CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 239

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmacq1 

 

 

IIRC Almost the entire East Coast of the US was hit with some brutal weather the weekend that Avatar opened, which may have contributed to its' extremely strong second weekend showings vs. a larger opening weekend w/ a bigger second weekend drop, but there's no denying it had phenomenal staying power.

 

For those rooting for it to claim a top spot, Avengers has the disadvantage of being released at the beginning of the summer, when there's a lot more competition for viewers' dollars over the next few months.  Avatar was basically competing with the usual crop of prestige pics upon opening and then pretty much had free reign for January and February.  Doesn't mean its' staying power was anything less than amazing in the current cinema environment, but by comparison there's a heck of a lot more competition waiting in the wings for Avengers...maybe not so much in May, but certainly once June hits.

 

Titanic's staying power is somewhat less anomalous.  It was a much different moviegoing (and more importantly home viewing) environment back then.

And Avengers has the disadvantage of not engaging in the female audience like I said before.  That's what made Titanic and Avatar so huge is the universal appeal.  Titanic staying power is somewhat less anomalous?  The re-issue in 3D release this year grossed over 300M and it still going.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

Your missing one important demo tho.  Girls.  There's nothing here for a girl to relate to.

Yes, because girls just can't wrap their heads around something like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

Yes, because girls just can't wrap their heads around something like this.

No, because super hero movies aren't exactly their demo.  Just like guys aren't exactly hip to the Twilight series.  This isn't rocket science.  

That's BS that women/girls can't be into this but it is a important demographic to market all the same. It's been for a while now that having a movie that appeals to women while also being hit will create longer legs at the box office. Women tend to do repeat viewing more frequently. But, Avengers seems to be appealing to everybody so I don't think there is a issue there. Women and girls are clearly enjoying it to.

I mean a film with a kick ass female hero and plenty of good looking heroic men that are not assholes saving the day can appeal to women and girls just fine.

Because girls love movies about blue aliens that have sappy, ineffective love stories? Do you know a single female who loved the love story at the heart of AVATAR? I don't. And I know plenty who are loving THE AVENGERS. If AVENGERS falls short of AVATARDS numbers it won't be because of the female demo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Because girls love movies about blue aliens that have sappy, ineffective love stories? Do you know a single female who loved the love story at the heart of AVATAR? I don't. And I know plenty who are loving THE AVENGERS. If AVENGERS falls short of AVATARDS numbers it won't be because of the female demo.

" If AVENGERS falls short of AVATARDS numbers it won't be because of the female demo"  

Then what would it be?   

Obviously it was effective.  You don't gross 2.7B by accident, and if you want to tack on Titanic money, you are talking 5B dollars gross for two movies, and both had love stories in them.  Gee, I wonder what they have in common? 

Guys like destruction, Girls like heart.   Again, this isn't rocket science.  Do any of you have girlfriends or know girls?

No, just horribly reductive and borderline sexist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

No, just horribly reductive and borderline sexist.

Sexist?  It's called DNA.  

When they do a demo on Twilight and it's 80% girls that are watching it, is that sexiest?  It's fact.  Girls and Guys are not built in the same mold.  There's a reason why certain movies gear toward guys and certain movies gear toward females, because we are different.  

yeah you can't just pigeonhole men and women like that.

I know your basically talking general terms but I think (in general) your average woman might just want more than smash em ups. But, if you can interject a little heart, humor and character development in there it will help draw women in as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

Sexist?  It's called DNA.  

Awesome argument.  Way to prove him wrong, man!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racj82 

yeah you can't just pigeonhole men and women like that.

 

I know your basically talking general terms but I think (in general) your average woman might just want more than smash em ups. But, if you can interject a little heart, humor and character development in there it will help draw women in as well.

Yes, of course.  I happen to love chick flicks.  I fall for that sappy shit every time.  Some of my favorite movies are just that, but generally speaking it is what it is.  It's just different markets.  

