MikeQ

I think it's basically impossible for Kong to end with only $130-140 million. It will hit $130 million or more by the end of next weekend. Peace, Mike

For those interested, this is a list of top preview/midnight grosses, including the preview grosses as a percentage of the opening day gross for each film (adapted from the Data & Numbers Archive - credit to @The Futurist): Estimated Top Midnight/Preview Grosses of All-Time Rank / Title / Gross / Share of Opening Day Star Wars: The Force Awakens — 57.0 million (47.9%) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 — 43.5 million (47.7%) The Dark Knight Rises — 30.6 million (40.4%) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 — 30.4 million (42.7%) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 — 30.25 million (42.2%) The Twilight Saga: Eclipse — 30.1 million (43.9%) Rogue One: A Star Wars Story — 29.0 million (40.8%) Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice — 27.7 million (34.0%) Avengers: Age of Ultron — 27.6 million (32.7%) The Twilight Saga: New Moon — 26.27 million (36.1%) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire — 25.26 million (35.6%) Captain America: Civil War — 25 million (33.1%) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 — 24 million (38.9%) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince — 22.8 million (39.2%) Suicide Squad — 20.5 million (31.6%) The Hunger Games — 19.735 million (29.3%) Marvel's The Avengers — 18.7 million (23.1%) The Dark Knight — 18.5 million (27.5%) Jurassic World — 18.5 million (22.6%) The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 — 17 million (30.8%) Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith — 16.9 million (33.8%) Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen — 16.8 million (27.1%) Beauty and the Beast — 16.3 million (25.5%) The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 — 16 million (35.1%) Furious 7 — 15.8 million (23.4%) Iron Man 3 — 15.6 million (22.7%) Transformers: Dark of the Moon — 13.5 million (35.8%) The Hobbit: Un Unexpected Journey — 13 million (35.0%) Deadpool — 12.7 million (26.8%) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix — 12 million (27.1%) I was also curious about preview grosses as a percentage of opening weekend for the top openers, so I made a list of the top 25 opening weekends of all time and the percentage of each from the preview/midnight gross: Top Opening Weekends of All-Time & Share from Previews Rank / Title / Opening Weekend Gross / Share of Opening Weekend from Previews/Midnights Star Wars: The Force Awakens — 248.0 million (23.0%) Jurassic World — 208.8 million (8.9%) Marvel’s The Avengers — 207.4 million (9.0%) Avengers: Age of Ultron — 191.3 million (14.4%) Captain America: Civil War — 179.1 million (14.0%) Beauty and the Beast — 174.8 million (9.3%) Iron Man 3 — 174.1 million (9.0%) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 — 169.2 million (25.7%) Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice — 166.0 million (16.7%) The Dark Knight Rises — 160.9 million (19.0%) The Dark Knight — 158.4 million (11.7%) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire — 158.1 million (16.0%) Rogue One: A Star Wars Story — 155.1 million (18.7%) The Hunger Games — 152.5 million (12.9%) Spider-Man 3 — 151.1 million (6.6%) Furious 7 — 147.2 million (10.7%) The Twilight Saga: New Moon — 142.8 million (18.4%) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 — 141.1 million (21.5%) The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 — 138.1 million (21.9%) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest — 135.6 million (6.6%) Finding Dory — 135.1 million (6.8%) Suicide Squad — 133.7 million (15.3%) Deadpool — 132.4 million (9.6%) Iron Man 2 — 128.1 million (5.9%) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 — 125.0 million (19.2%) Peace, Mike

Presuming estimates for Friday and Saturday stay about the same, we have a weekend that looks about like this: Thursday Previews: $16.3 million Real Friday: $47.5 million Saturday: $62.7 million (+32%) Sunday: $48.3 million (-23%) Weekend Total: $174.8 million This gives Beauty 6th highest opening weekend of all time. Peace, Mike

As mentioned, if $50 million is the floor for Beauty's Sunday gross, then it's looking at a $177+ million weekend. If so, this is kind of funny because back when Deadline had first posted Friday numbers they projected a weekend gross of $177 million for Beauty, and at that time in this thread many posters were slamming Deadline for being "crazy" and incorrectly projecting the weekend, and that the weekend gross would be much lower. I mean, I get it, Deadline is often wrong, but it's funny looking back. All in all, terrific weekend for Beauty. Peace, Mike

Taking Matrix4You's great list of Saturday increases/decreases from real Fridays and adding Beauty and the Beast to the list (with estimates), Beauty ended up having a terrific Saturday increase. It suggests that, while the film is clearly driven by a fan-base, it is also playing as a family film. Peace, Mike

Actually, it would best Civil War. With $60-62 million on Saturday, that represents about a 26-30% increase from Beauty's real Friday gross, at least with estimates. Thursday Previews: $16.3 million Real Friday: $47.5 million Saturday: $60-62 million (+26-30%) Sunday: ? Peace, Mike

Page 212 - RTH said this regarding its Saturday gross (I know it's hard to follow because the thread is so off-topic): Peace, Mike

