svenson
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by svenson
-
-
1 minute ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
Indeed. If Tomb Raider's reception was good then why didn't it pull a Game Night after opening weekend. It's not like there has been massive hit after massive hit released every weekend.
Not true. Vikander gets loads of praise. Even seen articles saying Tomb Raider finally found a great Lara Croft. Critics are also singing that song. The story is the only problem people have problems with. In a sequel that would not be the case. Its gonna be a new adventure they take her on.
-
1 minute ago, Alli said:
I think Jack Reacher definitely had potential as a franchise. The problem is that the second sucked and it dropped.
Yeah the 2nd one was piss
-
17 minutes ago, Barnack said:
I think that will change now that China sequel boost is down, second sequel are a bit rare to have a nice sample size (for a while many released when 3D occured + China, making it safer to growth).
The issue for TR growth is China reception, 6.4/10 on douban is quite low, lower than Last jedi 7.2:
https://movie.douban.com/subject/3445906/
Since 2016 second sequel international
grow:
Conjuring 2: 217.9 vs 182.1
Now you see me: 269.8 vs 234
Paddington: 196 vs 192
Guardian : 474 vs 440
Kingsman: 310 vs 286
Many didn't really grew adjusted for inflation here
Decline:
Neighbors: 52 vs 120
Snow white: 116.6 vs 241.3
Daddy home: 76 vs 92
Jack Reacher: 103.4 vs 138.3
Ninja Turtles: 163.6 vs 302.1
PRu: will see 212 vs 309 has of now
Alice Wonderland: well....
Greek wedding: well that a 14 year's wait
Not sure if Last Jedi count.
Ninja Turtles was a mini breakout OS and the sequel declined a lot.
i can understand Snow White decline. SW never had sequel potential they defeated the evil queen. Stewart was not there anymore. It was a completely different story. Daddy's Home never really screamed for a sequel neither did Neighbors or Jack Reacher. I believe Alice 2 was another movie that came out to late after the first one. Audience did not really like Turtles 1 and neither did critics could be a huge factor for declines.
-
5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:
Like I said, it definitely comes down to profit. There's valid reason to believe TR could have turned a nice profit given its budget to WW gross ratio, but as you said it's not hard evidence. If there is a nice profit though, I don't know why the sequel wouldn't get made. The movie was literally made with the intention of leading directly into a sequel. It's a different thing than a movie made with sequel potential, but let's wait and see how it does kind of thing. It was clearly already planned for TR to have a sequel when they made this one, so that's why if it also turned a profit it wouldn't make much sense for it not to happen.
Yep they always planned for this to become a franchise and now that this is well recieved and Vkander has been getting praise from both audience and critics it makes perfect sense to try and make this into a franchise with the first one pulling such good WW cume.
1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:That statement seems entirely unfounded. That's highly unusual for first sequels to drop across the board OS unless the first was already a flop or studios wait forever between installments (PRU). TR was a mini breakout OS. There should be only potential for growth there, regardless of what would happen DOM.
-
1 minute ago, narniadis said:
It is the point that what seems like a sure bet going in doesn't always pan out.... Of course Divergent has other issues, the lower box-office being the least of it's worries LOL.
A 2nd Tomb Raider in this new version will drop in gross across the board - there is no real incentive to make another one without halving the budget and that won't happen.
They can easily make another for 80-85 million. It could increase too plenty of sequels increased. You say you haven't seen it. Why not go out and see it ?
-
2 minutes ago, narniadis said:
Also - Considering that Divergent was left unfinished, in our day and age no sequel is ever guaranteed.
It had a budget of 100-110 million it made 179 million WW. Hardly a good comparison. Of course they pulled the plug with that one.
-
5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:
TR is an unusual case. Both sides are right here. Movies that make 3x+ their budget and set up a franchise almost always get a sequel. Movies that make sub 60m DOM and cost 90m+ almost never get a sequel. So which side wins? I think it's obvious: if the movie was comfortably profitable for WB they will go ahead with a sequel. And lol at Vikander leaving, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the extra push that gets it made since she seems pretty damn passionate about the role and crafting her character in the first.
So true they have finally found a good Lara Croft and Vikander definitely expressed returning as Lara and i think Daniel Wu and Nick Frost will return as well. Its also the best reviewed video game movie and best reviewed TR movie by far. Jolie's was trashed. This one is liked. It has so much going for it getting a franchise started here.
-
6 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:
Okay, cool. And for all we know, Tomb Raider had a bigger budget than it did. It's all speculation, so I'm going with what the studio's reported budget is.
Another one: Rings.
That movie was SAVAGED by critics 7% and audience 24%. TR is the best reviewed video game movie we have had yet and audience like it as well and want more. Nobody wants more from Rings lol.
-
3 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:
The Mummy
Actually no. Its unclear what the budget for that one was some are saying it was close to 200 million.
-
8 minutes ago, That Ambitious Guy said:
Could you please name a film that cost more than $90M, made less than $60M domestic, and got a sequel? The only example I can find is Chronicles of Riddick, and that came out 9 years later and had a third of the last film’s budget
Can you name a movie that set everything up for a franchise that made practically 3x its budget that didn't get a sequel ? America is not the world and yeah it could do better in another release window.
1 minute ago, harrycaul said:The main reason I believe there will be another TR is that while PR was competing for mindshare for its "giant robot" concept with a very well established juggernaut franchise, TR is the queen of "female Indiana Jones" as a concept. Any other take on it will be considered a Tomb Raider knockoff, which is the reverse of the PR situation.
