RAMPAGE | 13 April 2018 | Warner Brothers | Dwayne Johnson

[baumer]

Sorry @norbar, I didn't mean to criticize you.  It's all good.  We all have different opinions on film.  Your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses.  Please accept my apology if I made you feel otherwise.

 

As for the box office, I think I over estimated what a film can open to that isn't based on previous material.  I think the 35 million domestic opening is good but the WW opening of 150 Mill is phenomenal.  

[RandomCat]

4 minutes ago, norbar said:

No but since you made the effort to say I have said something wrong I assume you want me to know where i made a mistake. Am I wrong on the critics part or on the rampage part? 

 

I want to restart this discussion. Sorry to Baumer and anyone who feels i have misinterpreted their opinion. My point is not to win an argument. This is why I want you to say where I am wrong. I don't want to die for rampage and I feel no need to win. I really sinecerly want to discuss the box office performance here. Can we do it? Please. I am really trying to have a civilized discussion. 

Ok. First of all, Deadpool, John Wick, and Taken are not viewed as dumb fun by critics, so it's example is poor. Second, Critics are notorious for disliking dumb fun movies, usually because they are very superficial, which Rampage is. Next, certainly some have over hyped this movie expecting a large OW of 50M+, that was unlikely to happen, unless reviews were astounding, especially coming off a very critically claimed popular movie like AQP. Given Rampage's a 151WW take away on OW is good, it's reported budge of 120, it's off to a solid start. Now of course this isn't a grand break out hit that some wanted/expected. But considering that it's a movie appears to be well liked by audiences (at contrast to critics) it will probably be a decently leggy movie, and may actually make 100M Dom, which will be fantastic, realistically.

 

To your assertion that people are bored, the opposite is what we're seeing, while not a huge opener, it's a dead part of the month/part of the year, that most families are most likely waiting for later in the month to spend their money, or even for the summer season. But that doesn't mean Rampage isn't doing well, it's doing just average, all things told. It'll make it's money, and with the help of international audiences, a probable sequel. It's too early to really tell WOM, we won't have an idea until the week/end plays out, but early signs point to it being well received by audiences, based on actuals being up from estimates.

 

In the end you are kind of wrong on both parts, critics are a lot of snobs, and they kind of have to be. They see a lot of movies, and have spent their lives seeing the best and the worst. And it means sometimes a movie like Rampage, which is just trying to be stupid fun, isn't viewed highly by people who want more from their movies. Which can be argued Deadpool( with it's satire of SHs and R rating comedy), John Wick (with it's fight choreography, and emotional hits), and Taken (The brutalness, and high quality performance of Liam Neeson) aren't just "stupid fun" movies. As far as Rampage, Johnson is a pretty solid star. He's had hit, after hit, and even his bad recent films manage to not flop, mostly by the power of him alone *coughbaywatchcough*.  With Rampage, while it can be described as samey looking, we see nothing that says audiences won't like the film, it just won't ever be a huge hit, and nor really should anyone have expected to be.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, norbar said:

$35m opening while some people here claimed 50-100m opening is not selling well. The mummy opened not much lower. It has a $120m production budget. So add like $80m for marketing and it needs to do $400m WW. Remember it will drop a lot when Avengers arrive. 

Random people on the Internet claim for a movies has little to do if something / someone is selling well or not too.

 

Look at the list of non-horror live action movies achieving to do 50-100m weekend without being a sequel/adaptation of something really popular or a biopic of a big name/historical big moments....

 

You have Avatar, Dunkirk (big for the UK but maybe not that big of a sellers domestic)/Inception, first Men in Black/I Am Legend/I robot/Hancock, 8 miles, The Martian, Gravity, Ted, 300, 2012/Days After Tomorrow/San Andreas arguably WWZ.

 

Not that many if you remove Will Smith prime and Nolan.

 

The Mummy is one of the biggest movie franchise of the 2000s with some budget rumors talking about a budget has high has 190m, if people would have believed that 125m budget rumors that movie would have been perceived has a nice success with it's over 400m result.

