Barnack

Those are extremelly weak revenue. theatrical revenue: 486.5 million World HE: 182 million World TV: 167 million Only 835.5 million revenue on a 486.5 million theatrical movie ? That is a 58% revenue from movie theater, I don't remember any movie being close to perform so poorly in the past, usually doing around 50% of your movies revenue from theater was flopping at home video and the worst blockbuster could do. Sure merchandising are not there, so maybe it went to a billion in revenue, but still, 350 million after the theatrical windows without merchandising is less than what Hancock did and that was a 625 million movie at the box office movie, Rogue One did over 1 billion, not a lot from China and is a collector item. The movie 2012 (770 million at the box office) for a comparison World HE: 205.232 million World TV: 155.73 million If those deadline estimate are close to the reality the HE revenue decline was really steep last year.

By the way I get what you are saying (people wanting all superheroes to be dark and gritty or considering them automatically has the best is a bit misleading, let the kids have their movies, most movie are R-rated and for adults), but the Mummy films is one of the oldest cinematic franchise, with tens of entry and is root are in Boris Karloff pre-code horror genre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1932_film) Not really on the comedy side. Disney Indiana Jones reboot will probably be more like the 90's Mummy reboot.

I didn't mention Deakins as a draw factor, more that the movie should look extremely good (every Deakins/Villeneuve release is a candidate for best cinematography of the year) and those imagery will be available to the marketing team. Elder Ford could be a big draw has Jones too, he will not be a Dicaprio for Blade Runner, but him returning to the franchise could help it. Apparently the webtraffic for Gits reviews were really big (so awareness and interest was probably significantly higher than the box office result that seem to have been hurt by mediocre reception), for certain movie (adult audience) RT scores has probably a good influence on the box office scale, a certain type of movies are pretty much dead on arrival without good reviews, Allied for example had no chance. It seem to have a strong correlation between reviews and box office performance (even first weekend) and a bigger one on legs (but obviously after first weekeend it is simply that word of mouth is correlated with reviews and it is what is mostly helping the box office) BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE BY METASCORE, 2006-2015 (FILMS OPENING IN 2,000+ THEATERS) Metascore Range # of Films Avg. Opening Weekend Avg. 2nd Weekend Decline Avg. Multiplier Avg. Total Gross Films scoring 0–19 22 $13,961,514 ▼ 52.5% 2.6 $35,081,918 Films scoring 20–39 301 $16,503,055 ▼ 50.2% 2.8 $47,785,166 all with bad reviews: 323 $16,329,947 ▼ 50.4% 2.8 $46,919,929 Films scoring 40–50 294 $21,353,058 ▼ 49.5% 2.9 $62,658,866 Films scoring 51–60 255 $26,890,484 ▼ 46.2% 3.1 $81,265,377 all with mixed reviews: 549 $23,925,086 ▼ 48.0% 3.0 $71,301,234 Films scoring 61–70 163 $35,480,314 ▼ 44.2% 3.4 $112,446,672 Films scoring 71–80 87 $37,112,105 ▼ 42.1% 3.8 $137,787,032 Films scoring 81–90 29 $49,583,445 ▼ 38.8% 4.3 $197,836,138 Films scoring 91–100 7 $59,076,012 ▼ 37.7% 4.1 $238,356,646 all with positive reviews: 286 $37,984,253 ▼ 42.8% 3.6 $131,895,188 Now correlation does not mean causation, maybe studios spend more on the marketing and are more passionate for the good movies, maybe higher the budget, higher the average reviews, etc... but I think that if Arrival would have had Gits reviews and vice versa, that both movies first weekend performance would have quite different.

Well Runner has Deakins, so we should assume that it will be one of the best looking movie of the year, if not the best looking movie of the year. It has Harrison Ford, even if he is a total non factor for a normal release when he replay a role (Solo, Indiana Jones, etc...) he can add a good appeal or at least giant visibility to a release. It has from Executive producer Ridley Scott and Arrival director Denis Villeneuve that can help, for Sci-fi Scott name is really good. From cinemacon reaction apparently it is visually stunning, and the most anticipated movie from cinemacon. Most of all chance are the the reviews will be much better, it has a chance to do much better domestic.

