norbar

@baumer you said closer to 65 than 35 opening, didn't you?

90% on so few reviews is not that good. I've seen it and the story is good but it's clear the distribitors and the producers don't have the money. They should have marketed to middle american and christian whites but pushed the story a bit so the religious movies died down. It's a perfect movies for conservatives (not saying it's bad for liberals but it's inoffensive and it works well with traditional conservative values)

Thanks for the info. Sorry about the dude though I think many people will do it since it's so memorable and the other sound centric scene is hard to replicate

You'd be surprised how many times I wanted to. He's one of the dudes that if he doesn't like a movie he leaves after 15 minutes and then still gives his opinion. For some reason his opinions hold value even though he isn't part of the programming team... I'm surprised there are press screenings in Germany already. Was it some festival or did the local distributor organize it? The movie comes in 2 months everywhere so that's super strange.

That makes no sense. Using this logic you shouldn't hate killers and mass murderers.

Were you watching it at a market screening in Berlin? Since that may have been one obnoxious coworker of mine. I was at an earlier screening but I've heard he did that to scare another one of my coworkers.

SVOD. I don't even need USD Gross. Any comparable data. In Poland I get Real Users, Average Time spent on site and Page Views for all VOD sites. Netflix is the 6th player with 4.4% market share in terms of Real Users entering the site (not sure if paying) and they have a very short average visit compare to local competitors (9mins vs close to 4h for the leader). I also have app download numbers. I know it's not complete but it gives you some data to start comparing.

I think B is easily doable. The opinions about the movie seem to vary depending on a person. While yeah the movie is slow early on you don't give scores mid move but after the whole movie and the last 30-40 minutes leaves you destroyed. Plus the movie has some scary moments early on. From the people I talked to who have seen the movie 60-70% people were in love with the movie and 30-40% find it a bit slow like Samarus says but they are industry people and they find Get out and Split slow too.

Hey I'm not sure where to post this but I'm looking for data about the market share of different VOD platforms in different countries. I assume since people from many places post here they may have some local data. I found some info from UK and Germany but it's a bit old plus I have current data from Poland. I would be very grateful for any help here since I want to create a little personal side analytic project but I have to be first sure if there is data to support it.

Not what tracking tells us for now. Are you suggesting it will blow up suddenly? What will cause it to? Tracking can be wrong but that's usually when we get new info like when hype for a movie grows (the hype is meh) or if the movie is bad (so the wom kills it)? The $65m total tracking seems low I agree but both you and me haven't look at the data (views and impressions on various sites). The thing is San Andreas made 150m total. This has much less buzz around it and is Sandwitched Between Avengers, Deadpool 2, Solo and Jurrasic World. So not only Avengers legs limit the opening but the legs will be cut short by 3 blockbusters each of whom will make 300/400+ even on conservative predictions.

That's not only plain untrue but also shows you didn't read my posts. First of off what about Dread Central and other movie sites only about horrors. Do 100% horror based sites don't understand horrors? Also the part about the 70's shows how little you know about the critics. A lot has changed since then. Critics are no longer old stuffy man in jackets smoking pipes. That's an SNL sketch not reality. Most of them are movie fans on movie sites. This is why RT features reviews from Horror sites or from sites where 90% of the coverage is blockbusters. The opinions of people on those sites probably correlates with yours 90% of the time. Lastly again if the critics didn't understand horrors then their opinions would not correlate with the best selling horrors, cinemascore and imdb score which are all measures of how much people like movies. You have been shown there is a correlation and you decided to ignore that fact only because you didn't like some horrors most critics liked (again you do realize not all critics liked them. So those critics that agree with you also don't understand it? How is that logical?)

I agree it's not a typical Statham film. So 40 may be low but this is also why I didn't say 20 which is more usual for him. Have in mind this is a b-grade blockbuster. You get some online celebrities (Ruby Rose), Statham, a few character actors and a Chinease superstar so it's easy to see they are aiming more for the Intl market than US. Still Kong is a bad comparison for a few reasons. First of all you had a WAY WAY more well known character, a much more recognizable cast, much better writers and much higher profile producers (I will take Tull over Bonaventura any day. Bonaventura has a ton of busts in his resume even if Tull is not consistent either the production value on his movies is MUCH better). Kong was simply a movie someone put much more care into. Meg seems like something that might as well be presold to foreign distributors by Lionsgate. So ok not 40 but 60m total. If the movie is good I give that to you but again remember people judge the book by the cover and first thought will be "Shark movie" unless they really make a trailer that makes it look like something more. Also it's very IMPORTANT to note Rampage is tracking for 65m in US total. Also a big studio monster movie and that one has Dwayne not Statham.

The thing is in forecasting if you want to be accurate you always have to start with historic data and then correct from there. So historic data suggests $40m on a not bad, not good movie. going $100m would require an amazing movie and so far there is nothing that informs us on the quality of the movie. The only thing really working for Meg is that there are no August releases that look like strong competition to it.

Most reviews seem positive but a bit lukewarm about the movie. It's better than expected - good vs very good/excellent and such movies don't always have long legs though yeah it has little competition for a bit.

