Jandrew's 2016 Winners and Losers

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, Wrath said:

 

Storks' performance makes me sad in that it was roughly my 3rd favorite animated movie of the year (after Kubo and Zootopia, Sausage Party isn't included because I'm *still* not entirely sure how I feel about it), but bad trailers completely failed to communicate its many strong points. I think its neck and neck with Ghostbusters for most poorly marketed movie of the year (which isn't to say I thought Ghostbusters was good, just that it isn't every day a movie's marketing campaign actually detracts value from the movie).

 

See, I disagree (and yeah, I've seen it, too:).  I almost never say this about animated movies b/c you accept it as part of the concept, but parts of the movie were SO unbelievable to me that they took me out of the movie.  Was it funny?  Yeah.  Was it sweet?  Yeah.  But sometimes the writers just wrote in stuff that I couldn't buy and that took away from the movie for me.  I gave it a B...and the movie goers with me (all of the younger variety) shared my opinion.  For them (and me), it was a definite step down from Zootopia and Kubo (our top 2 animated movies) and a 1/2 step down from SLOP (which did need to be funnier after a really good 1st 20 minutes), being about equal to Moana (which we found good but entirely forgettable).  We skipped Dory, but are seeing it Friday, and we still haven't seen Trolls/Sing, so that might move Storks down even lower for me...it was a very good year for animation, and that's probably why it suffered b/c it just didn't quite measure up...

 

[Wrath]

23 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

See, I disagree (and yeah, I've seen it, too:).  I almost never say this about animated movies b/c you accept it as part of the concept, but parts of the movie were SO unbelievable to me that they took me out of the movie.  Was it funny?  Yeah.  Was it sweet?  Yeah.  But sometimes the writers just wrote in stuff that I couldn't buy and that took away from the movie for me.  I gave it a B...and the movie goers with me (all of the younger variety) shared my opinion.  For them (and me), it was a definite step down from Zootopia and Kubo (our top 2 animated movies) and a 1/2 step down from SLOP (which did need to be funnier after a really good 1st 20 minutes), being about equal to Moana (which we found good but entirely forgettable).  We skipped Dory, but are seeing it Friday, and we still haven't seen Trolls/Sing, so that might move Storks down even lower for me...it was a very good year for animation, and that's probably why it suffered b/c it just didn't quite measure up...

 

 

That's fair, though Stork's occasional ridiculousness was, imo, one of its selling points. Like how the customer-service was so good that returned packages were effectively teleported back to the warehouse. And the wolf-pack's extremely impressive improvisational abilities (which they lampshade the hell out of. Junior and Tulip are like "Huh. They can do that?") were, imo, one of the very best parts of the movie.

 

It was a fantastic year for animation, arguably the best ever. I mean, Moana was a really, really good animated movie and to me it was only the 4th best of the year. Ferocious competition.

 

I didn't particularly like SLOP, but had basically the same opinion as you. First 20 minutes was great, but it dragged after that and I thought the ending was pretty blah. And honestly, I didn't think Dory even had that going for it. If its an option, I'd skip it and instead go see Trolls which was brilliant, or Sing (which, even more than SLOP, defined the difference between "good" and "crowd pleasing") which was fun.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Wrath

[TwoMisfits]

4 hours ago, Wrath said:

 

That's fair, though Stork's occasional ridiculousness was, imo, one of its selling points. Like how the customer-service was so good that returned packages were effectively teleported back to the warehouse. And the wolf-pack's extremely impressive improvisational abilities (which they lampshade the hell out of. Junior and Tulip are like "Huh. They can do that?") were, imo, one of the very best parts of the movie.

 

It was a fantastic year for animation, arguably the best ever. I mean, Moana was a really, really good animated movie and to me it was only the 4th best of the year. Ferocious competition.

 

I didn't particularly like SLOP, but had basically the same opinion as you. First 20 minutes was great, but it dragged after that and I thought the ending was pretty blah. And honestly, I didn't think Dory even had that going for it. If its an option, I'd skip it and instead go see Trolls which was brilliant, or Sing (which, even more than SLOP, defined the difference between "good" and "crowd pleasing") which was fun.

