Barnack

Well no, not according to Netflix (at least they have yet to say so), I could be misreading but what the article is saying: More people watched in the debut of the season release 2 minutes of Witcher than at the debut of Stranger Things season 1 watched 70% of the hole serie. I think we have absolutely no idea how many people watched the Witcher.

Do they gain much versus the LLC they already had before making them ?

I would not assume that mean they put money in it because they got a producing credit and profit participation too. I could check but it is really common for big names to have their production company credited.

Is it really that clean and low amount of player's ? Last Pacific Rim: Production Companies Legendary Entertainment (present) (as Legendary Pictures) Universal Pictures (present) Legendary Entertainment (A Legendary Pictures/DDY Production) Double Dare You (DDY) (A Legendary Pictures/DDY Production) Khorgos Shanwei Film (in association with) (as Khorgos Shanwei Film Co., Ltd.) Dentsu (presented in association with) Fuji Television Network (presented in association with) UpperRoom Productions Pikachu: Production Companies Warner Bros. (presents) (as Warner Bros. Pictures) Legendary Entertainment (presents) (as Legendary Pictures) The Pokemon Company Toho Company (in association with) (as Toho Co., Ltd) Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit Nintendo (additional copyright holder) Creatures (additional copyright holder) GAME FREAK (additional copyright holder) And I imagine that many private fund /venture capital not dedicated to movie are not listed in those. Maybe they will take a swing on something like Dune too, apparently Universal went all-in on the $175-$200M Dolittle, from time to time I imagine the big player's do take huge risk on some franchise starter.

Not sure how true it is in the last season of Last Chance U on Netflix when the football coach started massively firing is staff (a 100% male crowd, some on the older side) one said that the Hunger Games begin and one other started doing the whistle thing. As for the YA genre dead even the dystopia subgenre it is not a all or nothing case, it is an harder sale and to your point thing to bring something new, but Ready Player One just did $580M WW, but it is hard to see what this one could offer for fresh twist like this one did (and arguably Alita Battle angels had a bit of a fresh twist on that YA-dystopia, impressive visual and production and failed to take off but still did $400M for a supposed dead genre).

That sound unlikely, that Liongates, probably have middle confidence in this, they will probably try to be exposed to less than 15% of that budget after international pre-sales like usual (if they do not achieve to sell it for more than it's budget like the HG sequels). SuccessfulI but with a 50% less than the last film at least, Harry Potter is a very special franchise and giant studio blockbuster what all that come with it in product placement/WW promoting machine . I would imagine a 60-70M production really happy to make 250-275M WW like Divergent did at the peak of the genre.

For people old enough (if there is on this message board?), how does it compare versus the conscription time of the Vietnam war ? I imagine that recent and current common enemy of WW2 and the cold war created some form of unity

I feel that the casting as well, production can do signaling to audience with it, and having Bautista/Momoa/Zendaya/Brolin can send a message do not worry this is not an art film, it is a legitimate blockbuster affair to segment of the population (while having Bardem/Chamalet/Rampling type and Villeneuve directing has an other population have no worry has well), the AI working for distributor seem to be working well.

True, Tree of Life and Malick/Paul Thomas Anderson work in general look amazing, it seem it help a lot (Gravity/Revenant/Dunkirk) but you need something to go with it. It is saying a bit of the same (and going into you need more than looking great), but it would not surprise me if the appeal of the visuals was quite mainstream, it is the 8.188x OW/thursday preview multiplier from what I imagine terrible WOM among a good part of the audience once they saw it that really what hurted it. It had a better start than the best comparable that I can think of: Fury Road after all.

