Jump to content

ChrisTelclear

Free Account+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    213

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ChrisTelclear

    Moviepass and its Impact on the Box Office

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    9 hours ago, YLF said:

    Its showing up on my end

     

    14 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

    Ok, so checked my MoviePass showtimes today and there are lots of 2d showings for I2 at many theaters conspicuously absent. Particularly any 7pm-9pm ones. My friend who has it also has the same issue. Anyone else having this problem? I haven't been that annoyed by their recent changes, but if they're going to start restricting prime showtimes for new movies, that will piss me off. 

    This sounds a lot like what happened during the Red Sparrow opening weekend.  They are doing another "experiment" to prove to the studios what kind of impact they can have on the market by blocking people in one area from seeing a specific movie with their MoviePass on opening night. It's done randomly and some people never see it.

    • Like 1

    Russia Box Office

    in International Box Office

    Posted

    On 5/31/2018 at 4:08 AM, juni78ukr said:

    From three previous Star Wars movies only Rogue one had 2.0 multiplyer. Barely. So around $5.5-6 mln total. 

    This week the biggest opener is Red Sparrow. Don't know why it' so late. Practically everyone already saw it and others dont care. 

    Worst weekend of the year.

    Word I heard was Russian censors didn't like the subject matter and they pushed it off. 

    Moviepass and its Impact on the Box Office

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    The problem is they thought the GP would buy more of them, and half of them wouldn't even see a movie a month. Instead, they wound up with movie nuts like us buying them all and it broke the model.

     

    They needed a partnership with someone who could give them access to millions of users, like Amazon.  They just didn't have a plan, they were winging it. Bad idea.

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    23 hours ago, straggler said:

    One of my favorite films this year. Gets much better the second viewing, at least for me, because then you have a sense of the pace and themes of the movie. 

    I had the same experience, much more enjoyable the second time.  There are a lot of subtleties you pick up on the second time around, especially in Jlaw's acting.

    Moviepass and its Impact on the Box Office

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    On 4/18/2018 at 1:25 PM, Captain Craig said:

    My wife just got me MoviePass for my birthday two weeks ago. 

     

    Didn't it originally start out at $20 a month? Then they slashed it to $12 or $10, then $8?

    It's an idea that if it can survive and then slowly start to re-increase their monthly rate that it can begin recouping losses or at least slow the bleeding. 

     

    Perhaps if there were a way to creat a tiered system or options beyond monthly or yearly. Quarterly perhaps or 1/2 year subscriptions as options with varied rates at each tier. 

    This is always what I thought the plan was, get a couple million users hooked, then start to increase the price incrementally. This will impact the monthly users first of course because they aren't locked in, but anyone on expiring subscriptions will get the increase as soon as their time is up.

     

    Very few people quit Netflix when they started to raise their prices, and I'll wager that tons won't quit this either.  The only question is when does it reach a point where you're making money. 

     

    They could just restrict the number of movies for the base price, then offer more expensive plans for the really die hards. But actually it would be better to just hike the price on existing users.

    A Quiet Place (2018)

    in Review That Movie! (Spoilers Allowed)

    Posted

    5 hours ago, baumer said:

    I'm giving it a B or a 7/10 because it's well acted, I liked the score and the suspense was palpable.  But if I let this sit for a day or two, I'd probably come back and give it a 6 simply because it's one of the dumber horror movies I've seen.  And this is coming from someone who has seen some grade Z horror movies with budgets of about $17.00.

     

    You live in a world that is predicated on silence yet you decide to have a baby?  This is the most egregiously stupid part of the of the film.  The is original Strangers kind of stupid.  Babies are loud and there is nothing you can do about it.  They cry, they get up at all hours of the night and even if you have some kind of sound proof hiding place for them, the risk is too great.

     

    Then you have the opening death.  The little kid walks at the very back of the family?  Nope.  Sorry, that would never happen.  These characters were so concerned about sound and yet they let their daughter walk by herself?  Nope.

