Weekend #s: Neeson 40.4M, Selma 11.2, ITW 9.75, Hobbit 9.4, Unbroken 8.3. All #s pg 15. Happy now Kayu?

[CheralP07]

Paramount did a fine job marketing Selma. I've seen about a thousand promos for it, and it did very well in limited release. The Butler came out in the summer, not a proper comp, IMO. There was never a guarantee that it would do big $$ in wide release, though it still can. It's too early to tell.

[TalismanRing]

Would Selma have better worked if it was a full blown huge epic like Malcolm X? 

 

 

(which I think starts of really slow and awkward but works into a an amazing Bio Pic).

 

 

Like imo MLK is so just so well known these days, some black leaders accuse the media of making him into a Santa Clause Figure these days. 

 

Malcolm X was directed by Spike Lee, starred Denzel and Angela Basset and made $48m (adj for inflation $93m) on a $33m budget.

 

Financially, the $20m smaller scale Selma will be a bigger success and it's better reviewed.

[baumer]

Wonder if Taken 3 will crack $100m, it has competition from American Sniper and Blackhat next week plus WOM is not going to be good. 

 

Everyone said WOM would be shit on Taken 2 also.

[peludo]

9m like the article said would be a -59% drop which is horrible no matter how you slice it

$9m has no sense with similar drops to AUJ and DOS. With a 2.6-2.8 Friday, the range is 9.5-10.3

[Lordmandeep]

Malcolm X was directed by Spike Lee, starred Denzel and Angela Basset and made $48m (adj for inflation $93m) on a $33m budget.

 

Financially, the $20m smaller scale Selma will be a bigger success and it's better reviewed.

 

 

True but I think in terms of a macro impact, that film really help raise awareness on Malcolm X.

 

You can't base films on box office runs a lone especially like that... That movie was very popular outside of cinemas . 

Edited January 10, 2015 by Lordmandeep

[Plain Old Tele]

Aside from this forum and a few isolated Oscar bloggers, I'm not sure why people have such enlarged expectations for SELMA. It seems like it'll be very successful (financially) and it's been well-received critically as well. Anything else is just bonus.

[MovieMan89]

That's a bit disappointing for Selma (not "bad" though), but next weekend should definitely be bigger for it with MLK day and more expansion. I agree that the whole marketing/rollout for Selma has kinda sucked. After seeing it, I can 100% say that if it got the proper awards rollout it would be the easy frontrunner this awards season instead of the dark horse it now is. I wish Paramount wasn't the one doing the distribution for it.

Edited January 10, 2015 by MovieMan89

[baumer]

I said this before but the title for Selma is really bad imo.  I have no idea what Selma is.

[Ezen Baklattan]

No one knows what Zero Dark Thirty is. The title doesn't sell the movie, the premise and the people do.

[MovieMan89]

I said this before but the title for Selma is really bad imo.  I have no idea what Selma is.

The title would be fine if the marketing effort was stronger. It definitely was a weak one though, as far as I saw.

[Ando918]

Don't feel bad about not knowing what it is, Baumer.  I wouldn't expect most Canadians to know.  Even most American adults don't know.  A poll some years ago showed that only 33% of American adults know who wrote "Letters from Birmingham Jail."  Answer is Martin Luther King, Jr.  But 66% of American adults had no clue.  

[Lordmandeep]

I did not know what Selma was either.

 

However the historical pictures of the event are far more recognizable though. 

Edited January 10, 2015 by Lordmandeep

[Jandrew]

I have no idea what Selma is.

Its a ride at Disneyland, like Pirates of the Carribean.

[grim22]

I had no idea Paramount was the studio behind Selma. Hearing all the stories about the different guilds and award juries not getting their screeners for Selma on time made me think it was a mini-studio behind the Oscar campaign and not a major one like Paramount. To get a big opening weekend, Selma needed the awards buzz which it most likely will get next week instead by winning at the Globes and being nominated for the Oscars.

[Klingo]

I did not know what Selma was either.

 

However the historical pictures of the event are far more recognizable though. 

Never heard of the name Selma until now.  If I did before, forgot about it.

[MovieMan89]

"The Butler" isn't really any better of a title either for a biopic. Doesn't tell you much. But the marketing did, and that's what Selma's lacked. Although I'm not trying to downplay this opening as bad, since it is still a small relatively indie movie after all. But it could have at least had a bigger opening with a better handled campaign. It should be a leggy movie anyways though, so opening isn't a huge deal.

 

I'm far more irked about how its awards rollout was handled.

Edited January 10, 2015 by MovieMan89

[Plain Old Tele]

I had no idea Paramount was the studio behind Selma. Hearing all the stories about the different guilds and award juries not getting their screeners for Selma on time made me think it was a mini-studio behind the Oscar campaign and not a major one like Paramount. To get a big opening weekend, Selma needed the awards buzz which it most likely will get next week instead by winning at the Globes and being nominated for the Oscars.

 

The tardiness of screeners is probably because the movie wasn't locked until early December.

[Jandrew]

I said this before but the title for Selma is really bad imo.  I have no idea what Selma is.

Kidding, its a real town in Alabama where most of the events happened.

[Plain Old Tele]

Kidding, its a real town in Alabama where most of the events happened.

 

Maybe they just should've called it ROLL TIDE.

[CoolioD1]

They should've called it Lee Daniel's Selma.