Barnack

I think it would be fair to call it a franchise: media franchise is a collection of related media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original creative work (usually that of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game. A media franchise is characterized by its components generally sharing a common fictional universe. They made many product in many medium with the Avatar world: A big cirque du soleil live show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toruk_-_The_First_Flight A Big video game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron's_Avatar:_The_Game An attraction park opening in may: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_–_The_World_of_Avatar Books too: https://www.amazon.com/Avatar-Confidential-Biological-History-Camerons/dp/0061896756 They franchised Avatar pretty much as much as movies can be, short of the sequels that are in the way.

I heard some talk about the crocodile pratical effect make up job and obviously the Joker hair and makeup was talked over and over. For superheroes movie, costumes, hair and makeup are commented a lot usually.

You would trust those people about the quality of the hair and make up achievement more than an Oscar committee , for a movie that was nominated by a branch of people that have all worked in hair & makeup ? That is a really strange conversation in this thread, no one ever said that the makeup job in that movie was not impressive and I think most would agree that the opinion of the Hair&Make Up artist branch of the academy about that aspect of film making has more value than random people, with that said, so what ?

Great care was took around the movie secrecy, so maybe he will not want to burn it with a festival, regular people test audience or a slow release, specially if it is possible to sell as horror and just open wide in October, no festival, no platform release.

This, some thought at Sony that expecting 50 million domestic was too high and that 35 mm was more realistic. I agree that it is not saved by oversea, it is made by design for the oversea market. That was about the expectation from the leaked email: Last one did $35M DBO and the one before $52M. Should we go lower on DBO – like $35-40M maybe? If IBO is $100m (ex France, Germany/Austria, Switzerland, Belgium), this should work for the numbers. As for the budget of 40M, that sound a bit low, maybe it got a surprise exchange rate rebate, but they were aiming at a budget of $50 - $60M in 2014. and the previous entry were (and maybe that is after removing the pre-sales money from from the budget) Extinction: 40.5 million AfterLife: 53.6 million Retribution: 75.44 million

Well Gibson not only had to finance is movies himself, but had to also distribute outside the studio system or pay himself for their distribution and marketing. And didn't act or direct a MPAA studio movie in a long time, except for Edge of Darkness it seem. I think now it will be possible, but it took a very long time and he had to make a lot of money with is non studio movies.

As you should, people should simply read both court document directly, I don't think anyone know more than that anyway. One difference between Affleck and some others scandal is that even if all the alleged event are true in those plaint in court, it is on the civil side, it is you should never act like that at work even in the movie industry type of stuff, and not action you go to prison for. As for him not caring or if it matter, I think it probably did impact is career, he was releasing movies every year and starting too do so again, he had a little 2008-2009 hole in is cinematography just after those incident (and after the release of Jesse James one of the best acting of that decade). Everyone in the industry probably knew about it and I would imagine could have made him hard to fully insure for a while for some projects. I don't think he would mind playing in blockbuster, he was in many of those, Interstellar recently, before that he was in the Ocean's eleven franchise, Triple 9 was close to an action movie (movie not that good but the action in it was extremely good). If Tarantino, Nolan, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Cuaron, insert others would want him in their next big blockbuster I don't think he would say no I just want to work on low budget, low profile movies.

Not sure what those 2 movies have to do or have in common with the next Aronofsky ? It is not like actor's have much to do with a movie quality.

Oh you are right, until your movie does not loose your second choice is never counted anyway..... It can only work in the nomination phase process (and not against front runner) In the nhl award voting is difference, because first place give X points, second place Y points, and so on, giving a big impact of not putting someone in your top 5.

I don't think anyone will vote for something number one in a strategic way, like you say that is a bit complicated and it will be rare for that strategy to help more than you simply voting your favorite number 1. But "lying" about your second to 5 choice (or at least your top 3), by putting only movies that are not a treat to your favorite choice even if some of the frontrunner are in your top 5 in reality is extremely easy to do.

That what people are calling tactical voting I would think. Say someone number one movie of the year is Moonlight and want Moonlight to win, maybe is second/third favorite is La la land but he write instead movied that has no chance to win in position 2 to 5 and leave La la land out to help Moonlight. Some voting in the nhl give in details the result (how many number 1,2,3,4,5 vote each people got) and sometime it is obvious that someone did leave a favorite and clear top 3 best player that year out of is ballot completely to help is number one choice. It is rare (say 1 or 2 among 30 voters) but it happen.

Can you explain how that is the case, preferential make it hard for a passion pick to win and favorise consensus it seem to me, how that boost reaction voting ? Also it has been a long time since we got a partisan type of political movie winning, except if pedophile priest or free well funded press is seen as a partisan issue now ? (if you ever see Moonlight I think you will be surprised by how much it is not political in the sense you think, for example there is nothing about white being racist or white guilt or anything like that or political even when he get arrested by the cops it is by a black women cops to make sure nothing about that come taint the movie)

And the academy rarely miss a chance to nominate a big studio movie, when they do a big spectacle non franchise movie from time to time, they have a really good chance to get in a much higher chance that low budget output. Arrival, The Martian, The Revenant, MadMax, Avatar, Inception, Gravity, Django Unchained, Life of Pi, there is not that many big movie in recent year's that were snubbed. A good argument could be made for Guardian of the Galaxy that could have been there, Force Awaken, Gone Girl and maybe a bit more of the big animated movie could have made it in best picture, but not that much more than that were Oscar material.

You can't have relevance if people do not care, but arguably if people do not know it is were it has the most relevance. Nominated and winning for a movie people saw has pretty much zero relevance, making people discover movies because of the award season has one. As for a small group of like minds, over 45 million world wide watch the ceremony, I would imagine hundreds of millions consults the results, it is not that small of number, store will have all the best pictures dvd selling together on the same shelf. Source ? Every year in recent time, best pictures winner has a clear boost at the box office and an theater expension as well, and certainly there will be a best picture effect on home video performance, lot of people will discover that movie because of the Oscar (and many who saw it was because it was an oscar nominated, globe winner movie). No one discovered Return of the king because of the Oscars, that was probably not relevant at all.

Opinions need to be possibly right or wrong (even if it is something that no humans can really answer right now, like George Bush is a bad president, it would be hard for anyone to really answer that but it could maybe be wrong) When a mechanic give is opinion on the strange noise your car are making, he will be proven right or wrong by the inspection and repairs. At least that what come up when you search taste vs opinion vs fact or read the different definition. https://philosophyfactory.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/fact-opinion-taste-and-belief-its-all-in-your-head-or-is-it/ “Fact” is something that CAN be verified using an objective measure. So, a factual statement is something like, it’s 400 miles from Oakdale, MN to Omaha, NE. If we can define where the trip should start and stop, then we can measure the miles in between and arrive at a conclusion…. SO, if two people disagree about a factual claim, it’s the kind possible to show that one person is right and the other is wrong. “Opinion” by way of contrast to a “fact” an opinion is something that two people could disagree about, and both can be right…. because an opinion is a statement supported by evidence. The thing is, we can look at many different kinds of evidence and use a variety of methods to reason to differing conclusion. So, it may be the case that it’s your opinion that Obama is a good president (and you’ll look at the evidence that supports your side and the other side will look at evidence that supports their side..). Until you can agree on what constitutes “good”, then perhaps it can be a factual claim. “Taste” — is different than opinion — because it’s intensely personal. I prefer cats to dogs, i prefer macs to PCs, and iphone to an android etc… your taste may be different.

As for the Marvel lack of success at the Oscars, I think Ike Perlmutter was well known to be extremely cheap with the critics (giving them sandwich and really cheap screening without any party) but also extremely cheap come concerning Oscar campaign (and is views were a bit controversial, for example he was a major Trump donors). It could change now that he is out and that Disney took complete and direct control of the Marvel studio (the movie part). It would not surprise me if they start campaigning better and winning some tech category.

I think you are making the really common mistake of mixing togethers opinions and taste (most people do when talking about movies). Liking a movie, or chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream are taste, not opinions. An opinions is a position that someone defend with arguments, you need for your statement to be possibly right or wrong to call it an opinion (otherwise it is simply a taste). To give a common example: - I like that humanity went to the moon, that is someone taste. - It was a good use of ressource and a good thing overall that we went to the moon, that is an opinion. So like you said, stating your taste: My favorite movie is, is simply stating a taste. X movie was better than Y movie, is an opinion, one that people would expect an argumentation to support that position.

