Weekend Thread | Official Estimates: Moana - 55.5/81.1M; Fantastic Beasts - 45.1M; Doctor Strange - 13.4M; Allied - 13/18M; Arrival - 11.3M; Trolls - 10.3M; Bad Santa 2 - 6.1/9M

[Walt Disney]

23 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

 

 

IMO, Warner's has the best stable of properties. Their box office success is more solid than Disney. Disney rolls the dice every year on one big Marvel movie, one big animated movie, and one big classic remake like Alice in Wonderland. If they hit, they are on top, but the downside is huge. Warner's also has these same big franchises (DC, Harry Potter, and now the animated Lego stuff), but they have a lot more Clint Eastwood type mid-range films that can do $150m and save them if the blockbuster flops.

 

Plus, WB owns all of DC whereas Disney doesn't own a lot of Marvel stuff. Advantage Warner.

 

IMO, Warner's has less downside potential than Disney, Disney is overinvested in blockbusters.

 

Warner can afford to make "bad" Batman filmsl Batman vs Superman because the  Batman franchise is timeless and they can always do-over. And hell, even a bad Batman film makes $800m WW.

 

Disney really can't afford to screw up an Avengers movie because their stuff isn't as culturally resonant as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman.  Warner's is following the right strategy in continuing to make these DC Universe films because in the long run they will dominate with them.

 

Disney owns all of Marvel. They do have a few characters that are licensed out to other studios: the X-Men (which is a huge amount of characters), Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and Spider-Man (although now only for solo Spidey films as they can use Spidey in as many cross-overs as possible).

 

As for stables, Disney has the best stable of characters. WB has DC, the Hanna-Barbara characters, Looney Tunes, Godzilla/King Kong, Harry Potter and Looney Tunes. Disney has Marvel, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, the Muppets, Mickey Mouse and friends, Winnie the Pooh and Friends, Toy Story and a host of other princesses and characters. Marvel consistently beats DC at the box office in this decade. Disney's 2 headed animation monster of WDAS and Pixar consistently destroy anything that WB animation puts out, which includes the lego movies. And Star Wars just destroys everything. When is comes to stable of characters, Disney is clearly number 1.

 

Disney does focus heavily on blockbusters. But WB's focus on smaller films as well as a mix of blockbusters hasn't made them more dominant than Disney in this decade. Disney movies gross more money per movie than WB movies this decade. Disney has a very successful strategy. The head of Walt Disney Studios is also Allen Horn who is the guy that made WB the powerhouse that it was in the 2000's. It is very hard to make the case that WB is in better shape right now than Disney is.

 

In fact, I'd say that Disney's biggest challenger right now is Universal. But Disney is still dominating right now.

[iHeartJames]

43 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

I'm not "truly" a Disney fan,I don't root for any studio like I have an investment in them or like I do my favorite football team.  I am a fan of Disney so long as they make good blockbuster movies, and so they have earned my fandom with numerous such films the past several years. But when they make a bad or boring film, like "Good Dinosaur" or "Alice II", I don't hesitate to say so because there is no underlying loyalty. I don't have an underlying loyalty to any movie studio (strange concept!), I am a fan of good movies. 

 

But box office prediction is another matter entirely, I call them as I believe they will shake out, separate from my rooting interest.

 

IMO, Warner's has the best stable of properties. Their box office success is more solid than Disney. Disney rolls the dice every year on one big Marvel movie, one big animated movie, and one big classic remake like Alice in Wonderland. If they hit, they are on top, but the downside is huge. Warner's also has these same big franchises (DC, Harry Potter, and now the animated Lego stuff), but they have a lot more Clint Eastwood type mid-range films that can do $150m and save them if the blockbuster flops.

 

Plus, WB owns all of DC whereas Disney doesn't own a lot of Marvel stuff. Advantage Warner.

 

IMO, Warner's has less downside potential than Disney, Disney is overinvested in blockbusters. 

 

Warner can afford to make "bad" Batman filmsl Batman vs Superman because the  Batman franchise is timeless and they can always do-over. And hell, even a bad Batman film makes $800m WW.

 

Disney really can't afford to screw up an Avengers movie because their stuff isn't as culturally resonant as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman.  Warner's is following the right strategy in continuing to make these DC Universe films because in the long run they will dominate with them. 

Are you for real? lol if anything its more impressive that they don't have all their characters cuz Iron Man by himself can gross 1 billion. They pretty much threw everything at BVS including the kitchen sink and couldn't even hit 900 million and They kinda screwed up with Age Of Ultron and look they're still the top comic book movie company 

Edited November 24, 2016 by iHeartJames

[FantasticBeasts]

Great numbers for Moana ! However, I don't think it has a chance of getting 90m...Probably 85m at best...