 

I would skip Dory for Trolls, but it's a group event, so I didn't get to select the movie.  Seems Pixar is always the safe choice for this group (at least the pizza will be good!:)

[Jandrew]

How does everyone feel about 13 Hours in the loser column? I really felt like that movie had EVERYTHING going for it.

[WrathOfHan]

10 minutes ago, jandrew said:

How does everyone feel about 13 Hours in the loser column? I really felt like that movie had EVERYTHING going for it.

It made a gigantic profit on home video, so I wouldn't call it a loser.

[filmlover]

14 minutes ago, jandrew said:

How does everyone feel about 13 Hours in the loser column? I really felt like that movie had EVERYTHING going for it.

War movies are always tough sells unless they are Oscar contenders or have big stars in them (which 13 Hours had neither of). It wasn't a winner for the studio financially, but it did better than the norm all things considered.

Edited January 11, 2017 by filmlover

[JonathanLB]

I would be tempted to call $331M for BVS a mixed result if I didn't know it opened with $166M. By any standard that is to quote another member here "horrendous." I mean it's fucking awful. Hell 2.5 isn't good but it's ok anyway. For a movie to make more than half its money from

just opening weekend is unfathomable. Like I literally can't understand it every time I read it and have to go back to BOM to examine the data / trainwreck because in my mind it should be impossible for that to happen short of a meteor hitting earth and ending a movies run early lol. 

 

What it tells you is some of the worst word of mouth of all time and absolutely no interest from general audiences whatsoever.

 

I may be a Star Wars fanboy but I do know the box office and it is easy unless you only live on forums to understand that, no, in fact not everyone was anticipating BVS like the Second Coming. Everyone I knew said it looked like a pile of crap and I don't know anyone who saw it in theaters. I couldn't even get my GF to go, sadly. I enjoyed the movie way more than I thought I would based on trailers and ended up buying it on 4K for $9.99! Can't beat that. It was not nearly as crappy as people said it was. Major issues? Yeah, well, it had some issues. Slow pacing for one. Final segment was good though! I was entertained. It was also well shot I thought. But it was clearly another disappointment compared to expectations.

[IronJimbo]

18 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

I would be tempted to call $331M for BVS a mixed result if I didn't know it opened with $166M. By any standard that is to quote another member here "horrendous." I mean it's fucking awful. Hell 2.5 isn't good but it's ok anyway. For a movie to make more than half its money from

just opening weekend is unfathomable. Like I literally can't understand it every time I read it and have to go back to BOM to examine the data / trainwreck because in my mind it should be impossible for that to happen short of a meteor hitting earth and ending a movies run early lol. 

 

What it tells you is some of the worst word of mouth of all time and absolutely no interest from general audiences whatsoever.

 

I may be a Star Wars fanboy but I do know the box office and it is easy unless you only live on forums to understand that, no, in fact not everyone was anticipating BVS like the Second Coming. Everyone I knew said it looked like a pile of crap and I don't know anyone who saw it in theaters. I couldn't even get my GF to go, sadly. I enjoyed the movie way more than I thought I would based on trailers and ended up buying it on 4K for $9.99! Can't beat that. It was not nearly as crappy as people said it was. Major issues? Yeah, well, it had some issues. Slow pacing for one. Final segment was good though! I was entertained. It was also well shot I thought. But it was clearly another disappointment compared to expectations.

BvS was much better than the reviews gave it credit for!  On a more important note Jonnyboy why is your Avatar still default, why don't you put a picture of vader or something (know u love sws).

[SteveJaros]

33 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

I would be tempted to call $331M for BVS a mixed result if I didn't know it opened with $166M. By any standard that is to quote another member here "horrendous." I mean it's fucking awful. Hell 2.5 isn't good but it's ok anyway. For a movie to make more than half its money from

just opening weekend is unfathomable.

 

You've been around here longer than me so maybe you can explain what I'm missing about "multipliers". Many around here get excited by them, and I can understand tracking them to examine interesting things about the nature of a film's run in the theaters. But, when it comes to calling  a film a success or failure, I don't see how they matter, because it seems obvious that this should be based on total box office, not how that box office was earned on a weekly basis.