They have signed a contract with Disney, that pay them 70-75 million a year to distribute the show on TV, and you think that they should break that contract and do no live telecast of what is what the third most watched things on Television in a normal year ? That represent the vast majority of the Academy source of revenue ? It is by design yes the Industry promoting itself on television, I'm not sure why one care, what is the difference between a world with no Oscar ceremony, and just not watching it ?

That is so much stupid to blame anything that happen during the show (specially toward the end) to talk about ratings that no one would ever think of doing so, people are already watching or not watching at that point. Has for people having taste and stearing clear ? 1) It is still one of the most watched show (so people are clearly not stirring clear of it). 2) The show this year was not boring, but yeah last year average spectacle didn't help for this year rating. 3) TV ratings naturally goes down for everything, TV in general is down. The 2017 Superbowl had the lowest rating since 2010, it was arguably the best superbowl of all time spectacle wise and had the highest tv share since 1979 (79% of people watching TV were watching it, but it was still lower in total than usually), there is simply less people watching TV now.

He got good momentum before Oscar nomination, he had a SAG nom, bafta nom, Golden globe nomination, BFCA.

53% is the most common I saw for big movies domestic (from the theatrical chain cost of movies in their financial statement to the sony leaks), in the past it (say before 2007) it was often 55 to 58% when studio got a larger share of the first weeks. 40% is the ratio used by deadline estimate and is close to what movie do according to the different leaks, some movies that are strongly in good market and get the best deal like the Harry Potter/Davinci Code type of franchise movie can make more, say 45%, some movies do less like 35%, 40% is a good rough estimate. For example, using the Sony leaked revenues projections for Hotel Transylvania, that is the share of the gross they used by main market: Australia: 40% Autria: 40% Belgium: 42% Brazil: 43% France: 38% (france finance their own production by taxing the box office of overseas movies) Germany: 43% Holland: 38% Italy: 40% Japan: 48% Korea: 47% Mexico: 38% Russia: 42% Spain: 43% UK: 32% For an world average of 40% It change a bit from studio to studio and type of movies I would think, like on the domestic market. China 25% return is really well known.

One of Deakins favorite work and top tier Coens for me.

The Oscar became less relevant in the popularity sense when a large proportions of household with a tv were watching them. But in a other way, they became more relevant, "Oscar type movies" seem to almost need the award season platform to get made now. No country for old man was much better on rewatch than the first watch for me. As for the political stuff, I think I fully agree with the: They should speak if they want too, and people that do not like it should probably just not watch it specially in a year like this, but I suspect many will hate watch it to be involved in the talk.

As for all we have to go on, this is getting less true, some jurisdiction started to release the audited budgeted number used in the tax credit form, if the movie use a UK tax credit we often learn a year after or so the real cost (with sometime massive difference from the reported budget, 50%+ type of difference): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2241523/Captain-America-given-18-8m-tax-credits-classed-British-film.html or https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2014/07/22/fourth-pirates-of-the-caribbean-is-most-expensive-movie-ever-with-costs-of-410-million/#2db0373b364f. If the movie is shot in Louisiana we know the real cost too: https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearch.aspx And those match exactly the numbers used in Sony leaked accounting. California, New-York and others also started making public their tax credit to project, but they only publish the local expense. For example all the recent California state expense available for tax credit: http://www.film.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/Incentives Documents/Website Approved Projects List Online 2.10.17.pdf New-York made them public (for stuff made after 2013), for example to know what was the minimum budget for a movie like John Wick: https://cdn.esd.ny.gov/Reports/2015_2016/Q1_2016_FTC_Report.pdf Maybe in a near future, Georgia will make them public, Vancouver, Montreal and other place and we will not need to rely on the press anymore.

Do studio often report a movie budget ?, if they would we could go with those, but I never seen one studio financial report talking about a particular movie budget, just the complete slate total cost, almost all of the time we go by reported rumors and they do not have that good of a track record (not bad enough to be 100% useless, but really not that good). I'm not sure Kong will get good tax credit if most of the shoot is in Vietnam(place like Australia tax credit are conditional for the movie being mostly made in Australia) and it is hard to know for how much a studio achieve to sell their tax credit even when we know the gross tax credit amount. Gross is obviously irrelevant when estimating a studio profit, but is a good starting point to estimate similar movie net cost when they are not shoot under the same tax credit jurisdiction, anyway I do not know the last Apes movie net cost, after a Louisiana gross Tax credit of 26.42 million and I would assume some others, but we know the estimated gross cost ($235,329,911) as a reference point.