Weekend topic: Split: $26.2m (Amazing drop!!!) | ADP: $18.3m | RE: $13.8m | HF: $14m | Gold $3.4m

[WrathOfHan]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

 

Not sure if serious.

 

 

 

Your mind can't handle how well they're doing!

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Rman823 said:

What about 

That's more of a spin-off than a sequel but yeah, it's gonna be big.

[TalismanRing]

32 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

Weinsteins have screwed up so bad with Lion and The Founder. So much money left on the table.

 

The Lion was at least given a chance even if the marketing and awards push wasn't the Weinstein of old.  They left The Founder for dead

 

With it's reviews and a rejuvenated recent 2 time Oscar nominated Keaton there's no reason it couldn't have had at least an awards run worthy release like The Lion and looking at it's good drop this w/e without any marketing or awards help it would have done financially better and may have even nabbed Keaton some nominations.

[WrathOfHan]

New icon for the return of the king.

 

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

Your mind can't handle how well they're doing!

The Stone Age and Cookie Monster beating JLaw has finally broken The Futurist.

[TalismanRing]

21 minutes ago, Rman823 said:

I guess they figured Mcconaughey in a movie similar to TWOWS would sell better than a movie with Keaton about the backstory of McDonald's.

 

Combover McConaughey vs a gleaming sybarite DeCaprio?  Yeh, that's comparable.

[CJohn]

Passengers is at almost 300M WW. JLaw is gonna be fine.

[George Parr]

12 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

One is a drama about black women at NASA, one is a musical about Hollywood, and one is a psychological thriller. Wake up, Hollywood. We're tired of the big budget, shiny but shallow, CGI excessive, sequel crap. The box office speaks.

 

We want a good time at the movies, not a corporate time at the movies.

 

Does it though?

 

It's not like any of those three movies is a giant that is destroying everything in its path. All three are very successful, but they aren't exactly beating all the big budget CGI fests that come out every year.

 

These movies show that you can reach an audience and make a very nice amount of money if you deliver something interesting, but big budget action movies still clearly rule the day. On top of that, you cannot forget that for every one of these surprising hits, there are a whole bunch of failures as well. The studios may be rich, but they still need some movies that are "guaranteed" hits. Without those, they would never bother taking the risk of attempting something new.

[Jandrew]

8 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Not sure if serious.

 

 

 

 

Yes I'm serious you dolt. There's a reason HF, Split, and LLL can all approach the $150m range, while Gods of Egypt, Independence Day 2, Ice Age 5, Neighbors 2, Warcraft, Huntsman 2, Ben Hur, etc etc etc fail miserably. 

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, George Parr said:

 

Does it though?

 

It's not like any of those three movies is a giant that is destroying everything in its path. All three are very successful, but they aren't exactly beating all the big budget CGI fests that come out every year.

 

These movies show that you can reach an audience and make a very nice amount of money if you deliver something interesting, but big budget action movies still clearly rule the day. On top of that, you cannot forget that for every one of these surprising hits, there are a whole bunch of failures as well. The studios may be rich, but they still need some movies that are "guaranteed" hits. Without those, they would never bother taking the risk of attempting something new.

Like I said earlier, all three of these films have a decent chance at outgrossing stuff like the new Kong. Audiences are showing there can be a healthy mix of films.

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, CJohn said:

Passengers is at almost 300M WW. JLaw is gonna be fine.

 

It's not a bomb so she won't be too singed but $300m WW is not why they paid her $20m and Pratt $12.5m an pushed the budget from a mid $30m film to a $100m+ event movie

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TalismanRing]

Patriot's Day is a surprising dud.    Recently not a very good time at the B.O. for the Berg/Whalberg combo.

 

Peter Berg's track record as a director at the B.O. is truly spotty. 

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

Yes I'm serious you dolt. There's a reason HF, Split, and LLL can all approach the $150m range, while Gods of Egypt, Independence Day 2, Ice Age 5, Neighbors 2, Warcraft, Huntsman 2, Ben Hur, etc etc etc fail miserably. 

