CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 199

Bourne was just a codename anyway, and presumably the plot of the new one will relate to the whole conspiracy surrounding the Bourne thing, hence being its 'Legacy'. It's not a huge stretch, and it's not as if a title like 'The Bourne Supremacy' is some masterwork of coherency. It's just something to call the movie so you know what series it's part of, I mean who gives a fuck. I wasn't crying out for another sequel either but these objections are pretty obtuse.

In addition to being a passable-to-good movie (and Renner being a charismatic lead), the success of the new Bourne movie is going to depend heavily on the marketing getting audiences primed to accept a Damon-less Bourne movie.

And as much as I feel that Matt Damon and the Bourne series are one, part of me thinks that we're overestimating how important he is to this franchise for general audiences. 

If the trailers sell the idea that this is expanding on all that Treadstone/Blackbriar stuff beyond the "David Webb" character, I don't think audiences will be too averse to more films that bear the Bourne name.

Now... if Universal tries to trick audiences into thinking that Damon is involved with this at all... god help them.

The question is if people give a shit about this franchise without Matt Damon. Regardless of names, people know Damon as Bourne. The last film made 70 M opening weekend. You call anything Bourne Whatever, people will expect to see Damon there. I get it that the studio is hoping for a James Bond/Batman kind of thing where people will accept a new actor in the lead role but in this case I don't think it will work at all. We'll see next summer.

Tony Gilroy is a great talent but we'll see about his directing chops. Michael Clayton was great but Duplicity was pretty awful so this could go either way at this point.

I agree about that. This film is product for Universal nothing more the Bourne films are earners for the studio.

Gilroy and Renner attached has peaked my interest though.

Hollywood's most overpaid actors/actresses.

Some said Tower Heist would do near 30 million. It did 25 and came in second place to Puss and Boots.

Considering Tropic Thunder opened to 25 million with Downey Jr i'd say Stiller isn't the draw he use to be and the Eddie Murphy factor wasn't that much of one.

I'm curious if this with a 75 million dollar budget (Had to be higher) is really a win for Ratner and company.

Strange times in Hollywood.

As for the earners article. Interesting that Drew Barrymore is box office poison but then again her choices are so rancid that its hardly surprising.

What is surprising is that Denzel is mentioned. I thought he was bigger than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

What is surprising is that Denzel is mentioned. I thought he was bigger than that.

Not lately it seems.

In his defense, Denzel usually does thriller stuff. Films that don't exactly attract a huge audience.

Unstoppable did fairly well though. A modest hit based on its budget.

P.S- I've always wondered if he's signed a blood pact with Tony Scott. Not that i am complaining mind you.

I was really prepared to laugh at Paul Anderson for The Three Musketeers, but I see it's already at $82 million worldwide on a $90 million budget.

It's practically a foreign film, so no real surprise there.

They also released it a few weeks earlier in Europe.

If you look at Denzel's track record he's a fairly consistent draw, just not a $100m+ draw. He's not poison by any means, but what they're suggesting is that the budgets and his paycheque are more than his average result justifies.

We could be looking at a three-peat victory for Puss In Boots this coming weekend.

Has anyone around here seen Puss In Boots?  Just curious.  Everyone I know that has gone has loved it.............including those who aren't Shrek fans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Has anyone around here seen Puss In Boots?  Just curious.  Everyone I know that has gone has loved it.............including those who aren't Shrek fans.

Liked it fine but didn't love it like the first two Shreks. Definitely an improvement from the last two films though.

Best thing going for it is it doesn't tie into the Shrek films at all. Intentionally vague as to where it stand continuity wise.

Lionsgate is banking that THE HUNGER GAMES hit at 100 Million domestic.

At least to justify any sequels. Think this franchise can hit its mark?

Absolutely.

Of all the March releases, I see Hunger Games being the monster hit.

If they kick the marketing into high gear and actually some stuff beyond Jennifer Lawrence running around aimlessly with a bow & arrow, there's no reason it couldn't reach that goal.

Felix with John Carter on March 9th and Clash Of The Titans 2 on March 30th,  Jennifer Lawrence's...Games, might be left...HUNGRY, and short of the $100 Million Goal!

Wrath of the Titans will make money.  I'm not so sure John Carter will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Wrath of the Titans will make money.  I'm not so sure John Carter will.

I suspect the grosses for John Carter will make Disney look back fondly on Prince of Persia.  

I'm really curious to see how Disney will start ramping up its advertising for John Carter.  Nothing we've seen so far has seemed to click for the general audience AT ALL.

They'll have to start kicking into high gear soon, so I hope they've been making a lot of headway with the FX.  If not, we're looking at the Green Lantern of 2012.

S.D. Bob Plissken, I guess I am in the minority as I thought the Trailer to John Carter was...Awesome.  Granted they do need to show some tech, more aliens etc.  There has not even been a...Teaser, for Wrath Of The Titans and that comes out just...3 weeks after John Carter.  You could say...WOTT the heck is going on with the second...TITANic Clash!

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

Absolutely.

 

Of all the March releases, I see Hunger Games being the monster hit.

I doubt it on my part. It just doesn't the love/romance appeal that the Twilight films have. Most likely, this will be the Cowboys & Aliens of 2012.

It'll make decent money but not the Blockbuster expectations that Lionsgate is hoping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Lionsgate is banking that THE HUNGER GAMES hit at 100 Million domestic.

 

At least to justify any sequels. Think this franchise can hit its mark?

The lighthouse scene alone in Battle Royale has pre-emptively rendered this whole series redundant, creatively at least.

Yeah, I'd have to ask someone who's read it, as I'm still not really sure what the hell it is. Entertainment Weekly assures me that it will be quite the popular movie next year though.

I am a Hunger Dame, and I can 100% assure you that this will be a hit if they focus on the politics and violence rather than try to turn it into a Twilight clone.  There's romance stuff in the series, but it's not the main point of the books.  Also, Katniss is a far, far, FAR better protagonist than that Bella shit.

The first book of The Hunger Games is really good. It's never all-out school girl massacre as in Battle Royale, but young Katniss is very often close to death, only narrowly evading murderers, deadly traps and the eyes of the sadistic game players. She's only ever thinking about who she'd like to be with when lying in a dark cave, breathing slowly not to show her position. As a delusional fantasy.

Just to make this clear: the THG government forces people to fight in an arena, to the death. It's broadcasted everywhere, in a sickly playful tone, as if it's fun entertainment. These guys would make great partners with OCP.

Of course they're correcting it for the movie. Katness will never look like shit, her super awesome looking friends will be way more participating (in the novel, they are not important at all), they will bicker and fight for her love, the system will not be as harsh and any kill that happens, will be offscreen. Instead, Liam Hemsworth and that Journey Boy will spend most of their time trying to bed Mystique. And she will have trouble deciding.

We will not like that movie.

The only way that 'romance' stuff is interesting is if they play it the way they do in the books: as just another strategy towards winning/surviving the game with a hint of "am I really feeling this?"

I tend to avoid popular literature since a friend recomended a book by Dan Brown (/me shudders). But the description from Myers makes me curious, reminds me a bit of King's the Long Walk and The Running Man. Given I continue to watch the Ultimate Fighter and watched a few seasons of survivor when it came out. The subject remains rich and relevant.

Immortals, what in the everlovin' fuck.   Eating my humble pie and washing it down with a tall glass of I KNOW NOTHING.

Didn't expect that as well. I wonder if they'll greenlight a sequel based on those numbers?

Yeah did not see that coming at all. I thought the writing was on the wall after the complete failures of Conan and Three Musketeers.

I wonder if this means Tarsem is finally going to break out? He's similar to Snyder in a lot of ways - both masterful visual stylists with weak spots in the actual storytelling. The main difference is that Snyder has a pulp/geek sensibility and Tarsem has a more classical visual arts sensibility, which I find more interesting.

Puss In Boots'  legs are pretty crazy.

They might be able to salvage something out of The Three Musketeers though. The International Numbers aren't that bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

They might be able to salvage something out of The Three Musketeers though. The International Numbers aren't that bad.

How much of that actually goes back to the studio though? I've heard it can be as little as 15% of the gross (I think I've most often heard around 33% though). I've also heard such things as that there's an absolute cap on the total amount they can get back on revenues from China and possibly India too.

I'm pretty sure Three Musketeers is an international co-production so the gross probably isn't weighted towards the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

Immortals, what in the everlovin' fuck.   Eating my humble pie and washing it down with a tall glass of I KNOW NOTHING.

That makes us two of us, especially since all the marketing was "IT'S JUST LIKE 300!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie 

That makes us two of us, especially since all the marketing was "IT'S JUST LIKE 300!"

"We ride together.  We die together.  Bad boys for life!"

Immortals kept Jack and Jill off the top spot, so I think we owe it a debt of eternal gratitude.

I think movie studios tend to underrate the appeal of a visually spectacular movie. Even here, on this thread, among movie geeks, a lot of people were saying "Well, maybe I'll see it for the visuals". It's certainly logical that, if you're going to go see something on the big screen, having a really strong visual sensibility is a big incitement.

Ooh, I called Immortals! Yay?

Outside of the big ticket seasons, it really seems situational. In early September, I bet Immortals bombs. But there's been nothing like it for three months, and aside from Paranormal Activity, there's been not much for the teens to go see. That said, Is 36 or whatever really enough to make Immortals a bonafide hit? Looks like a pricey picture, and I could see it ending up around 100 somewhere. I guess with international and other markets, that's plenty.

Great weekend all around truth be told. Immortals and Jack & Jill both blew past projections (pegged to open in the low 20s) and Puss In Boots continues to hold well.

The fact that somebody actually watched Jack and Jill makes me a litle sad though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

I expect immortals to be very successful. 15 Million opening sounds off. It'll do 20+.

2 weeks 6 days ago. Young people went and saw this movie. This is classic Hollywood simply not making enough films that look interesting visually.

Tarsem can shoot a movie. Story be damned but he can shoot the shit out of it. That matters in the studio product infested waters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Has anyone around here seen Puss In Boots?  Just curious.  Everyone I know that has gone has loved it.............including those who aren't Shrek fans.

Just came back from seeing Puss.  Lots of energy, really funny, but missing the heart.  A little too fast-paced for my liking, but it's a lot of fun and gorgeous to see.  Can't say I loved it though.

Judging by Saturday and Sunday's grosses, Immortals could be a case of the Hulk, i.e. opens big, drops quickly and deemed a flop after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Immortals kept Jack and Jill off the top spot, so I think we owe it a debt of eternal gratitude.

Thank God that America actually picked the RIGHT dumb movie to go see for a change.  Jack & Jill had the lowest opening weekend for a Sandler film since Funny People (which is all kinds of ironic).
 

Just saw the new The Hunger Games Trailer.

I take it back. This may work out after all. There's a strong dystopian Running Man feel to the whole thing. Jennifer Lawrence looked great as well. I was really surprised actually on how good the trailer was.

It does look good and it certainly has the chance to do well.  I just don't think Lionsgate should be banking on it hitting Twilight levels of popularity.