PlatnumRoyce

I might take the under on that. Dune was a crazy outlier in 2021 with a reported $14.41. If you just apply a normal ATP inflation adjustment (11.25?/10.17) you get $15.87

Because Black Panther's a top 10 grossing film of 2018, it's final posttrak numbers were published in MPAA theme report * 36% caucasian, 35% black, 18% hispanic, 6% asian, 5% other Posttrak only polls the first 2 weekends of a film so you can weight weekend 1 and 2 to come out with implied second weekend audience composition. Checking methodology at end of link, there might be a more fixed wk1 to wk2 ratio so (min sample discussion) I'll probably do it but not until some point in the midweek. https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MPAA-THEME-Report-2018.pdf

Yeah, but Elvis' extended box office run still only placed it, in terms of tickets sold, at about 70% of Walk the Line & Compton and around the film Ray. Still a very solid hit but it's numbers have been oversold somewhat.

Thursday night postrak data's come in * 5 stars across parents, kids and [non-parent or kid audiences]^1 * 91.75% positive reviews among all audiences. * The [non-parent or kid audiences] recommended the film at an 83% rate. Given point 5 stars from both parents and kids, and the fact that they're only going to make up at most 1/4th of OD box office, overall %Recommended is going to be some number in 81/82 range. It's probably going to decline a little bit but this looks like its in great shape for audience scores even with regression. That really does place it in A+ reception crowd (even if some films in that range, like Ragnarök only got an A score) a/k/a top 10/15 anecdotes deadline's dropped about postrak % recommended. 91% positive is similarly high (22nd-26th highest) films at or above that metric in similar genre: Rogue One (4.5/91/77), Shang-Chi (5/91/78), Endgame (5/92/85), Jungle book (92% positive), Incredibles 2 (5/93/83), Woman King (95% positive), Black Panther (5/95/88), Avatar's re-release (95/88), Top Gun Maverick (5/96/84), No Way Home (5/96/91), Deadpool (97/88) ^1 posttrak calling this audience "general audience" is just intentionally confusing.

I know everyone's talking about Black Panther, but does anyone have any data on fanthom's showing of the Chosen that's going wide next weekend? It seems like the answer is no (only search mentions I found was for boxofficepro's long term forecasts which don't include a projection) but is that an oversight by people, randomness in showings or something inherent in how this sort of rollout works? It obviously would lack many good comps (especially with non theatrical event showings) but I want to get my head around that film's baselines. If it replicates last year's special event's 9M OW (using hollywood preview rules), it would seemingly have a 50/50 shot to finish second to Black Panther 2 next weekend. Probably not happening but it's a weird outlier story that no one seems to be talking about.

In Posttrak's dumb lingo, "general audience" score doesn't mean "audience score" it means the cross tab of something like "not-parent or kid rating." Take a look at how deadline described HTTYD for proof The ‘A’ CinemaScore and ComScore/Screen Engine PostTrak polls are proof of that: 5 stars from general audiences (90% overall), 5 stars from parents (93%) and 4 1/2 stars from kids under 12 (92%). Overall audience make-up here is 52% general audience, 34% kids, and 14% parents. - https://deadline.com/2019/02/weekend-box-office-how-to-train-your-dragon-dwayne-johnson-fighting-with-my-family-1202562635/ So we have "Kids gave it an high marks (4.5 stars?), non parents or kids gave it 4 stars and parents gave it ??? Perhaps it averages out to 4 stars but it's just a suspicious framing. on this topic, there are ~18/100 films this year with explicit posttrak data including what I'd consider unambiguous star ratings (i.e. I wouldn't include BA), ~71 w/ recommend #s, and ~65 with % positive

reading between the lines, this is at 3.5 stars on posttrak and high 70s % positive which places it in range of Thor 4 (3.5/77) and something like Alita Battle Angel (another film that went out of its way to give real numbers) or Eternals (3.5/78%positive/60% recommend) remember "general audience" = non family audience so not the same as an overall star grade

Does it at all matter for Smile that the "earned media" box office coverage ended up being 90% discussion of Bros flopping instead of Smile's great box office numbers and word of mouth? Anyone ever investigated something like this? That's probably an exaggeration but Bros' statements gained traction as controversy of the week.

