Weekend Actuals (Page 67): Captain Pirate: Piracy War 72.6M | Jungle Book 17.1M | Money Monster 14.8M | The Darkness 5M | Mother's Day 3.3M

[Lordmandeep]

Just now, Infernus said:

Btw thats a good increase. A less than 60% drop after that big an OW is pretty good in my opinion. Even WS, with nearly half as big an OW and great WOM dropped 57% on its second weekend.

 

 

If it gets good weekdays and around 36-38 million 3rd weekend I guess.

 

Likely drop about 40% on the Fourday on Memorial Day. 

[Hatebox]

6 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

 

 

Yeah IW going to do 400/1.3-1.4 boxoffice

 

Yawn... 

 

Infinity War? Why would those figures be remarkable compared to previous big Marvel films?

 

Such consistency is impressive, but these runs aren't exactly compelling. That's certainly not a slight on Marvel - they're very, very good at this now.

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2016 by Hatebox

[Infernus]

20 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

I hope you are correct. IMO, this movie earns its 90% tomato rating: Unlike Ultron and BvS, its story is clean, efficient, and yet smart. This team of Avengers has far more chemistry, even when at each other's throats, than anything DC has come up with and more chemistry than Ultron's team showed last year. It's almost as good as the 2012 Avengers. It really SHOULD be blowing up Jurassic World-style at the box office. Those who predicted 220m OW should have been correct! And yet it didn't.

 

Why? Well, I guess what comes to mind is that Jurassic World-style blowups are damn rare. Movies like that and Avengers are two of the top-5 most popular movies of the past 20 years! No matter how good a film is, you just should never expect it to do $600m DOM. OK, maybe if its the first real Star Wars movie in 33 years. But other than that?

 

Truth is, even the $330m that BvS did is DAMN GOOD box office, but because everyone expects every big release to be the next Dark Knight, it gets slagged as a disappointment. 

 

Not every big release but the actual next movie featuring The Dark Knight with against Superman and with Wonder Woman and it grossed 100m less than the previous dark knight film which grossed 90m less than the prev one. The cases and times were different indeed but I would say this, combined with the kind of run it had, is good enough for it to qualify as a disappointment. The 'hugeness' of grosses is subjective, just like everything else. Nothing is absolute and thus the scenario/situation/context/setting of everything needs to be considered before applying generalization onto it. Read this here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Infernus

[ThiagoMaia]

No, there is no real lock this year. Dory, Civil War, Rogue One, and a few wildcards all have a chance for the 2016 crown. 

 

The funny part is that they're all Disney...

[Joel M]

8 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

Truth is, even the $330m that BvS did is DAMN GOOD box office, but because everyone expects every big release to be the next Dark Knight, it gets slagged as a disappointment. 

 

It's the way that BvS made its money that made it's total look dissapointing. Everything went great for it up until the release, it got a massive OW, and then dropped worse than a Twilight sequel. If it had opened in the 130-140 range on the way to 330m DOM, they 'll still be "it can't even beat Deadpool" disses but it'a 330m total would look like a win by the end and promising for the DCEU's future.

[Lordmandeep]

Marvel is fine really.

 

Strange will do well for its premise.

 

GOTG2 likely will be 800-1 billion dollar film.

 

Spierman Homecoming is a sure hit but likely be over predicted.

 

I have doubts Thor 3 will decease from Thor 2 WW so 650+ WW.

 

 

I just dont see many over performances coming but none of their films have massively flopped or underwhelmed either recently. Likw Ant Man made half a billion dollars folks

 

Ultron was expected to do more but made 92% of TA WW, CW increase over 500 million from CA2 but expectations were for more,

 

Im2 did about par domestic and Thor 2 did about 10% under expectations Domestic and WW.

 

So pretty much the films either hit expectations, surpass them or do a bit under. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveJaros]

15 minutes ago, Infernus said:

 

Not every big release but the actual next movie featuring The Dark Knight with against Superman and with Wonder Woman and it grossed 100m less than the previous dark knight film which grossed 90m less than the prev one. The cases and times were different indeed but I would say this, combined with the kind of run it had, is good enough for it to qualify as a disappointment. The 'hugeness' of grosses is subjective, just like everything else. Nothing is absolute and thus the scenario/situation/context/setting of everything needs to be considered before applying generalization onto it. Read this here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada.

