CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 218

Personally, I see the hype as more like The Matrix combined with Sleepless in Seattle, divided by City Slickers II: The Legend of Curly's Gold.

Avatar is such a film of its moment. I know some people latched on to it strongly, but a little over two years later it feels like a film that disappeared from pop culture. Maybe it's how we process things now, or that most pop culture has become weightless. It was something of a surprise how it played, but also, the advertising up to release was mostly terrible. It was an audience picture, and yet here we are.

It's true though, Avatar does not enjoy the cultural cache of Dark Knight or Potter, but could that simply be attributed to the depth of those franchises? So much Batman and Potter ephemera, with absolutely nothing about the Navi outside of the one film.

The Potter films were fantasy for the youngest kids through adults. Everyone wanted to go to Hogwarts and be a wizard. 

The Twilight films were for tween girls wanting to pant after glittery vampires. 

I'm not really sure who wants to be IN the Hunger Games. It's sort of like Spartacus for Tweens. You want to cheer the heroine to victory, but not for one second do you want to have twenty three other kids trying to kill you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector 

I'm not really sure who wants to be IN the Hunger Games. It's sort of like Spartacus for Tweens. You want to cheer the heroine to victory, but not for one second do you want to have twenty three other kids trying to kill you.

Katniss has two not-hideous guys in pursuit of her pussy.  Teen girls would kill and risk being killed to be in that predicament.  Nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Katniss has two not-hideous guys in pursuit of her pussy.  Teen girls would kill and risk being killed to be in that predicament.  Nuff said.

Yeah, Hunger Dame, but she couldn't care less.  At least in book one, the only one I've read. But I take your point.

Oh well it's all fun and games until you're Kirk Douglass nailed to a cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

Avatar is such a film of its moment. I know some people latched on to it strongly, but a little over two years later it feels like a film that disappeared from pop culture. 

I don't think it's disappeared at all. Only as much as say Inception has. I mean, The Simpsons just spoofed it on their Halloween special. Say the word Avatar or Na'vi and most people know what you're talking about. We'll see when the sequel opens, I guess. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Katniss has two not-hideous guys in pursuit of her pussy. 

Thor's brother and a midget.

 

How did Josh Hutcherson become a thing? That kid's appeal vexes me.

Is he really a thing though?  It's a completely manufactured appeal to sell the movie.  If he actually becomes a thing, it'll be after the movie comes out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Is he really a thing though?  It's a completely manufactured appeal to sell the movie.  If he actually becomes a thing, it'll be after the movie comes out.

Hey, he's one of the stars of Journey 2, so give him a break. Yes, I am aware of the phrase, 'damning with faint praise', why do you ask?

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Thor's brother and a midget.

 

 

That's no way to talk to Nathan Lane's love child.

Hutcherson's character in THE HUNGER GAMES is very Pete Campbell in Mad Men. He's a little bitch, so I think they get that. Dude was a child actor, but he's kept working. THG will probably be his best role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Thor's brother and a midget.

 

 

Oh my God, that picture.  One, she looks much better as a brunette, but most women do.  Two, Thor's brother looks like a mash-up of Jim from The Office and Chris Evans.  Three, Hutch looks like someone photoshopped him to look small as a goof.   And he is NOT a thing.  Not at all.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

 Two, Thor's brother looks like a mash-up of Jim from The Office and Chris Evans.

Remember when Krasinski was one of the potentials for Captain America?

I know it won't be released on enough screens to...Starve the...Hunger Games, but I do plan to open a can of...THE RAID, this upcoming weekend March 23rd!

35 M for 21 Jump Street. Hearing the stellar reviews and positive audience reaction I'm surprised that its cinemascore is only a B. Guess we'll see how it holds up next weekend.

John Carter dropped 55%. Not terrible for a film of its genre but it's not going to make it past 100 M domestically.

Maybe now Stanton will do a smaller live action film like he should have done in the first place before tackling a film of Carter's size.  