While praising Bros' cinemascore, director Nicholas Stoller revealed that the film (1) tested same with straight and gay audiences and (2) tested best with female audiences. - Not really all that significant (especially without knowing test scores raw numbers) but it's a stray data anecdote I haven't seen people mention.

A Bad Mom's Christmas - 68% positive 54% recommend Bad Santa 2 - 69% positive 51% recommended Gold - 67% positive Neighbors 2 - 67% positive 45% recommended The Predator (2018) - 3 stars - 66% positive - 52% recommend Bodies Bodies Bodies - 3stars - 63% positive Superfly - 3stars/68 Charlies Angels - 3/69/46 Dark Phoenix - 3/69/49 Bloodshot - 3 stars ? positive / 45% recommended 47 Meters Down 2 - 3 stars / 52% positive original 47 Meters Down - 66% positive Moonfall - 66% positive / 49% recommend Allegiant - 69/51 Hardcore Henry 68/53 these may vary from "final" posttrak numbers as they're scrapped from public anecdotes in trades.

First paragraph is pretty concise and second one is just responding to your shitty behavior that seemingly only exists to get a rise out of me. At least I'm wasting my time trying to spark good faith engagement instead of wasting my time trying to troll someone over nerdy weekday box office numbers discussion. As I said in one of those reddit comments "I never do daily weekday tracking so this is mostly me shrugging my shoulders." I'm just pulling September ~19M OW films and eyeballing what looks like a similar run. I'm definitely open to being wrong, just tell me where's the beef.

OK...but what's missing is a substantive argument against the hypothesis. Can you provide one? I just pulled opening week daily grosses of 10 or so films released withing a week or two of this film and looked at their daily grosses. I feel like I've been pretty open about what I do and don't know about well these comps fit but the data's story seems pretty simple to me. It looks like Ad Astra not Contagion. Beyond that, I'm not really sure how to engage with this lazy dunk. I'm not claiming it's pretty deep analysis, but its a pretty conceptually simple argument that just boils down to pulling comps. Not sure why the place I chose to post it first matters? I'd love to get someone else's thoughts on the matter. It's a film with a lot of interesting and anomalous aspects. Seems worth having at least one page of discussion for the film's daily numbers given people seem to squeeze out a dozen for a random blockbuster. My main point is simply that TWK's daily grosses are worth discussing and I'm attempting to jump start discussion.

perhaps. My thoughts were more that the insane level of praise for the film's 19M OW either implicitly or explicitly implied if not out of this world legs than at least 75th percentile ones. Sort of early to discuss but what else is really on the docket?

No one's going to talk about the sneaky bad first week numbers for Woman King? Looking more like a 50-60M Domestic grosser than something that's going to ride tippy top marks to 75M or above.

That's also why I'm not so sure this is as minimal of a deal as others are implying. If there's nothing else going on, this is a pretty weird sounding thing to press felony charges on unless there's more to the story. This would imply the story isn't Miller raiding a friend's liquor cabinet while he's away. Was taking alcohol the point of the excursion or a side effect of it? I don't really see how this stuff provides much clarity (and paradoxically, I really don't want to know - these are real world human interpersonal conflicts not celebrity fluff. Being a gawker isn't a positive term).

Comscore estimates ATP was 10.17 in 2021 so add 9% on top of that and you're looking at a ~22% increase over 2017 prices. My back of envelope exchange rate/inflation "hold tickets sold steady" adjustment has Thor:Ragnarok at 732M WW in the same markets as L&T minus Hong Kong, Taiwan and 3 smaller eastern european nations so let's say the mark to tie Ragnarok is ~740M WW. I don't know if it's something to brag about, but it's still semi-analogous to Iron Man 2: weaker reception to a breakout hit leading to roughly the same numbers overall.