 

Right, and FWIW, i have called BvS a disappointment at the box office as well. It is fair to compare it to previous DK movies, including the 2012 movie that probably made $50m less than it would have it hadn't gotten entangled with the mass shooting in Colorado that caused Warner's to suspend marketing it or somesuch right after it came out. 

 

But also, in BvS's defense, they were using a new Batman and Director. Christian Bale/Chris Nolan's Batman really did strike a chord with the public. It's hard to capture lightning in a bottle like that. Nolan and Bale really did an amazing job with those three films. It may be too much to expect that a new Batman and new Director can just automatically meet that level of quality. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by SteveJaros

[JohnnyGossamer]

The reason folks toss disappointment around with BvS is because it didn't do $1B+ WW. $330M+ DOM ain't bad at all. 2.0 multi makes it look worse but still.

[Lordmandeep]

The reason BvS is not a good result as it was below average box office and the crtics and audience reaction.

 

 

Batman vs Superman Rotten Tomatoes score is likely the most well known RT score ever. First time I heard people talk about RT so widely. 

 

DC universe has no Goodwill like Marvel does from TA, GOTG and IM1 to draw from for their future projects. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[baumer]

Yes all the Pirates got really drunk on Friday night. Therefore there's no need to come out for Saturday.

[JohnnyGossamer]

So... Title says maybe $74M. But, I keep reading $73M. What's the word?

[Infernus]

23 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

Right, and FWIW, i have called BvS a disappointment at the box office as well. It is fair to compare it to previous DK movies, including the 2012 movie that probably made $50m less than it would have it hadn't gotten entangled with the mass shooting in Colorado that caused Warner's to suspend marketing it or somesuch right after it came out. 

 

But also, in BvS's defense, they were using a new Batman and Director. Christian Bale/Chris Nolan's Batman really did strike a chord with the public. It's hard to capture lightning in a bottle like that. Nolan and Bale really did an amazing job with those three films. It may be too much to expect that a new Batman and new Director can just automatically meet that level of quality. 

 

I'd say the addition of Superman and Wonder Woman would have been enough to counter that provided it was a good film (in the audience's eyes). Those aren't really little factors. And even after that, a 400m gross would still have been 100m$ less than what you yourself say would have been the gross of an unhurt TDKR and 90% of us still would have considered that a success. But 330m? That sucks. Especially after Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool showed how far even near-completely unknown comic book heroes can go if you put them in a good film. Those not-close-to-100th-of-Superman-and-Dark-Knight's-combined-popularity characters' films outgrossed or made as much as this! God, what else does one need to call a film a disappointment?

 

Btw I have never really liked DCU films and wasn't expecting much of this anyway so if my arguments on the matter seem passionate, thats not because I am a depressed DC fanboy but because I'm quite surprised that someone's actually arguing that this wasn't a disappointment.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Infernus

[FlashMaster659]

THE FAMILY FANG nets $56,605 on 49 screens. ‪#‎TheFamilyFang‬

[FlashMaster659]

Money Monster: $15M

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/05/15/weekend-box-office-money-monster-swipes-15m-the-lobster-traps-years-biggest-platform-debut/#5f4116494cc3

[SteveJaros]

14 minutes ago, Infernus said:

 

I'd say the addition of Superman and Wonder Woman would have been enough to counter that provided it was a good film (in the audience's eyes). Those aren't really little factors. And even after that, a 400m gross would still have been 100m$ less than what you yourself say would have been the gross of an unhurt TDKR and 90% of us still would have considered that a success. But 330m? That sucks. Especially after Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool showed how far even near-completely unknown comic book heroes can go if you put them in a good film. Those not-close-to-100th-of-Superman-and-Dark-Knight's-combined-popularity characters' films outgrossed or made as much as this! God, what else does one need to call a film a disappointment?

