4-day weekend actuals = Ride Along 2 $41.01 | Revenent $37.53 | SW7 33.02 | 13h 19.22 | DH 11.9 | NotN 9.38 | Forest 6.98 | Big Sh 5.44 | Sisters 5.48 | Alvin & H8 4,33 | chart p.4

[misterchief81]

10 minutes ago, narniadis said:

 

Part of the issue is that NATO just released the 2015 Ticket Price AVERAGE - it was higher than the # that BOM had which means that it went through 2 upticks. That one and the adjustment for price that includes the increases from the first point of december on.... Not hard to believe that we went into 2016 with that average ticket price considering what the higher grossing movies have been (geared toward adults or 3d/Imax extravaganzas.)

 

The adjusted list isn't hard to understand when taken into context - but most don't do that.

 

But considering that Jurassic World came out 6 months ago, the adjusted list shouldn't even apply to it yet.

[Daxtreme]

4 minutes ago, misterchief81 said:

 

But considering that Jurassic World came out 6 months ago, the adjusted list shouldn't even apply to it yet.

 

Hell it was still grossing $ on November 19th, just 2 months ago!

[MovieMan89]

27 minutes ago, Baumer said:

And I don't agree with yours.  

 

Look, not every actor is going to bat 1000.  J Edgar didn't look appealing to anyone so no one went.  But Leo's name obviously helps sell a film.  How else do you explain almost every single one of his films doing exceptionally well?

Leo is also very smart about taking appealing roles too, and the one time he didn't in recent years it tanked. I think the big flashy production values of The Revenant gave it some appeal of its own. It looked like a more mature blockbuster in a lot of ways. Leo no doubt has big draw power obviously, but he also is savvy on what roles he takes.  It's why I would still give Denzel the draw power edge domestically, because the man can and does take generic filler all the time and turns it into a big hit. McCarthy seems to be his equivalent as far as females go (though nowhere near the longevity yet of course). The two of them are about the only ones that can get away with unappealing films still grossing 80m+. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by MovieMan89

[CJohn]

9 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Leo is also very smart about taking appealing roles too, and the one time he didn't in recent years it tanked. I think the big flashy production values of The Revenant gave it some appeal of its own. It looked like a more mature blockbuster in a lot of ways. Leo no doubt has big draw power obviously, but he also is savvy on what roles he takes.  It's why I would still give Denzel the draw power edge domestically, because the man can and does take generic filler all the time and turns it into a big hit. McCarthy seems to be his equivalent as far as females go (though nowhere near the longevity yet of course). The two of them are about the only ones that can get away with unappealing films still grossing 80m+. 

Denzel has his share of flops. He seems to be a draw when combined with a villain/anti-hero badass (see Safe House, Flight and The Equalizer).

[MovieMan89]

Just now, CJohn said:

Denzel has his share of flops. He seems to be a draw when combined with a villain/anti-hero badass (see Safe House, Flight and The Equalizer).

Er, not really in the last decade. 13 of his last 14 films adjust to at least 75m, and the one that doesn't was a smaller limited release. He's good for 90m+ more often than not, and in movies that usually have no business making half that. 

[department store basement]

9 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Leo is also very smart about taking appealing roles too, and the one time he didn't in recent years it tanked. I think the big flashy production values of The Revenant gave it some appeal of its own. It looked like a more mature blockbuster in a lot of ways. Leo no doubt has big draw power obviously, but he also is savvy on what roles he takes.  It's why I would still give Denzel the draw power edge domestically, because the man can and does take generic filler all the time and turns it into a big hit. McCarthy seems to be his equivalent as far as females go (though nowhere near the longevity yet of course). The two of them are about the only ones that can get away with unappealing films still grossing 80m+. 

 

What "unappealing films" does Melissa McCarthy do? All of the movies she's done as lead appeal to the low-brow humor crowd.

 

You're probably right about Denzel, though I won't be surprised if one of his films does a Run All Night soon.

[IronJimbo]

1 hour ago, JonathanLB said:

I think the director sold the movie. Everyone wanted to see what he did next after Birdman, clearly. This whole idea of Leo selling the film is ridiculous. It's CLEARLY the director.

 

LOL, just joking, a fellow director can wish, right? I mean come on!

 

If you apsire to be a good director why have you watched TFA 18 times, nothing to learn.

