Gatsby77

This. And holds true for most of the pre-unity Valiant line, unfortunately - back in 1992 <40k was a really low print run for books when even middle-of-the-road Iron Man issues were doing 80k-100k per issue and titles like X-Men and Spawn were doing close to 1 million a month. Today, the new market's shrunk so much that 40k puts it squarely in the middle of the pack of the top 150 monthly titles. Rai was the worst-selling pre-Unity title, with Valiant themselves noting that the rarest normal issues were Rai 2-5. Harbinger # 1 had the 16th or 17th lowest print run, but 1) It was the lowest print run # 1 among the 6 major pre-Unity titles (thus, biggest key); and 2) as noted above, 10-15% of the print run had coupons cut out.

Fair points. One of the things I liked about the 2015 film was that while Johnny was black, Sue Storm was the adopted one.

Nah - next up is Shang-Chi.

At least you’re consistent.

7 days in, Black Widow's running 4.0% behind Doctor Strange in terms of domestic box office.

That's my take - first Valiant original property. And there's the nostalgia factor. Those of us who were around in 1992-93 remember its meteoric rise to $100 in what - 13 months? So it was a grail wall book for awhile right before the big crash of 1993. And also notoriously hard to find in 9.8 due to bindery issues until a few years ago, when CGC standards for the book seem to have loosened a bit. So you've also got folks who remember when 9.8s sold for $2,000+. It popped back in 2015 with the Sony movie announcement, but I think that project's now dead. I've got a slabbed 9.2 and about six raw copies and am passively looking for a 9.8. That said, I'd still take Solar 10 in 9.8 over Harbinger 1 any day of the week

Oh no! It's taken Black Widow 6 whole days to reach $100M domestic theatrical. 2 whole days longer than Justice League! And 2 days ahead of Fast 9; 4 days ahead of Ant-Man.

Good point. But it also goes to a larger structural difference between the MCU and DCEU. Disney finances 100% of its superhero movies from the jump. Warner Bros/ATT, however, only fronts 30-50% of the money up-front, relying on the creative team and their production companies to raise the funds for the other half. Hence the co-productions with RatPac, Legendary, Arad Entertainment, etc. See the slate of announced - then cancelled - DC projects (New Gods, Justice League 2, The Trench, Cyborg, Gotham City Sirens, etc.) Most of these were not cancelled for artistic or story purposes, but rather from the lack of success in securing co-financiers. Which wouldn't be an issue if Warner Bros. just fronted 100% of the funds, Disney-style. Simply different funding models. The flipside? When a film does *really* well (ex. Joker), the co-financiers get rich.

I get the altruism angle but don’t be totally naive here either. Warner Bros. needed the allure of free day-and-date high profile releases - at least this year - to build an initial subscriber base for HBO Max. This is *certainly* true for Wonder Woman 84, and arguably true for the Snyder Cut as well. HBO Max debuted 6 months behind Disney+ in a world where Netflix, Prime & Hulu were already dominant. There’s only so many $10-$15 / month streaming services your average family’s going to be willing or able to pay for.

This too. There are a huge number of households in the U.S. whose primary TV is now 65" or larger - and with a sound bar. So the relative spectacle of going to see a blockbuster in a theater isn't the draw it was even 10 years ago.

You keep hammering on the steep day-to-day drop-off as if it was the headline - or somehow *magically would have been the headline* if Disney hadn't released their purported streaming numbers - that they did so primarily to save face on the assumption $80M domestic is somehow "disappointing." ' I disagree - I think the headline still would have been "best opening weekend in two years." Full stop. Yes - it's a fact that it was steeply front-loaded -- but it's not necessarily related to why they release the streaming numbers. What makes the streaming numbers story-worthy is that Disney likely made more profit from it alone than from the entire first weekend domestic gross. I think this will be the new normal...but again, we'll know a lot more when Jungle Cruise comes out in two weeks. And yes - I know Warner Bros. has already announced a return to an exclusive 45-day theatrical window beginning in 2022. Still hard to ignore the money left on the table from a potential additional $50-$100 million opening weekend in streaming revenue for their biggest releases if they simply followed in Disney's footsteps and started charging a similar premium for early access.

That's it. That's headline. Everything else you just stated is your opinion. Both your opinion and too soon to tell. Note: Box Office Mojo has specifically broken out streaming revenue from theatrical revenue. They've not filled in the streaming revenue numbers yet (presumably because they've not validated them) but this points to their belief, at least, that this could be the new normal, not a one-off attempt to "control the narrative." Again, no need to apologize for the biggest opening weekend in 19 months - especially when other films like Fast 9 and A Quiet Place 2 were also solid successes - yet Black Widow smoked them.

? Two separate things. *Nobody* is saying it wasn't incredibly front-loaded. It both was *and* managed to kill it on additional streaming purchases. Both those things are true. Either way, the actual industry headlines were simply that its $80 million 3-day theatrical take set a pandemic record, and a record for any release (so far) in 2020 or 2021. That doesn't need any spin.

I agree. We may be seeing a sea change here - as Disney's take - and profit - from the 2 million Disney+ Premier members opening weekend was arguably more important than (and eclipsed) its domestic box office take. Again, the question is whether they continue to report these numbers - even when they underwhelm. But to @Jaydogrulesearlier note that we don't know if we can trust those numbers, 1) I believe we can; and 2) This is the same sea change we saw 10 years ago, when Nielsen Ratings only captured broadcast numbers, not streaming. Nielsen (and other tracking outlets) adapted, albeit slowly. The industry may be adapting (long term) to greater transparency, especially if/as the importance of theatrical revenue fades. Separate but related: It's significant that the number of Emmy nominations from streaming outlets outstripped the number of Emmy nominations from broadcast and cable outlets combined, for the first time this year. I already think the era of say, AMC, hosting prestige shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead is over. Hard to imagine any of those not going directly to the likes of Netflix / Apple TV / HBO Max / Prime today.