     

    The father goes out searching for the kids, but doesn't bring his shot gun?  Instead he brings nothing but a flashlight.  

     

    And why did they have one gun?  Why not an arsenal of them?

     

    The newspaper clippings did say they were indestructible.  And yet she can blast them with a shotgun and it dies?  If they did have this kind of weakness, then why wasn't there some kind of military blitzkrieg to eliminate them?

     

    Maybe I missed something but where did all the water come from?  It flooded the basement up to her waist and yet she didn't hear it come down?

     

    The suspense was well done and it was very well directed in these parts but the stupidity of it just took me out of it.    It's hard for me to say this because I like Bay and Fuller and I like Platinum Dunes work but this one kind of disappointed me.  So I guess my actual grade for now is 6.5/10

    That's horror movies for you.  "Let's get into the running car!"  "No, let's hide behind those chain saws!", "Good idea!". 

     

    I saw the baby plot hole after the preview showing her in the tub going into labor.  I'm glad you've confirmed that it wasn't just me who thought that was unworkable.

     

    I'm not really a fan of gimmicky movies anyway, the silence being the gimmick in this case.  I also assume that all you hear the entire movie is munching popcorn, and idiots whispering to each other, which is annoying enough in movies with dialog.  Then the theaters in many multiplex's suffer from bleed through sound, so if you're next to an action movie your screwed.

     

    I think I'm going to pass, anyway I wouldn't want to have to get up and dump somebodies popcorn on their head. 

     

    I think I'll go see Isle of Dogs.

    • Like 1

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Jeriosnal said:

    Why mention Atomic Blonde like Charlize Theron is a box-office juggernaut?  She's not.  She's virtually as unproven on her own as Lawrence is.  

    It's one of like 2 female based spy movies, the other is Salt.  You have to draw comparisons somewhere and there's limited data.

     

    Really, there are no box office juggernauts anymore, at least not like back in the 90's and early 2000's.  Even The Rock had a flop recently. Nobody is immune these days.

     

    Back on the subject of Red Sparrow and the box office...please.

     

    The part of this I don't understand is how Fox ever thought this was going to be a hit, even with good reviews.  It's just not that kind of a movie, dark, slow, violent content.  It's not surprising it's doing so well in Europe, they haven't become addicted to comedies and action movies over there yet, and this type of content doesn't bother them.  With good reviews, and no BP, it might have hit $200M WW, and that would barely be enough to make some money.  A sequel would've been iffy.

     

    Ultimately this is all on Fox.  They had unrealistic expectations of what a movie like this would do at the box office even with JLaw as the lead.  They either should've demanded some changes to the content, more action, maybe a hot sex scene, to punch it up a bit, or they should've demanded a lower budget.  Either might've scared her off and the movie would've been made with either a B-List actress, for a lot less money, or it would've been shelved.  Likely the latter, because even if you made this for $30M if you didn't have a name to sell it it wasn't going to make squat overseas.  Maybe using a popular, and much cheaper, European actress would been the way to go in this case.

     

    I'm assuming some of these problems showed up in test showings, but with an already too high budget they probably couldn't see doing expensive reshoots to make it more commercial.  It's like throwing good money after bad.

     

    The movie is also a departure from the books, which have very sexual content, and I think part of the problem was you were trying to sell this as a sexy spy movie, and what you got was TGWDT meets TTSS. It was a bit of a bait and switch, and audiences, and even critics, hate that.  I remember some of the reviewers immediately going, "This is NOT a Black Widow or Atomic Blonde movie".  That indicates that the expectations weren't managed very well.

     

    Some are never going to agree, but when you take it all into consideration it's doing about as well as could be expected, and anyone who went to see it went for Jennifer Lawrence.  There's nothing else there to draw anyone to see it, the movies appeal if very limited beyond her being the star and giving a great performance.

