Barnack

one month of red was much cheaper than buying the first season back then I think. Season 1 is just great, season 2 is really far, even kind of bad.

Well same for everything, Godzilla look like a giant lizard arguably more directly than Alien look like an earth thing. I am not sure how much Kong is more a big monkey than Godzilla a big lizard exactly ? Alien was the 6th biggest movie of it's year's, Aliens number 7.

Maybe (could explain the Thing flopping), but Xenomorph (Alien, Aliens, etc...) Predator And Godzilla is from earth biology from what I understand, a bit like Pacific Rim pre-historic dinosaur type sea monster than nuclear explosion waked up, and not from outer space. Godzilla had a 93m OW just 5 year's ago, 50% bigger than Kong Skull Island, 100% bigger than the Meg.

Back in the days the behind the scene trouble of even the good movies were more obvious (the director were more often officially replaced than in a behind the scene / guild protected ways, multiple time was not that uncommon). I think this sound much true, I imagine some exception of Spielberg/Eastwood type on some projects, but in general it is quite tented by the results, the story about all those trouble on Fury Road/last minute embargo/open feud between actors and team having to shoot around Hardy, etc.... would sound really different if the movie would have failed. Same for the Titanic shoot going so intensely bad that someone trying to poison the crew with PCP story.

It is an example of a movie that it is a bit strange didn't get a 100% score, I do not get the idea that there should never be a consensus that a movie is competently made or better. I am a bit surprised that 100% and 0% are not much more common.

It didn't necessarily work (or at least well) but keeping that cash cow alive was certainly worth the try.

You would never go in the record talking about a cash grab to be one too, those public relation interview are not necessarily to put weight on.

Have you characther in there like ' >, [ or anything like that, I had an issue with those not so long ago, you trying editing any non-letter characther if you have any in your message and see what happen.

I just got 2000 sales sample from buy_datetime_utc": "2019-06-17T20:34:59.000Z buy_datetime_utc": "2019-06-17T20:11:55.000Z With a 6 minute jump between 20:20 and 20:26 (15 minute after the start) so yeah that seem right. I feel like it changed looking at old logs I could get 6,000 sales in just between 21:28:45 to 21:49:59 during Black Panther time. (so 6,000 in around 21 minutes), without any gap time between the samples. In the past it was more feeling it<s 1,000 with an unknown sampling attribute, once filled start the next 1,000 one, could take 4 minutes, could take 40

I will do a test to look.

Believed Car was one of the biggest merchandising sellers of all time was probably more what they thought.

I think it is surprising it is not more common (to have 0% or 100%), who is outthere thinking that Groundhog Days is not a 6/10 movie.

Did that change ? Back in the days it was not always the same amount of time. For example the current data array variable on the website goes from: 2019-06-17T19:56:20.000Z" to 2019-06-17T20:05:01.000Z A bit under 10 minutes and went it is heavy volume time I think I remember seeing under 5 or at least close enough for when I made a program tracking them that I think I went to look for new data every 2 or 3 minute max. At the time I looked at it, it did seem to be affected by the sales speed (at 4:00 am the sample had sales from a much larger time sample than a 19:00 pm a friday on a popular movie release)

Spielberg made tv/streaming content for decade and it is something that he talked about way before Green Book was a contender. Who knows if Apple will not give a Amazon type theatrical release.

I think Wick is Liongates and Bond was almost irrelevant on their bottom line, loosing Adam Sandler was arguably a bigger deal.

With how much Dark Tower / After Earth didn't work for them for franchise launcher and with how well Jumanji did, I imagine they will continu that strategy (with Bad Boys for example). What was the last successful new franchise, John Wick in 2014, 50 Shades in 2015 (but that you need a book phenomenom) ?

Gone with the WInd even re-took the record in the 70s with a re-release. Did no movie before ET beat Star Wars initial release ? ET keep it over Forest Gump because of it's 10 year's anniversary re-release I think. Must have been common, re-release was a big thing and the norm for any popular title until very recently.

Profit participations bonus on spider man 2 were of 91m, on spider man 3 over 150m

I doubt they claim that, those movies bonus are not calculated on money made but with an agreed formula that include according to Solomon: Distribution fees, distribution expenses, direct cost, pre-break participations and deferments, supervisory fee, interest, over-budget charges. Studio never told the writer of Forest Gump that the movie didn,t made money, they told him he signed a really bad contract for how it's bonus was calculated.

Who is saying that we are talking toxic or not (but I think Watson helped, her social media views on this project were off the chart) How much more you think those movies would have made with an unknown actor cast has the lead ? (I am not sure 12 Strong was a bad performer, probably did exactly what it was planned to do domestic, like Den of Thieves

Yep and the movie worked really well in the US, Canada, Australia and Mexico did the usual new SH entry in China, it is extremely well known historical event and should be able to work no ? That a good point about alienating some countries, but I am not sure looking at yearly finish that it was special in Bulgarie/Germany versus other market. Spain: #25 France: #26 Germany: #34 Bulgari: #37 Japan: #38 Italy: #42 Portugal: #56

Well yes, no one is arguing he have star power, the conversation was about being toxic or not. The parallel I was making with Reynolds is having a lot of flops, specially when the movie are green lantern/RIPD/Men In black international bad does not indicate much signal about being toxic and that it is easy to mix the correlation of someone being in a lot of flop and them being the cause of it. If you will, to prove is toxicity/poison nature he needed his non MCU failure to be far better than they were. Take Emma Watson commercial track record when leading movie outside the Potter series before Beauty and the Beast (or after Beast), how wrong would it have been to conclude any toxicity and that Disney made a mistake casting Belle ? Like one cannot just look at someone box office full of big numbers and conclude they have to do with star power (specially when the MCU is involved), I think it is a mistake to see a bunch of failure and conclude poison/negative value must be involved. Studios make a lot of exit poll and studies and it is not like in the past when they signed an actor for 12 movies and were obligated to use them even if they were a bad pick.

WW1 was almost purely an OS affair....

Do we have a source ? Sam Jackson sequel of a 100m movie if the rumored extremelly small 30m budget for this are true, $15M for all the rest of the world exclusive release that would be a very weak amount. I cannot find any detail, but 2017 article are saying: . Netflix will pay more than half the film’s high $30 million budget, in exchange for international rights and the ability to put the film on its streaming outside the U.S. two weeks after New Line releases theatrically in the United States. To give an idea, the movie Think like a man: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thinklikeaman.htm Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $91,547,205 95.3% + Foreign: $4,523,302 4.7% = Worldwide: $96,070,507 Made 1.6m in intl theatrical, 1.35m in intl home entertainment and 17.39m in international TV rights.

I guess the fact he has proven many time wide audience enjoy him in a big franchise is a difference, but I am not sure how it apply.