krla
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by krla
-
-
Just now, JustLurking said:
I'm going to point out that TGM's multiplier being 5.65 is just because of memorial day. Without that shift in demand to monday it would've opened similarly to JWD and end with something more like ~4.95x.
Not saying that's not great, but worth keeping in mind there.
There's also the possibility that if it wasn't a holiday weekend, that it would have had a smaller OW, but good WoM would have carried it to a similar gross, so its legs would actually be longer. If TGM hadn't lost its PLFs after the second weekend, it might have grossed tens of millions more. If there were nationwide powerouts on opening night, its legs may have been even longer. If Trump had won in 2020, he may have mandated every man, woman, and child, to watch TGM in theaters which would extend its legs even further. If Elon Musk was the CEO of Paramount he may have started calling the execs at IMAX pedos for taking away screens from TGM..
Avatar 2 should have, in theory, absolutely no issue surpassing TGM's multiplier. It'll hold most PLFs for a month or two; it has holidays ahead (though those saturdays may take a beating..), it has little competition, it seems to be positively received by critics and audiences. If it can't come close to that kind of multiplier, then I think the problem it faces is that theaters might start slashing showtimes. You can show Puss in Boots roughly twice in the same time span as Avatar 2. And the great thing about families is that they bring kids, and kids tend to be spoiled (especially at the movies), and spoiling a kid at the movies means buying highly inflated popcorn, drinks, and other snacks. I guarantee a theater will make more from showing Puss in Boots with only 20% of seats sold, compared to a sold out Avatar 2. And Puss in Boots may be the first kids movie since summer that will fill seats. It could be a real threat to Avatar.
-
-
7 hours ago, kayumanggi said:
Also from Deadline:
"Avatar: The Way of Water easily gets an A CinemaScore, the same grade as its first film 13 years ago. PostTrak is still 5 stars, 91% with men at 58%, women at 42%. Men over 25 are the biggest quad at 36% (89% grade), followed by women over 25 at 24% (93% grade), men under 25 at 21% (89% grade), and women under 25 at 19% (94% grade) — arguably a great hearty turnout for each demo. Diversity demo update on Comscore/Screen Engine’s PostTrak audience exits are 33% Caucasian, 27% Hispanic, 17% Black, 15% Asian and 8% Other."
Makes you wonder, are they increasing the diversity by appealing more to minorities, or by decreasing appeal to whites? Because the latter would suggest they left $40m+ on the table by not bringing out a more representative audience.
2 hours ago, Menor Reborn said:Edge of Tomorrow was very solid other than the ending, which I remember feeling like it was a copout.
I imagined a sequel in my head where Tom becomes the monster thing. He (inadvertently) starts turning humans into mind zombies, and the Emily Blunt eventually figures out it is Tom and has to find a way to kill him, and the monster, permanently. In the third film, we find out Tom actually got Benjamin Buttoned.
1 hour ago, Reddroast said:Bay's best work is pain and gain
One of the best performances from both Marky Mark and The Rock.
-
7 hours ago, Issac Newton said:
From Deadline Hollywood -
Critics on Rotten Tomatoes may have simmered to 79% fresh, however, audience reactions as polled by Comscore/Screen Engine’s Posttrak are through the roof at 5 stars, 91% ad 82% definite recommend. They’re numbers any studio would crave. Audience make-up was 89% general, 5% parents, and 6% kids under 12. Men turned out a bit more than women at 59% to 41%. The 18-34 crowd repped 61% of all ticket buyers last night. Those over 45 were 14%. Those under 25 repped 41%. That latter number is potent given how some were concerned how older skewing this property would be. Again, the older Avatar fans will find their way to this movie with the right seat, right format they desire. No one wants to rush to see this sequel and be stuck in a 10 A.M. front seat in 2D.
Diversity turnout was 35% Caucasian, 29% Latino and Hispanic, 15% Asian, and 13% Black.
Did they forget to market it to white people?
5 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:after the numbers come in i'd hate to be the Disney guy who has to ask "Jim please, can it be like 2:20 this time?"
"Can we split this into 4 films?"
