Barnack

Loved Pain&Gain a lot personally, even watched it a second time.

Hard to imagine anything smaller for a movie like this, that was Dumbo I think: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09227447/filing-history They had spend on it 200m by november 2017(and received a nice 38.5m in tax credit by then it look like) That Aladdin I think: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09359156/filing-history Around 166m spent by january 2018. Next account update on both will give us a better idea of the total spending. Building a worldwide brand that if it a success will help feed for a decade the parks/Disney+/etc... content, from one of those Disney renaissance crown jewel property, not a place to go cheap and try to make 15m more on the movie side profits imo.

10 year's ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20090517103704/https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ 1 Titanic Par. $1,842.9 $600.8 32.6% $1,242.1 67.4% 1997 2 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $1,119.1 $377.0 33.7% $742.1 66.3% 2003 3 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $1,066.2 $423.3 39.7% $642.9 60.3% 2006 4 The Dark Knight WB $1,001.9 $533.3 53.2% $468.6 46.8% 2008 5 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone WB $974.7 $317.6 32.6% $657.2 67.4% 2001 6 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End BV $961.0 $309.4 32.2% $651.6 67.8% 2007 7 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix WB $938.2 $292.0 31.1% $646.2 68.9% 2007 8 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $925.3 $341.8 36.9% $583.5 63.1% 2002^ 9 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $924.3 $431.1 46.6% $493.2 53.4% 1999 10 Shrek 2 DW $919.8 $441.2 48.0% $478.6 52.0% 2004 11 Jurassic Park Uni. $914.7 $357.1 39.0% $557.6 61.0% 1993 12 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire WB $895.9 $290.0 32.4% $605.9 67.6% 2005 13 Spider-Man 3 Sony $890.9 $336.5 37.8% $554.3 62.2% 2007 14 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets WB $878.6 $262.0 29.8% $616.7 70.2% 2002 15 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring NL $870.8 $314.8 36.1% $556.0 63.9% 2001^ 16 Finding Nemo BV $864.6 $339.7 39.3% $524.9 60.7% 2003 17 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Fox $848.8 $380.3 44.8% $468.5 55.2% 2005 Was not that far removed from the last Star Wars and billion dollar movie were still quite the big deal (that what Dark Knight barely did). Solo is a movie that if someone told you 3 year's ago (After Awaken/Rogue One success), you would have thought that was a billion dollar movie too, I think you are right about that. Pika is a completely different tier of underperforming.

It is a bit strange specially in the context that what everyone assumed her comments were about (Oh no, that renewal create a schedule conflict with an other project I would have preferred to make instead)

They do every day I think yes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/georgia-governor-signs-heartbeat-bill-giving-the-state-one-of-the-most-restrictive-abortion-laws-in-the-nation/2019/05/07/d53b2f8a-70cf-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.aed58de9182c If Trump get reelected and 2 of the court supreme judge over 80 get replaced it could become quite something.

King Kong (jungle exploration was a genre too), Godzilla, E.T, Back to the Future, Ghostbuster, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, American Graffiti, Sixth Sense, Rocky, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Top Gun. Depend how far one go, The Matrix (plato and others inspiration obviously but would still go), Inception, Gravity, . I think it is safe to say that the relevant metric for a spectator is much more, did I have seen it before than was it ever put into a work before. and in the sense the list get longer and would include Star Wars

Yes and all successful on going one had a first entry not necessarily that long ago. I think one possible distinction from that past with the growing delta in average box office and "safeness" is the different in production budget between new content and more proven one growing. Back in the days, Independence Day, Jurassic Park, titanic, Avatar, John Carter could had the biggest budget of the year. Now a new content (say with a 100m that go over budget during production to get closer to 150), have to compete with sequels with 300-400m budget and a world marketing already establish partner deal that can be really hard to compete with. Back then, the year a Batman was out, it was hard for others to be the summer movie of the year on all the cereal box and everywhere, but the other year like say in 1996, Independance Day and Twister had the room to be what was promoted everywhere and had the biggest marketing/production budget/spectacle of what was released, now good luck if you want to make a big movie that compete even just remotely in the Jurassic Park/Marvel/Fast&Furious category and those budget, same go for a spy movie audience will compare you and can choose the 300m James Bond instead.

I thought the same Cameron said that in 2017, but I imagine plan changed. According to producer Jon Landau in February 2019, Iger may have been misinterpreted. He said that Avatar 4 and 5″are not only [greenlit]″ but also a third of Avatar 4 has already been filmed

Guardian of the Galaxy an entry in pretty much the biggest on going and established franchise isn't that good of an example, 170m start would have made it pretty much the biggest first entry movie ever, doubling the OW of Avatar/American Sniper. I am not sure about the female crowd comment (and it rapidly had a 60-40 female/male split not that special), has if the original and the Disney princess are not particularly popular among that audience. Talking about a movie that broke pre-sales record and had a 16.3m preview thursday has if the Disney branding, being an almost shot by shot of the original movie a marketed for decade Disney princess being completely irrelevant to that number sound a bit surrealist. When we look at the Thursday preview gross list http://www.boxofficereport.com/previewgrosses.html Nothing get 40% of that kind of numbers without a pre-established audience, we are really not talking about some word of mouth type of success, we are talking that a little teaser got 100m views in 24 hours, not because it was any good and spread with some word of mouth over time, right away the moment it appeared online from a giant already there fanbase interested in it.

Just to be sure are you saying that the movie would have opened close to 170m if the 1991 one didn't exist ? https://www.thewrap.com/beauty-and-the-beast-fandango-top-family-pre-seller-of-all-time/ According to this fandango poll, 95% of Beauty of the beast buyer of advanced ticket sales had seen the original a giant 68% owned the movie at home. It is one of the biggest and most beloved movie of all time,

The teaser was close to 100% pure nostalgia appeal: And got 91 millions views in 24 hours. The interest level was giant before the first trailer (that why the trailer got is views so fast, regardless of the trailer quality it would have got 100m plus views the first day)

Not sure how surprised we would be if Lion King does it right away.

If anyone have any idea how much it did worldwide to start with, would be interesting. I do not think worldwide chart were quite precise back then and a lot of movies would have played once the war was well over. I think it got beat unadjusted by newer release and retook number one when re-releasing but was basically number on unadjusted untile the Godfather 33 year's later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Timeline_of_highest-grossing_films Like sound of music took the lead for 5 year's during that time: Established Title Record setting gross Reference(s) 1915[56] The Birth of a Nation $5,200,000R [# 86] 1940 $15,000,000R ‡ [# 301] 1940[29] Gone with the Wind $32,000,000R [# 136] 1963 $67,000,000R ‡ [# 302] 1966[56] The Sound of Music $114,600,000R [# 210] 1971[56] Gone with the Wind $116,000,000R ‡ [# 303] 1972[56] The Godfather $127,600,000–142,000,000R [# 236][# 304] 1976[79][80] Jaws $193,700,000R [# 251] 1978[81][82] Star Wars $410,000,000/$268,500,000R [# 305][# 236] 1982 $530,000,000 ‡ [# 256] 1983[83] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $619,000,000–664,000,000 [# 256][# 268] 1993 $701,000,000 ‡ [# 306] 1993[56] Jurassic Park $914,691,118 [# 55] 1998[84] Titanic $1,843,201,268 [# 4] 2010[85][86] Avatar $2,749,064,328 [# 1]

A Marvel movie with bad social media reaction ? https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/first-captain-marvel-reviews-surface-social-media-reactions/ First Captain Marvel Reactions Surface On Twitter And They’re Fantastic https://www.gamespot.com/articles/captain-marvels-twitter-reactions-are-glowing/1100-6465101/ https://ca.ign.com/articles/2019/02/20/captain-marvel-first-reactions-twitter-roundup The reactions have been very positive https://toofab.com/2019/02/20/trolls-be-damned-the-real-first-reactions-to-captain-marvel-are-in-and-theyre-simply-awesome/ https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/captain-marvel-first-reviews-sexist-troll-backlash-1202045291/ ‘Captain Marvel’ Praised in Strong First Press Reactions, So Ignore Those Fake User Reviews I am not going on twitter to look at them so I could be manipulated by the coverage on the reactions but they were overwhelmingly positive

No necessarily a completely wrong way to view it, but that a bit of a "I have a black friend cannot be racist" type of point of view. Sexism express itself way more with how much one react, how much one is displeased when someone do no act like they like than how much they are pleased when they act has they like. How large the frame of the possible to be liked (or moreso not hated in a campaign way) is, is an other measure of sexism or it's absence. Some culture can accept woman on a very small window of possible (the contrast of Olympics curling female team from some Asian country versus male one reaction too loosing or just resting pause was quite something) and if they are well liked when they behave as expected does not mean that when they are disliked it cannot be sexism. That said that video do point to actual point and it is in some of the easiest to score well setting (a banter with an other sh playing actor about fantastic made up powers, can you get more lightweight fun scenario for a junket than that). I am not sure how much gender factor in the subjective dislikability felt, but I think in how much that dislikability is received and made a big deal out of is quite apparent (that and the age, being a big factor maybe bigger). For example, Bruce Willis is one of the most dislikable junket/on set person in the history of the industry (probably why he went on direct to video the minute he lost is box office drawing power): https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/895907/10-clips-which-prove-bruce-willis-can-be-the-most-awkward-star-to-interview-in-hollywood/ No one I think seem to care 1% about it has much has if it was a young actress (there is something normal to give legend paid there due more leeway, feel like Sam Jackson earned to say whatever he want). When it is Bruce Willis there is no click money to make, the very logical but who care ? rapidly kick-in.

I clicked on the link (you are right, push of the old movie) The 4K avg price do seem to make sense no ? If the 4k version is $16-17 a combined with the regular bluray week sales of $15 seem logical, considering that if a new release is made of an old movie get out, sales will mostly be the special edition. Superheroes do weak on physical media sales and worst on rental according to the annual mpaa report, relative to their box office: https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MPAA-THEME-Report-2017_Final.pdf Only one SH in the top 5 at 5 with guardian 2, just one in the top 25 in rentals at the bottom https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MPAA-THEME-Report-2018.pdf Black panther did well, but Inifinity war just at 5, Wonder Woman at 25. It is a bit surprising one would thought perfect collectible and should dominate physical sales They do much better on EST, for Marvel they were quite famously available on Netflix, their audience is possibly quite on the lot of new technological side, etc....

The little mermaid was new March 3: https://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales-chart/2019/03/03 There every week since and became new again (yet as a weekly drop): https://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales-chart/2019/03/31 So maybe the interface/code is having some issue here. For the average price, Alien on that list is probably mostly sale of the new 4K release ? https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2019/04/22/alien-4k-blu-ray-review-perfect-organism/#220abc0d7a05 - new Alien 4,623 -2% 208,678 $69,281 $3,127,874 1,373 69 K with 4,600 unit is a $15 average for 4K unit, does seem to fit it: https://www.amazon.com/Alien-4K-UHD-Blu-ray/dp/B07MWNJ58N $16.80 on Amazon and it was still selling some regular bluray that week to average the price down I imagine ? The ridiculous average price seem on the newer title, is the issue the unit amount or the gross sales numbers ? Maybe they do not handle pre-sales going throught correctly. For example Pet Sematary has under $9 a unit average, for a movie still playing in theater not released yet on amazon (forget about yet release on amazon, that was march, yet to be released in theater I think): https://www.amazon.com/Pet-Sematary-2019-Jason-Clarke/dp/B07Q6HNT1H/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Pet+Sematary&qid=1557339778&s=movies-tv&sr=1-3 That the 80s movie getting push for the new release stupid me. Making it feel like they do count some sort of pre-sales or if some promotion when you buy a ticket give you a copy of the movie or something ? If so maybe a lot of sales for new title are processed by the units yet to be shipped and counted ? Or the numbers are now all non-sense generated by an poor AI.

Back in the days metascore were lower all around I think, Snatch should be green, I imagine it was so openly a copy-paste of is previews movie that it hurt it quite a lot back in the days. The more general point, Ritchie has a mediocre at best track record with critics, Condon outside the Twilight had just one movie not in the green on MC before Beauty release. More difficult to do a shot for shot type of affair with that material The bar getting higher has those movie come up ? Smaller rumored budget, despite arguably higher ambition scope wise and having to pay Smith do not inspire as high confidence by the people involved and the ultra finished production quality. I can imagine some reason why.

Not one reason ? https://www.metacritic.com/person/guy-ritchie

Back in the days is Fox deal looked like that (more than first look, exclusive/pre approved distribution deal it look like): https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-04-22-ca-500-story.html If I understand correctly, negative pick up model (i.e. made like an independent movie free of interference, the studio only pay later when they receive the movie done), Cameron continued to own intl right back then. For the already financed movies obviously no, for the future sequel I would imagine also no, I would imagine Fox had at least some first look deal on all sequel. When Cameron went to Disney for Avatar in 2006, Fox used their right of first refusal on him, to kept the project to them, I would imagine now Disney own that right: https://web.archive.org/web/20100124093903/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_05/b4165048396178_page_3.htm By mid-2006, according to someone involved in the negotiations, Fox was still concerned that making Avatarwould cost too much money. "They told us in no uncertain terms that they were passing on this film," Cameron says. Cameron decided the best way forward was to try to persuade another studio to get involved. Walt Disney (DIS) had produced two of the director's 3D underwater documentaries, so Cameron invited Dick Cook, then Disney's studio chief, to watch the clip. "We loved Jim and would have liked to have worked with him," says Cook. "He has an infectious love of 3D that impressed us. Unfortunately, we never got that far." The reason: Fox had the first right of refusal. "We were never going to let this one get away," says Fox Co-Chairman Jim Gianopoulos.

First one was rumored on the cheap side for a super hero movie, Will Smith previous SH movie Hancock was around 200 million net in 2019 dollar.

Really, if End Game would have made 1 billion I think many would have find it quite poor. There was a day that people would have said that never ever 65m dbo will be a poor performance.

Possible there is a world that the Lion Kings get watched a lot once, people love it (A+ cinemascore even) but being so similar to the first one watch it only one time, with weak multiplier for a A+ family movie. A bit like Incredible 2 having some of the weaker multi in pixar history. Has for what wrong with that poster : Maybe how your eyes have a bit of an hard time going to the main heroes, if you compare to this: Most of the eyes and design is pointing toward them, making them the focus, here many are looking at you breaking the 4th wall for some reason, like if Smith wasn't in the movie but also a spectator (specially with him not being blue, that make it look even more this is Smith watching the movie and not is character in it, was is going on with is being blue or not status ?).

I really agree with that. Outside very easy (like Jurassic Park/Titanic) or memorable by how they sound name, in the title name or often called by their name by other character during the movie it is indeed very common to not remember name and a very flawed metric. How much material you consume that will refer of them by name (like do people buy doll of the character or not) Hanks name in Saving Private Ryan ? Do people often refer to Ghostbuster character by their name and not the actor ?

There is rumored bigger than that Pirates movie budget: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA733CA734&ei=VabQXN-dEoezggeey6t4&q=forbes+pirate+movie+410m+budget&oq=forbes+pirate+movie+410m+budget&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21.2544.3384..3465...0.0..0.164.671.2j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j33i160.ptE9ZJJsT3M Fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean Is Most Expensive Movie Ever With Costs Of $410 Million That said many are putting a bemol in that way of using spending has we can see the budget continue rising quite after the movie release and could include people bonus compensation, which other metric usually does not include them ( I am speculating here, maybe it is just they pay a lot of people/SFX/third party quite late or tax/tax credit maneuvering and they are all actual movie production expense). That said: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history For what is worth the double feature Avenger 3 movie production UK shell company has quite the impressive cost of sales. Has of 30 june 2017: 247m pound, with 10.25m tax rebate on the UK side, they got a lot from Georgia I would imagine not much done in the UK. the 12 next month: 429m pound ! For a total spent by 30 june 2018 of 677m pound (with a lot still to come on the next account update), 677m pound with today exchange rate is 886m, that comment of a 1 billion production in Atlanta was that far from the truth at least in some sense, will see next year. The dual shoot combined must be I would imagine the biggest budget ever by a good measure, there is case of Soviet movie that would cost a giant amount if they were be made today and having to pay the extras and really long shoot that are hard to evaluate. The highest "verified" budget that I know of is I think Spider Man 3. 299m net, in 2005-2006 money, was probably over 400m gross in 2019 dollar (377m net), if that 356m rumors is true for Avengers I would imagine it would be net, that would make it arguably cheaper than Spider-Man 3, to put into context of how "reasonable" it would be.