Weekend Numbers | 19.4 M FATE OF THE FURIOUS | 12 M HOW TO BE LATIN LOVER | 10.1 M BAAHUBALI II | 9.3 M THE CIRCLE

[cannastop]

56 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

WOW, Double Toasted fucking HATED The Circle  

So did Brad Jones.

Edited April 28, 2017 by cannastop

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, cannastop said:

So did Brad Jones.

Yeah, I started watching his review but stopped when he started to get into spoilers. One of the spoilers sounds fucking hilarious  

[Eevin]

http://deadline.com/2017/04/emma-watson-the-circle-fate-of-the-furious-weekend-box-office-how-to-be-a-latin-lover-1202079002/

F8 $20M

Circle $10.3M

Baahubali $7.2M

[ChipDerby]

9 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jedgar.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=revolutionaryroad.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bodyoflies.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blooddiamond.htm

 

You're staying off topic. But I'll indulge.

 

The only one of those that's a "disappointment" is Blood Diamond. The fact the other 3 made what they did is a miracle.

[The Panda]

Lol, remember a month ago when people were clamoring that The Circle could be a 30m Opener due to Watson's star power?

Edited April 28, 2017 by The Panda

[Barnack]

30 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

 

 

Like they said in the Sony leaked email:

 If it were Will Smith at the time of Pursuit of Happiness or Seven Pounds it could be different but now I would be cautious.

 

Also:

Will Smith is a difficult proposition these days….his commercial popularity is waning….and is best suited for big SFX/action adventure films….& his appeal is more limited to an older , discerning audience.

 

He certainly was up there as arguably the biggest movie star in the world for a good while, between say Independance day and After Earth. But now he seem to be in that step lower with Pitt, Damon and the others big name if he goes out of the big SFX/Action adventure movie, while Leo seem to have gone to is own space above them with a wider array of possibility that he can sell.

 

He did not achieve a 20m opening since After Earth (well excluding SS) and is last 2 non franchise movie didn't do 35m domestic, that said those Christmas release for adult are really hard sales if they do not have great reviews and not the end of it all metric, a 70% RT one would have given us a better idea. Concussion did a solid 60% RT, but few people are seeking movie that could possibly diminish their pleasure of watching the NFL for a Christmas season movie.

 

I imagine he will still be a big deal in Bad Boys 3/4 like he was in SS and even thought he is not as good as a draw among older discerning audience type of release, in a summer blockbuster he is still arguably the biggest draw in the world.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Barnack

[dxmatrixdt]

SOMEONE IS COVERED IN FUZZ!

 

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Lol, remember  month ago when people were clamoring that The Circle could be a 30m Opener due to Watson's star power?

 

Yes, and I said about $10m which I should have kept for my derby.

 

I should never have looked at preview sales in NYC last night which made it look to around Life numbers.

[grim22]

2nd Update, 12:16PM: Early matinee figures, and again, we could be looking at a different story by tonight. Universal’s The Fate of the Furious is looking at  an estimated $6M today and $20M for the weekend in first place.

 

STX/EuropaCorp’s The Circle isn’t looking so hot with $3.75M today and $10.3M for the weekend. “It’s never good when Tom Hanks plays bad,” said one rival distrib honcho about the actor playing against his good-guy persona. Pantelion/Lionsgate’s How to Be a Latin Lover is eyeing an estimated $2.5M today and $7.5M for the weekend

 

The big surprise this weekend belongs to Great India Films’ Baahubali 2: The Conclusion which after scoring an estimated $2.5M in Thursday previews at 330 locations is on its way to $4M today and a $7.2M opening. The first installment reportedly made $100M worldwide and left off with a cliffhanger whereby the lead warrior character Baahubali is stabbed in the back by a trusted protector Kattappa, leaving audiences with that Empire Strikes Back kind of feeling.

[TalismanRing]

7 minutes ago, Eevin said:

http://deadline.com/2017/04/emma-watson-the-circle-fate-of-the-furious-weekend-box-office-how-to-be-a-latin-lover-1202079002/

F8 $20M

Circle $10.3M

Baahubali $7.2M

 

Latin Lover: $2.5m/$7.5m

[The Panda]

11 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

It's almost like there's no longer such a thing as a draw and people expect to be sold on the actual movie being made.

 

I disagree that there's no such thing as actors who are a draw.

 

An actor can be a draw and the movie can still flop, there's many factors going into a movie.  Leonardo DiCaprio is an example of an actor who draws audiences, like it or not.

 

Movies like The Revenant, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Great Gatsby, Shutter Island, etc. were practically sold on him.

 

Now a star isn't going to save a turd like The Circle, that isn't being marketed at all, especially with a late April release.  

