KGator

Regarding number 2, Sorry pal. That's just my opinion. My wife fell asleep during the movie and my daughter stopped watching after 15 minutes to go play on her IPad. If anything you should be commending me for toughing it out until the end and thinking "Well, maybe this would have seemed more relatable if I was a teenage girl." I mean I was the ONLY one to make it all the way to the end. Kudos to me. I will say that I thought Frozen was an enjoyable film. Much better (IMO) than both IO or Pets.

Clearly, not many moviegoers share your opinion on SLOP for it to be doing as well as it is. I didn't think it was an animated classic by any stretch but it made me laugh a few times. And unlike Inside Out it didn't bore the hell out of me so I'll give it that. I for one won't be shedding any tears if IO falls from its perch as the top original animation. I don't think Pets will hold the record that long anyways.

All of those countries would be down roughly a third from STID using the 2013 currency rates. When you use the current rates the revenue decrease is closer to 50%. Fewer ticket sales and each ticket is worth less. The worst of both worlds for Paramount.

I don't think this will be held against you in the long run. Unless she's watching it because you got her the DVD/Blue Ray "BvS: Ultimate Cut" as a gift. In which case . . . . . You're probably going to hell.

They probably think it's a movie about their chairman who was forced out due to multiple claims of workplace sexual harassment. "Sausage Party: The life and times of Roger Ailes."

Does anyone have any predictions on upcoming movies Jason Bourne or Star Trek Beyond? How do their release dates look in terms of local competition? Are these popular genres in mainland China?

I think this is lower than expected considering they have big, historically favorable territories like the UK, Australia and Germany included but . . . and correct me if I am wrong . . . I don't believe this movie has been released in South Korea, France, all of Latin America, China, Spain or Japan yet. Those are a lot of countries with pretty large populations. I remember thinking how little Pets had made a week or so ago and then realized it just hadn't been released in many countries yet. We won't have a handle on STB's Worldwide numbers until mid September (and even those won't include Japan of course).

Paramount doesn't make any money from STD. They own the movie rights, CBS owns the TV rights. If Paramount wants to try and squeeze any more value out of the franchise they will have to do it with a motion picture.

Apocalypse was hardly fun filled. Outside of Quicksilver it was dark and serious with the same rehashed and familiar plot that made the movie entirely too forgettable. X-Men films have always taken themselves very seriously outside of Deadpool. Only the occasion a quip from Wolverine or the Quicksilver character ever added any consistent levity. Some people like it that way but others don't. I've always found marvel movies to take themselves much more lightly in general and I think that is part of their success.

It definitely seems to be heading the wrong way in both the UK and Australia. Maybe those two countries are starting to fatigue with the franchise. I don't think those drops could be just exchange rate.

Older crowd? More likely to make plans on Saturday or Sunday with family and friends than run out after work on a Friday night? That might give it a stronger Sat and Sun compared to Friday.

20% from ST09, 15% from STID.

Might as well write them off. Close up the bridge, lights out.

And your statement is as utterly ridiculous now as it was the first time you said it. Sure, a franchise that even in it's depths of mediocrity had 10-15 million hard core Trekkies attending them is now suddenly rebooted and out of 27 million tickets sold less than 1.5 million are actually Star Trek fans. Okay, sure . . . . that math works . . . . in bizzaro world maybe.

I think there are 3 factors that Paramount considers with Star Trek. 1) Most Studios are killing themselves to find properties they can churn multiple movies out of. This is an existing franchise they have rights to and there aren't many franchises that carry a core audience over a dozen movies the way Star Trek does. It isn't a blockbuster franchise like Marvel or Star Wars but it's not a bad "B" Franchise to have. 2) Overseas grew considerably from the first movie to the second (ST09 to STID). I'm sure the studio execs are hoping to continue this trend and expand the brand overseas. I think the lighthearted nature and action is specifically targeted to attract foreign audiences. 3) Star Trek is one of the few franchises where ancillary revenue from merchandising can be a legitimate revenue stream. In addition, hard core Star Trek fans are notorious for buying even high priced special edition DVDs and Blue Rays of their beloved franchise. So the revenue outside of theaters should be a bit higher than with your typical Hollywood fare.

I rate this a B to B+. It had all the elements we come to expect from Marvel. I appreciate how filmmakers attempted to make a complicated plot with a lot of twists and turns even if it did kind of fall in on itself near the end. In retrospect, Chris Evans was a great choice to play Captain America. He just seems to have the qualities, charisma and dogged stubbornness in his beliefs that make his character even more believable than he probably should be. If not for the unbelievably good luck and circumstance that Zemo needed for his plan to actually turn out the way it did . . . I might have given it an A. Captain America continues to be the best of the Marvel Universe in my opinion (though Guardians might match it if the sequel is as good as the first entry).

To preface this, I don't really care too much for animated movies. I only go because I have a young daughter so my intent is to more or less just survive. That being said, I did enjoy the movie. Even moreso than Finding Dory (which I actually thought was better than Finding Nemo). Sure SLOP didn't have all the heartwarming plot points or adult themes (or preachiness if you prefer) but it had moments that left me laughing. I rate this a B knowing that my affinity is somewhat tainted by a lack of expectations. I also enjoyed FD and can happily say I made it through both movies without falling asleep and having several chuckles . . . what more can you ask?

