jimisawesome Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I get it, but it's hypocritical what you Marvel loonies doing. When someone calls Ultron to do less than Fast 7 WW and sub-500m US gross then we are "haters" and get ridiculed and when it's actually happening the "it's still doing good business" "was expected to drop" cards are being played. BS. We knew it's going to make money and we knew it's going to do 1 billion OS. The discussion was at different level, so let's face the music, it is doing shockingly bad in the US compared to the rest of the World where it's matching or outperforming TA, so the few of us who called Utron's less than spectacular domestic run deserve a wee bit of credit. You guys were talking about 250m OW at point, ouch. No matter what the gross is when you drop 150m from your previous film you can call that disappointing. Basically this. I was getting killed around here for saying movie would open up around the first movie and its possible that it opens much less. Instead stuff like 220 is the floor where taken seriously and more of the mainstream. You might as well have Ebola the way you where looked at if you had this under 500 with the talk more around if this beats Titanic. So yes this movie is doing fine but the producers get to say that not people saying this is opening at 230 plus on its way to 650. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I am honestly not sure what the people who are going "It's still a great number! There is nothing to discuss! STFU" are doing on a BOX OFFICE site, and getting angered at the idea that people found the opening underwhelming and trying to stifle the discussion instead of encouraging it. I don't think anyone is angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 A studio estimate shooting up by $20 million is virtually impossible. Dude, same avatar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 No one's saying it's not huge! But relative to expectations AND precedent it is underwhelming. Why is this so off-putting? Because it's misplaced blame. The predictors were inferior....not the movie. Obviously a 187 OW is insanely successful. The predictors?.....not so much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Yeah, he has become my least favorite Avenger. Thor is pretty bad too though, but at least his interactions with the other Avengers are still hilarious Neither are going to die. Both are contracted to appear in Avengers: Infinity Wars. Robert Downey Jr. for both parts. Chris Evans for at least one part. Gregg was contracted for Iron Man 3; pretty sure Johnson had a multi-film contract too. I ignore the upcoming films unless they have their name in the title. I was worried for Hawkeye in Age of Ultron because as far as I knew, they were lying about Civil War. Granted, Downey and Evans are both bigger than that, but doesn't one of the Gems allow you to bring someone back to life? Edited May 3, 2015 by Blankments 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 The Avengers has a good chance at breaking this record, doesn't it? I don't see SW7 or anything in the next year and a half opening above $200 million... It's impossible to say, 5 years ago no-one was expecting Avengers to break the OW, same goes for TDK 1 year out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 the third movie effect IM+most Avengers will negate this. If I had to guess, we will easily match yesterday's Avengers tickets. If it keeps going like it is, there's a chance we'll top Friday's. But that will come down to the evening shows. Could you estimates wrong? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahnamahna Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Well when estimates come in over $30M less of what it looked Friday night (and $50M of what articles were saying Friday afternoon - some saying 101 OD and 230 weekend), you're allowed to be. Yes we had high expectations, but everyone, including Disney just rose them higher. Who knew Disney would be $30M off? It's fair to call this disappointing if you want to. I'm looking at BOM's year to date gross. Sniper's money counts as apart of 2015's $3.479 billion so far. I know but still. We've already 2 movies over $300m, Cinderella nearing $200, Home, Spongebob, and Kingsman breakouts, 50 Shades did good enough, etc. I know 2014 had a good Spring, but it still wasn't as exciting as this year's take off. 2015 will pull ahead of 2014 even farther, but you still have to admit, without diving into the numbers, on the surface its crazy how close they still are. Not to mention the slate is pretty well-rounded. I count 21-22 contenders for $100 million+ DOM this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spizzer Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) It's not lazy. It's the truth. Just because people predicted the movie wrong doesn't mean it needs a what went wrong thread. A what went wrong thread is for when a movie isn't doing fine. This one is. But what is the threshold for doing fine? Under what context is something fine and something not fine? Again, if it's just volume then we can spin ANY film as doing fine. The answer of course is that it's relative to one's expectations and relative to precedence. If a good fraction of people feel like this (or anything) underwhelmed relative to their expectations, then for them something has gone wrong! If a good fraction of people believe that this has underwhelmed relative to history, then again, for them something has gone wrong. Just because another fraction of people think it's fine because "187M is still 187M", why should that simply overrule the other group? I mean why don't we just take that route for every film then? And what's the point of discussion? There is no actual concrete threshold for impressiveness of BO performance, we have to make it, but if all that is necessary is just looking at raw volume then we should just never be disappointed. Edited May 3, 2015 by Spizzer - Manav 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 How many times does it need to be said that a movie can still dissapoint without being a flop? Many don't know the definition of a flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yes. The movie still increased very slightly (0.5%) nationwide on Saturday from non-preview Friday business. At Rallax's theater it actually dropped pretty hard on Saturday from non-preview Friday business if I remember