 

I mean, why would you regard a BvS that finished with $331m DOM as more of a winner if it opened with $66m rather than $166m? I don't get that. Money is money, and usually, all else equal, it's better to earn money sooner than later. 

[JonathanLB]

I agree I think the reviews were overly harsh for what was to my viewing not any offensively bad movie. But maybe if they were mostly giving it 2.5 star ratings (which is pretty good) and RT lists that as rotten it makes sense. Let's be honest the whole RT system is fairly rotten. I used to run a movie review site with more than 600 film reviews and it would be kind of insulting to say movies I gave 2.5 stars (out of 4) were "rotten." It's ironic because 2.5 stars was my most common rating. I wasn't a harsh critic so plenty of movies were in that "not actually good but has redeeming qualities" level of 2.5 stars. Hard to think it deserves the dramatic label "rotten" when 2.5 stars on my scale meant above average / pretty good.

 

Edit: It's unimpressive for a movie to open large and dive bomb after that because it almost always indicates either no crossover appeal beyond core fans or poor word of mouth. Those are both bad signs for any sequel or even home video prospects which is why I personally would say it's financially relevant. It also has to do with expectations. I figure a movie opening with $166M should hit $400M and maybe much higher. The result being so much lower is shocking and thus disappointing.

Edited January 12, 2017 by JonathanLB

[Jandrew]

21 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

It made a gigantic profit on home video, so I wouldn't call it a loser.

 

Good call. I forgot all about home video. Yet since I didn't apply that criteria for any of them, I have to keep it loser in my mind. I'll remember HV for next time. I honestly forget you can still actually by disks and even rent.

[Jandrew]

5 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

I would be tempted to call $331M for BVS a mixed result if I didn't know it opened with $166M. By any standard that is to quote another member here "horrendous." I mean it's fucking awful. Hell 2.5 isn't good but it's ok anyway. For a movie to make more than half its money from

just opening weekend is unfathomable. Like I literally can't understand it every time I read it and have to go back to BOM to examine the data / trainwreck because in my mind it should be impossible for that to happen short of a meteor hitting earth and ending a movies run early lol. 

 

What it tells you is some of the worst word of mouth of all time and absolutely no interest from general audiences whatsoever.

 

 

If the WOM was "worst all time" and there was no GA interest, and you couldn't get people to even go like you said, then it's a loser. You're proving my point. This is not Spawn vs Plastic Man. This is Batman vs Superman. Just the title alone should drum rapid curiosity, forget the trailers, cast, costumes, release date, etc.

 

 

4 hours ago, SteveJaros said:

 

You've been around here longer than me so maybe you can explain what I'm missing about "multipliers". Many around here get excited by them, and I can understand tracking them to examine interesting things about the nature of a film's run in the theaters. But, when it comes to calling  a film a success or failure, I don't see how they matter, because it seems obvious that this should be based on total box office, not how that box office was earned on a weekly basis.

 

I mean, why would you regard a BvS that finished with $331m DOM as more of a winner if it opened with $66m rather than $166m? I don't get that. Money is money, and usually, all else equal, it's better to earn money sooner than later. 

 

Multipliers are the main way how we measure a film's staying power, not gross. It's always been that way. Even the trades do it, it's not a forum-only thing. Back before the 2000s, movies were getting multipliers in double digits on the regular. That rarely happens anymore. For typical movies nowadays, anything over 3 is generally pretty good. For superhero movies, you tend to look for typically anything over 2.3-2.4.

 

Rarely do movies, especially from major studio, finish under 2. 2 is already terrible enough. Under 2 is just adding insult to injury. Even Deathly Hallows 2, one of the most fan driven releases ever, was able to leg it to 2.2.

 

Multipliers matter. You may not see why, but we've been monitoring multipliers even back in the Mojo days. I used it for criteria for all the movies on this list, not just BvS. But BvS failed miserably. Sorry.

