doctoru2

Wow... what's all this hate for TA? Is it because the movie you like isn't doing as well as you hoped, so you lash out at someone else's movie?Each film should be judged on it's own. In terms of superhero flicks, sorry, TA is one of, if not the best made. Certainly it's the best ensemble to date (IMO).I have yet to see Prometheus, but the marketing makes it seem like Alien - kind of a sci-fi horror flick. Even if the movie is much more, audiences only have the trailer. And there is a limited audience for that type of film. For it to make over $50M is impressive. I hope the WOM becomes positive as it may drive more people to see it. But this attacking of one film over another is silly.

I do as well. Especially if I want to quote a number here. Usually my memory is pretty good on these things, but it always helps to double check and not look the fool. I do recall looking at box office numbers in the paper in the 80's, but again, it wasn't until the 'net and the 90's when such tracking was easily done. Then daily tracking (not sure when that kicked in, but it is drool-worthy).

And what a good time to join. As I wrote in my post, "The Avengers" offered one of the box office's biggest moments. And once you become a box office fan, you start looking at all the other films. I hope they are going to the various sites to do their homework (boxofficemojo still has so much information!).

You have me beat by just a bit. I looked loosely at box office receipts previously, but sometime in the mid-90's (around '93/'94), when all the information was readily accessible on the 'net, did I really get hooked. I recalled playing many games on the Mr. Showbiz site and even winning some movie posters from them (for their weekly game). I was so proud when I'd crack the top 100 in one of their winter or summer "studio" games (where you'd buy and sell movies like stock - hoping to gain extra cash - then stick with certain films' real life grosses for your final score). While there are many impressive box office moments over the years (good and bad), there are three that really stand out. [*]The first was with "Titanic". "Titanic" cost an astounding $200M. When it only opened to a little over $28M its first weekend, some wondered if there would be a huge loss. $200M is still a lot now and it was a vast fortune then. But the legs on that film were incredible - I hadn't witnessed that ever. The 80's films had legs for a different reason (theater count), but no film made those types of weekly grosses month after month. [*]The second impressive moment was with "Spider-Man" when it made over $114M in just 3 days in 2002. This was still an era where $100M was considered a fantastic gross for many films. When its second weekend was over $70M, an amount I figured it might make its first weekend, I knew a new era in the box office was now possible. [*]The last "wow moment" is with "The Avengers". Analogous to "Spider-Man", the $200M+ first weekend and $100M+ second weekend issues in yet another era in the box office. It will be interesting to see where things go from here. When "Titanic" settled its initial run with over $600M, I didn't think any film could get that again. Even the "Star Wars" prequels couldn't challenge it. But then came "Avatar" and now "Avengers". It's clear that when something is spectacular, audiences will come.

I guess, but as soon as I saw that the studio predicted a VERY soft 16% drop for Monday - in order to get $70M - I knew the real numbers would be lower. Studios estimated about a 23% Monday drop for all the other films in the Top 5, and I imagine that will be true for MIB3 too. The $70M number was just a nice number to have reported in the press - far better than $68M+ (although $69M could have been slightly humorous). Sure, children will enjoy it. However, a good movie knows how to expand on that audience. This is why many cartoons - like "Toy Story" - are also beloved by adults. The movie may be meant for children, but it's entertaining for adults. And with these types of grosses, it's clear that adults are seeing this movie in droves, along with repeated viewings by kids.If any movie is REALLY meant for kids this past weekend, I'd say it was MIB3. The silly humor of Smith always appeals to kids (I never found him that funny).

Really?This theater is still showing "Hunger Games" on one screen, while many other big chains have dropped it. Also, it's showing "Moonrise Kingdom" - a film that is on a slow role out across the U.S. - on 2 screens! Most theater chains will not have that film (at least not yet).Even with that, both MIB3 and TA are showing on 3 screens in that theater - the big difference is that MIB3 will have two 3D screens. That may not be true for many theaters. Given how well TA has performed on the weekends and given that this is also Memorial Day weekend, I also guess that TA may even still show in one of the bigger screens in many theaters (one for TA, one for MIB3). Hence, for this weekend, I don't think theater or screen count will impact TA that much. And given that the first weeken of June is also a slower time for releases, I imagine counts won't change much then either. It'll be the second weekend of June where TA will probably take its biggest hit in screen count.

I agree with this, but I would also add in "Toy Story 3" (not lame at all). I liked the "Pirates" movies, but my favorite was the first and that didn't make anywhere near $1B.

That's because he was using some silly "golden horn". He should have used a magic conch shell. My shell tells me to "do nothing - the numbers will come".