[CJohn]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Er, not really in the last decade. 13 of his last 14 films adjust to at least 75m, and the one that doesn't was a smaller limited release. He's good for 90m+ more often than not, and in movies that usually have no business making half that. 

Lets not forget many of those cost 100M like The Taking of Pelham 123 and Unstoppable. 

[CJohn]

6 minutes ago, department store basement said:

 

You're probably right about Denzel, though I won't be surprised if one of his films does a Run All Night soon.

IMO, Denzel does a way better career management than Liam Neeson. Between 2009 and 2015 Liam Neeson did around 400 action movies. It was bound to go sideways on him at some point. Denzel doesn't do that. He mixes fun action movies, Oscar stuff and badass villain/anti-hero characters. He doesn't do only one genre and one character for 6 years. We will see Denzel next in the western Magnificent Seven and only after that he will return to the badass anti-hero type of character in The Equalizer 2.

[tokila]

today is the day we pass Avatar+100mil. For reference Avatar has made more money that Avatar by > than Revenent's gross to date.

[The Futurist]

Baumer don't forget that Leo s career is an anomaly.

He s the only one in that position.

 

Also Leo is part of the MSCU.

 

Leo s movies are blockb'auteurs, prestigious movies by AAA directors, all the top directors want to work with Leo.

 

The movies he makes are not random, casual movies that sell because Leo is on the billboard, they are very expensive, ambitious projects made by top directors.

 

Leo helps it is obvious but the movies he makes are high end Hollywood, even Brad Pitt has to play the franchise game.

 

 

[TommyA10]

39 minutes ago, narniadis said:

 

Part of the issue is that NATO just released the 2015 Ticket Price AVERAGE - it was higher than the # that BOM had which means that it went through 2 upticks. That one and the adjustment for price that includes the increases from the first point of december on.... Not hard to believe that we went into 2016 with that average ticket price considering what the higher grossing movies have been (geared toward adults or 3d/Imax extravaganzas.)

 

The adjusted list isn't hard to understand when taken into context - but most don't do that.

The short term average price increases are influenced by 3D/IMAX/4DX/2D percentage of current movies, therefore adjusting freaking Jurassic World to "2016" average ticket price, which was largely influenced by TFA pricey tickets, is beyond stupid and completely wrong. JW had the same price for a 3D/IMAX ticket as TFA. More people simply went to see TFA in 3D/IMAX. The same goes for some older movies, like for ex, 101 Dalamtians. The average price for that movie wouldn't be anywhere near $8.70.

[grim22]

 

 

 

[#ED]

Good for The Met, maybe we have a future.

[vc2002]

That TFA Monday number?

[GiantCALBears]

3 hours ago, CJohn said:

The concept combined with DiCaprio is what sold the movie. FOX put together an outstanding marketing campaign. DiCaprio alone can't sell shit (see J. Edgar). 

J Edgar was Oscar bait that still WW did 2.4x it's budget, you keep using this as a recent example but it's a bit silly imo. Surprised you don't use Body of Lies or even Revolutionary Road. Seems more applicable. The point is he easily sells movies thesedays on his name (by far the #1 draw in Hollywood).

[GiantCALBears]

2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Leo is also very smart about taking appealing roles too, and the one time he didn't in recent years it tanked. I think the big flashy production values of The Revenant gave it some appeal of its own. It looked like a more mature blockbuster in a lot of ways. Leo no doubt has big draw power obviously, but he also is savvy on what roles he takes.  It's why I would still give Denzel the draw power edge domestically, because the man can and does take generic filler all the time and turns it into a big hit. McCarthy seems to be his equivalent as far as females go (though nowhere near the longevity yet of course). The two of them are about the only ones that can get away with unappealing films still grossing 80m+. 

Get out of here dude with Denzel being a bigger singular draw either domestically or overseas compared to Leo. It's not even close.

[Impact]

Okay I swear Norm of the North had a 4% the other day, and now it has a 0%! So, did someone decide they no longer like it?

[MovieMan89]

Just now, GiantCALBears said:

Get out of here dude with Denzel being a bigger singular draw either domestically or overseas compared to Leo. It's not even close.

When Leo makes a movie a hit that looks utterly unappealing, then I might agree. And I'm only talking DOM. Denzel isn't a draw OS. 

[lilmac]

2 hours ago, tokila said:

today is the day we pass Avatar+100mil. For reference Avatar has made more money that Avatar by > than Revenent's gross to date.

 

What?