All Poster Forum
Movie & TV Talk => General Discussion => Topic started by: eatbrie on May 18, 2012, 08:51:33 PM
-
First Dark Shadows... and now the $250 million + Battleship, which will earn in the low 30s (another major flop for Universal). Add The Dictator ($14 mil this weekend) and What to Expect When You're Expecting ($13 mil), and that's 4 potential big hits destroyed by Avengers.
Meanwhile, Avengers will make another $60 mil this weekend, which puts it at $460 mil domestically in 3 weeks and 1.2 billion worldwide.
Crazy.
T
-
The only way any of those were potential big hits is if they were actually good films. Metacritic scores of 55, 40, 59, 43 respectively do not instill confidence.
If any of them were any good, then they would be doing fine - a $60 million haul for The Avengers is not blocking anyone else from making money.
-
Nobody cares about Metacritic scores. They are completely irrelevant, except maybe for a few executives. These are summer movies, not fall award oriented artsy flicks. There are plenty of "bad" movies doing incredible business during the summer. What we're talking about here is timing. The Dictator, for instance, was moved by a week when WB made the mistake of advertizing Dark Shadows as a comedy. No one in Hollywood expected The Avengers to do so well, and as a result, all the other movies are paying for it.
T
-
What are some examples of "bad" movies that have done incredible business WITHOUT a built in fan base?
-
What are some examples of "bad" movies that have done incredible business WITHOUT a built in fan base?
Are you saying the AVENGERS is bad, Chris?
I'm seeing it Saturday.
-
Are you saying the AVENGERS is bad, Chris?
I'm seeing it Saturday.
Not at all Ted. In fact, it is very good!
My query was in response to Thierry alluding to (essentially) that critics do not matter for the box office.
-
What are some examples of "bad" movies that have done incredible business WITHOUT a built in fan base?
Hmm... Not quite sure I understand your question, since both Dark Shadows and Battleship have a built-in fan base, one from a TV show, the other from a board game... Oh, and What to Expect When You're Expecting is based on a New York Times best seller.
Everything is based on something else at this point.
But to humor you...
Cowboys and Aliens, The Last Airbender, Night at the Museum, Sherlock Holmes, Fast and Furious... and even these are remotely based on something else.
T
-
My query was in response to Thierry alluding to (essentially) that critics do not matter for the box office.
Chris, summer movies are made for teenagers and teenagers do not care about reviews. They do not read. If studios hammer it enough, they will pretty much see everything, as long as they don't go see the same movie 3 times, like they're doing with The Avengers. Which was my point. My American nephew has seen 5 times already. That kind of kills his movie budget. So no Battleship for him.
-
Hmm... Not quite sure I understand your question, since both Dark Shadows and Battleship have a built-in fan base, one from a TV show, the other from a board game... Oh, and What to Expect When You're Expecting is based on a New York Times best seller.
Everything is based on something else at this point.
But to humor you...
Cowboys and Aliens, The Last Airbender, Night at the Museum, Sherlock Holmes, Fast and Furious... and even these are remotely based on something else.
T
I was thinking more along the lines of the Twilight movies. Terrible reviews but incredible business.
But obviously Twilight is critic proof due to the built in fans and interest <------ this is what I am getting at.
I was asking what movies have had a huge box office with pathetic critic reviews that were one offs or did not stem from a different popular media? I.e. the "anti-Twilight"
-
Chris, summer movies are made for teenagers and teenagers do not care about reviews. They do not read. If studios hammer it enough, they will pretty much see everything, as long as they don't go see the same movie 3 times, like they're doing with The Avengers. Which was my point. My American nephew has seen 5 times already. That kind of kills his movie budget. So no Battleship for him.
Good to know your nephew has so much disposable income ;)
-
He's 15. When I was 15 living in Paris, I saw 380 movies in 1 year. I'm not even kidding. I used to write them down in a notebook. I still have it. I probably saw Aliens 10 times. Ah... the good ol' days.
T
-
Nobody cares about Metacritic scores. They are completely irrelevant, except maybe for a few executives. These are summer movies, not fall award oriented artsy flicks. There are plenty of "bad" movies doing incredible business during the summer. What we're talking about here is timing. The Dictator, for instance, was moved by a week when WB made the mistake of advertizing Dark Shadows as a comedy. No one in Hollywood expected The Avengers to do so well, and as a result, all the other movies are paying for it.
I was using the metacritic scores as a simple indiction of quality and you could use any other likability measure that you want - I have a feeling that they would be similar to the metacritic numbers (i.e. lukewarm at best). Any typical summer movie which also happens to get positive reviews (via critics and/or audience) is much, much more likely to become a hit.
The total box office capacity for a given week in the U.S. is far above the $60 mil Avengers is pulling in this week. True, timing is not helping the case of these other films, but if any of them were actually any good, then there is plenty of available cash. The only thing preventing these new films from being successful is that they are not very good, poorly marketed, and/or never had a real audience to begin with...
Anyone who didn't expect The Avengers to be a big hit is a fool. The last few big comic releases received lukewarm receptions precisely because EVERYONE was waiting for them to get to the point already. You can also look at it this way, the repeat business for The Avengers has just as much to do with the lack of any real competition as it does with the quality of the film. Had any of these other films been any good then they would be putting more of a dent into The Avenger's take...
Cowboys and Aliens, The Last Airbender, Night at the Museum, Sherlock Holmes, Fast and Furious...
BTW, The whole point of C&A was that it hit a boatload of built-in audiences (Western, Sci-fi, popular Director, popular leads), The Last Airbender had dual built-ins with being a very popular cartoon series and an M. Night Abomination. Night at the Museum benefited greatly by being the (only) PG movie of choice during a Christmas holiday season stuffed with rated R releases (no competition and parents had to take the kids somewhere), this also help explain the Alvin & the Chipmunks nightmares. Sherlock is almost the definition of built-in audience. F&F was a late summer release with little to no competition, if I remember correctly.
-
He's 15. When I was 15 living in Paris, I saw 380 movies in 1 year. I'm not even kidding. I used to write them down in a notebook. I still have it. I probably saw Aliens 10 times. Ah... the good ol' days.
T
Did you have 380 different girls attend with you?
-
once a week was all I could afford as a kid, and once a year is all I can afford as an adult.
-
once a week was all I could afford as a kid, and once a year is all I can afford as an adult.
Don't worry Ari there is usually only one good movie released per year nowadays...
-
Did you have 380 different girls attend with you?
Also, growing up in Paris is a very unique experience because it is a cinema lover haven. Not only do you get French movies, US movies and so forth, but you also get tons of re-releases and obscure movies. For instance, all of the movies screened at the Cannes film festival this year will get released, whether they are from Botswana or Australia, while only a few will get distribution in the US. I also saw Laura, M, Citizen Kane in a theater. To this day, old movies get re-released weekly. I remember seeing 5 different movies in one day, sometimes sneaking from one theater to the next.
It was awesome. And no, no girls. My only passions growing up were movies and riding horses.
-
Any typical summer movie which also happens to get positive reviews (via critics and/or audience) is much, much more likely to become a hit.
In the long run, yes, which explains the success of Avengers, but not during its opening weekend. Opening weekend are critic proof. Then if the movie happens to be semi-good, adults will pour in.
