Weekend Thread | Bourne 60M, Trek 24M, Bad Moms 23.4M, Pets 18.2M

[MovieMan89]

Just now, filmlover said:

It would've made about the same as First Class (which was made back when no one knew who she was other than as some up-and-coming actress who was Oscar-nominated for a small movie). Come to think of it, with 5 years of inflation, it did.

So you're saying then she added 9m to the gross.  Lol, ok sure I'll give you that if you want. 

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

So you're saying then she added 9m to the gross.  Lol, ok sure I'll give you that if you want. 

What I said was that it what First Class' gross adjusts to in 2016. Logic is hard.

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

So you're saying then she added 9m to the gross.  Lol, ok sure I'll give you that if you want. 

 

 

I expect one reason they used her for marketing is because she is click bait (hence the articles on her walking her dog, etc.)  I expect she added a lot to the exposure for their marketing.  I think she was a draw, but in an ensemble movie, that is particularly hard to pin down.  I only have my anecdotal evidence.  I've only seen the X Men movies she has been in, and never read the comics.

 

But honestly, I don't think there is a lot more to say on this point.  It can't be proven she did, or didn't help the attendance at XA.  There WAS polling on Joy, and 60% of those who attended opening weekend were there to see her. (I think deadline published these numbers, not sure.) This is an argument that just goes around in circles after a while, though.

Edited July 29, 2016 by trifle

[WrathOfHan]

6 minutes ago, DamienRoc said:

Does anyone know if it has actual IMAX ratio footage or not?

 

There's no shifting ratio

[HesAPooka]

Denzel's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 3.49, 2.14, 5.19, 2.44, 1.67, 1.92, 1.5, 2.66, 2.4, 4.0 = 2.74 average

 

Cruise's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 4.54, 2.07, 2.38, 3.63, 4.78, 2.23, 2.66, 1.8, 2.64, 4.47 =  3.12 average

Leo's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 3.94, 3.82, 3.34, 4.25, 2.4, 5.1, 3.675, 2.14, 1.64, 1.71 = 3.2 average

For denzel I didn't include the great debaters. For Cruise I didn't include rock of ages, but did include Lions for lambs which could be debated against since it isn't really a Cruise vehicle. I did include Django for Leo although I don't consider that a Leo vehicle. I agree with MovieMan Leo's movies for the most part are good business decisions and Denzel's are far harder sells yet put up very good numbers, but don't be questioning Cruise's performance because his "iffy" last few years average out to just under Leo's best years. If we look at their entire filmography I have no doubt Cruise would win by a landslide. 

 

Edit: I'd love to see any other actor put up Cruise's number while constantly being bombarded with negative press. 

Edited July 29, 2016 by HesAPooka

[filmlover]

JLaw also plays someone who turns into a blue-skinned naked chick so course she was gonna be marketed heavily in these movies lol.

[JennaJ]

I get that some here think the ultimate proof of being a draw is making a really bad movie, that shouldn't succeed on premise alone, into a success. I disagree that that's the only proof that someone's a draw though.

 

I think someone like Leo is proof that when an actor chooses (mostly) great roles that fit him, in well made movies, he becomes a draw because the audience learns that his movies are usually worth seeing. That's the case for me with Leo, anyway. I like most of his movies in recent years so I'll be more likely to consider seeing a movie he's in. It's like him choosing to do it is a good sign about the quality. Same, but to a lesser degree, is true for me with Pratt - I really loved the Lego Movie, I enjoyed him immensely in GotG, and so he was the main draw for me in JW. Now he's the reason I was curious about M7 (the trailer confirmed it looks like a movie I want to watch).

 

Denzel isn't a draw for me, but I guess maybe the movies he chooses do appeal to a certain demo that sees him as a draw. If they didn't, I don't think he'd remain a draw.

 

That's basically why I think that saving a "turd" might be the ultimate proof of being a draw, but if an actor does it too often, I can't see them staying a draw for long. Choosing great movies and doing well in them is part of what makes people follow an actor from role to role.

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by JennaJ

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

Denzel's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 3.49, 2.14, 5.19, 2.44, 1.67, 1.92, 1.5, 2.66, 2.4, 4.0 = 2.74 average

 

Cruise's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 4.54, 2.07, 2.38, 3.63, 4.78, 2.23, 2.66, 1.8, 2.64, 4.47 =  3.12 average

Leo's multipliers in last 10 leading roles: 3.94, 3.82, 3.34, 4.25, 2.4, 5.1, 3.675, 2.14, 1.64, 1.71 = 3.2 average

For denzel I didn't include the great debaters. For Cruise I didn't include rock of ages, but did include Lions for lambs which could be debated against since it isn't really a Cruise vehicle. I did include Django for Leo although I don't consider that a Leo vehicle. I agree with MovieMan Leo's movies for the most part are good business decisions and Denzel's are far harder sells yet put up very good numbers, but don't be questioning Cruise's performance because his "iffy" last few years average out to just under Leo's best years. If we look at their entire filmography I have no doubt Cruise would win by a landslide. 

