Weekend Thread | Estimates SS 43.7m, SP 33.6m, PD 21.5, JCIJB 13.6m, BM 11.45m, SLOP 8.8m, STD 6.8m, FFJ 6.58m

[RobinHood26]

ASM2 is a fantastic 30 minute sizzle reel wrapped along side a beyond boring, slog of a movie.

 

 

[ecstasy]

1 hour ago, mredman said:

 

a truly awful movie indeed

But the point is people feel that way about SS Squad and BvS. But if they express such you feel like its a crime against humanity.

[Blaze Heatnix]

5 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

ASM2 is a fantastic 30 minute sizzle reel wrapped along side a beyond boring, slog of a movie.

 

 

 

TASM 2 was a fine movie ( I thought it was miles better than TASM 1 ), but Sony spoiled the damn movie ( including the ending scene ) in the trailer. However, the plot is all over the place and the movie tries to be a lot of things, tries to set up a lot of things, only to lost the focus later.

 

Oh, and the Beavis and Butt-Head Goblin didn't help, either. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Blaze Heatnix

[ecstasy]

18 minutes ago, druv10 said:

Maybe. Hard to say what caused such poor legs whether it was the 3rd SH movie or the WOM or maybe since it was 13th movie in the MCU. But you won't see me defending it's legs, they were bad.

The legs were bad because people expected to see a real war. Something epic. In reality it was the continuation of the Cap Buck love story with extra characters thrown in. I enjoyed it but it wasn't what I thought it was gonna be from the title.

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

Instead of "terrible WOM", another way of looking at it is that the movie had a limited fanbase (made more limited by reviews and general reception), and that fanbase has -- by next weekend -- already seen it. 

 

That's something a DC fanboy would say. 

[Ruthie]

18 minutes ago, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

Them's fightin' words, according to a diehard few.  

[DAR]

11 minutes ago, ecstasy said:

Well that's a matter of opinion just like all the rest.

True but I'm pretty easy on most comic book films.  I mean I don't mind Green Lantern.

[ecstasy]

1 minute ago, The Panda said:

 

That's something a DC fanboy would say. 

Seriously though.

[Lordmandeep]

2 hours ago, ecstasy said:

My DC fans are a sensitive bunch. Just think if Suicide Squad got the hatred that IM3 received around here. There was no "poisoning the well" cautionary rules in place and it was a free for all. There was a lot of contempt and mockery of its "bad legs" going on here. Not sure why DC movies should be exempt. Comes with the territory of being a member here. It's a given that there's gonna be some gloating, mocking and ribbing mixed in with the box office analysis. It's supposed to be all in fun.

Lol I got banned for three days for hurting the moderators fragile sensibilities around dc universe

 

Not angry really oh well ...

[ecstasy]

4 minutes ago, DAR said:

True but I'm pretty easy on most comic book films.  I mean I don't mind Green Lantern.

True as it may be its still a matter of opinion.

[ecstasy]

1 minute ago, Lordmandeep said:

Lol I got banned for three days for hurting the moderators fragile sensibilities around dc universe

 

Not angry really oh well ...

LOL Wut?

[DAR]

4 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

Lol I got banned for three days for hurting the moderators fragile sensibilities around dc universe

 

Not angry really oh well ...

 

[Fromthegrave]

There's two certainties in life, death and taxes.

 

There also seem to be some certainties with the box office:

 

- most films are getting more frontloaded.

- as time goes on, larger grosses become easier to achieve due to inflation and added gimmicks further inflating ticket prices

- as time goes on, the collective intelligence of some box office forums seems to get dumber, with dominant viewpoints becoming increasingly biased. Like these forums as a perfect example.

 

This legs discussion is useless with no context. You can have a film open to a tiny 10M OW and then finish with 100M resulting in monstrous legs. That would make the legs incredible. The TOTAL GROSS though would be very ordinary. In most cases, as the OW of a film increases, legs typically decrease as more demand is used up front during the OW. In rare occasions, we get truly spectacular box office runs with BIG OW numbers, *and* excellent legs, or a decent-to-good OW with incredible legs. Most films perform at the box office with an average OW, and average legs, or a very small OW, and good legs. So if a film opens with a huge OW, but has weak legs, yet finishes with a large total gross, then the overall box office performance of such a film is still objectively decent. Not great, and not horrible.

 

Then you also have to consider the demographics of a film, and the details of a film. Is a film a 4 quadrant film, or does it have limited demographics? That plays a huge impact in terms of context, and analyzing the box office gross of a film. For example, for a film like Civil War, "Audiences were 59 percent male and mostly adults. Teens made up only 11 percent of the audience." http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/08/captain-america-civil-war-nabs-fifth-best-opening-ever.html. So according to these stats, Civil War was not even a 4 quadrant film. Which makes its OW impressive, and its legs weak, but the overall total gross still great. Now however, Civil War had a large number of A-list and B-list Marvel characters together in one film (combined with some C-list characters as well) which increased its appeal. So objectively the legs were weak, but the overall box office performance was still good.