The total box office capacity for a given week in the U.S. is far above the $60 mil Avengers is pulling in this week.
Of course it is, I am not debating this. You could probably have 2 100+ movies in the same weekend if the excitement was there. It has never happened, because studios stay out of each other's path, but it potentially could. My point is that, at this point in time, a 300/400 mil. Avengers (which is pretty much was pundits had it at) would have grosses in the high 20s, allowing much more coins into Battleship's coffers. A 60 mil. Avengers going to 500/600 is a different story. If Battleship had made 50/60, it would have been considered a semi-hit, ending probably at 140. A diminished Avengers would have made it much easier for Battleship to open at these numbers. Not guaranteed, but easier. The way it stands, the 250 + mil Battleship (Universal has it at 200, but they're lying), will be lucky if it hits 100, especially with MiB3 around the corner.
Anyone who didn't expect The Avengers to be a big hit is a fool.
There is big hit, and then there is Avengers. Everyone knew Avengers would be big. No one predicted it would be this big.
-
Just came in... Per Variety
After relatively smooth sailing abroad, Universal's "Battleship" has hit some rough water Stateside. Pic earned $9 million at the domestic B.O. Friday and is navigating toward a $25 million opening weekend.
For a film budgeted at a reported $209 million and returning from a $220 million-grossing int'l run, Uni appears to have mitigated the blow, but ripple effects into other sectors for the distributor and its producer Hasbro will be felt. Actioner had a significant P&A spend boasting branded ad partnerships with Coke Zero, Subway, Chevron and others. And low interest will likely harm Hasbro's work in ancillary markets, including a rerelease of the board game, videogames and apparel.
"Battleship's" domestic prospects were sunk by worldwide champ Disney and Marvel's "The Avengers," which earned $15.3 million Friday, bringing its domestic cume to $417.3 million while its global cume sits safely north of $1 billion. "Avengers" is expected to win its third consecutive weekend with a little over $50 million through Sunday.
-
Their problem really began with the pitch.
"Know what we should do - make a movie about battleships and call it Battleship and remind everyone it's from Hasbro - makers of Battleship" "Great idea - here's $200 million!"
eyeroll eyeroll eyeroll
-
Agree. My vision of the movie is someone saying G-7, cutting away to an explosion on a battleship and then back to the other guy saying "hit". Not likely to plunk down $60 for me and the kids.
-
Just came in... Per Variety
After relatively smooth sailing abroad, Universal's "Battleship" has hit some rough water Stateside. Pic earned $9 million at the domestic B.O. Friday and is navigating toward a $25 million opening weekend.
For a film budgeted at a reported $209 million and returning from a $220 million-grossing int'l run, Uni appears to have mitigated the blow, but ripple effects into other sectors for the distributor and its producer Hasbro will be felt. Actioner had a significant P&A spend boasting branded ad partnerships with Coke Zero, Subway, Chevron and others. And low interest will likely harm Hasbro's work in ancillary markets, including a rerelease of the board game, videogames and apparel.
"Battleship's" domestic prospects were sunk by worldwide champ Disney and Marvel's "The Avengers," which earned $15.3 million Friday, bringing its domestic cume to $417.3 million while its global cume sits safely north of $1 billion. "Avengers" is expected to win its third consecutive weekend with a little over $50 million through Sunday.
And? Any action/FX heavy POS that is promoted enough will do well overseas. Battleshit failed here because NO ONE thought it would be worth sitting through and it would be doing similarly with or without The Avengers.
There is big hit, and then there is Avengers. Everyone knew Avengers would be big. No one predicted it would be this big.
The Avengers, directed by Joss Whedon, is pure geek nirvana. As long as it was reasonably good, the chances were much greater that it would be this big than it wouldn't, particularly considering the exceptionally weak 'competition'. I have to think that the other studios knew this going in, which is why they are not bringing out their A-game Summer pictures. MIB 3 is the first to have any reasonable chance to make a dent, but is anyone really interested in seeing another sequel from a terrible film released, what, over 10 years ago? It will be a fascinating test of Will Smith's star power and will likely turn on the quality of the picture (as determined by audiences and critics)...
-
And? Any action/FX heavy POS that is promoted enough will do well overseas. Battleshit failed here because NO ONE thought it would be worth sitting through and it would be doing similarly with or without The Avengers.
Completely wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.
T
-
Completely wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Battleshit has had terrible buzz from inception - laughable trailers, being based on a board game, lack of any real hook - at least Transformers has a nostalgia factor. Without The Avengers, Battleshit might have pulled in a tad bit more, but nothing to put it in the 'Hit' category or even the 'not a bomb' that you are claiming.
Why do you think studios are dumping their grade B crap summer movies immediately after a guaranteed hit like The Avengers? It's so they can give themselves an excuse for under performing other than the poor quality/execution of their own product. 'See the film wasn't total crap, it was just swallowed by a bigger fish'.
-
Since the words of someone who's been working in the Industry for 20 years haven't been able to reach out to you and since arguing is futile, I thought I'd post comments from leading Box office publication and websites.
Of course, they could all be wrong, given your extensive knowledge on the matter.
Daily Variety:
As it stands, the prospect of a three-figure domestic cume for "Battleship" is all but dead in the water. "Avengers" gets some credit for that: Disney's mammoth hit cruised to its third consecutive domestic win, dropping just 47% for a weekend take of $55.1 million.
This weekend marks the second in which "Avengers" has wrecked major openings (the other victim was "Dark Shadows"). "Battleship" was expected to gross this weekend $35 million-$40 million -- a paltry projection to begin with for an expensive project.
Hollywood Reporter:
With The Avengers still storming the marketplace, observers knew that Universal and Hasbro's Battleship would come in on the more modest side ($35 million to $40 million), but no one expected it to come in at such a low level after making $226 million overseas.
Boxoffice Mojo:
'Battleship' Drowns Under Weight of 'Avengers'
In this case, though, the real nail in the coffin was The Avengers—audiences had and continued to turn out in droves to see the legendary superhero team prevent aliens from leveling Manhattan, and Battleship's aliens-at-sea premise really had no chance of competing.
Boxoffice Guru:
Dominating the box office for a third weekend in a row and turning all competitors into casualties of war, The Avengers held on firmly to the number one spot breaking more records in the process.
Audiences in the mood for a large-scale effects-driven action picture had Avengers to see - even if it was for a second time - and Battleship just did not stand out as a must-see film.
Boxoffice.com:
The expensive franchise hopeful based on Hasbro's board game simply didn't appeal to mainstream audiences, especially on the heels of the success of The Avengers.
T
-
Thierry, to be fair the last two quotes are pointing out both flaws/obstacles that Battleship faced. The poor showing is not being blamed on Avengers alone...
-
How many movies will Avengers kill at the US BO?
One quote should have been enough. I quoted 5 sources just for the heck of it.
And by the way, Chris the Avenger, "turning all competitors into casualties of war" pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
T
-
How many movies will Avengers kill at the US BO?
One quote should have been enough. I quoted 5 sources just for the heck of it.
And by the way, Chris the Avenger, "turning all competitors into casualties of war" pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
T
I'd say I am more of a DC man but I'd be lying pretty blatantly.