$60 million or close to it for Saturday (per RTH's comment) would be terrific for Beauty and the Beast. That would represent about a 22-25% increase from the Friday (sans previews). Peace, Mike

It's really difficult to know how exactly the weekend will play out with only Deadline's Friday projection of $60-62 million. First, the projection could be off (lower or higher than Deadline's number), as Deadline is notoriously unreliable (at least this early in the day). Secondly, even if they are spot on, it's still up in the air what Beauty and the Beast's internal multiplier will be for the weekend (i.e. will Saturday stay flat, increase, or decrease), because it's somewhat of a unique case (clearly having a built in fan-base but also being a family driven film too). It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I think we need a later update from Deadline, or for RTH to show up. Peace, Mike

Here's a nice summary article of all the planned live-action remakes: http://collider.com/upcoming-live-action-disney-movies-release-dates/ Mulan is slated for a November 2, 2018 release. I'm looking forward to both Mulan and Aladdin, as it appears they are going in the right direction for both and will not be whitewashing either film, thankfully. Peace, Mike

This was a whole bucket of fun that flew by quickly. I can't remember the last time I've seen such a perfect action B-movie. It really hits the sweet spot. In an era where it feels like we have big action movies that either 1) aspire to be serious, complex and "issue-oriented" and are light on the fun and adventure, or 2) that are so generic and unintelligably drenched in action that they are dull and boring, it was quite nice to see a carefully directed monster/action film that was funny, surprising, and so much fun. The action is well-framed. The film is well-paced. ILM does a terrific job with the CGI. Its retro/absurd/"Apocalypse Now" vibe works. All of the ingredients come together nicely. And while the characters certainly weren't fully realized human beings, they were mostly interesting and fun. And at the same time, the film clearly nods to basic themes of humankind vs nature, holding up a mirror so that we reflect on who are the real monsters here. Overall, the film feels like it has a clear vision in terms of what it wants to be, and executes that very well. Peace, Mike

I'm not sure if there was room for a dozen helicopters, but there were definitely more than four on the ship that we saw. There were the four helicopters that we got the nice overhead shot of on the mid-section of the ship that you're referring to, but also the large helicopter was on the bow, and there were at least 3 more helicopters on the stern of the ship behind the control centre (one right on the stern that we see taking off and two hidden under the elevated portion underneath the control centre). There may have been a few more hiding in the elevated portion of the bow of the ship. The film didn't show all of the helicopters take off, as there was only room for a few at a time on the helipad areas, but I would go back to watch that part of the film. Perhaps it didn't give us a clear sense of where each helicopter came from, but I wouldn't fault the film for being edited so as to speed that process up. You seem to imply that this is an odd occurrence, but when we first come across the tribe's village, we see a row of canoes that they have. I don't think it's unusual that they would have a portion of the wall that they built that they can get through in order go out on their canoes along the river. In the control centre, before they make the decision to fly through the storm, Samuel L. Jackson's character asks how far the island is from them, and the captain of the ship says "maybe 50 miles, or more". Thus, it's evident that the storm does not circle immediately around the island, it's a ways out. Once they're through the storm, they had a ways to fly until they were to the main part of the island where they meet Kong. So, my hunch would be that the storm wouldn't be hovering immediately behind Kong when we see the shot of the helicopters making their way toward him. If you go back and watch that part, you'll see the sun rising out of some clouds which are beyond the mountainous landscape of the island - thus, as is, it's clearly not clear blue skies anyway. Just my thoughts from my viewing of the film. Peace, Mike

This was a whole bucket of fun that flew by quickly. I can't remember the last time I've seen such a perfect action B-movie. It really hits the sweet spot. In an era where it feels like we have big action movies that either 1) aspire to be serious, complex and "issue-oriented" and are light on the fun and adventure, or 2) that are so generic and unintelligably drenched in action that they are dull and boring, it was quite nice to see a carefully directed monster/action film that was funny, surprising, and so much fun. The action is well-framed. The film is well-paced. ILM does a terrific job with the CGI. Its retro/absurd/"Apocalypse Now" vibe works. All of the ingredients come together nicely. And while the characters certainly weren't fully realized human beings, they were mostly interesting and fun. And at the same time, the film clearly nods to basic themes of humankind vs nature, holding up a mirror so that we reflect on who are the real monsters here. Overall, the film feels like it has a clear vision in terms of what it wants to be, and executes that very well. Peace, Mike

Variety: "The surprise is that “Skull Island” isn’t just ten times as good as “Jurassic World”; it’s a rousing and smartly crafted primordial-beastie spectacular." Hollywood Reporter: "Mix King Kong with The Lost World, spike it with a bracing dash of Apocalypse Now and you've got Kong: Skull Island, in which Warner Bros. finally gets the effects-driven fantasy adventure formula right again after numerous misfires. This highly entertaining return of one of the cinema's most enduring giant beasts moves like crazy — the film feels more like 90 minutes than two hours — and achieves an ideal balance between wild action, throwaway humor, genre refreshment and, perhaps most impressively, a nonchalant awareness of its own modest importance in the bigger scheme of things; unlike most modern franchise blockbusters, it doesn't try to pummel you into submission." I'm officially really looking forward to seeing this. Peace, Mike