King Arthur is I think the fist fictional blockbuster English book (when they did a English traduction of the french story that had a love story in it), not so long after the invention of printing, that make it a strong franchise in a way, but also one that was already told so many time. King Arthur movies are not necessarily an automatic commercial success, and it is not surprising that the studios went for a very non-classic approach with it, in their director pick: There is stuff made pretty much every year, but in term of major or semi-major release: 1984 - Excalibur did really well, 35 million domestic. 1995 - First Knight (, Richard Gere, Sean Connery vehicule) did 127.6 million on a 55 million budget. 2004 - Fuqua King Arthur did flop, doing only 51 million domestic, 203 million WW on a 120 million budget. 2007 - Last Legion did 25 million, (6 million domestic as a Weinstein release) I think going in a hilarious/over the top/non serious way with it could be a good decision financially, that type of direction seem to often work recently (Jurassic world, fast and furious, etc....)

Blockbuster definition changed over time a little bit. Before (and still to many), blockbuster is just a word to say it did massive business, you can use it for a book for example and that had a low production budget. Now it tend to include also anything that had a giant business and the ambition to be sold worldwide, movie are called blockbuster before the first weekend now by some. I would have no problem including both, 50 shades of gray is a blockbuster and it is ok in a way to call battleship a blockbuster, even if it does not really fit the original definition of the word.

It depend if you are talking major blockbuster in term of success (say Black Swan being one), or budget Skyfall would fit that description in everyway, other candidate (I have not seen to really say but come up in list like this) Star Trek Beyond, Finding Dory and independence day resurgence. Fit less the description of a blockbuster, but had massive budget or achieve massive success: Cloud Atlas, American Beauty, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, As Good as It Gets

I think there would be a bit of false equivalence going on, I think that a male stripper doing Bachelorette type of party is a a bit of a different profession and vibe than the usual female strippers doing private event. I'm not sure they particularly encounter violence vs the average profession, it would really surprise me if it is a job close to be as dangerous as say being a taxi driver.

Dan Carlin's talked about that in is hardcore history podcast, for a while because citizen ship was only accessible to white people often went to court to argue that they were white, and there was a windows that Irish were not whites in the sense of the law but Mexican and some Asians were.

Without being all white it was apparently really close https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_New_York_City Wikipedia say 97.14% white in 1920 for NY city. I don't know for the actual part the action take place in the movie (Bronx was 99.31% white for example), but it could have really close to be all white.

In term of accolade and success, uplifting fun movie like Hidden Figures, Guardian of the galaxy, Zootopia, La la land, finding dory, Kubo, Moana, Beauty and the beast, Force Awaken still often do very well.

Well there is reviewers whose jobs seem to be considered: Tell me the chance that I like it if I buy a ticket (so pretty much the same as anyone talking about a movie after seeing it). And their is critics, whose jobs is to do stuff a friend that have seen a movie and doing recommendation is not expected to do : A critic, on the other hand, will spend less time reviewing content and more time placing the item in context with works of a similar nature so there is a basis of comparison for judgment. There is no point in judging a detective novel by the same standards that you would judge a book of poetry, or a Country music CD by those you’d use for an opera. Each of these has their own set of criteria that has been established by precedent over the years, and it is the critic’s job to understand enough about a genre to judge how well an individual piece fits within it. This is even more important when dealing with pieces that are experimental in nature. A critic has to be able to understand not only what is being attempted, but also how well the attempt succeeds based on the norm that is being broken. A critic has to be able to inform his or her audience about any information that is pertinent to the item being critiqued. For a critic the context of the work (in the artist body of work, in the society it was made in) will tend to be taken into account, people complaining that a critic compare a superheroes movie quality and content to the other super heroes movie of is era, previous movies of a director or the original movie in the case of a remake, saying that they should evaluate the movie in a vacuum are going against a lot of what criticism is, everyone can evaluate a movie in a vacuum doing more than that is often what professional critics are paid to do and what could interest their reader's. The same goes when people point stuff like: That silly movie got better criticism than that serious one !?! It is ok to use the intent to judge a movie.