Regarding FB, Wednesday although pretty good was slightly less than what I expected seeing the Tuesday number... I hope it manages to get  +60m this weekend. Then it will be in 150m and it should find no difficulty in  getting to 220-230M DOM..Considering that Japan and China delivers well I see 800M WW reaallly possible which would be a BIG success

[CJohn]

25 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

@CJohn

 

[Michael Gary Scott]

Dick Tracy is great

[grey ghost]

Disney is now also using Universal's revival strategy (Fast 5, JW) with Cars 3.

 

Add that to their mastery of the cinematic universe, original animation and live action fairy tale adaptation and no one is catching up with them.

 

 

 

 

[grey ghost]

1 minute ago, Michael Gary Scott said:

Dick Tracy is great

 

It's a fun experiment.

 

No where as bad as the STD known as The Spirit.

[Dementeleus]

3 hours ago, Jonwo said:

 

Zemeckis hasn't had much luck with projects. I'm surprised the budget was $85m but I guess Pitt's salary is a big chunk of the budget

 

Even if it does $100m OS, it'll still lose money.

 

There were some reports that they had to take on more VFX than Zemeckis originally wanted. They wanted to do mostly pure location shooting, but ended up having to do a fair amount of location extensions

and stuff. 

[terrestrial]

Deadline Hollywood ‏@Deadline 

Disneyland Paris, Champs-Elysées Said Among Targets Of Terror Plot; Suspects In Custody http://deadline.com/2016/11/disneyland-paris-champs-elysees-terror-attack-targets-suspects-in-custody-1201859772/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter …

[Dementeleus]

50 minutes ago, filmlover said:

At least she's not the lead guy from Billy Lynn, who was called The Next Big Thing by Hollywood Reporter in interview around the film's NYFF premiere and whose follow-up movie is...a Gerard Butler action pic. Ouch.

 

He was really good, though. 

[Chinoiserie]

1 hour ago, La Binoche said:

hacksaw's legs are super impressive. mel gibson's comeback is officially a success 

 

 

What budget it had? Does anyone know?

[WrathOfHan]

Lmao, Arrival had a bigger PTA yesterday than Allied did  

[Krissykins]

Great for Moana.

 

Horrific for the other 3 newcomers.

 

No other word to describe it, lol.

[terrestrial]

29 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Ok, you asked for it.

- snip -

I had to look up if it is real, I wasn't sure based on the still/pic for the clip (for some reasons I am not sure if I should dare to click on it)

 

So... to include it in an avatar means people think it will be good?

 

[YSLDC]

Just now, Chinoiserie said:

 

What budget it had? Does anyone know?

27m

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, Chinoiserie said:

 

What budget it had? Does anyone know?

 

Just now, YSLDC said:

27m

 

HACKSAW's budget was 42m. (Direct quote from the producer.)

[YSLDC]

Just now, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

 

HACKSAW's budget was 42m. (Direct quote from the producer.)

 

Gibson told Deadline at Venice Film Festival how they: “got some good breaks because it was a totally Australian film, and a good rebate.”

“They had a very good plan there. Filmed in New South Wales. Screen Australia and all that stuff. The exchange rate for the U.S. dollar was good at the time, and I think we locked in at about 72 cents on the dollar and took a $27 million budget and turned it into a $40 million budget,” Gibson added.

[miketheavenger]

Happy Thanksgiving to all you American people! Have fun today.

[Dementeleus]

9 minutes ago, YSLDC said:

 

Gibson told Deadline at Venice Film Festival how they: “got some good breaks because it was a totally Australian film, and a good rebate.”

“They had a very good plan there. Filmed in New South Wales. Screen Australia and all that stuff. The exchange rate for the U.S. dollar was good at the time, and I think we locked in at about 72 cents on the dollar and took a $27 million budget and turned it into a $40 million budget,” Gibson added.

 

I can't explain what he said or if he's confusing exchange rates with rebates or something, but I heard 42m with my own ears with Gibson sitting right next to the producer speaking.  It's a hit no matter how you swing it, though. 

[Valonqar]

20 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

Lmao, Arrival had a bigger PTA yesterday than Allied did  

 

Shocker...not. 

 

It's funny that Paramount actually tried to use Brangelina split and rumors of the affair with Cotillard as a marketing tool. They dropped the trailer right after the news of the split/cheating broke and later released that "Enemy is watching" poster. They knew they had a bomb on their hands. Like, who is this movie for?