I thought he was funny before he looked like an earth-bound god. I recall this silly movie he did with another actor who has great abs and smile - Matthew Lawrence - called "Big Monster on Campus". You might catch it on TV around Halloween time. Even then Reynolds was funny (as was Lawrence). I also remember him on that "Pizza Place" show. He was good - too bad the scripts weren't.

You know, he could be. Pitt had some big bombs in his career. For example, "Cool World" was supposed to be a big breakthrough for him, but bombed pathetically (and it cost a fortune - at that time). Some argued that "Troy" only grossed a fraction of what was originally estimated (more like $180-200M domestic, not $130M), Let's not forget about "Meet Joe Black", "Seven Years in Tibet", "The Devil's Own","Spy Game", "Sinbad", "Fight Club", and "Happy Feet 2". All of those were either flat out bombs or were projected to do far better than they did. Despite all of that, Pitt is considered a success - partly due to his overseas appeal and because of the hits he has generated. JC and BS may have bombed here, but both have grossed over $200M internationally. So... I don't care about Kitsch - I never even watched "Friday Night Lights". But I often feel way too much credit is given to an actor when a film is successful. Conversely, the actor takes too much blame as well. In reality, few times can an actor really take credit. For example, Downey Jr. deserves tons of credit for the success of "Iron Man" and the films that followed (same with "Sherlock Homes"). But does anyone really credit Shia LaBeouf with the success of the "Transformers" films?

I agree with that - NOTHING can justfiy his actions. However, the question is why did she return? As you and I do not know all of the answers, we can only wish them the best. Just remember, we are people that would not tolerate such abuse from anyone. But many have had abuse their whole lives - for them, this is normal. Hence the therapy part.

Depp had only one $100M grossing film prior to "Pirates" ("Sleepy Hollow"). Granted, most of Depp's films did not cost $250M, but that is hardly Kitsch's fault. Plus, it's not as if that budget was due to his salary (whch was probably rather low). While Kitsch may take some heat for JC, I have a feeling BS will not be on his shoulders as their are far bigger names associated with that project. Plus, as others pointed out, Kitsch already has upcoming projects. Even if he does bomb out, TV roles or modeling are still options.Not sure why you hate him - he seems somewhat innocuous as an actor thus far. He is trying to break out and it can be with any film. However, as with anything in Hollywood, one is only as good as their last film. Look at Cohen - tons of love for "Borat", but now people question his ability to bring in an audience. Some are even wondering if the Depp name is now tarnished.

Just wanted to add a tidbit to your strong post. Some men can be intimidated just as women are. And some women beat with a lot more than handslaps or punches, just like men do. And since some men feel they can never hit a woman, she may slug them with wrenches and other things, causing serious damage. More and more men are reporting abuse by women (it's still consider "weak" for a man to do this, but it is changing). Why stay in an abusive relationship? There are many, many reasons why people justify their actions. None are good, and all requre therapy. I hope in this more famous case, both parties are getting the help they need. With regards to the Friday numbers, I felt TA did just fine. I was expecting a $50M+ weekend and it should get that. This is an action hero movie and they still tend - in general - to have larger drops the first few weekends. When a film has already made $400M, lots of the audience has seen it. Therefore, expecting $60M+ might have been too optimistic.

While Kitsch was featured heavily in the promotions for JC, I didn't see him at all in any ad for BS. If I did, it was only fleeting (and due to his short hair, he wasn't recognizable). The trailers I saw featured Neeson heavily and, of course, the aliens and special effects.Therefore, I don't think Kitsch will suffer much.That said, he might want to better evaluate his role selections. I can understand him taking JC. It's a Disney film, he's the lead - if this takes off, ala "Pirates", he's set. But it's clear that not all stories of action movies are hits. Even Depp has his misses. That said, the guy seems to have non-stop work in either movies or TV. I have a feeling he won't be going anywhere. If anything, his asking price might be lower, which, ironically, might generate even more work for him!

I saw a trailer when I saw TA. I felt just like you - until I saw that trailer. Then I was intrigued. I'm sure many disagree, but the trailer suggested a very different film from the one in 2002 and one that was darker. That may or may not be a good thing.If the SM "reboot" (I use quotes because really? A reboot a few years after the last film?) has any level of success, perhaps we would see SM in TA2. And I *would* like that very much.

Weekend numbers? Back in my day, we were lucky to get some general estimate of the film's overall gross many years after it was released. Plus, in those days, it cost a nickel to take a ferry. Nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I...