 

As I have said here and in prior weeks i DO consider BvS to be a disappointment, and largely for the reasons you cite - Superman and Wonder Woman aren't trivial additions, they should count for a lot. But my point is that at $330m DOM and $870m WW, it is a MILD disappointment, not the abject embarrassment many have characterized it as. I mean, you just said had it hit $400m DOM and $1B WW, it would have been considered a success, and sweet jeebus, 330/870 just isn't that far from those benchmarks.

 

FWIW, $400m DOM and $1B WW are my minimum benchmarks for CACW to be a "success" as well - and I'm waiting to see if it hits them. 

 

But to turn your question around: If we Laugh Our Arses Off about how much of a failure BvS has been, how do we react to flops like Battleship, John Carter, or The Lone Ranger, which cost almost as much but didn't come anywhere near the same galaxy in terms of grosses?

 

Heck, just six months ago the Good Dinosaur cost $200m production budget and earned just $330m WW, it was a massive flop, and yet that has largely been swept under the rug around here while BvS is raked over the coals.

 

There should be a better sense or proportion here, IMO.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2016 by SteveJaros

[moviesRus]

No one's calling BvS a flop (other than critically). But if you think a studio spent over $250 million on production budget just to break even and not get to $1 billion..

[Lordmandeep]

2 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

As I have said here and in prior weeks i DO consider BvS to be a disappointment, and largely for the reasons you cite - Superman and Wonder Woman aren't trivial additions, they should count for a lot. But my point is that at $330m DOM and $870m WW, it is a MILD disappointment, not the abject embarrassment many have characterized it as. I mean, you just said had it hit $400m DOM and $1B WW, it would have been considered a success, and sweet jeebus, 330/870 just isn't that far from those benchmarks.

 

FWIW, $400m DOM and $1B WW are my minimum benchmarks for CACW to be a "success" as well - and I'm waiting to see if it hits them. 

 

But to turn your question around: If we Laugh Our Arses Off about how much of a failure BvS has been, how do we react to flops like Mars Needs Moms or The Lone Ranger, which cost almost as much but didn't come anywhere near the same galaxy in terms of grosses?

 

There should be a better sense or proportion here, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

CW will break a billion this mid week bro lol 

[Joel M]

7 minutes ago, FlashMaster659 said:

Money Monster: $15M

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/05/15/weekend-box-office-money-monster-swipes-15m-the-lobster-traps-years-biggest-platform-debut/#5f4116494cc3

 

Pretty good for The Lobster.

[thunder storm]

 

[Infernus]

19 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

As I have said here and in prior weeks i DO consider BvS to be a disappointment, and largely for the reasons you cite - Superman and Wonder Woman aren't trivial additions, they should count for a lot. But my point is that at $330m DOM and $870m WW, it is a MILD disappointment, not the abject embarrassment many have characterized it as. I mean, you just said had it hit $400m DOM and $1B WW, it would have been considered a success, and sweet jeebus, 330/870 just isn't that far from those benchmarks.

 

FWIW, $400m DOM and $1B WW are my minimum benchmarks for CACW to be a "success" as well - and I'm waiting to see if it hits them. 

 

But to turn your question around: If we Laugh Our Arses Off about how much of a failure BvS has been, how do we react to flops like Battleship, John Carter, or The Lone Ranger, which cost almost as much but didn't come anywhere near the same galaxy in terms of grosses?

 

There should be a better sense or proportion here, IMO.

 

 

 

Ok firstly, BvS wasn't really a 'flop' like these. It might end up earning back its investment at least. Its a 'disappointment'. There's a massive difference. Now, yes these costed a lot too. The similarity ends there. None of these were close to DK and SM's popularity. And they were all originals and not the followups to a 300m grosser containing just one of their two main attractions or for-the-audience follow ups to two ~500m grossers. Yes they grossed quite less than this too which is why they are all considered as one of the biggest flops EVER while I, and I guess most others, would, at the most, consider BvS to be just one of the biggest 'disappointments' of its 'year'. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by Infernus