And, yes, I love Titanic and that god damn Avatar.  I can't help it.  I fall for Cameron's simple plots and heart every damn time.  

Avengers might not have some swooning romance, but it sure as hell ain't The Expendables either.  It's got heart, just not the gooey lovey dovey kind which you seem to think is what brings women back for repeat viewings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racj82 

yeah you can't just pigeonhole men and women like that.

 

I know your basically talking general terms but I think (in general) your average woman might just want more than smash em ups. But, if you can interject a little heart, humor and character development in there it will help draw women in as well.

Exactly!  That's what I'm saying.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Avengers might not have some swooning romance, but it sure as hell ain't The Expendables either.  It's got heart, just not the gooey lovey dovey kind which you seem to think is what brings women back for repeat viewings.

What heart?  Iron Man had heart.  Even the damn robot had a awesome heartfelt scene.  Avengers not so much.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

Your missing one important demo tho.  Girls.  There's nothing here for a girl to relate to.  Sure there's black widow, but you need some heart.  Cameron owns the patent on this.  That's why it's not going to do Avatar type of business.  

Girls are lining up for this because Black Widow is a tough superhot badass surrounded by hunky guys, and Jeremy Renner. It's every chicks fantasy. Except for Jeremy Renner.

White buffalo.......white buffalo......

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

What heart?  Iron Man had heart.  Even the damn robot had a awesome heartfelt scene.  Avengers not so much.  

I think you're too eager to equate "heart" with "man and woman make goo-goo eyes at each other."

Those of us who do, in fact, have girlfriends and have seen the movie with women both times are aware that this movie is hugely appealing to women. You're way off on this one, CCCC. Even putting aside the Widow and the, in my girlfriends' words, shmorgasboard of hot guys, it's just a good story. You don't need to have pandering gender-specific elements when your movie is this good.

The reason Twilight or, to flip it around, blockbusters like Bayformers tend to appeal to one "quadrant" is that they're total shit, so they can only get groups who will latch on to superficial elements to enjoy (and often hate themselves for doing so.) But a good movie is a good movie and will appeal to anyone. Fuck, my mom thinks Inglourious Basterds is a great movie, even if she had a hard time watching it.

And I can't be the only one who's noticed that the Harry Potter books aren't exactly bursting with "female appeal" if you break it down to superficial elements. There's one memorable female lead, and that's it. There's no substantial love story, and the other female characters are pretty marginalized. The rest is all action and monsters and fantasy, typical guy stuff. Yet women love it. It seems like it's exactly in the same "quadrant zone" as Avengers to me.

For that matter, most male movie buffs who aren't desperately insecure in their sexuality are fans of The Princess Bride or Four Weddings and a Funeral. Because they're good movies.

Women like popcorn blockbusters!?!?!!?!

I went with my wife and another girl who rarely sees any movies at the theater, and they both chose to go and they both enjoyed.  I think it has that mass appeal, and it's only gonna get bigger by word of mouth.  The first week or two are those who were interested at the start, the following will be those that it may not have gotten to go by concept or marketing, but due to word of mouth give it a chance.  

My girlfriend saw the damn movie before me at a midnight show I couldn't go to!!!

We'll see guys.  I'll be curious to see what the drop off is weekend 2.  That will be tell tale sign if it has enough juice to take down Titanic or Avatar.  

Man, Disney is gotta be grining ear to ear since buying the distrb rights for Marvel.  Notice how you only see Disney trademark at the very end of the credits?  They did a great job of marketing this beast.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

My girlfriend saw the damn movie before me at a midnight show I couldn't go to!!!

Guys I was speaking in general terms for god sakes.  Everyone has "my girlfriend loves it!"  I know, I know, I was speaking in general demographics.  That's why we have demographics for marketing to the masses.  Damn, you guys are taking this way too personally.  

