MovieMan89

So it basically says right there that MP movie viewing habits only tend to be significantly above the consumer's normal in that first month. Hopefully now you realize why your argument about all these subscribers who turn up multiple times to the theater every weekend doesn't hold up.

People you know have seen it?

I think the better question is... What exactly has ever made this seem like it's going to be so bad? Some people here seem to be exclusively hung up on this whole "be a warrior" line, as if it's "I don't like sand..." or something.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. For all the people here claiming WiT is a Tomorrowland, Tomorrowland is actually the film I would use for this at the box office. Right down to the OW and multi.

This is bound to have a big second weekend drop. And its third weekend is IW, so another big drop. By then it won't be grossing enough for holds to matter that much. Even opening to 55m and being generous with the holds, I doubt it's above 10m by IW weekend. Then has one week to have a good hold before DP2 and Solo take most of its screens and kill it completely. 55 23 -58% 10 -56% 6 -40% 2.5 -58% 1 -60% 1 remaining weekends 96.5m weekends/125m total (77% weekend gross vs F8's 78%) 2.27x multi Also worth noting if Cloverfield 3 stays put and is about the monster like the first one as the hints are suggesting, that will definitely cut into the OW of this. Still expect this to come out on top, but C3 could mean this only does 40 or so on OW.

Eh, wobbly comparison there. DK and Frogger have an enduring legacy and have remained very well known in the case of the former and at least moderately well known in the case of the latter over several decades. I highly doubt much of anyone who wasn't an 80's kid/teen knows about Rampage.

OK, if you want to ignore its nature as a video game adaptation since few know said video game, you have to at least acknowledge its nature as a monster movie. Those are also known for poor multis. Kong's 2.75x was definitely on the high end and that got good reviews and didn't look as train-wrecky as this, so I can't see it beating that. And then of course there's IW as you mentioned, can't really see it adding a whole lot once that hits. Really don't see better than 2.5x.

The Rock and the over the top action are good enough to sell an OW, but don't be surprised if this is a sub 30% stinker on RT with a 2.3x multi or something. Odds are already against a good multi as a video game adaptation as it is. I can see something like 50/120.

Definitely the best trailer yet. They've gotten progressively better. Still think this looks appealing and is going to be the top Spring movie easily.

None of those are bombs WW actually except for Faster and I guess maybe Snitch? And if we're going to start excluding franchises, then I guess we can't use Hunger Games or X-Men to talk about J Law's draw power either. So in that case her box office hits are Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. Hercules probably would have been lucky to do half of what it did DOM w/o The Rock, marketing looked atrocious. And what about Moana? Disney literally anchored the whole first trailer around selling the movie via The Rock's name and character. They've never marketed one of their animated films around a voice actor as much as that one.

Nah. I have a hard time believing this won't implode after OW, even if it manages something shockingly big like 70m or something. It looks like a train wreck. A marketable train wreck they can sell for a good OW, but a train wreck nonetheless. Beasts will for sure beat it. I'd say the same for Aquaman, but it's DCEU so who the hell knows what the floor is there lol.

It's interesting that some are so hung up on the animal aspect, when it's Barnum's treatment of humans the film is actually romanticizing. He was extremely exploitative of the so called "freaks" of his show, and it certainly wasn't him giving them some warm, loving safe haven. I would say they should have just used fictional character names, but I honestly do think it's better this way. The characters' names change nothing about the film itself and the good messages it has, however using a fictional name would have changed the awareness the film is bringing to Barnum and who he was in real life. Making a historically accurate biopic about him would have also been the wrong way to go, because that story would have been box office poison and again there would be no awareness being brought to him. As I've said, TGS is a win all around as far as I'm concerned. The filmmakers got to make a true crowd pleaser, and the film's success has ended up bringing a ton of awareness to a less than noble historical figure. And I really don't care what anyone personally thinks of the film, its box office run in 2018 is exciting and impressive as all fuck. And I would be saying that even if it was a film I hated.

@baumer As far as your TGS is like making a feel good movie about the holocaust analogy goes, it falls apart if you’d realize ANIMALS ARENT INVOLVED IN THE FILM. So if anything, it’s like making a feel good movie set during the holocaust that doesn’t involve the Jews, let alone any romantisizing of what they went through. The Barnum character in the film is as fictional as it gets, to the point they don’t even bother with any “inspired by” nonsense at the beginning. If anything, the movie is bringing MORE awareness to who Barnum was in real life since everyone can tell the characters and plot in the film is fictional and are then becoming curious to know more about the real man. I’ve seen like a bazillion articles online and on social media in the last couple weeks talking about what the real Barnum was like thanks to the success of the film. It’s success is an all around win. The movie is succeeding as a feel good work of FICTION, and also bringing way more awareness of who the non-fictional person whose name they borrowed really was.

C’mon, there might actually be a chance of a movie getting a 20x multi in 2018. These are exciting times!

Yay for Paddington! Much much better than that early projection. 50m should at least happen now, maybe 60 still can.

The Greatest Showman over Chicago DOM ($170m) (50 points, 2 people)

TGS stayed flat from last Friday?!?! Can probably go over 11 for the weekend, even with a 40% Sunday drop. This movie seriously thinks it's fucking ET or something.

Zootopia did 19m its 5th weekend and added 66m from there. That would put Jumanji at 383m. With a higher 5th weekend and light competition, I think it may be headed for 390ish.

Fantastic for Jumanji. GotG2 ain't safe yet.

That's what happens when holdovers are the only interesting thing happening at the box office.

Not that any of them would have been big grossers, but that does make an already bleak winter/spring slate even bleaker as far as total cumulative gross goes. BP has major work to do for this to not be one pathetic Winter cume.

Very telling to look at inflation and average movie ticket prices from '78 to '98. Inflation went up 142% in that time span, yet average movie ticket price only went up 100%. Compare again to that '98 to '18 stretch where it's 100% for movie tickets vs about 50% for inflation.

Also FWIW I'm not at all arguing that $10 for potentially 30 movie tickets like MoviePass is set up now is anywhere near the proper value. Of course not. I'm just saying movie tickets are overpriced.

So your argument is that because everyone knows it's overpriced but they don't care and know they can't change it, it's not overpriced? Ok? I beg to differ. The fact is that entertainment (and most everything else) has gone up disproportionately to inflation and wages in the last 10-15 years. I mean the prime example in this specific subject being that average movie ticket prices have gone up 100% since 20 years ago, but a dollar is only worth about 50% more since then. I'm not zeroing in on movies and singling them out as being the only or biggest culprit of overpriced entertainment or anything, but you're not going to hear me say they flat out aren't overpriced either. It's also worth noting that the people whining the most about movie prices are probably the very ones going the most. In other words, there's a big difference between people griping about costs (who doesn't do this with something they purchase honestly), and people actually deciding not to purchase something because of said cost.

The Rock has had consistent box office hits for the entirety of this decade. Yes he is a draw, Baywatch being an exception doesn't change that. MJ2 failed to meet even the low end of expectations at the box office and J Law has followed that up with 4 underperformers/flops. Three of which shouldn't have been that hard of sells. At this point her draw power is absolutely in question.