-
3 hours ago, interiorgatordecorator said:
Read the blurb; as far as I understand theres nothing particularily wrong with the story, and it isnt any worse than those of other blockbusters; the movie is only a day old and im pretty sure the GA already believes the story sucks, lackluster might not mean bad, but thats how people will ready that.
That has to be really deadly.
Its almost unfair hows it been treated, not even JWD, with its 38 on MC got its story called out in the main blurb
Ignore the fact that 2 weeks ago I was on the 3 billion train, the way things around going, I would be overjoyed with 2 billion (and could find a way to cope with 1.5 billion)
I know im being a bit exhausting, but its been 13 years and its only in this final week that things began to go wrong
The story in the first sucked, but it still raked in the dough.
1 hour ago, AnDr3s said:Mr cameron come on
Wonder if he's going to try and turn A3 into 3-5, then the originally planned 4 and 5 will become 6&7. He might be worried A2 coming in below expectations will get sequels canned or have execs breathing down his neck, so he'll entice them with 3 films for the price of 1, and that'll get the studio on board, and off his back, for the OG 4&5.
-
17 minutes ago, CloneWars said:
Having seen this, I don't think it will be as well recieved as the first one. The film could have been 30 minutes shorter, and well, for a 3 hour plus film, not much happens honestly.
Though, I still think $450m Domestic. China will probably eat this up which will propel it past the original world wide.
This is what happens when creative types get little pushback from studios. JC had to make Terminator on a budget, and I remember him saying how he basically wrote it with that in mind, because what he really wanted wasn't feasible with the budget constraints. IIRC it would have basically been a completely different film. And he didn't initially want Arnold, since he wanted that character to be smaller and unassuming and blend in. With Titanic the studio came down on him when he blew past the budget, and he made some changes (I don't know what) and gave up his fee. Where did the external pressures on him come from with A2? He basically has a bunch of yes men around him. Luckily he's a genius, so he's not going to serve up a complete turd (which occasionally happens when directors are given too much rope).
11 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:Jokes aside, I'm pretty sure Deadline actually does have a Comscore source that can give them reliable data, though they sometimes choose to present that in a slanted way. Here, it looks like they're giving it straight, which is rare but not unheard of.
The slant would be framing this as a 7pm release in order to convince readers it is doing better than it is.
7 minutes ago, eXtacy said:If Batman can make 137m of 17m Thursday then Avatar 2 should be hitting 150m+. Its Saturday and Sunday should be much stronger and less frontloaded. Not seeing where the 130-140m projections come from.
If the bulk of viewing is in PLFs, then there's a false ceiling. So being backloaded basically just means it is selling all the PLFs it can, so there will naturally be a limit to the IM. I think roughly 80% of the first film came from 3d/imax. If we look at a film like Endgame, which made around $72m (?) in PLF/3d its OW, that's probably close to full capacity as you can get. Adjust ticket prices, add in a few bucks for more PLFs, then you have roughly 80% of what A2 might be able to bring in, if people avoid 2D. Though Endgame had a lot of theaters that ran screenings almost 24/7, whereas A2 doesn't seem to be getting that.
But this should help with its legs. If A2 is hitting a false ceiling, next weekend (and the weekdays) should have a really decent hold.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Brainbug said:
The question is did Avatar left a cultural impact or not
2 hours ago, adaros said:You spending your time on internet funny forum in 2022 asking about funny strange blue cat people CGI movie from 2009 that nobody remember is contender for cultural impact
Cultural impact is best observed through those who never saw the film. There are kids who have never watched Top Gun who quote the movie, even though they don't know that's where the quotes came from. They pick it up from others who did. And that's what cultural impact is. I'm sure there are plenty of examples with Avatar, like some clothing styles, music, or quotes permeating into the wider culture, but I can't think of any right now. Maybe papyrus?
14 minutes ago, Nikostar said:What are the odds of his just having avg legs. We are hoping it pulls an Avatar but that was 2009 and pre COVID. The Boxoffice landscape is completely different now.
I'd imagine the odds are small. It's holiday season, with no competition, and demand for PLFs will help stretch those legs. Reviews are good.