 

Rampage will spend more than $80m in marketing I would guess more over 100m, but a mid budget 120m movie does not need to do $400m WW (except if it is extremely China heavy), Elysium was that price tag (about 130m net production cost + participations bonus) with a $100m world release and turned a profit with 286m$ WW, the studio estimated it's break even point around 219.9m WW (1.76 time it's budget)

 

Rampage opened close to $150m WW, that is some franchise movie type of opening for a first entry, it will be very hard to turn that has not selling.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, RandomCat said:

Deadpool, John Wick, and Taken are not viewed as dumb fun by critics, so it's example is poor.

Really ? John Wick is pretty much has dumb fun has it can get that I would have imagined. Reading some of the synopsis of positive reviews:

 

If Keanu Reeves can make a comeback with John Wick, then I hope John Wick can make a case that there is an audience for cheesy action flicks of yesteryear in modern cinema

 

This revenge film looks slick, stylish and despite its camp story line, keeps you engrossed throughout with a strong impact.

 

... the kind of action movie that Hollywood rarely makes anymore: simple, streamlined, with action scenes that rely on physical rather than computer generated elements.

 

It's a rare screenplay that can introduce a compelling action character, create an entire world just beneath our own, and entertainingly destroy it from the inside out all in a hundred minutes.

 

John Wick is a slick gangster flick simmering in a suppurating green light, featuring Reeves as a kung-fu assassin pursuing... well, the plot's not really important. What is important is the fact that Reeves is still doing this at 50.

 

Maybe Sharknado would be a better example, it is at 83% on Rotten tomatoes after all.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Really ? John Wick is pretty much has dumb fun has it can get that I would have imagined. Reading some of the synopsis of positive reviews:

 

If Keanu Reeves can make a comeback with John Wick, then I hope John Wick can make a case that there is an audience for cheesy action flicks of yesteryear in modern cinema

 

This revenge film looks slick, stylish and despite its camp story line, keeps you engrossed throughout with a strong impact.

 

... the kind of action movie that Hollywood rarely makes anymore: simple, streamlined, with action scenes that rely on physical rather than computer generated elements.

 

It's a rare screenplay that can introduce a compelling action character, create an entire world just beneath our own, and entertainingly destroy it from the inside out all in a hundred minutes.

 

John Wick is a slick gangster flick simmering in a suppurating green light, featuring Reeves as a kung-fu assassin pursuing... well, the plot's not really important. What is important is the fact that Reeves is still doing this at 50.

 

Maybe Sharknado would be a better example, it is at 83% on Rotten tomatoes after all.

Anything I have to say to this, well I already talked about in my previous comment. There is a reason why critics wouldn't just equate it to dumb fun, and frankly synopsis from 5 critics, only 3 remotely proving your point, and mostly back up what I said in my comment.

 

And Sharknado is a terrible example. it's 82% is from a total of...17 reviews. Making any meaningful connection one can make between critics and their opinions of shallow "dumb fun" films near impossible, because not enough data is present with Sharknado.

 

I'm just more shocked that of the movies to be called on it was John Wick, the one of the three that has the most arthouse appeal, because of it's gimmick of Keanu Reeves actually doing the fights himself, and the break from modern techniques of cutting around the action and just filmed the fight. Add in very good world building, and good character actors, and it's the frothy cream that critics love. Deadpool is a raunchy comedy that only separates itself from other of it's type is that it's the first SH movie of the modern age to do this. And Taken is a by the numbers action flick that is only floated by Liam Neesons' presence.

[Barnack]

That true for sharknado maybe it got only critics open to the experience to see it in the first place.

 

But I just checked 10 or so of them for JW on the first page and found 5.

 

I pretty sure I could find easily 50:

 

Mindless fun on top of mindless fun, a one-note work with nothing a all to say, content to hit the same note for 90 minutes straight.

 

This is an achievement on an action level that might not break new ground, but it's an extremely focused and competent crowd-pleaser.

 

[A] blisteringly fun action romp.

