Weekend Actuals (Page 120): Boss Baby 50.2M | BATB 45.4M | GITS 18.7M | Power Rangers 14.2M | Kong 8.6M

[Ozymandias]

Cochofles gonna be the next Movieman with endless re-regs

[Barnack]

17 minutes ago, JB33 said:

You can't expect a movie like Hell or High Water to be a huge blockbuster. This isn't about one kind of movie succeeding or being preferred over the other. It's simply about the size of the audience.

 

In 2016, 73% of the ticket sold in US theater were sold to an audience 18 or over according to the MPAA, 89% of people were 12 or over, we don't know how much of those ticket were to parents/guardian being there with the kids at a family movie, but still at the very least 50% of the ticket are sold to adults that are not with kids.

 

Size of the audience is more than big enough for a movie like that to be a giant blockbuster, smaller audience size because you cut yourself from the 2 to 12 and their parents the time they go out with the kids is not the reason Hell or High Water did less than Skyfall, The Graduate, The Sting, The Godfather or American Sniper domestic.

 

Look at the 1970 biggest movie of the year:

1970: Love Story (1970) 
1971: Billy Jack (1971) 
1972:  The Godfather (1972) 
1973: The Exorcist (1973) 
1974: Blazing Saddles (1974) 
1975:  Jaws (1975)
1976: Rocky (1976) 
1977:  Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)
1978: Grease (1978)
1979: Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

 

And the population is much older now than in the 1970's (median age in 1975 was 29 in the US, it is 38.1 now, movies like Hell or High water could do much more than The Godfather or Kramer Vs. Kramer)

 

It is a multiple of factor

 

1) I would that yes, it is about a kind of movie being preferred over the others in some ways, specially when talking about the theatrical experience, people prefer the giant spectacle and the movie with comedy in them now.

 

2) The quantity of spectacle offer, it is hard to compete among the adult audience, at the same ticket price and hassle with a small budget product vs a 200 million budget one and is marketing, but even when they do offer that, a giant 150 million dollar movie like MadMax or The Revenant, they do not come close to Star Wars even among the non family audience.

 

 

 

[FilmBuff]

Dang, that bugs me about cochofles, she used to be a good poster on here before turning into a crazy sock account. What happened?? Don't get why she started doing this. 

[Jake Gittes]

Hell or High Water could have done more if they'd emphasized the glowing reviews and "from the creators of Sicario" and immediately opened it in 2000+ theaters and let the WOM do the rest. But even then they would have needed to spend more on advertising, and I don't think in the end it would have done better than Sicario anyway. 

[WrathOfHan]

3 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Hell or High Water could have done more if they'd emphasized the glowing reviews and "from the creators of Sicario" and immediately opened it in 2000+ theaters and let the WOM do the rest. But even then they would have needed to spend more on advertising, and I don't think in the end it would have done better than Sicario anyway. 

I think Wind River can hit 70M if Weinstein releases it properly.

[Plain Old Tele]

17 minutes ago, FilmBuff said:

Dang, that bugs me about cochofles, she used to be a good poster on here before turning into a crazy sock account. What happened?? Don't get why she started doing this. 

 

She thought she was too clever, and we noticed.

 

One of the iron-clad rules we have is if you try to circumvent a suspension or temp-ban by creating another account, it's an automatic perma-ban. Sometimes people think they can get away with it -- and sometimes they get away with it for awhile. But if we find out, that's it.

 

And we found out.

[aabattery]

2 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

I think Wind River can hit 70M if Weinstein releases it properly.

 

Heh.

[Jake Gittes]

2 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

I think Wind River can hit 70M if Weinstein releases it properly.

 

And that's one big if. 

[PPZVGOS]

1 hour ago, JB33 said:

Generic family movies make all the money? Well no shit Sherlock! It's just simple logic and math. A movie like Finding Dory, Beauty and the BEAST or a Star Wars/Avengers movie hits all 4 quadrants. Logically, it's going to make a lot of money because the audience size is huge. 

 

You can't expect a movie like Hell or High Water to be a huge blockbuster. This isn't about one kind of movie succeeding or being preferred over the other. It's simply about the size of the audience.

