Intergalactic Ping Pong

From my perspective, I would say it is a good thing that many directors and writers do not agree with that sentiment. We've gotten so many different styles of superhero movies, because they are willing to add in a different genre into the mix. This keeps things fresh. The reality is, superhero movies are an upgraded version of 80s and 90s action movies, but instead of normal heroes, they are superheroes. There were standard action films, and there were others that mix in other genres and elements. I'm glad they did, because the same cookie cutter films over and over would be insanely boring. Son: 'Haven't we seen this movie already?' Dad: 'No, you're thinking of the one with Bruce Willis. This one stars Sylvester Stallone.'

Agree with this sentiment completely. DH Part 1 and Part 2 both set OW records for the franchise upon their release. But then the legs were underwhelming. The films all made roughly the same total gross at the box office, minus a couple outliers. It's just that the fans were prioritizing seeing the movie on OW vs later on. A similar shift will undoubtedly occur with most extended universes as they progress through the series.

This exact scene shows up in the BvS trailer from July 2015 at the 41 second mark.

I blame it on the dubbing. Not necessarily in English (or near-English) speaking countries, but for the rest, absolutely. Jokes can easily get lost in translation. Besides, some jokes tend to be very topical. An Aussie might not get a joke about Kim Kardashian. A prime example for me; there's a British comedian named Jimmy Carr and some of his jokes are very funny and offensive, but others are about certain famous British people and I'm completely lost.

My bad if my comment about RDJ falls under this category. I saw the topic was already being discussed and from what I could tell, that topic doesn't really reveal anything specific to the plot. But, my perspective is only one perspective of many. Please don't drop the ban hammer on me!

If you've seen any of RDJ's earlier works, like Weird Science, they made him look almost exactly like his younger self in CA.

I'm not really sure why people feel that because a movie receives good reviews, that means it will have a direct correlation to a massive OW. It usually correlates to good legs, not necessarily OW. I may be stating the obvious for most of us, but some have a crazy notion that because of the good critical reception of CA: CW, it should have opened to greater than $200M?? Here are a few recent 90+ RT films and their respective OWs... Zootopia $75M 10 Cloverfield $25M The Jungle Book $103M Inside Out $90M SW: TFA $248M Mad Max $45M The Martian $54M Creed $30M All but one of these had a 3X or greater multiple. (10 Cloverfield being the exception) Meanwhile, only one of these broke the $200M barrier. *For logical reasons, I have included only films that had nationwide openings. Limited releases that expanded later on do not really fit this criteria.

Lucky you. Haha A computer was definitely not in my budget at the time. I really didn't start discovering that there was an online community of folks who shared my box office fascination until the mid-2000s. I thought it was just my odd little obsession. Guru's archives are fascinating. The first I could find from July 1997 had this gem: After this summer, Hollywood might learn to stop making unnecessary sequels. Overall the top ten films grossed $113.8M - down 5% from last year Sorry Gitesh, but they still haven't learned. See The Huntsman: Winter's War and Allegiant as exhibit A and B.

That was an exciting time. I couldn't believe it hit $72 million. I remember hearing people complaining about how they were trying to go but everything was sold out, which was a huge deal in my town at the time. That kind of thing never happened there in those days. It's become so much easier to track box office nowadays. I remember all the physical research I had to do to figure out how a film was performing in comparison to previous movies.

Box Office has always been fascinating to me. Ever since Batman '89. The trends are pretty consistent over the last 20 years. It's weird, really. There might be a few brief moments of noticeable growth over a shorter window but those seem to be the small spike before the huge jump. 1997 The Lost World $72M 2001 HP: SS $90M 2002 Spiderman $115M 2006 POTC: DMC $135M 2007 Spiderman 3 $151M 2008 TDK $158M (small spike) 2011 HP: DH2 $169M (small spike) 2012 The Avengers $207M 2015 JW $209M (small spike) 2015 SW: TFA $248M Disregarding the small spikes (which I attribute to the new normal phenomenon), it averages out to noticeable OW growth once every 3 years.

Not to sound like a broken record, but just because TFA pulled in ~$248 mill on OW, doesn't mean that $250 mill is the new normal for good blockbusters. Every so often, a film comes out that raises the OW bar substantially. Then it usually takes around 3 years for that to be matched. For example, The Avengers set a new bar with a $207 million OW. Then it took 3 years and one month for another film to match it (JW). The Avengers beat the previous record by $38 mill. Then JW took the record. Then TFA beat JWs record by $40 mill. It's going to be awhile before something comes along to beat TFA's record. Even $200 million OW is not the new normal yet. Maybe next year it will be. I hope maybe people will not get so disappointed when the newest big blockbuster doesn't hit $200 mill. It's not a failure. This is just par for the course when it comes to OW growth. I still remember when The Lost World's $72 million OW made headlines for how ridiculously huge it was. That was 19 years ago. And it took another 4 years for that record to get broken by Harry Potter. Everybody, chill.

BoxOffice ‏@BoxOffice 19m19 minutes ago ZOOTOPIA took in $0.566M on Thursday and has grossed $309.82M to date domestically. #Zootopia

What is he trying to tell us?? If put in this order.... "Your Fate Has Been Adjusted" "You Know His Name" "Bring Him Home" "He Can Save Us All"

I'll have to wait for the next trailer to determine if I'll see this in theaters. First true trailer was underwhelming, but that happens sometimes. Throwing a Molotov cocktail on the ground and making a tiny fire isn't exactly awe-inspiring. But we'll see what comes next.