12 minutes ago, Porthos said:STOP CRIBBING OUR NOTES, DEADLINE!!!!!!
Deadline writer calls his source:
DL: "You got any good predictions for me? Is Avatar still looking at $200m+?"
Studio source: "Give me a minute" *checks bot tracking thread* "Looks like our internal tracking is showing a drop in predictions."
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, adaros said:
He never said he need 2B to break even, that's what clickbait articles said.
2 hours ago, stuart360 said:Yep he never said the 2bil thing, Variety said the 2bil thing.
The film needs around 1.2-1.3bil to break even, and thats basing it on 200-300mil marketing.
He'd said in GQ that it needs to be the third or fourth highest grossing film of all time. That's 2 billies. If he meant he'd said that years prior, then you also have to take into account that the costs for A2 increased a lot from then, and that dollars were worth more at that time. If you spend half a billion dollars over the course of 13 years making a movie, and then you earn that all back, you've lost money. And if the studios had to finance this with a single dollar of debt, then you're looking at an even deeper hole.
-
20 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:
I was debating whether to use that gif or
but I didn't want that to be recorded as my actual guess when I inevitably forgot to update later.
Should have gone with it. Tree fiddy has had more cultural impact than a vatar.
James Cameron Loch Ness film when? Loch Ne$$.
-
1
-
-
-
It'll be interesting to see if weather and world cup impact A2. Similar thing happened in '09, I think the studio blamed some NFL game, and there was a blizzard and power outs on the east coast.
I think things like that can help a bit, since it stretches the audience out and extends WoM. A big thing about marketing is getting your message seen over and over, in order to nudge people into getting it. With movies where the bulk of the built in audience is seeing it on OW, they'll talk about it for a couple days, and then WoM fades. But when that audience gets stretched out, it means that your average person gets exposed to people talking about it for weeks, which can bring out audiences that rarely hit theaters, which only further deepens WoM and lengthens those legs. So if Avatar 1 had had a completely unfettered OW, it may have ended up with a smaller gross. Another thing that helped Avatar extend its WoM was limited 3D screens. A2's runtime will limit the audience a bit, which could help elongate WoM. -
12 hours ago, Alexdube said:
it's the next best thing after Cats obviously
God I'd love a blue Taylor Swift. Still waiting for the butthole cut.
11 hours ago, Elessar said:Wasn't Cameron hesitating to put a song at the end of Titanic for fear of being corny?
Oh how times have changed...
Even Celine wasn't a fan of the song and didn't want to record it, lol.
Has James Cameron ever talked about the song or Celine? I've looked before and couldn't find him mentioning it.
-
6 hours ago, George Parr said:
People are confusing "some people complaing about stuff" with there being worse consequences than before. The idea that this has somehow gotten worse is absurd. Islamic writers in western countries have been faced with fatwas calling for the death for decades now. Salman Rushdie had to live in hiding and almost died from an attack on him. Monty Python faced criticism from all over the place, to the point that some of their movies were even banned in some western countries, but sure, you can't tell jokes you could tell back then anymore...
"Cancel culture" is mostly rubbish. A made up term by those who want to complain about stuff, mostly about society having changed in a way that the things they want to say aren't revered anymore.
Are there people who will complain about anything? Yes.
Are they somehow louder or more influential than in the past? Absolutely not.
The internet can amplifiy a bunch of people whining about stuff, but that's basically it. Most of the supposedly cancelled people haven't been cancelled at all. Though they do love to take a big tour through all shows and news channels talking about how they are prevented from talking, which is rather ironic. For the most part, complaints about cancel culture are more rampant than actual cancel culture.
Anyone who thinks that nowadays you can barely tell any darker joke while it was perfectly normal in the past hasn't paid any attention to the last century. Go and look back at the 50s, 60s, etc. you will be hard-pressed to find anything remotely edgy in any part of it. Heck, Elvis swinging his hips a bit got people up in arms. The whole period was uptied to the max, and that very much continued into the next few decades. Compared to that anything goes today.