But I am happy to be a member of a super hero team capable of destroying any movies' box office potential regardless of how obviously shitty it is likely to be :)
-
(http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu12/brude2000/GIFS/1881.gif) What a great film thumbup
-
Battleship did have the worst trailer I've ever seen. Looked absolutely moronic and had nothing to do with the board game.
(http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv275/Forty_Candles/2012/Morons.jpg)
-
Since the words of someone who's been working in the Industry for 20 years haven't been able to reach out to you and since arguing is futile, I thought I'd post comments from leading Box office publication and websites.
Of course, they could all be wrong, given your extensive knowledge on the matter.
You're not the only one with '20 years in the industry' around here (well, nearly). Just because my experience is on the exhibition side, doesn't mean that I don't have a solid understanding of the marketplace. I've spent a good chunk of time over the last five years studying this exact subject for a client.
One quote should have been enough. I quoted 5 sources just for the heck of it.
Why? Five 'sources' parroting that same line mean nothing. Chris already pointed out the last two, but I'll comment on the others...
Daily Variety:
As it stands, the prospect of a three-figure domestic cume for "Battleship" is all but dead in the water. "Avengers" gets some credit for that: Disney's mammoth hit cruised to its third consecutive domestic win, dropping just 47% for a weekend take of $55.1 million.
This weekend marks the second in which "Avengers" has wrecked major openings (the other victim was "Dark Shadows"). "Battleship" was expected to gross this weekend $35 million-$40 million -- a paltry projection to begin with for an expensive project.
Boxoffice Mojo:
'Battleship' Drowns Under Weight of 'Avengers'
In this case, though, the real nail in the coffin was The Avengers—audiences had and continued to turn out in droves to see the legendary superhero team prevent aliens from leveling Manhattan, and Battleship's aliens-at-sea premise really had no chance of competing.
They are both ascribing cause and effect not in evidence, based on this 'expected 35-40 mil gross'. There was plenty of capacity and potential audience available for Battleship. If it had been any good or had positive buzz of any kind, then it would have made more money.
Hollywood Reporter:
With The Avengers still storming the marketplace, observers knew that Universal and Hasbro's Battleship would come in on the more modest side ($35 million to $40 million), but no one expected it to come in at such a low level after making $226 million overseas.
Only anyone who saw the trailer... or followed any of the highly negative pre-release buzz in the U.S... beyond that, yeah, nooooobody expected it to sink...
-
Most of myfriends on a trash film forum I frequent loved battleship, which says something.
-
You're not the only one with '20 years in the industry' around here (well, nearly). Just because my experience is on the exhibition side, doesn't mean that I don't have a solid understanding of the marketplace. I've spent a good chunk of time over the last five years studying this exact subject for a client.
Why? Five 'sources' parroting that same line mean nothing. Chris already pointed out the last two, but I'll comment on the others...
They are both ascribing cause and effect not in evidence, based on this 'expected 35-40 mil gross'. There was plenty of capacity and potential audience available for Battleship. If it had been any good or had positive buzz of any kind, then it would have made more money.
Only anyone who saw the trailer... or followed any of the highly negative pre-release buzz in the U.S... beyond that, yeah, nooooobody expected it to sink...
Really? Wow! I just posted those quotes to prove a point that is so obviously true it's not even worth debating (at least to anyone on my side of the business), but I see it is immensely important for you to be right, so I will let it go. There is no point going on and on and on on a subject that is really not that interesting. I actually never thought that my initial comment would be up to so much arguing. I'm a little baffled. But so be it.
-
yeah the real fight should be who would win between Smurfs and Tin Tin.
-
yeah the real fight should be who would win between Smurfs and Tin Tin.
I would watch this...
Really? Wow! I just posted those quotes to prove a point that is so obviously true it's not even worth debating (at least to anyone on my side of the business), but I see it is immensely important for you to be right, so I will let it go. There is no point going on and on and on on a subject that is really not that interesting. I actually never thought that my initial comment would be up to so much arguing. I'm a little baffled. But so be it.
It's called groupthink. It's not new inside the closed walls of Hollywood. Think of baseball before Moneyball...
And I'm not the one who is so unwilling to accept the possibility that I might be wrong or so insecure in my position that I need to quote five sources, such as they are, for backup... It's obviously very important to you, particularly as you continue to denigrate without consideration, which is your prerogative, however it's unfortunate.
-
Battleship did have the worst trailer I've ever seen. Looked absolutely moronic and had nothing to do with the board game.
(http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv275/Forty_Candles/2012/Morons.jpg)
[Spoiler]They didn't even use the phrase 'You sank my Battleship'...[/spoiler]
-
I'm a little baffled.
+1
Considering the incredible praise from everyone I've heard about The Avengers, I would say that its success surely had a huge impact on other movies' box office numbers.
-
Battleship wold have made more money, but it probably would not have made a profit in the US as the trailers were dreadful and the concept is ridiculous, if not recycled. The Avengers most definitely did pull away many millions from the movie regardless
-
+1
Considering the incredible praise from everyone I've heard about The Avengers, I would say that its success surely had a huge impact on other movies' box office numbers.
It had a huge impact on The Avengers number itself. It also certainly had some impact on other films in release, but not to the point of being the sole reason why these other films did not become hits.
It simply makes a better story for all those involved to turn the weekly B.O. numbers into a prize fight...
-
Archie, I understand that many times there is more than one factor in the equation. In this case, The Avengers is on another level in terms of people praising it, compared to the vast majority of movies. Like Rich said, regardless of how bad many think Battleship is, The Avengers took away millions from it. To not look at that factor and claim that the box office numbers story is a prize fight is not realistic.
-
Battleship came out a couple of weeks earlier than The Avengers in the UK and took a very mediocre amount of money...I'd suggest because it looks awful and the word of mouth was poor.
I would think The Avengers took money from it in the US (I know which I'd pay to see given the choice), but I doubt Battleship would have been a hit had The Avengers not existed.
I should qualify the above thoughts by saying I have zero years experience in the 'biz ;D
-
Archie, I understand that many times there is more than one factor in the equation. In this case, The Avengers is on another level in terms of people praising it, compared to the vast majority of movies. Like Rich said, regardless of how bad many think Battleship is, The Avengers took away millions from it. To not look at that factor and claim that the box office numbers story is a prize fight is not realistic.
The praise for The Avengers, while very strong, is not unprecendented by any means, particularly on a relative basis. I would also suggest that the complete lack of interesting (no matter how you define it) competition has made The Avengers stand out even more in comparison than it otherwise would.
I agree and have previously stated that The Avenger took away millions from Battle (and Dark Shadows), but not enough to prevent either of them from becoming 'hits', which was the initial postulate of this thread.
-
I agree and have previously stated that The Avenger took away millions from Battle (and Dark Shadows), but not enough to prevent either of them from becoming 'hits', which was the initial postulate of this thread.
Agreed.
