franfar Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Just now, baumer said: Internationally? The way it's going now it might not even reach 500 million internationally. Has it opened in that many territories though? BOM doesn't have it listed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantCALBears Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 The movies do very well OS, and have been progressively increasing Worldwide (Unadjusted) Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $1,066.2 $423.3 39.7% $642.9 60.3% 2006 2 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides BV $1,045.7 $241.1 23.1% $804.6 76.9% 2011 3 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End BV $963.4 $309.4 32.1% $654.0 67.9% 2007 4 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl BV $654.3 $305.4 46.7% $348.9 53.3% 2003 5 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales BV $34.5 n/a 0% $34.5 100% 2017 TOTAL: $3,764.1 $1,279.2 34.0% $2,484.9 66.0% - AVERAGE: $752.8 $255.8 34.0% $497.0 66.0% - My random guess is 750-800m Domestic take once again will be a minor part of the overall story. No matter how crappy it does the film will be "profitable" but still will have by far the worst ROI of any Pirates movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, Hatebox said: We all know if a film's big nowadays it'll almost certainly have a sequel, that's nothing new. But it'd be nice to go into a film assuming there's at least a degree of self-containment to the story we're about to see, rather than a ten year plan already in the works. I fully feel like you, but that is not what the audience is telling the studio, some movie fully project that it will not be self-contained at all, Force Awaken is one of the least self contained blockbuster and was the biggest domestic since Avatar. Obviously you are asking a bit more from the audience, so the appeal need to justify the commitment and when you are not Star Wars, Bond, Marvel, Potter, etc... it will not work. It also tend to remove stake, you know everything will be a bit sit-com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I am expecting 70M 4 day weekend right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keysersoze123 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 1 minute ago, baumer said: Internationally? The way it's going now it might not even reach 500 million internationally. I think 500m will happen but not much more than that. Its not doing that bad in many markets. Russia is quite good. Korea is decent and France/Germany are not bad(killed by bad weather). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 1 minute ago, franfar said: Twilight was based off a popular book series, not a good comparison Not particularly when they started that movie project (and why they don't thought it would be special and have sequels necessarily). Regardless if the first movie is a success and you didn't plan the sequels, everyone that re-sign will cost you a fortune (or maybe will not sign at all), why would a studio do that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Barnack said: I fully feel like you, but that is not what the audience is telling the studio. Fuck the audience! The audience are morons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantCALBears Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said: I don't think the Pirates number is that bad... Is more a Family film, i don't see this movie like a movie who people think "i need to see right now in thursday midnights". It's not gonna touch what i expected, but i still can see a $ 70 - 80m (4 day). It's bad given the budget and advertising costs, really no other way to spin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Pro-tip for the studios: If you don't have a universe with at least four individual characters who each have a passionate fanbase and a memorable backstory... ...then you don't have enough to sustain a cinematic universe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantCALBears Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 15 minutes ago, Alli said: The Mummy is tracking badly. They publicized the universe to garner hype for the mummy. This whole monster extended universe seems like a pretty terrible idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franfar Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Just now, Barnack said: Not particularly when they started that movie project (and why they don't thought it would be special and have sequels necessarily). Regardless if the first movie is a success and you didn't plan the sequels, everyone that re-sign will cost you a fortune (or maybe will not sign at all), why would a studio do that ? Because different franchises should be handled differently Monsters Universe is bringing back a franchise that hasn't been around since mid-last century, so don't sign them unless the movies succeed Twilight was popular, actually, before the movies came out. Before the first movie, there was already a completed series of four books, so it makes more sense to build a franchise around them since it was pretty closed shut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Why do people expect a PotC sequel to be backloaded? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasNicole Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said: It's bad given the budget and advertising costs, really no other way to spin it. It have a $ 230m budget, the films is not making less than $ 600m... (probably more) Not exactly good, but not bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Yea I'm not getting the Twlight comparisons. Twilight was HUGE even before the films came out. I remember everyone was reading the books in school. And then when the films came out, they came out with already a bunch of hype because of how many folks read the books. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, grey ghost said: Why do people expect a PotC sequel to be backloaded? Denial is the first stage. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I think the Universal Monsters could work as a series but not a cinematic universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 1 minute ago, franfar said: Twilight was popular, actually, before the movies came out. Before the first movie, there was already a completed series of four books, so it makes more sense to build a franchise around them since it was pretty closed shut Yes it became popular before the movies came out, but not particularly popular before the first movie started to be developed (a bit like Potter), my point is that didn't build or plan a franchise around them and that costed them a fortune to not have do so (and put it a risk or not being able to have Stewart orther key member doing sequels at all) Quote Monsters Universe is bringing back a franchise that hasn't been around since mid-last century, so don't sign them unless the movies succeed I would need to ask why too, not have sequel option close in their contract ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FantasticBeasts Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, grey ghost said: I agree Suicide Squad targeted teens hard but I didn't really get the typical YA vibe (Divergent, Hunger Games, etc) Yeah obviously nothing similar with the other films you mentioned. It was a bad use of words. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium George Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 Monster universe would have been great if it was done by blumhouse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium George Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said: It have a $ 230m budget, the films is not making less than $ 600m... (probably more) Not exactly good, but not bad either. More in the bad territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