 

Now we look at Suicide Squad, which had 54% male vs. 46% female, and 54% of the audience was under the age of 25 and 76% of the audience was under the age of 35. So this is also not a true 4 quadrant film either, but is closer to 4 quadrant than Civil War seemingly. However the difference between this and Civil War is the appeal is narrower. Suicide Squad has mostly characters that have never been seen in a live action film before. It has only one true A-list character in the film with Joker, who only plays a small role (and two A-list characters in Batman and Flash who make small and tiny cameos). The only B list character is Harley arguably, and the rest are C-list and Z-list characters. So overall total appeal, when also looking at the marketing, was between Guardians of the Galaxy and a film like Civil War. Well guess what, Suicide Squad had an OW number pretty much between Guardians and Civil War.

 

Now there is one last thing to consider, the universal (or not) appeal of a film. Comic book films, or superhero films appeal only to a certain percentage of the entire movie going public. The entire movie going public itself is only a certain percentage of the total population. In *very* rare cases, like The Avengers or The Dark Knight, does a comic book film push past its typical appeal, and ends up appealing to most of the movie going public.

 

So having a 4 quadrant film or not is one thing. Whether or not it is a 4 quadrant appealing to only a small sub-section of the movie going public, or almost all of the movie-going public makes a big difference as well.

 

So given all these factors, Suicide Squad had a great OW, and WOM seems below-average to average. How the legs end up, we don't know exactly. However Suicide Squad looks very likely to finish with a great overall box office total, given it's fairly narrow appeal to the overall movie-going public. Then there are the (apparently good) soundtrack sales, and the crazy amount of merchandising tie-ins WB did for the film. WB performed almost a Disney-level amount of merchandising tie-ins. Also given that the film seems to be more appealing to, and more well-liked by females than males, any female-related merchandising is likely to sell well. So overall financially this film will do well for WB. Overall WOM is not toxic, the legs objectively will end up anywhere from bad to below-average. The legs are not, and will not be horrible.

 

Note: all of the above is obviously talking about North America's box office, as internationally the box office behaves much differently, and that is a different discussion.

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Fromthegrave

[Ozymandias]

9 hours ago, GiantCALBears said:

It's stunning to me how many actually believe that big openings & huge drops after do NOT indicate bad WOM for DCEU, it's like some kind of delusion or ignorance.

 

If the DCU could be commended for anything, its getting lots of boxoffice nerds to say that 67-69% second weekend drops are fine or not that bad.  What would it take to admit that these films are having shit legs/WOM?  70+ percent? 

 

8 hours ago, filmnerdjamie said:

Let's face it. The DCEU is fucked. 

 

Three films in a row with great trailers/novelties, killer 3-day openings followed by mixed-to-negative reactions and awful legs. One can't spin "Well... let's see how Wonder Woman will be received." Even if it is good, the damage is done. Ditto Justice League. "But the Comic-Con trailers were awesome!" Have you not learned from the last three films? Seriously? You're still clinging to that?!? If you're coming off a film people by and large didn't like, then guess what? Less of them will flock out to see the next one, especially if it has direct associate with the last one (specifically Gal Gadot as Diana) and even more so since it's three films in a row that have burned audiences. 

 

Best case scenario, they follow the trajectory of the X-Men franchise and build back goodwill after two big moneymaking divisive stinkers. Unfortunately they can't afford to take their time now such as it is (a decision they purposefully made after Man of Steel's second weekend drop). And as I've said before, I am not convinced Ben Affleck's Batman (Batfleck, if you will) has been truly embraced by the public. Seems more like fandom being fandom, a la overpraising something to the high-heavens after over-hating it beforehand or in this case looking for something remotely positive to latch onto that disaster known as Batman vs. Superman. Haven't heard a single person (in real life) point out how much they're dying to see more of Batfleck. More like, "He was OK, I guess."

 

And throwing in Geoff Johns means nothing to Wonder Woman or Justice League since both are done deals. Anything to come after that (and boy do I question the fates of those ever happening save for obviously Batfleck: The Motion Picture and Aquaman, the latter specifically thanks to one James Wan), then yes we'll know if it meant anything or if it's just a glorified dog and pony show to appease the .00001% of the population (read: fandom) whose interest studios shouldn't be focusing in on. 

 

I think Wonder Woman is WB's last chance to make a good movie.   There hasn't been a live action movie of Wonder Woman before and it looks like a self contained story.  Justice League is gonna be another Zack Snyder mess.  

 

7 hours ago, AJG said:

#TUMBLING

 

#Crumbling

[robertman2]

3 minutes ago, Fromthegrave said:

There's two certainties in life, death and taxes.

 

There also seem to be some certainties with the box office:

 

- most films are getting more frontloaded.