-
Another sad turn of event for Hollywood: The market doesn't seem to be expanding anymore. In the past, even bad movies could do okay business at the BO thanks to the constant onslaught of P&A brainwashing from the studios and a little breathing room in the market. It doesn't seem the case anymore. Blame it on the growing cost of movie tickets, on the 3D surchage, but moviegoers seem more discerning in their choices. When a movie does really well, it leaves cadavers in its wake (or, as Archie would put it, and in an attempt to be more diplomatic :)) takes away millions from the BO battlefield. The Hunger Games helped kill Wrath of the Titans (a better movie which did half of the business of its critically lauded predecessor), and The Avengers helped kill Dark Shadows and Battleship. While both movies are bad (I have seen them, and I can attest), they would have done substantially better business without The Avengers grossing $500 mil +.
Now comes Paramount's G.I. Joe, which has led me to change the title of this thread. G.I. Joe was moved last Thursday from June to March 2013. The studio used a 3D conversion attempt as an excuse, but no one is duped. The movie is bad, and seeing that two really expensive movies have already flopped this year (prompting Disney to a $200 mil writeoff), Paramount freaked out and moved their dud to greener pastures (even after spending millions of $ on advertising.) Toys were also pulled from shelves. The way they had it set up, G.I. Joe was coming out a few days after Brave (no effect there), but also a few days before the new Spider-Man. If the former ends up being good, it would probably do to G.I. Joe what Hunger Games and The Avengers did to others.
This is definitely a new turn of events that has a lot of people in Hollywood scratch their heads. Personally, I think it all comes down to the absurd ticket prices and 3D surcharge. Are bad movies really worth seeing that much? It's finally sinking in.
T
-
I think ticket prices combined with having to make the effort to go have combine to take a notch from going to the theater. I think one reason for this is the introduction of on-demand movies. Tell me you haven't done this.
Avenger's starts at 6:30 (I have a Studio Movie Grill three blocks away). Well that means we have to change, get the kid ready, drive to the theater. Or we could just order one off the cable box. Yeah and that only does cost $6 or whatever for 3 people. So you order it make some food or order a pizza and you can watch in your underwear... Then guess what if it is good sometimes since you have it for 24 hours; you can watch it again!
Another factor for me at least is being behind enough to not be starved of new movies. I wonder what it is called in the movie teck speak. When you can afford to wait to see them on Blu-Ray or DVD because you have so many options. TV, On Demand, Old DVDs, etc. That is where I am at. I have missed so many new movies to the point where they are almost all new. I just saw ghost protocol because the blu-ray was on sale at Blockbuster for $10. I tend to buy more used Blu-Rays these days than go to a theater. I can buy 5 for $20; that is 10 movies for the price of a theater visit for a family of three. So missing Avengers at the big screen not big deal... Blockbuster will buy so many that I can get it for $10 in 6 months...
In fact, I went to a Goonies screening with my daughter and had more motivation because of nostalgia than to see Avengers - simply because I didn't get to see it in theaters.
Also the quality of Blu-ray has effected my decisions as well. I used to want to go to the theater for better picture and sound. I actually prefer blu-ray now over the theater experience. I don't gain any benefits from actually going to the theater...
Just a few thoughts...
-
I think one reason for this is the introduction of on-demand movies.
Maybe to some extent, but not quite yet. On-demand does not offset the fall of DVDs yet. A lot of people don't buy DVDs anymore (I know I haven't bought one in a couple of years now) and On-demand is not nearly as strong as DVDs once were. Not even close. But if you add On-demand to dozens of other new distractions, the rising ticket prices and slow recovering economy, and you've got a solid argument.
T
-
The ONLY reason I dont go to the cinema, ONLY is its too expensive.
I dont drive, but I would walk the 45 minutes to get there.
There's rarely a movie I particularly want to see, but I would watch just about anything in the cinema (not Justin Blah blah 3D etc)
I think cinema popcorn stinks.
BUT I'd still go,
I CAN'T AFFORD $18 for a ticket, so it gets saved for special movies, I will see new Alien, and I saw John Carter. So looks like a good year for me, last year it was just Piranha 3D.
-
I CAN'T AFFORD $18 for a ticket, so it gets saved for special movies, I will see new Alien, and I saw John Carter. So looks like a good year for me, last year it was just Piranha 3D.
You might just be one of the most colorful and original guys I know, even if it's cyber friendship.
T
-
The ONLY reason I dont go to the cinema, ONLY is its too expensive.
I dont drive, but I would walk the 45 minutes to get there.
Can't you kayak there with your new found skills?
-
Funny shit!!!
-
The ONLY reason I dont go to the cinema, ONLY is its too expensive.
I dont drive, but I would walk the 45 minutes to get there.
There's rarely a movie I particularly want to see, but I would watch just about anything in the cinema (not Justin Blah blah 3D etc)
I think cinema popcorn stinks.
BUT I'd still go,
I CAN'T AFFORD $18 for a ticket, so it gets saved for special movies, I will see new Alien, and I saw John Carter. So looks like a good year for me, last year it was just Piranha 3D.
Is this what it costs now? For goodness sake, that is ridonculous
-
Another sad turn of event for Hollywood: The market doesn't seem to be expanding anymore. In the past, even bad movies could do okay business at the BO thanks to the constant onslaught of P&A brainwashing from the studios and a little breathing room in the market. It doesn't seem the case anymore. Blame it on the growing cost of movie tickets, on the 3D surchage, but moviegoers seem more discerning in their choices. When a movie does really well, it leaves cadavers in its wake (or, as Archie would put it, and in an attempt to be more diplomatic :)) takes away millions from the BO battlefield. The Hunger Games helped kill Wrath of the Titans (a better movie which did half of the business of its critically lauded predecessor), and The Avengers helped kill Dark Shadows and Battleship. While both movies are bad (I have seen them, and I can attest), they would have done substantially better business without The Avengers grossing $500 mil +.
Now comes Paramount's G.I. Joe, which has led me to change the title of this thread. G.I. Joe was moved last Thursday from June to March 2013. The studio used a 3D conversion attempt as an excuse, but no one is duped. The movie is bad, and seeing that two really expensive movies have already flopped this year (prompting Disney to a $200 mil writeoff), Paramount freaked out and moved their dud to greener pastures (even after spending millions of $ on advertising.) Toys were also pulled from shelves. The way they had it set up, G.I. Joe was coming out a few days after Brave (no effect there), but also a few days before the new Spider-Man. If the former ends up being good, it would probably do to G.I. Joe what Hunger Games and The Avengers did to others.
This is definitely a new turn of events that has a lot of people in Hollywood scratch their heads. Personally, I think it all comes down to the absurd ticket prices and 3D surcharge. Are bad movies really worth seeing that much? It's finally sinking in.
This is nothing new to anyone that's been paying close attention. 3D was a temporary band-aid on Hollywood's gushing wounds, but actual attendance hasn't been growing for years (2011 was a 16 year low). There are just far too many cheaper and easier ways (legal and illegal) to see the film rather than in a theater, not to mention all of the other reasons to avoid the cinema.
More and more, for someone to see a film in a theater they have to overcome inertia presented by these other factors and that will only happen in highly motivated instances. The primary choice isn't between watching The Avengers and another film, it's between watching The Avengers and staying home doing anything else.
