Barnack

My first reflex for a so obviously set in the same universe movie (share some characters) but not marketed has such was the long giant law suit against it, but this was setted off court and The Nun was connected anyway.

According to deadline estimate back in the days: https://deadline.com/2014/03/iron-man-3-gravity-man-of-steel-profit-most-profitable-movies-2013-701662/ Man of steel was estimated to have made 42.7m in profit with an bit over 310m in budget + participation cost. Is Shazam going to do around 400m (150m dbo -250m intl) ? If the budget is between 80m to 105m and make around those numbers, it could make between 80m and 130m if the participations were kept low (with those name, should be the case), That for example https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hoteltransylvania.htm Production Budget: $85 million Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $148,313,048 41.4% + Foreign: $210,062,555 58.6% = Worldwide: $358,375,603 Made 88.5m in profit (with a real budget of 104m), the cheaper sequel was expected to make 120m in profit at 400m WW (150dbo/250intl)

Rare for sequels to have one and many of them are (even giant one like did Incredible 2 pretty much came and went ?), but yes some first entry do like Guardian & Black Panther. It is easier for terrible received movie like BvS/Suicide Squad to have a big cultural conversation (scoring 30% on RT will give you 300% the conversation than scoring 70% will)

Regardless of why Avatar (outside 3D) and Titanic didn't change the industry at all (we could argue why) that is simply my point: ) Industry change tend to be somewhat easy to replicate, otherwise it constitute a moot for the one that have it. We have yet to see how much Marvel model will actually have changed the movie industry (there was a lot of talk about what Titanic changed back in the days), Marvel-Feige legend will not be hurt by either, if it become an industry standard he will be a pioneer, if very achieve to make something similar at a high level they will be seen has the greatest at it.

They get that kind of P&A push once the metrics showing it should open are there too. The very low budget one very often flop completely, but we do not hear about them, like some Blum movie are simply never released if the movie and marketing material you can make out of it does not test well enough. If they go all out on the spending, they usually have something solid. That something harder to do with large movie, you pretty much have to release it and spend on it (even if it is a bad idea, human nature will make you do it)

Well exactly, when I use to show that making billions of dollar does not necessarily create a game changer if it is hard to reproduce has an example, I am not sure why we would talk about not versus the decades that occurred, innovation that caught on are usually easy to reproduce (like the cheap horror now) And (Gone with the wind was also during the war for a part of it) ? Big disaster / war events will be the first reflex for the copycat I would think, I am still unsure to follow you.

Well I am not sure to follow, what is lol about Pearl Harbor ? The same happened with Avatar, the easier part to use did caught for a while (3D), the giant space epic (John Carter and others) was a different story. Titanic was in 1997

Hollywood did try to reproduce and made some high budget romance movie set in historical epic moments/setting, Pearl Harbor and co. Executing and making them work did seem to be really hard, combined with the really high cost, it did not catch on. Will see for that how studio plan for extreme long and vast universe shift (the many sequel planned did start after Potter-Twilight and some others high profile didn't at an high cost), it was the case for a while from the Arthurian movie universe too many others, but from what I gather it mostly failed all around, so it is possible that like for Titanic the high cost/difficult to land make it a model that will not stay around.

I imagine Captain Marvel not so long ago would have opened way smaller that it's monsters weekend I imagine, there is something going on right now. It does not sound too wild to me

Complaining online about movies is a giant part of Futurist life, worth investing time and money to do it,

Happened to me during Skyfall and there was a feeling everyone thought, lucky let him sleep. My Silence showing had also a funny moment, when the generic started someone said a bit too loudly "finally" or something of the sort and everyone chuckled a little bit.

Published on Nov 22, 2016 USA 23 December 2016 (limited) USA 13 January 2017 Remember being a strange release yes.

Look at the popularity of the regular 2D option versus everything else when the option is available in the last 60 year's, audience enthusiasm toward high fps, HDR, 3D, etc.... in their home. Lot of it, not sure is pushed by audience (and lot of it not sure for either), lot of change is motivated as a anti-"piracy" measure, movies stopped being 4:3 in theater to distinguish them from television and create an incentive to pay to see them in theater instead of on TV, not something pushed by and for audience.

65% with a 4 week on the theater best screen (without skipping one show), 5% gross penalty if the term are not respected for Last Jedi was the biggest term in recent days I think. I imagine they could be asking for even a little more now.

IF they do open on less theater I would be curious what could be the condition Disney are asking for.

Blacklisting is the action of a group or authority, compiling a blacklist (or black list) of people, countries or other entities to be avoided or distrusted as not being acceptable to those making the list. A blacklist can list people to be discriminated against, refused employment, or censored. See Mel Gibson.

There is a lot of filmmaker involved in the MCU (that would be like giving full credit for Indiana Jones to Georges Lucas and none to Spielberg making him quite the candidate). It did change how studios planned franchise-sequels for a little while, but because it seem to never have worked for anyone else I am not sure how game changing it will be, a bit like Titanic didn;t change stuff much despite the attempts to reproduce it's success, better wait a little 25 year's to judge something like that I feel.

The type of people that would care a lot is probably buying OW ticket no matter what I would presume.

Only in the sense he compete with Chaplin, Spielberg, Disney, Kurosawa, John Ford, Kubrick, Lucas, Hitchcock, etc... that did seat in many chairs. Maybe Feige would be there, but I think he would need success outside one box. Would like to hear the argument has of why Cecil B. Demille or John Ford are not even making the maybe comparable to Kevin Feige list. He is certainly getting up there, greatest being quite vague and taking giant affair like the credential you cite into consideration. There is some arguments listed I am really not so sure about. He obviously didn't create the cinematic universe, it is almost has old has movies are, I am not sure it is the greatest invention in blockbuster History has for a game change will see, it is not like it was reproduced successfully by anyone, Planet of the Apes giant toys sales were a game changer because of how easy to reproduce it was, but this ?

Is that the kid that climb building all the time in the season 1 ? Not sure I get the reference.

Should add some creativity in your trolling instead of copy-paste:

Viewer rating are not how many account watched it estimate, but how many people watched it rough estimate: Nielsen ratings tell media participants who was exposed to content and advertising. We use multiple metrics such as reach, frequency, averages and the well known ratings—the percentage of a specific population that was exposed to content and ads—to determine exposure. To measure TV audiences and derive our viewing metrics (i.e., ratings, reach, frequency), we use proprietary electronic measuring devices and software to capture what content, network or station viewers are watching on each TV and digital devices in the homes of our Nielsen Families. In total, we measure hundreds of networks, hundreds of stations, thousands of programs and millions of viewers. In the U.S., electronic measuring devices and millions of cable/satellite boxes are used to provide local market-level viewing behaviors, enabling the media marketplace to gain a granular view of TV audiences. Our measuring technology and devices capture which networks/stations viewers are tuned into on each television set in the home. Our meters and technology can also identify who is watching, as well as when, including time-shifted viewing.. ....... ensure that we capture person-level viewing behavior, not just set top box level viewing. They would not nowaday need Nielsen to know rating if they wanted just box level granularity.

Well obviously nothing about anything ever talked here is something we should care about, but that was the very subject I for one was responding too. that American habit of selling giant world event when they are not for marketing (not that it is a big issue)

Well yes would include watch before the statement in the early AM was made, many market had yet to be in a prime watch time schedule.

Well not sure how obvious, yes there was 54m HBO subscriber in the US while around 142m WW I think. But considering it played prime time in the US vs the rest of the world it could be close.