Barnack

An extremely leggy (thus we can assume quite liked/good wom) first entry and a quietly timed sequel do tend to hold up nicely but something like a Jurassic World 2 from Jurassic World would not be that special, and that give us domestic: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Jurassic-Park#tab=summary 417,719,760/652,270,625*404,508,916 = 259 millions dbo.

He does great box office analysis.... Does he thought ?

Small percentage of $50K for an agency is not getting paid, they sometime hide low paying job for them to try to get 10% of millions at some point (imagine missing an Marvel offer because of some scheduling conflict that paid them 10% of 250k....) They will even hide from their bigger name movies offer for which they cannot force the production to use many of their clients in the smaller role sometime and push toward movies that they can. Louis CK explained that when he was casting Horace and Pete, that he had to get the big popular actors direct phone numbers or approaching them in real life at event, has that type of project usually to not reach them if they go via their agency.

Most people in most country tend to feel quite the same the minute it concern part of their country (Canada right now is refusing entry to the Catalan separatist leader), independent tend to be good for others far away, but if Alberta, Texas, Québec, Catalan's, etc... want it, people from the country that would break it up tend to talk quite against it.

Jonah Hill made a Scorsese movie on SAG minimum and it was not necessarily a bad move for him, it really depend of the goal but doing small independent movie or having a small but good part on a Paul Thomas Anderson movie is not seen have having to do non-paying gig doing favors, but building your credibility for the next one. That exactly the type of stuff is team could hide for him, you seem to be saying about the same thing.

Is statement is strange in many way. An assembly cut is far from all the footage shot for a film, some movie have over 200 hours of films, now with multiple digital camera filming at the same time I would imagine 500 hours could occur (looking it up, Fury Road kept a big 480 hours of footage usable for the editors, the assembly cut is not 480 hours long with anyone watching that). It is made by the team of editors a lot of choice/works goes into making it. There is often no link at all between the assembly cut and the director of the movie (Nolan and many other famously do not ever watch the assembly cut before starting their own cut, just small part of it and go back to the footage bank that exist as they go, they are so terrible that they can demoralize, they put the editors choice in your head and so on) it is something that exist just for a very short amount of time when the photography is done, why would he bring the assembly cut in the conversation, it does not make sense.

Even if the movie would be neutral about Russia, positive about it, not sure they would have shot there. Disney didn't event went to shoot anything in Africa for something like Black Panther, it is a lot I imagine for them about quality of local crew, local tax credits system, easiness and so on and was not because they would not have had a good reception from the locals. Luc Besson went to shoot Anna there: https://www.rbth.com/arts/330665-luc-besson-anna-russia-sasha-luss-criticism And I doubt he showed KGB agents in a positive light, Russia censor what do play in theater (and this will almost without a doubt play without problem it is Marvel nothing politically shocking will probably ever happen), but accepting money for local production, I doubt they care too much for the content.

Hungary tend to have the nice tax credit, world level crew and installation and what Hollywood use to pass for Russia yes: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3480822/locations

He could be loving the attention around it, convention crowd and so on, thus the speaking in metaphor and pictures. He could also be wanting a couple of millions of dollar and the right to finish it (some sound mix, some VFX, color grading touch, etc...). Assembly cut is the weeks after the shoots, it really quickly become a rough cut.

Really not sure that what in assembly cut is, footage will be say 80 hours, the assembly cut of said footage will be 4, the final movie will be 2. The assembly cut is still somewhat trying to be a movie, you do not see the actor saying the same sentence with different coverage and different take of it. The name kind of says it all—an assembly cut is a very rough version of the movie that's been put together by the editor during production, and it strings together every single scene that was shot. This is not a releasable version of a movie, but instead is more akin to a rough draft of what the final product will be It is just that you have all the shoot scenes and they are not trimmed down.

Ok thanks, as director has often nothing to do with the assembly cut (Spielberg do it at night in is editor trailer on location every shoot day but I imagine he is one of the few), Mendelson message was a bit strange, they are usually made by the team of editors during the photography and get be watched almost immediately after the wrap party, it would mean 100% nothing in the context of the existence of a Snyder cut.

I really do not get this sentence with what is in the tweet (and the tweet response in the thread also seem to make no sense) - Someone on twitter: Must have been an assembly cut and it must have been quite long. - Snyder: Yes you are right and it was indeed around 5 hours.... None of the reaction under that message seem to match the conversation at all. Aren't assembly cut usually build as you shoot, many director refuse to watch it and never see it.

It is really hard to know in details (is team could hide from him non paying opportunities he does not even know he got, you often have to go around actor agents to get them in a small role or big non paying one). But it is somewhat possible, at least movie wise, the interview was around 2 month after Aladdin release, long time but not that long it was just a billion dollar movie and a lot of big roles are made with some archetype in mind. If he was looking like Micheal B Jordan I doubt he would have much issue getting an interview. Not looking like a classic lead (and publicly not wanting the stereotypical Arab looking roles) is probably the main factor, you do not necessarily need to be white, but to look like proven archetype (would it be Chris Pratt looking or Will Smith looking) certainly help.

A Best picture winner movie pushed by a giant budget campaign from a prime Weinstein and a Universal studio Scorsese one are quite unexpected comparison for the Hustler distributed by STX (not sure they ever won an Oscar or got an acting nomination in their history).

