The live-action reboot of "How to Train Your Dragon" debuted at the top of the North American box office, earning approximately $83.7 million in its opening weekend. This film, produced by Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Animation, follows the story of a Viking named Hiccup and his dragon companion, Toothless. Industry expert David A. Gross highlighted that this strong opening is particularly notable for a fourth installment in an established series.

In second place was Disney's live-action remake of "Lilo & Stitch," which continued to perform well with $15.5 million in ticket sales, bringing its global earnings close to $860 million. A24's romantic comedy "Materialists," featuring Dakota Johnson and Pedro Pascal, opened in third place with $12 million.

The latest installment of the "Mission: Impossible" franchise secured fourth position with $10.3 million, surpassing the $500 million mark worldwide. Rounding out the top five was Lionsgate's "Ballerina," a spin-off from the "John Wick" series starring Ana de Armas, which grossed $9.4 million.

Other films making it into the top ten included “Karate Kid: Legends,” “Final Destination: Bloodlines,” “The Phoenician Scheme,” “The Life of Chuck,” and “Sinners.”

Original article

The provided text is a news article about the box office performance of several films, and upon closer examination, it reveals a multitude of biases and manipulative language patterns. One of the most striking aspects is the implicit nationalism and cultural bias embedded in the narrative. The text assumes that readers are familiar with the "How to Train Your Dragon" franchise, which is a Western-centric series created by DreamWorks Animation, a subsidiary of Comcast. This assumption reinforces a dominant Western worldview and marginalizes non-Western perspectives.

Furthermore, the article highlights the success of Disney's live-action remake of "Lilo & Stitch," which has grossed nearly $860 million globally. This framing creates an implicit bias towards Disney as a cultural powerhouse and reinforces its dominance in the global entertainment industry. The text does not provide any context or critique about Disney's market share or its impact on local industries, perpetuating a narrative that celebrates American cultural imperialism.

The article also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. For instance, when describing A24's romantic comedy "Materialists," it uses phrases like "opened in third place with $12 million." This framing creates a sense of excitement and achievement, implying that this film is noteworthy for its box office performance. However, this language pattern overlooks other factors that might be relevant to evaluating the film's success, such as critical reception or audience engagement.

Moreover, the text reveals economic and class-based bias through its emphasis on box office earnings as a measure of success. By highlighting figures like "$83.7 million" or "$860 million," it reinforces a narrative that values wealth creation over other forms of artistic or cultural value. This framing ignores alternative metrics for evaluating film success, such as awards recognition or social impact.

Structural and institutional bias are also present in the article's reliance on industry expert David A. Gross to provide context for the box office performance. By citing Gross as an authority figure without providing any information about his background or credentials, the text implicitly legitimates his perspective while obscuring potential conflicts of interest or biases.

Confirmation bias is evident in how certain facts are presented without question or critique. For example, when discussing Lionsgate's "Ballerina," there is no mention of any controversy surrounding Ana de Armas' casting choice due to her association with Cuba's socialist government during her early career years (2013). Instead, her involvement solely focuses on her role within Hollywood productions reinforcing U.S.-centric narratives around global politics.

Framing and narrative bias are apparent throughout the article through selective ordering of information that nudges readers toward specific interpretations. By placing Disney's remake at second place after Universal Pictures' reboot at first place creates an implicit hierarchy between these two major studios reinforcing their respective market shares within Hollywood.

When examining sources cited within this material they appear neutral but upon closer inspection reveal subtle ideological slants favoring corporate interests over independent voices often marginalized from mainstream discourse thus further solidifying existing power structures within Hollywood’s production landscape