Quigley

Fox too embarassed to disclose them?

I don't think it's gonna be that bad. But we could be looking at around $430-440M possibly? Europe will drop but Asia might stay relatively the same to DoFP. UPDATE: Also considering ER is much worse than 2014, it could go lower.

11.8% higher than last Friday right?

Early territories not very encouraging.

So it's a 50% drop for Cap despite the holidays — and even worse for the weekend.œ

Ok I see. So it's basically that they're not popular in Germany, which is true since I can't recall any SH film making more than $10M OW (I think Age of Ultron is the biggest with $9M). Saturation is not a problem though.

We've had three $700M+ superhero movies in the past 4 months and one released just now that will come close to $700M (hopefully). That hardly shows any fatigue of the genre.

New films released this weekend: X-Men: Apocalypse Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising Le Grand Partage [French] El cuerpo [Spanish] Fathers and Daughters [American-Italian] Melbourne [Iranian] Projekt A [German] 'Apocalypse' should be the winner of the weekend, with 'winner' being a very relative term since I doubt it can even approach 50,000 admissions (most likely below 40,000 admisions too).

Doesn't bode well for it's $500M OS prospects.

I guess it's also the nature of the market. Japan is quite mature (i.e. not growing), whereas China is booming. This means Japan theaters won't really benefit from many more screens for a specific film (as long as there's a reasonable number), because people have enough cinemas around them and so they can go to the film they want. It's not like the theaters are at full capacity anyway, so changing from one screen to two is not as beneficiary as adding more showtimes to the same screen (if necessary). Think about it this way: Zootopia and the two local films made about $8M. If Zootopia had taken all the screens and these two films hadn't been released at all, there is no chance Zootopia would have grossed $8M on its own. So removing Zootopia from some screens was indeed a wise move for them. In China, on the other hand, there are still loads of places where the cinema screens are not sufficient for everyone. So if there is a film in its second week that is projected make about $40M and a film that will be released that weekend and is projected to make $60M, they have no choice but to show the new film. People do not have enough cinemas around them, so the cinema will choose to show whichever film will result in a more packed theater. New films are more likely to achieve that. Dunno if this makes sense. I'll rely on peer review to prove me wrong, if I am.

Bottom line is I asked a simple question: why you think that Sony has nothing to do with Angry Birds not doing as well as they were expecting? Ten posts laster, I'm being ranted at, I'm receiving all sorts of sarastic or non-sarcastic comments for nothing and no one has answered the question (unless, "because DAJK is right" is an answer). I'm still trying to understand what I did wrong. You're right. It's not like they're gonna make a loss on this one. I don't think it's fair to say this won't be profitable/successful. Obviously expectations are very subjective.

Uni may have been the first to make 3-billion dollar grossers in a year, but Disney will be the first to make 4!

In the same way that CA2's OS gross surpassed the WW gross of CA1.

Yeah they were defo successful but they were not Angry Birds, which is one of the biggest apps ever. The potential was much bigger than $43M.

Your previous post didn't indicate that you get the point. If you were being sarcastic, I rarely understand sarcasm so it's not my fault.

It's not what I expected. I never expected it to do really well (>$500M WW). I'm just saying Sony made it sound like they had a super-blockbuster on their hands. "because DAJK is right" is not an argument. Take a look at Disney or Illumination and how well they execute their animated films. Sony is useless at doing that. Their best animated film is The Smurfs which would have been successful anyway and they completely tanked with Smurfs 2.

Why?

Hey guys, maybe it's been mentioned already, but I just realised that Zootopia was initially available only in English, while the Japanese dubbed version became available on May 10 (a week ago): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/japan-box-office-zootopia-holds-894326 This is probably, and fortunately, what has boosted it this past weekend. Hopefully, it can keep up this pace.

If he is a successful director, in what way is he a successful director? Commercially successful or in that his films have good quality. I've explained which ones are commercially successful and I pretty much established they weren't commercially successful because of him. And if you look at Rotten Tomatoes scores for Pain and Gain The Rock 13 Hours: Benghazi Armageddon Pearl Harbor Transformers 1-4 Bad Boys 1 & 2 Only The Rock has a score above 60%. And most of them are way below that level. If you don't trust RT, look at Metacritic. Only The Rock and Transformers 1 is above 50/100. My point is therefore that the films he has directed are not commercially successful (when and if they are) or have good quality (when and if they do) because of Michael Bay. If anything, he probably decreases the quality of anything he touches. Commercially, 3 of his films were successes in the distant past but now he's made nothing. And you can say he doesn't want to make blockbusters, but nothing suggests he could make a quality blockbuster if he wanted to.

If you take ER changes into account, I think it's doing much better than Iron Man 3. It's falling harder, true, but I think that's the inevitable nature of a franchise that releases a sequel or two every year.

As long as it reaches $1B, I don't really care to be honest. I know that's not the right way to look at it, but that's the reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have a look at this table: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michaelbay.htm Apart from 3 films in the late '90s and early '00s (a distant memory for most of us), the only commercially successful films he's made are the Transformers franchise. Please use evidence when you use such strong words as "successful director". He's no better than the average layperson at directing. And his track record suggests that. He's had zero hits in the past 15 years outside the Transformers franchise and, to be honest, the Transformers franchise would have been a hit anyway (with or wihtout him).

Watch this miss $1B worldwide. No amount of China growth can make up for the fact that the rest of the world has grown SICK of these films (and their director, of course).

Corpse just said $65M would be no surprise. Given that we survive the nerve-racking wait, we'll see this film reach $1B in early June.

I never got the whole "fudging theory", because the people who brought it up have no evidence. The fact that Disney chooses to increase the theater count in order for its films to make some last-minute bucks and cross a few milestones is true, but Disney (and all other studios) are not lying about the actual ticket sales. Fudging would be if they were making up the numbers, but no one has brought up any evidence of that. Sidenote: Nikki Finke, as well as many other BO reporters, had made a point when Transformers 4 came out, that of course studios would love to be able to lie about their films. But the rivalry between studios has made everyone become expert box office trackers, so that essentially no one can cheat and studios are expected to report numbers as close to the actual one as possible. That didn't stop Paramount from lying about the Transformers 4 American opening weekend. The actual number was around $98M, instead of $100M, but I presume that the bad news about no film of Summer 2014 succeeding in reaching $100M in OW would have been much worse for the industry in general, so the other studios pretended that what Paramount did was OK.