 

When did I say that I expect Hell or High Water to rival Star Wars, or even the recent and atrocious Ghostbusters? What I would expect however, is for excellent films like HOHW, Sicario, The Hurt Locker and There Will Be Blood to make more than they ended up making. Significantly more. Quality films, similar to those I mention above, made tons of money in the past but I'm not even expecting that anymore. I don't think that it can be denied that what we have nowadays is the total domination of a couple of sub-genres and gimmickry at the expense of more quality films. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes thoroughly enjoy the Star Wars' and the MCU's and even some Disney cartoons (Toy Story 3, In & Out, Frozen) but quality movies have been getting the end of some very short sticks recently. This was definitely not the case in the past. Look at how much money Pulp Fiction did back in 1994, or Philadelphia did in 1993 and so on and so on. 

[Harley]

Most indie films don't make a bucket load of money.

[Plain Old Tele]

SICARIO and THERE WILL BE BLOOD might've made more money had they been given super-wide releases and big marketing campaigns, but almost certainly those would've been big money-losers for the studios. Both films are not only dark, they're dark in divisive ways that don't appeal to a wide audience. 

 

Studios took more creative risks in the 90s because marketing budgets were significantly lower and they had a strong video market as their fail-safe. 

[PPZVGOS]

3 minutes ago, Telerian said:

SICARIO and THERE WILL BE BLOOD might've made more money had they been given super-wide releases and big marketing campaigns, but almost certainly those would've been big money-losers for the studios. Both films are not only dark, they're dark in divisive ways that don't appeal to a wide audience. 

 

Studios took more creative risks in the 90s because marketing budgets were significantly lower and they had a strong video market as their fail-safe. 

 

The Godfather, The Exorcist, Pulp Fiction, Born on the Fourth of July, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Philadelphia, Platoon, Taxi Driver and dozens more films were also dark and divisive but still made lots of money during previous eras. 

 

I don't think that we can explain away the general lack of taste by audiences by pinning everything on "marketing". Many films were in wide-ish release for several weeks but people still failed to show up. 

[WrathOfHan]

The successes of Split and Get Out show that audiences are fine with darker films.

[Jake Gittes]

Pulp Fiction adjusts to only slightly more than what movies like Lincoln, True Grit, Gone Girl, Django Unchained and Get Out have made recently. And correct me if I'm wrong but it was instantly a bigger cultural phenomenon than any of those recent ones. Get Out comes close and it has successfully captured the zeitgeist in a way films aimed at adults did in earlier eras. 

[drdungbeetle]

Basically, it costs too much for the studios to support a "full" ecosystem because the demise of video sales was the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. Marvel is the equivalent of the crocodiles and birds that survived the meteor, not the meteor itself.

[WrathOfHan]

Hell, look how well The Revenant did: 180M for an R rated 2 and a half hour long movie. The budget on that wasn't cheap either.

[drdungbeetle]

Just now, Jake Gittes said:

Pulp Fiction adjusts to only slightly more than what movies like Lincoln, True Grit, Gone Girl, Django Unchained and Get Out have made recently. And correct me if I'm wrong but it was instantly a bigger cultural phenomenon than any of those recent ones. Get Out comes close and it has successfully captured the zeitgeist in a way films aimed at adults did in earlier eras. 

Get out did only a fraction of what The Exorcist did and 99/100 low budget Rs will do far lower (like Life numbers). This is not some kind of golden age of "edgy" films, last time for that was the 90s.

[drdungbeetle]

Just now, WrathOfHan said:

Hell, look how well The Revenant did: 180M for an R rated 2 and a half hour long movie. The budget on that wasn't cheap either.

Also award nommed. Revenant without Oscar buzz is like La La Land without Oscar buzz.

[Plain Old Tele]

3 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

The Godfather, The Exorcist, Pulp Fiction, Born on the Fourth of July, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Philadelphia, Platoon, Taxi Driver and dozens more films were also dark and divisive but still made lots of money during previous eras. 

 

I don't think that we can explain away the general lack of taste by audiences by pinning everything on "marketing". Many films were in wide-ish release for several weeks but people still failed to show up. 

 

But all those are from such a wildly different era (budgets/marketing/release patterns) they're not a good match. Some of them aren't good comps because they were pre-existing material: THE GODFATHER and THE EXORCIST were huge bestsellers before the movies went into production. So was ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S nest. I love all these movies (and SICARIO and TWBB) but it's a different world now. It doesn't make any sense to just say studios should make them anyway -- even though I wish they did. 

[drdungbeetle]

I honestly think it would be best if Paramount and Sony just died...that would at least create more distribution space for smaller indies rather than overloading the market with "blockbusters" nobody wants.