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

[GiantCALBears]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

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. 

Ok even domestic that is a joke I'm sorry.

[terrestrial]

weekend prediction of The Wrap

#numbers not meant as positions in a chart

Quote

#1 Revenant ...will take in around $18 million... dom will go over $100 million this weekend, and it should top $160 million worldwide...

#2 Dirty Grandpa ...Either just above or just below $10 million...

#3 The 5th Wave ... see #2, OS in small markets $8.5m, budget $38m

#4 The Boy ... see #2, budget $10m

#5-#7 Ride Along 2, The Force Awakens... both could wind up around $15 million. 13 Hours shouldn’t be far behind those two

 

Quote

“The Boy” will be in roughly 2,600 theaters, while “The 5th Wave” and “Dirty Grandpa” will be in around 2,800

https://www.thewrap.com/revenant-5th-wave-boy-dirty-grandpa-ride-along-2-star-wars-preview-box-office/

[terrestrial]

I couldn't find a thread for it:

Dear Fidel, new film:

The Golden Globe winner is set to play Marita Lorenz in 'Dear Fidel,' a pitch by 'American Hustle' scribe Eric Warren Singer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jennifer-lawrence-play-fidel-castros-855630

[terrestrial]

Deadline Hollywood ‏@Deadline

Nielsen Adds Facebook To Social Media Ratings With Twitter http://deadline.com/2016/01/nielsen-facebook-twitter-measurement-social-content-ratings-cbs-1201686534/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …

 

 

Scott Mendelson hat retweetet

Jim Vejvoda ‏@JimVejvoda

Just imagine the damage that social media could've done to Batman '89.

[Joel M]

5 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

How much did the last scorsese, inaritu, lurman, tarantino movie in the box office that didnt have Leo?

[terrestrial]

11 minutes ago, Joel M said:

How much did the last scorsese, inaritu, lurman, tarantino movie in the box office that didnt have Leo?

That is IMHO a bit of a too simplified implication you seem to aim at.

Scorsese = Hugo (Cabret), a children's book adaptation, not what the average movie goer might expect.

Tarantino = no matter how big or small the impact, but the distribution chaos, the vs. police discussions, the rather strong competition of other movies...

Luhrmann didn't even do a movie after Gatsby, made 5 movies in complete, not all of those in the USA / as US movies and his Romeo + Juliet with DiCaprio made less as Australia and also less than Moulin Rogue

Iñárritu also is still not 'a name' for big or even mid-budget, made 6 movies, mostly independent movies including non-English ones (very rarely achieving high BOs in the English spoken countries) and also hasn't released a movie after the actual one with DiCaprio

= you seem to ask for BOs higher out of their partly '90 independent work, seemingly implying that a less high BO would prove some point about DiCaprio.

In case that was your goal: IMHO it does not prove it.

 

[Infernus]

3 hours ago, terrestrial said:

That is IMHO a bit of a too simplified implication you seem to aim at.

Scorsese = Hugo (Cabret), a children's book adaptation, not what the average movie goer might expect.

Tarantino = no matter how big or small the impact, but the distribution chaos, the vs. police discussions, the rather strong competition of other movies...

Luhrmann didn't even do a movie after Gatsby, made 5 movies in complete, not all of those in the USA / as US movies and his Romeo + Juliet with DiCaprio made less as Australia and also less than Moulin Rogue

Iñárritu also is still not 'a name' for big or even mid-budget, made 6 movies, mostly independent movies including non-English ones (very rarely achieving high BOs in the English spoken countries) and also hasn't released a movie after the actual one with DiCaprio

= you seem to ask for BOs higher out of their partly '90 independent work, seemingly implying that a less high BO would prove some point about DiCaprio.

In case that was your goal: IMHO it does not prove it.

 

 

Actually it does . Infact your points actually further prove the point.. Indeed inarittu was a no name in US and yet his movie is suddenly making near 200m after leo got in. Luhrmann too, with only five movies none of which were a particularly big hit, got a 150m movie with leo added in. You may bring up these little things for Hateful 8(which may have had impact but you also have to see that revenant isn't exactly 'just' beating it) but Tarantino movies before django didn't make as much money either (even adjusted for inflation, only 94's pulp fiction beats it). Scorcese always makes 'different' movies as in 'not mass-appealing' and it was just like that with his Leo collaborations. Its not like WoWS, Shutter Is., Aviator or The Departed were particularly mass-appealing or audience-pleasing either. Maybe some of them were a little more so than Hugo but that was a visual effects fest too, so it had that going for it. Yet all these 4 leo movies are in the top 5 of his adjusted list, containing fantastic films from 4-5 different decades, with only a '91 film joining them. So yeah it does prove the point and you helped in proving it further.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Infernus

