CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 204

post #10151 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damon Houx View Post

This weekend is a big ouch. M:I:III made $134 domestic. GHOST should pass that, I guess, but that's a small victory. The question is how much of this stuff floats as this weekend and next are awkward in terms of the holiday layout. Will we see better weekday numbers? Tintin, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, We Bought a Zoo aren't doing great business. And last weekend everything underperformed.


I wonder if this means we can kiss goodbye the other two projected Dragon Tattoo sequels. Which is a shame.

 

P.S- Welcome back, Damon! Was it you that scooped that JAWS Blu-Ray release at AICN? I thought i saw your name there.
 

 

post #10152 of 16692

I  would like to just take a moment this Christmas Eve to highlight my remarkable history of BOX OFFICE prediction on CHUD: as early as winter 2008 I  correctly picked AVATAR as the new top grossing film of all time, one that would kick off a revolution on 3D cinema (whatever you think of 3D, this did happen, 100% because of AVATAR's success). I started off as saying I saw such an outcome to be very possible bordering on likely, and then by summer 2009 I declared it to be a certainty. I was told by the top Chewers, writers and editors of CHUD that I was wrong, that the box office had changed, and that Cameron's name no longer had that kind of clout. I was told that there was no way the film could run long enough like TITANIC for those numbers even to be possible in a best case scenario. I was told that the concept of blue cat people was silly and no one would go for it

 

I made these predictions having not seen one trailer for the film until I stood in line at the IMAX theater as one played on an LCD screen. I made these predictions having only looked at a single promo image, the blue cat face poster, before I saw the film

 

Though the original article comments from that time are now lost, I feel like my prescience on this issue is worth noting, as it stands as a remarkable feat of box office foresight virtually unmatched in film history

post #10153 of 16692

Your humbleness is truly in the spirit of Christmas, Kate.

post #10154 of 16692


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

Your humbleness is truly in the spirit of Christmas, Kate.


 

 

It's not even bragging really, I just think its a kind of astounding that I was literally the only person on the site, a site full of film fans as intelligent as you will find anywhere on the planet today, to make that call. For that matter, I don't know any big name critic or professional BO site that called it as early as I did. I am kind of perplexed how I was able to pick up on something others were not

 

 

PS I am glad that DRAGON TATTOO is under performing (but not bombing). Craig will want to stick with Bond, and a film I wasn't really too hot on gets humbled. I am still eager to see it on DVD, but these numbers make sense to me. It was kind of weird of the studio to assume that in what are very dark times economically, people would want to spend their holidays on the grim, colorless DRAGON

post #10155 of 16692

Yeah, not exactly inspiring, Kate.

post #10156 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post


It's not even bragging really, I just think its a kind of astounding that I was literally the only person on the site, a site full of film fans as intelligent as you will find anywhere on the planet today, to make that call. For that matter, I don't know any big name critic or professional BO site that called it as early as I did. I am kind of perplexed how I was able to pick up on something others were not



Yeah, but... so?  I called The Dark Knight doing 400+ and was called insane for the prediction (hi, Devin!).  I said Friday the 13th '09 wouldn't hit $70m total after a $40m opening weekend.  Right on both counts.  But you know what?  I've been wrong, too.  Lots.

 

It's a guessing game.  You can add up factors to really examine the odds, but we're still just guessing.

post #10157 of 16692


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post





Yeah, but... so?  I called The Dark Knight doing 400+ and was called insane for the prediction (hi, Devin!).  I said Friday the 13th '09 wouldn't hit $70m total after a $40m opening weekend.  Right on both counts.  But you know what?  I've been wrong, too.  Lots.

 

It's a guessing game.  You can add up factors to really examine the odds, but we're still just guessing.



 

All very true. The thing is though that it's about the timing and the scale of the guess IMHO. If you predicted TDK before Ledger's death, or before the viral marketing/hype really kicked off, that is one thing. If you made that prediction after that point, IMHO that feels like a safer bet. I know I sensed a palpable energy in the public sphere for TDK well in advance of the July release

 

I am just saying I feel a degree of unique pride for having correctly picked at an unusually early date the new top grossing movie of all time when no one else saw it coming and when the level of public awareness for the movie was apparently low

 

Anyway, Merry Christmas

post #10158 of 16692

Yeah, I got Nordling's attention to the JAWS announcement.