Often, when people say 'Not trying to...", they usually are about to do exactly what they claim they aren't 'trying' to do. For example, when someone says 'Not trying to be rude', chances are good that something really rude is about to exit their mouth hole. And then if they continue to make similar statements, it becomes pretty obvious. I have nothing against brownies, though. Don't take it that way. Brownies are delicious. Nobody wants brownies temporarily banned from BOT, so please use a little caution.

Last year, apparently 5% of the U.S. population watched the Masters final round, with around 64% of them being in the 30-64 year old demos. Even the NCAA Championship game from a few days back was only at 6% of U.S. pop. That audience skews a bit younger though. The NBA Finals averaged 6.7% of the U.S. population. The World Series last year was on par with the Masters at 5%. The 2012 Olympics had an average U.S. viewership of 10.3% each day. Only the Superbowl hit more than 15% of the national audience, at 37%. This is the only sporting event I can think of that could have a significant impact on the box office. Your point is on point.

Sandler has a shtick that he beat to death. McCarthy is well on her way towards that end result. Sadly, that's a usual occurrence for many comedians. Sometimes they manage to keep their career afloat for awhile, especially if they get attached to successful animated films, such as Mike Myers with Shrek; Eddie Murphy with Mulan, Shrek; Jack Black with KFP, etc.

Top right Batman v WWE? That could be interesting.

Like the poster, but please God no!!!

Count me as one who is not disappointed that it won't beat the last 2 Batmans. While Affleck is a pretty good Batman, this film's box office performance only goes to show that it's not so easy to follow the two best Batman films that have ever seen the silver screen. Chris Nolan set the bar very high with TDK, and even though TDKR lowered the bar a little, it would be rather disappointing to me if some lesser director trumped those films just by being the first to have Supes, Batman and WW in a live action film. Besides, this performance sends a pretty clear message to the WB and Nolan that he needs to keep on making movies because he is on a short list of active filmmakers who knows how to make quality big budget films.

Looks like most schools are back in session based on these hefty drops. I'm amazed at how much of an impact Spring Break had on some films' weekday numbers. Now that they are back to normal, the difference is obvious. Zootopia for example: 1st Monday $4.5m 2nd Monday $4.6m 3rd Monday $3.7m 4th Monday $4.7m This Monday $1.4m (70% Mon-Mon drop) While at first glance this Monday's drop looks horrible, the previous weekends are a product of Spring Break (plus great WOM for Zootopia). Without SB, the drops still would have been good, but not like that, and this Monday would have had a far different Mon-Mon drop. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't noticed Spring Break having such a prolonged impact (~3 weeks) on the box office like this in the past.

The WB gambled to see if this style could result in a four quadrant blockbuster. They chose a director whose previous top WW gross before DC was $456 million. His style hasn't shown to be one that results in four quadrant hits. For one, men like his style far more than women. Also, most parents certainly wouldn't decide to take their small children to see a Snyder live-action film in theaters. The WB was willing to take a risk and I don't fault them for that. They could have chosen to copy Marvel but they didn't and that's a good thing in my book. If their aim is a 4 quad hit (likely), then they now know they need to tweak a few things. I hope they continue to develop their own style and let Marvel do their thing while DC does its thing. Because if Marvel and DC become too similar, it would be bad for CBMs, IMO. I enjoyed the movie but I realize it isn't a 4 quad film. Was it actually expected to be? I'm sure the WB hoped it would be, but they certainly made choices that don't reflect an end goal of a four quad film. If Snyder stays on board, then that will be a definitive statement in my book that they aren't trying to make a four quad JL. Either route is good in my book, because not all films will have universal appeal. I'll probably enjoy JL if it is in this style, but for the WB's sake, I hope they keep their advertising and marketing costs down. The next film won't be making $1.5 billion and the WB should accept that if they go forward with Snyder. Moderate the costs and expect a mid-level hit. That's the sensible thing to do.

I think some have caught on to the pattern of X movie sets new record for opening weekend and soon other blockbusters reach the mark with ease. But not this soon, fellas. I can possibly see a really hyped movie coming in at JW / Avengers OW numbers (around $210 mill). But just because SW set the bar at $249 mill, doesn't mean movies this year will be coming anywhere close to it. I give it 2-3 years or more before the major blockbusters (excluding Star Wars) even come with $10 mill of that. I'm going to be rather surprised if any film this year breaks $200 million OW.

Not trying to start a Star Wars vs DC flamewar since I enjoy both properties, but Dawn of Justice will probably make less in its second weekend than SW made on its second Saturday ($56 mill+). Crazy. P.S. I liked the film. Do not tie me to a stick and place me over a bonfire, porfavor.

I believe he's traveled to Kazakhstan recently. I feel like CA: CW is going to perform right in between Avengers and Captain America. It's a half and half movie. Now what that number will be exactly, I don't know. But I'll donate $10 if it exceeds $400 mill. I'm rooting for this to be as good or better than CA: WS, quality-wise.