 

If you can put up with the constant gunfire and the aggressive score, John Wick offers ridiculous but satisfying action.

 

Overall, Wick is a whimsical, but satisfying shoot-'em-up. Not all of the bullets hit the mark, but that's not really the point.

 

Perhaps all action movies should be directed by stuntmen

 

Exists more or less entirely as a highlight reel of great action choreography.

 

A compact, punchy film without an ounce of flab on it ... It's just a short, sharp, bullet-driven bulldozer of a movie that snaps necks and blows out brains.

 

And I didn't go through the second page of the positive reviews... and not encountered some comments about being deep or the movie being about anything than an excuse for a cheesy fun world in the background and fight choreography (if that is not just dump fun, it become at one point a self-realizing prophecy that being liked by critics make it not dumb-fun, critics loved the 21/22 jump street and Hangover)

 

And I never encountered anyone talking about that movie in any way except being dumb fun. 

 

[norbar]

4 hours ago, RandomCat said:

Ok. First of all, Deadpool, John Wick, and Taken are not viewed as dumb fun by critics, so it's example is poor. Second, Critics are notorious for disliking dumb fun movies, usually because they are very superficial, which Rampage is. Next, certainly some have over hyped this movie expecting a large OW of 50M+, that was unlikely to happen, unless reviews were astounding, especially coming off a very critically claimed popular movie like AQP. Given Rampage's a 151WW take away on OW is good, it's reported budge of 120, it's off to a solid start. Now of course this isn't a grand break out hit that some wanted/expected. But considering that it's a movie appears to be well liked by audiences (at contrast to critics) it will probably be a decently leggy movie, and may actually make 100M Dom, which will be fantastic, realistically.

 

To your assertion that people are bored, the opposite is what we're seeing, while not a huge opener, it's a dead part of the month/part of the year, that most families are most likely waiting for later in the month to spend their money, or even for the summer season. But that doesn't mean Rampage isn't doing well, it's doing just average, all things told. It'll make it's money, and with the help of international audiences, a probable sequel. It's too early to really tell WOM, we won't have an idea until the week/end plays out, but early signs point to it being well received by audiences, based on actuals being up from estimates.

 

In the end you are kind of wrong on both parts, critics are a lot of snobs, and they kind of have to be. They see a lot of movies, and have spent their lives seeing the best and the worst. And it means sometimes a movie like Rampage, which is just trying to be stupid fun, isn't viewed highly by people who want more from their movies. Which can be argued Deadpool( with it's satire of SHs and R rating comedy), John Wick (with it's fight choreography, and emotional hits), and Taken (The brutalness, and high quality performance of Liam Neeson) aren't just "stupid fun" movies. As far as Rampage, Johnson is a pretty solid star. He's had hit, after hit, and even his bad recent films manage to not flop, mostly by the power of him alone *coughbaywatchcough*.  With Rampage, while it can be described as samey looking, we see nothing that says audiences won't like the film, it just won't ever be a huge hit, and nor really should anyone have expected to be.

To tackle the first part about critics not liking dumb movies and you saying that critics don't think John Wick or Deadpool being dumb fun movies. This is untrue. It is clear you don't read reviews and listen to podcast in large numbers. This is my daily source of entertainment and I read them all.

 

Just to go rotten tomatoes and read critic blurbs about those movies if reading the reviews is not enough. I will quote a few john wick ones:

 

"Stahelski and Leitch, both former stunt men, unsurprisingly tackle action sequences with glee... but the quieter scenes are more sophisticated, incorporating a sense of fantasy and visual splendor that almost makes the wafer-thin plot feel fresh." - The Atlantic. Positive.

 

"John Wick is the kind of fired-up, ferocious B-movie fun some of us can't get enough of." - Rolling Stone. Peter Travers.

 

I think you agree both of those reviews suggest those critics don't think John Wick is a serious movie to be considered in the same way people think of "Phantom thread" ? Not to mention critics for the most part are simply superfans. They are people who loved movies so much they wanted to write about them. The job pays shit. Hell many of them do it after hours. Especially writers for sites like Slashfilm, Collider, Filmschoolrejects etc. They just view movies different than many of us because they see more of them. When you see a lot of movies you see them in a different light. 

