CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 211

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadew1 

haha so 75 was a typo? That's really your story, Sony?

 

from box office mojo:

 

Quote:

 

I thought the marketing was decent and you can't really use the CUZ IT SUCKED excuse on opening weekend, so I think two things hurt SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE:

 

1.) People just didn't like the first one

2.) 3D. At this point the 3D scam should be reserved for sure-thing blockbuster movies. You can't expect people to shell out $18 for a movie like this. Plus, these days barely any theaters actually give you the 2D option.

"Ghost Rider" is an "established brand"?

One shitty movie and a constantly-canceled comic doesn't mean Spirit Of Vengeance is the latest in a series from an ESTABLISHED BRAND.

Silly Sony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Not black, but more olive-skinned.  Just light enough to 'round up' to Jennifer Lawrence with darker hair!

 

Not that I think Lawrence won't do a good job, but it would've been exciting to see Hailee Steinfeld get the part instead.

Olive skinned = Greek (or maybe at a stretch Italian) down here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

Olive skinned = Greek (or maybe at a stretch Italian) down here.

Like I said, progeny of John Stamos=Katniss Everdeen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CocoaSugarbaker 

You're overestimating the appeal of Ryan Reynolds. In my part of San Diego, more black people came out to see Safe House than I've EVER seen. And that includes Red Tails. I had no idea so many black people even lived in my area until last night.

 

Every single showing was sold out yesterday evening. Reynolds remains basic, Denzel remains boss.

Something I noticed when it comes to "black audiences" while working at a theater for over 5 years back in the day....

1. Denzel = attendence

2. Will Smith = attendence

3. Retard, borderline racist comedies = attendence

4. Doesn't include any of the above = empty theater

I had a really interesting discussion with a black couple about this once.  I don't recall the film they were coming out of, but it was a respectable drama filled with black actors.  They were lamenting the fact that they were pretty much the only people in the theater.  They also talked about how their black friends would bitch about Hollywood stereotypes..............and then turn right around and go see whatever dumb stereotype-filled comedy that was released on any given weekend.  They wouldn't turn out for the "good" films unless they starred Smith or Denzel.  This was before the appearance of Tyler Perry, by the way.

It seems nothing has changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

My screening was PACKED and I'd say 70% black, 30% white and of the former, it was all four quads. I made the remark on Twitter but seriously someone needs to make Denzel the villain in a big superhero movie, like the next Superman after Man of Steel.

I've been saying this for awhile.  Warner Bros are utter morons if they don't attempt to land Denzel as a villain in one of their superhero projects at some point.  I'd say Marvel as well, but I don't think they'd pop for Denzel unless we was playing a hero and signed at least a 6-film contract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Actually, Denzel as Luthor would certainly get everyone's attention. And there have been lots of versions of the character, some more physical than others, and just about all better than the shifty con artist we've seen in movies thus far.

Denzel as Luthor is a stellar idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper 

Luthor has been done to death. Denzel as Darkseid would be special.

Also a boss idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Oh yeah, when's the last time that a movie referring to Mars did well?  Mission to Mars?  Red Planet?  And the oft-referred to Mars Needs Moms?

Never, because they all blow.  As much as I love De Palma and Carpenter, Mission to Mars and Ghosts of Mars are really not good films.  Red Planet is shit.  Mars Attacks! is my least favorite Tim Burton movie (outside of the wretched Alice In Wonderland, naturally).  Mars Needs Moms looks like shit, which is why families stayed away.

If they kept the title John Carter of Mars AND actually bothered to try to advertise it, it would be tracking a whole lot better.

Found this reader review of John Carter.

As for The Hunger Games, Lionsgate says that its tracking to beat the first Twilight.

Certainly hope its true. I am now a fan of the series.

Maybe Denzel doesn't actually want to be in dumb superhero movies?

If the script and the paycheck were right, I'm sure he'd sign up.  Anyone who works with Tony Scott on a regular basis can't be THAT picky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Anyone who works with Tony Scott on a regular basis can't be THAT picky.

...Checkmate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Found this reader review of John Carter.

 

As for The Hunger Games, Lionsgate says that its tracking to beat the first Twilight.

 

Certainly hope its true. I am now a fan of the series.

I don't really care if it beats Twatlight.  I just want it to do the book justice. 

Though it would be cool if it did beat Twatlight....

Is Amanda Seyfried's Gone our first bomb of the year?

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Is Amanda Seyfried's Gone our first bomb of the year?

