Nov 22-24 #s CF: $158,074,286 actual | Dark Knight triumphant after all

[Noctis]

Did the first THG act like Twilight? Answer: No. It made nearly as much on OD as Twilight did on OW and still dropped better on its first Saturday and 2nd weekend. Twilight had the advantage of Holiday legs and a building fanbase to end up with a slightly better overall multiplier. Otherwise their performances are not very close at all. THG acted more like Potter than any other franchise.

 

Exactly.

[Mojoguy]

CF shouldn't really be compared to THG at all in terms of legs. CF is a sequel and will be bound to have harsher drops in the upcoming weeks.

[blackspider]

Did the first THG act like Twilight? Answer: No. It made nearly as much on OD as Twilight did on OW and still dropped better on its first Saturday and 2nd weekend. Twilight had the advantage of Holiday legs and a building fanbase to end up with a slightly better overall multiplier. Otherwise their performances are not very close at all. THG acted more like Potter than any other franchise.

 

Pretty much what I've been saying in the CF Under 360m thread.

[Mattrek]

Can't remember the talky emoticon, ah well.

[Fake]

Time for official 2nd weekend over/under thread......

 

There is a poll too......

[John Marston]

We get it, you don't like THG, now please just shut up. This broken record is getting tiresome.

Don't read my posts then Yes I don't like it. That's why I own the first on Blu Ray and am planning to see this one about three times Edited November 26, 2013 by John Marston

[Claire of Themyscira]

CF Monday 12.1-3m

[blackspider]

Don't read my posts thenYes I don't like it. That's why I own the first on Blu Ray and am planning to see this one about three times

 

C'mon bro you know you're riding the anti-THG train pretty hard. Some positivity in your posts every once in awhile would be a nice change of pace. Just a thought.

[John Marston]

C'mon bro you know you're riding the anti-THG train pretty hard. Some positivity in your posts every once in awhile would be a nice change of pace. Just a thought.

Saying a movie might drop a certain way due to the nature of the film is not being "anti " that film

[Mattrek]

Don't read my posts then Yes I don't like it. That's why I own the first on Blu Ray and am planning to see this one about three times

You make that impossible since you reply to every goddamn positive post with a negative comment. If you would let a few positives slide maybe people wouldn't be so frustrated. But so far you've shown you can't do that and by all the likes my post is getting I'm obviously not alone in that sentiment about you.

[Mattrek]

Saying a movie might drop a certain way due to the nature of the film is not being "anti " that film

Certainly not, I agree, but saying in every reply how you think it'll do that much worse is being "anti" film.

[Harpospoke]

IMAX does add to the total, but nowhere near the amount of 3D. I think TDKR had 350 screens. About $20M of its OW was from IMAX. And, those ticket prices tend to be about 1.5X the normal ticket price at my theater. So, TDKR would have opened to $155M without IMAX. So, still impressive nonetheless. Now, when we get to something like IM3, take away 3D and we are looking at an OW total close to CF.

So it's ok to let a movie keep its IMAX boost but not its 3D boost?  That's pretty convenient.   Not sure why "no where near as much" is relevant to considering discounting the "no fair!" reductions.   A boost is a boost.   And in the case of 3D and IMAX, it's a boost that audiences choose to give a movie....much more "fair" than inflation...which is forced on audiences.  I consider 3D money to be a compliment to a movie.  That just shows that audiences think highly enough of a movie to spend the extra money voluntarily.

 

 

In which case, no record should ever be recognized because of inflation and increasing ticket prices and wide releases now should it?

 

The reason there are records is because they are easy to compare - for example, Avengers had 3D and IMAX 3D as well which added to it's opening weekend gross, now should we remove the 3D bump and the IMAX 3D bump there? Of course not, it earned what it earned, whether the higher ticket prices, 3D and IMAX contibuted or not is out of the question.

 

Would you call a movie being released in 3D and IMAX 3D as a non-3D movie the same way you say that IMAX should be considered non-2D?

 

IMAX prices are still cheaper than 3D prices in the LA area at least. IMAX cost 14$ a ticket where as 3D sometimes starts at 15$. Would that be considered now?

 

When we start getting into all of that, the charts need to completely redesigned. The best comparison we have is actual grosses, grosses for 3D movies and grosses for 2D movies which is what everyone has been comparing now.

The bolded statement makes the most sense.   If fans are going to start whining about "no fair!" then they better be prepared to knock their favorite down in the rankings too or they just come off as biased fanboys.   Ever notice the timing of the desire to know about "admissions"?   Take TDK fans....how many wanted to know about admissions during TDK's run when it was passing movies that sold more tickets?   That number would be a big fat zero.    Now fast-forward to Avatar's run and later Avengers.   ...Suddenly there was great interest in admissions among the TDK fanbase.   Interesting timing there, eh?

 

  Your "best comparison we have" is mighty convenient since it allows you to only take away from certain movies while letting others keep their box office advantages.  Are you willing to make adjustments based on kids tickets?  How about discount Tuesdays?   How about movies that were released during the school year which did not receive the benefit of summer weekdays?

Edited November 26, 2013 by Harpospoke

[grim22]

So it's ok to let a movie keep its IMAX boost but not its 3D boost?  That's pretty convenient.   Not sure why "no where near as much" is relevant to considering discounting the "no fair!" reductions.   A boost is a boost.   And in the case of 3D and IMAX, it's a boost that audiences choose to give a movie....much more "fair" than inflation...which is forced on audiences.  I consider 3D money to be a compliment to a movie.  That just shows that audiences think highly enough of a movie to spend the extra money voluntarily.

 

 

The bolded statement makes the most sense.   If fans are going to start whining about "no fair!" then they better be prepared to knock their favorite down in the rankings too or they just come off as biased fanboys.   Ever notice the timing of the desire to know about "admissions"?   Take TDK fans....how many wanted to know about admissions during TDK's run when it was passing movies that sold more tickets?   That number would be a big fat zero.    Now fast-forward to Avatar's run and later Avengers.   ...Suddenly there was great interest in admissions among the TDK fanbase.   Interesting timing there, eh?

 

  Your "best comparison we have" is mighty convenient since it allows you to only take away from certain movies while letting others keep their box office advantages.  Are you willing to make adjustments based on kids tickets?  How about discount Tuesdays?   How about movies that were released during the school year which did not receive the benefit of summer weekdays?

 

But if the opening weekend is not the best comparison we currently have then what is? Every movie has an equal opportunity to release whenever they want to, No studio will stop another studio from scheduling a movie whenever they want. If a movie does not release in summer, it is not the movie's fault, but there is no equalization.

 

So at the end of the day, the gross is the gross. Why stop with what you are suggesting, let's start adjusting for female skewing movies which released the same time as other female skewing movies because obviously they stole some gross away. What about movies like Monsters U which basically died once DM2 came out - how do we adjust for that.

 

It is not a convenient statement to say that "We can only compare the gross". It is the truth - you can go ahead and apply a million different conditions if you want. At the end of the day Avengers opened biggest, IM3 second, DH2 3rd, TDKR 4th and highest 2D, TDK 5th and now CF 6th. That is the current truth.

 

Also, you make a very strange assumption saying that audiences choose 3D voluntarily - maybe a few do, but not all audiences. In most cases 3D is given a 80% screen count compared to 2D at 20% for most movies. Most audience members are given no choice in the matter. Also, what is wrong with IMAX?? Isn't that a choice given to audiences? No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying "Watch this in IMAX". If audiences chose IMAX, that is their prerogative as well.

 

And, let me repeat my question: Would you call a movie being released in 3D and IMAX 3D like Avengers as a non-3D movie the same way you say that IMAX should be considered non-2D? IMAX 3D prices are 3.50$ more than normal IMAX prices, what about that equalization?

Edited November 26, 2013 by grim22

[Harpospoke]

But if the opening weekend is not the best comparison we currently have then what is? Every movie has an equal opportunity to release whenever they want to, No studio will stop another studio from scheduling a movie whenever they want. If a movie does not release in summer, it is not the movie's fault, but there is no equalization.

 

So at the end of the day, the gross is the gross. Why stop with what you are suggesting, let's start adjusting for female skewing movies which released the same time as other female skewing movies because obviously they stole some gross away. What about movies like Monsters U which basically died once DM2 came out - how do we adjust for that.

 

It is not a convenient statement to say that "We can only compare the gross". It is the truth - you can go ahead and apply a million different conditions if you want. At the end of the day Avengers opened biggest, IM3 second, DH2 3rd, TDKR 4th and highest 2D, TDK 5th and now CF 6th. That is the current truth.

 

Also, you make a very strange assumption saying that audiences choose 3D voluntarily - maybe a few do, but not all audiences. In most cases 3D is given a 80% screen count compared to 2D at 20% for most movies. Most audience members are given no choice in the matter. Also, what is wrong with IMAX?? Isn't that a choice given to audiences? No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying "Watch this in IMAX". If audiences chose IMAX, that is their prerogative as well.

 

And, let me repeat my question: Would you call a movie being released in 3D and IMAX 3D like Avengers as a non-3D movie the same way you say that IMAX should be considered non-2D? IMAX 3D prices are 3.50$ more than normal IMAX prices, what about that equalization?

Sounds like we agree that we should just count the gross and stop the whining about "no fair!".   You are right, there are countless variables to consider if we want to equal everything out.   It may be a disadvantage to one movie if its studio did not conduct a good marketing strategy and release date vs a movie who's studio concocted a brilliant strategy and chose a good release date.

 

Your claim that "Most audience members are given no choice in the matter" on the decision to see a movie in 3D sounds extremely far-fetched to me.   First of all, watching a movie in a theater is a choice so the claim falls apart right there.  If the price is truly disagreeable to anyone they simply would choose to not pay it and do something else.   Like anything else, if the price is too high, people won't pay it.   That includes inflation.

 

Secondly, I've not watched a movie in 3D in several years and have no plans to see one in the future unless it's something like Avatar 2.   I've been to movie theaters all over the city I live in and it's never a problem.   That's my choice and it's working out just fine.   Notice that 3D is becoming less popular?   There is a reason for that....people do have a choice.   I did see Avengers in 3D once...but only because the people I was with couldn't wait a mere 30 minutes to see it in 2D.   That's a huge compliment to the movie....they actually could not wait to see it and felt it was worth paying more to see it "right now".  I rolled my eyes...but majority ruled.   That was a choice.

[baumer]

Compare CF to Potter, not Twilight.

 

DH1 fell harder than most of the Twilight sequels on its first Monday.

Edited November 26, 2013 by baumer

[Noctis]

DH1 fell harder than most of the Twilight sequels on its first Monday.

 

Doesn't matter. The first Monday doesn't determine anything, but its run is going to follow DH1.

 

No way is CF going to follow Twilight's atrocious legs. 

[baumer]

C'mon bro you know you're riding the anti-THG train pretty hard. Some positivity in your posts every once in awhile would be a nice change of pace. Just a thought.

 

This mentality confuses me.  Does everyone have to have the same opinion as the rest of you?  

[baumer]

Doesn't matter. The first Monday doesn't determine anything, but its run is going to follow DH1.

 

No way is CF going to follow Twilight's atrocious legs. 

 

That's fine.  I just said that if you are to compare it to Potter instead of Twilight, DH1 fell harder than the Twilight sequels on the first Monday.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

DH1 fell harder than most of the Twilight sequels on its first Monday.

 

 

That's an easy explanation. Both Potter and THG(to a smaller extent) have broader appeal than Twilight.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Accursed Architect!™

[baumer]

That's an easy explanation. Both Potter and THG(to a smaller extent) have broader appeal than Twilight.

 

And again, that's fine, I was just responding to Noctis when he said to compare THG to Potter and not Twilight.