 

Overall I think you are mistaking stupid with bad. Rampage is worse than all of the mentioned movies. Taken or John Wick wasn't meant to be ambitious fare. The "emotional hits" and "choreagraphy" are nothing smart. Old Jackie Chan movies have great choreography and they are dumb as hell. Most critics found rampage meh, most viewers found it meh+. To me the movie is derivative so I side with the critics. I saw it only because I didn't have to pay for it (because of our local equivalent to moviepass)

 

---------------------

 

As for Rampage - $100m is not fantastic. That means the movie has to make $300m on foreign markets. That will not happen. You have to judge in relation to it's budget and financial goals. Rampage was made to make money. I really believe it may cross $100m domestically. It may even do $120m but WW it may not break even. I doubt it will be a huge failure like RIPD but it will not be a clear success financially either.

 

Also I disagree it is well liked by viewers. It has a 6.5 average rating on IMDB. To compare it to other movies currently in Cinemas - Ready player one sits at 7.9. A Quiet place at 8.1. Those movies are "well liked" Rampage imdb rating is "meh". I also disagree viewer and critic opinion really differs here. 51% critics were positive about the movie. Positive is 6/10 or more. That would mean critics are only slightly more negative towards Rampage than regular IMDB users. 

 

As for people being bored. They are not completely rejecting it but San Andreas made $54m OW and it was another city destructing, Dwayne Johnson to the rescue movie with a budget of slightly above $100m. This is a 40% drop in OW. What is more  Central Inteligence made $35m and that was a lower budget Comedy. I know it had Kevin Hart but still it cost less and I assume the marketing wasn't as big too. Remember it's a $120m, big spectacle movie with one of the biggest stars on the planet and it opens to $35m? This means that while the movie isn't rejected by everyone the reaction to it from most is "maybe". There is little excitement and if you looked at tracking at boxoffice.com or a few other sites you would see that twitter, facebook and google interest numbers were low which means people were not interested before release. This is what I mean by people being bored. They expressed less interest in Rampage than in similar movies before. 

 

 

Lastly Baywatch wasn't a success. It was saved by the INTL market but In US it was a hard flop. This is a discussion for another topic but looking at what countries performed well (many european ones) they were also countries where he doesn't perform super well so it might have been the power of the TV Show more than him.

 

 

To finish it - don't get me wrong. I'm so hard on Dwayne because I like him and I cheer for him. He seems like a great, likeable and charismatic person. This is why I want him making better choices. I am really worried he is trying to play to what he thinks other expect of him and it makes his movies look too similar or at least his roles in them. He could be so much bigger if he went for variety and sometimes risked a little. 

 

[norbar]

1 hour ago, RandomCat said:

I'm just more shocked that of the movies to be called on it was John Wick, the one of the three that has the most arthouse appeal, because of it's gimmick of Keanu Reeves actually doing the fights himself, and the break from modern techniques of cutting around the action and just filmed the fight. Add in very good world building, and good character actors, and it's the frothy cream that critics love. Deadpool is a raunchy comedy that only separates itself from other of it's type is that it's the first SH movie of the modern age to do this. And Taken is a by the numbers action flick that is only floated by Liam Neesons' presence.

Doing the fights yourself is not "not dumb". It's not an intelectual pursuit. It's interesting but it's not an intelectual move. You mistake movie nerdism with intelectualism. Yes John Wick has good world building and good character actors but that again doesn't make the movie not dumb. Those are simply traits of a good movie. Critics love good movies. Not dumb. Your argument basically is critics are wrong because they are against bad storytelling. John Wick is still about a Dude everyone calls Baba Jaga (it's really REALLY stupid if you are from eastern europe) who kills everyone because they killed his dog. The basic premise is more stupid than Rampage. It's just executed better.