Which producers have lost money on Zootopia ?

Yes but that 2 different statement, it is a disproportionately represented group obviously, not necessarily the majority of the audience. And that person was in response to someone saying the under 19 was the people going in theater these days.

That from the article above saying: and overall 22% of the audience as 25 years-old or younger https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed627049476/ That from the first days, could have changed over time obviously or could have been a typo, it was quite older that one. For example EndGame here: https://deadline.com/2019/04/avengers-endgame-opening-weekend-box-office-record-1202602445/ Updated demos from Disney: 57% males, 43% females. 71% adults, 18% families, 11% teens. I imagine the 18-24 are a big segment for that type of movies, we can agree it was still an audience mostly of people born before 2000. Not too surprising, one of the few hero in that universe that is a parent with family and more grown up concern, with Micheal Douglas-Pfeiffer in the cast.

Isn't that how licensing of franchise tend to work, you give the permissions to use the IP to a list of designated partner, they give you a percentage of the sale that use the imagery and that the whole story from the studio point of view. Not sure, yet to happen sales contribute to the budget of the movie, having the face of your franchise everywhere the weeks of release do help marketing by itself yes obviously. That sound really confusing to me, how merchandise sales be below zero, what is their link with the production cost ?

I wonder if it is nearly impossible for a franchise title to get over a bad OW these days, it is a big part of the word of mouth, a lot of people will cross off a movie that didn't do well on OW according to the press.

The over 200 billion business of network TV is transferring into streaming (where the "network-cable", how would it not create some war over it. Has for an Apple type of the world, chance are that hardware get somewhat irrelevant before 2050, chance are good that content and it is exclusivity will be the name of the game. A bit like video game console, they all are basically the same very bad and extremely cheap& slow computer running inside a box, it is a war of title and all the console maker are now in the video game creation business. Maybe historically the big long established players often won the wars in the newer market (see 3D animation, Pixar-Dreamworks, etc... had a little edge, got either bought and lost it to Disney), but Facebook-Amazon-Google are still around, maybe HBO-Disney will eat everything, but there is a non 0 chance that Netflix will end up on top.

It change from title to title (spiderman mostly will play younger), but for say a Guardian of the Galaxy and Thor 3 it is much more older than that and quite more female heavy than that. That was Guardian 2 opening weekend: which is right in line with pretty much all MCU features, and don't be surprised to see that opening weekend total bump up a notch or two and perhaps finish right around $147 million. Audience demographics show the film playing to an audience that was 56% male vs. 44% female, and overall 22% of the audience as 25 years-old or younger and a whopping 72% of the audience were adults while only 9% were teenagers. 78% of the audience was 26 or more opening weekend and the older crowd tend to attend movies 14-17 days after release in average, as weeks go on usually movie audience tend to get older and male-female gap to get lower. Thor 3: Disney exit polls spot 56% men, 44% females, 19% families, 63% over 25 for Ragnarok. There is a reason R-rated is restarting to become more mainstream, the 12-17 is really not what it was in the Harry Potter days/Spider Man 1 days. Movie that played about 50% under 25 not so long ago, tend to be 30-40% under 25 now, there is even often a under over 35 or 50 year's old split on opening weekend trade coverage now, instead of 25.

It is misleading, one could think they are talking about Black Widow when they say Black Widow, specially in the context of saying it is a bigger character than Wonder Woman, that imply to me they are talking about the character. Well there is a difference between a Joker/Batman/James Bond that you can recast all the time and a Ethan Hunt, Iron Man that need an specific actor set in a specific on going franchise imo.

Source for that ? All the MPAA reports point to the exact opposite direction, theatrical audience is getting older and older at a rapid pace. Has for Black Widow, I doubt it is any close right now, to the point that if you recast that character and make a movie by someone else than Marvel, I feel you loose a ton of the interest. Johansson has Widow in that storyline is quite big, but the character itself kind of doubt it.

It is I feel one of the biggest TV station in some demography, everything that is a moving image streamed at distance is Television. Television: telecommunication medium used for transmitting moving images in monochrome (black and white), or in colour, and in two or three dimensions and sound. Live or not, what the screen look like are such small distinction, a bit like black and white too colors or big flat screen 16:9 from smaller 4:3, or before&after everyone has a TiVo device, require some change in the tv type, shake moneytisation model a bit, but not the TV popularity much. Regressing but far from nobody still doing it, live TV + tivo TV, that could be true for the 13 year's old and some market, but in the USA: Take for example, traditional TV, which averaged in Q3 2018 (hh:mm): 5:31 per day of live TV among Black adults, with an additional 30 minutes of time-shifted TV; 2:45 per day of live TV among Hispanic adults, with an additional 17 minutes of time-shifted TV; and 1:51 per day of live TV among Asian-American adults, with an additional 14 minutes of time-shifted TV. America is a special TV for sure and people were use to insane 7-8 hours a day stats, but the average black american adult watched over 5 and a half hours of live TV every day at the end of 2018. Other example, that is almost all pure live TV and has traditional that it get: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/nfl-tv-ratings-rise-5-percent-2018-1172505 NBA finals, post Jordan retirement didn't move much either: