Jump to content

Premium and Gold members please go to this thread:

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/24403-paid-perks/

 

Copper and Silver Accounts please PM me if you have paid past August 1st and care about the "Custom Avatar" (or really larger avatar) perk.

Emperor Tele-Limai

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST WEEKEND THREAD | Late Sunday Numbers (Asgard) - 48-49M | Official Weekend Estimate: 170M; OS OW: 180M; WW OW: 350M

Recommended Posts

JB33    851
18 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

I'm obviously in the minority but I find this shit soul-deadening. Never in my life would have thought that a movie making 170 fucking million dollars on opening weekend (and looking to make 500+ total) would just make me want to go bang my head against a wall but Disney managed it. I have seen some truly awful, wretched movies post enormous numbers over the years, and box office was still as exciting as ever, but I've never seen a movie make this much money by being so blatantly lazy, and the fact that it's just gonna continue depresses me.

 

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that this is exactly what the audience wanted to see? A live action to-a-T re-telling of one of the most beloved fairy tales of all time! It is exactly what it is supposed to be and that's why the people are loving it and it's making so much money.

 

I'm honestly getting tired of people complaining about franchises and adaptations and stuff. This is a BUSINESS guys! You give the market what it wants and if there's one thing the market has been telling us loud and clear lately, it that people, namely the millennial demographic, want to see all their beloved properties on screen. It has nothing to do with Hollywood lacking originality. It has everything to do with what the market wants.

Edited by JB33
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sal    1,052
4 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said:

Clearly there was some hyperbole in there...

 

There was none.  I have a lot of friends who are huge Book of Mormon fans.  That's not surprising itself either when you consider Josh Gad only got his role in Frozen because of his connections via the BoM creators who were working on Frozen at the time.  I love his work on that musical (not so much on Frozen, but he was barely in it and Olaf's design was ugly as hell).  So why wouldn't I (or other fans of BoM, especially those who have forked over hundreds of dollars to see BoM several times) hesitate to pay like 10 bucks to see a Broadway actor we like in a movie?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GiantCALBears    8,351
Just now, Sal said:

 

There was none.  I have a lot of friends who are huge Book of Mormon fans.  That's not surprising itself either when you consider Josh Gad only got his role in Frozen because of his connections via the BoM creators who were working on Frozen at the time.  I love his work on that musical (not so much on Frozen, but he was barely in it and Olaf's design was ugly as hell).  So why wouldn't I (or other fans of BoM, especially those who have forked over hundreds of dollars to see BoM several times) hesitate to pay like 10 bucks to see a Broadway actor we like in a movie?

Lol now I remember why I had you on ignore. See ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
filmlover    25,109
4 minutes ago, JB33 said:

 

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that this is exactly what the audience wanted to see? A live action to-a-T re-telling of one of the most beloved fairy tales of all time! It is exactly what it is supposed and that's why the people are loving it and it's making so much money.

 

I'm honestly getting tired of people complaining about franchises and adaptations and stuff. This is a BUSINESS guys! You give the market what it wants and if there's one thing the market has been telling us loud and clear lately, it that people, namely the millennial demographic, want to see all their beloved properties on screen. It has nothing to do with Hollywood lacking originality. It has everything to do with what the market wants.

I'm fine with somebody not liking the new Beauty and the Beast but this whole "why can't Hollywood make and the masses flock to what I like?" mentality is always irritating. There's more than enough room for both, ya know.

Edited by filmlover
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noctis    21,491
7 minutes ago, Nova said:

People didn't go to watch Emma Watson either. They went to go watch a Disney classic. Besides for all you know Disney offered a larger contract...say $10M and she decided to take less with a backend deal instead. She wasn't going to get both a huge contract and a back end deal. In the end, it's not like she's suffering. Everyone knew this movie would be huge (hence her taking a back end deal) but it was all a question of how huge. But let's not sit here and pretend that everyone flocked to see this movie to go see Emma Watson. 

 

That is just not true. Not everyone flocked, but Emma Watson in the role of Belle was literal perfection in casting. They could not have picked someone better or more lovable to audiences. 

 

You think I would have seen BaTB if it weren't for Emma? I didn't see her other films in theaters like Bling Ring or whatever (did see Noah and Perks, though) but there was no way I was going to miss her in this role. She was perfect for it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sal    1,052
Just now, GiantCALBears said:

Lol now I remember why I had you on ignore. See ya.

 

Because I like Broadway?  Seems like a pretty shallow reason to ignore someone, but whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
junkshop36    2,866
8 minutes ago, Noctis said:

 

 

eIhYe3n.gif

 

 

  Hide contents

Soul-deadening? That's fucking dramatic.

 

 

What is that from!? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harley    355
3 minutes ago, Nova said:

People didn't go to watch Emma Watson either. They went to go watch a Disney classic. Besides for all you know Disney offered a larger contract...say $10M and she decided to take less with a backend deal instead. She wasn't going to get both a huge contract and a back end deal. In the end, it's not like she's suffering. Everyone knew this movie would be huge (hence her taking a back end deal) but it was all a question of how huge. But let's not sit here and pretend that everyone flocked to see this movie to go see Emma Watson. 

Nobody is saying that. It can't be denied she had some affect. From Deadline:

A third of all moviegoers called out Emma Watson as the prime reason for attending. RelishMix reports that Watson is the film’s biggest social media activator with more than 83M followers across Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, and she’s continually sharing materials.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jake Gittes    8,910
2 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said:

Jake AIW 1 didn't make you feel that way? Same with the other 2? They've been very meh as a group but still made a ton of dough.

 

Not to this extent. I mean I despised that movie but at least it had the common courtesy to try to be its own thing (and legitimately fail at it). Haven't seen Maleficent and Jungle Book but from what I understand they weren't so ridiculously slavish to their sources either. And besides, a 70-100m opening is different from a 170m one. If BATB "only" made TJB or Alice money I wouldn't have had nearly as strong a reaction. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nova    6,966
1 minute ago, GiantCALBears said:

Are you saying it doesn't matter who would've played Belle just so we can be clear? To say it's a Disney classic and that gets it to $170m by default is nuts.

The actor or actress who plays a character in any type of film matters. Even in non-franchise films, it matters. It's the same argument over and over again. Emma Watson is not the reason why BATB is making $170M OW at the box office. And it's not nuts. It's like someone saying Ben Affleck and Henry Cavil are the reason why BvS made almost $170M its OW. Yes the actor/actress matters, in terms of making sure they're a good match with the character they're portraying which helps with the quality of the film. But let's not sit here and act like all these actors and actresses in franchise films are these box office draws when the majority of them can't open a non-franchise film to save their life....including Emma Watson. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noctis    21,491

I'm sure BatB would have done just as much with Lily Collins, Kristen Stewart, or Emmy Rossum as Belle. Right? Right?

 

puh-lease.gif

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
filmlover    25,109
Just now, Noctis said:

I'm sure BatB would have done just as much with Lily Collins, Kristen Stewart, or Emmy Rossum as Belle. Right? Right?

 

puh-lease.gif

 

 

That just reminded me: Emma Watson is probably locked for a Golden Globe nomination now in the Musical/Comedy category. After all, they did just nominate Lily Collins for a film that literally no one saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JB33    851
2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I'm fine with somebody not liking the new Beauty and the Beast but this whole "why can't Hollywood make and the masses flock to what I like?" mentality is always irritating. There's more than enough for both, ya know.

 

Exactly. I don't care if anyone doesn't like BatB. It's not like I'm all Gung ho about the movie myself. I just feel like some people take this stuff so seriously that they criticize the studios and actually forget that this is all a business at the end of the day. They're there to make money and, sorry to say, movies like BatB make a lot of that!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GiantCALBears    8,351
Just now, Nova said:

The actor or actress who plays a character in any type of film matters. Even in non-franchise films, it matters. It's the same argument over and over again. Emma Watson is not the reason why BATB is making $170M OW at the box office. And it's not nuts. It's like someone saying Ben Affleck and Henry Cavil are the reason why BvS made almost $170M its OW. Yes the actor/actress matters, in terms of making sure they're a good match with the character they're portraying which helps with the quality of the film. But let's not sit here and act like all these actors and actresses in franchise films are these box office draws when the majority of them can't open a non-franchise film to save their life....including Emma Watson. 

You really do not understand this OW if you think any other default actress could've carried this to such a monster total. She did a ton of work crafting her image and then promoting the film not to mention what @Noctis said about how well she was casted. Her life and previous role as Hermione really made it a no brainer. That is worth a lot of money in the marketplace, it was an easy and safe choice to put the franchise in her hands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrFanaticGuy34    1,549
7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

I'm obviously in the minority but I find this shit soul-deadening. Never in my life would have thought that a movie making 170 fucking million dollars on opening weekend (and looking to make 500+ total) would just make me want to go bang my head against a wall but Disney managed it. I have seen some truly awful, wretched movies post enormous numbers over the years, and box office was still as exciting as ever, but I've never seen a movie make this much money by being so blatantly lazy, and the fact that it's just gonna continue depresses me.

 

It's just how some big movies work. They do large business due to a wider appeal.

 

I mean, what are you gonna do about it, honestly? Force people to avoid the movies you find unappealling, just so any movie can't never achieve it's box office potential?

 

And how can a movie, let alone some of the biggest ones of all time, depress people by overperforming at the box office? Were the people depressed that Star Wars: Force Awakens made $936M DOM? No. It's just the way the zeitgeist-blockbusters are.

 

Now, i would rather have an enjoyable movie that tries and succeeds by becoming a huge financial hit, rather than a movie that doesn't try and fails by becomes a shitty bomb. That's not depression, that's desperation for movies that fails both in quality & box office. And other times it's grace for movies that succeeds both financially & critically.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poseidon    1,245

I don't think it's Emma Watsons name in the first place, but the combination of her in this movie, as she just fits perfecty.
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noctis    21,491

Emma was very smart in turning down the role of Cinderella. What she got instead was a lot better. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CJohn    47,276

If people believe Emma Watson isn't the main cause this thing is doing 175M OW (yes, I fully believe it will go up 5M today from estimates) they are fooling themselves. Casting Emma Watson as Belle was one of the most genius decisions I have ever seen a studio make (and the funny part is that Disney only had to let the Del Toro version fall apart and ask Emma Watson if she wanted to do their version instead).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.