PlatnumRoyce

Isn't it more like being a fan of "DC Comics?" "Disney fans" aren't saying they really love Touchstone pictures (or even Pirates of the Caribbean). Disney animation is a multi-decade long brand that's also often associated with a certain level of quality. IT's also often referencing a sub-genre in its own right (e.g. I'm pretty sure a lot of people think Swan Lake or Thumbelina is a Disney movie because they're so strongly defined as the people making that sort of film).

Despite Mando/Yoda being pictured, they're not actually included in Star Wars ROI, right because that's just looking at theatrical films (revenue + derivative works licensing/ budget + P&A)

To be fair, that film had a significant box office drop off from Black Panther. The positive interpretation positions it more like a spinoff than a sequel.

I don't really get how people think that. It's just trivially easy to see the deep well of goodwill Black Panther 1 created for "Wakanda" and that's clearly carried over past BP2. Just listen to people talk. The comparison to Captain Marvel doesn't work. That being said, I agree that BP2 didn't really succeed in elevating Shuri to a "tentpole" figure. I think the more obvious answer is simply that a third Black Panther/Wakanda film isn't fast-tracked but that they're looking for something that could recreate the original film's interest. Disney is just very obviously interested in making another big tentpole Wakanda film. If they pushed out BP3, it's not going to make 700M Domestic...but if you think it's going to make 85M Domestic (Marvels) or even 190M, I'd love a piece of whatever you're smoking.

To clarify, the son is a remnant of the "Boseman Black Panther 2" which uses "the snap/blip" to tell an adventure story of a man connecting with a son whose early years he missed. Coogler's talked pretty directly about this and it explains the weirdness of how it remains shoehorned into the post-credits scene. There's a clear emotional core to the character which is radically altered by Boseman's sudden passing. I don't know what their ideas are for BP3 but I just highly doubt that Disney's going to completely veto whatever Coogler's vision is for a third Black Panther film. There really is a lot of money riding on selling continuity in the BP franchise rather than a reboot.

Social media virality seems to be really really important to get attention. This just feels like it obviously came from the film's pr team

Obviously, but is this a leak claiming explicit knowledge CM3 isn't moving forward or is it just extrapolation from on the record statements by Bob Iger? edit: Obviously I should have read the comment above this one which makes it pretty clear.

Sure. My point was more that because all 3 films are from WB, WB is going to essentially to pick one of them as their main horse.

WB has Dune 2, Joker 2 and Furiosa, three sequels/spinoffs to big blockbusters with a massive amounts of awards love. However, that also means the three films will often be competing for the same spot(s). Feels like we need to see Furiosa/Joker first before predicting Dune 2's awards reception too strongly.

Any chance the name of the thread can be changed? It's annoying to be unable to find it because it's using characters to represent a font change.

Which is a really hard hurdle to clear (especially when the lead actress is the true star of the film instead of "just" a secondary co-lead. The last time someone clearly won from that position was Witherspoon in Walk The Line (I'd also say Oliva Coleman for the Favourite but I don't really understand how that film's nominations were split).

I'm a little surprised the Oscars never mentioned the big new four part Representation & Inclusion standards that went into effect while announcing 1 new category and doing the weird Stunt performer thing. It feels like the sort of thing we've previously seen mentioned (e.g. announcing the waves of new voters incorporated after years of criticism).

see above

Sure, but my go-to example is the film 65. The studio reported a 45M budget but if you follow the tax credits (Louisiana, Oregon & Ireland), the minimum "gross" budget on the film is roughly 67M and the minimum net budget is ~52M. I agree about the cheaper feel about Madame Web but I'm just more inclined to believe the larger budget number that's credibly floated in the lack of alternate explanations (I don't think anyone's explicitly claimed the 80M claim was Net versus a Gross spend of $100M, that's just an attempt to reconcile different numbers). Yeah, 80M is definitely possible.

The Tax credits are only reported publicly in July so that 80M number feels like an extra nudge of studio spin to cushion the PR of the film's status as a bomb. I think we should default to buying the $100M number.

