ROGUE ONE WEEKEND THREAD | Actuals R1 155.09m, Moana 12.7m, OCP 8.58m, CB 7.1m, FB 5.07m

[RascarCapat]

9 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

The first was the most successful by a long shot in terms of admissions. And they were adapting a book series that spans only 6 years. Of course they had to hurry. No one can accuse that of being some rushed cash grab just for the sake of a cash grab. 

 

But yes, Potter did end up developing what you could call a mass niche audience, so to speak. A very large amount of people showed up for them, but that set base was kind of it. That's why you never saw any of them selling the kind of admissions almost every SW has. 

 

Wait I am wrong about HP BO ?

Let me check.

 

No, not wrong !

I don't want to hear no 3D / admission bullshit arguments.

There are 10 years of inflation.

 

The first is 64M behind.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by RascarCapat

[EmpireCity]

On 12/16/2016 at 1:03 AM, MovieMan89 said:

And yet you're the one name calling, aka the defining trait of an internet troll. You're the one who was literally being condescending about the fact that "the stats" proved that there was no way this wasn't headed for a 150m OW bare minimum. Maybe don't be so smug next time in something you can't prove and then you won't have to go into fits of rage over it. 

 

I would like to point out that $150m OW bare minimum seems pretty likely.  Almost like I knew what I was talking about on a lot of levels from the start.  

 

[RascarCapat]

Just now, RascarCapat said:

The first is 64M behind.

 

 

 

Oh and yeah, that's the Domestic Delta.

The WW Delta is 367M.

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

I'm certainly not un-biased and I've never claimed to me. But why should these big franchise decisions be about me? In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter at all whether the studio makes me happy or not. And aside from me giving my opinion when I've seen a movie, it'd be churlish of me to try and claim that my opinion is the one that matters when clearly millions of people are entertained by the result. Doesn't matter if it's SW, HP, JW, Transformers, or Power Rangers. 

It doesn't stop you from complaining though when there's something you don't like, as well as making suggestions on what you think should happen. No one is saying that their own personal opinion should be expected to be the one studios base all their decisions on. But we still express them. 

[GiantCALBears]

Catching Fire did $158m off a $71m opening, think that's a pretty reasonable bar. Granted CF had a smaller midnight total by under $4m.

Edited December 17, 2016 by GiantCALBears

[terrestrial]

32 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 

The originals and arguably definitive Bond films. They've made countless films since then of varying quality over 50 years. Doesn't make those original movies any less special. 

More Star Wars (and I'm as big a fan as you) is nothing but good news to me. As long as the films are good. I'll never love these new ones as much as the original trilogy but they won't cause the OT to be less special to any fan. 

This is a great time to be a Star Wars nerd. The best it's been for over 30 years. Enjoy it. 

 

Maybe time to repost that: 

Bond did reinvent / refresh itself for a very long time, even Batman = only one character, did that, I think without the bad ones it might have had the potential for even more than to see on the chart...

The MCU is simple insane, HP will look in a few years way more impressive as it already is anyhow...

All live also from rejuvenating their franchises with new entries.

Sometimes huge ones, sometimes small ones.

Movie Franchises

Edited December 17, 2016 by terrestrial

[SteveJaros]

24 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

Some of my favorite little references are to early early EU stuff from the early 80s. Say what you will about whether you liked the result, but this was clearly made by people with a deep, abiding love for SW and it's universe. 

 

Yes, IMO both TFA and R1 have captured the spirit of the classic trilogy better than the Lucas-helmed second trilogy, 

[MovieMan89]

I legitimately can't wait to read the meltdowns over Star Wars saturation in 5-8 years. When this whole board falls into that mob mentality it's going to make my complaints look tame. 

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

These are cash grabs first and foremost.

 

SW has been a cash grab since 1977. Not sure why you keep using it as a pejorative. 

 

FWIW, the concept and basic story for R1 came from John Knoll, so ironically it might be the least "cash grabby" of all the post-1977 SW movies. 