Live action and animation are two very different production mediums, and going from one to the other is a pretty big learning curve.  If you MUST do a big film, follow Brad Bird's example.  He picked an already well established, successful franchise with a big lead, where the entire fate of the series wasn't resting on his shoulders, and relatively low in cost compared to something as massive as John Carter.

You can't act like Stanley Kubrick when you're spending $300k PER DAY.  Kubrick could endlessly tinker because his budgets were low.  As good of a storyteller as Stanton is, he was way out of league on such a huge live action machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSaxon 

Wow. It sounds like The Hunger Games is a really big thing over in the United States. 

The term "big" is subjective.  It is not nearly on the level of Harry Potter or Twatlight in terms of books sold or awareness of the title before the film was announced.  Harry Potter was a bonafide phenom before the first film was ever shot.  I still remember how all hell broke loose in my circle of friends the day after the press conference where we first saw Dan, Rupert, and Emma.  EVERYONE was talking about it.  Hunger Games had a solid following, but the books didn't start moving crazy units until after that first trailer debuted.  I didn't hear about schools putting it on reading lists for students until after that first trailer debuted.  The fact that you sound so surprised that THG is "big" here tells me that it's really not that big, at least compared to those two book series.

Frame of reference: 11 years ago Potter opened to $90 Million and made $318 during a holiday season. It is possible that THG is a bit more manufactured, but you're also about twelve years older than when that video hit. And if your interests are the same...

I don't know how saturated this is and I can say that I didn't read Twilight, The Da Vinci Code or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, all of which became pop culture book phenomenons, all of which are poorly written from all evidence. Only one didn't really perform to expectations (though those expectations were muted for TGWTDT). At the same time, I don't doubt that this is going to be a super huge film, and from all evidence it will be. That may say more about you or pop culture than "big."

I bought my tickets for HUNGER GAMES more than a week in advance. I am therefor confident in declaring it a cultural phenomenon.

Seriously though, it'll play out much like the TWILIGHT phenomenon; first movie will be big, interest in the books will grow and the next films will be even bigger. The good news is that HUNGER GAMES doesn't suck like TWILIGHT and with the impeding success of this and PROMETHEUS we may see more original dystopic sci fi films.

Hugo was one of the best movies I've seen in a while. It was cute and fun, and I really enjoyed the music!

Here's a list of the soundtrack and review:

http://thecelebritycafe.com/reviews/2012/03/howard-shores-hugo-score-review

Troll alert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Troll alert.

Kate's not around?

Kate quit. This one creep kept harassing her.

Give it to him yourself the next time he creates a new profile and posts misogynistic rants.

Re: Hunger Games, yup it's going to be big. As I remarked some time ago (regarding Twilight I think), once a majority of us here have teenage daughters these phenomena will become much easier to handicap.

Disney just released a statement on JOHN CARTER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Disney just released a statement on JOHN CARTER.

 

 

Ouch.  So do heads roll now, or are they waiting until after THE AVENGERS fails to make $400 million?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Ouch.  So do heads roll now, or are they waiting until after THE AVENGERS fails to make $400 million?

 

You Shut Your Whore Mouth!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Ouch.  So do heads roll now, or are they waiting until after THE AVENGERS fails to make $400 million?

 

Heads have already rolled.  Dick Cook (the head of the studio who greenlit JC) was fired long ago...so was the useless specimen in charge of marketing Carter...that person had never even done marketing for a feature film before!  Not sure if the person who decided to hire her has been fired too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Heads have already rolled.  Dick Cook (the head of the studio who greenlit JC) was fired long ago...so was the useless specimen in charge of marketing Carter...that person had never even done marketing for a feature film before!  Not sure if the person who decided to hire her has been fired too.