Agreed. The movie may not open to huge numbers, but I have to think this trailer has made an impact and boosted its chances. Nearly 4 million views in 2 days, when the last Kong trailer has 2.6 million views after 3 months. It has definitely caught on. I'm excited for the movie. It looks like a lot of fun, and gives me a very retro, Apocalypse Now kind of vibe. I've seen at least a couple people compare this with Independence Day: Resurgence, and that is such a bizarre comparison to me. IDR looked like garbage from the first trailer onward - Kong doesn't give me anywhere near the putrid vibe IDR gave me. Peace, Mike

Indeed, you are entirely right. It is even more incredible to think that it has occurred four out of the last five years. I only mention "in the last 8 years", since it was that long ago that the Academy switched to the ranked ballot for Best Picture winners. The theory is that this new voting system is what encourages more splits. The best director winner is simply the director who received the most votes, while the Best Picture winner is determined through a more complex ranked ballot system which is intended to reward the film with the most overall support from the Academy, so to speak. So, I do wonder if this makes a significant difference, and we will continue to see more splits than usual, historically speaking. Peace, Mike

NERD ALERT: This is the 25th time in the history of the Oscars that there has been a Best Picture/Best Director split. 21 of those instances were spread over the first 81 years of the Academy Awards, and the remaining 4 instances have occurred in the last eight years, since the Academy expanded the Best Picture field to 10 nominees in 2009 (i.e. for the Oscar Ceremony in 2010, the 82nd Academy Awards), and switched this up again so that "up to 10" nominees are nominated. But along with this expansion in 2009, the Academy switched from a "first-past-the-post" system for voting for the Best Picture winner to a ranked ballot system. (Side note: No other categories use a ranked ballot system to vote for the winner. All categories do use a ranked ballot system for nominee voting, in which each category is only voted on by their peers - i.e. directors vote for best director, actors vote for best actor, etc.) This means pre-expansion, about 25% of the time there was a Best Picture/Director split. Post-expansion it has happened 50% of the time. Now, it is the case that four of the 25 splits over the 89-year history of the Oscars were instances where the director of the ultimate Best Picture winner was snubbed by the Academy (i.e. not even nominated). Most recently, this occurred with Ben Affleck at the 2013 Oscars (where Argo won Best Picture, but Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director, perhaps likely "forcing" a split). Even if we ignore these four cases, and assume there wouldn't have been a split had the director of the Best Picture winner been nominated, we still see a similar difference - in this case, about 22% of the time pre-expansion (18/81 years) and about 38% of the time post-expansion (3/8 years). This is really interesting, as an Oscar nerd, because there has been a lot of discussion about how post-expansion, the new ranked ballot system can allow for surprise Best Picture winners and perhaps encourage more Best Picture/Director splits. So far, it seems that is the case, though I say that very cautiously. We don't have a big enough history post-expansion yet to say with more certainty. But we've had two surprise Best Picture winners in a row now that were "splits" from the Best Director winners, and likewise the 12 Years a Slave/Alfonso Cuarón split a few years ago was rather unexpected or at least considered an unusual or unlikely occurrence historically speaking. It will be interesting to see how this looks moving forward over the next 5-10+ years, assuming no changes are made to the Best Picture voting anytime soon. Have we entered an era of the Academy Awards where Best Picture/Director splits are more likely to occur? Peace, Mike

Uh, hold back on the homophobic crap there, buddy. That's the real upset here right now. Peace, Mike

Oh, I definitely agree, I just mean that poor Jimmy Kimmel seemed to take this personally, that somehow his show (as the host) now has this black mark on it. I kinda feel bad for him. I personally think he did a terrific job and would love to see him come back. He could make some really good jokes about how he won't screw it up this time (even though obviously none of this was his fault), etc. Peace, Mike

I can't believe this is happening.... AWKWARD. Who screwed up the envelope? You can tell that poor Jimmy Kimmel feels like crap and that his show was ruined. Eeek. Peace, Mike

Lovely speech from Emma Stone. She's great all around, and I loved her in La La Land. She was my favourite part of the movie. Peace, Mike

I'm also grateful that it didn't sweep or near sweep in wins and that the Academy spread the love. After the 14 nominations, there was a real possibility that it would tie the record for most Oscars won and end up in the "11 Oscar Wins Club", or even beat the record, and I didn't (personally) want it to. Peace, Mike

I'm really loving the concept of actors talking about someone who inspired them, and then that person appearing to present an award with them. Really cool. Peace, Mike

Awesome. I know most people want an Oscars show that is tight and quick, but I live for the long Oscars shows. Bring on the 3.5 to 4+ hour Oscar telecasts - I wait all year for Oscar season and the Oscars. Peace, Mike

What filmlover said! I'm so thrilled for Arrival's surprise win. I'm glad it is not going home empty handed. Peace, Mike