 

Next weekend is slightly different but no less awkward in terms of box office. Things may go up for the kids films, but this is the parallel weekend: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2010&wknd=53&p=.htm

 

Again, I would expect strong weekday numbers, but what it suggests is Sherlock may get to $100, Alvin could concievably get there or close, And Girl, Zoo, and Tintin probably won't. Also the air goes out the weekend after. Protocol's looking at a $30 or less weekend, just by how theaters shut down for the holidays. But as an event film, it's hard to know the math on that. Same timeframe, and Tron Legacy held even with the weekend before. What's most notable is that the arthouse films aren't expanding in the same way this year. ARTIST and MARYLIN should have been hitting more screens by now. They'll play through January, but it may give The Help more ammunition to start with.

 

I still kick it here, but I just don't post as much. I don't like being one of those guys who's always linking to what he's doing elsewhere. I'm bad like that.

post #10159 of 16692

You're underpredicting too much, Dre.  Sherlock's a lock for at least 150 at this pace, Alvin probably 130-140.  2005 was the last time the weekend went December 30-January 1st:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2005&wknd=52&p=.htm

post #10160 of 16692

I saw Sherlock 2 yesterday and i wouldn't mind getting another sequel to that.

 

The Muppets turned out to be really frontloaded in its first week. It'll still make a profit though since its budget is only 45 mil.

post #10161 of 16692

$150 seems high for Sherlock. It will probably go up a little next weekend, but post next weekend all numbers should drop heavy.

post #10162 of 16692

Like to share this anecdote.

 

I was at my local Movie Theatre looking at the Posters (The Hunger Games got a good reaction), when i noticed two middle aged guys getting a first look of The Phantom Menace 3D Poster.

 

"WHAT IS THIS SHIT??"

 

Then they turned around and were flabbergasted when they saw a Titanic 3D poster right behind them.

 

There was a JOHN CARTER standee in the Theatre as well. I thought it looked kinda dull. It was just a shot of Taylor Kitsch pulling two Doglike monsters in Chains.

 

post #10163 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

 

The Muppets turned out to be really frontloaded in its first week. It'll still make a profit though since its budget is only 45 mil.


Also, it's practically guaranteed a long future on home video.

post #10164 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post


Also, it's practically guaranteed a long future on home video.



If there's one thing that Disney is good at, it's pimping home media releases.

post #10165 of 16692

$46m 4-day for Mission Impossible 4.  Should do $30m next weekend.  Could do $200m domestically at this pace.

post #10166 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Like to share this anecdote.

 

I was at my local Movie Theatre looking at the Posters (The Hunger Games got a good reaction), when i noticed two middle aged guys getting a first look of The Phantom Menace 3D Poster.

 

"WHAT IS THIS SHIT??"

 

Then they turned around and were flabbergasted when they saw a Titanic 3D poster right behind them.

 

There was a JOHN CARTER standee in the Theatre as well. I thought it looked kinda dull. It was just a shot of Taylor Kitsch pulling two Doglike monsters in Chains.

 



 

It is my hope that PHANTOM MENACE 3D flops and flips hard. Lucas could be wounded psychologically, and the inane practice of "post converting" a 2D image into a 3D one (an impossibility) will be dealt a fatal blow

post #10167 of 16692

Damn you, Kate.  You WASTED your prognostication on AVATAR when you could have guaranteed the failure of PHANTOM MENACE 3D!!!????!?!?!?!

 

I'll never forgive you.

post #10168 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Damn you, Kate.  You WASTED your prognostication on AVATAR when you could have guaranteed the failure of PHANTOM MENACE 3D!!!????!?!?!?!

 

I'll never forgive you.



 

There would be no PHANTOM MENACE 3D without AVATAR, so it's not really something I could have prevented :  P

post #10169 of 16692

Silence!

 

I'm gonna bop you on your NOSEstradamus!!!

post #10170 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Like to share this anecdote.

 

I was at my local Movie Theatre looking at the Posters (The Hunger Games got a good reaction), when i noticed two middle aged guys getting a first look of The Phantom Menace 3D Poster.

 

"WHAT IS THIS SHIT??"

 

Then they turned around and were flabbergasted when they saw a Titanic 3D poster right behind them.

