Star Wars TFA 2nd Wknd Actual: 149.2M !!!

[Ozymandias]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Honestly I feel like TFA is proving what I always suspected about TPM: it would have challenged Titanic had the fans been truly on board with the movie. 

 

I agree.

[Orestes]

2 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

TFA wont be the last movie to hit 100m in admissions. If anything, another 10-years-waited and extremely-well-marketed and incredibly-received Star Wars movie could do it again.

 

I doubt we'll have that long of a wait between Star Wars movies again for a very long time.

[JonathanLB]

On one hand, as a Star Wars fan, Avatar 2 is the only movie I really fear right now in the distance. But on the other hand, just looking at the situation, I'm having trouble believing that Avatar 2 comes anywhere near Avatar in box office grosses. In fact I think it'll be a rather atypically large drop from 1 to 2. I don't see it getting an 80% 3D share. That boat has sailed. Most people I know either hate 3D or don't care at all about it. I'm one of the few people I know who is still, ever since Avatar (I owe it to that movie), very "rah rah 3D," in spite of the terrible conversions for a few movies. I still think that seeing a movie in 3D in the theaters, especially IMAX 3D, is a special experience and I'm willing to pay for it for the top 5-8 biggest blockbusters of the year. 

 

I just don't think most people share my enthusiasm, though, about 3D projection and 3D movies. That alone is going to mean a box office split closer to TFA as far as premium formats and 3D, if not lower. I'm being generous by saying closer to TFA because I think it'll be well below that given they have no franchise fans. There are people who like Avatar, but there aren't truly "Avatar fans" as such. Not a fan base, I mean. I think for the people who do love Avatar, they need to keep their expectations in check. A $500M grosser would be very good for Avatar 2 and very possible. That would be one of the biggest December hits of all time. Nothing at all wrong with that and it could then go on to make $1.75B or so worldwide. 

 

I just worry some people forget that sequels, in general, besides TFA, simply don't massively outperform a predecessor unless the original was a small cult hit (Austin Powers comes to mind, for instance, same with The Terminator). When the original is the highest grossing movie ever, expect a performance more like AOTC or ESB, where they are major blockbusters but not impressive compared to the first.

[darthdevidem01]

2 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

TFA taught us SW is still in a league of its own when the movie doesn't suck balls like the prequels.  If this makes it past 1 billion, nothing is sniffing that for decades until inflation catches up.

Much to learn you still have padawan. You just don't know when a Titanic style phenomenon is on its way or even a slightly bigger avatar style of hit.

 

We shall see.

 

I agree though, TFA has proven that the prequels quality truly led to a muted sales effect (even with TPM which could have taken on titanic more so). We can now see how a great star wars film can perform in the 21st century

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Orestes said:

 

I doubt we'll have that long of a wait between Star Wars movies again for a very long time.

Yeah. If they gave us another 10 year break between trilogies, than maybe X could be massive again, but that won't happen. Even if it did, there will have been so many SW related movies over the next several years that it would probably take even longer than a 10 year break for them to feel like this kind of event again. 

[BoxOfficeZ]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Honestly I feel like TFA is proving what I always suspected about TPM: it would have challenged Titanic had the fans been truly on board with the movie. 

 

It would have challenged Titanic if TPM was actually good. 

[MovieMan89]

Just now, BoxOfficeZ said:

 

It would have challenged Titanic if TPM was actually good. 

Exactly, that's what I meant. 

 

The fact that TFA could get nearly the same multi or even better than TPM's with such an insane opening just proves that there was indeed plenty of room for improvement with TPM's legs. 

[MovieMan89]

I'm referring to TPM's 5 day multi btw, since I believe it would have made something similar to that opening on a Friday. 

 

Anyone else not able to edit these past couple days? It is just a blank screen for me when I click edit? 

[darthdevidem01]

3 minutes ago, BoxOfficeZ said:

 

It would have challenged Titanic if TPM was actually good. 

But TPM was good?

