Weekend Estimates: Kong 61M, Logan 37.8M, Get Out 21M, Shack 10M, Lego Batman 7.8M

[John Marston]

I like isi

5 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

 

In capitalist society there's only *ONE* way to measure things, and that is by $$$. As cynical as it sounds, real $$$-value is the only relevant factor, everything else can be ignored. 

 

 

So? It's still cool to see how much the gross adjusts. It shows how popular the film really was 

[Valonqar]

46 minutes ago, YSLDC said:

Already down to 47m. Variety. 

 

Variety is even bigger crap with numbers than Deadline. They tend to fanboy for some movies (their AoU overestimations weekend by weekend were ridiculous) and downplay the rest.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

 

In capitalist society there's only *ONE* way to measure things, and that is by $$$. As cynical as it sounds, real $$$-value is the only relevant factor, everything else can be ignored. 

 

You are talking about different element, how much popular the movie was ?, how much money it made ?, the 2 curiosity are as valid (well in the sense both exercise are totally useless and just for fun for box office commentator)

 

Box office analyse is only a relevant question for people that have to try to predict the box office performance of a future release and the only reason to ever try to adjust performance of the past would be in that goal, I suspect than analyzing a movie popularity and the ability to transpose an equivalent popularity performance in today market is much more useful, that transferring money purchasing power over time.

 

One think that is great with adjusting for inflation is that metric is very well calculated (never perfect, but a lot of effort is put into it), while adjusting for ticket price is full of pitfall, like the one you gave, using the same formula for movie that would have been a 3D release now but were 2D back then seem also a bit strange and obviously there is change in the market place like total ticket sold, not just in there price. Adjusting for market share is probably a better way to go.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Barnack

[Eevin]

6 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

 

In capitalist society there's only *ONE* way to measure things, and that is by $$$. As cynical as it sounds, real $$$-value is the only relevant factor, everything else can be ignored. 

Yes, but in the box office world, tickets matter just as much. It's like if I wanted to know how much $400m in 2000 would be worth today vs how much 50m tickets in 2000 would be worth today. And the latter is more effective when you're comparing box office.

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, TLK said:

Logan will probably do $11 million + today. Deadline always underestimates holdovers for some reason.

 

Yeah, this sounds right. 10M is way too low, WTF Deadline?

[PPZVGOS]

Just now, John Marston said:

I like isi

 

 

So? It's still cool to see how much the gross adjusts. It shows how popular the film really was 

 

Yes, you then adjust using monetary values, not admissions since those are a function of the real cost of watching a movie. Simply put, it was much cheaper to watch X-Men back in the day than watch Logan today. Hence, there's a downward pressure on the number of admissions that Logan can achieve vis-a-vis X-Men. For the comparison to make any kind of sense, you need to take monetary values into account (in order to be fair, since both movies had to compete in the marketplace for people's money) Taking admissions into account favors the movie that "enjoyed" lower ticket prices. 

[UrosepsisFace]

Some explanations:

 

Underestimating Kong and Tarzan: Balding people who can remember when they colored the B&W King Kong for an amazing new TV release have resources, still go to movie theaters, and have kids and grandkids to bring with them. They are unfortunately underepresented by an internet generation that thinks that their opinions are representative of EVERYBODY.

 

X-Men Franchise having bad legs: Unlike the DCEU and the MCU, these characters are sort of in a limbo. Marvel fans still love them but want them incorporated back into the fold. There's a desire to see the movie by fans of those two franchises, but why go more than once when you can got to the team that you support seven times?

 

Dog's Purpose in China: Chinese like cute things?

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

Sitting down for Kong. Can't wait to see a giant ape smash some shit in IMAX.

[vc2002]

Seems like Logan's legs dont match its reception on the internet.

[PPZVGOS]

8 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

You are talking about different element, how much popular the movie was ?, how much money it made ?, the 2 curiosity are as valid (well in the sense both exercise are totally useless and just for fun for box office commentator)

 

Box office analyse is only a relevant question for people that have to try to predict the box office performance of a future release and the only reason to ever try to adjust performance of the past would be in that goal, I suspect than analyzing a movie popularity and the ability to transpose an equivalent popularity performance in today market is much more useful, that transferring money purchasing power over time.

 

One think that is great with adjusting for inflation is that metric is very well calculated (never perfect, but a lot of effort is put into it), while adjusting for ticket price is full of pitfall, like the one you gave, using the same formula for movie that would have been a 3D release now but were 2D back then seem also a bit strange and obviously there is change in the market place like total ticket sold, not just in there price. Adjusting for market share is probably a better way to go.

 

In order to "adjust" anything in relation to something else, you need equivalence. That equivalence is only provided by real monetary values, that's the only common denominator between movies through time (sort of) Admissions are not a common denominator here because they are subordinate to the real value (real cost incurred by the buyer-audience) of a cinema ticket. This is ABC economics, nothing more. 

