Fancyarcher Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I've been saying that since seeing it. Hugh Jackman and Liam Hemsworth should've been the Aussies, and Channing Tatum should've been the lead. Liam Hemsworth has yet to prove he’s a draw, and Jackman has had plenty of flops as the lead (Real Steel opened less than Pacific Rim). Also as evident by WHD, you can’t slap Tatum’s name on everything and expect it to be a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Wang Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) You're kidding, right?Was MoS going to make $7m in IMAX this last weekend?Edit for totally wrong number. Edited July 17, 2013 by Omega Shrinkage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Liam Hemsworth has yet to prove he’s a draw, and Jackman has had plenty of flops as the lead (Real Steel opened less than Pacific Rim). The aussies were not "leads" though. Let Jackman be part of an ensemble crew like X-men or Les Misérables, now he's good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Still, it would have been nice for the Australian characters to be played by people who can actually do an Australian accent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 So 300M is not locked anymore for MoS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 So 300M is not locked anymore for MoS? It's a 20/80, with more chances of it not hitting 300M. I'm going to say IMAX did at least 15 - 20% of the daily figures last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 If Pacific Rim does another week of this weak business, I think they will hand those screens back to Man of Steel. IMAX either gets MOS to $300M or PR to $100M. Which would they rather have? MOS getting to 300m looks a lot better. PR has already been labelled a flop so getting to 100m won't really matter at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Liam Hemsworth has yet to prove he’s a draw, and Jackman has had plenty of flops as the lead (Real Steel opened less than Pacific Rim). Also as evident by WHD, you can’t slap Tatum’s name on everything and expect it to be a hit. Alone? Not a draw. Together? Yeah, it would've added a lot of draw imo. With that cast, I think it could be 100M more DOM. The combined draw would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Did RTH post the top 15 theater engagements for the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Alone? Not a draw. Together? Yeah, it would've added a lot of draw imo. With that cast, I think it could be 100M more DOM. The combined draw would be great. I still don't think it would have been tremendously successful. Edited July 17, 2013 by Boxofficefanatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forg Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Too bad for PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rthmessiah Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) How do we know it "isn't cutting the mustard", especially compared to MOS? I have no idea what sort of deal the studios have with IMAX, but I assume it's along similar lines as other theaters, where they get a greater percentage upfront. Why wouldn't they want a larger slice of a larger pie? It's not like MOS was setting the IMAX world on fire at this point of its release -- I'm assuming WB is taking the Apple route and saying, "If anyone's going to be taking money from MOS's IMAX theaters, we'd rather it be one of our new releases". Imax doco and feature films are two different business models, doco's Imax theatres pretty much pay for a print and they are up for all marketing cost etc. Feature film studio pay bulk of marketing and print costs the rental terms that theatres pay to distributors is along the same lines as regular theatres, however the studio also pay to Imax corp a royalty fee at the end of run, basically a % of total GBO gets payed back to Imax for a number of things one being DMR conversion. Theatres that are Imax also pay royalty fees as well for using Imax branding , any marketing equiptment etc, Imax cover the cost of installed equiptment so theatres are basically paying a fee for use, that is generally a % of GBO take. Edited July 17, 2013 by Rth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rthmessiah Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Did RTH post the top 15 theater engagements for the weekend? Yes in weekend actual thread page 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Alone? Not a draw. Together? Yeah, it would've added a lot of draw imo. With that cast, I think it could be 100M more DOM. The combined draw would be great. $100m? I'm not sure about that. You'd also have to consider that they'd mean a significant jump in the budget -- at least 10%, I'd guess, plus possible back-end deals (for Jackman, at least). Assuming they're all interested/available/etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Even though PacRim came in 3rd it was #1 in a lot of complexes even beyond top 20Top theatres engagement (gets published in Variety)wkend 12-14/71-AMC lincoln Square 13, New York City NY 178k (SR)2-AMC Empire 25, New York City NY 176k (SR)3-AMC Metreon 16, San Francisco CA 167k (SR)4-CPLX Scotiabank Toronto, Toronto CA 131k (SR)5-Pac Arclight Hollywood, Los Angeles CA 120k (SR)6-Regal Irvine Spectrum 21, Irvine CA 118k (SR)7-AMC Burbank 30, Burbank CA 115k (SR)8-Regal Union Square 14, New York city NY 114k (SR)9-AMC Citywalk 19, Universal City CA 103k (SR)10-ST Palladium 18, San Antonio TX 100k (SR)11-AMC Century City 15, Century city CA 98k (SR)12-Pac Arclight Sherman Oaks CA 96k (SR)13-CS Warren 16, Moore Ok (SR)14-AMC Boston Commons 19, Boston MA (SR)15-AMC Garden State 16, Paramus NJ (GU2)16-Regal Mira Mesa Stadium 17,San Diego CA (SR)17-AMC Tysons Corner 16, Mclean VA (DM2)18-AMC Tysons Corner 16, Mclean VA (SR)19-AMC Garden State 16, Paramus NJ (DM2)20-Regal Houston Marq Stadium22, Houston TX (SR)Top Can1-CPLX Scotiabank Toronto, Toronto CA (SR); CPLX Cinema Banque Scotia Montreal QC (SR); CPLX Scotiabank 9 Vancouver AB (SR) Correct me if I'm wrong, Lincoln Square and Empire 25 were the highest grossing MoS theaters due to IMAX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) $100m? I'm not sure about that. You'd also have to consider that they'd mean a significant jump in the budget -- at least 10%, I'd guess, plus possible back-end deals (for Jackman, at least). Assuming they're all interested/available/etc. I was thinking about 30M more in the budget. Liam isn't that expensive and I think Jackman would accept a paycut for the smaller role and the chance to work with Del Toro. WB then presumably would've marketed more of the humans just because of the stars, which would've caused a bigger interest. Maybe 100M is a bit too much, but I think the three stars would've helped a lot both in acting quality and in box office gross. Edited July 17, 2013 by Pacific Blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rthmessiah Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong, Lincoln Square and Empire 25 were the highest grossing MoS theaters due to IMAX? Top 3 todate Empire 25 NYC ,Lincoln Square NYC (near 50% more than Metreon), Metreon SFO 17 of the top 20 theatres had Imax runs and 41 of the top 50 Edited July 17, 2013 by Rth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I am very proud to say that I have seen PR about 5 times and have yet to seen GU2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moviesRus Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 What PR needed was a big star. Not having one hindered it from the beginning Cruise was originally considered for Elba's role but I really think Hunnam was the problem. He's supposed to be that hot leading man that gets girls to the theaters.. and he's just an empty vacuum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Elba, Rinko, Day, and Perlman were perfect in their roles; no one else should've been cast for them IMO. Gorman too, but I know a lot of people disliked him Edited July 17, 2013 by Pacific Blank 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