My box of 64 crayons doesn't have a color named "unsurprised". But I do have a crayon sharpener! :OMG:As for "Dictator", I thought it might open below TA. However, I'd be surprised if the weekend also didn't see a bump.That "C" score though is very surprising. The trailers are amusing - I was even thinking of seeing it (I didn't find the trailers for SBC's other films amusing at all).

While the film is indeed performing spectacularly, I disagree with your calculations.One reason Avengers is doing so well on the weekends is that since it is May - and students are still in school - the weekdays are not as strong. If we assume another 50% drop for next weekend, meaning $50M, and a $30M weekday gross (also a 50% drop), the total is about $450M after next weekend. That's an outstanding sum, but not exactly $500M.If the movie then has another 40-50% weekday drop ($15-20M) and holds well over the 4-day Memorial Day frame (smaller 30% drop for ~$35M weekend), that puts it around the $500M mark.I will accept that perhaps my drops are too harsh (although...) and the total could be closer to $520M. However, I feel the duldrums of the first week of June combined with June openers will prevent Avengers from coming anywhere near $700M. I believe the most it will make is around $600M.

You had string? And tin cans? Lucky.

LOL! I have to laugh a bit because the way you wrote that made it seem like the 90's were some "dark ages". The first WOM I heard about this came from a mass e-mailing via a coworker. Not exactly the definition of "traveled slowly". And there were numerous online forums back then where people discussed movies. In fact, some of the first box office games I played were in the 90's (on sites like "Mr. Showbiz" - anyone else remember that?).So I would say, "compared to today" it traveled more slowly. But even Howard Stern was talking about that movie - and he has a HUGE audience. So the WOM was through many media outlets. The difference is that we have more online outlets now than then and more people are online now compared to then.

I fully get that. That's why I gave the example from my friend. Action movies are fine, but he's not into superhero movies. Yet several days later, he was still raving about this film. Based on what you wrote, it seems you gave it the highest rating you could - for an action film. :)And, as I wrote, I felt the same about "Hunger Games". Something was missing from that movie - not sure what. But it didn't really leave me "hungry" for more (sorry, bad pun).Edited to apologize for slightly deviating from the thread's topic. Can't wait to read more crowd reports. I'm curious if a $100M second weekend is possible.

Interesting low review. I'd give that score to "The Hunger Games" - it was kind of interesting, but not really my thing. However, I loved "Avengers". I wasn't crazy about IM2, "Thor" or "Captain America" movies - I'd give them around that score too (maybe a notch higher), but Avengers was just brilliant. My friend, who really doesn't enjoy superhero movies much, LOVED this film. Still, this is your opinion and it's valid. Sorry you didn't like it that much.

He missed Harry Potter - Deathly Hollows Part 2, which was also a record-breaker and not a superhero movie.What is also interesting is that both the first and last Harry Potter movies set new weekend records. Both were broken the very next year by a superhero movie released the first weekend of May.

Your logic is very solid and your predictions may become reality.I want to throw up two counter-points: *I* want to see JC. However, I have no interest in "Hunger Games" or "21 JS".JC seems to blend a combination of films (I accept the irony of the original JC material influencing so many other films). But that audience has not been served well in a long time. The re-release of "Phantom Menace" was not it. As it's the first story in the "Star Wars" series, I guess it was appropriate to re-release PM in 3D first, but it's probably also the least loved of the films. Even marketing shied away from the boat loads of what's wrong in the movie (namely Jar Jar and Jake Lloyd). As a result, audiences have not enjoyed a sci-fi, action film with tons of effects in some time."Hunger Games" seems like a repeat of various "Mad Max" type of movies, but with kids. While I can see a younger audience liking this, it holds zero appeal to me. Perhaps reviews and other comments will change my mind, but as of now, the trailers do not appeal to me at all.The TV version of "Jump Street" was a drama. Sure, some slight jokes here and there, but it was not a comedy. It's possible that by turning the film into a comedy it hits a bigger audience - if it's a GOOD comedy. Right now, I've not seen one funny moment and am rather disappointed by the "Police Academy" aspects of the trailers.Will JC break out as a monster hit? Probably not. Disney, of all studios, knows how to market. But they do seem to have lost their way with this one. Not enough of the story was provided - just action. But as "Lorax" appeals to a very different audience, I do feel both films can succeed at the same timel. Will JC break $40M its first weekend? I'm not sure, but of the big films opening in the next few weekends, only JC and "Titans" holds any interest for me. I will accept that I may be the "lone wolf" here, but it's possible that perhaps being older, I have a different desire in my movies. And I'm not sure how many people above 35 or 40 post here.