Jandrew Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 2016 was an alright year at the box office. I decided to highlight what I feel were the winners and losers of the year. This list isn't just about gross, but rather gross, reception, and expectations. This isn't a list about my favorite and least favorite movies of the year, although this does involve some of my personal opinion. Here is my blog post: http://actthreemovies.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-winners-and-losers.html Give it a read as I give my reasoning on each choice, see what you think, and come back and debate on what I got wrong and right. Just know I'm always right and you're always wrong. In no order: Winners: - Walt Disney Pictures, A Madea Halloween, Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Trolls, Bad Moms, Purge Election Year, Sausage Party, Don't Breath, Hell or Highwater, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Lights Out Losers: - Batman vs Superman, Allegiant, sequels trying to recapture magic, Ninja Turtles 2, Huntsman Winters War, 13 Hours, Zach Galifiankis and Zac Efron, Gods of Egypt, Alice 2, Billy Lynn, Birth of A Nation, wide release flops, Inferno Mixed: - Ghostbusters, Passengers, and faith based adaptions Not full winners: - Legend of Tarzan, Sully, Angry Birds, Shallows Not full losers: - Girl on the Train, Ass Creed, Warcraft, Ben Hur, Storks Too many damn ads: - Office Christmas Party So what do you guys think? Edited January 7, 2017 by jandrew 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Pinned for a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Old Tele Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 GODS OF EGYPT did poorly, but was presold well. It's more of a "kinda loser", I think. I'd put THE SHALLOWS as a straight-up winner. I was pretty middling on it, but there's no question it performed very well on a modest budget. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcaballero Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Legend of Tarzan is a winner by virtue of not being a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, elcaballero said: Legend of Tarzan is a winner by virtue of not being a loser. I'm pretty sure it still lost the studio money though, it's budget was insane for that kind of movie. I'm happy to say was one of the few people who predicted it doing over $100m though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 21 minutes ago, Telemachos said: GODS OF EGYPT did poorly, but was presold well. It's more of a "kinda loser", I think. I'd put THE SHALLOWS as a straight-up winner. I was pretty middling on it, but there's no question it performed very well on a modest budget. That makes GOE only kinda loser for Lionsgate. For all the distributors who bought it though it was a big fat L. Agreed about The Shallows. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Atreides Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I'd also put in Moonlight in the winners category. It's a movie from a 4-year old distributor with no recognizable director, cast, or source material, and it currently has the second-biggest PTA of the year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eevin Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I'd move Shallows to the decisive win column. It wasn't the best film in the world, but it made $119m on a $17m budget. It shouldn't be put on the same level as Legend of Tarzan (which, incidentally, was a huge success given expectations). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Based on expectations Tarzan was a break out. But it's a mixed bag because it wasn't too profitable due to the huge budget. I still think it's a success because it's pretty much a best case scenario for this movie all things considered. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Deadpool was the most shocking winner (at least in terms of breaking out). Billy Lynn is the most shocking loser... ...imo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasmmi Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I imagine you could add Light's Out or even just low budget Horror in general to the Winners section. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandrew Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Telemachos said: GODS OF EGYPT did poorly, but was presold well. It's more of a "kinda loser", I think. I'd put THE SHALLOWS as a straight-up winner. I was pretty middling on it, but there's no question it performed very well on a modest budget. I think what held me back with Shallows was the $55 million total. I looked at that too hard. I think over $70 I would've done it. I see everyone's argument for full on winner though. 