Anecdotely perhaps but not when applied to the demographic in question. This is probably a much stronger argument overseas then at home. I do not think I can name a male acquaintance over 35 who enjoys the scifi genre and has not seen Wrath of Khan. It has to be the most replayed of all the Star Trek films on broadcast and cable television. Especially in the late 80s thru early 2000s. in comparison, I doubt any in that same group have ever watched Sex in the City yet you won't find me trying to extend that fact and draw conclusions regarding SITC popularity. Star Trek is much more recognized among males than females and more so in the over 30 crowd than in younger generations. And this is exactly how the moviegoing audience for this franchise skews.

Given the fact that 75% of STID's domestic audience was over the age of 25 (and most were male), do you really think that many (85-95%) of the audience had NEVER seen what is considered the most popular movie in the franchise's history? For a series where even the lesser regarded movies that no one but Trekkies could love would sell 8-12 million tickets . . . . you think that only 1-2 million of the 35 million STID tickets sold were by people who are familiar enough with the brand to have seen the entry that is widely regarded to be the best Star Trek movie ever made? They just walked into the theater thinking "Star Trek, Star Wars, The Fault in our Stars . . . . same difference." Seriously? You make it sound like Star Trek Beyond and Finding Dory have a common audience.

Why? If movies were considered a democracy, then the public is clearly voting their preferences with their wallet. If you want to be elitest and say the masses are too dumb to have movies tailored to them and be the vocal minority, that's your right. However, someone pointing out that you are essentially a fringe element and outside the norm doesn't need to be silenced. Unless you want to hold your protest in isolation, you are going to have to accept people pointing out the obvious. You need to adjust your position to address this point, not dismiss such an obvious argument that movies are simply reflecting public tastes. If 100 people see a piece of art, 5 people thing it's engaging and brilliant, 95 people think it is boring and stupid, does the education or status of the minority group suddenly counteract majority opinion?

You say that but I have a four year old who was raised on Disney Junior and she has no idea who Nemo is. I've seen Pocahontas, Winnie the Pooh, Hercules, Tarzan, Mulan and the damn TinkerBell movies on DisJr MULTIPLE times in the past few years. I saw Finding Nemo on there once (and my daughter didn't even watch it all the way through). Now maybe they did show it more often and I didn't notice but those other movies seem to play every other friggin month! I think you might be displacing your love for a beloved cartoon character onto a bunch of preschool aged children. I think it will probably do ballpark Zootopia/Jungle Book type final numbers but it will not be the phenomenon these people who are holding "Finding Dory" parties think it will. Still, 330-370 is a hella good chunk of change for an animated film.

You do realize that almost 100% of the kids who saw Finding Nemo the first time around are in High School or beyond right? This movie has to almost find an entirely new audience (and I don't think many of the kids who saw it the first time will have kids of their own to pass it along too). It has name recognition but is also dealing with a new breed of kids who watch more movies on their tablets than on DVD or in movie theaters. We'll see how it plays out. His theory is entirely plausible. I saw Finding Nemo in theaters with 3 of my kids. Number one, they did not know a sequel was even coming out until recently. Two, they could all care less. 2 are in HS and the other graduated. This isn't exactly going to be a huge film with college and HS aged kids. The nostalgia factor is WAAAYYYY overplayed here. They are either 10 years too late in releasing this film or 10 years too early. This movie is going to have to get great WOM and bring a new audience. I see it doing somewhere in the low to mid 300s but I also believe it has a higher chance of hitting closer to 200 than the 480 adjusted gross of the original.

I believe this is accurate for this weekend's big releases. However I think the larger issue at play is the combination of 1) an over saturation of the movie marketplace in general 2) exponential increase in BIG budget movies (tentpole productions) 3) a shrinking number of moviegoers (somewhat offset by rising prices and expensive new technologies 4) a cultural shift that increases the value of home or small screen viewing (phones, tablets, TVs) and reduces the value of the large screen experience. This trend isn't going to change. In a decade we could see the closure of half the existing theaters in the US (maybe longer, maybe shorter). More lower budget movies will probably go both widescreen and small screen release at the same time leaving the theaters showing mainly higher budget productions that have a better visual and sound experience. And of course these films will fight over an ever shrinking audience. I am going to see Apocalypse today but nothing about this movie screamed "new" or "original" to me. Just more of the same. Jungle Book and Deadpool were the only movies that hooked me after release based on seeing the public reaction combined with a feeling that these movies were fresh spins in the marketplace (and both didn't disappoint). Jungle Book with its great visuals and Deadpool with its hilarious and playful take on the genre. But in general we could just be seeing more visible symptoms of the gradual decline of modern cinema. Over long periods it will be easier to see overall trends that might look completely random and conflicting over a shorter period of analysis.

Good point. If there is a limit to the amount of money certain people are willing to spend or how many movies they will see in a year . . . a lesser summer would be expected. It would just be "Tent Pole Production" overkill.

In Australia maybe but this is the US. People in the states don't know what that is. It won't effect domestic Box office at all. The only reason I even know what Eurovision is happens to be because a friend told me (who happened to also be from Australia). And of course I was, "WTH is Eurovision? Some kind of new TV channel?"