 

And yes BvS would've been seen as more of a success had it opened to $66 rather than $166. That shows the WOM was remarkable and it was able to keep hogging screens through the spring. Big openers falling off a cliff have always been looked at at a lower regard than smaller movies legging it out. Gross doesn't matter.

Edited January 12, 2017 by jandrew

[TwoMisfits]

11 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

If the WOM was "worst all time" and there was no GA interest, and you couldn't get people to even go like you said, then it's a loser. You're proving my point. This is not Spawn vs Plastic Man. This is Batman vs Superman. Just the title alone should drum rapid curiosity, forget the trailers, cast, costumes, release date, etc.

 

 

 

Multipliers are the main way how we measure a film's staying power, not gross. It's always been that way. Even the trades do it, it's not a forum-only thing. Back before the 2000s, movies were getting multipliers in double digits on the regular. That rarely happens anymore. For typical movies nowadays, anything over 3 is generally pretty good. For superhero movies, you tend to look for typically anything over 2.3-2.4.

 

Rarely do movies, especially from major studio, finish under 2. 2 is already terrible enough. Under 2 is just adding insult to injury. Even Deathly Hallows 2, one of the most fan driven releases ever, was able to leg it to 2.2.

 

Multipliers matter. You may not see why, but we've been monitoring multipliers even back in the Mojo days. I used it for criteria for all the movies on this list, not just BvS. But BvS failed miserably. Sorry.

 

And yes BvS would've been seen as more of a success had it opened to $66 rather than $166. That shows the WOM was remarkable and it was able to keep hogging screens through the spring. Big openers falling off a cliff have always been looked at at a lower regard than smaller movies legging it out. Gross doesn't matter.

 

To be fair on the multiplier - that was Easter weekend 2016.  Everyone had off for Spring break for the Friday (and probably Thursday).  So, you didn't have the usually slightly low Friday that normal weekend movies get and you had a higher-than-normal Thursday night (with schools and probably parents mostly off).  Thus, you burned off more demand sooner than usual, leading to a higher weekend and a lower multiple.  It's still a bad multiplier, but I think only somewhat worse than Cap3's 2.27x DOM, which was an initial shock for many b/c that was a really good movie...

 

So, if I was making my list, I'd have BvS not as an outright loser 1 on a 5 point scale, but I'd put it at a 2 just b/c it did definitely underperform and it did put the whole universe in jeopardy and it wasn't a good movie in a year where we had some good (Dr Strange) and great (Cap3/Deadpool) supers. 

[Jandrew]

35 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

To be fair on the multiplier - that was Easter weekend 2016.  Everyone had off for Spring break for the Friday (and probably Thursday).  So, you didn't have the usually slightly low Friday that normal weekend movies get and you had a higher-than-normal Thursday night (with schools and probably parents mostly off).  Thus, you burned off more demand sooner than usual, leading to a higher weekend and a lower multiple.  It's still a bad multiplier, but I think only somewhat worse than Cap3's 2.27x DOM, which was an initial shock for many b/c that was a really good movie...

 

So, if I was making my list, I'd have BvS not as an outright loser 1 on a 5 point scale, but I'd put it at a 2 just b/c it did definitely underperform and it did put the whole universe in jeopardy and it wasn't a good movie in a year where we had some good (Dr Strange) and great (Cap3/Deadpool) supers. 

 

That's a pretty good observation, but I don't think that matters in the grand scheme. Easter weekend or not, the movie clearly didn't have staying power. And not everyone had off, like me. Many schools and workplaces correlate spring break with Easter, but not all. And there are movies that have gone on to rebound after a hefty drop or inflated opening. BvS really didn't though.

 

SS did though. It's late legs were pretty good.

Edited January 12, 2017 by jandrew

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, jandrew said:

 

That's a pretty good observation, but I don't think that matters in the grand scheme. Easter weekend or not, the movie clearly didn't have staying power. And not everyone had off, like me. Many schools and workplaces correlate spring break with Easter, but not all. And there are movies that have gone on to rebound after a hefty drop or inflated opening. BvS really didn't though.

 

SS did though. It's late legs were pretty good.

