BoxOfficeFangrl

Thank Diana (flop) and Grace of Monaco (premiered on Lifetime), those had high expectations that did not pan out, and Jackie O is a similar sort of figure. And there have been so many TV movies/miniseries about the Kennedys that the topic didn't feel unexplored, even if there haven't been a lot of theatrical movies centered around Jacqueline Kennedy before. If Natalie hadn't won already, Best Actress would be completely over and maybe it still is... Sure, the pundits have a narrative they want to spin and award watchers stan for their faves, but does AMPAS really care all that deeply whether Viola Davis wins Best Actress now, or think of Adams as overdue? As for #OscarsSoWhite, I mean, the Oscar voters are the reason it happened. Even if they do feel guilted into voting for a non-white acting winner this time, who says they won't do that in another category? Some of them will just vote for Denzel, Dev Patel or Naomie Harris, and pat themselves on the back for caring about diversity in Hollywood. Natalie's raves are just astonishing really, some people worry that AMPAS will be like "needs moar JFK" and be cool on it for that reason, but this is Jackie Kennedy, you know? Not Carol. It's always possible the reaction will be different outside of the film festival bubble, but if it stays at this level... I suppose an acting masterclass is beatable, as is playing an iconic, historical figure or having the baitiest role on paper, but an acting masterclass of an iconic historical figure in the baitiest, most tragic role of the nominees, seems like the Oscar winner over "luminous in a musical" or "acting masterclass of a fictional character". Of course, it all has to play out and you never know what will happen. I'm just glad Best Actress seems more competitive than Best Actor for once!

I wouldn't say Flight was dumped exactly, but the screen count was strangely conservative, even as they expanded it: Date (click to view chart) Rank Weekend Gross % Change Theaters Change / Avg. Gross-to-Date Week # Nov 2–4 2 $24,900,566 - 1,884 - $13,217 $24,900,566 1 Nov 9–11 3 $14,785,097 -40.6% 2,047 +163 $7,223 $47,455,396 2 Nov 16–18 5 $8,802,881 -40.5% 2,612 +565 $3,370 $61,523,691 3 Nov 23–25 8 $8,451,144 -4.0% 2,638 +26 $3,204 $74,718,990 4 Nov 30–Dec 2 9 $4,479,067 -47.0% 2,603 -35 $1,721 $81,465,903 5 Dec 7–9 9 $3,130,305 -30.1% 2,431 -172 $1,288 $86,202,541 6 Dec 14–16 11 $1,910,666 -39.0% 1,823 -608 $1,048 $89,418,704 7 Dec 21–23 17 $678,171 -64.5% 742 -1,081 $914 $90,957,858 8 Dec 28–30 20 $438,479 -35.3% 400 -342 $1,096 $91,873,236 9

This review is interesting...he basically calls out Screen Gems for thinking they can just throw a few black actors into any old lazy script and expect it to open to $20M, and that he won't be fooled anymore. He suggests people save their money and choose better TV/movie options with black actors, instead. There aren't spoilers but it suggests the major shift in tone at a certain point. He calls it a If the target audience starts to feel burned by one or two or these things, over time it would make sense if the box office started dropping off.

Looks like this one won't reach the OW heights of No Good Deed or The Perfect Guy...what went wrong? Audience fatigue? Lack of star power? The female villain? Though if they'd somehow gotten, IDK, Zendaya to play the surrogate....

The Wild Life Would it have done better or worse if they'd stuck to the international title Robinson Crusoe?

The trades wrote about it...there was a survey about the level of interest in last fall's movies in general and how people's feelings changed to hear certain stars were attached. Here is that part: Percentages are relative, though...if 50,000 people were going to see Rock the Kasbah before and then 75,000 show up because Bill Murray's in it...sure, there's 50% more interest but it's still a flop.

I spent The Hunger Games movies wishing Katniss would forget about Peeta and Gale to hook up with the Woody Harrelson character or Lenny Kravitz. It isn't like the guys in JLaw's age range are all bad actors, but I feel like her energy/charisma would blow most of them right off the screen, especially in a romantic comedy where she would be very "on". Maybe Michael B Jordan would work, but that would still be mildly controversial, sadly. The genre could use some diversity... Hitch was huge for Will Smith, it counts as a romcom, doesn't it? I think The Rock would do well in something along those lines.

The obsessed lesbian/bisexual is kind of an ugly stereotype, though, the audience who would want to see a movie with gay protagonists otherwise might boycott it. Not that Hollywood would care about trading in stereotypes, but they are kind of risk averse in general. Surprised more studios haven't pulled this low-budget sci-fi trick of filming making alternate versions of the same movie where the lead is gay or not gay, depending on the edit (and title): Force of Impact: Deadly Skies (slightly NSFW trailer behind a spoiler cut): An easier approach with an action movie than a rom-com where romance is the point, obviously... Rom-coms have largely gone low budget, indie/VOD on one end and Hallmark Channel on the other, and the latter has a developed a real brand and a staggering amount of content year round.

That third guy was also back in ye olden days of 1999 and somehow seemed to have a different concept of how to behave himself. All of FSL's PR options with respect to Parker seem pretty bad in one way or another...if he were just an actor in this and not also the director/screenwriter, if the movie didn't feature the woman from the case ending her life...so many minefields. I doubt the rest of the cast is eager to go out and field questions about him and even if they do, it would look like they're being trotted out because Parker has something to hide or can't be trusted not to say something (else) that makes him look bad.

I think the drops might be better...movies that skew older like Sully aren't as frontloaded and even the weekdays will be stronger, relatively, by fall standards.