Just because different jokes cause different reactions today, doesn't mean that there are somehow more jokes you can't tell now. All it really means, is that some topics appear differently today than they did in the past. And if you look at how tame and uptight the past has been, there is zero reason to assume that we somehow have an era of unprecedented complaining, on the contrary, the opposite is the case.
Funnily enough, those who complain the most about cancel culture tend to support political parties who stand the most for the repressed old view that didn't like jokes, had clearly defined gender roles (to put it nicely) and was about to call for a new crusade against anyone questioning christianity.
Cancel culture is great if you're already rich and famous and have a platform. But if you're a nobody who got fired because some random person tweets your employer, and your employer fires you, it's not like you're going to get much of a platform. Think about that Hispanic guy who was cracking his knuckles while driving. Someone took a photo of him in traffic, tweeted it to his employer saying the guy was making the "ok" sign, and his employer immediately fired him. But I guess you believe that's just "consequence culture." Losing your livelihood because of a single tweet. That's what you endorse?
Now imagine you're young and trying out comedy (or even older and trying out comedy). And if you say the wrong thing, some psycho is going to hunt down where you work during the day and get you fired. So now you've got to colour within the prescribed lines, or possibly face losing any chance at a career in comedy AND losing any job to support yourself, along with having the first google results for your name attached to headlines about how bigoted you are. But I guess that's just 'consequences'.
And let me guess, you're probably in favour of criminal justice reform. Some dude violently commits a hate crime, serves his time, and you'll be saying how that poor guy has repaid his debt to society, that jobs shouldn't be able to turn someone away for having a criminal record, how they should have all their rights restored. Someone tells and edgy joke and you're lining up to have them lose their job, get cut off the internet, to never be allowed to speak again, because 'consequences', and since there's no sentence, there's no time served, that person is stained forever.
OJ Simpson has a Twitter account. Convicted rapist Mike Tyson has a Twitter, a TV show, etc. But someone raps the n-word and they lose their scholarship. Quote rap lyrics on Twitter in the UK and you get charged with a hate crime. Crack your knuckles while driving the company truck and you get fired. Violently rape someone and you get welcomed back into society after you serve your time (if you're rich). Bet Brock Turner is doing well, while the poor utility worker who allegedly made the "OK" sign is still trying to get back on his feet.
Cancel culture will only affect the middle and lower class. When you justify it as 'consequences' in one breath, while acknowledging that the rich are basically unaffected, you're simply stating that you support a class war, and you're on the side of the rich. That you hate that regular people have rights that prevent them from being arbitrarily destroyed by the government, and that you want to use social culture to punish them, since you can't use the government to do it.
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Flopped said:
No, even worse, it was about grown men rimming.
Cannibals have a proven track record at the box office - Silence of the Lambs was #1 for 5 weeks straight.Men rimming?
Space Jam and White Men Can't Jump. Although Space Jam had more than just men (tapped into the furry audience), and White Men Can't Jump was interracial rimming.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Porthos said:
A somewhat important (and hopefully) not thread derailing addendum.
Discussions about census reports on Whites, Hispanics, and Whites (non-Hispanic) and the self-identification of said categories are... complicated and probably waaaaaay outside the normal remit of this thread.
But with something like BP2 it is probably somewhat on topic, so it should be noted that of the three cities, Wikipedia also has listed Denver as:
Problem is, they don't have the same breakdown for Whites for Sacto and Philly on their main pages, just the charts I mentioned.
If I cared enough, I could scour Wikipedia to find it, say by checking the demographic pages themselves. But when folks say that Denver is lily white, and cite the 81% number, that's right... But also not quite given the self-identification involved. And this isn't even touching differences in Hispanics from one region of the country to another.
All of this is to say: It's complicated.
Anything else is probably best left to Inceptionzq to comment on.
Youth demos play a big role for comic book movies. Denver youth are roughly 25% white, 13% black, 52% Hispanic, 3% Asian. Sacramento youth are roughly 17% white, 13% black, 40% Hispanic, 20% Asian.