 

Suicide Squad had a few big advantages over BvS.  One, BvS had already REALLY lowered expectations for it.  Everyone went it expecting an awful movie and got to be happily surprised it didn't totally suck (not the other way around of expecting a great movie and getting wildly disappointed).  Two, it had an empty August.  When you are competing with few movies fighting to kick you off the screen, you get to ride the dog days of summer out.  There was no big supers event til November, so nothing fans were jonesing for (unlike Civil War 5 weeks after BvS).  And three, they emphasized the HUMOR and FUN!  I mentioned before, it seemed fans in 2016 were craving fun over dark and serious, and there were not that many movies that went that direction, especially with supers (except Deadpool, which wildly exceeded its expectations)...Suicide Squad's marketing with Harley and Joker was key to winning back the disaffected fans who were looking for the DC fun...Edited to add: And #4 - no baggage from previous movies/takes.  Suicide Squad as a team was an never-done-before blockbuster movie take.  We've had acres of Batman and Superman movies, and the recent Superman ones were off-putting to some, but no Suicide Squad ones...and fresh takes on things also did well in 2016 vs retreads of the same old, same old...

Edited January 12, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[SteveJaros]

23 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

Edit: It's unimpressive for a movie to open large and dive bomb after that because it almost always indicates either no crossover appeal beyond core fans or poor word of mouth. Those are both bad signs for any sequel or even home video prospects which is why I personally would say it's financially relevant. It also has to do with expectations. I figure a movie opening with $166M should hit $400M and maybe much higher. The result being so much lower is shocking and thus disappointing.

 

My responses to your comments that I have bolded above:

 

1) Possibly, or it could just mean the movie is so hotly anticipated that the great bulk of people who plan to see it rush out to see it immediately, which would be a good thing.

 

E.g., consider a different entertainment form, like music. In 1999, Backstreet Boys released an LP called "Millenium". The album sold an amazing 500,000 copies in the USA its first day of release, and 11 million by the end of that year, as their hordes of fans rushed out to buy it. Now like boy bands throughout history, Backstreet Boys were a passing fad, in all the 16 years since, it has sold "only" one more million, bringing its US sales total to 12.2 million. So this is an example of an LP with awful "legs" or multiplier. But so what? At 12.2 million sold, it is still the 4th best selling USA  album of the past 25 years! It has sold tons more copies than many, many albums that have had far better legs, etc. Any record company would rather have an album sell 10 million in one year and then fall off the face of the earth than sell 5 million over a 20 year period. It's no contest, the total sales are what matter not how you get there. And BvS did $330m DOM. 

 

2) I would love to see an analysis comparing the impact of multipliers on sequels and home video. Do such studies exist? Just eyeballing this year, and comparing BvS to two movies that did similar box office - Jungle Book and Deadpool: BvS has done about $66m in home video sales (DVD+BD). Deadpool is better, at $83m, Jungle Book is worse, at $35m. All have largely ended their home video runs. 

 

Regarding sequel prospects, obviously we have to wait and see what happens with the DCU as it unfolds over time. But it is worth noting that Suicide Squad, which included Affleck's 'batman', did very well at the box office itself, so BvS didn't seem to have a negative effect on that. 

 

3) IMO, that result is "shocking and disappointing" only if one believes in multipliers and their extrapolations and builds up big expectations based on them. It's not inherently so.

 

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by SteveJaros

[SteveJaros]

19 hours ago, jandrew said:

Multipliers are the main way how we measure a film's staying power, not gross. It's always been that way. Even the trades do it, it's not a forum-only thing. Back before the 2000s, movies were getting multipliers in double digits on the regular. That rarely happens anymore. For typical movies nowadays, anything over 3 is generally pretty good. For superhero movies, you tend to look for typically anything over 2.3-2.4.

 

Rarely do movies, especially from major studio, finish under 2. 2 is already terrible enough. Under 2 is just adding insult to injury. Even Deathly Hallows 2, one of the most fan driven releases ever, was able to leg it to 2.2.