Yeah - California's age of consent has been 18 for decades now. And if he slept with her in more than one state, it automatically trips the federal age of 18, even if both states where the acts occurred had lower ages of consent that made it legal.

Worth reading - analysis of the reported $60M in Disney+ receipts. https://trib.al/wY5oovM?fbclid=IwAR0uRNXCQKW1btwtNig06OPKxkfNvBBirqS3b6jpgNqH3A41SGiaMsjC-Y0 My takeaways: - good point re. no disclosure re. what % of Disney+ Premier sales were global v domestic - Whether Disney will continue to disclose such numbers going forward - if not, the projects presumably tanked. Next up? Jungle Cruise, July 30.

They already did. Oh wait...that was the third Spider-Man movie...

I'd argue The Fast and the Furious franchise is a better barometer for "whether the theatrical landscape's changed" than this single (post-Endgame) Marvel film. Fast & Furious 6 opened to $97M Fast & Furious 7 opened to $147M (en route to $1.5 bn. worldwide) Fast & Furious 8 opened to $99M (en route to $1.2 bn. worldwide) Fast 9 (last month) opened to just $70M.(~30 percent less)

No. Releasing a Black Widow or Hawkeye movie earlier was no more risky than releasing an Ant-Man movie, let alone a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, when they did. Less risky, in fact, given the profiles of the respective actors involved.

Proof or source for this? 65% was the standard as of the business school case study I read 10 years ago (specifically, 65% gross for the first two weeks, 33% for weeks 3 to end-of-run - which averaged out to a 50% overall take of domestic box office for the studios). But 1) The landscape's changed since then; and 2) Disney, specifically, has been known to play hardball with theaters, as they did for The Last Jedi, per the WSJ, purportedly demanding 65% of the *overall* domestic box office, not just the first two weeks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-lays-down-the-law-for-theaters-on-star-wars-the-last-jedi-1509528603 So again, source for your "60% first-week theater gross?"

Well said. Esp. not knowing what $60M knows for streaming, and what the "new normal" is for theater sales. But consider the alternative - the same movie that only appears on streaming - like Amazon's spending (reportedly) ~$155 million on The Tomorrow War. There are ways to limit availability as well, such as HBO Max's model - For example, I missed the window to watch In the Heights for "free" via HBO Max because it's already left the platform (for now), as Wonder Woman 2 similarly left the platform after a few weeks as well. Disney could easily announce that Black Widow won't be available for free via Disney+ until 2023. And whatever you think of Black Widow's opening weekend box office, this is just a trial run for the truly expensive movies coming down the pike - Bond, Dune and Top Gun: Maverick. Those will be the true litmus tests of the theatrical "new normal."

So...spoilers, obvs. but this was brilliant.

Umm...no. A) Even if it's not counted towards the official BO anywhere, $80M domestic is still the largest opening weekend of any film released in 2020 or 2021. B) "Assuming what they are reporting is even true" - this is the first time Disney's opted to report the figures. Even if it's because they feel that *just* $80M domestic was under-performing, if they were lying - it's securities fraud. You *really* think they'd open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits for lying about the Disney+ take of Black Widow's first weekend? C) "This most likely is cutting into their ancillary revenues by an equal amount." How do you figure? 1) Disney+ gets 100% of the revenue from its Premier Access payments, vs. (at best) just 70% of the first weekend's domestic theatrical gross. So $60M streaming is worth more than $80M in domestic box office gross. 2) What ancillary revenues is it cannibalizing? Future DVD sales? Future distribution sales to Netflix (which it doesn't need, owning Disney+)? Merchandizing via Black Widow toy sales? Either way, there's no way it's cannibalizing ancillary revenues "by an equal amount," again, because the Premier Service payments go 100% to Disney, whereas they get only a fraction of the ancillary revenues via licensing and post-theatrical distribution.

I think Black Widow will be a success even if it only grosses $160M domestic - because that puts it solidly in the running for top grosser of 2021 (so far) and the additional international and Disney+ Premiere money will put it over the top. Will it save movies? No. I'm still hesitant to go back to theaters and (for instance) am in no hurry to see Black Widow. I'm sure many others feel the same way. We're living in a new era (at least for now) where the combination of day-and-date streaming and a large percentage of would-be movie-goers having 65-inch (or larger) TVs makes comparisons to the pre-Covid era difficult. The movies I plan to see in the theater this year are limited to just: 1) The Suicide Squad 2) No Time to Die 3) Dune 4) Top Gun: Maverick I also think all of these will out-gross Black Widow. Riskiest one from the list above is likely Dune (as in, it has the greatest potential to bomb - relative to both its budget and expectations).

So...$80M opening weekend vs. Wonder Woman's $103 million opening weekend, what - 4 years ago? But easily the biggest opening weekend in 2020 or 2021 (so far). As Mashable pointed out, the $60 million from Disney+ subscribers who paid $30 per is probably far more valuable to them than the $80M domestic theatrical. And represents probably just 1.5-2% of Disney+'s total subscriber base.