Avatree

50 Shades will be 220+ Cinderella will get at least 200, similar to Maleficent with any luck. Doesn't have much of a chance of doing that. It should open higher than Avengers 1, but it can't repeat that 3x multiplier.

Edge of Tomorrow doesn't count, everyone knew it would flop for many months before it released. Also, Apes certainly did much better overseas, but it was hardly a failure dom - improved upon the first one, even if not by that much.

Lol, no. Pretty sure people felt sympathy towards her, not hatred.

Not really. The only people who really cared about Paul Walker knew him from Fast and Furious - and I have a feeling Fast and Furious fans might be watching F7 either way People try to compare him to Heath Ledger but it's just not the same, Ledger was a diverse actor who was in the public spotlight. Plus, Ledger only died a few months before TDK, whereas Walker died 1.5 years before Furious 7.

I do realise that I was bending the term 'guaranteed', as two of the films aren't quite there. The other 3 will open so far above $100m that any issues they run into will keep them above $100m, which isn't the case with JW and F7. I just put them there because they are more likely to do it than to not

Okay, how about 3 100% guaranteed and 2 95%? FF6 was so close to $100m that I honestly can't see how F7 will do less. As for Jurassic World - Godzilla opened to $93.2m so there's no way JW will get under $100m, given how much more popular it is.

Opening above $100m: Furious 7 Avengers: Age of Ultron Jurassic World Mockingjay Part 2 Star Wars That's 5 guaranteed, plus any others that get lucky (e.g. Bond 24).

Weren't there reports that Paramount was lying about the numbers?

Just looked at the clock and it's 5am. I think it's appropriate that I watched Insomnia earlier. (good night )

At the end of the day, I think perhaps the easiest answer would be to just admit that the first two films were freakish anomalies. No series has managed anything close to doing 3 $400m films. Maybe it was unreasonable to have expectations that it'd match CF/THG in the first place. I don't believe that. The only people who care about the books are Hunger Games fans - all of whom will watch Mockingjay regardless of the source material's quality. You can't seriously think there are Hunger Games fans out there who loved the first two books and films but don't want to watch the third one on screen.

Under 330

But, we should have at least 3 next year that is, assuming MJ2 makes it there.

Completely agree. I was surprised by how much I liked the first movie, but the second was just the same thing again and left a bad taste in the mouth.

I asked this question on Friday morning but now we know how the weekend is playing out imma ask this again: Does anyone think MJ2 could earn less than CF? I know it'd buck the trend but other similar franchises didn't get their part 1 slashed by this much. Plus, this series will have only been around for 3.5 years by the end, so it's not like the GA is as attached to the films as Harry Potter, for example.

That does look dreadful. I like Chris Pine too

Looks pretty interesting. The negative reviews on Amazon are hilarious. Has Tom Hardy ever done something bad?

Pleased to hear I am not going crazy.

If it follows CF's pattern then that means 124m OW if the 42m Sat is true, but 118.5m if the 40.5m Sat is true. Right? Everyone's saying it's 125-130 now, am I missing something?

Yes, it's better when a film is subtle about its messaging, and lets the viewer come to their own conclusions, but honestly, I don't mind a film being like how Avatar is. In the context of a colourful action epic, I don't really expect the film to be particularly nuanced or thoughtful. I actually watched Avatar last night, as I hadn't done so in a few years, and the most jarring thing for me was how dated the CGI is. The environments are great but the Naa'vi have no imperfections and just look unrealistic - and their animations are dreadful. That really took me out of the experience. Have to admit, it was more boring than I remember. I fell asleep just as all the Naa'vi attacked the gunships on dragons.

Yes, I know it's obvious, no need for sarcasm I'm just saying it fits the theme of the movie very well. If you don't like the theme then that's a whole other thing, but it's not out of place in the film.

It simply represents how humans will never obtain true 'wealth' if we continue with our materialistic desires. The damage done by this in the film means that in order to access the mineral we have to sacrifice our humanity - further emphasis of the message Cameron is trying to hammer home. Summing it up in its name (which from a plot perspective makes sense anyway, since it's so rare and they can call elements whatever they like (e.g. Californium, Einsteinium)) is a neat trick. I'm confused, what's bad about that wiki page?

I know I'm in the minority, but I liked the naming of unobtainium in Avatar.

Wait, people are complaining that they turned the damsel in distress trope on its head? I think that's cool (though haven't seen the film so idk how well it is executed)

Hey, Taylor Swift is awesome