Jump to content

andrewgr

Free Account
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Likes

About andrewgr

  • Rank
    Straight-to-DVD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just got back from a 7pm showing in Seattle, 2D Imax. The theater can't have been even 10% full, more like 5% probably. No idea why-- maybe 4th of July night shows are usually empty? In any event, just thought I'd pass along the datum.
  2. How is GvK a crossover? Are there actually people that are "fans" of Godzilla that see Godzilla movies, but don't care about Kong and won't go see his movies? Or the other way around? I don't see any way this can legitimately be labeled a crossover film. You either like Monster movies, or you don't. If you like them, you see the movies with the two most iconic monsters in the world. If you don't like them, you don't see any of them. You're not going to be magically adding a bunch of Godzilla fans together with a bunch of totally different Kong fans to get some noticably higher total.
  3. You are correct, I was wrong. I was sure they were waiting until Disney+ had it before letting anyone see it in any other form, but the more sure you are, the more wrong you can be.
  4. No, this isn't correct, and is one of the reasons I am predicting EG will have better late legs than IW. EG streaming will be exclusively on Disney+, which doens't even launch until November.
  5. I am predicting that EG will make less than IW did over the course of the next 2-3 weeks, but will surprise most of you by having longer legs. I think it will stay in theaters longer than IW, and I think it will make noticeably more money in its long tail than IW did. I'm going with $875M before its run is over, with much of the difference from the $850M or so that most are projecting being something like an extra $20M after week 10 or so. Week 10 on, IW made around $25M; I think EG pulls in like $45M. I have no numbers to back this up, and no movies to compare it to that had similar behavior. I'm basing it mostly on intuition. I won't be that disappointed if I'm wrong, it's a really great movie and has done really well at the Box Office regardless, but every now and then it's fun to play a hunch, and this is mine.
  6. Wow! I paid $21/ticket on both the 1st weekend and the 3rd weekend.
  7. Nah, you didn't rile me at all. What you said was perfectly legitimate, and you didn't say or imply that Keanu wasn't great in the role. I think we differ a bit on how the credit for the movies' success should be doled out, but there's no question that the director has a consistent, compelling vision, and is getting the most out of Keanu and the other actors. We're probably splitting hairs.
  8. I don't agree with this. Keanu put in a tremendous amount of effort learning martial arts and gunplay for this part, a level of effort beyond what I think most established stars would have been willing to put in. As a result, I think his performance is exceptionally good in the action sequences, which make up a large amount of screentime. Also, I think Keanu's relatively low-affect bearing and facial expressions lend the character a certain amount of gravitas and implaccability that I do not think many other actors would have tried for. When you look at the amount of emoting done by, say, the actors in the Fast & Furious franchise and imagine John Wick being played that way, it's an entirely different movie, and one which I would find much less compelling. I'm not going to claim that Keanu is the only person that could play this role, but I think you're being too skimpy on the credit he deserves. He's made this role his own, and I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that any random action star would have made this franchise the success that it is.
  9. That's a convenient prediction, it makes the math really easy. You said that this one was going to make $1B. So all we need to do is see how much this one makes, and we'll be able to reply the MrGlass2 Reality Filter (patent pending) to get an actual, plausible prediction: it's just whatever this one makes.
  10. 1. Endgame 2. JW3 . . . 3. Captain Marvel . . . . . . 4. Shazam And those are the only four movies I've bothered to see in the theater this year. If it's not something that's going to benefit from an iMax and/or an opening night, hyped up crowd, my wife and I will usually just wait for it to stream. Maybe we'll see a rom-com once a year just for a date night or something. Upcoming movies I know we'll see are SW9: TROS and FFH. I'll probably go on my own to see Joker, if I like the reviews. And I have a friend that wants to see Brightburn, though I almost never watch horror movies, so that's still iffy.
  11. If you use the 2.5x budget as your break even point, that includes all the ancillaries, including blu ray and streaming. That income is accounted for in the 2.5x budget rule of thumb: Start with a $150 million budget. Then factor in marketing budget. For a big studio special effects movie, that would often be over 30% of budget. So in this case, let's say another $50 million. That brings us to $200 million. The most the studio gets is 50% of ticket price, which is the norm in the U.S.; in other countries it's less, all the way down to 25% of ticket price in China. Without looking at the exact breakdown of where DP's revenue is coming from, let's just use the 40% rule of thumb. So DP needs to make a total of $500 million to break even. But the 2.5x rule of thumb says it needs $375 million to break even. What gives? It's that the 2.5x rule assumes that the movie will make up the $125 million difference with ancillary income, including product placement, streaming rights, blu-ray sales, etc. So if you're using 2.5x budget to estimate the break even point, it doesn't make sense to then claim it will do even better because of things like blu-ray sales; they're already factored in.
  12. My theory is Winston and Wick planned it. Wick was either wearing a bullet proof jacket and Winston was intentionally not shooting his head, or else he was shooting blanks. The fact that the guy was ready and waiting to quickly gather Wick up and take him to The Bowry King, who spoke as if he was expecting him, lends support to this. Then the question is, what about that ridiculously brutal fall? I think there are two possibilities. First, the film makers just messed up a bit and strained credulity too far by letting him survive; or second, that someone was ready and waiting to throw one of the many available corpses out a top floor window, while John was clinging to a ledge or whatever. This sets up new ground for JW4: with the world believing John to be dead or at least out of action (remember Winston "shot" him like 4 or 5 times before the fall), he could spend part or all of the next movie in unseen assassin mode, which would allow some new types of tension, action sequences, and world building.
  13. It's almost like you have no understanding of how numbers and percentages work. Like, none. EG made $146 million in its second weekend. For you or anyone else to use that as evidence that it had mediocre WOM because that was a certain percentage drop from OW is almost incromprehensible. It's third weekend, after already making $660 million, when the overwhelming majority of people who were really looking forward to seeing it had already done so in order to avoid spoilers, it made $63 million. I'm not sure how to phrase that so you actaully understand. In its 3rd weekend, after already having made $660 million, it still made another $63 million. I truly do not understand what could possibly be going through your head that allows you to see a number like $63 million and come to the conclusion, "Oh man, that thing has really mediocre WOM, only the hardcore fans are seeing it, it's so disappointing." My tentative hypothesis-- which seems to me to be pretty far fetched, but it's the best I've got-- is that you simply look at percentage numbers without understanding their context, or why they're so often used, or what they actually mean. Like someone who reads in an article that eating a certain food has been found to double your rate of some rare cancer and jumps to the conclusion that it's a dangerous carcenogen, when in reality it just moves the probability of getting that form of cancer from 1/600,000 to 1/300,000, and isn't worth sparing a second thought about. Like, "OMG, it doubles the rate of that rare form of cancer I can't pronounce, quick, get it all out of the house!" The percentage declines that EG is exhibiting mean that it's not going to hit the final totals that many people were predicting after its first weekend. That is a useful and interesting data point which can be used to help projecting movies that have many similarities to EG in the future. It shows the limitations of applying existing formulae and patterns to a new case that is so wildly different than all previous data, such as when a movie is so popular that theaters stay open 24 hours a day for 3 straight days and a movie grosses 39% more money opening weekend than any previous movie. And it is disappointing to people who were rooting for it to break some records it probably won't break. But it doesn't imply that the WOM was bad, or that audiences didn't like it as much as other movies that experienced smaller percentage week-to-week decreases, or anything of that kind, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
×
×
  • 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.