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 307

post #15301 of 16683
12/27/12 at 3:06pm

You could be right, but I'm usually quite good at tracking stuff that breaks out on home video, and I've never really gotten that impression from Kick-Ass.

Reply
post #15302 of 16683
12/27/12 at 3:58pm

Batman Begins was the last time a movie really exploded on home video and even then it was a $200M grossing blockbuster.

Reply
post #15303 of 16683
12/27/12 at 5:10pm

I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody gives 2 fucks about a KICK-ASS sequel and the studio has their heads up their own asses for greenlighting it. 

Reply
post #15304 of 16683
12/27/12 at 5:20pm

Agreed.

 

I want AFTER EARTH to die a quick death as well. That was one super serious trailer there.

Reply
post #15305 of 16683
12/27/12 at 5:53pm
I bet Kickass 2 makes exactly what the first did, at best. Less Austin Powers and more Charlie's Angels. I would love After Earth to fail, and I kinda expect it to, but maybe that's my bias against Jaden/Shyamalan.
Reply
post #15306 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:22pm
I can't see Kick Ass 2 making as much as the first, because the first at least ha word of mouth going for it, and I seriously don't expect much from a sequel that doesn't have Mathew Vaughn.
Reply
post #15307 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Batman Begins was the last time a movie really exploded on home video and even then it was a $200M grossing blockbuster.

 

Twilight.

 

Game.  Set.  Match.  Shame.

Reply
post #15308 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:31pm

If MAN OF STEEL underperforms, do you think they'll delay that Justice League movie? Or just say fuck it and cast away instead.

Reply
post #15309 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Twilight.

 

Game.  Set.  Match.  Shame.

 

I'll get you next time, Gadget. NEXT TIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMME! *Cat cries in background*

Reply
post #15310 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

If MAN OF STEEL underperforms, do you think they'll delay that Justice League movie? Or just say fuck it and cast away instead.

 

Either way I think Justice League doesn't hit 2015.

 

If Man of Steel registers, wiser heads will prevail and a sequel will be the best ammunition against The Avengers 2 instead.

Reply
post #15311 of 16683
12/27/12 at 8:54pm

I sort of hope MAN OF STEEL makes $225m and leaves Warner Bros. with no idea what the hell to do next.

Reply
post #15312 of 16683
12/27/12 at 9:01pm

SUPERMAN RETURNS made $391 Million. I guess STEEL will do around $400 Million plus thanks to IMAX/3D.

 

That's still bad, right?

Reply
post #15313 of 16683
12/27/12 at 9:05pm

Adjusted for inflation, Superman Returns did $241M. Man of Steel needs to at least match that with all the bumps in its corner.

Reply
post #15314 of 16683
12/27/12 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Adjusted for inflation, Superman Returns did $241M. Man of Steel needs to at least match that with all the bumps in its corner.

 

Superman Returns also had to bear the costs of the Tim Burton, Kevin Smith and numerous other attempts to make a Superman movie. So even if Man of Steel makes the same as Returns, it's starting from a "clean slate" so would be a win.

Reply
post #15315 of 16683
12/27/12 at 9:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

Superman Returns also had to bear the costs of the Tim Burton, Kevin Smith and numerous other attempts to make a Superman movie. So even if Man of Steel makes the same as Returns, it's starting from a "clean slate" so would be a win.

 

Depends on what it opens to.  Batman Begins didn't get a sequel because it made $205 million; it got a sequel because word-of-mouth was through the roof.  If Superman Returns makes a very tepid $200m, it could stall a potential franchise.

Reply
post #15316 of 16683
12/27/12 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Superman Returns also had to bear the costs of the Tim Burton, Kevin Smith and numerous other attempts to make a Superman movie. So even if Man of Steel makes the same as Returns, it's starting from a "clean slate" so would be a win.

 

Not entirely true. WB wrote those costs off years prior to Returns.

Reply
post #15317 of 16683
12/27/12 at 10:33pm

The WB knows how much is at stake with MAN OF STEEL and they're leaving very little to chance.  There was an overconfidence with SUPERMAN RETURNS that I'm not seeing here. Unless the film is a flat-out toxic stinker, which I don't think it will be, it'll get the numbers they are looking for. 

Reply
post #15318 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:03am

Yeah, you're gonna see some of the best marketing people in Hollywood's work on Superman. If Amazing Spiderman can get its nut, this can too. But probably not quite 300.

