baumer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Well, the WOM is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be ijack. I don't see a problem with it doing a 2.45X and hitting 400. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire of Themyscira Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Chaz said: My protege. Protege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire of Themyscira Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Baumer said: Well, the WOM is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be iJack. I don't see a problem with it doing a 2.45X and hitting 400. I hope you're right, boo. I know it's going to be a fight, but I'm hoping for over the first THG. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWXII Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Harry of AICN dismissed BvS on a first viewing. Went to see it again and loved. That will be this classic films legacy. There will be many interpretations of Batman in one's lifetime. And the other characters too. Strangely I am reminded of the way U2' s Achtung Baby was received back in the day by so many fans. Now it is considered a classic. #dejavu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZattMurdock Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, MrPink said: For a traditional superhero film, Hulk has the worst legs at 2.1 so I see that as the minimum. I don't think Watchmen and BvS are comparable IMO. Buzz for TIH wasn't nearly the same thing with BvS. I think the combo of buzz/frontloadness/big releases will hurt BvS legs, badly. Under TIH's legs isn't impossible, and actually TASM2's legs were worse, barely 2.2 next to TIH's 2.4. EDIT: You meant the old Ang Lee's Hulk, carry on. Edited March 31, 2016 by iJackSparrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggestgeekever Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Good lord. You are all completely insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPink Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said: Buzz for TIH wasn't nearly the same thing with BvS. I think the combo of buzz/frontloadness/big releases will hurt BvS legs, badly. Under TIH's legs isn't impossible, and actually TASM2's legs were worse, barely 2.2 next to TIH's 2.4. I was talking about Ang Lee's Hulk. Obviously grosses are way higher but there's also no competition until the Jungle Book comes out which helps Edited March 31, 2016 by MrPink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, iJackSparrow said: Buzz for TIH wasn't nearly the same thing with BvS. I think the combo of buzz/frontloadness/big releases will hurt BvS legs, badly. Under TIH's legs isn't impossible, and actually TASM2's legs were worse, barely 2.2 next to TIH's 2.4. You are just pulling numbers out of your butt though. You have no logical reason for this to have a Twilight like multiplier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZattMurdock Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, Baumer said: Well, the WOM is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be ijack. I don't see a problem with it doing a 2.45X and hitting 400. Alright, it's fair. Do you concede that if the trend of going under Fast 7 I might be right, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Just now, iJackSparrow said: Alright, it's fair. Do you concede that if the trend of going under Fast 7 I might be right, though? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Baumer said: You are just pulling numbers out of your butt though. You have no logical reason for this to have a Twilight like multiplier. Do you have a logical reason for it not to have a Twilight like multiplier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeCee Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) It's falling away from FF7 in Australia. Edited March 31, 2016 by DeeCee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Just now, The Panda Knight said: Do you have a logical reason for it not to have a Twilight like multiplier? Yes, of course. Because Twilight has a smaller fan base. Simple enough. Where are you guys getting this ridiculous concept that the film is hated? It's divisive. That means some love it some hate it. A 2.1X is riiduclous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZattMurdock Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Baumer said: You are just pulling numbers out of your butt though. You have no logical reason for this to have a Twilight like multiplier. No I'm not. This time I've actually learned how to do this thing, I'm going with Fast 7's numbers and placing it slightly under. Think, if keeps going slightly under F7, the tendency is that going forward, these numbers will slightly keep going to make BvS gross less than the film I'm mirroring, Fast 7, which ended its run with $353m Dom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 lol lawd. Get me away. Goodnight y'all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Just now, Baumer said: Yes, of course. Because Twilight has a smaller fan base. Simple enough. Where are you guys getting this ridiculous concept that the film is hated? It's divisive. That means some love it some hate it. A 2.1X is riiduclous. I wasn't saying a 2.1x multiplier, I was just making sure you were using reason when asking others too. Im betting on a multiplier a somewhat worse than F7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaz Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 15 minutes ago, Rey said: Protege? i am your etta this is not NEWS child 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Yep, I'm out of here too. Can't be around all this enormous pile of shit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZattMurdock Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, DeeCee said: It's falling away from FF7 in Australia. And like we've seen from your own reports through the years, movements there and in the US oftenly synch. It went under F7 this Tuesday and I think the tendency is that it'll keep going under. If it does that, I fail to see HOW it's crazy to think it might go below F7's $353m Dom. Edited March 31, 2016 by iJackSparrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
