PlatnumRoyce

On the same vein, there's no reason for the aggregator to be as mediocre as RT. If you poke around at the site pre-fandango purchase, you'll see them experimenting with a few different objective filters (__ critics circle member, digitial only reviewer, etc.). There was even a "my critics" list for a while. That's all gone replaced by top critic filter or nothing. There's a lot of interesting stuff you could make available under the topline aggregate that RT simply doesn't want to do. At least an unweighted critical consensus.

Yeah, that's what Universal's CMO said when accepting praise for M3gan's viral social media waves (not sure if this is interesting/insightful or utterly banal). There's nothing too newsworthy in that podcast interview but it's an interesting look at viral social media marketing for a film.

Probably more like ~60M given tax LA credits claim total production budget spending of 90M. It might be inflated but they're not getting 50% of the budget back in tax incentives.

might be worth re-running this mostly pre-pandemic analysis that argued for story of declining influence. I agree that's how it seems but it would be good to see what a broader look at data says. https://www.theringer.com/movies/2020/9/4/21422568/rotten-tomatoes-effective-on-box-office

To be fair, the marketing team's problem was the underlying content is "generic big budget fantasy-adventure film" (albeit one leaning more into a heist/action-comedy tone) It just so happens that this D&D film was a good version of that film. I don't think there's one quick trick to prevent that sort of comment.

So this is the 2023 version of the Legend of Tarzan? That was my perception of the film's run at the time. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Legend-of-Tarzan-The#tab=summary

Semi-off topic but does anyone know what's the best breakdown is of pro.boxoffice's long range forecast model? Obviously, the "correct" answer is for someone to come in and tell me to pay for it, (Shaun saying this) to and see behind the paywall. That would be fair enough, but want to see if I can get more. So when something like DnD's final range going from 60-130M. That seems like a large range from relatively narrow OW range. Is it because of presales? Comps? Is the fact that it's not, not a franchise film pulling in a wide range of flops and hits based on that + genre attributes? Am I wrong and this is a normal looking range? How would you parse this beyond a screenshot? https://www.boxofficepro.com/long-range-box-office-forecast-the-covenant-and-evil-dead-rise/

Weird comment when I come into an active thread and see most of the recent comments talking about this topic (including yours, which I replied to). It would be a valid criticism if not for fact you're clearly just trying to dunk on me because you're reading implied politics in the comment that aren't there. It's just silly political shitposting. But again, Nielsen's surprisingly strong Mando numbers are surprising!

Dunking on DeSantis over this (and Disney getting paid to host a big conference) doesn't make sense to me as *political analysis*. I don't really see how you can claim he's gained nothing when it tremendously helped to boost his national profile and, again, just based on initial state of 2024 GOP presidential campaign, he has at worst a ~20% chance of being the next president. If this increases his chances of winning GOP primary in 2024 by 5% that's a massive victory. Are you disputing this or is this a question of definitions. Saying "____ that guy" doesn't mean he lost especially when you're not his target audience. You've trying to pivot to a straightforward moral denunciation and if you re-read the comment, you'll just see that I fundamentally don't agree that's the takeaway from that fight. Both activists pushing for more LGBTQ content in Disney family films and Ron Desantis can meaningfully point to victories from this whole kerfuffle. Disney, on the other hand, clearly lost. I mean, show me in any way that Disney as a corporation didn't come out in a worse position than it started. Does it? Why does Disney look more powerful today when a pro-business republican is actively running for president by attacking special tax statuses it holds? This is literally just getting back to a worse status quo than antebellum with a changed expected value matrix for people to attack them in the future. When Iger came back on board he made some pretty mealy mouthed comments about not getting involved in politics and if these are shots at Desantis/Florida GOP by Disney, it's pretty notable how off the record they are. I get "this shows how overstated DeSantis' claimed victories were in 2021" but this isn't jujitsu. It's attempting to fight a bad hand pack to par. No one's forcing DeSantis or his board to hype up a 2023 fight with Disney. They clearly think it's a winning play and it's just hard to see how that status quo does anything but either hurt Disney or at best have no functional impact in 90% of cases. Anyways, it looks like people are actually having some interesting mando discussion here so I'll not clutter the feed with this tangent.

