Barnack

Very domestic heavy affair (when it was expected and had almost no oversea marketing) do not follow the same rules of thumb if you will, they need less to work, Domestic being significantly more revenues by BO $. Movies like 12 Strong probably worked. Also, the 2002-2007 era was a weird one and the most profitable in Hollywood history I think, 2002-2004 was selling crazy amount of tickets, than the worldwide jumped and you had the dvd bubbles happening at the same time. If we take Denzel actionner over time for a constant. TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 had a 115m net budget, The Equalizer (2014) had a 63m net one and that was more of a "franchise" affair. Almost 50% drop with inflation, mid range isn't completely death and obviously sequels/franchise that can be made at the price still exist, but the 100m comedy / Denzel action movie type certainly seem to be death, same for the 100M drama when DiCaprio is not playing in them or the 100m RomCom, certains mid range genre did went away. Or Sandler comedy, movie like Zohan were getting 100m budget, 90m for Jack&Jill/Just go with it,. Hard to imagine 115m 1-2-3 TAKING OF PELHAM, a 100M the Others Guys or a 123m Fun with Dick and Jane being greenlight now a day. A movie like Fury was made at a low cost 55m net, in 2006 it would have probably been a mid range 80-90m affair instead. The 2008/2009 economic crisis + destruction of the dvd certainly put a lot of pressure on the budgets (and we see it on the VFX firms, risk taking by the stunt team, number of days, etc...). The fact that small independent movie like The Upside was listed has mid-range instead of low budget do show the shift people are talking about. Jerry Mcguire was the typical mid-range movie, today adjusted it would be a 82m budget and some would put it above the mid budget level range.

It is unknown, that why I said if, it does sound on the optimistic side that $400m Deadline estimated a 105m net profit for the studios and 55m for the talents (on a 250m budget, 157m WW P&A and 46m home ent WW release): https://deadline.com/2017/03/batman-v-superman-box-office-profit-2016-1202049201/

And why the except ?, how is this relevant into pointing out that it would be very average/normal spending for a big SH movie if GOTG made a profit or not ? But that making the point, if the over 830m at the box office Batman V Superman would have been made at a very reasonable 400m in production/marketing budget (that would be spending 130m less than Spider Man 3 did almost a decade before), it would have made a huge profit, movie making less at the box office and costing about the same like Guardian of the Galaxy having made one according to you.

You are not able to follow the conversation (if you are talking about mine). One said: 400m for BvS Production and marketing it is crazy high for a movie like that. Pointing out that is pretty similar to a GOTG. How does it turn into a versus ? Is it possible that I am talking to someone that would be a fans here ?

For 700m pound and still counting, yes I would imagine it is for part 1 and 2.

Have you seen how much those avengers movie cost ? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history Ultron seem to have went above 400m gross budget and the new one look even more expensive.

Never seen it, so I will take your word for it, not sure what it would have to do with what I said. And my point was that 400m is not a specially big amount for that type of movie, would even be on the reasonnable side, citing many example of movie with cost like those or significantly above them. 400m on production and marketing for a giant BvS movie, Tom Hanks Angels&Demon spent 412m on marketing, production and talent back end deals. I would imaigne the total cost of those 2 movie being above 1 billion and not below that bar or if that would be the case, they would be really nice success story.

BvS costing just 400m budget + marketing.......... just to show how not a lot it would be, that not different than your average Thor 2 /Guardian of the Galaxy type of affairs, much lower than all the Spider Man pass the first one.

https://deadline.com/2015/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-profit-box-office-2014-1201391217/ Net Budget: 196m Marketing: 150m theatrical release, 70m home ent release https://deadline.com/2018/03/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-box-office-profit-2017-1202346285/ Budget: 200m WW P&A: 163m Worldwide video: 40m The Amazing Spider Man: Net Budget: 261.595m Marketing Budget: 187.499m Box office: 758m Profits: 70m for the studio, 46m for the talents. It would really not be a lot 400m budget + marketing for a big SH movies, the Spider man went over 530m in their peaks, I really doubt they maybe broke even on Batman V Superman, that made nearly 900m at the bo with an healthy domestic %.

In the sense that it is a lot ? Or hard to believe that it would be that reasonable ?

A imagine a good well received Dumbo would have made a lot, look how giant a badly received one just opened too.

You could be right here, but racist characther isn't some argument by itself, 100% of the most snowflake ever can watch Downfall without necessaliry being offended. I would think a lot of them can watch 30s/40s stuff like the original King Kong and have the intellect to take the era into context and not be particularly offended. I would imagine a lot of it is made up about how much offended people really get when they are alone.

