positive if needed), people getting points on the movie profit (co-financier, Elizabeth Banks, owner of the Power Rangers brand name if they are getting point like Hasbro on Transformer, etc...) would really not like it. Without those it make it absolutely impossible for that movie to turn a profit.

New Member 1 post

I would doubt that, Paramount had access (if they did not even paid for their own) to Dreamwork marketing study made by a serious firm about the unaided and aided awareness of the franchise in at least the top 12 world market. Awareness is usually easy enough to asses, but take someone like me, I was fully aware it exist, that it was a Japanese franchise with at least one movie, how much awareness transfer in movie tickets sold is harder to asses. That said, that movie look like it will do over 200 million, with a mediocre reception, that is almost an undeniable proof of the movie good commercial potential, a good one would have almost without a doubt made a good return. Studio do not have access too enough movie project that can work even if the movie do not deliver to make only those. Ghost in a Shell was still more well known than The Martian, All you need is kill, etc... they often do adaptation of stuff because they like the high concept or that the name has some awareness even if people are not familial with the material (that why movie like Tetris or Jack Daniel being developed), here marketing failed because the high concept is really hard to sell.

I doubt they have full control on how many theater/screening a movie can get and decided to drag it instead of passing that mark 2 week ago.

I think it is because they get better TV deals for movie that reach some landmark like 100 million.

I didn't saw many Johansson action movie (didn't saw any Iron Man, Lucy or Gits) so I will have to defer judgement on being wrong for the roles. But Gits seem to be playing close to Oblivion/Elysium (2 of the best comparable for that movie) oversea, will see with the holdover and Japan/China, but even Damon and Cruise do not much more than Gits when the movie do not deliver big time and no one started to say they were wrong for the genre and over, obviously a different track record, but still example of what sci-fi on the colder side with mixed reaction tend to do.

I think people tend to over analyse Hollywood has some entity that groom people, have long term plan (or any concerted plan at all) for them, Lucy for example had nothing to do with Hollywood, it was a 100% French production (at 49 million Euro one of the biggest ever) and still picked her. Production company: EuropaCorp TF1 Films Production Canal+ Ciné+ TF1 Has for Lucy, it had fun marketing of a proven movie trope and one of the biggest director of the planet in Besson. Besson has 4 of the 100 biggest french movie of all time (Lucy being the lowest ticket sellers of those 4), plus some critics/cult hit like Nikita and Leon the Professional, it certainly played in the movie massive overseas success, Besson had is name on the poster in many of them. Has for why Johansson got pick for many action movie, there is the obvious vast acting experience and track record, acting chop for her age, but many has that, how ridiculously beautiful she is probably played a big part of that, specially for action movie that target male audience like Marvel and Ghost in the Shell. Angelina Jolie almost retiring completely from acting leaved a bit of a hole in the female action movie star that Johansson picked up (and Theron with Madmax, Fast and Furious, Atomic Blonde).

Wow, even on 60 minutes and stuff like that ? I knew they did for late night tv shows, but I thought serious journalist interview were different. Is it new ? In the 90's CBS told politicians they would never agree to give questions in advance to politicians, a list of broad topic at best. Sure but usually they must all stick together (serious platform) and loose credibility and ratings if they become junket and simple publicity platform for politicians.

I think an exception should (and if often made) for politicians, most serious platform will refuse to discuss questions before hands, and politicians should be under pressure to do them like this by the public (that will refuse to vote for them if they do not do them). But for actors, obviously it is not a big deal, they are only acting and just there to sell a product with media perfectly free to not participate if they disagree, their is close to 0 importance to that process.

Not really, big star can have a list of question they will refuse to answer (and it is way better to tell it to the interviewer in advance) for movie press junket, they will find enough people for who the access is worth it under those condition. Those you disagree are free to refuse to give the movie any free publicity on their platform, it is a purely commercial transaction those movie promo tour, actor are not politician or executive of a public traded company that have to answer anything to anyone, just please their boss paying them millions to promote the movie. It must be really common, and only the biggest name in "journalism" will get interview with actor during a promo tour without those conditions I would imagine.