Reply
post #15319 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:27am

Early Thursday numbers per Nikke Finke:

 

The Hobbit - $10.6m

Les Miserables - $9.4m

Django Unchained - $8.7m

Reply
post #15320 of 16683
12/28/12 at 3:48am

I'll give Texas Chainsaw a go.  Besides, it couldn't possibly be any worse than TCM4 and will probably at least equal TCM3.

Reply
post #15321 of 16683
12/28/12 at 3:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

Good enough for the studio to greenlight the sequel and stick it in the middle of summer. I don't know if it will or not but they're obviously positioning it to improve on the box office of the original. And I know he's not the superstar he once was but having Jim Carrey in there can't hurt. He's still a much bigger name than Nicolas Cage (at least in comedic roles).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody gives 2 fucks about a KICK-ASS sequel and the studio has their heads up their own asses for greenlighting it. 


The "studio" in this analogy is actually not Lionsgate, distributors of the first film, but Universal. Clearly there are some bright guys over there, but the fact is that the original studio totally deserted "Kick Ass" and it's going to take some serious ad wizards to sell the sequel.

Reply
post #15322 of 16683
12/28/12 at 5:44am

This is the same Universal who took on Hellboy 2 after Sony dropped it like a bad habit.

Reply
post #15323 of 16683
12/28/12 at 6:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post

The WB knows how much is at stake with MAN OF STEEL and they're leaving very little to chance.  There was an overconfidence with SUPERMAN RETURNS that I'm not seeing here. Unless the film is a flat-out toxic stinker, which I don't think it will be, it'll get the numbers they are looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Yeah, you're gonna see some of the best marketing people in Hollywood's work on Superman. If Amazing Spiderman can get its nut, this can too. But probably not quite 300.

 

They're most definitely going to bring their marketing A-game, a la Inception and Sherlock Holmes.

Reply
post #15324 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:10am

Guy in his underwear flies around New York fighting aliens.   That's going to be hard to spin, especially since Man of Steel looks pretty much the same as Superman Returns - same quality cast, director, budget, effects, and same old same old Christ-imagery surging-symphony-score Suprmans that audiences haven't liked since 1982.  This is not the same transition Batman took or for that matter James Bond.  It's more of the same.  It will make 250 domestic, maybe 600 all together.  Waste of time, waste of money.  Superman is the Hulk Hogan of superheroes - he sucked in the 80s and he sucks now.

Reply
post #15325 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:36am

Reply
post #15326 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

Guy in his underwear flies around New York fighting aliens.   That's going to be hard to spin, especially since Man of Steel looks pretty much the same as Superman Returns - same quality cast, director, budget, effects, and same old same old Christ-imagery surging-symphony-score Suprmans that audiences haven't liked since 1982.  This is not the same transition Batman took or for that matter James Bond.  It's more of the same.  It will make 250 domestic, maybe 600 all together.  Waste of time, waste of money.  Superman is the Hulk Hogan of superheroes - he sucked in the 80s and he sucks now.


I just don't see how Superman can succeed with the star they've chosen. He sucks out loud, and I just can't believe audiences are going to warm to Henry Cavill. Star Trek has Chris Pine and his natural charisma. What does Superman have? Movies need likable lead actors to succeed.

Reply
post #15327 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:44am

Traditionally, Superman is played by an actor we've never heard of who is otherwise terrible.

 

Cavill will be fine.

Reply
post #15328 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Traditionally, Superman is played by an actor we've never heard of who is otherwise terrible.

 

Cavill will be fine.


I've thought about that, I mean, Reeves was not necessarily a master thespian, but he was extraordinarily well cast as Supes. Same for Routh (who has actually been funny in other roles). Cavill though has been so aggressively dull and terrible in everything I've ever seen him in, that I guess I just don't have my hopes up. I'd love for him to surprise me, but I'm not going to hold my breath either.

Reply
post #15329 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:48am

Cavill sucks. No one (with good taste) disputes that. But Nolan cast him. Not Snyder. Not the studio. He gets the benefit of the doubt.

Reply
post #15330 of 16683
12/28/12 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Cavill sucks. No one (with good taste) disputes that. But Nolan cast him. Not Snyder. Not the studio. He gets the benefit of the doubt.


Alright, I can respect that. I hope Nolan does not let us down.