I would had a bit of market granularity here, a 165m/135m dbo/intl story could play quite differently than a 85/225, I imagine it is already heavily implied that Dumbo will be quite domestic heavy if it make under 325. I am not sure where the real budget will end up between those 150-170m type of estimate, but I would hesitate ever calling a movie that make somewhat close to it's budget domestic a bomb and would not for a movie that get close and never for a movie reaching it. Would have been for a non sequel of an other studio too, imagine if Tarzan or Valerian made that kind of money, Marvel do bend perception a little bit. A classic like Dumbo being a movie that is received well enough to make 600m could have a lot of value for Disney and is historicaly hability to moneytise that kind of stuff. Take it this way, look at Deepwater Horizon or Adam Sandler Pixels, those movies were not particularly that much cheaper (about 50m less) and the studio didn't thought they had that good of a change at reaching 300m WW. 650m if it is heavy domestic is still a lot (just 10 year's ago that would have made you the third biggest movie of the year in the world) Pixels for example at a 120m budget, was expecting to make 92m in profits (32m to Sandlers and co., 50m the studio, 10m the co-investors) with a 179m dbo / 189m intl type of performance and that movie was not promoting any toys / previous movie in the vault / Park attractions.

It was significantly more popular on release (made more a the box office held record on home video until Lion King dethroned it), but in continuous fandom ? Beauty and the Beast was re-released 2 time since, made 25m in Imax release 2002 while Aladdin 2003 release was cancelled, 47m in 2012 and was second to only Avatar in bluray sales in 2010 according to wikipedia/this: https://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales/2010 Aladdin 2003 release did seem to have done quite well. It could go down with the preposition also, has much has popularity, how exactly similar and how much it give the impression that it will satisfied / augment your Nostalgia and go and hurt your memories instead.

Isn't it mostly when not completely free for them to let theater play their old movies and they just collect the money ?

They put old movies in theater pretty much everyday: http://akvalley.pythonanywhere.com/static/Fandango_track.txt Today only on Fandango partnering theater: Alien (1979) Steel Magnolias Howls Moving Castle (2004) Rocky Horror Picture Show (I imagine that always play somewhere) Yesterday, Barry Lindon, True Grit, 2001 a space odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, Dune, Shawshank, Karate Kid and Cruel Intention played. I imagine that very often the only cost is the opportunity cost of not playing something new, awareness is already fully there for audience, in calm period of the year seem like a no brainer to play classics in theater, and they should never stop doing it imo.

https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

It does seem low to me has you said, both in those type of "stats": And on studio annual report, since the bubble bursted in 2010 it seem to have stabilized and slowly growing back in the last 2-3 year's and not some doom & gloom downward trend. It is probably put on the global tv line. https://deadline.com/2014/03/despicable-me-2-2013-most-profitable-movie-universal-705554/ Considering that TV amount is very similar to Iron Man 3 above Frozen Guardian of the galaxy had 133m in tv in the 2014 deadline box office ranking game. According to deadline revenues estimate, Aquaman: 732m (1.15b box office, 334m dbo, 457m in rental, 275m after) Gravity: 622m (723m at the box office, 274m dbo, 278.65m in rental, 343.4m after much more than Aquaman) Iron Man 3: 1.02 billion (1.125b at the box office, 409m dbo) That not a lot more money from those almost 400m extra dollar at the bo.

I am sorry, which quote ? (I guess it is stupid to ask if you deleted it ?)

You sound delusional like the people that think that editors know less editing/what an editor do/when are they good or not than them because they nominated BR or that Green Book isn't a well crafted movie.

And I will anwser the same, do you think that I am a moron not knowing all of this ? And 7,000 movies made not released, almost all movies made have a less than 1 million budget, not sure what is the point being made ?

