CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 267

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Thanks, Sony Publicity Division!

 

I think they hoped to have a juggernaut, or they wouldn't have upped the budget to $230million. It's done good business, but there's no question of it putting up a fight against TDKR, something they had to have been hoping for in the back of their collective minds.

There's no way in hell Sony expected The Amazing Spider-Man to match Spider-Man's gross, let alone get close to TDKR.

Sony wasn't expecting it to beat Spider-Man's $400 million-busting gross, but wanting it to hit in the ballpark of Spider-Man 3? Yeah, they wanted that. Otherwise, how do they justify the reboot?

As for reboots not grossing as much as the original--bullshit. Casino Royale and Star Trek are the flagship examples of the reboot trend, and both were the highest grossing films in the franchise. Star Trek more than doubled the previous highest gross. That's what these studios want when they hit the reset button, and just furthers adds to the pointlessness of Amazing Spider-Man.

The Sony Spider-Man situation is interesting because it was such a lateral move, both creatively and financially. SPIDER-MAN 3 was disliked enough that a direct sequel peobably would have done lower numbers, the same or less of what the reboot is doing. But the reboot doesn't have exactly the greatest WOM. I think Sony gets away without egg on their faces, but they know tinkering will need to be done to keep the still shakey faith in the property. The sequel to this will need to come out guns-a-blazing. For this they will need to hire someone a little more aclimated to big budget blockbuster filmmaking behind the director's chair, so say goodbye to Marc Webb.

Here's hoping for a legitimate talent to be brought on board, like a Duncan Jones or Rian Johnson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Sony wasn't expecting it to beat Spider-Man's $400 million-busting gross, but wanting it to hit in the ballpark of Spider-Man 3? Yeah, they wanted that. Otherwise, how do they justify the reboot?

It's $100 million+ cheaper than making Spider-Man 4.  There's your justification.

Casino Royale sold less tickets than Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies.  Star Trek as a franchise did the same thing Batman & Robin did -- it completely bottomed out, so there was nowhere to go but up.  I might as well argue Rob Zombie's Halloween was a really successful reboot because it made more money than Halloween: Resurrection.

In truth, Star Trek made money because it was fun in a way the other films weren't.  They made it Star Wars and it connected with audiences on that level (and I'm not attacking it for that).

You're selectively forgetting where I also mentioned it didn't just outgross the previous entry, it more than doubled the gross of Star Trek IV, the previous best gross in the franchise. THAT is what a studio wants from a reboot--something that wipes the slate clean and with a mandate.

Financially Zombie's reboot was absolutely a success.

It might be $100million cheaper than SPIDER-MAN 4. It's also undoubtedly going to end  up doing less business than SPIDER-MAN 4 would have, and it still cost $100million more than the first film it's copying. $230million isn't a loss-leader, "let's set the sequel up to make money" investment - they wanted serious, serious returns on this. A SPIDER-MAN movie finishing outside the year's top five isn't what they wanted. It's a second-tier blockbuster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

You're selectively forgetting where I also mentioned it didn't just outgross the previous entry, it more than doubled the gross of Star Trek IV, the previous best gross in the franchise. THAT is what a studio wants from a reboot--something that wipes the slate clean and with a mandate.

Star Trek IV came out 23 years before Star Trek '09.  The Phantom Menace more than doubled The Empire Strikes Back's original box office, too.

Look, Star Trek is totally the ideal reboot story.  It sold more tickets than any other film in the franchise.  But it was also the only franchise that had never truly hit it big, so it was easier to manage.  Casino Royale basically equaled the other Bond films of its time.  Batman Begins equaled the mid-tier Batman films.  Neither came close to the previous heights of the franchise, and therefore it's silly to think Sony expected Amazing Spider-Man to when the first Spidey film was massive, and so were the sequels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

It might be $100million cheaper than SPIDER-MAN 4. It's also undoubtedly going to end  up doing less business than SPIDER-MAN 4 would have, and it still cost $100million more than the first film it's copying. $230million isn't a loss-leader, "let's set the sequel up to make money" investment - they wanted serious, serious returns on this.

And they're getting a serious, serious return on this -- to the tune of $250m+ domestically and $800m or so worldwide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

A SPIDER-MAN movie finishing outside the year's top five isn't what they wanted. It's a second-tier blockbuster.

Nobody gives a shit about where a film charts; they care about the bottom line.  Sony would rather have a Spider-Man film make $270m at #6 than $230m at #4.