The Hunger Games helped kill Wrath of the Titans (a better movie which did half of the business of its critically lauded predecessor)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/clash-of-the-titans (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/clash-of-the-titans)
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/clash-of-the-titans-2 (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/clash-of-the-titans-2)
Both movies truly sucked... the difference, the first movie massively disappointed the majority of the potential audience for any subsequent Clash movie, so much so that the second movie became a film that no one wanted to see... The Hunger Games had very little, if anything, to do with it (much less so than The Avengers on Dark or Battleship)...
-
You might just be one of the most colorful and original guys I know, even if it's cyber friendship.
T
hmmm, not sure I get it, but I guess thanks. :)
-
Now that The Avengers is losing steam, business should go back to normal. I am expecting Snow White to be quite big this weekend (I already have my tickets for Friday night), but Boxoffice.com has it at $42 mil., which seems quite low to me.
Universal needs SWATH to be big. The studio's Battleship severely underperformed domestically in the shadow of Avengers just a few weeks back. Unfortunately, all the tentpoles that have opened since Avengers have disappointed. SWATH will test whether or not the influence of Disney's juggernaut has finally subsided (...) Look for Snow White and the Huntsman to take in $42 million from around 3,700 locations.
I think it should make at least $50 mil.
T
-
Funny, on the morning "news" this am they made a comment how Avengers was the cause of other movies failings, I had a chuckle, maybe sunrise or today or whatever it was (the show) reads APF
-
Or maybe they have common sense.
Or even better yet, maybe they actually work in the movie industry and know what they're talking about.
T
-
unfortunately if you had seen aussie breakfast TV you probably wouldn't be liking this news. ;)
-
unfortunately if you had seen aussie breakfast TV you probably wouldn't be liking this news. ;)
Was Delta singing?
She's so hot!
-
no, but she is on TV all the time on a really crappy TV show called The Voice. I am sorry you like her, I suppose it might be a french thing like Tina Arena. (?)
-
What's wrong with her?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7088/7308974574_db9da28301.jpg)
She's completely unknown in the US, BTW. I discovered her by accident through a record producer I know before she was even famous in Aussie land.
T
-
Well I understand people find her attractive and talented.
She is not my taste at all looks wise, and her music bored me.
Well done for finding her, I thought maybe it was like how Tina Arena is popular in France or something. I had a huge crush on Tina Arena, when I was about 6 years old (and she would have been 9).
Delta was famous here from 2002 when she was on Neighbours.
-
Or even better yet, maybe they actually work in the movie industry and know what they're talking about.
That, my friend, would be a rare bird indeed... :)
BTW, your probably right about the gross on Snow White, the Twitlight Hunter - the ads/marketing efforts seem to have hit the mark even if it blows with the critics/audiences... Though a Hunger Games hangover is a possibility...
Ebert really liked it and most of the quality critics ended up in the green zone, so at least it shouldn't be a steaming pile...
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/snow-white-and-the-huntsman (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/snow-white-and-the-huntsman)
-
Yeah, actually, I think I'm going to be wrong...
From Variety: Just two weeks after suffering B.O. debacle "Battleship," Universal is seeking swift salvation from "Snow White and the Huntsman" -- though instead it appears the studio is bracing for another round of damage control as it projects a weekend gross in the low- to mid-$30 millions.
With tracking off lately, Universal's seemingly lowball figure could wind up being right. That would prove highly unfortunate for U, given "Huntsman's" production cost, which some sources peg even higher than the reported $170 million. International B.O. will help -- pic launches day-and-date this weekend in 45 territories -- but a soft Stateside bow will spell trouble for the pic, putting it in the company of this year's growing string of misfires, including "Battleship," Disney's "John Carter" and, to a lesser degree, Sony's "Men in Black 3."
Don't know why. Or maybe they're going low to later say that it's a bigger it than they thought. Either way, I really want to see it.
T
-
I thought Delta was very attractive for years, but a week ago I saw her on tv next to a younger girl and Delta looked, how do I say... over the hill :(
She is supposedly earning 750K (for the series) on The Voice whereas the 3 other international stars are on 2 milllion
-
hey thats a clever banner.
-
I thought Delta was very attractive for years, but a week ago I saw her on tv next to a younger girl and Delta looked, how do I say... over the hill :(
She is supposedly earning 750K (for the series) on The Voice whereas the 3 other international stars are on 2 milllion
Dammit... I was going to make a sarcastic banner ad... (not as good as the one you made though)...
-
hey thats a clever banner.
I'm giving a subtle hint to any dealer using plain image banners in their sigs to make them clickable, like those everywhere else on the internet (since it went commercial back in the mid 80's ;) ).
-
I'm giving a subtle hint to any dealer using plain image banners in their sigs to make them clickable, like those everywhere else on the internet (since it went commercial back in the mid 80's ;) ).
Man, I forgot I had made that page... Guess I should update it now. ;) Funny it was on my first click...
-
I'm giving a subtle hint to any dealer using plain image banners in their sigs to make them clickable, like those everywhere else on the internet (since it went commercial back in the mid 80's ;) ).
If the people on this forum don't know where our auctions are or how to get there, then they are REALLY slow!
Bruce
-
Great toy Steve; I am having fun just seeing who will pop up. Now you just need to get with Holiday and T so you can get some kick backs as a referring site...
-
If the people on this forum don't know where our auctions are or how to get there, then they are REALLY slow!
Bruce
What you should do is get with Steve and link it to a random item up for auction...
-
If the people on this forum don't know where our auctions are or how to get there, then they are REALLY slow! stew!
Bruce
-
Okay, so it turns out I was closer to the truth with my $50 mil., even though it still seems quite low to me...
"Snow White and the Huntsman" is faring better than expected at the U.S. box office, with early Friday returns pacing the Universal fairy tale actioner at $17 million to $19 million for the day and $48 million to $52 million for the weekend.
The numbers are a good sign for U, which downplayed expectations Thursday for the big-budget tentpole, projecting a mid-$30 million weekend that would have marked a second straight miss for the studio. But "Huntsman" came on strong with $1.38 million in midnight runs Thursday from 1,092 locations, a performance buoyed by "Twilight" star Kristen Stewart, whose fans are known to show up early. That momentum so far has carried through to Friday matinees.
T
-
Here's a question for you Thierry - why does the industry release weekend box office numbers well before Sunday is over?
I know they project the total for the weekend and then usually correct it on Monday...
Why not just wait until Monday and only state the true return?
-
Here's a question for you Thierry - why does the industry release weekend box office numbers well before Sunday is over?
I know they project the total for the weekend and then usually correct it on Monday...
Why not just wait until Monday and only state the true return?
Cause Hollywood needs something to talk about... That, and the projections after Friday are usually very close.
-
What he said.
-
is "Box" a name for female genitalia in USA? just asking.
-
is "Box" a name for female genitalia in USA? just asking.
Yes...And in America Junior as well
-
is "Box" a name for female genitalia in USA? just asking.
Yes it is.
As in 'box lunch' (open face sandwich), a favorite midday repast for American workers. ;D
-
just wondering, where is this magical box office? how many boxes work there? and how the heck can I get a job there?
-
just wondering, where is this magical box office? how many boxes work there? and how the heck can I get a job there?
Maybe you could get a custodial position ;)
-
I always wanted to be a plumber. 8)
-
I always wanted to be a plumber. 8)
I was thinking you could mop up the spills?
-
yikes
-
yikes
Where's the enthusiasm? Or did you only have it a fortnight ago?