[Eevin]

20 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

What we know about 2000's X-Men (for example) is that it made around $157M DOM. We can adjust that 2000 dollar value in 2017 dollar value and find the equivalent. Those are the only objective pieces of information we possess. BTW, $157M from 2000 translates into around $221M in 2017 USD. That sounds very reasonable to me. 

What we also know about 2000's X-Men is that it sold ~29.2m tickets, which if sold at 2017's ticket prices would net it around $252m. 

[DeeCee]

It's time for acceptance. 

 

We don't have real numbers yet. 

 

There is only one source. 

[GambitPool]

12 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

Seems like Logan's legs dont match its reception on the internet.

This is just my anecdotal evidence, but I've seen Logan 3 times in theatres and the audiences weren't happy with how it ended.

 

There were mumblings of it being too depressing. Others said it was boring. Some people said the ending was bullshit. I overheard these two older guys saying the movie wasn't theater worthy. 

 

It's a fantastic character study that deconstructs the superhero genre, but it's not a crowd pleaser. It might be hurting it's legs. 

 

Again it's anecdotal.

[JonathanLB]

13 minutes ago, Eevin said:

Yes, but in the box office world, tickets matter just as much. It's like if I wanted to know how much $400m in 2000 would be worth today vs how much 50m tickets in 2000 would be worth today. And the latter is more effective when you're comparing box office.

 

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I respect both opinions, but I'm on the other camp as well. Titanic doesn't adjust to "$1.2 billion" or whatever because today Titanic wouldn't make $1.2 billion, it would have made about what TFA made, which is why real dollar value inflation is a much better gauge than trying to say, "Well Titanic sold 120 million tickets so in today's day and age that would be 120 million x (current ticket price)."  No, it wouldn't be, because ticket price inflation has far outstripped regular dollar value inflation, so 120 million people simply wouldn't go see Titanic today. It wouldn't happen. And isn't that the whole idea behind "adjusting for inflation" anyway? Adjusting for the factors that are relevant to figure out how such and such movie would perform in today's marketplace. I don't buy the argument that "Titanic was more successful than TFA because it sold more raw tickets." Who cares? And ABC T-Shirts sold more shirts last year than Ferrari sold cars, but Ferrari made way more money because they sell a more expensive item. In a capitalist country, what matters is the value of the money generated, and TFA generated roughly the same value of dollars that Titanic did. The actual widgets sold doesn't make a shit of a difference. 

 

With more expensive ticket prices in theaters, you simply have more people waiting for home video and TV / cable releases, rather than buying tickets in theaters, even though you have roughly the same value of dollars being spent at theaters. The movie industry doesn't have a particular reason to care whether they sell 1.5 billion tickets and make $15 billion or whether they sell 15 billion tickets for cheaper and still make $15 billion. That's why I don't see why a box office follower can make a big fuss about a number that isn't even tracked -- ticket sales. The number doesn't exist. No U.S. movie has an actual ticket sales number attached to it, so it's pure speculation. If you're going to speculate, use the only speculation that is reasonable to use -- adjusting for actual general inflation. It's an easy calculator that's based on government numbers, so there's no disagreement about what to use, and there is raw data (the dollars each movie made by year) to plug in. Otherwise, you're pissing into the wind. 

[WrathOfHan]

1 minute ago, JonathanLB said:

 

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I respect both opinions, but I'm on the other camp as well. Titanic doesn't adjust to "$1.2 billion" or whatever because today Titanic wouldn't make $1.2 billion, it would have made about what TFA made, which is why real dollar value inflation is a much better gauge than trying to say, "Well Titanic sold 120 million tickets so in today's day and age that would be 120 million x (current ticket price)."  No, it wouldn't be, because ticket price inflation has far outstripped regular dollar value inflation, so 120 million people simply wouldn't go see Titanic today. It wouldn't happen. And isn't that the whole idea behind "adjusting for inflation" anyway? Adjusting for the factors that are relevant to figure out how such and such movie would perform in today's marketplace. I don't buy the argument that "Titanic was more successful than TFA because it sold more raw tickets." Who cares? And ABC T-Shirts sold more shirts last year than Ferrari sold cars, but Ferrari made way more money because they sell a more expensive item. In a capitalist country, what matters is the value of the money generated, and TFA generated roughly the same value of dollars that Titanic did. The actual widgets sold doesn't make a shit of a difference. 

 

With more expensive ticket prices in theaters, you simply have more people waiting for home video and TV / cable releases, rather than buying tickets in theaters, even though you have roughly the same value of dollars being spent at theaters. The movie industry doesn't have a particular reason to care whether they sell 1.5 billion tickets and make $15 billion or whether they sell 15 billion tickets for cheaper and still make $15 billion. That's why I don't see why a box office follower can make a big fuss about a number that isn't even tracked -- ticket sales. The number doesn't exist. No U.S. movie has an actual ticket sales number attached to it, so it's pure speculation. If you're going to speculate, use the only speculation that is reasonable to use -- adjusting for actual general inflation. It's an easy calculator that's based on government numbers, so there's no disagreement about what to use, and there is raw data (the dollars each movie made by year) to plug in. Otherwise, you're pissing into the wind. 