Not to go wildly off topic but I don't know how to square this with the fact that DeSantis has clearly already won? "Disney may have ended up exactly where they were before the political retaliation happened but with a more polarized reputation" isn't anyone's definition of winning. Disney also clearly "lost" in that its future actions were boxed in by concessions granted to opposite side of Desantis (activist employees who wanted more LGBTQ content in Disney products including directed at kids). Deadline claimed this was e.g. the reason Strange World wasn't dumped on D+ despite Disney knowing they had a stinker. These aren't zero sum fights: it would be impossible for DeSantis to lose at this point. He's just banked too much value in 2022 from it. Similarly, it's hard to see how Disney as a brand/company didn't lose even if factions inside it can be seen as winners. The contemporary interpretation was basically that he ended up with the upper hand/Disney played their hand poorly and lost. established himself as a top tier contender for the presidential nomination and became part of a news story that was on A-1 of the WSJ for weeks and continue to generate additional coverage. Unless Disney actively tries to pick fights with DeSantis and wins in some manner, we're just talking about mitigating the degree to which it's perceived as a complete DeSantis victory/Disney loss. Iger's initial public statements on Disney's involvement in politics seemed notably more circumspect than this sort of meme narrative implies. This is pretty much the definition of a company being outmaneuvered by all sides.

Internet ate my reply so I'll summarize: I like this point in general but I don't think the BA point given that this + runtime of films implies BP2 would have had 175% of Black Adam's minutes viewed. It's significantly more than that on Nielsen but the two films aren't all that close in relative terms per Samba. Yeah, Mando's nielsen numbers are impossible to square (though I think my favorite thing is how their number on Mortal Kombat seems to be clearly wrong)

It probably makes more sense to place it into a wider context of attempts to stigmatize smoking and interest group lobbying. MPAA added smoking as a reason for higher film rating in 2007; the WHO attempted to put pressure to ban smoking in non-adult (as in R rated) content in 2016; Disney's internal ban, etc. There's a wider story here that's not so much about Disney specifically.

I wouldn't call this Shazam public comments by various talent "a meltdown" but at least I can squint and see the overall case. However, I don't understand how the specific example cited qualifies, "We made it for the fans" type comments like this may be "cringeworthy" to some people but it's a "selling cars" action not a "having a meltdown" one. I mean, Levi's literally telling people to consume his product in that video. There's no real downside for the studio there. No one's losing face because of it, etc.

Matt Smith, destroyer of film franchises (which also gives you internally coherent fan theories that Kang is the Terminator - Genesys' multiverse time travel setup was weird and stupid).

edit: on second thought, it really is too early to pivot to talking about what third parties knew. Focus really should just be on alleged/charged harms.

Now for something completely different: Lionsgate's film chief made an interesting claim recently that "on a margin basis" a film like Plane is generating 10 points higher profit per level of box office gross than it would have in 2019.

eh, this is a waste of time. Look, basically lazy culture war dunks are bad and not all that helpful to nailing in more interesting causal claims which still can be culture war-y.

Ok, but that's getting to a potentially interesting discussion. Even if you think WandaVision supports your point, framing it as "leading into a white male film" just obviously wouldn't capture those dynamics. "There's a doctor strange movie coming out" just has nothing to do with any of that. Why not lead with this instead of a just-so story that reads as looking for stuff to provide fuel for dunking instead of culture war stuff baked into analysis? I just don't see how the categorizations you're making really hold up to tell us anything meaningful. If Loki had failed with audiences but not critics, I could craft a just-so story about being punished by misogynists for LGBTQ+ representation/some gender stuff. The fact that this didn't happen at least matters analytically to some degree. How honestly thinks race explains recent MCU success/failures? You obviously do because that's your argument but I'm just not seeing it. FatWS, and Eternals seem to be unquestioningly treated as part of the wider creative rut. Why should we affirmatively view marvel's recent successes and failures along racial lines? Does anyone think Oscar Isaac's Hispanic heritage explains literally anything about Moon Knight's reception? I wouldn't consider that an organic read on the data. What's your argument? I agree Ms. Marvel got good critic reviews but I think even the flawed "critics top 10" list stuff I mentioned really does show it's just not in the same level of reception as WandaVision (which was also one of the top __ most streamed shows of the year per Nielsen). That just has nothing to do with Ms. Marvel and everything to do with WandaVision. Again, I really don't think tv critics rating aggregators of their opinions of the first 4 episodes of a tv season are useful. They just don't actually capture audience or critical reception of shows so we just can't push this very far. The good reviews didn't translate into strong word of mouth audience growth a la Andor but plenty of well reviewed shows just don't find an audience.