right. The Spurs game and boxing proved to be a huge 1-2 knockout punch for his market. Well by that you have to apply the same to the L.A. market since they were in that game. It fell off the map according to rth. we will see if it follows the same pattern. Logic dictates that it should. We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 When big blockbusters opening to 250+ becomes the norm then we can start calling 187 million a disappointment but that bridge hadn't even been built Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted May 3, 2015 Community Manager Share Posted May 3, 2015 Thor is pretty bad too though, but at least his interactions with the other Avengers are still hilarious Gregg was contracted for Iron Man 3; pretty sure Johnson had a multi-film contract too. I ignore the upcoming films unless they have their name in the title. I was worried for Hawkeye in Age of Ultron because as far as I knew, they were lying about Civil War. Granted, Downey and Evans are both bigger than that, but doesn't one of the Gems allow you to bring someone back to life? Johnson did appear in multiple films. He was in The Winter Soldier after all. But there is a theory that he will be brought back to life. Honestly, I think if an Avenger dies it will be the cliffhanger for Infinity War Part One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spizzer Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Well by that you have to apply the same to the L.A. market since they were in that game. It fell off the map according to rth. we will see if it follows the same pattern. Logic dictates that it should. We will see. Yeah LA should rebound similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Steph is a G! Yeah LA should rebound similarly. I guess I should check for sell outs but I'm tired, lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahnamahna Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 SM2 only finished 30mil behind the first film, this will finish upwards of 150mil behind the first Avengers. Fatigue probably won't show much with the smaller grossing films, but for Avengers and maybe Iron Man, i wouldn't be surprised if the grosses start falling in the future films. Where's the upwards of $150 million+?? Have we seen its 2nd and 3rd weekend holds yet?? Until we see Avengers 2's legs, we have no clue where it will end up. I'd say $470 million at an extreme low (2.5x), $550 million as a best case scenario (2.85-2.9x). $510 million (2.6-2.7x) is my middle-of-the-road guess. Avengers 2 is going to do better than $425-450 million... this May isn't strong enough to prevent the development of legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 But what is the threshold for doing fine? Under what context is something fine and something not fine? Again, if it's just volume then we can spin ANY film as doing fine. The answer of course is that it's relative to one's expectations and relative to precedence. If a good fraction of people feel like this (or anything) underwhelmed relative to their expectations, then for them something has gone wrong! If a good fraction of people believe that this has underwhelmed relative to history, then again, for them something has gone wrong. Just because another fraction of people think it's fine because "187M is still 187M", why should that simply overrule the other fraction? I mean why don't we just take that route for every film then? And what's the point of discussion? There is no actual concrete threshold for impressiveness of BO performance, we have to make it, but if all that is necessary is just looking at raw volume then we should just never be disappointed. That's just people not wanting to admit their predictions were bad. The movie must be "disappointing" instead. How could their prediction be the problem? They know box office after all, right? Avengers have twice made a fool of predictors....so obviously predictors don't know how to predict Avengers movies. That's the logical conclusion. Pretending the movie is the flaw which should have matched the faulty predictions saves egos....but isn't logical. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobo007 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I want to see it a third time lobo007. you might be an exception. or maybe it's me as i virtually never pay to see a movie more than once unless it's... exceptional or requires multiple viewings to better understand the movie (say Sixth Sense). but speaking anecdotally, no one i saw the movie with (about a dozen of us) seemed eager to see it again even for free and we were CB fans. it just had the feeling of a second or even third tier quality Marvel/CB movie. i talking Wolverine, Thor TDW, TASM 2, but with much better marketing and hype, and of course more heroes together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted May 3, 2015 Community Manager Share Posted May 3, 2015 But what is the threshold for doing fine? Under what context is something fine and something not fine? Again, if it's just volume then we can spin ANY film as doing fine. The answer of course is that it's relative to one's expectations and relative to precedence. If a good fraction of people feel like this (or anything) underwhelmed relative to their expectations, then for them something has gone wrong! If a good fraction of people believe that this has underwhelmed relative to history, then again, for them something has gone wrong. Just because another fraction of people think it's fine because "187M is still 187M", why should that simply overrule the other group? I mean why don't we just take that route for every film then? And what's the point of discussion? There is no actual concrete threshold for impressiveness of BO performance, we have to make it, but if all that is necessary is just looking at raw volume then we should just never be disappointed. Are you seriously going to argue that $187 million OW is not fine for any movie regardless of expectations? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I guess I should check for sell outs but I'm tired, lol. The biggest difference I see in the SoCal region compared to yesterday and Friday is the number of showtimes. Friday and yesterday had 4-5 shows at every theater post 10:30pm. Today however, 10:30pm seems to be almost a hard stop for showtimes (apart from IMAX and a few scattered theaters). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
