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 259

post #12901 of 16671
6/16/12 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

 

And I wasn't doing that.  I already said this won't have an effect on his bread and butter action stuff.  I was just making a joke about the guy saying you couldn't see his face or read his name.  Yeah, because the poster is about 20 times smaller on your computer screen.

 

Regardless of the size of the poster, his face is in shadow and his name is listed down there with everyone else's instead of bold at top. But I know you knew what I meant and that it is easier to make a joke, so I bear you no ill will.

 

ETA: I doubt this poster is hanging in movie theaters any ways given at it's kind of the wrong aspect ratio for most light cases.

Reply
post #12902 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:10pm

Well, he certainly figures very prominently in the Polish ad campaign for the movie.

 

186818_100000613199024_1542599320_n.jpg

Reply
post #12903 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:19pm

If Brave is as good as Tangled, I'll be satisfied.
 

Reply
post #12904 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post

 

ETA: I doubt this poster is hanging in movie theaters any ways given at it's kind of the wrong aspect ratio for most light cases.

 

Is there nothing more worthy of discussion this sunny afternoon? Fine, here's the one-sheet composition. Same art, just shifting the two nobodies to the foreground WHO'S FRONT AND CENTER NOW BITCH:

 

rok_1sht_dom.jpg

Reply
post #12905 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

Don't hang Rock of Ages around Cruise. His part in it is very small and the ads hardly highlighted him.

I think he definately is accountable for the success or failure of this. The marketing of the movie I have seen is all build up to Tom Cruise as Rockstar taking the stage. Also Vince Neil is making the rounds talking about how Cruise does such a great job pulling this off. Now if it fails Cruise is not solely to blame (we are talking about a musical featuring horrible music being sold on camp value) but you can be sure if this movie did well much of the credit would go to Cruise's star power.

Reply
post #12906 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:36pm

The Marketing campaign might not have intended Cruise to the centerpiece of attention, but that is sure as hell what happened.

Mean while I feel like doing a Snoopy Happy Dance over an Adam Sandler POS finally getting what it deserves.

Reply
post #12907 of 16671
6/16/12 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

 

Is there nothing more worthy of discussion this sunny afternoon? Fine, here's the one-sheet composition. Same art, just shifting the two nobodies to the foreground WHO'S FRONT AND CENTER NOW BITCH:

 

rok_1sht_dom.jpg

 

Are you kidding me?  They're clearly trying to disguise him.  They simply do not want people to know Tom Cruise is in this film.  Hell, when I first saw it, I thought it was William Mapother.

Reply
post #12908 of 16671
6/16/12 at 1:04pm
Oh, lay off Cruise. Name me one person who would have made Rock of Ages a hit.
Reply
post #12909 of 16671
6/16/12 at 1:06pm

Wow.  I did not expect That's My Boy to tank so hard.  I'm loving that it did though!

Reply
post #12910 of 16671
6/16/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Oh, lay off Cruise. Name me one person who would have made Rock of Ages a hit.

 

220px-Christopher_nolan.jpg

Reply
post #12911 of 16671
6/16/12 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Oh, lay off Cruise. Name me one person who would have made Rock of Ages a hit.

 

016_william_mapother--300x300.jpg

Reply
post #12912 of 16671
6/16/12 at 4:04pm

Here is a very brief collage of what it looks like when you expect Tom Cruise to sell your movie. It doesn't always work, but this is what it looks like:

 

cruisecollage.png

 

In all but one, his face is clearly identifiable. In all of them, his name appears prominently above the movie by itself or with the female lead. Rock of Ages was never promoted as a Tom Cruise vehicle. It just wasn't.

 

For the life of me, I don't understand how I was dragged in to defending Tom Cruise's box office legacy. 

Reply
post #12913 of 16671
6/16/12 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Oh, lay off Cruise. Name me one person who would have made Rock of Ages a hit.

 

Genie.jpg

Reply
post #12914 of 16671
6/16/12 at 5:50pm

Looks like audiences have finally exhausted their good will for Sandler. The dude's so likable on talk shows that I think people have been willing to buy tickets to his flicks in spite of the increasingly lazy / crappy product on screen (full disclosure - I speak as a Sandler fan who's defended him in the face of insurmountable evidence), but it seems like Jack & Jill was the last straw. I'm genuinely interested to see where Sandler goes from here -  with his gold run seemingly over, does he now start taking more adult roles (the likes of Punchdrunk Love and Funny People show he's damn good when spared from his own 'brand') and signing up for ensemble movies helmed by actual directors (remember how Tarantino wanted him for Inglourious Basterds)? That to me is a pretty enticing prospect, but one that could be instantly scuppered if Grown Ups 2 puts The Sandman back on top.

Reply
post #12915 of 16671
6/16/12 at 6:04pm

Sandler's next few films are pretty much already in the can.

 

fakeposters-funnypeople-1024x750.jpg

Reply
post #12916 of 16671
6/16/12 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Brady View Post

Looks like audiences have finally exhausted their good will for Sandler. The dude's so likable on talk shows that I think people have been willing to buy tickets to his flicks in spite of the increasingly lazy / crappy product on screen (full disclosure - I speak as a Sandler fan who's defended him in the face of insurmountable evidence), but it seems like Jack & Jill was the last straw. I'm genuinely interested to see where Sandler goes from here -  with his gold run seemingly over, does he now start taking more adult roles (the likes of Punchdrunk Love and Funny People show he's damn good when spared from his own 'brand') and signing up for ensemble movies helmed by actual directors (remember how Tarantino wanted him for Inglourious Basterds)? That to me is a pretty enticing prospect, but one that could be instantly scuppered if Grown Ups 2 puts The Sandman back on top.

 

He'll follow the Murphy template.  If he has multiple bombs in a row, he'll start doing crappy kid's movies like Shrek and Haunted Mansion.

 

(Which sort of implies his other movies were for adults, which they really weren't.)

Reply
post #12917 of 16671
6/16/12 at 7:19pm
The take away on this Sandler is don't make 'em R rated. If anything, I expect less experimentation from Happy Madison now.
Reply
post #12918 of 16671
6/16/12 at 10:50pm

Sandler cut off his audience by making it R-rated.  He'll be back with another shitty movie next year.  I'm surprised at Rock of Ages doing so poorly, but oh well. 

 

Prometheus took a Hulk dive.

Reply
post #12919 of 16671
6/17/12 at 6:48am

Grown-Ups 2 will earn back goodwill.

Reply
post #12920 of 16671
6/17/12 at 6:54am

I know next to nothing about box office, but I can't believe anyone thought normal people would want to see Rock of Ages.

Reply
post #12921 of 16671
6/17/12 at 7:06am

Cruise was awesome (The movie should have been about Jaxx; two leads sung great but shit actors) as was the music if you dig 80s rock/pop. There I just saved you $10.

Reply
post #12922 of 16671
6/17/12 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

I know next to nothing about box office, but I can't believe anyone thought normal people would want to see Rock of Ages.

 

I thought the same for Hairspray (with 60s nostalgia instead of 80s) but that made over 100M so I can see the reasoning why people thought this would be bigger.

Reply
post #12923 of 16671
6/17/12 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

 

I thought the same for Hairspray (with 60s nostalgia instead of 80s) but that made over 100M so I can see the reasoning why people thought this would be bigger.

 

I wonder if it's because (A) Hairspray was more popular as a Broadway musical, so the movie lured both fans of the show and folks who'd heard a lot about it but never got to see it live, and (B) Rock of Ages, from what I can determine, probably works better live, and the demographic isn't as wide-ranging as Hairspray's was. I mean, I find it as hilarious as anyone that something based on a John Waters film appealed to ages 8 to 80, but there you go.

Reply
post #12924 of 16671
6/17/12 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Oh, lay off Cruise. Name me one person who would have made Rock of Ages a hit.

 

MontyPythonGod.jpg

Reply
post #12925 of 16671
6/17/12 at 10:09am

Perhaps short haired Tom Cruise could have done better.

 

(Yes, I think there are two Tom Cruises.  Twins living one life, Prestige style.)

Reply
post #12926 of 16671
6/17/12 at 10:11am

Now there's a discussion! To counter that, long haired Tom Cruise Mission Impossible movies make more than short haired Tom Cruise Mission Impossible movies.

Reply
post #12927 of 16671
6/18/12 at 4:20am

Good PG-13 films do better at the Box Office

 

Here's the math. Agree?

Reply
post #12928 of 16671
6/18/12 at 4:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post

Prometheus took a Hulk dive.

Sadly it's one of those films where everyone who wanted to see it did, and that was that.

Reply
post #12929 of 16671
6/18/12 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post

Sadly it's one of those films where everyone who wanted to see it did, and that was that.

 

Disagree. I think word of mouth hurt it (or failed to help it). If it had been the masterpiece we were hoping for I don't think it would have fallen off nearly as sharply--after all, it's not like it got muscled out by this weekend's new releases.

Reply
post #12930 of 16671
6/18/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

 

Disagree. I think word of mouth hurt it (or failed to help it). If it had been the masterpiece we were hoping for I don't think it would have fallen off nearly as sharply--after all, it's not like it got muscled out by this weekend's new releases.

 

And we would be going back to enjoy the visuals again, without getting burned by the stupid.

Reply
post #12931 of 16671
6/18/12 at 12:29pm

Update!

 

juneboxupdate.png

Click to embiggen

 

Books are still open for July

Reply
post #12932 of 16671
6/21/12 at 4:51am

The Hollywood Reporter says $125 million tracking for THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN

 

 

Quote:

"Pre-release tracking is impressive for the superhero reboot, suggesting a six-day opening of $125 million or more, the best showing of any summer film outside of box office goliath The Avengers.

 

"When it comes to definite interest, males of all ages appear eager to turn out to see director Marc Webb's take on the classic Marvel character."

 

"Interest also is good among females under the age of 25, thanks to the popularity of the two lead actors. There's somewhat less interest among older females."