Yeah! Everybody quit picking on cccc, dammit! It's not like he made a wildly inaccurate lowball estimate on TDKR's gross or something!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 


It's stunning if you don't follow box office all the time, I guess. It made what it was expected to make. I'd think it was 'stunning' if it did something surprising.
You guys know a lot of kids are out of school already, right?

I do follow the box office all the time.  I check it every day and it's still stunning.  

If you predicted that Avengers would gross 207 in it's opening weekend and 19M on Monday then you should do your own BO website, because nobody thought it would be that huge.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

Yeah! Everybody quit picking on cccc, dammit! It's not like he made a wildly inaccurate lowball estimate on TDKR's gross or something!

Just don't say anything negative about Whedon.  That's the only advice I can give you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

It's stunning if you don't follow box office all the time, I guess. It made what it was expected to make. I'd think it was 'stunning' if it did something surprising.
You guys know a lot of kids are out of school already, right?

Some college kids, yes. High school and middle schools not so much.

CCCC's powers of deflection rival a ninja's.

Women like blockbuster movies. Period. If there's a generalization to be made, it's that they're less forgiving of mindless action shit if it's not good. Even then, I don't know.

Just to chime in something I'm seeing pop up repeatedly: Batman Begins' "low" gross wasn't due to a lack of a big villain. People seem to forget how DONE people were with Batman after Batman & Robin. It was legendarily bad. The property was a joke. And Catwoman the year before didn't help matters at all. The main goal of the film was to win audiences back, and the fact that it opened as low as it did ($48 million over a five day) and then cleared $200 million showed how good word of mouth was. A while back someone compared it to Superman Returns, except it inched to $200 million after being kept in theatres till October. It crawled there. Begins was a consistent, measurable success. That's over a 4.0 multiplier, where usual superhero summer films experience more of a 2.5-3.0. Audiences responded to the film. Then the DVD sold crazy well, which primed everyone for a sequel.

There's this common group think that Dark Knight grossed what it did almost purely because of Ledger, which makes for a nice narrative, but has little to hang onto when it comes to really analyzing the data. Ledger's death and his instantly iconic performance certainly contributed, but that didn't catch fire in a vacuum. The engine was already primed. And the same applies to TDKR. Bane's not a well known villain; he doesn't have to be. It's a known and anticipated property at this point; I actually compare it to Return of the King. People know what they're getting, they know it's coming out, all that's really needed is advertising telling people the date. 

As for the whole "director's don't sell a movie"--Nolan seems to be in a very unique spot right now. He's got name recognition at least on the level of Peter Jackson. He's got cultural cache, and it's impossible to deny it. Why? Because Inception did almost $300 million stateside, and it was sold on him and Leo, and Leo doesn't get those numbers on his name alone. It's not going to gross $400-$500-60000000000000 on his name alone, but people know he directed the first two (very popular) movies, and people sure do love their consistency.

Greg speaketh the truth.

Look, guys...we all know why we're really here. The box office thread is one of the only places that isn't based on soley on subjective opinion. Eventually the truth will become known and there will be no arguing about it. Like how I was right all along about THE AVENGERS, and how people like Dark Shape and Renn and others were horribly, shamefully wrong and should feel terrible for ever arguing against my clearly expressed and impeccably supported wisdom. It is important and humbling (for everyone other than me of course) for some of you to be shown that you are inarguably wrong. It's a valuable part of the internet experience. And I look forward to pointing out how wrong some of you are in the months to come, especially in matters concering THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. You'll thank me for it later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

 

There's this common group think that Dark Knight grossed what it did almost purely because of Ledger, which makes for a nice narrative, but has little to hang onto when it comes to really analyzing the data. Ledger's death and his instantly iconic performance certainly contributed, but that didn't catch fire in a vacuum. The engine was already primed. And the same applies to TDKR. Bane's not a well known villain; he doesn't have to be. It's a known and anticipated property at this point; I actually compare it to Return of the King. People know what they're getting, they know it's coming out, all that's really needed is advertising telling people the date. 

I think this is overly simplifying the group think. I, and presumably others, think that the buzz around Ledger's performance (which got mainstream play, not just entertainment section play, because of his death) contributed to the opening. The actual quality of the performance, which was a big factor of the quality of the film and accounted for 98% of the total fun of the film, contributed to the longevity and retention.

I know for certain that TDKR will not benefit from the Ledger-buzz. If there is an original performance of equal quality, that will do nothing but help.

Again, Ledger was one of a few factors that TDK had going for it, but it is definitely one that TDKR lacks. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

" If AVENGERS falls short of AVATARDS numbers it won't be because of the female demo"  

 

Then what would it be?   

 

Obviously it was effective.  You don't gross 2.7B by accident, and if you want to tack on Titanic money, you are talking 5B dollars gross for two movies, and both had love stories in them.  Gee, I wonder what they have in common? 

 

Guys like destruction, Girls like heart.   Again, this isn't rocket science.  Do any of you have girlfriends or know girls?

I got your back.  People have biological predispositions.  Women and men are prone to different predispositions.  There's really not a debate to be had.

AVATAR made the money it made for 2 reasons:

1) It was a technological wonder on a scale no one had seen yet and therefore there was a "must see it in the theater" WOM.

2) It was the long awaited follow up film from the director of TITANIC.

Admittedly, AVENGERS has neither of those things going for it, so who knows if it'll best AVATAR. I hope it does, but I'm not counting on it. But AVATAR did not make the money it made "because women loved it". I don't know ANY women who loved it. And I'm hearing of lots of women loving THE AVENGERS. My point is, cccc, your point in this specific case is utter bunk.

But yeah, men are from Mars and women are from Venus and all that. My point is that women AREN'T from Pandora.

Also what Greg pointed out with Batman Begins, we're seeing right now or will soon see with other once-mighty franchises. A humbling period. When the brand-name and its past glory don't mean dick to audiences. Gotta make em fall in love with you again.

Batman went through it, Superman and X-Men are going right now (Technically Supes is about to go through it again!), Spider-Man is about to experience it and Terminator had it happen too (Though it hasn't recovered from the Salvation reception).

There isn't any way that The Avengers misses out on $500m at this point.  How some fail to see that is mind-boggling.

Avengers milestones to look out for this week:

Domestic cume after Monday (4 days): 226,337,707

Fastest to $250 - TDK (8 days)

Fastest to $300 - TDK (10 days)

Fastest to $350 - TDK (14 days)

All will get smushed. Avengers should be at 300 domestic by Friday night, eight days after release. At 350 by end of business Sunday (10 days) at the latest.

One thing that should be noted in all the talk of whether TDKR will match Avengers totals. This is going to be a great summer not just for entertainment, but for the business. Between those two and the Hobbit there are three films capable of beating records in one year. And several other capable of putting up big, but not shattering numbers.

Said it before, say it again: Avatar and Inception did gangbusters based on my highly scientific theory called Shit You've Never Seen Before. (You have to promise some Shit Blowing Up and Other Commercial Action Beats along with the Shit You've Never Seen Before, of course, otherwise Enter the Void would've done $200 million domestic.)

Even Dark Knight had it to some extent: instead of Shit You've Never Seen Before, it was Heath Ledger You've Never Seen Before.

Avengers? Dream Team You've Never Seen Before, At Least On the Big Screen.

DKR might -- might -- suffer from my other highly scientific theory, We've Seen This Shit Before. I don't know that the gen-pop really gets yet that Bane's the dude who schools Batman harder than anyone has ever schooled him before. Dunno whether the script's gonna go all the way with the breaking the back and all that. Really, though, Batman's had it easy in the Nolan films in terms of what he's had to go up against physically. Aside from random stooges, you have Scarecrow and Joker and Two-Face. Brainy and scary but not the sort who could, you know, actually take Batman. If that aspect of it gets word of mouth ("Holy shit dude the brutha fucked Batman's shit up") it'll do fine.