I didn't get the impression this was going to make big bank like a Michael Bay film. The commercials didn't show me any kind of action. But if you're a Seyfried fan, this was your flick to see. I don't think this is going to hurt her bankability any more than Red Riding Hood did. That being said, she hasn't been in a 100 mil money maker since 2008 in Mama Mia. 

The strange thing is, when I look at some recent pics of Amanda, I see Lindsay Lohan from healthier days. Maybe Amanda is Lohan's living, breathing "Road Not Taken"..

I honestly had no idea Gone was coming out until I saw it listed with this week's releases.  I haven't seen a single theatrical trailer for it.

Looks like Wanderlust flatlined, confirming that neither Rudd nor Aniston are any guarantee of anything.

This week's top ten makes my soul hurt.

Act of Valor reminds me of seeing the Black Hawk Down trailer with a skeptical friend of mine, who partway through started singing (to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries) "Propa-GAN-da, propa-GAN-da, propa-GAN-da..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I honestly had no idea Gone was coming out until I saw it listed with this week's releases.  I haven't seen a single theatrical trailer for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricardo Brady 

Looks like Wanderlust flatlined, confirming that neither Rudd nor Aniston are any guarantee of anything.

The studios totally dumped both of these. "Gone" was one of those movies that was probably dependent on Seyfried being a bigger star by now, and Universal just had NO IDEA how to sell Wanderlust, dropping it in only a few theaters with a limited ad presence.

I hope David Wain recovers - I think it was between directing this and "Little Fockers" awhile ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricardo Brady 

Looks like Wanderlust flatlined, confirming that neither Rudd nor Aniston are any guarantee of anything.

Were they ever?

According to Wikipedia, Act of Valor only cost $12 million. So you think we'll get a sequel in the future?

With REAL Army Rangers this time!

Yeesh, Wanderlust was actually pretty good.

I guess he headlined OUR IDIOT BROTHER, though that was successful because it was really cheap I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Found this reader review of John Carter.

 

I've never understood why people think that a "review" should consist largely of retelling the plot, but I did like this bit:

Somehow, though, I don't think he's deliberately riffing on Vern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I honestly had no idea Gone was coming out until I saw it listed with this week's releases.  I haven't seen a single theatrical trailer for it.

Are you kidding me?  Whatever studio put it out has been pimping the ever-living shit out of Gone.  I don't think an hour went by without seeing a TV spot for it at least TWICE while either my wife or myself watched TV over the past 3 weeks.

That said, I'd never even heard of it until the insane TV promotion started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Were they ever?

For real.  No1curr about Paul Rudd, and as for Aniston, come on.  Her PR team has tried valiantly to convince everyone that she's a big time movie star, but America's not buying it.

What comes out next weekend?  I'm too lazy to look for myself.

America is on to Aniston's act. Doing a shitty movie, fuel up rumors of hooking up to co-star (Bullshit or not), talk about Brad Pitt and hope that tabloid bullshit translates to box-office... and it still hasn't worked. People are seriously sick of that and think she's just a clingy, whiny, psycho bitch. Hell, most of em now side with Pitt for cheating on her she's gotten so irritating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

America is on to Aniston's act. Doing a shitty movie, fuel up rumors of hooking up to co-star (Bullshit or not), talk about Brad Pitt and hope that tabloid bullshit translates to box-office... and it still hasn't worked. People are seriously sick of that and think she's just a clingy, whiny, psycho bitch. Hell, most of em now side with Pitt for cheating on her she's gotten so irritating.

It's a case of the publicity stunts backfiring.  Ben Affleck pulled the same shit before he resurrected his career as a director.  I seriously doubt Aniston even knows how to look through a camera, so she's fucked.

I'd like to think that the Lopez/Affleck thing was just something that Affleck would've rather not have happened.  Unless there's a blatant example of him courting the press for success that I missed.

Also... DIE, ANISTON-CAREER, DIE!

I still talk to girls who seem to like her (for whatever reason).  Not enough to go to her movies, of course.  Mwuhuhuhu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

America is on to Aniston's act. Doing a shitty movie, fuel up rumors of hooking up to co-star (Bullshit or not), talk about Brad Pitt and hope that tabloid bullshit translates to box-office... and it still hasn't worked. People are seriously sick of that and think she's just a clingy, whiny, psycho bitch. Hell, most of em now side with Pitt for cheating on her she's gotten so irritating.

No offense, man, as I'm not a fan of Aniston at all. But I think you may be projecting your own personal feelings onto the general populace a little bit there.

Just a little.

So, I take it none of you actually saw WANDERLUST?

