Barnack

Domestic it almost doubled every movie first run I think: 1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997 2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977 3 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $434,974,579 1982 4 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 1993 vs 1 Avatar Fox $759,626,387 2009^ 2 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997 3 The Dark Knight WB $533,345,358 2008 4 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977^ 5 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 2004

She will probably make more than that if the rumored base salary is true, I doubt anyone ever got only 10M in a Hollywood contract.

20M + backend happened very often since MI3. Jolie / Smith / Denzel etc... made it many time. MI3 was special because Cruise got a rumored 20m + 30% first dollar gross of the box office and 12% of the home video gross (with 100% accounting, no off the top or of the old count only 20% of the sales like the VHS days). Quite far from the classic 20m + 10% stars got for a while.

That a strange statement, would it be a surprise if you know it will be a surprise ?

Pattinson is quite tall I think right, if one thing, he does not feel enough has a pretty boy with old money like the more recent Batman we got (Clooney/Bale/Affleck/Kilmer), the actor with the Hammer oil barron fortune trust fund would be maybe too on the nose in a way but if it was the first time Batman was made would have been an obvious choice, but maybe too obvious.

Not in some market, but it did hit a 2010s low last year: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023 When you can force it into audience like in a crowded weekend that help.

Is it the https://www.fandango.com/dataviz/ that do not update is last 1,000 sales faster than 15 minutes anymore or the tracker ? Back in the days the guy that made it if I remember correctly did check much more than only 4 timse by hours (maybe every 2-3 minutes) for a new data entry.

Always felt those kind of talk (or impossible for Star Wars to do 200m because it is December) are not really based on anything more than just, pretty much nothing.

Didn't he always had a relent of vintage old reference in is stuff: Pop culture reference in Pulp ( inexpensive fiction magazines or paperbacks, published from 1896 to 1950s) Fiction: https://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Pulp_Fiction_Movie_References_Guide or https://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Jackie_Brown_movie_and_TV_references_guide or https://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Kill_Bill_References_Guide/American_and_Spaghetti_Westerns https://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Kill_Bill_References_Guide/Japanese_Cinema Is inspiration are often on the older side. Most people are old now (in the western world), that is our time.

Not necessarily, at least if nothing change, it is a big condition and will be waiting on the first one result before starting the second one production.

Wasn't the 2 movies always the talk by Villeneuve since day 1 ? (was it only in is french interview not much covered about it ?) Feel like a re-news.

Did he lost is verified blue icon ? (If not why folllow a random anonymous twitter account ?)

I am not sure why that would be relevant too. Why even bring someone personal preference in that subject. Chance are good that people making a movie about that time and decide to watch want to immerse themselves in that era (just make the remake in a different world / time otherwise). I am not so sure why would we would bring much consideration for the particular individual taste of one person (yours) in that extremely broad subject. What is your take on MadMen featuring people smoking and drinking ? (And that was the best ads and biggest boost in sales Cigarettes company say in modern time I think). Well I imagine every young kids from WW2 to the late 70s would know. And even most kids today, they are not that stupid/clueless.

The late 50s era wasn't that long ago, it was 60 ish year's ago, the artist making the movies did live then and over 45 million that were born when the first one released are still alive today, in term target audience % it is probably a really good share. And it is not like people born in the 60s/70s do not have a good idea of that era (or grew in something much different in that regard) Now imagine if Disney would push to never have criminal/stupid/uneducated POC in their movies (like having no one ever smoking even when set in the 60s) for a better equivalent of a zero smoking policy. That would be ridiculous limitation of what POC can do and limit the quality of their roles and limit the quality of movies featuring them. Smoking in western culture particularly of the era is linked to a lot of elements (like you said marketing linked it to masculinity, freedom, the west, adventure, rebellion and conservatism, etc... to push the sales), so having a character smoking and not smoking can be used to communicate something about the character to the audience, presence of smoke can make for nice photography and set design and again just to not ring false to the older audience (the Spielberg audience is quite old).

Do you know if the formula that traduce the awareness, top 3, first choice, etc... use days before release has a variable ? Or the result talked about in the trade are if release next weekend type ?

I am not sure if you are particularly serious, do we want artist starting to specially care if something is good or not too push ? Has for artistic need, I would imagine people that lived through the era, would make it look false to have zero gang members smoking, a bit like Mad Men without anyone smoking/drinking, has for the artistic need for it, that an very hard question to answer except for Spielberg( and why ask it to anyone else ?), specially without having read the script and the production design.

One source says Disney film chief Alan Horn is questioning the apparent plan to have young characters smoking onscreen in West Side Story. And that on a Spielberg movie for something incredibly mild, imagine the level on non powerful name projects or what could pass for controversial if showing people smoking (in an era that over 60% of the male population did it) is a big deal.

Both your regular computer screen and youtube should easily be able to do 48 or 60 fps (and many video stream are), more is rarer. Your game will often run at 60 for example. I do not know if there is more to it than simply be able too.

If Godfather 3 would have been shot at the same time has the 2, the quality gap would have been more surprising, same for the Matrix sequels with the first one.

Make him look like someone with huge money problem, that could really want some of that money and not just a symbolism name clearing or to give a public lesson for principles/revenge type of affair.

I just saw part of one trailer for that, look like a lot of fun and a giant world hits. (quickly stopped because it looked like they were showing a lot of the punchs)

I doubt anyone freaked out about what the actual TV would be, but with how low that talked number was (the fact it could do 4,600 just confirm the reaction of someone seeing 4,400 being talked about has strange) It is not like freaking out or not freaking out about movies like that box office look good at the moment someone care either, do not need to age, all this talk is absurdly ridiculous, it is some human misprogramming and completely unhealthy that we care about that movie OW.

http://www.natoonline.org/data/us-cinema-sites/ has of july 2018: I imagine with digital, if there was still over 7,500 site in the United state alone that it would be released in nearly 6,000 theater....

4,600, nothing PG-13 got to 4,500 before I think, that a good step over the previous record.

I think every weekend for like 3 week I thought for a moment that was finally the weekend EndGame OW (because of how much hype I see about it), to look up the release date and see that it was not even that close.