I really think the Oscars' "Vibe Shift" away from the 2010s "let's only let niche indies win" really happened a few years ago and CODA really would have been an example of this had it received a normal theatrical release. It clearly was a pretty much random best picture winner because it turned into a big crowd pleasing hit as voters didn't really want to give it to 2021's version of Birdman (Power of the Dog). It's more notable that every small film won instead of a big film not that any specific small film won. Spotlight winning over the Revenant, The Martian and Fury Road (The Martian got a sneakily large amount of Oscars love) is probably something that doesn't happen in the 1990s. Also, I think it's pretty clear the only reason green book won is that Roma was released on Netflix instead of theaters. There was a lot of love for that film that ran up against the anti-Netflix buzzsaw.

Both are true. Spielberg memorably called the interview junkets for movies "a time to sell cars" as opposed to "being a human being and having an opinion." These people are "on the clock" during those interviews. I'm not sure I agree Sony's right to be angry here. The film's terrible reception was 200% priced in by the actual film and Johnson genuinely got more attention to the film. I think this specific comment is what got Sony angry and they have a point. You're supposed to do what David Ayers did for Suicide Squad - play the good soldier for a few years even if the studio's hit you in the balls in the editing room. Acknowledging a film is bad while its still in theaters is something fairly banal you'd expect studio people to get angry about. I doubt this is made up but it's also obviously blame shifting by studio people.

do we know how much they shot in NY?

It's not good but when I looked at the first 20 months or so of vRT scores against posttrak/cinemascore I found kids movies had the largest point of divergence. The obvious problem is that kids don't rate the films online but are a significant part of the film's "real" word of mouth reception. Of course, if this is drawing out an "older" audience of people who saw the earlier films as kids that objection would be weaker.

Basically that's it. I've aggregated some ISPOT and EDO data on this year's films based on OW articles. Based on ISPOT's data, Barbie spent 8.7M through OW but cobranded spots (most notably from progressive) spent $12M on ads which would raise it from a low amount of spending to a normal amount. That's still not the mega marketing budget you'd expect but I really suspect people undersell the degree to which Barbie was able to leverage the brand to get other people to pay for marketing. In that vein, Star Wars: Phantom Menace really had a modest marketing budget but you'd never have known it in 2000 from all of the brand partnerships.

This is getting a bit off of pre-sale tracking (so I'm posting in weekday thread) but that studio's seems to have always explicitly signaled their big bet is an animated film about the biblical figure David with a hefty $61M budget (up from initial announcement's $35M target in 2018) which is slated for a mid-2025 release. I found that out on Edgar and also saw that Angel Studios' recent filings have all been talking about how they're engaged in a lawsuit over losing rights to distribute The Chosen which makes up the vast majority of their revenue. I wonder if that basic financial issue is part of the aggressive push into theatrical? Establishing a new business at a scale that compensates of the loss of the initial one.

75/25 split I believe (the deal nearly fell apart because Disney pushed hard for 50/50)

Because this is an Alex Garland thread, I'll just flag that I didn't realize just how cheap 2022's Men was (IIRC $2-3M) which explains why the film bombing didn't seem to impact him. I got the impression it was a bit more like Beau is Afraid

Nope, This seems to be a scoop. I ran it through google translate and got differences between flyker and flying and I checked out what "chatGPT" said (self-evident caveats here) edit: alternatively, if there is a miscommunication it would be in the Norwegian reporter's understanding of whatever Gunn actually said. I can imagine this being an English language "fly/flies" -> norweigan "flees" -> English flees scenario.

Disney promised a "Mando-verse" movie about 7 months ago so some of the benefits to Mando & Grogu should have been baked in prior to the game's cancellation (granted, that version of the movie would have involved 1-2 shows featuring jedi/force stuff). Knowing absolutely nothing about this, I'm wondering if there were some "what do you have the rights to do with Mandalorian" roadblocks given live action tv shows exploring that a bit more and the existing lore about them seemingly being contradictory.