But American Sniper had A++ marketing, both in the amount of ads and the way they were put together. It was also bestselling book, then Chris Kyle was killed in dramatic circumstances, so it wasn't a total unknown quantity even before the stellar promo. The Miracle on the Hudson is better known but Clint Eastwood directing the movie with Tom Hanks is just SO predictable though...with AS, Bradley Cooper was playing against type. Still, what's predictable to one person is comforting to another. Hanks was in Bridge of Spies, but it was set 50 years ago vs. 7 for Sully, but again that can go either way. The audience will know the story but will they think they don't need to waste money on that, or embrace it because it's not going to be too depressing? Remember that phase when the trailers for the trailers for Robert Zemeckis films were very spoiler-heavy and he argued that people wanted to know what would happen, going in. So, maybe there's an audience for Sully who will appreciate that a good man acted heroically and it all turned out okay. Is there any tracking yet? It's a studio movie from a major director and star coming out the weekend after next. Is it not showing up because they don't poll moviegoers over 60 or something?

Right, American slaves often paired up and formed family units to the best of their abilities, but it's not like there would be records of a marriage at the local courthouse. Still, it didn't stop slaves (or their masters) from referring to these partners as husbands and wives, even if slaves were considered property by law, and thus were not afforded the legal right to marry. Unless the contention is that the real Nat Turner was never known to have a woman in his life at all who would have been considered a wife in the common parlance of the day...

I believe that more fun for the PR team! I saw that some Penn State alums released an open letter supporting Parker. You know FSL heard about that and had to be thinking, "Gee, thanks so much!"

Is It Okay to See Nate Parker’s Birth of a Nation? (NY Magazine) Four black writers discuss the controversy, the case (a little bit), the protectiveness that can displayed by the black community when one of their own stands accused, and whether they'll see the movie. Oscar Voters Ponder Nate Parker and 'Birth of a Nation': "I Would Not Go to the Movie" (The Hollywood Reporter) That's just one quote and another is from someone who says Parker was acquitted and he has no problem separating the art from the artist. The article also brings up how the backlash to TBoaN might affect other Oscar contenders with "black subject matter" (their words).

Life & Style, lol, it's a celebrity mag, a tabloid, they engage in a lot of real-person fanfic marketed as journalism...but Rock vs. Vin at Wrestlemania wouldn't be the worst idea.

It's gross but it's not like it never happens...of course OJ and Cosby were superstars already, so that helped, and eventually even their defense brigades diminished in time. Parker has shown major signs of being exceptionally entiled and arrogant, but it's gotten him pretty far in life until now. Unless the movie's been severely edited since it first screened, a big thing that happens is that it's an, um, interesting story choice.

I knew the 1959 Ben-Hur was very popular but didn't realize it was quite so high on the All-Time Adjusted List: 12 101 Dalmatians Dis. $865,283,400 $144,880,014 1961^ 13 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $850,244,300 $290,475,067 1980^ 14 Ben-Hur MGM $848,680,000 $74,000,000 1959 15 Avatar Fox $842,230,600 $760,507,625 2009^ 16 Return of the Jedi Fox $814,554,500 $309,306,177 1983^ Not to mention its unadjusted total... to think, the 2016 version getting to $74M at this point would be exceeding expectations!

If Parker comes to believe the movie's prospects (and his own) hinge on showing contrition about the case, or FSL believes it's the movie's only hope, NP will suddenly go around saying he's very, very sorry (without admitting guilt, but conceding to recklessness/irresponsibility/immaturity on his part), whether he genuinely means it or not. In these big film festival movie deals, is all the money up front or is it paid out in stages, like an advance for a manuscript? It was already a finished movie when FSL acquired it, so it's a slightly different thing.

I do think it's not the easiest sell but it wasn't the worst idea to try get a segment of the audience in their corner, in addition to Oscar watchers. Probably now they think church people will be big on forgiveness and second chances, when it comes to Nate Parker. The college campus tour tho...even if they stick to HBCUs, good luck with that.

Passion of the Christ played well with church audiences...of course, that purported to be the story of Christ's ultimate sacrifice, kind of a cornerstone of the whole religion, so it's a very unusual case that can't be applied to just any R-rated movie with a faith element. I think it's going unsaid that the church tour will probably feature churches with largely African American congregations. They'd hope the story of a historic slave rebellion would resonate with that audience...black churches are big on black history. I don't think FSL was counting on the crowd who saw God's Not Dead because it had a Duck Dynasty cameo, to boost TBOAN's box office.

Gabrielle Union has a role and for many years, she's been very outspoken about being a rape survivor, so, that's another wrinkle to deal with as the cast is sent out to promote this thing...

Not bad at all, but it seems to have come together pretty quickly, though. If they aren't making a major awards play. I wonder if it shouldn't be saved for later in 2017 as the summer crowd pleaser for adults that usually comes around in late July to mid-August.

They pretty much are at this point...September 2014 brought No Good Deed: Then September 2015 brought The Perfect Guy: Now this latest one, on the same weekend from the same studio. The next one is probably already in the works.

Hair transplants fly under the radar, as far as celebrity cosmetic procedures go, only the really egregious/bad cases get called out, like Piven being less bald than he was in the 90s, or Travolta. Clooney's hairline completely shifts downward, Neeson's hair thickens up again, and they're just "aging gracefully". With Pratt, the focus has all been on his weight loss, so you don't realize right away that it's not the only thing that's changed.

They used a Beatles cover in the trailer, I doubt money was the issue. It's probably more that whoever put together the trailer figures the target audience for this hasn't heard of Stevie Nicks anyway.