[Darth Homer]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Honestly I feel like TFA is proving what I always suspected about TPM: it would have challenged Titanic had the fans been truly on board with the movie. 

Doubt it. TFA is only beating Titanic with 18 years of inflation + 3D. Attendance wise Titanic is still going to be way ahead of both, even if TFA gets close to $1b.

[corngrower87]

45 minutes ago, Baumer Fett said:

Here's a novel idea....how about just enjoy this for what it is?  That being a run that hasn't been seen...EVER.  No film has ever opened this high and sustained these kinds of holds ten days into their run.  Adjusting, inflation, tickets sold, dividing population by dollars and everything else you guys are doing is just smoke filled coffee house crap.  There are way way way too many variables to take into consideration when trying to figure out adjusted and everything else.  What we do know is that SW is going to be the domestic champ after about 17 days.  We also know that it's taking a real run at a billion.  We also know that it will come relatively close to the WW crown, but probably fall a bit short.

 

Can't you guys just enjoy this without trying to tarnish it in some way?

 

Agreed. I have enjoyed this just as I enjoyed Avatar's run, and Jurasic World's, and the Avenger's. Whether you like each of the movies or not, we ought to be glad that these movies are bringing people into the theater. Especially since movie attendance isn't what it used to be.

[redfirebird2008]

8 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Honestly I feel like TFA is proving what I always suspected about TPM: it would have challenged Titanic had the fans been truly on board with the movie. 

 

And that is one of the more interesting things about this run. Everyone thought because of TPM's legs and total admissions that the WOM must have been great at the time. TFA performance is a big threat to that line of logic. 

[cory]

A little more accurate

http://i.imgur.com/XBgY7El.png

Edited December 28, 2015 by cory

[baumer]

Don't you think that because the prequels were underwhelming, that created even more demand for this film?  Bear with me.

 

Several things had to happen to get the world's appetite for this movie to be insatiable.  George makes three films that made money but obviously not the kind of money they could have.  TPM was the only true massive film and that obviously had a lot to do with it being the first SW film in 16 years.  But then the entire series is under whelming to a lot of people.  So then George sells Lucasfilm to Disney and then they decide that the next series of films is going to have the old cast return.  These three things, imo, are what made SW so anticipated.  With the prequels disappointing so many this just made Disney be sure to make a film that all of the fans would enjoy.  And then they went out and got ballsy.  They hired JJ, an obvious Spielberg crony,  and we all know how close George and Steve are.  Then they decide that they are going to give us a story that has much closer ties to the originals.  Then they paid Ford between 20-23 million dollars to appear in the film and once the trailer broke with him and Chewy "being home" and the shots of the Falcon and so on, it was game on.  But imo, none of this is possible without the prequels being what they were.  They just created more demand for a better SW film.  And voila, this is the result.  They paid much more attention to what made the originals so endearing to the fans, and they capitalized on that.  But again, imo, all of this is possible because of the lackluster prequels.

[Jandrew]

I wonder if we can hit 1.4 billion tickets again. I know current trends says no, but you never know. Its not like it was that long ago: 2009 did it.

 

Maybe theaters will come up with something that can get people back, like a new gimmick or all-day discounts, etc. And the studios could stop making Play-Doh movies and what not. Guess we'll see.

 

But as long we stay out of the 1.2's and below, I'm personally happy. Good to see 2015 bouncing back, and 2016 has promise.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, Darth Homer said:

Doubt it. TFA is only beating Titanic with 18 years of inflation + 3D. Attendance wise Titanic is still going to be way ahead of both, even if TFA gets close to $1b.

You may wanna hold your tongue on that one. Yes Titanic should keep its admissions title, but TFA could still get very close. I don't think $1b in pure ticket sales is off the table. In which case, that's less than 10m behind Titanic's first run. Not exactly an *ahem* ocean of difference. I bet TPM could have done that or even better with TFA's reception, given the 90's were still a healthier time for huge attendance than this century has ever been. 