If you ever look at demo breakdowns for various movies, you'll almost always see Asians are overrepresented. Though I can't find any breakdown for Black Panther that includes Asians. But this could be an explanation for the difference between Denver and Sacramento.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, ZeeSoh said:
Your budget does not include print and advertising budget which could be 100-150 for a movie with 200m budget. That would push breakeven point much higher. Other things that can reduce profit would be if any of the people involved (actors, director, etc) have a deal to receive a percentage of gross or profit. On the other hand a movie earns revenue from other sources other than theatrical such as PVOD/SVOD, BluRay and DVD, streaming, etc which will push theatrical breakeven point lower.
Another big revenue stream for comic book movies is merchandise. No idea how well Black Adam will do in that regard.
Same is true for kids movies. Pixar could hand out tickets for free and still make billions from their most popular franchises.
-
35 minutes ago, Legion By Night said:
Lol I don’t even have the terrifier max — @krla in with the 2.0
Would not be surprised if they score higher than me tbh, I just didn’t have the guts
I think this is my first derby. Every time I plan on entering, I figure I'll enter at the last minute, but then I forget. So I finally put in some predictions a day or so ago, and planned to tweak them, but never did, lol. The 2.0 was just a placeholder for "over 1.0", since I figured Terrifier 2 will do better than last week, but couldn't find theater counts or any grosses for this week.
Don't know what tea leaves I found my Halloween Ends prediction in (14m), but they might not be meant for drinking, lol.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Flopped said:
This is The Movie of the Year for my mom and she's def not buying advance tix online lol.
Similar to my mom. She's in her 60s, and the only movie she's gone to see in theaters in the past 20 years was Top Gun Maverick. She recently mentioned she wants to see Ticket to Paradise and (this blew me away) Black Adam (though she loves the Rock films, even that tower movie).
After Top Gun Maverick she did want to see Bullet Train in theaters, but my dad never took her. I think she's still a bit mad about that, lol.
-
17 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:
At this point, some cases it's theaters fault.
We know for months now that Netflix was looking for a wide theatrical release for Glass Onion with 30-45 days of exclusivity.
From what i've read, it's the exhibitors that are being extremelly difficult on the terms and making everything hard to close a deal.
The whole thing just looks like tantrum against Netflix at this point, since the exhibitors accept the ridiculous day-on-date for Halloween Ends and will screen the movie normally because "Universal was very supportive during the pandemic".
Why do you assume it is exhibitors being unreasonable? I can think of at least one sticking point that Netflix is unreasonable about; not releasing numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if exhibitors don't want to do wide releases where numbers aren't reported, because then the big studios will also want that (and probably to pick and choose, so they can hide their bombs, while using big numbers to promote their successes).
5 hours ago, AJG said:
It’s because they still go above and beyond to lock gay actors out of roles playing straight leads. How there’s 150 lead superhero roles and only 3 are played by an openly gay actor is wild to me.That's pretty close to being representative of the gay community. As for locking out gay actors.. Neil Patrick Harris is GAY and has played a ton of straight roles, including himself, lol.
1 hour ago, KC7 said:Maybe not to you, but it does mean something to plenty of people. And yes, the "they may not have been big movies" you breezed past is the entire point. There's a difference between gay stories--and gay love stories that aren't tragedies--only offered to a niche market in small arthouse theaters and home releases, and those stories being given the major push and release countless straight stories are. In other words, treated the same way and not just siloed to the LGBT audience. This movie wasn't intended to just be LGBT cinema for LGBT people. It's was an attempt at more authentic LGBT cinema for everyone.
I don't particularly care for Eichner and didn't love the premise, but I was still hoping for the best, even if I had a feeling that one of its best aspects is the same thing that would hold it back. So many gay men's stories these days are written by women or filtered through a female perspective. The aforementioned "Love Simon"? Based on a book by a woman. "Fire Island"? Transposed gay characters onto "Pride and Prejudice." (and even then there was that Twitter incident where a woman complained it failed the Bechdel test, until Alison Bechdel herself shot her down). The bestselling, film-adaptation-in-the-works "Red, White & Royal Blue"? Book written by a woman (or they may identify as nonbinary now). Netflix's much-gushed-over "Heartstopper"? Woman author. That dreadful "Single All the Way" movie on Netflix? Really a Lifetime/Hallmark movie swapping a gay couple for a straight one. For better or worse, Bros is a movie with a more authentic gay sensibility and perspective than is usually offered to a wider, not-just-LGBT audience these days (even if it's one specific type of gay man's experience--but specificity can be a very good thing in storytelling). It's not at all surprising it wouldn't have appeal to an audience that's more comfortable with a safer, less authentic take on gay men's lives and relationships.