-
one score of fortnights I get my period.
-
one score of fortnights I get my period.
Ewwwww...now I lost my enthusiasm
-
oops spelling mistake, I meant permanent (got to look my best)
-
I always wanted to be a plumber. 8)
I am, and you wouldn't like it...... ;)
-
well, I admit I was lying, I would hate it. Worked with them for years when I managed buildings, we had one we called the WATER SNIFFER, he could work out where leaks came from i swear with nothing but his nose. Funny guy, never forget his entire arm in a sewage pipe, no gloves or anything, come up, shakes his arm off and asks for a smoke.
-
We are a strange breed, did you know Plumbers spit will seal any leak... ;)
-
haha no I didn't, amazing, I know how babies are made though ;)
-
Cruise and Sandler are DOA this weekend:
Cruise, Sandler can't tame 'Madagascar'
3D toon on track for $36 million-plus at Father's Day B.O.
It's Déjà vu all over again at the Father's Day box office, as "Madagascar 3" and "Prometheus" should retain the No. 1 and No. 2 spots domestically, but for stars Tom Cruise and Adam Sandler -- typically big B.O. draws -- the numbers are anything but familiar.
According to early Friday estimates, Warner Bros.' "Rock of Ages" is tracking in the high-teens to low-twenties for the weekend while Sandler's R-rated "That's My Boy" is in fourth place with $13 million-$16 million domestically.
The last Adam Sandler film to open under $20 million domestically was Sony's "Reign Over Me" (2007), another R-rated pic.
Co-starring Andy Samberg and made for roughly $65 million, Sony's "That's My Boy" could see better luck in the wrong run, as Sandler pics typically generate solid multiples.
Cruise, who last appeared in Paramount's B.O. titan "Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol," is getting critical raves for his perf in Adam Shankman's adaptation of the "Rock of Ages" musical, but guys aren't buying it.
"It's a tough sell," one analyst says of "Rock of Ages." "I think the lack of humor in the trailers turned off a lot of men."
Meanwhile, "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" continues to reign in the U.S. with Paramount and DreamWorks Animation's 3D toon suiting up for a $10 million Friday and $36 million-plus for the weekend.
Featuring the voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock and David Schwimmer, "Madagascar" has already cumed over $200 million worldwide. The family friendly pic should see healthy competition next weekend from Pixar's "Brave."
Fox's "Prometheus" is off 50-55% in its sophomore frame, with Ridley Scott's 3D sci-fier at an estimated $20 million-$25 million through Sunday.
-
Odd - don't know why but "That's My Boy" was the first Sandler picture in a LONG time I actually considering going to see...
-
The review in the LA Times today was fantastic. This is how it begins: Even with 87.5 years to go, the 21st century may never see a stupider comedy than"That's My Boy."
After squishing around in such dubious PG-13-rated hits as "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," "Grown Ups"and "Just Go With It,"Adam Sandler's latest swings for the fences of hard-R-rated raunch, just past the outfield of rancid. Deploying a Boston dialect that makes one long for the voice he came up with for the distaff half of "Jack and Jill," Sandler plays a party-hearty punk who, at age 13, fathered a child with his sex toy of a schoolteacher. This produces a son portrayed by Andy Samberg, who quit"Saturday Night Live" for this?
After reading this, I was like... Shit, I really need to see this crap.
T
-
Featuring the voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock and David Schwimmer, "Madagascar" has already cumed over $200 million worldwide. The family friendly pic should see healthy competition utter devastation next weekend from Pixar's "Brave."
Fixed. Oh, and I've been subjected to numerous Rock of Ages ads and had no idea Cruise was in it...
I saw that LA times review and have to say that there is simply no possible way that THIS Adam Sandler POS is any worse that THE REST of his horrendous output... No one has made more (cash) out of less (talent) that Adam Sandler.
-
Rock of Ages ads and had no idea Cruise was in it..
+1. I though it was another English band film or jack black sequel....
-
Fixed. Oh, and I've been subjected to numerous Rock of Ages ads and had no idea Cruise was in it...
I saw that LA times review and have to say that there is simply no possible way that THIS Adam Sandler POS is any worse that THE REST of his horrendous output... No one has made more (cash) out of less (talent) that Adam Sandler.
I have to say talent or lack of doesnt bother me, its how ANNOYING he and his characters are. He needs to be in one of those crappy hostel films so we can watch him being sliced up. Him and Will Smith. have their arses sewn to each others mouths in a human centipede the circle of life.
-
Him and Will Smith. have their arses sewn to each others mouths in a human centipede the circle of life.
You've always been one for racial equality ;)
-
Another disastrous weekend at the box office.
I was expecting Trouble with the Curve to do better, at least in the high teens, and I'm wondering if Clint's grotesque stunt at the GOP convention had something to do with it. I will see the movie, probably this week, but I know the chair thing put a serious dent in my initial enthusiasm.
T
-
I hear the new judge dredd ain't doing so well, come on Americans watch it, so it makes it to Aussie screens. Please, thanks.
-
I hear the new judge dredd ain't doing so well, come on Americans watch it, so it makes it to Aussie screens. Please, thanks.
They should have chosen a guy besides Clint to play Dredd. Even that baseball movie is beating it. :P
-
WOW!
'Twilight' whammo with global franchise-best $341 mil - Vamp saga finale trails 'New Moon' domestically with $141 mil
By: ANDREW STEWART
Summit's "Twilight" finale, "Breaking Dawn - Part 2," scored a franchise-best worldwide bow this weekend, staking a massive $340.9 million, including $141.3 million Stateside in three days.
Last year, "Breaking Dawn - Part 1" debuted at $283.5 million globally, just ahead of "New Moon," which grossed $274.8 million during its first worldwide sesh. The franchise's third offering, "Eclipse," bowed mid-week during summer 2010, earning $157.6 million domestically in its first five days, with a global debut of $261.6 million.
The boffo Stateside opening for "Part 2" missed the franchise's previous opening record held by 2009's "New Moon" ($142.8 million). The finale still topped the franchise's penultimate offering, with $138.1 million domestically.
With the help from a sturdy holdover perf from "Skyfall," at $41.5 million, as well as a better-than-expected expansion for Disney-DreamWorks' "Lincoln" ($21 million), weekend totals, at approximately $216 million, came in as the third-best overall frame this year, behind "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises" opening weekends, respectively.
Pre-weekend tracking had "Part 2" pegged at a potential $150 million opening. And while those projections proved a tad bullish, the pic still played better than the lowered $135 million estimates released late Friday.
Prospects look promising for "Part 2," especially since the film received an A CinemaScore - the same as 2010's "Eclipse," which drew the franchise's biggest Stateside cume to date of $300.5 million.
-
The ladies and teens are where the money is at I guess. I can't watch that twilight crap...
-
Good man.
-
Wow... American Sniper at 100+ mil. Who would have thought.
Timing is everything.
T
-
When you see how gigantic the Jurassic World intl. boxoffice has been and when you realize how far it still is from Avatar and Titanic is when you realize that Cameron is really king of the world. At least over the past 20 years.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/19844540480_aee99d9e58_o.png)
T
-
When you see how gigantic the Jurassic World intl. boxoffice has been and when you realize how far it still is from Avatar and Titanic is when you realize that Cameron is really king of the world. At least over the past 20 years.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/19844540480_aee99d9e58_o.png)
Mel ?? ;-)
T
-
What about Mel?