No, they totally spent PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN money to do IRON MAN numbers. Come on, man.
 

And again, I'm just saying that they weren't expecting the high $380s or over. But in the ballpark of Spidey 3, at least showing that they got the same-ish amount of people roped back in? Yeah, they more than likely did. Something that's going to barely collect its budget back isn't what they want when they hand a film a $200 million+ check.

This film isn't going to hit $800million worldwide.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

And again, I'm just saying that they weren't expecting the high $380s or over. But in the ballpark of Spidey 3, at least showing that they got the same-ish amount of people roped back in? Yeah, they more than likely did. Something that's going to barely collect its budget back isn't what they want when they hand a film a $200 million+ check.

Spider-Man 3 made $336m compared to Spider-Man 2's $373m.  It's not like Spidey 3 saw a giant drop in gross or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

This film isn't going to hit $800million worldwide.
 

I'd wager a nice sum of money on that.

(Double post!)

With two huge family films out in the next two weeks, you think it's going to double its current take? You think it's going to show more legs than HUNGER GAMES? Enough to outrun the ICE AGE/TDKR onslaught? Enough to essentially match or better the WW grosses of all three of its predecessors?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

With two huge family films out in the next two weeks, you think it's going to double its current take? You think it's going to show more legs than HUNGER GAMES?
 

I think it's going to make at least another $100m domestically, and since it's barely opened in the UK, Australia, Japan, and Russia -- with no Russian numbers in yet and a possible Chinese release in the future --  it can make at least another $350m OS, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cccc 

 

It's doing exactly as they hoped.  

PLANT!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

 

I think it's going to make at least another $100m domestically, and since it's barely opened in the UK, Australia, Japan, and Russia -- with no Russian numbers in yet and a possible Chinese release in the future --  it can make at least another $350m OS, yeah.

It opened over here in the UK at the same time as the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

 

Total Recall - $55 million - Surely no one cares, right? Wet fart territory.

And yet Farrell's career will keep on trucking.  He's the Dracula of the film business.  Motherfucker never dies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

It opened over here in the UK at the same time as the U.S.

I know, but its opening there still isn't counted by BoxOfficeMojo at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

And yet Farrell's career will keep on trucking.  He's the Dracula of the film business.  Motherfucker never dies.

I thought that was Jude Law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

This film isn't going to hit $800million worldwide.
 

MIB 3 hit 600M so far.  Just for reference.

June's bombs have me digging lower:

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days - $30 Decent business from parents who don't want to take their kids to TDKR.
Totall Recall - $36 I want this to fail hard, but fear it won't.  Will do over $100, but I'll stick with my lowball on principle.
Bourne Legacy - $60 but has a hard time getting there.
The Campaign - $20 Probably to low on that one too.  Even Dinner for Schmucks made money.

Hope Springs - $50 Streep!  Jones!  Carell!  Probably too high, but then again, old people.

Expendables 2 - $40 Meh.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green - $7 Bomb.
ParaNorman - $45 Burtony animation?  Yeah, at least that.
Sparkle - $15 Wait, this isn't a concert movie?

The Apparition - $10  That's a negative Ghost Rider.
Hit & Run - $25 on the dreamy cast.
Premium Rush - $6  Zero buzz.
Lawless - $5 Beef backlash incoming.
The Possession - $8 Nope.avi

Nitro Circus the Movie 3D - $3  Because why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

And yet Farrell's career will keep on trucking.  He's the Dracula of the film business.  Motherfucker never dies.

He'll just disappear back into indie films for a few years again if Total Recall and his next few studio projects bottom out.

WB isn't exactly falling over themselves for a third Sherlock Holmes after Game of Shadows.

Why do you think that? It was only $20 million off from the first one and actually made more internationally than the first. We will see Sherlock 3.

Sherlock Holmes 3 will happen.  Shit, it's already being written by a writer chosen by Downey.  I suspect Ritchie will take a backseat on this one though.  Expect new blood behind the camera.

Seeing as how Game of Shadows' main problem was Ritchie letting the story get away from him, new blood would be a wise move.

Alrighty...

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days – $30 million.

Total Recall - $45 million.

The Bourne Legacy – $135 million.

The Campaign – $65 million.

Hope Springs - $45 million.

The Expendables 2 – $140 million.

The Odd Life of Timothy Green – $15 million.

ParaNorman – $40 million.

Sparkle – $20 million.

The Apparition – $25 million.

