Barnack

Probably cannot be cut during the first 14 days or something like, contractual obligation.

That could be a sample type of affair too, a critic see 350-400 movies in a year it will be quite hard to keep track of what they liked or not for someone without special attention, but you will remember the big title you liked and they disliked. Of those 300-400 movies they saw, 200+ will be what you would "call" original, they will have find quite average 100 of them, liked 50, disliked 50 and you could by the nature of how memory work just saw/remembered the 5 they liked that you didn't. When you have seen 10,000 movies and 40 new that week, fresh/original can certainly gain point but it is never automatic (very original stuff get destroyed by critics every day) and appreciation for a very well build classic structure when you are the poor one that was forced to saw 100 bad take on it for your job can also start to appear.

Has it ever been bigger in the United State ? Netflix really made TV cool again I feel like. Youtube is giant with the young, television consumption could be the worst ever (in term of people loosing the most time ever watching it) Look at the buzz surrounding Disney+, TV is still very well alive arguably more than ever.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/release_top_weekend_gross/?by_occasion=us_thanksgiving_5 Could get the 109.4m record Frozen 1 was at 93.6M

Again, that has little to do with what you are quoting (and obviously yes Titanic do crush most release ever and ?). Not one talked about inflation adjusted. In 2018 the top 50 domestic had in total a 3.33 multiplier and an average multiplier of 3.832, good one for big openner (from Jurassic world, American Sniper to black panthers to Incredible 2) are still not that uncommon. The top 10 domestic movie had a total multiplier of 3.21 and a 4.273 average multiplier. 10 year's before in 2008, the top 50 domestic Total legs multiplier: 3.34, average 3.39 Top 10 was 3.2 total and an average of 4.005. Did they that much, legs of the top 10 domestic in 2018 were bigger than in 2008. Phatom menace coming out now wouldn't do TLJ numbers much less adjusted 800 which shows you how phony those numbers are. First Star Wars in nearly 40 year's without the bad taste of the PT ? That quite the shot in the dark trying to predict how big it would have got, but you can bet a lot. Phantom Menace was the second biggest movie at the box office without adjusting of all time for a reason.

Not sure that a valid comp with what you quoted. It is much more like saying with HP DP 2 opening nearly at 170m you would think that it would have beat The Phantom Menace or sold more ticket than the first Potter movie. Same goes for the Ultron vs Aquaman the comp do not make much sense, do you take TFA domestic box office or End Game domestic box office ?

Evans first movie post EG roles was this past July : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Sea_Diving_Resort Maybe it is the first time I heard of it.

Do anyone know how much was it for indie distributor for an hour on regular TV for a comparison ? For example: Netflix reports that its 117.58 million subscribers watch 140 million hours of content on average per day, A $108 dollar Netflix a year account watched in average way more than 435 hours (has that 117.6 million subscribed was by the end of the year), even with a very extremely low fixed-acquiring customer-amortizing R&D cost of say 33% you have 15 cent and less hour going on to play with. That volume at that price for non already moneytised content is not necessarily something possible without leading to an hockey stick, winner win bigs model nothing for the rest, like the music industry became with streaming.

It has been a rough spot for them, even when I think this one will at least work even if it has near 0 change to go big (say The Nice Guys or for an other Daniel Craig Logan Lucky) after loving their trailers. Murder on the Orient express did work really well, but that had one of the biggest best seller writter franchise of all time behind it.

A studio that (outside some of the small horror title and animation) slate is 100% build into matching star power to the project size is still alive, despite the concept repeatedly supposedly death.

Nothing to do with critics, but trailers and audience, the franchise had enough strength to beat EndGame in many markets, even reach some all time high in some, if the movie would have been a good one (and not being a sequel or anything had 0 resistance), sky were pretty much the limit for this. Good trailers/audience reception and it should have gone over 2B easily.

Sully / The Post were both post 2015. I imagine 21 Bridge comparable was that 12 Strong and Den Of Thieves duo (around 30M, rotten, one from STX etc..) both did really well and achieved 15M+ and the more deceiving Miles 22 ($13.7M debut) and american assassin ($14,84M). 8.8-10 would definitely be significantly lower than those comp but at least, holiday weekend coming up right away.

Outside the giant money they ought to make, that a way for them to have control on it, in exchange of the music we have some say on the script. Michael Jackson estate cannot block them to make the movie they want, they can only block them using songs they own in a certain ways in it, could have the logic of may as well have some control.