-
September is historically speaking the studios' dumping ground month (along with January), but even by those tepid standards, I'm quite amazed to see that many big movies falter at the boxoffice.
Cases in point...
Universal
Crimson Peak
Jem and the Holograms
Steve Jobs
Paramount
Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse
WB
Pan (probably the costliest flop)
Our Brand Is Crisis
Sony
The Walk
Lionsgate
Freeheld
The Last Witch Hunter
Weinstein
Burnt
Open Road
Rock the Kasbah
Thank God for Bond!
T
-
Fuck!!!!
$370mil domestic!!!!
Is this for real?????
T
-
Think it can beat Avatar, T? I think there will be a lot of folk who will go see it more than once.
-
It's insane to think we are at the point where a movie can do $1 Billion worldwide opening weekend.
I remember it wasn't that long ago when Spidey was the first to top $100 million for an opening weekend, and my buddies and I wondered how long until a movie did that much in a day (not counting previews the day before), and it looks like that day is here.
-
Think it can beat Avatar, T? I think there will be a lot of folk who will go see it more than once.
I think it will beat Avatar domestically, and has a shot at beating Force Awakens’s $900 mil. Internationally, hard to tell. Force Awakens was a huge event too. Ticket prices are much tighter than Avatar, but 2.8 billion is high. We’ll know next weekend.
T
-
It's insane to think we are at the point where a movie can do $1 Billion worldwide opening weekend.
I remember it wasn't that long ago when Spidey was the first to top $100 million for an opening weekend, and my buddies and I wondered how long until a movie did that much in a day (not counting previews the day before), and it looks like that day is here.
My family contributed to Avengers today, Crow. We are still lucky in that our locally owned, independent theatre still only charges $5 for a matinee. Also, for another $5 total you can get a small popcorn, small drink, and one Reese's peanut butter cup. Okie
-
My family contributed to Avengers today, Crow. We are still lucky in that our locally owned, independent theatre still only charges $5 for a matinee. Also, for another $5 total you can get a small popcorn, small drink, and one Reese's peanut butter cup. Okie
Nice and lucky. Here it's $20.50/person. I saw it with my wife last night. Between a 6 hour babysitter ($120), a dinner for two ($140), the movie and concession ($70), here's a $330 evening. It's okay when the movie is good, but it blows when the movie sucks. Thankfully, Endgame was fun. Yes, L.A. is expensive.
T
-
Nice and lucky. Here it's $20.50/person. I saw it with my wife last night. Between a 6 hour babysitter ($120), a dinner for two ($140), the movie and concession ($70), here's a $330 evening. It's okay when the movie is good, but it blows when the movie sucks. Thankfully, Endgame was fun. Yes, L.A. is expensive.
T
$20.50 a ticket! Holy smokes, T! I had no idea it was that much in L.A. Our four matinee tickets were less than one of yours. Goodness gravy! Okie
-
Yeah, whenever I travel anywhere else in the US, I feel rich. Except for NYC and San Francisco, of course.
T
-
Yeah, whenever I travel anywhere else in the US, I feel rich. Except for NYC and San Francisco, of course.
T
I have not yet had the opportunity to visit L.A., T. Folks here sometimes say L.A., though they mean Lower Alabama. I have been to San Diego before. Maybe I should pack some sandwiches if I someday get to visit Los Angeles?! Those L.A. movie ticket prices would really cut into our food budget. Wait a minute, is that why so many people out there are thin? I'm afraid to ask what the all-you-can-eat buffet for two costs at the Golden Corral in L.A.? $140? Oh, no!
Okie
-
Hahaha... I don't think we have all-you-can-eat buffet around here. I remember going to Souplantation when I was in college, but not for years. I think this is more like a Southwestern way of living. When I say dinner for 2, it's more like a casual place for dinner, nothing too fancy, but not all-you-can-eat.
T
-
Hahaha... I don't think we have all-you-can-eat buffet around here. I remember going to Souplantation when I was in college, but not for years. I think this is more like a Southwestern way of living. When I say dinner for 2, it's more like a casual place for dinner, nothing too fancy, but not all-you-can-eat.
T
Casual dinner for two is $140? Sounds like you all aren't going to Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factory. :P
One the other hand, depending on where you see it, $20 for a ticket is cheap. I think out IMAX here is $25
-
£8 for a ticket where I am. That has been hiked from £6 due to a massive refurbishment.
-
Can you believe the first Iron Man only came out 11 years ago!?! And even tho the only other Marvel film at the time was the Edward Norton Hulk -- Disney clearly saw the writing on the wall. I remember all the analysts saying Disney overpaid for Marvel at $4 billion. And they were claiming it again a few years later when they paid another $4 billion for Lucasfilm. laugh1 laugh1 laugh1 laugh1
-
I remember all the analysts saying Disney overpaid for Marvel at $4 billion. laugh1 laugh1 laugh1 laugh1
And to think that Perelman only bought Marvel 20 years prior to that for under $85 million.
-
The trailers before Avengers really shocked me considering all the kids in the audience (we all know parents are increasing box office and bringing kids, right?): John Wick 3 and the really dark, psycho, crazy, horror movie like trailer for New Mutants. Kids in our audience were scared and crying from seeing just these trailers. If that trend continues, even our family would have to re-evaluate our 11 year old going and that could change revenue. The super hero fighting --I'm trying to avoid spoilers here-doesn't seem to be on the same level as the super realistic R rated violence of John Wick, right? Okie
-
We didn't get either of those trailers when we saw it Okie.
We had Star Wars, Godzilla, X-men, and MIB
-
i just checked and in UK JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 3 [Trailer 1] is certificate 15 and AVENGERS: ENDGAME is 12A so they wouldn't be shown together here and assuming same certificates in USA then your cinema messed up okie. your 11year old couldn't watch it here but i guess lots of 10/11year olds sneak in ;D
bigger mistakes have happened here https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/apr/09/horror-trailers-shown-before-screening-of-peppa-pig-festival-of-fun-ipswich
-
And to think that Perelman only bought Marvel 20 years prior to that for under $85 million.
Nice ROI thumbsup.gif
-
We didn't get either of those trailers when we saw it Okie.
We had Star Wars, Godzilla, X-men, and MIB
Weird! We did have MIB, too, Crow. I don't know what the heck happened. Do theatres get to choose the trailers these days? Hmmm, something we need to perhaps talk with our theatre owner about. Redman's UK trailer ratings are interesting as well. Okie
-
Endgame is holding remarkably well.
$30 mil+ dailies in the US, with another $100 mil a day worldwide, word is that China Wednesday will be close to $75 million alone.
It will probably start the weekend right around 1.75 billion worldwide, meaning a weekend of "only" $430 million will put it right at Titanic for #2 all-time.
Not sure what Pikachu will do the following week, but right now it's hard not to say this will have the legs to make it to #1 all-time.
-
So Endgame will most definitely not pass Force Awakens domestically, which made sense given the fanboy enthusiasm #7 generated following 32 years of an excruciating wait. But it did beat Titanic, even though it's not an apple to apple comparison. Ticket prices in 1997 were at $4.59 vs $9+ today. Still, it is a feat, a feat James Cameron recognized in the trades, as did Spielberg when SW passed Jaws, Lucas when ET passed SW, and so on. I have to find those. They were pretty funny.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47930378963_cfd31c647f_h.jpg)
Endgame still has a shot at passing Avatar internationally, but that again is not really a fair comparison. Ticket prices in 09 were at $7+
T
-
Have never seen Avatar.
Just looks fucking stupid.
-
Here are a few trade ads that I've kept.
Jaws to Star Wars
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47933488818_caa13337e6_o.jpg)
Star Wars to ET
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47933492661_a25d319d96_o.jpg)
ET back to Star Wars
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47933488743_e96e79a082_o.png)
Star Wars to Titanic
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47933488713_35d515bc4c_b.jpg)
T
-
R2D2 wouldn't have reeled that sharky very far with the hook like that, though.
I wonder how good Avatar 2 and 3 will be.
Great illustrations cool1
-
R2D2 wouldn't have reeled that sharky very far with the hook like that, though.
I wonder how good Avatar 2 and 3 will be.
Great illustrations cool1
So true, Sir B... so very true.... LOL And a worm should have been on that tiny hook, too. ;D
-
clever ads
-
So Endgame will most definitely not pass Force Awakens domestically, which made sense given the fanboy enthusiasm #7 generated following 32 years of an excruciating wait. But it did beat Titanic, even though it's not an apple to apple comparison. Ticket prices in 1997 were at $4.59 vs $9+ today. Still, it is a feat, a feat James Cameron recognized in the trades, as did Spielberg when SW passed Jaws, Lucas when ET passed SW, and so on. I have to find those. They were pretty funny.
Endgame still has a shot at passing Avatar internationally, but that again is not really a fair comparison. Ticket prices in 09 were at $7+
T
it was obvious 3 weeks ago (on the 2nd Monday) that passing Star Wars domestic was not going to happen. a $10 mil daily 2nd week, vs a near $30 mil daily 2nd week for Star Wars.
I like the Japanese style of reporting, where it's mainly attendance numbers. Makes it much easier to compare older films with today when ticket prices can be 2x, 3x, or more than 4x what they were in the past.
Pretty sure attendance for something like Gone With the Wind is mind-blowing - especially when compared to the population as a whole back then.
-
I like the Japanese style of reporting, where it's mainly attendance numbers. Makes it much easier to compare older films with today when ticket prices can be 2x, 3x, or more than 4x what they were in the past.
Pretty sure attendance for something like Gone With the Wind is mind-blowing - especially when compared to the population as a whole back then.
I have to disagree sir.
GWTW was released in an age where one didn't hear; 'Nah, I'll see it when it comes out on DVD / streaming / terrestrial / pirated version.'
One saw it at the cinema, or one didn't see it at all.
-
I have to disagree sir.
GWTW was released in an age where one didn't hear; 'Nah, I'll see it when it comes out on DVD / streaming / terrestrial / pirated version.'
One saw it at the cinema, or one didn't see it at all.
Not a bad point, and makes a good argument. Kind of emphasizes the why Pixar would make a Cars2, when at the time it was the worst performing Pixar film of all-time at the box office, until you find out it is also the 2nd best selling DVD of all-time and then it makes perfect sense.
Looking at box office results alone though doesn't seem to be quite a fair gauge of success either though (and not even going to get into factoring in the cost of the film). If we use the GWTW example, we see it was out-grossed by Ralph Breaks the Internet last year. Somehow, I feel the anticipation, excitement, and impact of the two is quite different.
Not sure what a fair comparison between ages would be.
-
Not a bad point, and makes a good argument. Kind of emphasizes the why Pixar would make a Cars2, when at the time it was the worst performing Pixar film of all-time at the box office, until you find out it is also the 2nd best selling DVD of all-time and then it makes perfect sense.
Looking at box office results alone though doesn't seem to be quite a fair gauge of success either though (and not even going to get into factoring in the cost of the film). If we use the GWTW example, we see it was out-grossed by Ralph Breaks the Internet last year. Somehow, I feel the anticipation, excitement, and impact of the two is quite different.
Not sure what a fair comparison between ages would be.
Hi Crow and Simes. Also, how do we factor in the allure of air conditioning in movie theatres on a hot day/night pre-home air conditioning? Maybe a factor, my parents said they were given 25 cents and sent to the theatre most of the day sometimes as sort of a babysitter substitute (not sure if that included any first run movies?). Okie
-
I have to disagree sir.
GWTW was released in an age where one didn't hear; 'Nah, I'll see it when it comes out on DVD / streaming / terrestrial / pirated version.'
One saw it at the cinema, or one didn't see it at all.
It’s actually much more complex than that. Yes, GwtW was released at a time when ancillary markets didn’t exist. Money was made in theaters, period. Worldwide distribution was also very spotty. Movies would hit theaters in Europe years after the US distribution.
And then there was the re-release factor. GwtW was in theaters for 5 years uninterrupted. Nowadays, a movie is lucky to have a 10 week window. Then it was re-released a dozen times, always making a lot of money since it was not available on any other platforms. New generations discovered it in theaters, and it was still an event.
Then one of the networks, I think it was NBC, bought the rights for a single showing in the mid 70s. The first time the movie made money outside of theaters.
So yes, it is by far the biggest hit of all time, but the Boxoffice figures are way, way off. They were added with zero consideration of ticket prices or inflation. And a lot of them are simply made up. No computers to check them out, just the word from the distributor.
So how does it compare to an Avatar which made so much more money on home video, international TV sales, etc... it doesn’t and it shouldn’t.
Most countries go by attendance, which makes comparisons much easier. It’s complete BS in the US.
T
-
It’s actually much more complex than that.
Oh, I completely agree. I was only going for the short sharp hit of a point.
I could also have said the competition for other forms of entertainment were not as great in the 50's. Now, to distract the 18-30 year age group from the cinema are video games, tv in its 400 channel form, phones, youtube, drugs and kicking in bus shelters. Back in the day, all you had was ice cream and Friday night dances.
Bottom line, I reckon it is really only worth comparing figures with the decades. Otherwise, forget it.
-
Oh, I completely agree. I was only going for the short sharp hit of a point.
I could also have said the competition for other forms of entertainment were not as great in the 50's. Now, to distract the 18-30 year age group from the cinema are video games, tv in its 400 channel form, phones, youtube, drugs and kicking in bus shelters. Back in the day, all you had was ice cream and Friday night dances.
Bottom line, I reckon it is really only worth comparing figures with the decades. Otherwise, forget it.
Drug usin' & abusin' has been happening since day 1. That's nothing new... LOLOL potroll.gif verydrunk.gif
-
Yeah, I know.
Was kinda going for the humorous angle as opposed to purely the veracity.
-
Ancient history but i dont buy that Way of Dragon was a flop when you consider Big Boss and Fist of Fury were huge hits , supposedly Chow had two books for Way , was he funneling cash to the triads ?
Also Bryanston the US distributor had mob ties (this is fact , TX Chainsaw actors were cheated out of royalties until the 80s)