 

There was a JOHN CARTER standee in the Theatre as well. I thought it looked kinda dull. It was just a shot of Taylor Kitsch pulling two Doglike monsters in Chains.

 


 

Although my 13 year old self was obsessed with Titanic, I have no interest in sitting through that film again.  Much more interested in the Beauty and the Beast re-release.

post #10171 of 16692

I haven't seen Beauty and the Beast yet. So i might catch that when it re-releases.

 

I have to say that they are really promoting the shit out of The Amazing Spider Man here. I am a regular weekly movie-goer and my Cinema chain is replaying the Amazing Spider Man teaser in every one of its films.

 

The reaction so far seems to be a little muted and reserved based on the audience expression.

The Hunger Games Trailer is working like gangbusters though. Everyone i know who's seen it was visibly impressed.

post #10172 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

I haven't seen Beauty and the Beast yet. 



WHAT?!

post #10173 of 16692

Oh yes. A mistake i intend to rectify when it re-releases next year.

post #10174 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post



WHAT?!


Um .... neither have I *runs away very fast*.

 

post #10175 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post


Um .... neither have I *runs away very fast*.

 



WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?! 

 

WHO ELSE HASN'T SEEN IT, HUH?!  OUT YOURSELVES AND BE SHAMED, GODDAMN YOU!

post #10176 of 16692

Not only have I seen it, but I've diagnosed that it had such an impression on my six-year-old self's mind that Belle is my mental image of a perfect woman.  Hello, issues.

post #10177 of 16692

I really miss the front page article, by the way. Dre or Renn's version. 

post #10178 of 16692

Not terribly impressed by american audiences at the moment - a lot of (by most accounts) pretty decent movies flopping, or at least doing underwhelming business.

post #10179 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Not only have I seen it, but I've diagnosed that it had such an impression on my six-year-old self's mind that Belle is my mental image of a perfect woman.  Hello, issues.



I have a similar problem, except it's alternatively either Jasmine or Jessica Rabbit.

post #10180 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Not terribly impressed by american audiences at the moment - a lot of (by most accounts) pretty decent movies flopping, or at least doing underwhelming business.



At least they didn't help Pirates of the Caribbean 4 become the second top grossing overseas film of the year.

post #10181 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post



At least they didn't help Pirates of the Caribbean 4 become the second top grossing overseas film of the year.



And American audiences have shown a remarkable skepticism to 3D, which the rest of the world could stand to emulate.

 

post #10182 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post



I have a similar problem, except it's alternatively either Jasmine or Jessica Rabbit.



I thought the go-to answer here was the Little Mermaid.

post #10183 of 16692

The go-to answer is ALL OF THEM!

 

hot_disney_princesses_09.jpg

post #10184 of 16692

I suspect Sherlock 2 will do well overseas when it hits in January (in most places), but what about Dragon Tattoo?  And when exactly is it rolling out elsewhere in the world?

post #10185 of 16692


While I liked the Dragon Tat trailer, I never got the sense that the film was as hotly anticipated as the marketing wanted me to believe it was.  Not entirely shocked at how it's doing so far. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

The go-to answer is ALL OF THEM!

 

hot_disney_princesses_09.jpg



Aurora's a narcoleptic. Snow White hangs out with too many dudes. Cinderella whines about cooking and cleaning.  Jasmine's a poor little rich girl.  Belle's got Stockholm Syndrome.  Ariel's pussy smells like fish.  Tinkerbell's a moody little cunt.  None of these women are prizes.

post #10186 of 16692

You're kidding, right?  Stockholm Syndrome may as well be a bullseye.

post #10187 of 16692

MI:4 goes over $300 million global

 

Now can someone let Josh Holloway headline his own film? 

post #10188 of 16692

War Horse and Tintin look like pretty much unqualified flops domestically. That surprises and disappoints me, to be honest, since I really liked both and would like to see them at least reach $100, which seemed at least possible before now. Spielberg's name certainly seems to have lost its value.

post #10189 of 16692

Tintin doesn't surprise me whatsoever.

 

War Horse, on the other hand, I thought would catch on.

post #10190 of 16692
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Tintin doesn't surprise me whatsoever.

 

War Horse, on the other hand, I thought would catch on.



