ChrisTelclear

This, and a boring family drama about the little known (Outside of QVC) inventor of a mop opening to $17M. This is probably a lock for a $10M opening based just on Aronofsky and JLaw fans.

Budget for this one is $13M per Forbes.

For the first time in a long time there are quite a few well reviewed movies out this weekend. That's a pleasant surprise.

I think that's very flawed. What are they basing that on? Every indicator I've seen indicates it will fly past $100M.

It's going to hit at least $120M. My local theater that has reserved seating was half sold as of last night. I think WW is going to be big.

Rotton Tomatoes flaw is there's no middle ground. Calling a movie that gets a 55 "Rotten" is harsh, and unfair. It's not rotten, it's just meh. This is where Metacritic got it right. If you notice a lot of rotten movies on RT fall into the mixed to average review category on MC, because MC has a middle rating. What RT should do is keep the ratings, but create a soft landing zone for movies in the middle. Perhaps as simple as just a score with no rotten associated with it, reserve the rotten designation for really bad movies, like those that score below 40. Of course none of this would've helped Baywatch or Pirates at they scored terribly, whether it was deserved or not. Another problem is that RT doesn't require all the critics to review based on the same scale. Some are using 5 stars, some 4, but whichever they use they all have to convert it to the 1-10 score. That's a tricky calculation and if not done fairly can create inconsistencies. I've seen a 3 out of 5 star review listed as Rotten, and then another 3 out of 5 listed as Fresh, and this is for the same movie! There's no quality control at the site at all, they need to clean up their act. I'm not sure it makes a huge difference, but you should still do a thorough job and make sure it all is done fairly. Don't kid yourselves, I'm hearing the complaining about RT from studios more and more lately. If things get bad enough the studios will attempt to bypass the critics, and for some movies it probably will work quite well. This is about money, and if it will help me sell tickets I'm doing it, I'm not going to worry about pissing off some critics who probably weren't going to like this type of movie anyway. In a world where the OW is where you make a lot of your money there is incentive to do just that, and the last thing anyone wants to see happen is to have film critics sidelined. RT should listen and take some steps to even out the playing field. Anyway, with some tweaks RT would be a quality tool for aggregating reviews. I never understood why the Fandango branch went along with posting the RT scores. Why would you post something that might hurt ticket sales when your job is to sell as many tickets as possible? It's like a mall posting Yelp scores at the entrances for restaurants in your mall. Why would anybody do that?

Always a possibility, but that's a lot of trouble to go to just to mess with people. That's also a man's art, I'm not sure he'd appreciate being just a marketing ploy. But hey, lot's of free publicity for his work.

Just when you thought we had final numbers, BOM updates their's with the following: Domestic: $100,014,699 33.0% + Foreign: $203,129,453 67.0% = Worldwide: $303,144,152

The real story is that D+ Cinemascore, and the 26% audience score on RT. Woo, that's baaaaaad.

Much much better release date. The movie has a chance to grab an audience now without too much heavy competition. It will probably be decent at a minimum, Francis Lawrence isn't Spielberg, but he's a solid director who doesn't make bad movies.

For those that think critics don't have agendas, I leave you with this article posted today on Vox about what they call Socially Conscious Criticism, which sounds an awful lot like a political agenda, but that's just me. Passengers is featured, and what it says is that the most important complaint was the morality of the storyline, not the movie itself. They also talk about GITS. http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/4/20/15179232/socially-conscious-criticism

Just to make it clear, I agree that it was not a great movie, the third act was really bad. I still can't understand where they came up with that.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly would have been more mysterious, and I'm intrigued by the concept, but he's making the assumption that the only problem people had with the movie was just the movie itself. In some cases that's a fact, people just didn't like it, but for a lot of the critics that labelled it as all sorts of evil, and that was a lot of critics, I think this version only makes that worse. If you make Jim truly creepy you would find Aurora's forgiveness even more unacceptable than it already is in their minds. Then the only fix would be him dying, or maybe choosing to go back into hibernation leaving him to die alone. Without showing how you end this version his entire premise is only half baked.

For some people, mostly critics and pundits, the fact Jim woke her up is the only thing that matters. How you position it in the movie doesn't change that at all, other then the fact you don't watch it happen. There was a buzz in the industry, and I had seen it written in some articles about the movie early in the production, that there was a "problem" with him waking her up. Remember, this script was out there for 9 years, everybody knew what was going to happen. I feel most critics went in with their knives sharpened, and the only thing that would've changed the reaction is Aurora killing Jim, leaving him to die in space, or maybe going back to hibernation at the end. Nothing short of that would've changed the outcome. I think a better executed movie would've helped a little bit, but not enough to raise it up to respectable ratings. This comment from the producer, Neil Moritz, shows that in testing these issues never came up. Which means this was mostly a concoction of the critics and press, not the general public. That's why the movie was able to recover and make some money, because while there were people who saw that didn't like it, none I know thought the accusations of rape, etc. were justified.

These are Johann Johannsson's credits. He's been nominated for two Oscar's, and won a Globe. I thought the score for Sicario was awesome, Arrival was good too. He may not be your cup of tea, but I wouldn't classify him as inferior. 2012 Mystery Winner – Golden Horse Awards for Best Original Film Score.[6] Nominated – Asian Film Awards for Best Composer. 2013 Prisoners 2014 The Theory of Everything Winner – Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score. Nominated – Academy Award for Best Original Score. Nominated – BAFTA Award for Best Film Music Nominated – Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media 2015 Sicario Nominated – Academy Award for Best Original Score. Nominated – BAFTA Award for Best Film Music 2016 Lovesong 2016 Arrival Nominated – Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score Nominated – BAFTA Award for Best Film Music. 2017 Blade Runner 2049 2017 mother!

Bardem states it "complicated" so there's something else going on there...

It's about done in Japan, it only added about $400k this last week. I think we're close to a final. My prediction is right at about $302M. It hit all its minimum marks for success. Better reviews, or at least less hostile ones, would've help it. Probably around $400M, $150 Dom, $250 OS.

Theatrical Performance Domestic Box Office $100,014,092 Details International Box Office $201,408,074 Details Worldwide Box Office $301,422,166 http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Passengers-(2016)#tab=box-office

The movie is over $300M, it went over about 2 weeks ago and Sony announced it at CinemaCon. The data above is the data on BOM, they haven't updated the OS total in like 3 weeks. Here's the The Numbers link: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Passengers-(2016)#tab=summary Theatrical Performance Domestic Box Office $100,005,122 International Box Office $201,408,074 Worldwide Box Office $301,413,196

The first one was ok, the second was marginally entertaining. Now it's just...ugh. They are just unwatchable.

You mean the same Denzel that rode Mag 7 to a loss at the box office? $162M WW with a $90M production cost. Oh, that had Pratt in it too, so much for his drawing power. Maybe it's Leo, then a few who can draw with the right situation.

Always need to be cautious with aggregated audience review sites. Between the SJW's, the fanboys, the Alt-Right, and whoever else has an ax to grind, you can wind up with major swings based on politics rather than actual movie watchers rating the movie. I usually trust that anything above a 60 on RT won't be unwatchable, although I have to admit that from time to time I've been burned using that measure.

http://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/

They may be using the latest numbers from Japan, that must be close to $2.5M at this point.

It's tough to say. I think the BOM numbers were low, but The-Numbers looked like a rough estimate, too conveniently even I'm going with BOM's numbers for now: $199,493,947