 

Still to give you a better example - The Raid - it's an excellently made movie but a stupid one. It has close to no plot. It's just well made so critics and viewers love it. You make the wrong assumption that if a movie has certain traits that critics love it is not stupid. Using that logic I also hate stupid movies since the same things annoy me as the critics but that would be a really strange idea since I enjoy Ilsa the She wolf of the ss and it's hard to find a dumber movie. 

[PDC1987]

5 hours ago, norbar said:

Ok so close to 65 not close to 100. You still overvalued it. Also this is not the topic of this discussion. I get that you like the movie. To me it had it's moments but I'd like to discuss 2 things:

 

1. How am I wrong outside of using a few hyperbolies? The movie is a bit different than other Dwayne Johnson movies but it uses the same aesthetic (lighting, grading, costumes - a bit like older Marvel movies that looked all like TV productions. Add to that a very similar looking city) so it seems like it's a series of movies. I love Johnson, he is super charismatic and likeable but the marketing for this makes this look like a Dwayne Johnson Verse tried making a cheaper Kong movie (I know the plot and stuff is different but remember most people don't make calculated decisions when going to cinemas). Hell some comedic sites started satirizing he looks the same in every movie where he is the only lead.

2. How is $35m opening on a $120m budget a satisfying result?

Because it was accompanied by a $115 million international opening weekend. The box office is global, not just the US and Canada. Studios don't dismiss or not take the international revenue just because it's not North American in origin. And even looking just at the domestic market Rampage opened over $7 million bigger than Pacific Rim: Uprising, a film that was budgeted $30 million higher and is the sequel to a film that pulled down $101 million domestically.

 

Also, literally nobody thought Rampage would open to anything even remotely close to $100 million domestically.

[RandomCat]

Oh Gods. What have I done. I don't care this much. Whatever. You guys win. Whatever your point is, I agree. Can we move on?

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, norbar said:

As for Rampage - $100m is not fantastic. That means the movie has to make $300m on foreign markets. That will not happen. You have to judge in relation to it's budget and financial goals. Rampage was made to make money. I really believe it may cross $100m domestically. It may even do $120m but WW it may not break even. I doubt it will be a huge failure like RIPD but it will not be a clear success financially either.

 

3 little points, with how well it is doing in China is it imposible for it to get really close to a 300m type of number on foreign market ?

 

Has for not breaking even, I really doubt it is possible for a movie like that opening significantly higher than is budget. If Johnson and co. are getting participation bonus and not first dollar gross and if that 120m figure is close to the truth, it is a really good price. It will comfortably double it's budget and much more.

 

Look at this example:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elysium.htm

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$93,050,117	32.5%
+ Foreign:	$193,090,583	67.5%
= Worldwide:	$286,140,700

 

Real budget was 126m and got a 100m world release and we know that Sony made 20m in profit from this.

 

 

Quote

 

As for people being bored. They are not completely rejecting it but San Andreas made $54m OW and it was another city destructing,

 

That genre is a bit different too, even with cast of total unknown and mediocre reviews they can open around that figure, it is not surprising for something that goes less 4 quadrants to open smaller:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dayaftertomorrow.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=2012.htm

 

Quote

 

Central Inteligence made $35m and that was a lower budget Comedy. I know it had Kevin Hart but still it cost less and I assume the marketing wasn't as big too. Remember it's a $120m, big spectacle movie with one of the biggest stars on the planet and it opens to $35m? This means that while the movie isn't rejected by everyone the reaction to it from most is "maybe". 