- as time goes on, larger grosses become easier to achieve due to inflation and added gimmicks further inflating ticket prices

- as time goes on, the collective intelligence of some box office forums seems to get dumber, with dominant viewpoints becoming increasingly biased. Like these forums as a perfect example.

 

This legs discussion is useless with no context. You can have a film open to a tiny 10M OW and then finish with 100M resulting in monstrous legs. That would make the legs incredible. The TOTAL GROSS though would be very ordinary. In most cases, as the OW of a film increases, legs typically decrease as more demand is used up front during the OW. In rare occasions, we get truly spectacular box office runs with BIG OW numbers, *and* excellent legs. Most films perform at the box office with an average OW, and average legs, or a very small OW, and good legs. So if a film opens with a huge OW, but has weak legs, yet finishes with a large total gross, then the overall box office performance of such a film is still objectively decent. Not great, and not horrible.

 

Then you also have to consider the demographics of a film, and the details of a film. Is a film a 4 quadrant film, or does it have limited demographics? That plays a huge impact in terms of context, and analyzing the box office gross of a film. For example, for a film like Civil War, "Audiences were 59 percent male and mostly adults. Teens made up only 11 percent of the audience." http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/08/captain-america-civil-war-nabs-fifth-best-opening-ever.html. So according to these stats, Civil War was not even a 4 quadrant film. Which makes its OW impressive, and its legs weak, but the overall total gross still great. Now however, Civil War had a large number of A-list and B-list Marvel characters together in one film (combined with some C-list characters as well) which increased its appeal. So objectively the legs were weak, but the overall box office performance was still good.

 

Now we look at Suicide Squad, which had 54% male vs. 46% female, and 54% of the audience was under the age of 25 and 76% of the audience was under the age of 35. So this is also not a true 4 quadrant film either. However the difference between this and Civil War is the appeal is narrower. Suicide Squad has mostly characters that have never been seen in a live action film before. It has only one true A-list character in the film with Joker, who only plays a small role (and two A-list characters in Batman and Flash who make small and tiny cameos). The only B list character is Harley arguably, and the rest are C-list and Z-list characters. So overall total appeal, when also looking at the marketing, was between Guardians of the Galaxy and a film like Civil War. Well guess what, Suicide Squad had an OW number pretty much between Guardians and Civil War.

 

Now there is one last thing to consider, the universal (or not) appeal of a film. Comic book films, or superhero films appeal only to a certain percentage of the entire movie going public. The entire movie going public itself is only a certain percentage of a total population. In *very* rare cases, like The Avengers or The Dark Knight, does a comic book film push past its typical appeal, and ends up appealing to most of the movie going public.

 

So having a 4 quadrant film or not is one thing. Whether or not it is a 4 quadrant appealing to only a small sub-section of the movie going public, or almost all of the movie-going public makes a big difference as well.

 

So given all these factors, Suicide Squad had a great OW, and WOM seems below-average to average. How the legs end up, we don't know exactly. However Suicide Squad looks very likely to finish with a great overall box office total, given it's fairly narrow appeal to the overall movie-going public. Then there are the (apparently good) soundtrack sales, and the crazy amount of merchandising tie-ins WB did for the film. WB performed almost a Disney-level amount of merchandising tie-ins. Also given that the film seems to be more appealing to, and more well-liked by females, any female-related merchandising is likely to sell well. So overall financially this film will do well for WB. Overall WOM is not toxic, the legs objectively will end up anywhere from bad to below-average. The legs are not, and will not be horrible.

 

I wouldn't call Harley B-list. She's apparently the highest selling character not Batman comicwise for DC. I'd say she's A-list

[Haley Ross]

25 minutes ago, ecstasy said:

The legs were bad because people expected to see a real war. Something epic. In reality it was the continuation of the Cap Buck love story with extra characters thrown in. I enjoyed it but it wasn't what I thought it was gonna be from the title.

 

I disagree. The overall consensus for the movie wasn't, "I enjoyed it but it wasn't what I thought it was gonna be from the title." The reviews all the way around were far too high. I think it was the result of the final battle and the end of the movie. It doesn't end on a positive note.

[superweirdo87]

@Quigley & BOT >>> Deadline

 

 

[ecstasy]

1 minute ago, Haley Ross said:

 

I disagree. The overall consensus for the movie wasn't, "I enjoyed it but it wasn't what I thought it was gonna be from the title." The reviews all the way around were far too high. I think it was the result of the final battle and the end of the movie. It doesn't end on a positive note.

Hey that was just my take. Certainly open to other theories.

[Fromthegrave]

2 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

I wouldn't call Harley B-list. She's apparently the highest selling character not Batman comicwise for DC. I'd say she's A-list

 

That's why I said "arguably". There are continual arguments between fans over whether Harley is true A-list or B-list.

[Fancyarcher]

4 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

I wouldn't call Harley B-list. She's apparently the highest selling character not Batman comicwise for DC. I'd say she's A-list

 

Well being a Batman related character / villain, and also being introduced on BTAS memorably has helped the character immensely.