Yeah I know 2 people who did not get it too but both of them are working for distributors in countries where the taste is very VERY pulpy and silly(a country where the naked gun movies are in top10 all time box office). Still it's worth remembering it's an 24 release and a cheap movie so a commercial success means much smaller numberes than Conjuring. I'm pretty sure 30-40mil would be huge for them (as in more than the Witch and that movie was waaaay less commercial) I really think the coparisons to Rosemary's Baby and to a lesser extent 6th sense are most reasonable here since both of those movies start as non horror thrillers.

You are free to express your opinion. Just don't paint it as the opinion of every genre/horror fan while bashing everyone who writes about the movies and ignoring the facts there are critics who specialize in horrors and write/review them exclusively plus posting untrue stuff about critic opinions being uncorrelated with viewer opinion. We have no problem with you not believing the hype, not being excited for the movie.

That's the problem. You think you are basically the only one who has anything to say in genre division. As said above using your terms some classic horror pictures would not be classified as horrors by you. I agree though I think the second half becomes a very effective horror. It doesn't relly on jump scares but it overwhelms you with dread and the atmosphere is suffocating plus there are a few scenes that will burn into your eyes for a long time. The first part I agree though there is one event 30 minutes in that informs you the movie will not play nice. I'm not sure about US results but with good distributors in Europe the movie can sell well. I was worried like you it wasn't commercial but I saw this with 2 very jokish bro type people who's arthouse sensibility ends at Quentin Tarantino and they loved the movie too so I have more faith.

Sorry but that plain untrue. This again comes from the idea where you think all critics look and behave like Leonard Maltin. Ffs. Listen to one of the film podcasts and you will see critics are superfans. If you need more proof the writer of Sinister was a film critic all his life. The guys at bloody disguisting love horrors and they are critics too. Sites like Slashfilm, Collider or Filmschool rejects also are horror friendly. What is more I don't get how The Witch and Babadook not being horrors (in your opinions) is related to crititcs not getting horrors? Properly atributing genres (again acording to you) has nothing to do with the topic here. The topic is are critics biased against horror be it by their or your definition. Also sorry but no. There is no disconnect between what critics and paying viewers want. This is rare and a lie fanboys tell to themselves to justify what they like (hey you are free to like what you like, not all critics agree too). In most cases high imdb rating and high cinemascore is correlated with good reviews. Also commercial movies loved by the critics very often get very long legs. Just look at Wonder Woman vs BvS or Black Panther vs Avengers 2. This only shows me you are not here to track box office results or you don't follow them closely. Maybe it's time you read some reviews instead of just going on rotten tomatoes and raging on the % without understanding what it means. Finally I'm think you define horror very narrowly as a movie which focuses solely on scares and/or gore. Sometimes a movie is in between genres but uses horror directorial techniques and tropes to tell a story. That was the case of babadook where while the point of the movie was psychological it was still a movie about a monster haunting a family (so a common horror premise) and The Witch (the use of sound and music plus religious and satanic undertones plus you know a satanic goat and witches which are also common horror tropes). Using your logic Rosemary's Baby and The Shining are probably not horrors too. Same for Hunger or Possession. PS. Horror sites have critics too. They also love Hereditary. Unless you think Dread central is also biased against horror (that would be silly) http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/265376/hereditary-review-sundance-2018-grief-ghosts-make-monumental-terror/

This may be this years Get Out. Maybe not in terms of pure commercial potential since Get Out could be sold easier as a commercial genre picture but in terms of how well it handles issues and how important people will think it is. Especially young people.

I really dislike this silly and untrue stereotype of all critics being stuffy intellectuals. FFs. Collider is basically joe average nerds. They are not even smart. There are a ton of plain dumb, non intellectual critics. Also "It Follows" made $14m $2m budget, "The Witch" did $25m on a $4m budget. Babadook did shit in the US but has done $10m WW on a $2m budget. So which one of them failed? All of them are both commercial as well as critical successes. You may not like them but don't try to repaint reality (like you tried with critics) to pretend people agree with you. Also I know you will hide behind "but people didn't like those movies" but "Babadook" is at 6.8 same for "The Witch", It Follows is at 6.9 on IMDB which is usually pretty hostile into non popcorn munching movies so that's not a bad result. Also I have seen the movie (I'm not a critic) and 3 of my friends did. We are all different and even the guy who usually leaves the theater after 15 minutes into every movie that's more arty than "Conan" said it was the scariest movie he has seen. This is a good movie.

It was one of the best genre movies in recent years. I see a ton of pushback against it since people expected a horror and that movie doesn't work well as one. If you want an interesting story that decently smart on a low budget and then it's easier to appreciate. Also yeah I assume you will hate this one too. It's not a typical horror.

Guys this is a great film and a24 is a great distributor but it's an arthouse product set in a horror world. If this does The Witch numbers it would be a huge success. I still really cheer for it though. Won't beat Mummy and won't make 80m. That's for sure. The buzz won't be that strong.

I hope the trend of stylish and not overly serious action movies continues. FF and John Wick started it, those movies are generally cheaper than other blockbusters and do decent money.

Any info on specific teritories?

Can you comment on bo trends currently in Romania? Do action movies still overperform compared to western countries? Friends at a romanian distro say they still do well on old school actioners while in Poland we only watch the genre on TV (and there they get great numbers)