Told you, babe.  It looked too sugary for the adults and it's too grown-up for the kids.

post #10191 of 16692

TinTin was always a tough sell, and hell, when it even took the internet till two weeks before release to wake up and stop harping on it, there was never a huge potential for it to break out.  The film is meant for international audiences, and the studio knew that--that's why it opened everywhere else in October. 

 

War Horse, though? It's been not even a week yet, it's probably going to pass TinTin by midweek next week, and if it starts getting awards, it could play a long game. It was far cheaper than TinTin  (only $70 million), in any case, so calling it a surefire flop when it could still get to 90-100 million seems a bit harsh.

 

I'm still perplexed at the lack of enthusiasm both films received in the months leading up to release, both in the marketing push and in movie buff's sites. But hey, now we're assured yet another Alvin movie, and probably another Sherlock movie full of diminishing returns. Will this hurt Spielberg? I sincerely doubt it. 

post #10192 of 16692

Yeah this doesn't effect Spielberg's brand-name in the slightest. He's still the biggest name filmmaker in the world.

post #10193 of 16692

Not Cameron?

post #10194 of 16692

In terms of box office, Cameron's bigger, sure. Spielberg does have the distinction of topping the high-grossing film ever chart three times to Cameron's two, though.  Cameron's only averaging one film a decade at this point, and Spielberg's more than earned his spot at the top--just based on cultural awareness, he's the most prolific American director since John Ford. Even in the ads for Avatar, Cameron still got listed as "From the Director of Titanic, Aliens, and The Terminator". Spielberg gets advertised as being Spielberg, and that's all that's needed.

post #10195 of 16692

Couldn't have said it better myself, Greg.

post #10196 of 16692

Agree that the lack of interest for Tintin and War Horse on Boards like this one is baffling. (I know the War Horse thread is 3 pages, but Tintin is barely one!).

 

There's been talk (on CHUD and elsewhere) that it's the International Box Office that matters now. Looks like Spielberg was ahead of the curve on that one.

post #10197 of 16692
post #10198 of 16692

I honestly can't say I'm hugely disappointed by Tintin's sputtering at the box office; it's not about the movie's quality, it's that we were almost away from Hollywood believing that fully mo-cap CG movies are a good idea, and this movie threatened to pull us back in like Michael Corleone. Granted, the success of overseas is a thing, but hopefully people will write it off as the brand name and otherwise kill mo-cap as a technique.

 

As for the box office returns, this was a bit of a lackluster year from a blockbuster franchise perspective--even Harry Potter Part 7 Part 2 had a bit of a pall over it based on what a snooze Part 7 Part 1 was--and there was a lack of exciting new word-of-mouth movies, which is always a major factor in the box office that Hollywood is increasingly ignoring. (Bridesmaids proves that it's still important, however.) There's also the lousy economy. As I've said before, you have to look at the box office for a given year or season holistically, not on a movie-by-movie basis. 1999 was a huge summer for box office because people were excited about Phantom Menace, but there were some other interesting offerings, and people were generally excited about going to the movies. This past year was the opposite--there was nothing for people in general to get excited about. There are fans of various franchises who went out to see Transformers and Twilight, but those tend to reach an established audience and leave everyone else behind. You need at least one breakthrough blockbuster to elevate everything around it, and that didn't happen this past year.

 

I think there'll be a big bounce-back in 2012, though. There are some potential new franchises like The Hunger Games, the Avengers feels like something new and special, and the franchises that are returning--The Hobbit, Skyfall, Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, possibly even Men in Black 3--actually feel *big* and important instead of "well, here's another Harry Potter movie."

post #10199 of 16692
If TINTIN is an example of a mo-cap full CG movie done right then I want a hundred more like it. It was amazing.

And WAR HORSE was up 21% yesterday. Still too early to tell if it's a flop or a slow burn hit.
post #10200 of 16692

But if they'd made Tintin with conventional animation or non-mocapped CGI, with stylized characters that didn't half-pretend to be "real" and thereby fall straight into the uncanny valley, would that have hurt the film? I find it hard to believe it would. I'm sure Tintin is good, but I don't think the mo-cap/"realistic CGI characters" aspect adds anything, and it's an ugly and graceless style of animation that I want to see buried. Audiences generally seem to agree with me, too.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread