War For The Planet Of The Apes | July 14, 2017 | First Trailer on Page 18

[a2k]

DOFP did ~515 os and 745+ ww. Then APOC did ~545 ww, closer to it's predecessor's os.

Similar saga played with similar numbers.

 

DAWN did 500+ os, 700+ ww. WAR is targeting 525 ww, closer to it's predecessor's os.

 

The difference is that WAR doesn't seem to have shown a drop in quality compared to DAWN, like APOC showed from DOFP.

Also, APOC had absence of Wolverine. Something like that, absence of major character, did not happen in WAR.

Edited July 17, 2017 by a2knet

[RobinHood26]

2 hours ago, brian.jensen.507464 said:

 

 

But the visual effects people are mostly responsible for his performance. He doesn't deserve a nomination for doing some of the work.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly after watching all the Dawn Special features I was blown away. The performances are actually better pre visual effects its jaw dropping how insanely good Andy and Toby are. 

[Harpospoke]

6 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

I doubt Warner would release a nice little detective story for Batman, sounds like commercial suicide, just like this Apes movie.

 

 

That would also come with a much smaller budget so the profit might actually go up.   Kinda like how Deadpool made a ton for Fox with its small budget.

[The Futurist]

2 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

Uh, no it's not responsible for his performance. Go ask Matt Reeves, the director of the film. 

 

I ll get back to you on this.

It s a very complex issue.

[redfirebird2008]

6 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

I ll get back to you on this.

It s a very complex issue.

 

My take is that when Gary Oldman wears a bunch of prosthetics and makeup to look like Churchill, that is not much different from what Serkis is doing.

 

Matt Reeves brought up good points about how actors are part of a collaborative process. They need good lighting, a good cinematographer, a good director, a good editor, good wardrobe people, good fellow actors to give them a foil on set, etc. 

[CoolioD1]

idk, people who worked on the visual effects for gollum said they altered serkis's performance whenever they felt it wasn't right for the scene. idk if they're still doing stuff like that for these movies but it's not really the same as standard performance. the make up thing is a faulty comparison to me.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Koba was the deserving nod from these flicks. None of the others, especially Caesar. Just my two cents...

[pieman]

Can't say I'm too surprised that this underperformed. I didn't sense that much interest out there. It's another one of these franchises that the internet disproportionately cares about in relation to the real world.

[shayhiri]

Such a shame that a movie as beautiful and important as this one - which even the critics appreciate - has such a small modest thread here.

 

It seems indeed that the thoughtless masses do not care.

[JohnnyGossamer]

It's not like other sci-fi flicks with modest to mega budgets that were adored haven't struck a major chord with audiences before... It's not like Arrival, Snowpiercer, Children Of Men, District 9, Elysium, Interstellar, Fury Road, Prometheus, Covenant, Oblivion and many, many others grossed far, far less than War will gross OS. And, most of 'em grossed far less than War will gross DOM. This is kind of silly in my view. It opened to $55M+ DOM. Not bad at all.

[marveldcfox]

2 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Koba was the deserving nod from these flicks. None of the others, especially Caesar. Just my two cents...

Toby Kebbel. His POWAH. 

[redfirebird2008]

59 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

It's not like other sci-fi flicks with modest to mega budgets that were adored haven't struck a major chord with audiences before... It's not like Arrival, Snowpiercer, Children Of Men, District 9, Elysium, Interstellar, Fury Road, Prometheus, Covenant, Oblivion and many, many others grossed far, far less than War will gross OS. And, most of 'em grossed far less than War will gross DOM. This is kind of silly in my view. It opened to $55M+ DOM. Not bad at all.

 

Interstellar doesn't fit in that group. It grossed $487m overseas, a very tough number for Apes 3 to reach based on the numbers we've seen so far.

 

Same is true with domestic. Apes will need a 3.36 multiplier to reach $188m. Very difficult to do when Dawn's multiplier was 2.87 with similar great WOM. 

[Barnack]

9 hours ago, Harpospoke said:

That would also come with a much smaller budget so the profit might actually go up.   Kinda like how Deadpool made a ton for Fox with its small budget.

 

Those world released Batman movies have so much more expense than just the budget and so much more revenue than the movie box office (and impact on a possible sequel) that it seem an unnecessary risk to cut their budget down too much, it could possibly be a good move but you probably do not want to be the exec that cutted Batman budget down if things goes wrong. Same for James Bond right now.

 

Does a small noir detective movie need Batman at all ? The only thing interesting to have Batman involved in a movie is the ability to make it to a very large budget a la Godfather 2

[JohnnyGossamer]

10 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

Interstellar doesn't fit in that group. It grossed $487m overseas, a very tough number for Apes 3 to reach based on the numbers we've seen so far.

 

Same is true with domestic. Apes will need a 3.36 multiplier to reach $188m. Very difficult to do when Dawn's multiplier was 2.87 with similar great WOM. 

Regardless, you understand my point I take it?

[redfirebird2008]

4 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Regardless, you understand my point I take it?

 

To an extent. I doubt Fox is too happy with the early returns. 

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, pieman said:

Can't say I'm too surprised that this underperformed. I didn't sense that much interest out there. It's another one of these franchises that the internet disproportionately cares about in relation to the real world.

 

Arguably the other way around, even on a movie message board like this one, a frame of a star wars or MCU/DC movie generate about as much talk as this movie entire life, a lot of is audience (older people) do not participate to the Internet much.

 

 

1 hour ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

It opened to $55M+ DOM. Not bad at all.

 

It is not bad at all imo, at least to what could be seen as is most comparable franchise domestic Star Trek, that also went from over 70m opening for is previous 2 entry to a below 60m last year.

 

1 hour ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

sci-fi flicks that were adored haven't struck a major chord with audiences before... not like Arrival, Snowpiercer, Children Of Men, District 9, Elysium, Interstellar, Fury Road, Prometheus, Covenant, Oblivion and many, many others grossed far, far less than War will gross OS.

 

Not only most of them do not have the advantage of being in one of the biggest franchise of all time but do not compare that well in other ways, District 9 was a 28.4 million budget movie without a China release that made over 100m in net profits, some on that list like Elysium, Prometheus, Covenant, Oblivion were not adored, we can probably remove Interstellar on that list that will be bigger than Apes or has big).

 

Quite a bit of that perception is due to our brain not able to do the mental gymnastic to adjust for exchange rate real time, if they were early 2014 level, War performing exactly like it is right now would look to us better, just because the number would be bigger and close to the previous entry (same for apocalypse that actually had a bigger first weekend oversea in ticket solds).

Edited July 17, 2017 by Barnack

[JohnnyGossamer]

I honestly believe that as well liked as Dawn was by many, it actually thinned the War audience. It was more dire, grim and bleak than Rise. Those that liked it, essentially loved it. But, others that maybe respected it, didn't really like it much. I think that's showing now. Rise was the most palatable to casual moviegoer. Dawn was excellent in the eyes of many but not as accessible as Rise. And, honestly, War strives to be mashup of art house war epics like Apocalypse Now and Schindler's List. It's very difficult for something like that to appeal on a wide scale.

[Harpospoke]

58 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Those world released Batman movies have so much more expense than just the budget and so much more revenue than the movie box office (and impact on a possible sequel) that it seem an unnecessary risk to cut their budget down too much, it could possibly be a good move but you probably do not want to be the exec that cutted Batman budget down if things goes wrong. Same for James Bond right now.

 

Does a small noir detective movie need Batman at all ? The only thing interesting to have Batman involved in a movie is the ability to make it to a very large budget a la Godfather 2

It's a risk to make a movie with a lower budget now?    That actually increases the odds for profit.

 

May not matter.   This is going to look bad to WB.    I predict they aren't going to let Reeves make the movie he wants to make.

[Barnack]

58 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

It's a risk to make a movie with a lower budget now?    That actually increases the odds for profit.

 

Every fork of budget have very similar risk to make a profit or not I think (the industry would go toward the best one, create more competition in that space, etc...) except for the very large one because not everyone can play in that space that tend to have a better success rate (nowaday they are disproportionally sequel/franchise too and that factor is bigger than anything else making a lot of noise).

 

Bigger the budget easier it is to get screen worldwide, usually more impressive are the trailers, less the marketing cost become relative to the budget, there is a list of advantage to balance how more you need to make.

 

Specially for something that is a lot in the toys, pajama  and video game business, like a franchise SH movie, they show those movies in advance to those product creator/licensees and they will want something to create toys from, a bat-mobile, a flying bat craft, a lair, special superhero suit, a villain or sidekick, stuff that tend to lead more toward the Nolans Batman (or all the previous Batman) than a movie like Seven.

 

Reeves made those giants movies (Dawn was a 236 million budget production, not far from the big SH movie usually get) with giant set piece for the Apes franchise, I'm not sure why he would not want the same for Batman.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Barnack

[cax16]

1 hour ago, Harpospoke said:

 

 

May not matter.   This is going to look bad to WB.    I predict they aren't going to let Reeves make the movie he wants to make.

I can't believe this is even being discussed. War has a 95% on RT with an average rating over 8 and this is what people are trying to spin. This is insanity to me. 

 

Just wanted to edit my post and say I'm sorry if my post came off as rude, it wasn't intended to sound like that . I understand that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I just disagree, and hey you might be right. 

Edited July 17, 2017 by cax16