Say what you want about Aniston, but she's still got something of a cache for appearing in white household's for 10 seasons and rearing her head in what? Two or three good movies (Wanderlust apparently being one of them)? That's a lot more than Katherine Heigl, whose career is, I believe, thoroughly fucked. 

I actually do want to see WANDERLUST based on the good word I've heard for it so far.

This, this right here is why it did so poorly.

I blame you, mcnooj! 

I know!  I WAS going to purchase a boffo box-office weekend's worth of tickets to see it, but I had friends visiting from out of town.

Who you could have brought to see WANDERLUST.  This conspiracy goes deeper than I thought!

NOBODY else wanted to see Wanderlust!  And I ain't the pushy type!  Unless I REALLY don't want to see something. 

You should've seen me when a friend of mine wanted to go see Babel.  I already saw Babel.  I was NOT going to see it again!

Episode 1 only made $40 million, Now is that enough to commit to Episode 2?  Lucas knows, as well of all of us that the HUGE money is in the original films.

Backing out of Episode II and III in 3D would make it look like he's admitted defeat.

He should be HAPPY that Red Tails technically did better!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick 

Episode 1 only made $40 million, Now is that enough to commit to Episode 2?  Lucas knows, as well of all of us that the HUGE money is in the original films.

how much did it cost to retro 3D it?

NOTHING!  Since the 3D was barely noticeable!

(I'm sorry, I'm being really unhelpful.)

Of course, you have to throw in the cost of advertising along with distribution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

NOTHING!  Since the 3D was barely noticeable!

 

(I'm sorry, I'm being really unhelpful.)

 

Of course, you have to throw in the cost of advertising along with distribution.

would be less than 40 mill all up though, wouldn't it?  And that's not including international.  So it's likely to have made a (maybe small) profit which will keep him ticking them over till the (As close to) Original (as we're going to get) Trilogy is re-released.

The 3D was a total waste of time, but I thought CGI Yoda was a VAST improvement over the previous theatrical TPM puppet.

CGI Yoda was a nice improvement, but I'd already seen it on the blu-ray.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I'd like to think that the Lopez/Affleck thing was just something that Affleck would've rather not have happened.  

Oh no, he definitely courted all that tabloid shit...he was very movie movie star for a while and loving it.  Why else would you hook up with Jennifer Diva Lopez?    

I mostly stay away from gossip/tabloid stuff (moreso at that time, anyway), and really only got Affleck's side of the fallout of that whole mess in the commentary track for Jersey Girl.  I dunno... he seemed kinda hurt/frustrated by the whole experience.  I interpreted his tone to mean that he was sad that the relationship didn't have the chance of working out.

Generally, I'm more inclined to think the worst of the tabloid/paparazzi/gossip thing first.  Moreso in this case, since I never disliked Affleck.  Just got annoyed with the overexposure of the silly shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

how much did it cost to retro 3D it?

Normally a post-conversion costs $10 million or so, though I'll bet that can vary. Lucas and co. have gone on record saying this one set them back $15 million. The global + domestic numbers suggest it might be worth it to do another SW 3D conversion, but it wasn't necessarily the slam dunk they were expecting.

The Lion King 3D re-release did almost $100 million. Beauty and the Beast did about half that. With the flood of 3D releases coming soon, I think there's a chance audiences might wise up to theaters repackaging the movies everyone always has on DVD.

Honestly, I hope he follows through for the simple fact that I'd love to take my son to see the OT in theaters and he'll certainly be old enough by the time Episode 4 hits screens.

Aniston = smart enough not to carry films alone, like the doomed Heigl. Therefore, Aniston = absolutely fine, marketable second lead, who can easily play the girlfriend. She's entirely reliant on her costar's box office cachet, but most definitely not a hindrance, and sadly, will likely continue to work until age makes her unattractive. I mean, she's been doing this since Friends went away, well over ten years ago. Bombs do not hurt her.

I guess we'll have to resort to nukes...

..........................it's the only way to be sure.

Always found some of the seething hatred that appears whenever Aniston's name crops up on this forum kind of bewildering. I always thought she was just kind of bland!

She is.  I don't like or dislike her.  She's just kinda...............there.

It also doesn't help that, to my knowledge, she's never really played a character to far outside of her wheelhouse.  You could rename every character she's played "Rachael" and they could believably serve as a "what happened after Friends" spin-off flicks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

 I always thought she was just kind of bland!

That's exactly why!!!!

Honestly, I'm playing it up for fun.  I think she's a serviceable comedic actress in certain movies.  It's just that I got REALLY sick of seeing her face on magazine covers at the checkout aisles very early on.  And SHE'S STILL ON THEM!!!