So why did you make a nearly 400 word post on it?  

[YM!]

We need @Fifty Shades Rth, bring out the sacrifices, preferably Romanians.

Edited March 11, 2017 by YourMother

[John Marston]

5 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I respect both opinions, but I'm on the other camp as well. Titanic doesn't adjust to "$1.2 billion" or whatever because today Titanic wouldn't make $1.2 billion, it would have made about what TFA made, which is why real dollar value inflation is a much better gauge than trying to say, "Well Titanic sold 120 million tickets so in today's day and age that would be 120 million x (current ticket price)."  No, it wouldn't be, because ticket price inflation has far outstripped regular dollar value inflation, so 120 million people simply wouldn't go see Titanic today. It wouldn't happen. And isn't that the whole idea behind "adjusting for inflation" anyway? Adjusting for the factors that are relevant to figure out how such and such movie would perform in today's marketplace. I don't buy the argument that "Titanic was more successful than TFA because it sold more raw tickets." Who cares? And ABC T-Shirts sold more shirts last year than Ferrari sold cars, but Ferrari made way more money because they sell a more expensive item. In a capitalist country, what matters is the value of the money generated, and TFA generated roughly the same value of dollars that Titanic did. The actual widgets sold doesn't make a shit of a difference. 

 

With more expensive ticket prices in theaters, you simply have more people waiting for home video and TV / cable releases, rather than buying tickets in theaters, even though you have roughly the same value of dollars being spent at theaters. The movie industry doesn't have a particular reason to care whether they sell 1.5 billion tickets and make $15 billion or whether they sell 15 billion tickets for cheaper and still make $15 billion. That's why I don't see why a box office follower can make a big fuss about a number that isn't even tracked -- ticket sales. The number doesn't exist. No U.S. movie has an actual ticket sales number attached to it, so it's pure speculation. If you're going to speculate, use the only speculation that is reasonable to use -- adjusting for actual general inflation. It's an easy calculator that's based on government numbers, so there's no disagreement about what to use, and there is raw data (the dollars each movie made by year) to plug in. Otherwise, you're pissing into the wind. 

 

Im

sticking with BOM adjustments. Sorry!

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, PPZVGOS said:

Apropos Logan: That movie is brutal, depressing and in a way anti-superheroic. Its whole selling point is that Wolverine and Professor X are old, dying and in a very sorry state. Hell, the entire X-Men have been *literally* wiped out. Also, it's totally unsuited to children or to people who want their SH movies to follow the familiar formula (which is many more than you think) I went with a friend the other day to watch Logan, and he was livid that Professor X was presented as so frail and even pathetic in that movie. He expected to see the Professor of old who was in control of everything. He was also shocked: "Why is Wolverine limping?" etc etc etc. Thrice during the film he turned to me and said: "This movie is so depressing" once he told me: "I have my own depressing problems, now the movies make me feel even worse" I'm not joking or exaggerating. 

 

Deadpool, which is the movie many of us are comparing this with, on the contrary was funny, fun, full of jokes and entertainment. The violence was used mostly for shock-value and even for laughs. Logan may be too mature and too "alternative" for large sections of the audience. 

 

Kong seems to be doing merely OK, considering the budget and spectacle of this movie, something more was to be expected. Also, it had good reviews (a bit better than Godzilla) 

 

Logan may be brutal and anti-superheroic, but unlike the other X-Men movies its not primarily an allegory for racism or homophobia with Charles as MLK and Magneto as Malcom X, its still there but its pushed way to the side.   Its basically a modern scifi western with other things on its mind and I thought maybe that would make it have better legs than you're typical X-Men movie, guess not.

[grey ghost]

5 minutes ago, YourMother said:

We need @Fifty Shades Rth, bring out the sacrifices, preferably romans.

 

Romanians

 

C'mon guys. We might have one shot at this. 

[JonathanLB]

4 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

Im

sticking with BOM adjustments. Sorry!

 

Their adjustments aren't even close, sorry! I mean if you want to do your own, go for it, but their adjustments are very far off on some movies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to plug in some of your own numbers and figure out a better estimation, at least. One thing you cannot do if you want to use the "ticket sales" idea is divide the movie's gross by the "average ticket price" for the year no matter what the movie. That would be assuming a movie like The Phantom Menace had a completely normal and average number of child admissions, which it clearly did not. It's a PG rated family film, so the average ticket price would obviously be well below the average for the entire year. That's why you'll see people throw around things like 85 million tickets for TPM, when in fact the actual ticket sales total would be well above 90 million tickets sold.