XXX3 did extremelly well no ?, getting close 350 million, once you adjust for the movie target audience (average US ticket price they pay and Diesel social media presence) xXx3 huge amount of views seem coherent with is box office.

That box office mojo is suspiciously low imo, the gross budget was around 96.28 million: https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=GqkbSZEd3QDTAlWLjuQ2Rw%3d%3d 36 million (37.5%) in net tax credit sound like a lot.

This time most of the complain is that they stayed too faithful to the original source material (something you heard too with Beauty and the Beast movie)

Better script, director, producer (well better project in general) with better release is yes the biggest factor, that does not mean that drawing power does not exist, it just mean that isolating that factor is really hard (they just found 7 draw while trying to remove quality of project/release from the actors in the 90's I think, Hanks being one of them). Look at Kevin Hart, him alone on a stage: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kevinhart2016.htm He open that over 10 million, he has without a doubt drawing power in a comedy he does not even need a movie, not every actor has grosses all over the map, look at Denzel first weekend: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=denzelwashington.htm All is wide release made over 20 million since out of time, that is 12 in row, and the 3 movie before out of time made over 20 too, it is really hard to argue that Denzel has no drawing power. Yes bad movies, even in Tom Hanks peak, would have an hard time succeeding, people are not arguing that drawing power is John Wayne during B western movie into success making 100 time their production budget, there is 700 theatrical release, drawing power is turning one of the 12 new movie release this weekend into something people take an interest in, giving it a chance to get out of the lot. But people do not start some Superheroes genre has no drawing power when Super, punisher war zone or KickAss 2 fail. Believing that drawing power is only a myth is believing that The Revenant open at 39 million with an unknown lead if giving the same theater count, that The Heat and Identity Thief open over 34 million without Melissa McCarthy, do you really believe that ? There is a long list of really good movie getting really good release with actors in the right roles that fail, like The Nice Guys last year it is far to be an automatic that a good movie, with good promotions and actor in the good roles will work.

Landau/James Cameron can probably take a hit they must feel (and I would say legitimately) a bit outsider in term of success, it is not because something similar fail that their version will, with Fox not saying no to them and probably doing their side project without necessarily expecting a return on those, a bit like they did on Solaris in the early 2000's. How much it is niche once it is not a big franchise do not really matter imo, all you need is kill was extremelly niche, The Martian was not that big of a deal, every original movie ever had zero pre-made fanbase.

That what Shane Black said about it, apparently he had started developing a 5th one, in a post 2001 world modern police needed some old-school cops ready to not play by the rules to fight a terrorist threat, kind of scenario. No passage of the torch type of deal to setup new sequels, more a they are really too old for this now. It was cancelled like many Gibson project when he started having professional issues.

Magnificent Seven had clearly a star powers factor going on in the US and in South Korea with Byung-hun Lee making the movie overperform there quite a bit. Has for why we cannot seem to isolate much help from Pratt, I think there is some factor going on that could explain even thought he helped that we do not see it. First Mag 7 overperformed a little bit domestic over the prediction of some (made when it was a Denzel-Liam Neeson vehicule), that was the estimate made by someone in worldwide marketing and distributions at sony: DBO $85M IBO $65M April 2016 U.S. Release date Exclude MGM territories It did $93.4 DBO/68.9IBO (but with MGM territories) and if you adjust for the exchange rate used to do the estimate in early 2014, it did well International too for a Denzel western. And I think replacing Neeson(that was kind of a big action star for a while) and not being a bigger draw than him in a Western is why, studios tend to pair Denzel in movies like this with some element that has a draw over the weaker demography for Denzel, that will often be white young female for the type of movie he do. They will often pair him with Wahlberg, Chloe Moretz, etc... to broaden that appeal and now used Pratt, so to compare is impact is comparing how much Pratt is draw over the usual appeal complements used on a Denzel big movie, not comparing him to nothing.

Stayed pretty much the same, very few can open a movie (without any IP, genre, commercial hook, giant production/marketing) to 20M and those who do are considered big draw.

I wish people will remember this everytime an adaptation/remake fail and people assume that it is because they didn't respect the original content enough and didn't do it enough like in the book (or game, or anything it is from), it is far from an automatic that a direct adaptation would have succeeded, people would be saying that if the movie would have diverged a lot and was currently failing.

Well it was 12+ in France and 13+ in my market (both John Wick 1/2, Logan and Deadpool) so it is not like it is a really strange opinion many official rating agency agree with her. The MPAA is really strick (and puritan) has a rating agency worldwide, in a lot of country those type of movie are seen as for teenager (and arguably they are designed to be and will be watched by them anyway).

What is really important for a studio are total revenues, the nature of them is not that important. They love domestic because of how good the after theatrical market is for them (and they get a bit from the box office in that market), in average it look like that 1$ at the domestic box office is worth about 1.3$ foreign at the end of all windows, that a rules of thumb that you can use to compare movie performance with different box office dbo/ibo ratio. Let just say that if Warcraft had the same WW box office but mostly domestic, it would have a success instead of a small flop.

This, at this point, I do not know how much it represent in bigger TV revenues, but you buy 90k of ticket, you get 50% back anyway it come cheap.

For Lucy American underrate Besson factor in Europe quite a bit I think, but it is still a massive performance that would make talk of bo poison, non-sense. Has for being a draw, she was so busy with franchise and in supporting gig (in a really impressive long streak of fresh reviewed movie) that strangely it took until this year to have 2 movie to try to prove it. From a studio point of view, she has really strong metric: Territory Awareness Total Awareness M-25 Awareness M25+ Awareness F-25 Awareness F25+ Popularity Total Popularity M-25 Popularity M25+ Popularity F-25 Popularity F25+ Survey Date Australia 0.88 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.55 0.53 0.59 0.49 0.55 Apr-14 Brazil 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.93 0.89 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.75 0.72 Apr-14 France 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.60 0.67 0.62 0.63 0.53 Apr-14 Germany 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.93 0.93 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.60 0.66 Apr-14 Italy 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.92 0.63 0.68 0.59 0.63 0.65 May-12 Japan 0.36 0.19 0.44 0.30 0.43 0.28 0.21 0.35 0.25 0.25 May-12 Korea 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.54 0.60 Mar-14 Mexico 0.83 0.80 0.86 0.83 0.84 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.77 0.70 Apr-14 Russia 0.92 0.88 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.52 0.51 0.48 0.52 0.56 Mar-14 Spain 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.62 0.63 0.70 0.63 0.53 Apr-14 UK 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.55 0.67 0.58 0.51 0.46 Apr-14 Int'l Average 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.56 And those are april 2014 numbers, before Lucy, Ultron, Civil War, etc... the japan number from early 2012 are obviously before a lot of marvel stuff, she is a little bit more popular among men than women, but that is normal for very good looking actress doing those type of movie, it is also true for Jolie. Having huge awareness and even being popular does not equal box office draw, Harisson Ford and Morgan Freeman are 2 of the actor with the best metric, everyone love them, no one buy ticket just because they are in a movie (but they make really good spokemans for a company), but with those number's she have I would not use a rotten movie with bad marketing (in my opinion at least, the trailer didn't have any hook or any indication about story, goal, what we would root for or anything) that she is not one, but she will say an unknown. Her didn't do more than Ex Machina, with a best picture nomination and an award release date for a bit of a question mark on her drawing power, We bought a zoo didn't seem to benefit, but Don Jon did really well and Lucy extremely well. Will see oversea opening for Ghost to see if in some of her best market (U, Russia, Mexico, brazil) if she has some impact.