[JonathanLB]

9 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

 

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

 

Huh? TFA is a great film and I love watching it again and again. Just like you did Avatar. By the way you're so caught up on us being on opposite sides I'm not sure if you know I saw Avatar 3 times in theaters and told everyone I know to see it. I loved it! I also bought 3 versions of the movie on Blu-Ray and even bought my 3D TV because it had a special 3D Avatar before it was for sale by itself  

 

I love Star Wars above all but I gave like $50 to Avatar's box office. Maybe I'm not the fan you are but I was so happy and so excited when Avatar hit #1 at the box office. I was like heck yes, Titanic is sunk! I didn't care for Titanic even though I love every other Cameron film. He's one of the greatest directors ever.

 

PS: my GF loves Avatar too. We both think it was one of the best theatrical experiences we have ever had and she hates 3D usually lol.

Edited January 20, 2016 by JonathanLB

[terrestrial]

1 hour ago, Infernus said:

snip

I disagree, too simplyfied, too many other details playing into the money made for their movies.

I do not disagree to him being someone with the reputation to look out for interesting to him stories, nor him being known for good work, but disagree to the extent some here seem to think the BOs are based on his participation. Partly by far.

Edited January 20, 2016 by terrestrial

[JonathanLB]

Although I was joking before, I am serious when I say I'm much more interested in who directs a movie than who is in it.

 

I thought the trailers for Fight Club (you guys remember that terrible Fox marketing campaign?) were absolutely awful. I said I am not going to see that movie. Then I saw David Fincher directed it. I love Fincher. I thought, well alright, I owe him that... I will see this movie to see how it is for myself. To this day, Fight Club remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

I trust a great director to deliver me a good movie at least, if not great. I feel I owe that loyalty to directors who have consistently shown me something. I loved Birdman. In all fairness, I thought it was only "good" when I first saw it. Maybe I was being dense. It got a lot of awards attention, I saw it again, and I told my GF, "We missed a lot. It's actually a great film. It truly is deserving. It's fantastic," and I started to explain to her what else I saw. She said, "Wow, ok. I didn't see all of that either the first time." I told her trust me, let's see it again, it's amazing. She agreed. Not every movie is amazing on the first viewing. Some take two viewings. 

 

To be fair I don't love The Revenant but I am happy for it and happy for Leo and for the director. It's a good movie. I should even see it again. I enjoyed it, I just felt it could have been more tightly edited. That said, it's a revenge film. With Leo. What's not to like? LOL.

Edited January 20, 2016 by JonathanLB

[stripe]

23 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

Although I was joking before, I am serious when I say I'm much more interested in who directs a movie than who is in it.

 

I thought the trailers for Fight Club (you guys remember that terrible Fox marketing campaign?) were absolutely awful. I said I am not going to see that movie. Then I saw David Fincher directed it. I love Fincher. I thought, well alright, I owe him that... I will see this movie to see how it is for myself. To this day, Fight Club remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

I trust a great director to deliver me a good movie at least, if not great. I feel I owe that loyalty to directors who have consistently shown me something. I loved Birdman. In all fairness, I thought it was only "good" when I first saw it. Maybe I was being dense. It got a lot of awards attention, I saw it again, and I told my GF, "We missed a lot. It's actually a great film. It truly is deserving. It's fantastic," and I started to explain to her what else I saw. She said, "Wow, ok. I didn't see all of that either the first time." I told her trust me, let's see it again, it's amazing. She agreed. Not every movie is amazing on the first viewing. Some take two viewings. 

 

To be fair I don't love The Revenant but I am happy for it and happy for Leo and for the director. It's a good movie. I should even see it again. I enjoyed it, I just felt it could have been more tightly edited. That said, it's a revenge film. With Leo. What's not to like? LOL.

 

And who are the directors you trust in?

[JonathanLB]

Just now, stripe said:

 

And who are the directors you trust in?

 

Stripe that's a great question. I will admit the list is always growing, but there are certain directors I'm always curious to see what they are doing. I watched Interstellar the other day -- I KNOW, I'm sorry -- and I didn't enjoy the first half, then my GF and I finished the movie and we felt like retards. We both felt like it was actually a really strong film and we were not being good viewers for the first half. So Nolan would be one of those. Also Fincher, Spielberg (yes, I loved Bridge of Spies a lot), Cameron, Ridley (I loved The Martian and I actually enjoyed Prometheus...), Tarantino (I hated Hateful Eight, but I love every one of his films besides that), Scorsese, Woody Allen (is he hit and miss? Sure, but I enjoy seeing them, you know?), and I'm blanking. But quite a few others. 