27 minutes ago, Eevin said: I'd move Shallows to the decisive win column. It wasn't the best film in the world, but it made $119m on a $17m budget. It shouldn't be put on the same level as Legend of Tarzan (which, incidentally, was a huge success given expectations). This isn't a quality list. I thought Shallows was better too, but it's more circumstantial that that. Tarzan had a better than expected gross, good legs for 2016, and it beat expectations. Same with Shallows. That's why I put them both in "almost win." As I said above, if the domestic gross was a little higher, I feel like I would've pulled the trigger on full on win. 1 hour ago, CoolEric258 said: I'd also put in Moonlight in the winners category. It's a movie from a 4-year old distributor with no recognizable director, cast, or source material, and it currently has the second-biggest PTA of the year. I thought about Moonlight, but think about what to write about it. I had no idea about the PTA. That's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandrew Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, chasmmi said: I imagine you could add Light's Out or even just low budget Horror in general to the Winners section. Oh goodness...I had no idea about Lights Outs budget. Yeah, I wasn't planning on editing this, but I might have to throw that one in. $148 million on a $5 million budget is pretty noteworthy. Edit: I don't want to change any positions, but yep I definitely had to add Lights Out to the list. I overlooked that one. Edited January 7, 2017 by jandrew 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkshop36 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I feel like Tarzan was a winner and loser. It was was a winner because of how much it actually ended up making. It was a loser because of how much it cost Or maybe it's a wash. I don't know lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPZVGOS Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 How on earth is Batman v Superman (WW gross: $873.3M) a loser while Ghostbusters (WW gross: $229M) is mixed? BvS cost $250M while Ghostbusters cost $150M 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forg Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Sully for me is straight up winner in the box office (but as an awards bait it's a loser) Kung Fu Panda 3 is not on the loser for me as well, over $500M box office worldwide with 145M budget. It also did quite well for a January release. It also had solid reviews and helped Dreamworks' road to recovery Should be included in the winners list as well is Illumination with two box office smashes this year with original material. Edited January 7, 2017 by forg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rukaio101 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 hour ago, PPZVGOS said: How on earth is Batman v Superman (WW gross: $873.3M) a loser while Ghostbusters (WW gross: $229M) is mixed? BvS cost $250M while Ghostbusters cost $150M Because we're talking about those movies relative to expectations. For BvS, passing 1bil WW was supposed to be little more than a formality. Hell, aside from arguably Civil War, it was probably the film of 2016 people were most confident would cross that line. $873.3m, while still a profitable amount, is a clear disappointment in regard to those expectations, especially when you consider that BvS was supposed to be a lynchpin for the entire DCEU. Its underperformance and critical lambasting hurts the franchise as a whole. There's a reason some are now questioning whether Justice League will make even $300m DOM (although whether that will pass out obviously remains to be seen). On the other hand, for Ghostbusters, the expectations were never that fixed. It was a... controversial reboot, to say the least and could easily have underperformed or overperformed to a decent degree. In the end, it underperformed but not calamitously (arguably). Hence why it's in the mixed category. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPZVGOS Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, rukaio101 said: Because we're talking about those movies relative to expectations. For BvS, passing 1bil WW was supposed to be little more than a formality. Hell, aside from arguably Civil War, it was probably the film of 2016 people were most confident would cross that line. $873.3m, while still a profitable amount, is a clear disappointment in regard to those expectations, especially when you consider that BvS was supposed to be a lynchpin for the entire DCEU. Its underperformance and critical lambasting hurts the franchise as a whole. There's a reason some are now questioning whether Justice League will make even $300m DOM (although whether that will pass out obviously remains to be seen). On the other hand, for Ghostbusters, the expectations were never that fixed. It was a... controversial reboot, to say the least and could easily have underperformed or overperformed to a decent degree. In the end, it underperformed but not calamitously (arguably). Hence why it's in the mixed category. Even if we base our categorization solely on performance relative to expectations, how is it "mixed" for a very big-budgeted movie such as Ghostbusters to make $229M WW? No amount of pre-release controversy or subsequent spin can disguise the very obvious disaster that was Ghostbusters. In terms of box-office, it could be argued of course that BvS was a relative disappointment, but calling one of the year's biggest blockbusters an outright loser is stretching it. And if we are to take reviews into account here, wasn't BvS's BO a relative success since the reviews were overwhelmingly negative? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCKillswitch123 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 C'mon man, Storks deserves to be a "kinda winner". Yes, it had a very disappointing OW (undeservedly so), but its legs were amazing. And Ice Age 5 shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt for being Ice Age 5 - all of the previous ones had grossed at least 100M+. Even WW, it did less than half of IA3 and 4, and it's actually the lowest grossing of the franchise (less than even the original IN 2002). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Shallows is definitely a winner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