I think a fundamental reason why LGBT movies don't get a wider audience like "straight stories" is because LGBT stories center entirely on sexuality (maybe not SO much for the T). If you take most of the top "straight" romcoms and romance films and swap the woman for a man (or swap the man for a woman), it wouldn't change the story. If you plop a woman into the lead in Bros, the story completely falls apart, because the story is about sexuality, not romance. It's a SexCom, not a RomCom. You can find plenty of straight SexComs, but they are typically aimed at teens, and usually involve actors playing teens. Apatow is great at adult SexComs. But the success of SexComs is that straight dudes aren't watching for the plot, and IF they are, it's because they are putting themselves into the shoes of one of the characters. So how can you appeal to a straight audience with a gay SexCom? They can't relate to the story, there's no eye candy. Jokes may be great, but you can watch gay standups without seeing a bunch of guys giving a blowjob (that scene in the trailer is why I didn't see the film; too raunchy for me).
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, AJG said:
I wouldn’t call it cynicism but more of a “we know how the sausage gets made” situation. We know enough to know those old viral jump scare pranks they used to do would always be scripted or somewhat scripted, so why bother?
We also have news media far less willing to report on these things at face value after a couple of high profile misfires that inadvertently put their reporting into question (remember the VoltsWagen prank debacle?)The viral marketing that might work great is showing how the sausage is made. Like with the Minions suit meme, have someone "secretly" recording and leak a meeting of executives as they try and figure out what the meme means and how to leverage that into a viral campaign of their own, but all their ideas are crap. But then actually follow through with the crap ideas and watch as they do go viral. lol
-
5 hours ago, Borobudur said:
Avatar 2's leg will be heavily boosted by those who watch in 2D, coming back to see it in 3D.
This sort of happened with the first one, but mostly because of a lack of 3D screens. I don't think that'll be an issue this time. Maybe for IMAX, but Avatar isn't going to hold onto those for long, whereas the original basically had free reign over all 3D screens for months.
1 hour ago, grim22 said:Good point about Avatar popularity. It's broadly popular as a spectacle but not as a discussion piece. It's something people will show up for to experience it but they aren't going to start developing theories on how unobtainium works exactly
The original Top Gun had massive cultural impact, to the point that people who had never seen the movie would quote lines from it. That definitely helps Top Gun: Maverick. But I don't think TGM's cultural impact is very significant. It was a very 'safe' movie. In a way, the original Avatar was similarly 'safe'.
Also, Avatar has an extensive lore, it's own language, essentially a pokedex of all the animals and stuff living there. I think that may have been a bit of a reason why it isn't popular with fanfic and such, because there isn't much left to build on, and the movies didn't have strong characters to build off of.
I'm surprised there isn't more furry stuff, though.. lol
-
15 hours ago, Valonqar said:
People changed habits too. They are now more selective what to catch in theaters and what to wait for on streaming. Might revert to old habit later but right now it seems to be the case. Not to mention that some streaming movies turned into bigger deal than theatrical releases. Prey, for example, was big and got people talk about it more than whatever was released around that time. Also, streaming shows. Stranger Things, House of the Dragon were/are massive, LOTR:ROP will most likely keep a lot of people at home as well.
For all we know, if Prey was released theatrically, it would have bombed. I've noticed that the movies that seem to do well in theaters (other than Minions) has little impact on online conversations, whereas movies and shows on streaming are prominent in online discussions. I don't think I've seen Top Gun mentioned outside of movie forums/subs.
It's kind of like network TV. I haven't seen a major prime time show brought up casually online, outside of specific forums/subs for TV or those shows. NCIS, FBI, The Equalizer, This is Us, Blue Bloods, Law & Order SVU, etc, basically don't exist online. And it's kind of funny, because a ton of those shows basically celebrate dirty cops and police brutality, you'd think they would have been a topic of conversation in the past 2 years, but crickets.
