Passengers | Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence | Dec 21, 2016 | Trailer pg 70

[franfar]

3 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

Hey, this movie fucked up the feminazis pretty bad. That alone is a great success.

[baumer]

If anybody gets interested enough to go into the Speakeasy and read my top 42 films of the year then those of you who are like me we really enjoyed passengers will be happy to see it high on the list this year.

[A District 3 Engineer]

See it from the page 38

 

https://t.co/abju9X6I8A 

[JB33]

19 hours ago, JennaJ said:

I still don't get the reviews this movie got and I probably never will. Sure it had its issues but it did not deserve to be panned and protested against. I'll probably watch it again tomorrow, for the third time, and I'm looking forward to seeing how my viewing partners respond to it.

 

It could have gone way Better, but not with these reviews. It was basically doomed as soon as they came out.

 

 

Yeah. I get the irrational desire to watch something fail, but it seems particularly mean spirited to keep harping on it as if anyone here was trying to claim otherwise and needed convincing.

 

i mean, did this movie kill your dog or something? WTF is there to be so happy about that this underperformed? There isn't even any rivalry going on that would benefit anyone else by comparison (DC vs. Marvel style).

 

Some people are just miserable.

[robertman2]

For anyone who didn't know, Beals was Cochoflies

[aabattery]

Just now, robertman2 said:

For anyone who didn't know, Beals was Cochoflies

 

It's fitting that all this cochofles stuff came out on the same weekend as an M Night Shyamalan movie.

[Porthos]

32 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

For anyone who didn't know, Beals was Cochoflies

 

Really?

 

*checks*

 

Damn, that's disappointing.   I always liked reading Cochofles posts (well, when she wasn't going off on a topic).  

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Porthos

[JennaJ]

2 hours ago, robertman2 said:

For anyone who didn't know, Beals was Cochoflies

 

Damn, she was also moviesareawesomegirl!

Talk about putting your all into a single purpose, she used every one of her "personas" to attack this movie and troll this thread. I'm almost impressed by the dedication.

 

[trifle]

31 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

 

Damn, she was also moviesareawesomegirl!

Talk about putting your all into a single purpose, she used every one of her "personas" to attack this movie and troll this thread. I'm almost impressed by the dedication.

 

 

I recognized her in that incarnation, after about four posts.

 

 

If you click the thread there are several others.

 

 

[Frozen]

On 1/20/2017 at 3:53 PM, shayhiri said:

 

Hey, this movie fucked up the feminazis pretty bad. That alone is a great success.

 

OMG are you 12? Since when do nazis think women are human beings that deserve to be treated as such? You sound like more of the nazi.

[carolwoodpr]

Saw this movie last weekend.  I absolutely loved it.  I am a big J. Lawrence fan and Chris Pratt fan.  Had to see it because I love them both.  I knew going in that there was going to be a 'twist' so that didn't surprise me.  I thought the movie was stunningly beautiful and I liked the storyline.  For that reason it was a big hit for me.

[misafeco]

15 hours ago, robertman2 said:

For anyone who didn't know, Beals was Cochoflies

[misafeco]

	Passengers	TGWTDT	%
5 day	22,19	21,15	104,97
Mon	1,15	1,37	83,53
Tue	0,63	0,67	94,93
Wed	0,40	0,57	70,10
Thu	0,33	0,57	57,22
Fri	0,66	1,00	65,97
Sat	1,10	1,76	62,48
Sun	0,54	0,77	70,37
Gross to date	94,54	94,55	99,99
Legs (5 day)	4,26	4,47	95,26
Final gross*	100,15	102,5158	97,69
*if Passengers holds the last day's %

 

 

TGWTDT is now ahead at the same point of the run. Passengers needs exactly 70% of DT's gross to reach 100M. Spectre made more than 6M after a weekend 1M smaller than this. Go Sony! 

[JennaJ]

The last theater loss really hurt. I hope it stops bleeding theaters out now, since there seem to be plenty of other candidates for theater losses now and not that many new movies vying for those screens.

 

[trifle]

47 minutes ago, misafeco said:

	Passengers	TGWTDT	%
5 day	22,19	21,15	104,97
Mon	1,15	1,37	83,53
Tue	0,63	0,67	94,93
Wed	0,40	0,57	70,10
Thu	0,33	0,57	57,22
Fri	0,66	1,00	65,97
Sat	1,10	1,76	62,48
Sun	0,54	0,77	70,37
Gross to date	94,54	94,55	99,99
Legs (5 day)	4,26	4,47	95,26
Final gross*	100,15	102,5158	97,69
*if Passengers holds the last day's %

 

 

TGWTDT is now ahead at the same point of the run. Passengers needs exactly 70% of DT's gross to reach 100M. Spectre made more than 6M after a weekend 1M smaller than this. Go Sony! 