 

And while a lot of people were bringing up Passengers earlier this year as proof there's no star power, its final gross showed the opposite.  The movie was marketed terribly, was a turd and had quite a bit of competition, yet it still made 100m.  That's likely due to Lawrence and Pratt being marketable.  Obviously it was still a bomb, but it likely would have done worse if it had been Elgort and Woodley in those roles for example.

 

Stars won't sell a movie on their own, but I don't buy that there's no such thing as a pull.  I think audiences seeing big name likeable actors in a movie helps its gross to some extent, that benefit might get drowned out by other big negative detractors, but the benefit should still play out.

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

You're staying off topic. But I'll indulge.

 

The only one of those that's a "disappointment" is Blood Diamond. The fact the other 3 made what they did is a miracle.

 

Miracle sound a bit extreme, lot of those are by some really big name director, Clint Eastwood Jersey Boys had a better opening weekend than J. Edgar, Ridley Scott, Sam Mendes, Those movies are not some anomaly in their filmography doing extremely well for them.

 

Rt score:

67% Revolutionary Road 

62% Blood Diamond

54% Body of Lies

43% J. Edgar

 

Arguably stronger project than Smith recent failure,

12% Collateral Beauty

60% Concussion

56% Focus

 

Dicaprio past disappointment would have done much better today if they would have been Dicaprio latest movie, he was not has strong has draw back then vs now imo. 

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Obviously it was still a bomb, but it likely would have done worse if it had been Elgort and Woodley in those roles for example.

 

A bomb is a bit of a strong word for a movie that made money for the studio.

[Biggestgeekever]

It's a very unique release, but Baahubali 2 is looking to become the first film to ever make less during Friday than was made in previews.

[Plain Old Tele]

3 hours ago, baumer said:

Part of being a draw is picking the right roles.  There are certain roles that fit an actor.  There are certain films, that no matter who you put in them are not going to do all that well.  Would DiCaprio help sell The Circle?  Probably, but then again, it doesn't really look all that interesting.  Part of what makes Leo and Denzel and maybe someone like Bullock such a draw is that they know how to pick films that people want to see them in.  But you can't just stick them in anything and it will sell.  

 

The best stars are a brand unto themselves, and they know what brand they are. The projects they choose, even the "reaches", still reflect that basic core brand.

 

Eastwood understood this, back in the day. So did Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold, Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, etc etc etc.

[WrathOfHan]

1 minute ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

The best stars are a brand unto themselves, and they know what brand they are. The projects they choose, even the "reaches", still reflect that basic core brand.

 

Eastwood understood this, back in the day. So did Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold, Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, etc etc etc.

I'd add Will Ferrell into that camp too.

[The Panda]

5 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

The best stars are a brand unto themselves, and they know what brand they are. The projects they choose, even the "reaches", still reflect that basic core brand.

 

Eastwood understood this, back in the day. So did Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold, Julia Roberts, Bruce Willis, etc etc etc.

 

Yeah, or for a more recent example look at McCarthy or Dwayne Johnson.  Both of them are draws, and they're able to frame a movie as "That new Melissa McCarthy movie".  

 

McCarthy pulled a good grosses for movies like Tammy, Identity Thief and The Boss.  Hell, even St Vincent was a sleeper hit.  She knows what roles she's good at, sells herself as it, and has become her own brand or franchise.

 

Actors that diversify themselves need to be much bigger draws to achieve the same effect.  DiCaprio's a good example for that, although you could even say audiences associate him with quality prestige flicks.

[Barnack]

For the brand creator, Tom Cruise is also an interesting case, not just that he often pick Tom Cruise type movie (like some of the other named), but he always bring is own writer on is project that will re-write the movie (he is ready to make exception for Kubrick, PTA or Aaron Sorkin but not for that many writer), he will also be involved in the writing, he even direct a lot of is movies, to the detail of having enough coverage for editing and so on.

[Jonwo]

Baahubali's OW while big isn't surprising considering the PTA for Bollywood and Indian films in the US. I'm more curious how it fares in places like the U.K. which also have a huge Asian population and also its opening the same weekend as Guardians 

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

For the brand creator, Tom Cruise is also an interesting case, not just that he often pick Tom Cruise type movie (like some of the other named), but he always bring is own writer on is project that will re-write the movie (he is ready to make exception for Kubrick, PTA or Aaron Sorkin but not for that many writer), he will also be involved in the writing, he even direct a lot of is movies, to the detail of having enough coverage for editing and so on.

 

Cruise is a very hands-on producer (and does actual producing work, during development) so this makes sense. I do draw the line at saying he directs a lot of his movies, though.