 

Edit: I'd love to see any other actor put up Cruise's number while constantly being bombarded with negative press. 

 

He got a high rating in Vultures' most valuable stars list.  They said 'you don't like him, but you go to see his movies'.

 

Denzell was like second in the Harris poll of most popular celebrities (of all time -- John Wayne came in fourth.)   I think he might have been number 1 last year. 

 

Maybe they are both draws.

Edited July 29, 2016 by trifle

[cannastop]

17 minutes ago, DealWithIt said:

 

If Jurassic World would've been as well received from critics and fans alike as Force Awakens was, it would've made even more money than it did. 

 

And no, "nostalgia" isn't the reason SW7 shattered records. Some day people trying to score cool points on the Internet by saying it was so successful because of nostalgia will wake up and realize it was a damn good movie on its own merits. 

It didn't break the opening weekend record because it was a good movie, I'll tell you that much.

[trifle]

6 minutes ago, filmlover said:

JLaw also plays someone who turns into a blue-skinned naked chick so course she was gonna be marketed heavily in these movies lol.

 

actually, a lot of people were pissed because her blue nakedness was barely used in the marketing.  Whatever though, the studio obviously thought it was the way to go based on the information they had.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

actually, a lot of people were pissed because her blue nakedness was barely used in the marketing.  Whatever though, the studio obviously thought it was the way to go based on the information they had.

One time a few years ago I heard a little girl pass by a movie poster for DOFP asking her parents "why is Mystique always naked?"

 

An interesting question worth pondering.

 

 

 

[DAJK]

I mean it isn't like it took much, but it's funny I just noticed that Criminal in China outgrossed it's own domestic release. 15 vs 14M.

[JennaJ]

The draw debate is interesting. Passengers is a really good study case for the draw power of stars nowadays. It's an original movie, not based on any existing IP, led by two of today's biggest stars.

It will be very interesting to see how well it does, especially on OW. Next week might give us a taste with the trailer and how people react to it.

 

Personally, I think both Pratt and Lawrence are draws (you can tell the studios believe that just based on how they market their movies, and studios have ways of measuring these things). I think combining their star power is going to create a whole larger than the sum of its parts.

Basically I think it's going to be huge.

 

But we'll see.

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by JennaJ

[Fancyarcher]

3 minutes ago, DAJK said:

I mean it isn't like it took much, but it's funny I just noticed that Criminal in China outgrossed it's own domestic release. 15 vs 14M.

 

Considering we don't have any numbers right now, I'd say this is a fair discussion.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Daniel Dylan Davis

[incognitoo]

3 hours ago, CJohn said:

That is the problem, it is didn't bored me. It was stupid and dumb and hilarious from start to finish. 

 

Yep. Same as the first one. Just with more bling-bling added. And a Goldblum in Hypermode. Ah, well, forget it. Goldblum nearly always is in Hypermode so what. Silly movie, great fun.

[filmlover]

I'm kinda really happy that Bad Moms is looking to be a big hit. For a while I thought Mila Kunis was headed for scarcity between Jupiter Ascending, her panned performance in Oz, and having a baby (and apparently another one on the way?). And after a full decade of struggling with a film career, Kristen Bell has finally gotten lucky between this and the Frozen madness?

[trifle]

9 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

Personally, I think both Pratt and Lawrence are draws (you can tell the studios believe that just based on how they market their movies, and studios have ways of measuring these things). I think combining their star power is going to create a whole larger than the sum of its parts.

Basically I think it's going to be huge.

 

But we'll see.

 

 

Me too.  People like both of them, but a lot of the buzz is the two of them together.  People want to see it.

[Fancyarcher]

13 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

The draw debate is interesting. Passengers is a really good study case for the draw power of stars nowadays. It's an original movie, not based on any existing IP, led by two of today's biggest stars.

It will be very interesting to see how well it does, especially on OW. Next week might give us a taste with the trailer and how people react to it.

 

Personally, I think both Pratt and Lawrence are draws (you can tell the studios believe that just based on how they market their movies, and studios have ways of measuring these things). I think combining their star power is going to create a whole larger than the sum of its parts.

Basically I think it's going to be huge.

 

But we'll see.

 

 

To be fair, sudios aren't always the wisest when it comes to actors that audiences like though. Plenty of actors are forced upon the public and ignored. Not saying that's the case with J-Law or Pratt, I'm just pointing that out.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Daniel Dylan Davis

[babz06]

2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I'm kinda really happy that Bad Moms is looking to be a big hit. For a while I thought Mila Kunis was headed for scarcity between Jupiter Ascending, her panned performance in Oz, and having a baby (and apparently another one on the way?). And after a full decade of struggling with a film career, Kristen Bell has finally gotten lucky between this and the Frozen madness?

comedy is Mila's sweet spot. Jupiter Ascending wasn't her thing, this is just proof that studios should put her in more comedy vehicles. 

[Bishop54]

So I just managed to make it to the 5 minute mark of Independence Day Resurgence and no further...Christ Almighty!