 

Multipliers matter. You may not see why, but we've been monitoring multipliers even back in the Mojo days. I used it for criteria for all the movies on this list, not just BvS. But BvS failed miserably. Sorry.

 

And yes BvS would've been seen as more of a success had it opened to $66 rather than $166. That shows the WOM was remarkable and it was able to keep hogging screens through the spring. Big openers falling off a cliff have always been looked at at a lower regard than smaller movies legging it out. Gross doesn't matter.

 

I can't see how "gross doesn't matter" except from an esoteric viewpoint, such as that of a box office aficianado who sees multipliers as ends in themselves, which he can afford to do because he didn't invest in the film, LOL. I mean, production and marketing costs being equal, any studio would rather have a BvS that has a terrible multiplier but does $331/$880 than a film that starts with a $50m opening week and ends up at $200m and thus a 4x multiplier.  More money is more money.

 

Let's take an extreme example: Let's say the next Star Wars movie comes out and the entire country is so excited to see it that it does $1B DOM in its first week. After that, it does "only" an addition $200m, finishing with $1.2B DOM. Its multiplier would be extremely bad, right? But who could possibly call a film that does $1.2B DOM any kind of "loser" or "failure"? Would be utterly nonsensical.

 

Now, @JonathanLB made a good comment about lousy multiplier leading to worse home video sales and/or poorer sequel prospects. If that's true, then that would matter, but we need evidence on that.

Edited January 13, 2017 by SteveJaros

[Porthos]

Multipliers are getting 'worse' and 'worse' as time goes on.  There was a time, not too long ago, when nearly EVERYTHING got at least a 3x multiplier.  To go sub 3 meant you were among the worst of the worst, or were so heavily niche that everybody even remotely interested in the film rushed out OW.  Frontloading as a term even came about because it was seen as something abnormal.

 

Now though, films are getting more and more concentrated into their first three to four weeks of showtime.  It's something that's seen all across the board.  Even did a chart once doing a compare and contrast of the number of 3x, 4x, and 5x films of today and just a few years ago, just to show how much films have shifted.

 

Now, having said that, BvS was something truly to behold that it did a sub TWO multiplier.  Even in this age of depressed multis, that's just eyepopping.

 

Yes, it did an insane amount OW.  And, yes again, that actually helps the studios a bit as they get more money early in box office runs.  But relative to other movies out RIGHT NOW, and not years and years ago, BvS stunk on ice when it came to its multiplier.  Compare and contrast, for instance Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman. Similar RT scores.  Similar Metacritic.  Not THAT different OW.  SS had a much better multi (enough to screw me in the Casino, I might add ).

 

See, it's the compare like v like which shows how the GA reacted to BvS.   I can't fairly compare it to films even released six or eight years ago.  I CAN compare it to films released within the last two to three.  And if I spitball a multiplier conversion, I can even start to compare it to films released in other eras, although I can only get a rough estimate.

 

So, yes, made a shit ton of money.  And, no, the multiplier isn't the end all and be all.  But it's a great tool to compare how the GA is reacting when you use it to look at similar films in recent memory.

 

And on that score, well, BvS was left lacking.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Porthos

[SteveJaros]

3 hours ago, Porthos said:

Multipliers are getting 'worse' and 'worse' as time goes on.  There was a time, not too long ago, when nearly EVERYTHING got at least a 3x multiplier.  To go sub 3 meant you were among the worst of the worst, or were so heavily niche that everybody even remotely interested in the film rushed out OW.  Frontloading as a term even came about because it was seen as something abnormal.

 

Now though, films are getting more and more concentrated into their first three to four weeks of showtime.  It's something that's seen all across the board.  Even did a chart once doing a compare and contrast of the number of 3x, 4x, and 5x films of today and just a few years ago, just to show how much films have shifted.

 

Now, having said that, BvS was something truly to behold that it did a sub TWO multiplier.  Even in this age of depressed multis, that's just eyepopping.