I do think Vikander as Lara is in serious doubt. She didn't establish herself as Lara in the mind of the public, so she's still very easy to replace as Lara Croft 3.0
Vikander is staying for sure she was the core thing that was praised about this movie. Suddenly changing her would be right back to square one and a serious gamble not worth taking with the first practically making 3x its budget.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
Yeah, that cliffhanger is what keeps me focused on another movie.
yeah its all being set up. Its funny seeing these haters use PR as an excuse for the sequel to do bad. When PR cost way more it barely made 2x budget and it was a closed movie and they lost core cast and their critically praised director as well. TR is cheaper and its on 2.80x budget now plus its set up to more adventures and Vikander is not leaving. The sequel could definitely do better in a different release window and budget a little over 80-85 million too.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
I think they should make another Tomb Raider movie, BUT they really should make a good movie or it'll turn into Tomb Raider Uprising...
I think the 2nd one will be better they set up a nemisis for her now and she is out to stop the trinity and their evil plans also more Daniel Wu and Nick Frost.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, harrycaul said:
There will be another Tomb Raider film simply because the concept is too solid for Hollywood to let go. Who will be involved is another question entirely.
Vikander is perfect and she will be back. Audience were positively surprised and so was the critics. There is no reason to dump her when she was the mostly praised about TR. TR2 will have more adventure and action i think because the first was an origin story
-
7 minutes ago, John Marston said:
Tomb Raider is not a flop but I don’t know if it is successful enough for a sequel especially with the domestic freefall
It is and we are getting a sequel. A movie with now on 2.8x budget is a win to any studio its not like its made all its money in China either like some Warcraft or something like that. It will launch a franchise. Pretty much all agree that Vkander is fantastic and the only problem is the story for some. That they can make better in a follow up too. They can release it in the summer or December where movies have more legs because of the holidays. The sequel can cost 80-85 million thats a decent budget for an adventure action flick.
-
7 minutes ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:
Wedding Crashers, Bridesmaids, Cast Away, Signs, Django Unchained, The Revenant, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, Armageddon, Twister, Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, ET, Forrest Gump and many more.
So many great examples of large grossers that weren’t franchise-starters.
What the hell?? none of these was meant to be franchises at all. I mean what the fuck Cast Away??? Jango ??? Armageddon ??? Day after Tommorrow??? 2012 ??? Twister ??? WotW ??? ET ???? Gump ??? are you freakin serious with these movies
TR sets one up its on 2.80x budget now.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, baumer said:
But that's not entirely true. It will not make three times its budget. It will actually lose money if you go by domestic gross alone. And that's how it's been discussed since the dawn of time. If you want to use the WW gross, that's fine, but then you have to add the marketing budget and I'm pretty sure you can add another 100 million to the films budget. So it's not going to be in the black from theatrical alone.
Thats not true 2 weeks ago deadline said profit line is 270 million maybe even lower than that and that they are discussing making a sequel as well.
-
26 minutes ago, narniadis said:
So they said about Pacific Rim... sure it had a 2nd one....... and we all know how it turned out. Also the 2nd film is rarely cheaper because of raises for the cast / crew.
More lies. PR was a closed movie it changed cast and director. Also Many sequels are cheaper and gross more too. This one sets one up. People already campaign for another one because Vikander is fantastic as Lara. Find me a movie with 3x its budget that never got a sequel or started a franchise.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:
I Can Only Imagine is having a very impressive run. Tomb Raider could only imagine such good domestic numbers.
Domestic domestic yada yada yada. There is more to the World than America and ICOI will not even get close to what TR is on in WW cume.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, narniadis said:
Not the kind of gross you want for a franchise reboot / starter. Will it make a profit in the end, sure. But not enough.
Yes it will make enough. There will be more. They are not gonna scrap the Tomb Raider franchise also best reviewed video game movie. will make more than the first and close to 3x budget.
-
Just now, Zakiyyah6 said:
Tomb Raider won't lose money but like Pacific Rim it won't become a franchise either. If they make a second one it will predictably fall from the first and no more sequels will happen.
There will be another one. Book it. They have set it up for it to happen. They found a new Lara Croft. People like her. The 2nd can be cheaper. The 2nd one can increase too if released in the summer time
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, narniadis said:
I thought earlier that TR would have a chance at 300m WW but nope... should stall out around 280m... yikes
Yikes what ?? Its on 263 million now WW from a 94 million budget
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, aabattery said:
Disney + Fox had just over a third of the market between them last year. It's a lot and it probably shouldn't be allowed to go through.
This!
I hope some people higher up realize this.
-
2 minutes ago, AJG said:
Those are monopoly laws. The problem with this thinking is that even when Disney own Fox it won’t be a monopoly as there’s already multiple other companies making movies.
But they can’t compete with them because of all their established franchises. I see something very wrong with this. Also how are Disney gonna manage all these movies in the theaters when they as you say will still release FOX movies too on top of all these franchises Lucasfilm, MCU, Pixar soon Avatar, x-men, Alien ect. Are they gonna open these movies in the same week or a week after which will then practically cannibalize their own movies.
-
4 minutes ago, aabattery said:
There's no law against them being ahead every year.
I thought their were laws against something like this. That one big corporation owning so much while nobody can compete against them.
Weekend Thread | Estimates: AQP 50M, RP1 25M, CKBLK 21.4M, BP 8.4M,
in Numbers and Data
Posted
i agree the marketing cost for this could not have been huge.