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

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

We can come with whatever names we want for all of these things. All I know is that at this point in time, 500m for *any* movie is massive and a huge accomplishment. I don't have problem with also saying that achievement doesn't automatically place a movie on some sort of special iconic status. We won't know that until much later.

 

At some point in time, 500m will become the new 400m, the same way 400m is now

the new 300m. 

 

But today is not that day. 

 

Oh I think 500 is already the new 400. But 400 was ENORMOUS if you go back 10-15 years. So 500 is still enormous today just as 400 was then. 300 is no longer what it was and now you have to get a 400+ number to have the same type of wow factor as the 300 grossers from 10-15 years ago. 

[Wrath]

Ok, I'm starting to have trouble figuring out what people are actually arguing over at this point. It feels like one of those standard internet debates which starts out about one thing, but then gradually turns into a free-ranging exercise in goal-post shifting which only ends when one or both sides are exhausted because the actual conditions of the debate haven't been agreed upon in ages, other than that the conflict exists.

 

But, for my own peace of mind, I'd like some clarification on the debate. If its "Whether or not R1 is 'cultural event' or not" then I don't care because its as useless as searching for meaning in a Pauley Shore movie (at risk of being extremely unsubtle, yes, I'm making a point). There is no defined, broadly agreed upon definition. No, there's not, otherwise there wouldn't be 5+ pages of argument over it, someone would just trot out the definition and that would be it. So, if that's the entirety of the argument at this point, please let me know so I can stop paying attention to this thread.

 

However, if that's NOT the point of the argument, more like an accidentally spawned sub-argument, I'd like to know what the actual argument is now. The movie has opened, and we know within a pretty tight range what that total's going to be. If this argument is going on because no one is willing to concede the other side won the argument over how it would open, then once again, I don't care. A disagreement that isn't well enough defined that neither side can be shown to be wrong after the fact is a really poorly constructed disagreement, and those involved should have structured the debate better in the first place. Again, if this is the case, I'd like to know so that I can not care.

 

HOWEVER.

 

If there's actual substance remaining to be had in this debate, such as how the legs will turn out, then I'd also like to know because I DO care about that.  I sort of recall a running theme of how leggy this would end up being stretching back to Baumer's club. If that's the case, and people still care, lets add some structure to this so that someone can be right or wrong.

 

So, if there's disagreement over how leggy this will be or something else fairly quantifyable, given that we know its going to open at, oh, roughly 156M, then I'm interested to see where people think it will end up.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Wrath

[Daxtreme]

3 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

My friend Bernie and actually now days my friend Florian both conform to this idea of an "event movie," which is what makes non-regular moviegoers hit up the multiplexes. Bernie is CFO

 

Do you plan some week-ends sometimes at his rich place, I don't know, like...

 

 

Like... you could go on a boat ride 

[EmpireCity]

9 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Why on earth is Titanic not in the second category?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

And why isn't Zootopia at least in the third one? 

 

 

I didn't put it in the second category because it didn't sort of come out of nowhere, it was very hyped and anticipated but mostly for negative reasons.  

[EmpireCity]

$400m is the new $300m, but $500m is still $500m.  There are only 6 films in history to hit that mark and about to be a 7th and that is pretty amazing to consider.  

[redfirebird2008]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

$400m is the new $300m, but $500m is still $500m.  There are only 6 films in history to hit that mark and about to be a 7th and that is pretty amazing to consider.  

 

10 years ago, there were only 7 films above $400 million. So $500m is very much the new $400m. Spider-Man's $403m gross in 2002 adjusts to $600m and that is without the 3D/IMAX boost. $400m was an insane gross just a decade ago with Pirates 2 and even more insane for any films that came out earlier with a similar gross. Really puts Titanic's $600m in 1997-1998 into perspective. 

[Ozymandias]

Rth sleeping on the job? 

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, Ozymandias said:

Rth sleeping on the job? 

He already did his job,

[Ozymandias]

Just now, cannastop said:

He already did his job,

 

[JonathanLB]

Yeah and for various reasons there are still realistic limits on what almost any movie can make, but more than that, it doesn't seem like movies are going to be knocking on the door of the all-time ticket sales list with any regularity, like TFA did last year. Despite way more people in North America, there aren't way more moviegoers. So many people just wait the (amazingly short) 3 months or 4 months until the thing hits Netflix, iTunes, Blu-ray, whatever and are perfectly happy with that. I agree that $300M sure doesn't mean what it meant when I was a kid. In the 90s, $300M was definite box office phenomenon level because ESB was still sitting in the top 10 at $290M when I first started following the box office. Now days, $290M is a very good gross for sure, but it's nothing to write home about. In the 90s, $290M couldn't possibly be disappointing for any movie released, including Titanic, because they would have still made a killing overseas and earned back the budget. Arguably in 1999 TPM was the first movie that would have actually been considered disappointing at $290M, but before that point, I'd say there was no such movie. Now days, there are plenty of movies where that would be hugely disappointing even if it was a good, solid gross in a general sense. Imagine Avengers 3 or Infinity Wars Part 1 or whatever the hell they're calling it now I can't keep up, imagine if that thing made $290M total. That would be absolutely terrible. Nobody would be able to believe it. Or if Episode VIII made that, it would be an epic disappointment and borderline bomb level for the sequel to a $936M grosser. 

