PlatnumRoyce

I don't agree but it's a real loss. I think no one cares about the "new" avengers because...they didn't care the first time Marvel did it. Ultron ends with an introduction to the "new avengers" including Wanda, Vision and Falcon (whedon wanted Captain Marvel instead of Wanda but was overruled) alongside Widow and Captain America. Literally no one considers that to be an Avengers line up because we all know what avengers actually connotates is different from an in universe justification of what the team officially means.

Unrelated to KotFM, but the Moroccan government says that if you take a film tax credit, you're required to provide a free version for this sort of public library/educational context in Morocco. Seems like something that would be worth mirroring.

WB's made public statements in tax credit filings that the budget will be the same size (inflation adjusted) as Man of Steel's trade-reported budget (which is presumably 10%+ smaller than the real budget for the film). Given how poorly some recent dc films played (and how Zaslov nuked Batgirl in part because it didn't feel "cinematic"), I doubt they're skimping on the film's budget. This is going to launch or damn a big silo of WB just as Zaslov prepares to sell the company.

I think the missing macro observation is simply that posters are weirdly terrible and constantly just look incredibly cheap despite being one of the most visible pieces of marketing that will exist. Studios have clearly decided they don't really matter and looked to cut costs (and allow talent negotiations to dictate people are given significant prominence). Studios are trading a quick and cheap human created design for an AI one.

Completely forgot about this. Thanks. So at 10 markets I'm at 4.38M plus ~200k for Poland (11) with South Africa, Ukraine, Hong Kong, Philippines, Ecuador, Estonia, Vietnam left (with previews lumped into gross).

does anyone have a list of INT releases? I'm trying to vaguely stich them together because A24 refuses to update. At 4M out of 4.3M (6 out of 18 markets) edit: up to roughly 4.25 (or possibly 4.2M) out of 4.3M with 8/9 of 18 markets accounted for https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c6crp9/civil_war_made_slightly_over_4m_int_on_its/ Country Initial Release Date Weekend of 4/12 gross Australia 4/11/2024 $679,963 Netherlands 4/11/2024 $333,025 New Zealand 4/11/2024 $129,183 Russia (CIS) 4/11/2024 $595,195 South Africa 4/12/2024 $0 United Kingdom 4/12/2024 $2,271,726 Bulgaria 4/12/2024 $12,560 Romania 4/12/2024 $29,487 Poland has another ~200k (I could only find admits so I paired it with a rounded up version of their 2023 average ticket price) sources on reddit because it's easier.

I agree with all of the rest of the comment but I really recall Man of Steel having this sort of goodwill baked in (remember how much MoS sold the Nolan connection in early marketing). The execution was genuinely divisive and I don't think the press running interference would solve that problem. The (unfairly framed) "Let normal people die, Clark" stuff was clearly considered in hollywood to be a major problem for the film and we still see films go out of their way to avoid another such scenario (big destructive punch-em-ups in city centers where people are clearly dying by the thousands).

there probably isn't one perfect chart but you can use keywords in the report builder. In general they're a a bit inconsistent to use as a true single aggregate but they're there (I cite their "anime" keyword below). You can do a couple of queries for "country Japan + [each individual animation filter]" and aggregate them together. But they're obviously not all over the place and I think you're showing exactly why that is. tl;dr I just see a definition problem. If you asked the random moviegoer, I'm don't think they're organically group The Wind Rises (or e.g. Grave of the fireflies) together with the anime franchise films getting increasing boxoffice exposure in the US. Less all over the place than different causal mechanisms is my hypothesis. These extended titles are positioning the film into a much longer narrative of their respective franchises. I think "anime" inherently conjures up a target image not only of Japanese animation but "long running foreign pulp franchise" in particular. A full 1/3rd of the 21 films the-numbers call anime that received a wide release failed to get a 2x multiple and the only things to exceed 3x are Spiderverse and Dragon Ball Super: Broly. Dragon Ball Super: Broly seems like the outlier there. I really think this shows *negative interest* in this sort of elevator pitch outside of the target audience. I just don't think that's what happened there. The NYT ran multiple pieces with Miyazaki's name literally in the headline. This is just not the problem there. There's just a completely orthogonal selling point where you can basically point and say something like "the Walt Disney of Japan." I think that's just fighting more against apathy (look at how non Hollywood animated films oscar nominated films fair at the box office) than negative interest.