The first trailer made it look almost the opposite of Bond in the spy genre too, low budget vs 300M gross budget type of production, prestigious Austin Martin on the fanciest world location vs grim and didn't not seem to hint that it is set in the same world, in that sense I do not know how much from the producer of Bond production/EON help here, but yes that a case for which there was probably a bidding of interested distributor and just didn't find is hard to define working tone (if it failed, who know if it would not surprise)

Not sure I agree with this, a specific family is presented has easy to manipulate, the character do point out many time that they are specially so. Same goes for the have-nots (some live a miserable life in a secret basement) and in like most Hoo movies, all characters are filled with flaws.

Good trailers can probably survive bad reviews quite well (the Transformer had them for example) That quite the strange take even for him: "RDJ" is clearly no stronger now than it was prior to becoming Tony Stark. Does the Sherlock Holmes both make half a billion and Due Date over $200M with 2005 RDJ ? Dolittle make more than 2x Star Wars on OW with 2005 RDJ ? Maybe, who knows, but that is quite far from being clear. Is looking at the 2008 Tropic Thunder result with today glass is also quite misleading, I am pretty sure that movie made a huge bank. He contradict itself right away saying : Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes movies, which amounted to a strong “star+character” There’s a lot that went wrong with Dolittle, but chief among them was spending MCU money (and giving Downey Jr. an MCU paycheck) for playing anyone other than Iron Man. I would say that it was not even in the movie problem, how different would have been the story if RDJ would have got a Walberg not in Transformer type of money on this (say around $12-14M, there would be virtually nothing different if it would have been 184M instead of 190M budget with a on a more budget up front salary)..... Universal will survive the “disaster in relation to cost” miss that is Dolittle, thanks to both 1917 Also by being part of an over 30B media conglomerate, I doubt any movie even doing $0 can kill a major-studio with how big they become (and how big the TV business tend to be relative to the movie side of them)

Removing the But the shipping of white relationships over interracial relationships as part of a broad pattern among multiple fandoms is evidence of racism, is quite the editorial choice. It is really normal to be racist, it is probably the human norm (over almost all history and all place). that a strange opposition that normal mean it is not racist. Higher level of empathy not just attraction to people that look like what you saw around you growing up is indeed quite normal, it does not mean that it is not part of the source of a lot of problems. One big potential problem with that article (and that hole field philosophie) is the amount of importance giving by who said what and about none about what is said, the article often criticize the research for not saying the skin color of the person writing on twitter, Internet could have been a way to get out of sexism/racism in discourse quite a lot if not completely, but we made sure to put it there quite fast.

May as well close this message board, it is all about bullshiting hypothetical.

Big Martin Luther King 4 days holiday weekend domestic with + remain of Holiday season (star wars-jumanji, etc...) + award player expansion season for 1917 create some storm I imagine.

It is surprising how close something like a You season 2 or an very old Strangers Thinks are......... not even making 1.5 an finished for how long Games of Thrones, I would have expected a much larger step for something new. Well the last release of that show is many month old by now no, it mean very little Spongebob and Games of Thrones are also ahead.

Is MLK weekend legs wuite different than memorial day weekend legs ? Because the coverage of this versus say Tomorrowland did sound quite different and that opened significantly above 30M for 4 days (42.7M), with not too different budget.

Not from what I understand, what was special about Mission Impossible 3 was Tom Cruise direct access to DVD revenues and the size of the first dollar gross cut (22.% with a cut of 100% dvd was a giant deal). It went back to a more frequent 10-15% (say Bullock on Gravity) and not necessarily 100% off Home ent: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-feb-15-la-et-cruise15-2010feb15-story.html The good news is that Mr Cruise takes no cash fee up front for his acting or producing role, which otherwise would be $35m-plus per film. The bad news is that Mr Cruise gets 22 per cent of the gross revenues received by the studio on the theatrical release and the television licensing. Even worse, from the studio’s point of view, is Mr Cruise’s 12 per cent cut of Paramount’s total DVD receipts. That was quite big compared to a say a more standard 10% of the gross with 20% of DVD receipts being calculated toward the gross of the movie (so 2% of the sales instead of 12% for Cruise). Cameron, Spielberg, Bay, Nolan-DiCaprio-Tarantino-Washington, etc... still get those deal from time to time and RDJ on this. Look at what happened on Men in Black 3, made after that mission impossible 3 and Angels&demon were crippled by first dollar gross deal. Cameron Diaz famously made a fortune on Bad Teacher in 2011, making the movie with almost nothing up front but a strong first dollar gross deal.