[baumer]

5 minutes ago, Darth Homer said:

Doubt it. TFA is only beating Titanic with 18 years of inflation + 3D. Attendance wise Titanic is still going to be way ahead of both, even if TFA gets close to $1b.

 

Titanic is in my top 20 films of all time, I love it.  But when it comes to the run it had, taking nothing away from it of course (you can't, it's fucking incredible) but it did come out in an entirely different era of box office.  SW coming close attendance wise is a miracle.

 

[MovieMan89]

Just now, Baumer Fett said:

 

Titanic is in my top 20 films of all time, I love it.  But when it comes to the run it had, taking nothing away from it of course (you can't, it's fucking incredible) but it did come out in an entirely different era of box office.  SW coming close attendance wise is a miracle.

 

If TFA gets within 15m admissions of Titanic's first run, I honestly think it's every bit as impressive as Titanic's run given the two time frames. An argument could even be made for it being more impressive. 

[Harpospoke]

6 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

Being conservative. 

 

 

Sw7 should be at 600 million by Tuesday

Avengers be passed by Wednesday and jw by Thursday 

 

 

By Friday for certain all will be pased by ticket sales 

 

 

By Sunday it should be almost near tdk admissions in 17 days.    

 

It'll have to pass TDK admissions before it can get to Avengers and  JW.    

 

 

5 hours ago, No Prisoners said:

We should remove GWTW and all the Disney re-releases out of adjusted top ten. Just not comparable. Then compare the  1st run of the movies we have data on, like exorcist, jaws, SW and beyond.

 

If you start down that road, you'll end up just comparing every movie to just itself.  

 

Every decade has its own set of circumstances which are advantages AND disadvantages.    People often only use one of those when campaigning for their favorite movie of course.   You'll rarely hear some mention that GWTW came out during a time when the population was lower, more people lived in rural areas where it was hard to get to a theater, there were far less screens, movies were typically only shown once or twice per day, and more movies were released every year to compete with.   

 

What is really comparable about the 70s (no home videa, no cable) with other eras?    So do we remove Jaws, Star Wars, and Exorcist too?   Avatar wasn't even a decade ago and it had a different set of circumstances from movies today like large 3D share, better exchange rates, etc.

 

So how is anything comparable?

 

3 hours ago, townzy89 said:

 

Americas Population in 1980 - 226m

Americas Population in 2014 - 318m

 

Change = 40%

 

Meanwhile the average age has increased by 5 years

 

You really think an older population which visits the cinema less frequent, during the technology age where downloading is rampant among many other economical factors contributes less than 40% against ticket sales?

 

if population increase was such a determining factor why havent films been doing $1b+ domestic for 15 years now?

 

One thing in favor of population increase is how more movies appear in the top 200 adjusted list from each decade as the population grew.

 

3 hours ago, Ball Lightning said:

 

If you start looking at population, you also need to start looking at the purchasing power of that population. There is a higher percentage of people who are on minimum wage now then in the past, which reduces for pool size of people who have disposable incomes. Also there is a significantly aging population which would also impact on tickets per person.

 

You can't just take one factor like population and then ignore the rest.

 

Aging populations have more money so those two things don't match up.   Last I read disposable income has increased over time...not decreased.   We buy more stuff now so it might seem like we are "poorer".   Decades ago people didn't buy cell phones, computers, games, etc.    In the US, even "poor" people have luxuries our ancestors could not even dream of having.   We are living in the good old days now.   We are a pessimist species though.   Most probably say "an aging population" as if that were a bad thing.    That means we are living longer and is fantastic.

 

2 hours ago, Deathlife said:

When the discussion shifts to "tickets sold" and "adjusting for inflation", you know the movie in question is smashing all the relevant records.

 

Yep.  

 

[redfirebird2008]

3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

If TFA gets within 15m admissions of Titanic's first run, I honestly think it's every bit as impressive as Titanic's run given the two time frames. An argument could even be made for it being more impressive. 

 

Both extremely impressive for different reasons. Could see that one go either way on a coin toss.