Hit & Run – $12 million.

Premium Rush – $35 million.

Lawless – $25 million.

The Possession - $30 million.

Sherlock 3 will happen. WB needs tentpoles and they want to be in business with Downey. Just no the rush to get next one like there was after the first film did great business against Avatar.

That's two for two on predictions that The Expendables 2 will make more money than the Bourne movie.  Is that a common thought?  Because that seems hard for me to believe.

Is it too early to talk about Looper?  What does that need to gross so Johnson can keep making films?  I have a horrible feeling it's not going to catch on with Joe public even with Willis starring.

Law has had make do with a supporting/character actor career instead of the big leading man he seemed to be shooting for back in The Year Of Jude Law 2004. But that's not the worst place to be when you've got Scorsese and Soderbergh are calling you up.

Have to say, considering how expensive Total Recall is and how much of it seems like a corporate bean counting exercise, their casting logic is a bit weird. It's full of former Next Big Things that never quite made it. Not quite sure why they suddenly decided now is the time to let Farrell headline a big tentpole blockbuster. But even if it bombs (which it probably will) the thing he's got going with Martin McDonagh should keep his cred intact. Based on In Bruges that's where he belongs anyway.

As long as Looper does well with the critics, Johnson will be fine. He's got a good reputation for making quality product on a dime and is one the rise. How it fares with the public is up in the air; the trailer is pretty sweet and JGL is a hot commodity, especially after TDKR hits (though I fear Premium Rush will swipe some of that heat simply by getting released first). It can't have cost much, so as long as it's a solid playing sleeper it will be fine in progressing Rian's ascent.

I think Renner's got some heat. He was the straight man in Mission Impossible and was sidelined until the last act of The Avengers but he's made impressions, and Universal is banking on it. It also helps that the ads are making it very clear that this isn't a reboot, so as to avoid drawing ire. 

Are you kidding me?  Premium Rush looks like Quicksilver crossed with Die Hard.  It's Mirror Mirror on a bike.  It's a freight train of unstoppable (Not to be confused with Unstoppable.)

So...who are you replying to, exactly? And what are you saying...exactly?

I'm saying "Mirror Mirror on a bike."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

I'm saying "Mirror Mirror on a bike."

I want - nay, I demand! - this to appear on the poster for Premium Rush.

I'm sure I'll check out Total Re(make)call, but if I gotta spent two hours with Farrell, Biel and Beckinsale, I'd rather it be in a motel room.

A good chunk of the August releases will just be Batman's butt-bitch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

That's two for two on predictions that The Expendables 2 will make more money than the Bourne movie.  Is that a common thought?  Because that seems hard for me to believe.

Because, for better or worse, people seem more excited about it than Bourne.  One is a spin-off to a popular franchise without its star.  The other is a bigger budgeted sequel to a film that was mostly well-received by general audiences.  Both will likely be the highest-grossing new films of the month.  If not, I'll be surprised.  Each should have a decent run throughout August if people take to them because there isn't much competition overall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Is it too early to talk about Looper?  What does that need to gross so Johnson can keep making films?  I have a horrible feeling it's not going to catch on with Joe public even with Willis starring.

It's budget is $60 million, so at least a good bit above that would be nice.  It all depends on what other kinds of films that Johnson wants to make in the near future.  If they are small budgeted fare, it really doesn't matter.  If not, this one doing well would certainly help things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Not quite sure why they suddenly decided now is the time to let Farrell headline a big tentpole blockbuster. But even if it bombs (which it probably will) the thing he's got going with Martin McDonagh should keep his cred intact. Based on In Bruges that's where he belongs anyway.

He's also got another action movie due out next year.  But yeah, Farrell will always find work in smaller films, especially if he keeps up his relationship with Martin McDonagh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

A good chunk of the August releases will just be Batman's butt-bitch.

Indeed they will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

A good chunk of the August releases will just be Batman's butt-bitch.

Yes, but will The Dark Knight Rises give Premium Rush a bump due to JGL?

Unless he's front and center throughout the whole thing, I really doubt it.  It will increase awareness of him, but it's not going to make him a star.

Yeah, I wasn't really being serious.

I didn't figure you were, but others have made the same comment throughout these boards and actually seem serious about it.  I just hope Premium Rush's postponement to August doesn't hurt Looper in September.  They really should have kept Rush as an early 2012 release as originally planned.  The worst thing for JGL's career would be for people to get tired of or put off by him right after his Batman appearance.