 

Yes, it did an insane amount OW.  And, yes again, that actually helps the studios a bit as they get more money early in box office runs.  But relative to other movies out RIGHT NOW, and not years and years ago, BvS stunk on ice when it came to its multiplier.  Compare and contrast, for instance Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman. Similar RT scores.  Similar Metacritic.  Not THAT different OW.  SS had a much better multi (enough to screw me in the Casino, I might add ).

 

See, it's the compare like v like which shows how the GA reacted to BvS.   I can't fairly compare it to films even released six or eight years ago.  I CAN compare it to films released within the last two to three.  And if I spitball a multiplier conversion, I can even start to compare it to films released in other eras, although I can only get a rough estimate.

 

So, yes, made a shit ton of money.  And, no, the multiplier isn't the end all and be all.  But it's a great tool to compare how the GA is reacting when you use it to look at similar films in recent memory.

 

And on that score, well, BvS was left lacking.

 

My issue is I'm not sure what the multiplier tells us, beyond the mere fact of the multiplier, which IMO is by itself trivial. 

For example, you say the multiplier tells us something important, how the "GA reacted to a film". It seems as if in your discussion, there is an importance put on a distinction between the GA, which is presumably the bulk of week 2 and beyond, and week 1, which consists of hard-core dedicated fanboys and the like. Using this distinction, BvS apparently had a massive fanboy draw (the $166m OW), and then a GA draw that was reflected in the sub-two multiplier. But does the multiplier really tell us about how the GA reacted to a film? I mean, what if BvS had opened at $100m DOM, and then finished at $265m. Notice that in the example, BvS does $66m less overall, and all of this comes from the fanboy OW, the amount it earns from week two and onwards (the GA) stays the same at $165m.  In this example, the multiplier is 2.65x, which I guess is respectable, right? Not in the "stunk on ice" category.  

 

But ... surely, this result isn't as good as the actual result of 166/331, right? It can't possibly be spun as a good thing for a film to make 66m less at the box office, right? Furthermore, it surely would have been better for BvS if it had opened at $250m DOM and ended at $411m. This would be an even worse multiplier of 1.64. And yet, as the multiplier goes down, the overall "goodness" of what is happening to the film is rising! This has to mean that not only isn't the multiplier the "be all and end all", it's difficult to see what import it has at all. Because in these examples, the "GA reaction", defined as week two and beyond, is identical. It hasn't changed ($165m in all three cases), even as the multiplier does change for each of them, and inversely in comparison with the overall gross of the film. So  it seems that all the multiplier really tells us is the GA reaction relative to the fanboy reaction. And what does that matter? 

 

Note that you can't show the value of the multiplier by holding the OW constant and increasing the GA gross (as in, e.g., comparing the actual 166/331 BvS with a hypothetical BvS that did 166/431 for a multiplier of 2.6) because the term multiplier doesn't give us any additional useful information, we can just describe that as "more money from the GA", and more money is by definition a good thing, right?

 

As I indicated in another post, it (the GA to Fanboy reaction) doesn't seem to matter in other entertainment fields. E.g., nobody in the book industry complained about Harry Potter books where families camped out overnight to buy it, and in the typical case 1/4 of the total sales of the book over 15 years were achieved in the first 24 hours of release. Twelve million books sold is 12 million sold, whether on the first day or day 3000. And really, everyone would rather get that money sooner than later.

 

To me, to establish relevance, you have to be able to translate a multiplier into dollars in a way that isn't inversely related to rises in the OW totals. And I'm not sure that's been done. One way would be to link multiplier to sequel prospects (e.g., if movie X did $200m DOM with a 2.2 multiplier and movie Y did $200m DOM with a 4.2 multiplier, does sequel X2 perform worse than sequel Y2?), and of home video sales (same thing)? Do such studies exist?

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by SteveJaros

[Jandrew]

I couldn't even read all of that. It's just not that important. Man, it's quite simple. Multiplier shows us "reception." Like he said, BvS's under 2 multiplier was something still shocking, even in the age of frontloadedness. The reception was not good. You cannot spin that. This movie essentially had no ceiling, so all the fans rushing out on OW means nothing.

 

Again, even Deathly Hallows had better staying power and that was probably the most anticipated movie since Phantom Menace.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by jandrew