 

Here's the thing: even someone who's never marketed a movie before, if they are in marketing at all, they should be able to put together the basics: an interesting poster, interesting ads..sure they may not have all the nuances down (like when and where to run the ads to be most effective), but then, they have staff, right? People who have worked on other Disney movies? It's hard to believe this is anything other than some weird corporate intrigue by middle managers, or maybe even upper managers pissed at the previous regime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 

Ouch.  So do heads roll now, or are they waiting until after THE AVENGERS fails to make $400 million?

 

I have very little interest in The Avengers, but unless it's a complete and utter clusterfuck pie, there's no way it doesn't hit at least that. Oh, and good God, no one knew how to charm lady filmgoers like Sam Peckinah.

There's been articles that basically said that Stanton was adamant about marketing it the way it was and that he was given the control to do it this way.

So, maybe there were a lot of marketing people saying that it should be done a different way, but simply weren't allowed to execute a better plan.

Yeah, it has pretty much been confirmed that Stanton was calling the shots on marketing until January,when a new team was brough in .It is no coincidence that the marketing improved,but by then the damage had been done.

It pains me to say this since I am a huge fan of Stanton's work at Pixar, but apparently his ego went out of control with John Carter. You have to wonder if John Lassiter at Pixar had to spend a great deal of time keeping Stanton under control.

And those BBC interviews that Statnon gave the week the film opened.....He came off like a conceited jerk. His remark,when asked about the budget "I don't care about figures when I am making a movie" will come back to haunt him now.

Hopefully he will learn from this fiasco. He is hugely talented, but apparently he needs somebody like Lassiter to ride herd on him to keep him from self destructing. Shades of Michael Cimano.

The New Yorker piece on Stanton paints a picture a bit different from the fun-factory Pixar image that tends to surround the people that work there.  Not that it's anything sinister, but it just paints a picture of a human being very passionate about his art.

That is probably a heritage of Steve Jobs's perfectionism. Brad Bird is said to be very similar.

From what I've read and listened to over the years, Bird's passion has always been more overt and well-known. 

Stanton's was kept a little more below the surface.  Probably because he has always been at Pixar, while Bird was brought on by Lasseter to shake things up (as the story goes).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb 

Yeah, it has pretty much been confirmed that Stanton was calling the shots on marketing until January,when a new team was brough in .It is no coincidence that the marketing improved,but by then the damage had been done.

It pains me to say this since I am a huge fan of Stanton's work at Pixar, but apparently his ego went out of control with John Carter. You have to wonder if John Lassiter at Pixar had to spend a great deal of time keeping Stanton under control.

And those BBC interviews that Statnon gave the week the film opened.....He came off like a conceited jerk. His remark,when asked about the budget "I don't care about figures when I am making a movie" will come back to haunt him now.

Hopefully he will learn from this fiasco. He is hugely talented, but apparently he needs somebody like Lassiter to ride herd on him to keep him from self destructing. Shades of Michael Cimano.

There's no way he's ever going to get another shot at making a big movie again. Two hundred million in red ink puts him deep in Alan Smithee's Director's Hell. He might do something again at PIXAR, but their movies seem to be done more by committee than a typical live action film.  The only live action film's he's going to be making soon is his kids' home movies.

Having your first feature bomb so spectacularly and affect the studio's bottom line is definitely not a good thing.  But even Cimino directed again, albeit with much smaller budgets.  I hate to see a good filmmaker fail, but I like seeing people get what they deserve for acting so irresponsibly.  I have very little sympathy for Stanton.

The guy has a permanent place at Pixar.  He needs no sympathy.  Hehehe. 

Unless of course, a lifetime at Pixar is now hell for him.  Who knows?

Nothing but Cars sequels from here on in!

STANTON: NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I have very little interest in The Avengers, but unless it's a complete and utter clusterfuck pie, there's no way it doesn't hit at least that.

Why would Avengers significantly increase from Iron Man?  The same people who saw Thor and Captain America were the ones who saw Iron Man and Iron Man 2.  It's not like you can just combine all of their numbers.  You'll get some 3D boost, but that's about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Why would Avengers significantly increase from Iron Man?  The same people who saw Thor and Captain America were the ones who saw Iron Man and Iron Man 2.  It's not like you can just combine all of their numbers.  You'll get some 3D boost, but that's about it.

Why are people still being willfully ignorant about this? It's a TEAM-UP movie. Team up movies always do better than their predecessors. It's been this way since Universal did it in the 40's. It worked with FREDDY VS. JASON. It worked with friggin' ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. People who didn't bother seeing THOR or CAP or even IRON MAN 2 are going to see this. The bump is going to go well beyond 3D, and will definitely outgross IRON MAN. Maybe it won't work again for AVENGERS 2, but AVENGERS is going to be huge for sheer novelty alone. People who don't give two shits about superhero films are talking about it. Believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Why are people still being willfully ignorant about this? It's a TEAM-UP movie. Team up movies always do better than their predecessors. It's been this way since Universal did it in the 40's. It worked with FREDDY VS. JASON. It worked with friggin' ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. People who didn't bother seeing THOR or CAP or even IRON MAN 2 are going to see this. The bump is going to go well beyond 3D, and will definitely outgross IRON MAN. Maybe it won't work again for AVENGERS 2, but AVENGERS is going to be huge for sheer novelty alone. People who don't give two shits about superhero films are talking about it. Believe.

Freddy vs. Jason sold roughly the same number of tickets as Nightmare 4.  Alien vs. Predator sold the same amount of tickets as Alien 3 (and less than Alien, Aliens, and Predator).  Team-up movies do well, but they've never, ever massively jumped in terms of sales.  FVJ came out fifteen years after Freddy's prime, so the same number of tickets plus inflation resulted in a much bigger gross.  Avengers is hitting two years after Iron Man 2.  The boost will come from 3D, not audience.

But you know me, being all 'willfully ignorant' by using trends and box office history to predict the future.

Yeah, but those franchises were franchises in decline or moribund. The Marvel brand has been gathering steam for years, leading up to this specific event. Plus it's combining 4 major characters. There are other x factors here you aren't considering.

There are only 2 movies likely to outgross THE AVENGERS this year, and that's THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and the final fucking TWILIGHT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Yeah, but those franchises were franchises in decline or moribund. The Marvel brand has been gathering steam for years, leading up to this specific event. Plus it's combining 4 major characters. There are other x factors here you aren't considering.

No, there aren't.  You see franchises in decline, I see franchises that had room to bounce back up.  Marvel's films have already essentially peaked.  If they were going to get a boost, it would have come with Iron Man 2.  People who skipped Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America aren't going to care about The Avengers.  The same audience who came out for those is going to come out for this, plus 3D premium.

Freddy vs. Jason and Alien vs. Predator were films geeks had talked about for years, but nobody knew if they would really happen.  The Avengers has been a sure thing since, when, Incredible Hulk?  Iron Man 2?  It doesn't have the, "Wow, they actually fucking made that?" factor that the other two did.

But hey, I'm willing to wait it out.  My gut's generally been right with tent poles over the past decade.

I think something like 350 is more realistic for THE AVENGERS. And I think Disney would be happy with that.

Getting to 400 in the US is hard. Most years you'll either get one movie that reaches 400 or none.

Avengers will probably do Spider-Man business.  350 US, 450 foreign.

I'm saying 350 domestic for AVENGERS is a lock. TDKR will definitely cross 400.

A hundred opening weekend is likely, maybe more with no FAST FIVE spoilers opening a week before. Should weather Dark Shadows and The Dictator with standard 50% drop. Battleship hits it in home turf, as does MIBIII. $300 and change is likely, as TDS said, said audience as the other Marvel pictures. I don't know if this has attracted more outside interest. The question then is if acts more like a sequel and drops even heavier second weekend. Don't be surprised if THE HUNGER GAMES - which has less direct competition - outgrosses it. It has more of a possibility of extended play.