Reply
post #15331 of 16683
12/28/12 at 10:07am

Someone likes Cavill, considering the only reason he didn't get Bond for Casino Royale is because of how young he was.

Reply
post #15332 of 16683
12/28/12 at 10:41am

Regarding The Hobbit, since some still think its $300m status is in doubt:  The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring have been performing in an extremely comparable fashion.  The Fellowship of the Ring made $38m over New Years, managing a 5x multiplier off that to hit $313m.  The Hobbit, assuming a $35m weekend, only needs a 3.1x multiplier to cross the $300m barrier.

Reply
post #15333 of 16683
12/28/12 at 10:44am

When it took 1st back from Les Mis, I came to believe it'll get 300.

Reply
post #15334 of 16683
12/28/12 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Someone likes Cavill, considering the only reason he didn't get Bond for Casino Royale is because of how young he was.

You're mistaken. Michael Wilson and the studio wanted a young Bond, but Barbara Broccoli fought for Craig, the oldest of the four final choices.

Cavill would have killed Bond for good. Him getting so close to being cast was a near death experience for the series.
Reply
post #15335 of 16683
12/28/12 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


You're mistaken. Michael Wilson and the studio wanted a young Bond, but Barbara Broccoli fought for Craig, the oldest of the four final choices.
Cavill would have killed Bond for good. Him getting so close to being cast was a near death experience for the series.

 

Everyone I know close to that process says Cavill tested incredibly well but was simply too young for the part.

Reply
post #15336 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Everyone I know close to that process says Cavill tested incredibly well but was simply too young for the part.

I am not saying you're wrong, it's just that what you're saying is the opposite of what I've heard.

And in any case, my distaste for Henry Cavill is such that I can only think he'd have sunk Casino Royale and the franchise with it, had he been cast. He's literally the emptiest pretty boy actor from across the pond I can think of.
Reply
post #15337 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:19am

You've been quite vocal in your distaste for Cavill prior to this thread, Harford. I've not seen him in anything and so I can't say whether you're right or wrong, but I'm wondering which performance of Cavill's made you detest him so much? I heard he was quite good in The Tudors.

Reply
post #15338 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:21am

He died well in Hellraiser: Hellworld.

Reply
post #15339 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:24am

Better than Clive Barker's dignity, I would imagine.

Reply
post #15340 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

You've been quite vocal in your distaste for Cavill prior to this thread, Harford. I've not seen him in anything and so I can't say whether you're right or wrong, but I'm wondering which performance of Cavill's made you detest him so much? I heard he was quite good in The Tudors.

Probably Tudors, though he was the weakest element of The Immortals recently which was unfortunate since that film could have been much better with a more likable lead. I can't speak to what others think of him, but on Tudors I thought he was consistently blown off the screen by Jonathan Rhys Meyers over the course of four long seasons. Next to Cavill, Meyers looked charismatic and intense, something he's never managed to pull off elsewhere (other than the Elvis miniseries he did in 2005).
Reply
post #15341 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:30am

Having only seen Cavill in a dismal Hellraiser sequel and IMMORTALS where everyone seemed lost and embarrassed, I don't know if I have a good reading on whether he truly sucks or not. But the thought of him as Bond in CASINO ROYALE gives me a cold shudder. 

Reply
post #15342 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:41am
Check out the Indie Wire review of Cavill's Bruce Willis team up film: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-cold-light-of-day-should-have-stayed-in-deep-freeze-20120907

Choice excerpts:
Quote:

 If we were some high ranking executive at Warner Bros., we would be genuinely concerned about the on-screen presence of Henry Cavill, who leads "The Cold Light of Day" and has been cast by the studio as the lead in next summer's Superman extravaganza "Man of Steel." The dude doesn't just lack charisma, he seems to vacuum it from other actors too.

 Yes, he looks really great – his face has angles that geometrics probably can't explain – but he lacks any weight or presence. He's a collection of handsome features in search of a movie star.

Then a commenter left this:
Quote:
Finally! Welcome to the people-realizing-Henry-Cavill-is-a-terrible-actor Club! It's been strange the way you've been acting like because he didn't get cast as James Bond, he was this secretly amazing actor. He was AWFUL in "The Tudors"...it's pretty evident the guy is a handsome blank

Edited by Dr Harford - 12/28/12 at 11:57am
Reply
post #15343 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:55am

Hopefully he really steps up the plate this time around. Or ends up being the Taylor Kitsch of 2013.