Martin, you should publish.

I should add, there are plenty of hints in the new trailer that Batman gets his shit fucked up. But how badly his shit gets fucked up will be left, probably, for the gen-pop who haven't read Knightfall to discover. Of course, if that's the case, once the review embargo lifts, the press will either spoil it left and right, or heavily allude to Really, You Want to See This, It's Rocky III Only Instead of Mr. T It's Mr. Bald Mumbly Dude Talking Through a George Foreman Grill And He Fucks Batman's Shit Up.

Also if this doesn't have Wesley Willis' "I Whupped Batman's Ass" in it somewhere, it sucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wang Hongwen 

 

"Biological predispositions"? Towards art? What fucking year do you live in? Do you wanna start measuring the size of people's skulls to make box office predictions?

 

Yeah, men are more likely to be horrible rape-monsters who get boners from seeing things die violently and women are more likely to fetishize idealized fantasy romance scenarios but that's because we're socialized to do so for very specific economic and social reasons in this unending nightmare world we live in, not because you got a lil baby dick or whatevs.

False.  You should read more.  Here's a start.

Men Are From Bay, Women Are From Garry Marshall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 
 

DKR might -- might -- suffer from my other highly scientific theory, We've Seen This Shit Before. I don't know that the gen-pop really gets yet that Bane's the dude who schools Batman harder than anyone has ever schooled him before. Dunno whether the script's gonna go all the way with the breaking the back and all that. Really, though, Batman's had it easy in the Nolan films in terms of what he's had to go up against physically. Aside from random stooges, you have Scarecrow and Joker and Two-Face. Brainy and scary but not the sort who could, you know, actually take Batman. If that aspect of it gets word of mouth ("Holy shit dude the brutha fucked Batman's shit up") it'll do fine.

The new DKR trailer barely features Bane at all. Did audience response to the IMAX clip (all of Bane's dialogue sounds like BLORKABLORKABLORKA) spook WB that much?

Wow, Wang Hongwen got awesome all of a sudden.

And yeah, Martin makes a great point about Shit You've Never Seen Before. I've been saying something similar for years--as much as Hollywood thinks they need to stick to the tried and true to make money, a movie that looks insanely innovative (in the right way) can make huge bank as well. I think 300 is another example of this, though I suppose Sin City primed the pump a bit. And I think The Matrix also got the audience in 1999 with a trailer that tantalized rather than serving you a buffet sampler of everything you were about to see.
 

Yes, I was talking to someone about Avengers yesterday and saying something like 'They understood that in a superhero team-up story you have to see them fight each other first," and it hit me that wait, there's never even BEEN a superhero team-up movie before.

By the way, people arguing that women just inherently don't like action movies seem to be ignoring the fact that a female-oriented action movie was an enormous hit LAST MONTH.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

By the way, people arguing that women just inherently don't like action movies seem to be ignoring the fact that a female-oriented action movie was an enormous hit LAST MONTH.
 

No one is arguing that.  I should have remembered that in being modern and progressive, we all have to clutch our pearls whenever someone brings up the idea that there are biological differences between the sexes that manifest in psychological differences. 

Um, yes, someone is arguing that. That's why folks are even debating the difference between men and women in a Box Office thread.

Martin's "shit you haven't seen before" theory is entirely sound, far more than cccc's "broads don't like action movies unless they have sappy romances" theory. I think the "shit you haven't seen before" theory is the one factor that may help PROMETHEUS to respectable numbers. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Martin's "shit you haven't seen before" theory is entirely sound, far more than cccc's "broads don't like action movies unless they have sappy romances" theory. I think the "shit you haven't seen before" theory is the one factor that may help PROMETHEUS to respectable numbers. 

I think that helped Inception some.