 

I guess I just am interested to see what a lot of the top filmmakers do next. They don't always deliver, but I like to see even when they miss. Let's take an example like 1492 by Ridley. It's bloated. It's poorly edited. It may be his worst work. But it's still interesting to see. Oh speaking of which, I meant to mention Howard. I missed his last film but I LOVED Rush. It was my favorite movie of the year. And I don't care at all about racing. I just... don't. Yet that movie was magical to me. 

[stripe]

8 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 

Stripe that's a great question. I will admit the list is always growing, but there are certain directors I'm always curious to see what they are doing. I watched Interstellar the other day -- I KNOW, I'm sorry -- and I didn't enjoy the first half, then my GF and I finished the movie and we felt like retards. We both felt like it was actually a really strong film and we were not being good viewers for the first half. So Nolan would be one of those. Also Fincher, Spielberg (yes, I loved Bridge of Spies a lot), Cameron, Ridley (I loved The Martian and I actually enjoyed Prometheus...), Tarantino (I hated Hateful Eight, but I love every one of his films besides that), Scorsese, Woody Allen (is he hit and miss? Sure, but I enjoy seeing them, you know?), and I'm blanking. But quite a few others. 

 

I guess I just am interested to see what a lot of the top filmmakers do next. They don't always deliver, but I like to see even when they miss. Let's take an example like 1492 by Ridley. It's bloated. It's poorly edited. It may be his worst work. But it's still interesting to see. Oh speaking of which, I meant to mention Howard. I missed his last film but I LOVED Rush. It was my favorite movie of the year. And I don't care at all about racing. I just... don't. Yet that movie was magical to me. 

 

Good list. Glad to see Howard there. I really like many of his films, though there are a few that are so bad. Rush was awesome. Nolan's Interestellar is better than Inception, IMHO. It has really grown on me since first viewing.

 

I would add Ang Lee, the Coen bros, Gibson, Zemeckis or Cuaron, to name a few others I am usually confident with.

[JonathanLB]

3 minutes ago, stripe said:

 

Good list. Glad to see Howard there. I really like many of his films, though there are a few that are so bad. Rush was awesome. Nolan's Interestellar is better than Inception, IMHO. It has really grown on me since first viewing.

 

I would add Ang Lee, the Coen bros, Gibson, Zemeckis or Cuaron, to name a few others I am usually confident with.

 

HAHA oh my gosh I'm so retarded. Yeah, DUH. The Coen Brothers are amazing. Their last film was a masterpiece. I actually expected not to like it. Well, I loved it. Zemeckis too not sure why I didn't remember him there. Could I ask you what do you think of What Lies Beneath? Everyone but me loved it. I felt it was above average. I liked it alright. I didn't like it much. Am I alone on that one? Ang Lee...

 

Ok funny story about Ang Lee. Basically, I have this weird thing. I saw Crouching Tiger in theaters, and I loved it. Then time passed and I was pretty sure i overrated it. I saw it again. I loved it again. Somehow, time passed again. I was pretty sure I overrated it. I saw it again. I loved it again. Basically somehow I always underrate it. I used to run the Suite 101 Hong Kong Action review site, and I would order HK action films directly from Asia. I LOVE hong kong action films, yup, all the cheesy ones, the "my master got killed, must avenge master" films. Anyway, when that film came to theaters I was like, YAY, American audiences are going to get it. But it got called the greatest Asian film ever. I kept thinking you guys must see Drunken Master 2. It's seriously amazing. But, no, it's true, Crouching Tiger is a masterpiece. Every time I see it again I realize this. And then magically forget it like a moron.

 

Great list dude, your additions are for sure ones I forgot. Like I said though I somehow forget a few directors until I see their new works and I realize, yup, love their stuff. The Coen brothers for me are just win. Maybe some weird stuff, that's true, but it's always worth seeing.

[Infernus]

1 hour ago, JonathanLB said:

Although I was joking before, I am serious when I say I'm much more interested in who directs a movie than who is in it.

 

I thought the trailers for Fight Club (you guys remember that terrible Fox marketing campaign?) were absolutely awful. I said I am not going to see that movie. Then I saw David Fincher directed it. I love Fincher. I thought, well alright, I owe him that... I will see this movie to see how it is for myself. To this day, Fight Club remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

I trust a great director to deliver me a good movie at least, if not great. I feel I owe that loyalty to directors who have consistently shown me something. I loved Birdman. In all fairness, I thought it was only "good" when I first saw it. Maybe I was being dense. It got a lot of awards attention, I saw it again, and I told my GF, "We missed a lot. It's actually a great film. It truly is deserving. It's fantastic," and I started to explain to her what else I saw. She said, "Wow, ok. I didn't see all of that either the first time." I told her trust me, let's see it again, it's amazing. She agreed. Not every movie is amazing on the first viewing. Some take two viewings. 