Reply
post #15344 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:00pm

I predict that we'll see an inverse of Superman Returns with MoS. The former was a hollow, pointless exercise that starred a guy (Routh) who knocked it out the park in every sense. The latter will be Kingdom Of Heaven: Redux.

I seriously hope to be surprised by Cavill. Daniel Craig never made much impression prior to CR. Who knows? But then again...this IS the studio that brought us Green Lantern.

Reply
post #15345 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

I predict that we'll see an inverse of Superman Returns with MoS. The former was a hollow, pointless exercise that starred a guy (Routh) who knocked it out the park in every sense. The latter will be Kingdom Of Heaven: Redux.


When I called Cavill the blandest pretty boy from across the pond, for moment I was like "but wait, what about Orlando Bloom?" Then I remembered he was Australian. biggrin.gif
Reply
post #15346 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I wonder how Thor 2 is going to go. I think it'll do well. The first one struggled a bit, but that was partly because people didn't really know what to make of the character. Now that he's firmly established as an Avenger, I think the next movie will ride the wave of Marvel goodwill. Plus it looks to be more of an epic fantasy than the first, which I think people will enjoy.

I think it will do extremely well, like you said when THOR was released he was not as popular and well known as he has become over the last year and a half thaks to the first film and obviously the massive success of THE AVENGERS.  From everything i've seen and heard about Thor TDW, it looks like it could be epic and better than the first film. I believe Thor TDW, Iron Man 3 & CA TWS will all have significant boosts following the success of The Avengers.

Reply
post #15347 of 16683
12/28/12 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

I'm sure it'll top the first one.  $230m-ish feels right to me.

That sounds about right to me, i could see a 50-70 million jump for Thor TDW domestically and even more internationally since the first film did pretty good buisness overseas.

Reply
post #15348 of 16683
12/28/12 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Willing to say Star Trek Into Darkness and Despicable Me 2 are the monsters of next summer and The Man of Steel a bigger blockbuster than expected. All in the $300M and up range. Pal of mine who writes for Box Office said upon seeing the Comic-Con trailer, "I haven't had this kind of vibe from a comic-book movie since the first Spider-Man."

 

The Internet may have hated The Hangover Part II. But the general public didn't. Though I expect Part III to be the lowest grosser. Still think it cake-walks past $200M. And Anchorman: The Legend Continues is one to keep a serious eye on.

 

Pacific Rim could be another Scott Pilgrim (Go ahead and laugh...) And 2013's top grosser? Catching Fire. No brainer.

I think the REAL monster of next summer will be "Iron Man 3", especially if it gets that extra boost from the success of "The Avengers" that i think it will get.  But i do think "Star Trek ID" will be a monster without a doubt and i hope you're wrong about "Pacific Rim" man, haha. Coming off the proven success of "THG", i can't doubt "Catching Fire", it could very well be 2013's biggest grosser domestically, worldwide might be a different story though. I say it's between "Iron Man 3" & "Catching Fire" as 2013's biggest domestic grosser. One thing i am sure of is we won't see any numbers near what "The Avengers" did this year, that's a guarantee signed, sealed and delivered.

Reply
post #15349 of 16683
12/28/12 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post

 

I'll be going, but maybe I'm a 40-year old kid anyway.

 

I think you'll be surprised by Despicable Me 2's box office performance. I'd be shocked if it didn't clear 300, easily.

You really expect "Despicable Me 2" to top 300 m domestic easily, you do realize that "The Lion King", "Finding Nemo", "Shrek 2", "Shrek The Third" & "Toy Story 3" are the only animated films to ever reach that amount. Sure the last "Ice Age" was huge overall, but it came nowhere near 300 m domestic. You might be mistaking global gross with domestic, 300 M easily, that's funny.

Reply
post #15350 of 16683
12/28/12 at 11:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Everyone I know close to that process says Cavill tested incredibly well but was simply too young for the part.

 

True but let's also remember the second runner-up was Sam Worthington (!) Besides Craig, we're not talking about otherwise great actors.

 

Cavill was good in Immortals as the square-jawed, straight-laced do-gooder. So we have a reference point for how his Superman/Clark Kent will be. Minus the British accent. Again he'll be perfectly fine in the role.


Edited by FilmNerdJamie - 12/28/12 at 11:45pm
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