[Walt Disney]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

A KOTOR film would be insanely awesome, I said that years ago already. However, Disney will never do that because it's too risky for them. These are cash grabs first and foremost. Sorry if some don't like to hear that, but it's the truth. And if Disney greenlights something far more risky than "The Death Star Plans" f/Darth Vader or The Many Adventures of Hannie the Solo, then I may start believing they're no longer treating them exclusively as their golden goose.

 

You do realize that Disney spent $4 billion to buy Lucasfilm, right? It would be pretty logical for them to make the movies that will make them the most profit first. That's not a cash grab; it's trying to break even.

[Chewy]

Any good meltdowns over the last 50 or same old?

[filmlover]

I just saw Collateral Beauty.

 

Oh god.

 

Oh my god this movie.

 

 

A full review is coming later (because the ridiculous bullshit that unfolds in this movie deserves it) but everyone on BOT needs to see it. It truly is a once-in-a-blue-moon fiasco that you have to see to believe.

[Daxtreme]

1 minute ago, Chewy said:

Any good meltdowns over the last 50 or same old?

 

[Mulder]

2 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Any good meltdowns over the last 50 or same old?

Mainly just MovieMan tbh.

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

SW has been a cash grab since 1977. Not sure why you keep using it as a pejorative. 

 

FWIW, the concept and basic story for R1 came from John Knoll, so ironically it might be the least "cash grabby" of all the post-1977 SW movies. 

All films are cash grabs in a sense, we've established that. However, you know darn well what I mean by calling a film a "cash grab." It's a film that exists for literally no other purpose but to make the studio a quick buck. Not because they thought it was a good story, had a lot of potential, had great talent wanting to work on it, etc. Because they knew there was 0% chance of losing money if they made it. A sequel trilogy had been in gestation for decades. There was far more behind deciding to make it than just the money. Otherwise it would have been made a long time ago. 

[Mulder]

4 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

SW has been a cash grab since 1977. Not sure why you keep using it as a pejorative. 

 

FWIW, the concept and basic story for R1 came from John Knoll, so ironically it might be the least "cash grabby" of all the post-1977 SW movies. 

Going to quote this because, again, I'd like it if I could. It's funny that John Knoll asked if the Death Star plans story was done before and Pablo Hidalgo just said "Don't worry about it." 

[Mulder]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

All films are cash grabs in a sense, we've established that. However, you know darn well what I mean by calling a film a "cash grab." It's a film that exists for literally no other purpose but to make the studio a quick buck. Not because they thought it was a good story, had a lot of potential, had great talent wanting to work on it, etc. Because they knew there was 0% chance of losing money if they made it. A sequel trilogy had been in gestation for decades. There was far more behind deciding to make it than just the money. Otherwise it would have been made a long time ago. 

You do realize George Lucas had thought about making Rogue One, yes? The reason why it was fast tracked was because it already had, had a lot of time and work put into it's pre-production phase.

[GiantCALBears]

3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I legitimately can't wait to read the meltdowns over Star Wars saturation in 5-8 years. When this whole board falls into that mob mentality it's going to make my complaints look tame. 

You aren't wrong about saturation being a FUTURE issue but dude that was a $71m OD for a spin off not even in the main saga. What are we even arguing about? Sure people will be less enthused over time when you take rarity away. Doesn't mean they can't be good films and/or make a ton domestic. 

[That One Girl]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I just saw Collateral Beauty.

 

Oh god.

 

Oh my god this movie.

 

 

A full review is coming later (because the ridiculous bullshit that unfolds in this movie deserves it) but everyone on BOT needs to see it. It truly is a once-in-a-blue-moon fiasco that you have to see to believe.

 

I'll wait for On Demand .

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

All films are cash grabs in a sense, we've established that. However, you know darn well what I mean by calling a film a "cash grab." It's a film that exists for literally no other purpose but to make the studio a quick buck. Not because they thought it was a good story, had a lot of potential, had great talent wanting to work on it, etc. Because they knew there was 0% chance of losing money if they made it. A sequel trilogy had been in gestation for decades. There was far more behind deciding to make it than just the money. Otherwise it would have been made a long time ago. 

 

In that case, once again you're choosing to make a great many negative assumptions about the people involved simply because you didn't like the movie.