I have the feeling that they never really left Walmart here since 2013.

Would need to ask the Warcraft movie financier if that is really true.

Bohemian Rhapsody was also just last year.

That extremely low for a world release, half of what it would have normally have.

It did look like that at least for one of those co-financier when I looked at it was part of a large multiple movies slate investment, letting them in on the best prospect make selling harder projects much easier for sure.

No that not what she said, she talk about it being a stereotype among Hollywood executive, not talking about it being a reality or not and not about featuring about a woman in action, but a woman made movie. If you look only at that part 'Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too,' she said in her interview. 'This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn't make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see women do action movies.' In regards to female superhero films, Banks added, 'They'll go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that's a male genre. Woman do actions movies isn't not woman happening to be on the screen or not, it is about the sensibility, type of story and so on.

Not sure they have much of a choice too. But yes media has a big fetish on low budget, lower risk, lower reward (see the coverage of Blumhouse) vs Netflix type of model, has if it was automatically better and tend to never present the budget by how much the movie will actually end up costing if it work.

Source ? Well no, it depend it mean what for WB for their complete slate risk sharing and the term of the deal, co-financier do not usually get a deal has good has the distributor on a movie they finance.

I am ambivalent on this one box office wise, going all-in in the style, maybe it will attract people (but also maybe not), I can see it go both ways.

Would like and explanation of that ?, I heard it was the other way around, a bunch of legal protection (defamation lawsuit being one) just diseapear with someone death making it usually easier not harder to investigate. Source ? https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/the-latest-lawyer-says-epstein-guards-are-made-scapegoats/ Federal prosecutors say security camera footage proves Jeffrey Epstein was alone in his cell the night he killed himself. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/19/us/ap-us-jeffrey-epstein-guards-the-latest.html The early report of the camera sends to the FBI for the investigation said that one camera footage was too poor quality to be usable: While one hallway camera had unusable footage, another nearby camera caught clearer video, the Post noted, adding that it is unknown why certain footage was useable while some was not, as well as the extent of the glitch. Not that relevant camera as a whole failed or that any camera failed (could be an dirty lens, bad lighting in some part, etc...) Well yes, but also we have a very limited notion of how those things work, some of those saying something is fishy here overrated what being on a suicide watch list in prison actually meant past the first couple of weeks, because people were lying about it on social media, didn't read study on how frequent is injury are on legitimate hanging (way less common than for murder forced hanging, but still very common, I think as high as 16% according to some study) and so on. It is one person at the most at risk to get killed sure (any pedophile in prison to start with is a good target for murder specially if they are not put in a special wing with only other offender of the same type, higher the profile even more, powerful people even more, etc..) making is death an obvious one to investigate very seriously. But it is also one of the person the most probable to kill itself, he did try not so long ago (or are we to believe the first assassination attempts failed....), was very obviously not taking prison life well and so on. But take someone that made enemies stealing money from the most powerful and dangerous people on earth, from central/south america Drugs Cartel to Russian mob, Bernard Madoff, has yet to be killed in prison (some said he was in a way happy to get in prison, the only place he felt a bit safe from them), it does not make it automatic that you will get killed or what would be the goal/point of that and it is extremely likely that he would have killed himself. It is certainly not certain either way like people say (except if the footage that show no one coming like claimed by investigator is really solid, without any blind spot)

One think that could be "nice" if he was murdered, would make it easier for the system to stay motivated at keeping seeking all the perpetrator and those involved in is previous incredible deals he got in the past with the justice system and keeping social pressure on.

Not so sure I agree 100% with you there Lou. A bit like Once Upon A Time, the movie at is very foundation work and use the fact that the audience know in advance some of what will happen (a bit like if they would have showed the ending at the start). It used the background for narrative efficiency and shortcut in an impressive way. You cannot just remove/reduce the weird laugh, change the name and still have a movie with the same impact, really not sure it was an after thought like all the Die Hards movie were (where they simply used already existing action movie script, changed the hero name for McCain and added a phone call to is wife at the end), could be wrong obviously but it would not surprise me if from the start it was thought and developed as a Joker movie. Having an under 65M budget and the Joker brand made it possible to get away to shoot it almost just first unit, almost just one camera, have a lot of days, have a purpose to 100% of the shot that they take time to create, etc... i.e. making it like they were making it in the 70s or Nolan today, it is not like he would not always do it if he could.