It is an extreme example but what seem to be their direction, this year they have Captain Marvel and Dumbo (2019) Buena Vista 3/29/19 Penguins (Disneynature) Buena Vista 4/17/19 Avengers: Endgame Buena Vista 4/26/19 Aladdin (2019) Buena Vista 5/24/19 Toy Story 4 Buena Vista 6/21/19 The Lion King (2019) Buena Vista 7/19/19 Artemis Fowl Buena Vista 8/9/19 Maleficent: Mistress of Evil Buena Vista 10/18/19 Frozen 2 Buena Vista 11/22/19 Star Wars: Episode IX Buena Vista 12/20/19 Last year: 1 Black Panther BV $700,059,566 4,084 $202,003,951 4,020 2/16 8/9 2 Avengers: Infinity War BV $678,815,482 4,474 $257,698,183 4,474 4/27 9/13 3 Incredibles 2 BV $608,581,744 4,410 $182,687,905 4,410 6/15 12/13 4 Ant-Man and the Wasp BV $216,648,740 4,206 $75,812,205 4,206 7/6 11/1 5 Solo: A Star Wars Story BV $213,767,512 4,381 $84,420,489 4,381 5/25 9/20 6 Ralph Breaks the Internet BV $200,998,498 4,017 $56,237,634 4,017 11/21 - 7 Mary Poppins Returns BV $171,852,597 4,090 $23,523,121 4,090 12/19 - 8 A Wrinkle in Time BV $100,478,608 3,980 $33,123,609 3,980 3/9 7/5 9 Disney's Christopher Robin BV $99,215,042 3,602 $24,585,139 3,602 8/3 11/29 10 The Nutcracker and the Four Realms BV $54,858,851 3,766 $20,352,491 3,766 11/2 1/17 So yes some years it is not 0 non remake/sequels, it is 1. If all the studios would act like that we would have 5 movies a year.

That was 2017 Universal released slates: 1 Despicable Me 3 Uni. $264,624,300 4,535 $72,434,025 4,529 6/30 12/21 2 The Fate of the Furious Uni. $226,008,385 4,329 $98,786,705 4,310 4/14 8/10 3 Get Out Uni. $176,040,665 3,143 $33,377,060 2,781 2/24 2/15 4 Split Uni. $138,291,365 3,373 $40,010,975 3,038 1/20 5/11 5 Girls Trip Uni. $115,171,585 2,648 $31,201,920 2,591 7/21 10/19 6 Fifty Shades Darker Uni. $114,581,250 3,714 $46,607,250 3,710 2/10 4/6 7 Pitch Perfect 3 Uni. $104,897,530 3,468 $19,928,525 3,447 12/22 3/8 8 The Mummy (2017) Uni. $80,227,895 4,035 $31,688,375 4,035 6/9 8/24 9 A Dog's Purpose Uni. $64,508,620 3,178 $18,222,810 3,059 1/27 5/18 10 Darkest Hour Focus $56,468,410 1,733 $175,006 4 11/22 4/12 11 Happy Death Day Uni. $55,683,845 3,535 $26,039,025 3,149 10/13 12/14 12 Atomic Blonde Focus $51,687,870 3,326 $18,286,420 3,304 7/28 10/5 13 American Made Uni. $51,342,000 3,098 $16,776,390 3,024 9/29 12/14 14 The Great Wall Uni. $45,540,830 3,328 $18,469,620 3,326 2/17 6/1 15 Victoria and Abdul Focus $22,245,070 1,060 $158,845 4 9/22 1/4 16 Phantom Thread Focus $21,198,205 1,186 $216,495 4 12/25 4/12 17 The Zookeeper's Wife Focus $17,571,660 1,057 $3,288,835 541 3/31 6/22 18 The Beguiled (2017) Focus $10,709,995 941 $229,292 4 6/23 8/17 19 Thank You for Your Service (2017) Uni. $9,536,300 2,083 $3,817,700 2,054 10/27 11/30 20 The Snowman Uni. $6,700,035 1,815 $3,372,565 1,812 10/20 11/23 21 The Book of Henry Focus $4,504,974 650 $1,424,540 579 6/16 8/17 22 Raw (2017) FCW $514,870 45 $24,825 2 3/10 5/4 From Phantom Thread /Beguiled to Darkest Hour to 50 shades/Fate of the Furious quite the diverse slate and yes of their top 10 it was a 50/50 split between remake/sequel and non remake/sequel. 7 movie about 100m dbo is the same has Disney that year.

Not sure why you are talking to me has if I was an idiot, to you think I do not know why they are doing this ? Do you think I become CEO that I would change anything ?

Horror is perceived to be a worth the theater experience for the crowd scare reaction, it is an high emotion/spectacle genre, like giant action. Both sound false to me, there is no Godfather 2 is inherently worse than Movie 43, same goes versus Author vs non-author cinema I doubt many have a position that Transformer 4 is better than Casablanca/Gone With the WInd. Is the position from the GA is clearly McDonald is better than those nice Italian restaurant, are easier/more covenant/more advertised/etc... I think the position is more: Bigger the budget, superior the movie (and that tend to be obviously true), if you poll the general audience, Pixar sequel are generally better than Pixar first entry or franchise sequel are generally better than their first one (would it be Transformer, Stars wars or Pirates of the Caribbean) that they would say that usually the first one in the franchise was the weakest....