 

41 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

The last theater loss really hurt. I hope it stops bleeding theaters out now, since there seem to be plenty of other candidates for theater losses now and not that many new movies vying for those screens.

 

 

Yeah, and TGWTDT had GOOD reviews and Oscar nominations.  It will be what it will be at this point, but that theater loss really did hurt.

[trifle]

 

 

 

I'm going to have to look at what new movies are coming out.  Other than BATB in March, I've lost track.  Kind of got tunnel vision when Passengers came out!

Edited January 22, 2017 by trifle

[shayhiri]

OMG, I saw the movie again - with my girlfriend - and you won't believe what she thinks about it...

 

Also - really great legs!! Movie definitely showed the treacherous haters that tried to use their position as paid critics - to sink it...

Edited January 24, 2017 by shayhiri

[trifle]

39 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

OMG, I saw the movie again - with my girlfriend - and you won't believe what she thinks about it...

 

Also - really great legs!! Movie definitely showed the treacherous haters that tried to use their position as paid critics - to sink it...

 

....and since we won't believe it you aren't going to bother telling us...?

 

I'm going to assume it is positive because I think you think we think she'd have a negative response....

 

I think it's a really fun and gorgeous movie, which could have had a stronger ending.  I'm surprised if someone who has actually seen it doesn't like it!

Edited January 24, 2017 by trifle

[Barnack]

On 1/2/2017 at 5:32 PM, straggler said:

Technically neither did any Harry Pottter film. Creative accounting.

 

On 1/2/2017 at 7:31 PM, trifle said:

 

She gets $20M against 30% of the profits.  The studio would need to acknowledge more than $66.666667M profit before Jen gets more than $20M.

 

 

I don't think it work like that, participation bonus are not on actual net profit, even when they are called profit participation they tend to be calculate on premade rules of thumbs agreement (mutliply .53* domestic, 0.4*foreign, 0.25* china box office, remove 10% of the top, minus pre agreed break even point and that were you get your percentage of), actor can estimate their bonus themselves using box office mojo and a simple equation.

 

I don't think Harry Potter ever said they didn't make a profit, there is even a leaked distribution report that show people receiving a really giant participation bonus:

 

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg?w=605

 

Look at the line called Negative cost and/or advance, currently at 316 million (I doubt the movie costed that much to do), it is advancing at the rate of 33% of the gross revenue (the line just above), I think it is the movie production cast, plus the participation bonus to the cast, director, producer and Rowling, and that it is why that cost is still growing year after the release. Warner being treated as a theatrical distributor on that accounting mechanic thus not having the DVD revenues on it or the television revenues, by far the biggest source of revenue at that time (just look how much it is making from VHS...), make it look strange to us a little bit, but add those 2 revenues source and it was by hundreds of million into profit. They certainly never said to David Heyman or Rowling that those movie were not making money, they would have changed studio and not continue to work for decades with Warner Brothers.

 

Most of those story about studio declaring a lost to get out of participation bonus are simply bad reporting (Studio never said that Forest Gump didn't make money or the Lords of the rings, for other famous example)

Edited January 24, 2017 by Barnack

[trifle]

25 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

 

 

I don't think it work like that, participation bonus are not on actual net profit, even when they are called profit participation they tend to be calculate on premade rules of thumbs agreement (mutliply .53* domestic, 0.4*foreign, 0.25* china box office, remove 10% of the top, minus pre agreed break even point and that were you get your percentage of), actor can estimate their bonus themselves using box office mojo and a simple equation.

 

I don't think Harry Potter ever said they didn't make a profit, there is even a leaked distribution report that show people receiving a really giant participation bonus:

 

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg?w=605

 

Look at the line called Negative cost and/or advance, currently at 316 million (I doubt the movie costed that much to do), it is advancing at the rate of 33% of the gross revenue (the line just above), I think it is the cast, director, producer and Rowling bonus. Warner being treated as a theatrical distributor on that accounting mechanic thus not having the DVD revenues on it or the television revenues, by far the biggest source of revenue at that time (just look how much it is making from VHS...), make it look strange to us a little bit, but add those 2 revenues source and it was by hundreds of million into profit. They certainly never said to David Heyman or Rowling that those movie were not making money, they would have changed studio and not continue to work for decades with Warner Brothers.

 

Most of those story about studio declaring a lost to get out of participation bonus are simply bad reporting (Studio never said that Forest Gump didn't make money or the Lords of the rings, for other famous example)

 

Wow, you really have some great information!  I guess I understood it wrong.