Wednesday Numbers | Official Estimates: Magic Mike XXL - 9.3M; Terminator: Genisys - 8.9M

[Bishop54]

8.8-9 for Flopinator

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-terminator-5-magic-806211

Lol, wow! Arnie needs to hang em up...he's done.

[MrPink]

I am here for the Nolan talk

[Gopher]

Interstellar was kind of a wash domestically, OS redeemed it.

 

I think 190m for a three hour heady sci-fi film released in November but not playing into awards season is solid. We obviously expected more based on how much Inception made but you could see from a few minutes of Interstellar it wasn't as commercial as Inception. 

[GiantCALBears]

The opening was a bigger problem. The legs were very good.

Way worse on both fronts compared to Gravity, the bad opening makes the legs worse even if the multiplier might be ok.

[redfirebird2008]

It almost had a 4x multiplier from his OW. Legs were fantastic.

Would have opened much better in WB's hands instead of Paramount. WB did a great job on the overseas distribution. Nolan should stick with WB going forward.

[GiantCALBears]

It almost had a 4x multiplier from his OW. Legs were fantastic.

They were fine for that opening, which didn't exactly crush it as some thought it would.

[CJohn]

I am here for the Nolan talk

Get the fuck outta here, you hater!

[grey ghost]

The vast majority of movies in the top 100 WW are either sequels or adaptations.

There should be no question why Hollywood avoids big budget original movies.

[redfirebird2008]

They were fine for that opening, which didn't exactly crush it as some thought it would.

Paramount sucks at marketing. People here underestimated that aspect of it.

[CJohn]

They were fine for that opening, which didn't exactly crush it as some thought it would.

No, they were fantastic. It means WOM was very good. Prometheus opened with around the same and ended with 125M DOM or so. 

 

Would have opened much better in WB's hands instead of Paramount. WB did a great job on the overseas distribution. Nolan should stick with WB going forward.

The marketing campaign here was fucking insane. I have no idea what Paramount did DOM. 

[Gopher]

No Chris Pratt yet?

 

Want to wait to see how he opens a film that isn't a franchise. I have no doubt he can, but a Lucy kind of deal where a movie is sold on him and it opens huge would seal it for me. 

[grey ghost]

No Chris Pratt yet?

I wonder if Pratt can manage to get a third or fourth mega-franchise in the next few years.

[TServo2049]

Non-sequels aren't the same as the "original" meme.

Avatar fits the template.

Frozen is an animated Disney movie based on a fairy tale, it was only "risky" because people thought this kind of movie wasn't en vogue anymore - in reality, it repeated the winning Disney formula from the early 90s, it's just that it struck a chord with audiences in a way the post-Lion King stuff hadn't (Better execution? Just the right time?)

Alice in Wonderland was a reimagining (and a "sequel" to the Alice story in general, not one specific past adaptation)

Inception qualifies too.

Guardians of the Galaxy was a Marvel movie and a comic adaptation, but riskier because the property wasn't known and the concept was off-beat

2012 qualifies, I guess. Emmerich wasn't a "risk", but the film was another one where OS came in to save the day.

Inside Out, I guess that qualifies, it's only a "franchise" in the sense of Pixar as a franchise. It was "risky" only in the sense that Pixar seemed down on its luck, if it had come out directly after Toy Story 3 it would still be seen as a big success and a continuation of Pixar's winning streak, but not a "triumphant return" of the studio.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Way worse on both fronts compared to Gravity, the bad opening makes the legs worse even if the multiplier might be ok.

Intersellar over $300M DOM  

[grey ghost]

In before somebody calls Pixar a brand, despite the examples including Burton, Marvel, Disney and Nolan... which all four were "brands" when those movies were released.

Yed those are all brands and having a successful brand minimizes the risk involved.

You have the built in audience of a sequel.

[redfirebird2008]

2012 doesn't count. Destruction porn is not a risk, it's a proven moneymaker.

[GiantCALBears]

No, they were fantastic. It means WOM was very good. Prometheus opened with around the same and ended with 125M DOM or so. 

 

The marketing campaign here was fucking insane. I have no idea what Paramount did DOM.

Nolan usually has had nice multipliers. Come on CJohn, compared to Inception (summer movie), Gravity it doesn't look as fantastic and those are probably two of the best comparables. International success is separate, just talking domestic.

[Hatebox]

Just found out Interstellar made only 40m less WW than Gravity. Like Inception, it was a real trooper OS.

[goldenstate5]

Yed those are all brands and having a successful brand minimizes the risk involved.

You have the built in audience of a sequel.

 

The only original breakout movie in the last long while I can think of that was just zero brand when it came out was The Hangover. Todd Phillips was a known name in Hollywood, but the GA only saw "from the director of Old School"... and Zach G, Bradley Cooper and even Ed Helms had yet to break out.

 

I guess that counts?

[keysersoze123]

Way worse on both fronts compared to Gravity, the bad opening makes the legs worse even if the multiplier might be ok.

 

Not all original sci-fi drama can do close to 300m. 190m is fantastic number and its OS performance was even better. its ridiculous to expect more.