 

Still, I would say $400M remains a level at which any film is reasonably successful regardless of prior expectations, when the dust settles. And yes, as Empire stated, $500M is still kind of ridiculous. Still a number very seldom ever achieved. 

[DeeCee]

I was cleaning on the weekend and I found some almost 5 year old lottery tickets so I checked them. I won $55. That takes care R1 in IMAX 3D. 

[redfirebird2008]

December 1996 - Only 6 films above $300m (none above $400m)

December 2006 - Only 7 films above $400m (one above $500m and same one also above $600m)

December 2016 - Only 7 films above $500m (5 of them are above $600m and two are above $700m)

 

So basically there is no doubt that the inflation is pretty damn crazy, maybe even crazier than any of us realize. Sure seems to have jumped a lot more in the last 10 years than in the previous two decades. Really we're almost skipping the $500m level at this point when you look at the fact 5 of the 7 films above $500m are also above $600m. 

[EmpireCity]

This is why I haven't jumped into the whole discussion on adjusted grosses and tickets sold.  Can't really compare something in 1930 when there was literally only the option of going to the movies or listening to radio to 2016 when you have roughly 1,000 different entertainment options that are at the tips of your fingers and everyone can watch a movie 8 weeks from in perfect HD in their living room or on their tablet or phone.  

 

Adjusted gross is completely irrelevant for the most part in any discussion.  I think even going beyond a few years starts to become irrelevant.  If you take something like Spider-Man in 2002 that was a completely different time to 2016 when it comes to the box office and options for entertainment.  

[redfirebird2008]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

This is why I haven't jumped into the whole discussion on adjusted grosses and tickets sold.  Can't really compare something in 1930 when there was literally only the option of going to the movies or listening to radio to 2016 when you have roughly 1,000 different entertainment options that are at the tips of your fingers and everyone can watch a movie 8 weeks from in perfect HD in their living room or on their tablet or phone.  

 

Adjusted gross is completely irrelevant for the most part in any discussion.  I think even going beyond a few years starts to become irrelevant.  If you take something like Spider-Man in 2002 that was a completely different time to 2016 when it comes to the box office and options for entertainment.  

 

Then ignore adjusted grosses and just look at the numbers of milestone films in each decade. There is plenty of evidence to suggest 500 is the new 400. Hell, we might even have already jumped to 600 at this point judging by the number of 600+ films. These are insane numbers, no doubt. But 400 was an insane number when the likes of Spider-Man or Phantom Menace got there. 

[JonathanLB]

That is kind of crazy @redfirebird2008! Wow, puts things in perspective. And I had trouble as a kid understanding how some people called these past movies "big movies" with what looked like pitiful $100M grosses to me. I thought huh? How could that have ever been considered great? Now of course I get it, considering so many movies I remember as being big movies like Twister have run of the mill grosses by today's standards. $241M when Twister came out though? Damn right that was a fuckin' great gross! lol

[redfirebird2008]

2 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

That is kind of crazy @redfirebird2008! Wow, puts things in perspective. And I had trouble as a kid understanding how some people called these past movies "big movies" with what looked like pitiful $100M grosses to me. I thought huh? How could that have ever been considered great? Now of course I get it, considering so many movies I remember as being big movies like Twister have run of the mill grosses by today's standards. $241M when Twister came out though? Damn right that was a fuckin' great gross! lol

 

This is a good way to research it. You can change the year. I've got it set to 12/31/1996 in this link: 

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm?asof=1996-12-29&p=.htm

[DeeCee]

13 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

December 1996 - Only 6 films above $300m (none above $400m)

December 2006 - Only 7 films above $400m (one above $500m and same one also above $600m)

December 2016 - Only 7 films above $500m (5 of them are above $600m and two are above $700m)

 

So basically there is no doubt that the inflation is pretty damn crazy, maybe even crazier than any of us realize. Sure seems to have jumped a lot more in the last 10 years than in the previous two decades. Really we're almost skipping the $500m level at this point when you look at the fact 5 of the 7 films above $500m are also above $600m. 

That's partly because the actual percentage increase between bigger numbers is smaller. If gross is growing 5% a year it won't take as long to go from 500 to 600 then it did to go from 200 to 300.   

 

Maths. It's immeasurable power. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by DeeCee

[hasanahmad]

Looks like the reshoots worked 

[redfirebird2008]

6 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

That's partly because the actual percentage increase between bigger numbers is smaller. If gross is growing 5% a year it won't take as long to go from 500 to 600 then it did to go from 200 to 300.   

 

Maths. It's immeasurable power. 

 

Of course it's arguably 400 to 600 from December '06 to December '16, so it would be similar growth as 200 to 300...50% jump in the milestone level. 

 

December 2006 - Only 5 movies above $400m in their first run (Titanic, Shrek 2, TPM, DMC, SM1)

December 2016 - Only 5 movies above $600m in their first run (TFA, Avatar, JW, Avengers, Titanic)

[Plain Old Tele]

Heck, I remember when 100m was a significant and substantial achievement.