You say that, but take another look at the last 14 years of Sandra Bullock's filmography. * Lost City * Bird Box * Unforgivable [neither are box office films but they both place in top 10 Netflix films of all time as of 2021 unadjusted for changes in netflix size] * Ocean's 8 * Gravity * The Heat * The Blind Side * The Proposal She's elevating mediocre films and having good films break out constantly. She's consistently working and demonstrating the box office pull people assume Brad Pitt brings. downside * Our Brand is Crisis - "in a rare move, Warner Bros took the blame, instead of the star. We’re of course talking about Sandra Bullock’s $30M-budgeted political comedy Our Brand Is Crisis, whose shaky Toronto International Film Festival reviews signaled problems early on, culminating in what became the actress’ worst wide opening of her career at $3.2M, saddled with a C+ CinemaScore by moviegoers and a 33% Rotten rating. On Saturday, Warner Bros. worldwide head of distribution/marketing Sue Kroll said to Deadline: “The weekend results for Our Brand Is Crisis are upsetting. The film was truly a collaboration between the studio and the filmmakers, and Sandy’s performance is terrific in this film. We cherish our relationship with her. Ultimately, neither the concept of the story, nor the campaign connected with moviegoers.” (from deadline) * I'm treating "Bad and offensive 9/11 movie that somehow got a best picture nomination" as a push * All About Steve

. I ran a quick and dirty version of this (inflation & exchange rates on each film's Opening Day + general CPI data for each territory between 2017 and 2021 & YoY inflation for June 2021-june 2022) for territories where both properties have opened and found L&T to be ~5% above Ragnarok.

What am I missing? My back of the envelope attempts to place Thor:Love and Thunder's opening on the same grounds as Ragnarok, suggests they had functionally identical aggregate openings in non-missing markets. Ragnarok had more markets and didn't come close to sniffing 1B. Did Ragnarok have a worse environment than I remember?

Thor 4's opening being functionally equal to Ragnarok after adjustments (+~5% for L&T's WW opening in same markets). That's not a bad place to be but I'm not sure I'd champion it as some sort of victory. Seems more like the absence of a story either way than a real positive or negative thing.

I don't think these are bullet proof numbers but (1) House of Gucci's vRT% isn't out of wack with the films vRT% (if anything it's low given that HoG was clearly a box office hit given release circumstances for adult films). and (2) if you just searched twitter for "verified rotten tomatoes" you saw chatter actively telling fans purchasing tickets (so perhaps a counter-balancing effect?) and give a verified rating for that film in a way I didn't see replicated for other films. You can probably do some sort of quick social media trends search to see if people are trying to exploit the number. However, I think the obvious explanation for discrepancies remains implict demographics of voters versus film audience "fandom energy" is already a clear source of error for these polls but they're mostly pretty good at reflecting cinemascore.

Shouldn't they be low by design? It seems designed to miss extreme events in favor of nailing normal ones. Based on their weekly posts, the numbers' formula also appears to (1) generate the closest 10? comps (2) grab the *median* OW gross of those films to extrapolate from (3) pull pandemic effects/theatrical release size variables and (4) throw in presale tracking. plus (5) some sort of legs analysis missing from opening weekend prediction descriptions.

The intended analogy is to the sources they're adapting. Instead of adapting that stuff Tolkien's son continued to collect and refine (people really should check out those published books), they're technically extrapolating 5 pages from Return of the King - Appendix A - The Numenorian Kings, plus <10 pages "On Durin's Folk," a series of 1 line annals entries comprising Appendix B and some stray references Tolkien inserts into Aragorn or Elrond's mouth. They're obviously going to fake it to some degree and pull inspirations from the wider corpus but they're still working from cliffnotes here. Christopher Tolkien could stitch those first age stories together because they're the actual stories Tolkien focused on for significant portions of time throughout the years. There's a significant chunk of those stories written that you could hypothetically adapt from and instead they're going the fantastic beasts route.

I still find the core concept funny. in the last decade we've seen Tolkien's son re-adapt and re-release 3 epic stories with strong characters and stirring set piece battles. Thus they're adapting...the thing they chose because "young aragorn" fell apart based on the "faction" that never really made a whole lot of sense. They're both adapting almost nothing into a prequel and condensing thousands of years into 10? I know the reason is lack of rights but it still sounds just inherently stupid.

I'm struggling to think of people who came off well in the the weekend thread's various kerfuffles. Just embarrassing and aggravating stuff all around. Seems like people wanted to beat a dead horse instead of following Paul Anka's guarantee.