RyneOh1040 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Who's only comparing it to a movie that opened at 90? It had worse legs than TA. Worse legs than TDKR. Worse than TDK. TA is a terrible comparison and TDK is even worse. I'll give you TDKR but I don't think comparing the final film in a trilogy and the second in a series of four is fair either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Who's only comparing it to a movie that opened at 90? It had worse legs than TA. Worse legs than TDKR. Worse than TDK. :bash: You don't get it and frankly it s exhausting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Better legs than virtually every other big opener except those ones. Exactly, and most of those are biased comparisons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straggler Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I like this forum but way too much overreaction as always. Still going to make in the 350 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I like this forum but way too much overreaction as always. Still going to make in the 350 range. How? At this point that would require a multiplier larger than Catching Fire's. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I like this forum but way too much overreaction as always. Still going to make in the 350 range. Under 330 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I like this forum but way too much overreaction as always. Still going to make in the 350 range. 350 would be best cast scenario. 310-315 is more realistic, which for what this is (a cash grab) is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 :bash: You don't get it and frankly it s exhausting. Exactly, and most of those are biased comparisons. Okay, you guys are right. It's a complete mystery why this movie will make 100m less than its predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep Wang Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 TA is a terrible comparison and TDK is even worse. I'll give you TDKR but I don't think comparing the final film in a trilogy and the second in a series of four is fair either. So, we can only compare it to third movies in a series of 3 books turned into 4? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmBuff Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Who's only comparing it to a movie that opened at 90? It had worse legs than TA. Worse legs than TDKR. Worse than TDK. You're better than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 But people who haven't read the books but watch the movies, which is a sizable amount of the audience, had no idea how disappointing the third novel was. And if a reader liked how the first two films were handled, he/she wouldn't suddenly go "oh I am not going to give these next movies a chance at all." Marketing played a big part in things going south. That and the lesser-than-expected reviews. Before I read Mockingjay, literally all I heard about it was that it was much different from the other two and a letdown. I still gave it a chance and went in with an open mind, and thought it was horrid. I think it's a case of a book having bad WOM, which in turn hurt the film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloneWars Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I don't know why people think this won't get a better multiplier than CF seeing how this is opening way under CF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 You guys seem to think I'm attacking the movie. I'm not, I don't have any particular dog in this fight. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Okay, you guys are right. It's a complete mystery why this movie will make 100m less than its predecessor. Tele's in the Under GOTG club? I'm not going that far yet. I think the Thanksgiving holidays will boost it quite a bit just like last year for Catching Fire. Should be able to make it to 340+. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Tele's in the Under GOTG club? I'm not going that far yet. I think the Thanksgiving holidays will boost it quite a bit just like last year for Catching Fire. Should be able to make it to 340+. The numbers seem to indicate right around 330, unless some stronger-than-expected legs develop. And I think that's a best-case scenario. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) So, we can only compare it to third movies in a series of 3 books turned into 4? No, but you certainly can't put it on the same playing field as the finale of one of the most beloved series of the past two decades (TDKR), a film that was literally the event of year after Ledger's death (TDK), or a film that took Marvel 5 plus years and 5 plus films to lay the groundwork for. Surely you see that's biased? Edited November 23, 2014 by RyneOh1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I don't know why people think this won't get a better multiplier than CF seeing how this is opening way under CF. Because CF was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Okay, you guys are right. It's a complete mystery why this movie will make 100m less than its predecessor. Oh, I think the answer is simple enough. It's an unnecessary film that is half of a story. But I've never commented on that, only biased comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straggler Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) How? At this point that would require a multiplier larger than Catching Fire's. Because this forum never gets these films right. How certain were people that the Hunger Games would not make 400 milion? Or that CF would drop compared to first? Or the freak out during CF's opening weekend. When we are done with meaningless "multipliers" you have a film that will be making a lot of boxoffice through Thanksgiving and the holidays and will have a lengthy run. Edited November 23, 2014 by straggler 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) You guys seem to think I'm attacking the movie. I'm not, I don't have any particular dog in this fight. You never attack movies, you re the zen guy of this board but pretending that CF was not loved by GA and that CF hadn ' t very good legs by comparing it with movies with big ow that were pop cultural phenomenons (TA, the 2 Dark Knights), really ? Edited November 23, 2014 by The Futurist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_logo_svg.thumb.png.aa769110ca83b106ca249115c9f5dd5f.png){kind=logo}