     

     

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Firepower said:

    If you can't make your movie profitable, you're not worth 20 mln $. Period. JLaw is a great actress and maybe has some draw, but not enough to justifiy this kind of salary. She's not Jolie-level of draw at the peak of her career. There are many other great actresses with reasonable demands. And 40 mln $ version of Passengers with Keanu Reeves and Rachel McAdams would've made at least the same profit as JLaw-Pratt version, maybe even more with better movie.

    Allied, slow burn spy thriller, meh reviews, a little more romantic, not as off-putting content, Brad Pitt as the lead.  It did worse than Red Sparrow, and RS isn't even done with its run.  It cost $85M to make, and I'm sure Pitt got at least $20M.    She basically just out drew Brad Pitt who is one of the biggest male leads on the planet. 

     

    Also, Black Panther crushed everything at the box office the last month, and you have to take that into account since it impacted the entire domestic, and international, box office for the first three weeks RS was out. Every movie out during this period took a big hit.  Fox downgraded the OW from about $22M to the mid-teens based on the performance of BP. That's a big adjustment. 

     

    Have you seen it?  Why do you think people showed up for it?  To see Joel Edgarton?

     

    Did RS cost too much?  Yeah, I think it cost too much.  Should she have taken a little less upfront to ensure it would be profitable?  Maybe, but who knew it wouldn't get good reviews, and BP would devour everything in it's path?  Nobody. That's a gamble you always take.

     

    Are they maybe overestimating her drawing power?  Maybe.  I think she's a bigger draw when she stays closer to her HG/DOR type movies than when she goes way out on a limb, but she still is able to draw an audience regardless, just maybe not as a big as they thought.   It's a riskier game now too, Rotten Tomatoes makes it very hard to sell anything new if it doesn't get good reviews.

     

    I'm sure moving forward she's going to get less money for her projects, especially the riskier ones, and that's how it works, you get paid for what you produce.  But at the point she signed on the dotted line for Passengers and Red Sparrow her movies had done over $5 Billion, with a "B", at the box office and she was the biggest female star on the planet.

     

     

    • Like 1

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

    I think a lot of people don't find anything special about JLAW these days as she is simply well rather overhyped these days.

     

    In the past 4 years, her only performance of any note was in Joy. 

     

    American Hustle and Silver Linings feel like a long time ago.

     

    I am not arguing she is not talented and she is not a draw though.

     

     

    If you mean "special" as in public perception, then I agree, the bloom is a bit off the rose there, but she was lauded by critics for her performance in mother!.  Some thought she deserved an Oscar nom, she won, placed, or was at least on the long list, for many critics end of year awards.  The movie was just too out there to get any awards traction.  I think this one qualifies as a performance of note.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    So since the thread has devolved into an "I don't like JLaw" thread, I'll try to explain what's going on with her.

     

    Imagine, if you will, you're Jennifer Lawrence and you decided to take one of your friends out to dinner.  As you sit down you start to notice that everyone in the room is looking at you.  Next thing that happens is cell phones start to come out and they start taking your picture (how rude is that?!).  Then someone decides they are going to walk up and ask for a selfie, or autograph.

     

    What do you do now?

     

    In your mind she should smile pleasantly and give the fan what they want.  The problem with that is if she agrees she's now completely screwed.  Everyone sees that and what do you think happens next?  Yep, it's a stream of people wanting selfies, or whatever, from her.  She wouldn't even get to eat, or just enjoy a day out with her friend.

     

    This is exactly what is happening to her, and the people who are bold enough to do that to a celeb in public are also the most difficult to deal with.  They believe it's their right to bother you, (like apparently many people here do), and they aren't going to go away quietly.  The shutdown needs to be emphatic.  I know from past statements that she's tried politely and quietly shooing them away and it didn't work, so she had to move to the next level and do it loudly and firmly to send a message to the room. 

     

    She also said she's scared when people approach her in public, as I'm sure you can imagine some of these people are really creepy.

     

    So why did she take the unusual step of stating this publicly? I'm assuming the problem must have reached epidemic proportions with her and she went to the nuclear option in an attempt to make it stop.  She was beyond caring what people thought anymore.  I believe her thinking here is if I say it most people will get it and not approach me in public, then I don't have to be put in that uncomfortable position.  She said herself she doesn't like being rude, that's not the way she was raised, she doesn't like having to do it. She's just trying to make it stop.

