Jump to content
MinaTakla

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Pinning Apocalypse doing comparatively soft numbers on JLaw's perceived diminishing appeal is beyond wrong. X-Men was a long-established movie franchise even before she joined it in 2011, and the newer movie did slightly more than that movie did (without the hook of the older cast, Days of Future Past likely would've done similar numbers too). Besides, Hugh Jackman is the closest the franchise has to a "face" anyway.

I'm sorry, but no one can star in two blockbusters and an Oscar bait flick consecutively, have them all under-perform and still hold onto their draw power title. It doesn't work that way. Her draw power has definitely diminished after that 1-2-3 punch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MovieMan89 said:

I'm sorry, but no one can star in two blockbusters and an Oscar bait flick consecutively, have them all under-perform and still hold onto their draw power title. It doesn't work that way. Her draw power has definitely diminished after that 1-2-3 punch. 

Hunger Games I could buy for this "argument", but X-Men? No. Few people were going to see the movie, the eighth installment in a movie franchise that's been going at it for so damn long, for her in the first place. Therefore, she is immune.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

You mean "reunited" after Silver Lining Playbook?

 

I could respond with a photo of her with Cooper next to a photo of her with Pratt (from the film) but the Passengers stills I have seen were all bootlegged.  I will get back to you after the trailer drops next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Hunger Games I could buy for this "argument", but X-Men? No. Few people were going to see the movie, the eighth installment in a movie franchise that's been going at it for so damn long, for her in the first place. Therefore, she is immune.

Joy is what diminished it, not Apocalypse for the record. Apocalypse was just further proof she didn't really have any pull there. Especially since marketing emphasized her so much despite such a large ensemble film. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I'm sorry, but no one can star in two blockbusters and an Oscar bait flick consecutively, have them all under-perform and still hold onto their draw power title. It doesn't work that way. Her draw power has definitely diminished after that 1-2-3 punch. 

 

I disagree.  PERCEPTION of her draw power may have diminished in some quarters, but I don't think her draw power has. We'll see if they poll movie goers for Passengers (and release the results).

 

And Joy overperformed by the time it was released.  Projections had it at an 11M OW and it came out with 17M.

 

Regardless, I'm sure there are some who think like you do.  I agree with you that the test is how much does a star lift the film above where it would be.  It can be hard to quantify that, though, except where a film is bad and common sense says it wouldn't have done well with anyone else.  If a film is good, people will say 'anyone could have brought in those numbers, it was a good film.'  You would have to have the numbers for the film with and without the star to really know, and we are never going to have that.

Edited by trifle
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Joy is what diminished it, not Apocalypse for the record. Apocalypse was just further proof she didn't really have any pull there. Especially since marketing emphasized her so much despite such a large ensemble film. 

The marketing for Days of Future Past equally emphasized her. The main takeaway is that the First Class team never had as much clout as the original cast did in the first place (and if it did then DOFP would've made $300M+ instead of barely more than the third movie unadjusted).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, filmlover said:

The marketing for Days of Future Past equally emphasized her. The main takeaway is that the First Class team never had as much clout as the original cast did in the first place (and if it did then DOFP would've made $300M+ instead of barely more than the third movie unadjusted).

The main takeaway is the studio perceived her as a draw and chose to market a rather supporting character as the lead for Apocalypse. And if it didn't pay off, how can we say that has nothing to do with her draw power then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

It made money for the same reason SW7 made money. You could say he helped te overall quality of the movie though by giving a good , charismatic performance 

 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MovieMan89 said:

The main takeaway is the studio perceived her as a draw and chose to market a rather supporting character as the lead for Apocalypse. And if it didn't pay off, how can we say that has nothing to do with her draw power then? 

Because First Class was never that big of a movie in the first place? And again, we're talking about the 8th installment in a 16 year-old series here. Public affection for a single person won't encourage anyone to jump in. And on a side note, of course they were going to market her heavily for Apocalypse. Without the original cast, they were left with her, Fassbender, and McAvoy (both non-draws), and younger actors who are complete unknowns.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Denzel would never be in a movie as acclaimed and award buzzed about as Blood Diamond for example, and still have it flop. Leo is not the draw people think he is. He is a very smart business man and knows the right kinds of roles to take and people to work with. 

Leo wasn't the draw back then he is now though. It's quite clear that movies like The Wolf of Wall Street and The Revenant wouldn't have made the money they did if it wasn't for DiCaprio and neither would Gatsby. Sure you can say they're big budget films or whatnot, but it's not like Denzel makes indie flicks himself. Except for Flight he usually does action films with a budget of around $75m, it's not like it's unheard of such movies making close to $100m.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DealWithIt said:

 

 

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. 

I mean it is a good movie. I'm not arguing that, but of course nostalgia played a major factor in it grossing as much as it did

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, filmlover said:

Because First Class was never that big of a movie in the first place? And again, we're talking about the 8th installment in a 16 year-old series here. Public affection for a single person won't encourage anyone to jump in. And on a side note, of course they were going to market her heavily for Apocalypse. Without the original cast, they were left with her, Fassbender, and McAvoy (both non-draws), and younger actors who are complete unknowns.

 

Do you really believe Apocalypse would have made less though without her? I don't. Maybe like 15-20m at the absolute most. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

The main takeaway is the studio perceived her as a draw and chose to market a rather supporting character as the lead for Apocalypse. And if it didn't pay off, how can we say that has nothing to do with her draw power then? 

 

By the time the movie came out reviews made it clear she wasn't in the film that much. Those going to see her in a lead role knew it wasn't going to be there. The studio considered her a marketing tool to get them to a higher number -- and may well have been necessary to get it to the number it had.  I know she is the reason I went to see it.  Twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DealWithIt said:

Apocalypse didn't do as well because it just wasn't as good as DoFP. Plain and simple. No Jackman no doubt hurt it as well. Pinning most of it on Lawrence is just absurd. 

Who's doing that? Only saying she wasn't a draw for the film. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poopsticks.

 

Planned on going to see Beyond at the Cinerama, but they changed their afternoon showtime from 4 to 3:30, so I was too late. I guess I'll try to see it next week or something. Or maybe catch it at the PacSci IMAX after work tomorrow. Does anyone know if it has actual IMAX ratio footage or not?

 

I guess I'll try to go see Bourne at 5, using my last AMC voucher I got from Costco before they stopped selling them.

 

 

I also had tickets to a baseball game I can't attend this evening, and I've found out that they're non-exchangeable, except in cases of a rain-out. So here's hoping the weather takes a massive turn for the worse in the next three hours. It's currently sitting around 80 and no chance of precipitation. Curse you for being wonderful, Seattle summer weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Do you really believe Apocalypse would have made less though without her? I don't. Maybe like 15-20m at the absolute most. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

The main takeaway is the studio perceived her as a draw and chose to market a rather supporting character as the lead for Apocalypse. And if it didn't pay off, how can we say that has nothing to do with her draw power then? 

 

 

 

you are right. The main trailers focused primarily on her over McAvoy and Fassbender. It was marketed like she was the lead

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.