Does anyone have a baseline for % audience that's parents/kids for something like Shazam?

I'm struggling to extract a good faith interpretation of this WandaVision claim. It's a female lead superhero pastische of sitcoms over time. It's very much not directly in the stereotypical comic book movie (aimed at 18 year old boys) lane and the show that was, FatWS, was not well received. If WandaVision had flopped or received online outrage it would be used as evidence of backlash. At the end of the day, superlative quality really wins out. WandaVision was pretty explicitly the "non-white male action-blockbuster" D+ tentpole of 2021 and everyone loved it. That doesn't negate any other arguments, but you can't dismiss it with a vague reference to Doctor Strange. If you go to Metacritic's tv critictop 10 tv shows of the year aggregations, you can easily see Wandavision treated as a top tier release of 2021. None of the other Disney releases get that treatment (though Loki comes closest). Outside of Loki, none of the others are close to hitting the "top 30" cutoff with most points coming from sites whose names/brands are pretty fandom forward. "A [race gender] show" just is going to be a terrible analytical lens. e.g. Ms. Marvel has 2 separate variables here: "a high budget CW show" (teenage girls skew) and Muslim-American lead cast. These have nothing conceptually to do with each other. If there's a cultural bias argument, which one is controlling mass negatives and why? If you just listen skeptically to people online, it's clearly some genre/age-gender effect that feels out of place to them in established MCU brand.

Let's ignore the culture war stuff: about 20 years into RT's existence, we should all know the utter incomparability of looking at (pretty much literally worthless) RT tv scores and movie RT scores (which, whatever you say about them, genuinely capture a snapshot of critical sentiment for the project on release). RT tv show ratings just don't fundamentally work as a proxy for quality. For one thing you're literally not even grading the show, you're looking at "first 4 episode previews" of seasons treated as pre-release season reviews and for another TV show critic writing mostly takes form of weekly recaps + longform about something not season in review articles. To pick a random example (Marvel, since we're talking marvel): Agents of Shield seasons 3, 5 and 7 have 100% positive ratings [w/ season 4 at 96%], If they were graded as a movie, would even that show's biggest fan expect anything close to that grading? RT just doesn't work for tv. You could just as easily say "Unlike DC films, the CW's Flash has maintained a sky high level of quality throughout it's run as seen by "85-95% grades in seasons 5-7 on Rotten Tomatoes" Hopefully that triggers a Charlie Cale response. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_flash

Why is Daredevil exiled to streaming when he was an early candidate for big budget adaptation? I really think the studios are wary about rebooting B/C list franchises after they flop. WB doesn't want to risk 200M on GL, and True Detective gives them a prestige-y hook for cheaper atmospherics over crazy VFX.

Some decently credible people are vouching for it and there's presumably a conceptually valid critique they'll launch in interviews how "hours viewed" doesn't map neatly onto streamer internal valuations which skew more akin to a demand rating but, yeah, what are we supposed to do with these numbers? Attack on Titan is at least in a weird enough niche that I can imagine a classification system might struggle with if they're baselined to something like genre average but the Flash is "just" a long running CW show. That's a pretty normal type of show with plenty of comps. https://tv.parrotanalytics.com/US/attack-on-titan-jin-ji-noju-ren-mbs attack on titan is classified as "Japanese animation" does that matter(a/k/a is it some sort of genre+ metric)? That's the only thing I can see making this remotely plausible, it's probably a big fish in a tiny pool and looks a lot worse one more level abstracted in grouping

Pretty sure that's supposed to mean Given the massive budget[,] [$]500M[ Worldwide] would not be good

It's a significant drop. Can anyone look at data to see if it's normal? I don't have season dates coded on my nielsen set (Love to know a source to connect it if anyone has it) so I went to see if I could dig up some ESG comps. A number didn't show drops. Handmaid's tale (Hulu's flagship) was growing through season 4 https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2021/08/13/the-handmaids-tale-is-a-hulu-sized-plus-loki-rocks-black-widow-drops-and-action-flops/ You declined for Netflix https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2023/03/10/plum-researchs-showlabs-joins-the-streaming-ratings-report-plus-the-battle-of-the-valentines-day-romcoms/ re: Parrot, This is what weekly numbers say on their website at start of Mando's season Does that make conceptual sense as a ranking? I'll let it speak for itself.