 

 

 

Kevin Hart in a comedy is really a giant domestic draw, is Ride Along opened higher than Central intelligence by a good amount and Get Hard made about the same with 33m, not sure among the 2 who was the biggest draw for that comedy domestic. Central Intelligence audience was really diverse. Has for marketing Warner brother around that time could spend a lot on movies like those

 

Look how much they spent on Entourage:

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/entourage-three-peats-as-top-ad-spender-while-max-and-insidious-debut-1201515621/

 

Or Get Hard/Focus:

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/mid-year-movie-report-warner-bros-dominates-top-tv-ad-budgets-1201539126/

1. Get Hard (Warner Bros.): $44.5 million
2. Focus (Warner Bros.): $43.3 million
3. Mad Max: Fury Road (Warner Bros.): $41.8 million
4. Jupiter Ascending (Warner Bros.): $41 million
5. Entourage (Warner Bros.): $40.6 million
6. Run All Night (Warner Bros.): $39.3 million
7. Jurassic World (Universal): $32.4 million
8. Hot Pursuit (Warner Bros.)? $31.8 million
9. Furious 7 (Universal): $31.7 million

 

Would not be out of question if in the US, Central Intelligence was about the same has Rampage in term of marketing, if not higher.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Barnack

[Porthos]

There's been talk about what film could break the 'video game curse'.  I think the one that could do it is if that Portal adaptation ever escapes development hell.

 

It's got a taught, compact, storyline.  It's got psychological angles that provide for meaty acting hooks.  It doesn't have many characters (to put it mildly), so one doesn't have to worry about bloat. And related to the first point, it has a story that can be told in 90 to 135 minutes.

 

Also don't have to waste time telling an 'origin story' and can dive right on in to the main tale.

 

The main downside I can see IS the lack of characters, perhaps.  But there's ways around that that shouldn't be too problematic.

[MCKillswitch123]

I agree with @Porthos that Portal is definitely one of the video games w/the biggest movie adaptation potential, but really, you can get a good movie out of anything. You just need someone w/the right sensibilities in order to capture the spirit of the game while not losing grasp of what should be a perfectly good filmic narrative. Bloody hell, I think I could get a good movie out of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater if given the chance. I don't see why studios believe it's so hard to get this whole schtick right .

18 hours ago, baumer said:

Sorry @norbar, I didn't mean to criticize you.  It's all good.  We all have different opinions on film.  Your opinion is just as valid as anyone elses.  Please accept my apology if I made you feel otherwise.

 

As for the box office, I think I over estimated what a film can open to that isn't based on previous material.  I think the 35 million domestic opening is good but the WW opening of 150 Mill is phenomenal.  

....technically, Rampage IS based on previous material. It was a video game.

Edited April 18, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[Avatree]

7 hours ago, Porthos said:

Portal has a story that can be told in 90 to 135 minutes.

struggling to think of any stories that can't be told in 90 to 135 minutes

[MCKillswitch123]

33 minutes ago, Treeze Rutledge said:

struggling to think of any stories that can't be told in 90 to 135 minutes

Porn stories.

[Avatree]

They CAN, you just might "walk out of the cinema" before you reach the climax of the movie.

[baumer]

6 hours ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I agree with @Porthos that Portal is definitely one of the video games w/the biggest movie adaptation potential, but really, you can get a good movie out of anything. You just need someone w/the right sensibilities in order to capture the spirit of the game while not losing grasp of what should be a perfectly good filmic narrative. Bloody hell, I think I could get a good movie out of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater if given the chance. I don't see why studios believe it's so hard to get this whole schtick right .

....technically, Rampage IS based on previous material. It was a video game.

I know Rampage is a video game. 

[EarlyDeadlinePredictions]

http://collider.com/rampage-original-ending-dwayne-johnson/#images

 

Spoiler Warning. 

 

Wouldn't have made much difference to me but The Rock wants his movies to follow a certain pattern. 

[RRA]

7 minutes ago, EarlyDeadlinePredictions said:

http://collider.com/rampage-original-ending-dwayne-johnson/#images

 

Spoiler Warning. 

 

Wouldn't have made much difference to me but The Rock wants his movies to follow a certain pattern. 

To be fair the ending we did great played like gangbusters with me crowd 

[dxmatrixdt]

2 million Wednesday, not looking good.......

 

2.0 Thurs - 45.66 total

+150%

5.0 Friday

9.0 Saturday

6.34 Sunday - 66.00 total

 

...should hit 70M by the time Ultron decimates next Thursday