Other than Marvel and Minions, I've seen little mention of films in general online discourse, unless it's "political." Only mentions I saw of Fantastic Beasts were because of the controversy around JK Rowling. Lightyear only got mentioned because of a kiss. Flops and bombs seem to make great fodder for online conversations. I've seen them talked about more than films like Elvis, Where the Crawdads Sing or Everything Everywhere.
But shows originally released on streaming have far more online discussion. I've read more talk about She-Hulk in the past couple days than I have about Thor and Strange this entire summer. I've seen Prey talked about more than Top Gun.
The average online commenter, imo, is unlikely to watch anything in theaters, with the exception of MCU.
I think the pandemic caused a great shift. Those who don't leave their homes are terminally online, have a bigger impact on the conversation, and only really get entertainment through streaming. Those who go to theaters are less likely to be online, less likely to comment, and if they do, they aren't spending hours online each day.
-
5
-
-
Did Mack & Rita get pulled from theaters? Basically performed like Jem...
-
2 hours ago, Valonqar said:
and 10/10 are shills so that balances it out. If that's how you want yo play. why would 10/10 be more genuine than 1/10? both are sus for different reasons. I can believe in under 10/10s and over 1/10s but only dimissing 1/10 but never 10/10 is bull.When I look at reviews, I typically checkout the 2-9 scores, since it removes all stans and haters. Even on product reviews (like Amazon) I'll focus on the 2-4 range, and read those reviews, since 5s are easily paid for, and 1s could be a bad experience completely irrelevant to the product. I wish sites would give more weight to 2s and 9s (or 2s and 4s), but many promote a culture of leaving the highest (or lowest) score.
Another method would be to have the score you see be customized, based on what people similar to you thought. I believe that's how Netflix's old rating system worked. If you liked something, they'd recommend things that other people who liked that also liked. But then people would post scores showing low recommendations for things, and that's bad PR (see the Amy Schumer thing) and they changed it.
There used to be a browser extension called 'Heirloom' which would take the scores you'd leave on RT, then basically find critics that have similar taste, and reweight the tomato scores. That was beautiful and amazing. I really miss it. Don't know why it ever disappeared.
A2 WEEKEND THREAD | 134.1M DOM OW | Thurs 17m / Fri 36m / Sat 45m / Sun 36m
in Numbers and Data
Posted
This was likely the case with A1 and 3D, and a big contributor to its legs, as well as basically putting a false (or hidden) ceiling on the maximum gross it could make, which is also probably why its second weekend had such a great hold.
If we get a similar situation with A2, it should have great legs, as well. I think its Monday drop will tell us a lot about whether it is PLFs capacity limiting the gross or not.
If it turns out to be the case, and A2 legs it, it'll be interesting to see what happens with A3. If other studios don't clear a path for it, and A3 has to give up PLFs after 2-4 weeks, then that may spell the beginning of the end. Unless Cameron can come up with a new technology that theaters have to put in, which will basically guarantee A3 screens for months. 3D without glasses could be that.
Or theaters start increasing capacity for PLFs in order to meet demand. But then Avatar might just play like a CBM, since it wouldn't have that false ceiling, and demand can easily be met (unless he makes A3 even longer than A2..., James Cameron be like "The new tech I'm bringing to theaters for A3? INTERMISSIONS"). Anyways, I have a personal belief that a movie being heavily frontloaded hurts its gross, because most WoM fizzles out after a week or two. Most marketing succeeds when people are repeatedly exposed to something, and the best marketing is hearing from someone you know. If the demand is spread out, then people who are unlikely to hit theaters are going to be more exposed to WoM over a greater length of time, which will increase the chance they go out, which further extends WoM. I think James Cameron has benefited the most from this.
Theaters could stay open for longer hours (like with Endgame), but I doubt they see much reason in increasing their expenses to basically run a couple PLF screens for an extra showing. They are probably just hoping that excess capacity flows into 2D or regular 3D, or that A2 will help keep them afloat until February/March.