 

Reply
post #12933 of 16671
6/21/12 at 6:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

The Hollywood Reporter says $125 million tracking for THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN

 

 

If the good reviews continue to roll in that'll be higher.

Reply
post #12934 of 16671
6/21/12 at 6:40am

If its as good as the reviews so far say it is, then more power to it.

Reply
post #12935 of 16671
6/21/12 at 6:44am

LA Times said it was tracking to as high as $150M+

 

Problem is tracking doesn't take into account the reception of the last movie (the toxic Spider-Man 3 in this case). They always blow it in that department. Did so as recently as Men in Black 3 not factoring in MIB 2 wasn't well-liked and over-predicted it to an $80M+ opening. Ditto X-Men: First Class last year with $70-$80M projections. My guess is the 6-day will be closer to Spider-Man's 3-day 10 years ago, i.e. $110-$120M.

Reply
post #12936 of 16671
6/21/12 at 7:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

LA Times said it was tracking to as high as $150M+

 

Problem is tracking doesn't take into account the reception of the last movie (the toxic Spider-Man 3 in this case). They always blow it in that department. Did so as recently as Men in Black 3 not factoring in MIB 2 wasn't well-liked and over-predicted it to an $80M+ opening. Ditto X-Men: First Class last year with $70-$80M projections. My guess is the 6-day will be closer to Spider-Man's 3-day 10 years ago, i.e. $110-$120M.

 

That was 10 years ago (ticket prices) and don't forget it's in 3D.  

Reply
post #12937 of 16671
6/21/12 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cccc View Post

 

That was 10 years ago (ticket prices) and don't forget it's in 3D.  

 

You don't forget when your ass gets burned by a flick.  Spider-Man 3 nuked my ass.  Fuck Spider-Man.

Reply
post #12938 of 16671
6/21/12 at 11:27am

I think the Spidey+Twilight buzz is going to hurt it with the geek/guy crowd.  Weather it makes it up in women under 25, remains to be seen.

 

CCCC, you skipped the rest of Jamie's post.

Reply
post #12939 of 16671
6/21/12 at 11:58am

I'm not getting the "Twilight" thing. Yeah, so Garfield is beautiful and has big, poofy, gorgeous hair and a penis that probably tastes like crème brûlée and there's an emphasis on the relationship with Stone, but what exactly in the marketing gives the impression that this is anything but another Spider-Man film?

Reply
post #12940 of 16671
6/21/12 at 12:11pm

Reviews are comparing it to Twilight.

Reply
post #12941 of 16671
6/21/12 at 12:49pm

HarleyQuinn22, Did you skip Christopher Nolan's Batman Films because Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were...Terrible?  The Amazing Spider-Man should be an improvement over the Trilogy directed by Sam Raimi!

Reply
post #12942 of 16671
6/21/12 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Reviews are comparing it to Twilight.

 

Only a few reviews.

Reply
post #12943 of 16671
6/21/12 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post

HarleyQuinn22, Did you skip Christopher Nolan's Batman Films because Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were...Terrible?  The Amazing Spider-Man should be an improvement over the Trilogy directed by Sam Raimi!

 

People skipped BATMAN BEGINS in theaters because of BATMAN AND ROBIN and didn't come around until home video. I'm predicting a similar response to this. BATMAN BEGINS did about 200 mil domestic, taking into account ticket inflation, 3D bump and the fact that SPIDER-MAN 3 wasn't as reviled as BATMAN AND ROBIN I'd say this puts ASM somewhere between 250-275.

Reply
post #12944 of 16671
6/21/12 at 3:33pm

I've long wondered if Catwoman (2004) played a role in making audiences apprehensive as well. No, it had nothing to do with the comics, but your average filmgoer doesn't know that, they just know the name and subsequent brand association.  

Reply
post #12945 of 16671
6/21/12 at 4:50pm

I doubt it, considering there was no attempt on or off-screen to brand that film as Batman-related.

Reply
post #12946 of 16671
6/21/12 at 10:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Yeah, so Garfield is beautiful and has big, poofy, gorgeous hair and a penis that probably tastes like crème brûlée...

I pray you haven't ruined crème brûlée for me.

Reply
post #12947 of 16671
6/22/12 at 7:52am

Wondering if Brave might under-perform slightly and pull in low/mid 50s.

Reply
post #12948 of 16671
6/22/12 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandhay View Post

I pray you haven't ruined crème brûlée for me.

tumblr_lymrypdXD41qehe8g.jpg

 

You called?

Reply
post #12949 of 16671
6/22/12 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Wondering if Brave might under-perform slightly and pull in low/mid 50s.

 

They're saying around 59 at this point. Yeah, I'd like to back off that 300 prediction about now. Gonna fuck up my rank.

 

Still, it's going to hold well into the holiday.

Reply
post #12950 of 16671
6/22/12 at 8:35pm

Anecdotal evidence, but BRAVE was playing on 3 screens at my theater and all of the evening shows were sold out (including mine).  Also, it seemed to play very well with the crowd.  It may not do HUGE business but I think it's gonna do just fine.

Reply
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