     

    Was it a mistake?  Probably, since most people don't understand what it's like they just think she's being a jerk. Could it have been said better?  Yes, with an explanation like I've put here it might have been better understood. But she did it herself in her own clumsy way.  She doesn't have her publicists write her statements for her like most celebs, she does it all herself.  She's not very good at it sometimes, but I honestly think she's desperate.

     

    This is not unusual behavior for a celebrity, the unusual part is that the celebrity stated it publicly.  The internet is littered with stories about celebs who refuse selfies, and are rude to fans.  Charlize Theron.  Are you not going to her movies anymore? Just curious.  Have you stopped going to Russell Crowe movies?  Tom Hardy? Christian Bale  No?  Why is that? These guys are assholes.  Does the "I'm not going to their movies" thing only extend to people who admit they are rude to fans?  You're putting expectations on her you're not putting on other actors or actresses.  Margot Robbie recently talked about how her life changed after Suicide Squad.  She had to hire security, she's had stalkers, she's been frightened, and she doesn't have near the fan base JLaw does.  At some point she's going to have to start sending people away too.

     

    Look, like her, don't like her, don't go to her movies, whatever, that's your business. But are you really saying she doesn't have a right to get through dinner without being bothered?  Is she supposed to be a prisoner in her own house and never go out?  Is she supposed to feel scared all the time in public?  Just give this some thought.

     

     

    • Like 9

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted · Edited by ChrisTelclear

    7 hours ago, Firepower said:

    She got the same salary for Passengers + 20% from profit. Keanu Reeves & Rachel McAdams version costed 30-40 mln, when Weinstein Company was going to make it, and Sony's version with Lawrence and Pratt costed 3-4 times (!) more. That's embarrassing. Johnny Depp almost killed his carreer with crazy unreasonable salaries and the same thing can happen with Lawrence if she's going to continue like that. Big celebrities are responsible for their movies being flop too. Red Sparrow shouldn't cost 70 mln $, it's just not worth it, it could've costed and should've costed at least 1.5 times less. 20 mln $ salary for both Passengers and Red Sparrow is pure insanity. 

    We don't know what she really got for RS, it might have been $15M, we just don't know. But $20M was her quote at the time.

     

    Like has been said, you're selling something that doesn't have a natural appeal to a large audience, a hard R slow burn spy thriller.  You need an A-List talent to even get it made, and to sell it.  Allied is the best example of the same type of movie, and RS has out performed it across the board, and that was with Brad Pitt as the lead.  You're going to probably pay at least $10M for a lead actress in this case.  Would $59M really have made this that much more profitable?  Would you have sold as many tickets without JLaw as the lead?  Probably not.  I'll bet with a less salable actress you wind up in the exact same place.

     

    Let me put it this way, if you swapped Alicia Vikander and Jennifer Lawrence in their roles for RS and TR, what do you think would've happened?  I think we'd be looking at better box office for TR, and much lower for RS.  There's no comparison on the draw. For most people, prior to TR, she was "Alicia Who?".  

     

    Then there's Passengers.  That thing had awful reviews, yet it managed to make a profit in theaters, although much less than originally hoped.  It's also done very well in the secondary market, just a bit under $18M.  That's very good by today's standards.  She, and Pratt, were worth every penny they paid them.  Because without them Passengers bombs at the box office and loses money.

     

    I think the movie cost too much due to the location shooting.  If they had cut back, shot on some sound stages, maybe they could bring this in at $50M and they'd be looking at a small profit.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 3

    RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

    in Box Office Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

    under 50m domestic, what went wrong?

    Slow burn spy thrillers don't appeal to the general public anymore, especially with divisive reviews, they are going to struggle domestically. The hard R didn't help either.

     

    The overseas numbers have been pretty good, especially when you consider that it doesn't have China and Russia. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept