Weekend #'s April 18-20 Cap2: 26.2 Rio 22.5 Heaven 21.5 Trans 11.1 pg32

[kayumanggi]

DIVERGENT: $75.3M Overseas Total / $209.2M Global Total #Divergent

— BoxOffice (@BoxOffice)

April 20, 2014

[kayumanggi]

TRANSCENDENCE: $17.4M Overseas Total (27 Markets) /$28.5M Global Total #Transcendence

— BoxOffice (@BoxOffice)

April 20, 2014

[darkelf]

Aside from Django, those movies were all sold almost entirely on him. Even though it's an adaptation, you're saying Gatsby would have been as big with any other star in that role? 

 

What are you talking about? Gatsby was sold solely on Tobey's crying power

[kayumanggi]

'Heaven is for Real' earned $21.5 million this weekend. That ranks 11th all-time for Easter openings: http://t.co/Twxy4aeq8x #boxoffice

— Box Office Mojo (@boxofficemojo)

April 20, 2014

[ChD]

I respectfully disagree.  With The Lone Ranger, the marketing everywhere was reminding everyone "from the director of Pirates of the Caribbean series".  That didn't help at all.  Scorcese's movies usually are not big hits, with the exception now of Wall Street and Departed.  And Departed's box office was probably due to DiCaprio and Damon and Wahlberg.

Gore Verbinski is far from being one of the best known directors in the world. The fact that each Pirates movie became worse also didn't really help him with that. + The movie wasn't appealing to the general audience. You want to say that Wolf, a R rated Comedy with DiCaprio isn't appealing to the audience? Oh my, but it is. Same with the Departed.

[CJohn]

That is a shit OS opening for Transcendence. 

[BadAtGender]

Ouch. You have to go all the way down to Bulletproof Monk to find an Easter opener with a worse PTA than Transcendence.

[John Marston]

Overseas won't save Transcendence. Too much competition

[ChD]

Directors?  Come on.  Either he's a draw or he's not.  He has the numbers to back up my claim.  You can't just ignore the numbers.  

 

When I mean known directors, I mean in the way that they're known because they make good movies, indicating that the quality was there. You can't just ignore all the components of the movie, right?

 

Like, you say a car's good just because it has nice wheels. It might not work if the engine's from a Lada.

[ChD]

Aside from Django, those movies were all sold almost entirely on him. Even though it's an adaptation, you're saying Gatsby would have been as big with any other star in that role? 

 

No, but you can't pin the entire box office on him, either.

[baumer]

Gore Verbinski is far from being one of the best known directors in the world. The fact that each Pirates movie became worse also didn't really help him with that. + The movie wasn't appealing to the general audience. You want to say that Wolf, a R rated Comedy with DiCaprio isn't appealing to the audience? Oh my, but it is. Same with the Departed.

 

You're not making any sense.  Lone Ranger was not being marketed as a Gore Verbinski film but as a film from the director of Pirates of the Caribbean.  And DiCaprio runs circles around Depp right now in terms of bankability.  Part of being bankable is knowing what roles to take.  Depp obviously doesn't and that makes him a detriment to studios who might want to hire him.

[ChD]

You're not making any sense.  Lone Ranger was not being marketed as a Gore Verbinski film but as a film from the director of Pirates of the Caribbean.  And DiCaprio runs circles around Depp right now in terms of bankability.  Part of being bankable is knowing what roles to take.  Depp obviously doesn't and that makes him a detriment to studios who might want to hire him.

 

So what? Do you really think the name makes a difference? 'From the Director of Pirates of the Caribbean' or 'From Gore Verbinski' people still would ask themselves, 'Oi, dude, what other movies did that guy make apart from those 2 sucky sequels? Nothing much, huh?".

 

As for the bankability and the roles you take. DiCaprio is going for award roles, mostly. Jay Gatsby was an exception, but everything is an awards role. He doesn't care for the money, he cares for the awards. Just because those roles meant either working with Scorsese or Tarantino and having a success at the box office, doesn't mean he was the box office draw entirely. He is a draw, but those big names also helped a lot. Tarantino has quite the fanbase, and let's not talk about Scorsese.

[Sam]

Great drop for Cap. I thought that it would be at 195 at best this weekend but happy that I was proven wrong. Really hoping for 250M dom now.Close to 600M WW. Awesome.

[RichWS]

No, but you can't pin the entire box office on him, either.

You can't pin the entire box office of any movie on any one person. It's a combination of star power, concept and quality. His star power is the biggest factor in getting people into the theater in the first place, and the movies he makes are generally pretty good and well received. I'm not really sure what you're arguing against here. The fact he's a draw?Where were all of these huge Scorsese hits before DiCaprio? Edited April 20, 2014 by RichWS

[ChD]

You can't pin the entire box office of any movie on any one person. It's a combination of star power, concept and quality. His star power is the biggest factor in getting people into the theater in the first place, and the movies he makes are generally pretty good and well received. I'm not really sure what you're arguing against here. The fact he's a draw?Where were all of these huge Scorsese hits before DiCaprio?

 

I'm not saying he isn't a draw. He is, but he isn't as big as some of you make him to be.

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Except that most people like the Pirates sequels, just look at the DVD sales.The Lone Ranger though suffered from looking like a Pirates movie spin off in a the old West....audiences don't want to see movies that look too similar to others....

[TylerDurden365]

Here's the thing.  DiCaprio is a draw because, domestically, his name means quality to a certain type of audience.  This quality often stems from the fact that he works with quality directors who make quality films.  Depp, on the other hand, has chosen to go down a more "kid friendly" blockbuster path.  Both have the name recognition internationally to make their movies a success but one slipping domestically compared to the other seems to be largely a consequence of what their names mean to American moviegoers.

[Nonsuch]

Still far short of its break-even profit point.  

 

But surely that's wrong? The film cost $125 million, the 3D conversion was $10 million on top of that and I'd put a rough guess on the marketing budget being around the $40 million mark. That makes a rough inclusive budget of $175 million. It's nearly grossed $300 million worldwide already, and including Japan (I don't know if it's going to open in China, but if it does the overall box office will be even larger) I would expect it to finish with something like $350 million - that's forgetting DVD/bly-ray digital sales. It's far from a flop and will definitely make its budget back, especially because Paramount International is distributing the film in most overseas markets which means they'll get the lion's share of the international box office takings.

 

As someone who loves Aronofsky and loves Noah, I'm delighted that it's performed as well as it has done. It's a very different sort of Bible movies and many traditional viewers (particularly, it seems, American Christians) have understandably been turned off by it - despite that, it's holding quite well now and is performing exceptionally well in certain international markets.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Nonsuch

[TylerDurden365]

Oh, and go Cap.

[RichWS]

I'm not saying he isn't a draw. He is, but he isn't as big as some of you make him to be.

Well, he's never playing a superhero or iconic characters so he's not gonna make a billion dollar hit every two years but his movies are making big money almost every time out.