 

To be fair I don't love The Revenant but I am happy for it and happy for Leo and for the director. It's a good movie. I should even see it again. I enjoyed it, I just felt it could have been more tightly edited. That said, it's a revenge film. With Leo. What's not to like? LOL.

 

I agree. If one knows what director is associated with a film many a times he can accurately gauge how good/bad it will be by taking a look at his past track record. Almost always, a director is much more important/related to a film's overall quality than any actor involved. Infact the only actor I personally feel is reliable in gauging a film's quality is Leo.

[GuardianDevil]

17 hours ago, Daxtreme said:

 

6.643 M monday I think? Big hold, and Star Wars is back at #1 !

 

 

141 to go. Still room on my island.

[terrestrial]

Scott Mendelson ‏@ScottMendelson

Box Office: #StarWars May Have Peaked With #TheForceAwakens via @forbes by @ScottMendelson http://onforb.es/1ZBkgEe

[Joel M]

8 hours ago, terrestrial said:

That is IMHO a bit of a too simplified implication you seem to aim at.

Scorsese = Hugo (Cabret), a children's book adaptation, not what the average movie goer might expect.

Tarantino = no matter how big or small the impact, but the distribution chaos, the vs. police discussions, the rather strong competition of other movies...

Luhrmann didn't even do a movie after Gatsby, made 5 movies in complete, not all of those in the USA / as US movies and his Romeo + Juliet with DiCaprio made less as Australia and also less than Moulin Rogue

Iñárritu also is still not 'a name' for big or even mid-budget, made 6 movies, mostly independent movies including non-English ones (very rarely achieving high BOs in the English spoken countries) and also hasn't released a movie after the actual one with DiCaprio

= you seem to ask for BOs higher out of their partly '90 independent work, seemingly implying that a less high BO would prove some point about DiCaprio.

In case that was your goal: IMHO it does not prove it.

 

 

My goal was to counter the argument that Leo isn't that much of a draw because his movies are "big name" directors movies, as if those big name directors were making huge hits every other year like Spielberg in the 80s.

 

It's no accident that he's the star in 4 of the 5 biggest hits in Scorseses 40+year career, that he's in the biggest Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction etc. And most of his movies (especially this decade) were far from a sure boxoffice hit as projects. 

[terrestrial]

1 minute ago, Joel M said:

snip

Something in the formulation is a bit unclear for my mainly self-trained English.

 

I think it is a mixture out of different reasons, never the director, the lead actor, the genre, the ... alone.

rest in spoiler tags as IMHO Off-Topic
 

Spoiler

 

I see every movie,... made like a big mosaic, each stone (only) adds to the result/picture.

I am not disagreeing that certain crew/cast/story... combinations help to get ppl curious, but I am disagreeing with the size of the mosaic stone some seem to give DiCaprio.

He isn't 50% of the complete picture, and that includes IMHO the BO. He is a nowadays probably big draw (depends also a bit for whom), but not the sole draw. And to reach that aspect of his reputation it needed years, some ppl are following since a long time, but not all fans are fans since the beginning... = shows IMHO that not all of the success of older movies had the same support by his contribution, plus times / interests of specialised for a certain kind of movies audience and/or GA changes too...

He is known enough for a certain kind of movies so a part of the audience will look up a project (important part of the advertising/promotion/awareness for a new movie), but IMHO it's still a combination of story, trailer, director, depending on the story probably co-actors too that get people to decide to watch a new movie with him / or by a certain director or a certain combination.... or not.

Not my kind of discussion, I only added to it as IMHO the statements made sounded for my taste a bit too absolute or the reasoning used (as far as I understood those) seemed to be a bit off. Like if a director is only starting out, on the rise out of a foreign country / 'out' of low-budget movies and didn't even had made a movie after working with DiCaprio or did something so entirely unexpected like a children's book movie is to me, I do not think the BO's are an usable scale.

 

As I think this theme is a liiiitle bit too in-depth for a BO daily thread... = I'm out of this discussion

[terrestrial]

Scott Mendelson ‏@ScottMendelson

#MonsterHunt, China's Biggest Box Office Hit Ever, Comes To America via @forbes by @ScottMendelson http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/20/monster-hunt-chinas-biggest-box-office-hit-ever-comes-to-america/ …

(I might have posted something about that via a Chinese specialies outlet already, not sure)