Not really this is the post 2000s with a big name veteran and elite representation, he would have signed like any veteran a very clear profit calculation formula robust toward Hollywood accounting practice (it is really not a % of net profit that anyone ever got, except if they actually own part of the movie), when Anniston/Fincher/Affleck/Sorkin/Tom Hanks/Cruise/Washington/DiCaprio/Lawrence/Spielberg/Streep ever accept to make a movie without a gross deal, I really doubt they make $0 if they turn out a bit hit like a book writer that signed is first adaptation right with is editor at the same time he got is publishing deal. Getting well paid even in case of a flop is nice, not having to care about cost overrun as well if you can it, but I would imagine there is something (specially for those that worked in the 80s-90s-early 2000s) really prestigious about getting first dollar gross deal, a bit like getting the $20M upfront must be quite different than 17.5M for them and why that number come up so often. Do you think all the conversation about Jeremy Renner-Rusell-Bale-Cooper getting 9% of the "profit" while Adams-Lawrence were getting 7% of them was all about money no one ever saw anyway and empty talk about percentage point of $0 or that the studio was giving away 50% of gross revenues ?

It is high, but not sure about insane, making 262 episodes of something would cost them way more.

Mother of god what is any of this !?! People do care if people write fantasy 50 shades fan fiction style about adult character in a fantasy movie ? That must be new. I didn't knew (but I imagine should not be surprised) that people cared that much about the new Star Wars, but that said this is an article a bit hard to follow, it seem to get a lot of annectode and not much large data/comparison being made to validate any of the hypothesis and seem to use some of the least unnoticed hatred of woman online like the very talked about Kelly Marie Tran and Last Jedi reception. The article seem to miss 2 important think (well I didn't read carefully and didn't know much if anything before this). 1) Are most Reylos really woman and the group from who they receive hate proportionally more male than the star wars fanbase already is. 2) If they are, are the "Reylo" being in a relationship fan composed more of woman than other pair (say the reylo with finn or poe) 3) If they are not, does people that like those other pair get has much hate ? Does not seem clear why the focus is about those who prefer that pair than the other, if the reason is that the group is majority more of woman (but maybe when they do not like something, if it is something that woman like it get more virulent). It seem a strange way to study something.

More than doubled it's budget at the box office with direct to video/netflix deal in some major market like the USA, probably made good money overall and probably low marketing spending in almost all markets.

Is there many western adult that do not work on their birthday ?

Snowpiercer did very well in is natural market (South Korea-France), 86m for a French/Czech/South Korea without any studio involved in distribution is probably even on quite good side.

It get quite more complicated, it is even possible for an high expectation / low box office movie to loose more of it's budget, because often total marketing cost is bigger than the movie budget, maybe not for the 175-300m budget movie with some franchise power and good product placement, but for the 75-100m movie it can often happen. Take an very famous complete flop like Stealth: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl4235429377/ 76.932m WW on a 131.935m net budget. theatrical revenues Domestic: $16.284M intl: $18.319M World Theatrical release cost: $98.8M Net theatrical revenues: $64M, they are now nearly $200M in the red. they made post theatrical 45.532 in domestic home ent, $34M INTL, about 40.8M on TV, 1.1M on airlines, add a reasonable $10M overhead, 3.05M gross bonus, 4.5M in residual, overall the studio lost $125M on it. How do you know: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl341673473/ 48.7M at the WW box office on a 111.09M net budget achieved to loose $113.9M, more than it's budget and that without any of the star's having first dollar gross going on and a standard toward dumping it even release cost under 75M WW.