We haven't seen any frames but 2 scenes were apparently shown in a convention in June of 2023. I'm skeptical about the film but I think there's more going on to the active disinterest in anime than just the aesthetic look. Thus, the apparently clear visual homage to Jackson's films (even if stylized) is going to create an interesting test. Regardless of the scale of the opening, I suspect we see normal legs instead of the sort of insanely awful ones anime suffers from.

I was expecting low % positive score on posttrak + high recommend but we just saw 2 lower scores. I think audience reviews are just softer than online vibes indicate.

I think your argument is essentially just that JKR deserved to less creative freedom after being pretty undeniably responsible for the unique flaws of Fantastic Beasts 2 (FWIW I agree) but that's just a very different claim. This is just an inherent point of conflict because people can understand the mechanics of studio meddling without being compelled to agree with it. Fantastic Beasts 3 has all the hallmarks of something the studio sliced and diced to death due to a fundamental lack of trust in the film (starting with Rowling being forced to bring on a cowriter and continuing onto the film being delayed and retooled to serve as a soft finale). I'd say FB2 & 3 are both bad films but are bad in very different ways. The former show's Rowling struggling to transform her novel quirks into a screenplay (while also having what I agree is a dumb reorientation of the subfranchise). The later is just a film that was thrown into a blender by the studio where set pieces are saved but anything connecting them has been heavily messed with. The "original creative head" of any film like this will be reasonably angry at the studio over the forced changes (especially as they seem designed to just deliver a minimum viable product that gives them an off ramp for the franchise after the film). Momoa's apparently still angry about how Conan was recut by the studio and that's valid even if I doubt Momoa's right to think there's a good & profitable cut of the film the studio ignored. Rowling also was clearly either was told by WB to not promote FB3 or actively refused to promote the film beyond a minimal level. The former option clearly would make Rowling unhappy and the later would be evidence of disgruntledness.

Is she? That's not the sense I got from the big WSJ article which both pointed out this can go ahead no matter what Rowling says and they intended to reduce her creative involvement. It seems genuinely unclear to me what Rowling's opinion of the reboot is apart from being willing to do the minimal positive pr stuff. She was clearly not happy with FB3 stuff from WB. After reading that piece, I can imagine actions fitting Rowling being somewhat disgruntled

Lol, what a great way to get free advertising chatter for a film few are organically interested in. t

Piling onto that, an SEC filing rom 9 months ago claims they also have a 10.5M line of credit lined up which means they've hit their 61M target (which in SEC filings is their total cashflow requirements to release movie. SEC filing also indicates a P&A budget from Angel Studios (presumably Domestic only) of 28M

It's been fully funded for, I assume, months. The crowdsourcing funding option isn't fully funded but the actual SEC filings tell a story where that's not the funding option. Preferred funding options != only funding options. It's a definition game that's only apparent on closer inspection. I dove into these Angel studios related SEC filings due to the whole shitshow between them and The Chosen. Here's David's "semianual report" covering up to June 30, 2023 54M + 10.6M = 64.6M. This film is fully funded, having raised over $4.9M in the intervening period, it's not funded partially through loans. They're behind their fundraising goal. They've also apparently just wrapped up a "Young DAVID" series which clearly has work intended to serve both projects (and whose profits, if my quick glance is correct, would first g to cover the funding shortfall). which is substantial for an indie but going to be significantly below the big tentpoles they're comparing themselves to.