 

Look at the top 20 of 2016:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016

 

Pretty much all big CGI heavy sequels/franchise entry. All of them are, instead Central intelligence. Audience are clearly saying them to continue doing those movies.

[Barnack]

13 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

It's not a bomb so she won't be too singed but $300m WW is not why they paid her $20m and Pratt $12.5m an pushed the budget from a mid $30m film to a $100m+ event movie

Achieving to do that much in a complete critical failure is kind of why, they pay them that much and make it a big budget movie because it make it a much safer project than a 30 million movie that would have had a hard time getting a release (even the acclaimed Ex Machina had a hard time reaching 2000 theater and didn't had a release in many market).

Edited January 29, 2017 by Barnack

[Alli]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Look at the top 20 of 2016:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016

 

Pretty much all big CGI heavy sequels/franchise entry. All of them are, instead Central intelligence. Audience are clearly saying them to continue doing those movies.

but look at the budget.

 

these mid-level movies did great.....their final numbers are 4-5 multiple of their budget.  the same can't be said about the big budget movies.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Alli

[George Parr]

9 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

Like I said earlier, all three of these films have a decent chance at outgrossing stuff like the new Kong. Audiences are showing there can be a healthy mix of films.

 

Of course there can be a healthy mix of films, but you cannot really cherry-pick movies to make an argument.

 

The three movies that got mentioned have been very successful, but they are just a small number alongside a whole group of similarly "new" topics that only did okay or even failed completely. Just like that, there will obviously be sequels that will fail as well, some have little reason to exist in the first place, but that won't change the fact that sequels and big budget actions movies will still dominate the box office year after year, with only animation (which in itself uses original stuff as well as plenty of sequels) being able to interfere with this.

 

Having a bunch of new topics succeed at the box office is nice, and hopefully this will help witll green-lighting more ideas like that, but the movies themself are hardly proof that people are desperate for these kind of movies and don't want to see more sequels or big budget actions movies, because not only do these three movies get drastically outnumbered by successful sequels or franchise-stuff, but they are also quite a bit less successful than those movies.

[TwoMisfits]

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Look at the top 20 of 2016:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016

 

Pretty much all big CGI heavy sequels/franchise entry. All of them are, instead Central intelligence. Audience are clearly saying them to continue doing those movies.

 

That's not quite a fair way to judge - you also need to do total costs vs revenue to see what the most profitable films were...as both a $ value and a %...I mean, Ghostbusters is #19 and we know that was a pretty large money loser...

 

Star Trek Beyond, another major money loser, comes in at #15...

Edited January 29, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[Spidey Freak]

34 minutes ago, jandrew said:

We want a good time at the movies, not a corporate time at the movies.

 

YES, WE WILL REJECT THE CORPORATE TYRANNY...

 

...until February 10, 2017 when we collectively become submissive to Mr. Grey, Lego Batman and the barrage that will follow for the rest of the year

[Jandrew]

Just now, Spidey Freak said:

 

YES, WE WILL REJECT THE CORPORATE TYRANNY...

 

...until February 10, 2017 when we collectively become submissive to Mr. Grey, Lego Batman and the barrage that will follow for the rest of the year

 

Who said I was going to see Lego Batman?

[TalismanRing]

Just now, Barnack said:

Achieving to do that much in a complete critical failure is kind of why, they pay them that much and make it a big budget movie because it make it a much safer project than a 30 million movie that would have had a hard time getting a release (even the acclaimed Ex Machina had a hard time reaching 2000 theater and didn't had a release in many market).

 

I think a Keanu Reeves/Rachael McAdams movie (which is what it was mid 2014) wouldn't have had as hard a time getting a wide release as a Isaacs/Gleeson/Vikander film - especially O/S.

 

Having big stars is of course some insurance against failure but they're also being paid in the hope the movie does more than a modest profit or barely break even.   These are the movies they make to off set all those other ($30m or $3m) movies that don't make a profit.