What a WONDERful Weekend | WW down only 16% on Sunday. 103M weekend. pg 226

[GiantCALBears]

7 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

I think studios are running away from splitting movies since Divergent 4 was cancelled till further notice, lmao.

Yeah but it's Star Wars, and when is there going to be a SW10? I thought this was the end of another trilogy within the saga. 

[DAR]

8 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

That make sense, we know pirates 4 was 410 million for the production alone before tax rebate.

The Numbers website has the budget listed as 250 million.  I'm assuming that's after the tax rebate.

[GiantCALBears]

7 minutes ago, DAR said:

I get DMC and AWE being as expensive as they were the money is up there on screen.  But OST  did not look expensive at all.  And apparently neither does DMTNT

Perspective my friend, it's important to have looking at these budget estimates. 

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Alot of people in @Ethan Hunt's awesome club saying there's no way that Avengers 3 grosses less than GOTG2 because it has the Guardians AND all these other characters. If that's the case, why didn't Civil War gross more than Iron Man 3, or even Age of Ultron? There's a clear trend so far that the more entrenched in team ups these movies get, the shorter the legs are. My immediate family lovesss the Guardians and saw part two on opening weekend. It's a fun space western they can pick up and follow. I also guarantee you they won't be seeing Avengers 3, Guardians or no Guardians. They're just totally different things. I think Spidey might disappoint, but I also know a not-small number of people who did not see Civil War who will be seeing that in theaters. It's just easier for different and fresh audiences to get engaged with the first couple of movies in a franchise then to get invested in what can be interpreted as either the fourth or, like, 15th entry in one. 

 

I agree that not all the different franchise can have different fans but CW made $300m more than GOTG 2 WW - more people saw it and more were interested in seeing it the first w/e.   Maybe GOTG 2 had better legs because there was a less of an urgency to see it - which also explains why it's Thur preview numbers were comparatively low for a sequel for it's w/e.  Even with legs in the end it won't do as much domestically.  The addition of the GOTG characters though do nothing to increase my anticipation for IW - I don't mind them in it, I just hope they're not in it that much.

 

 

[Cmasterclay]

If they had skipped part one, got all the solo films out of the way, and then did Avengers 3 as the huge finale in 2019, I would be alright predicting it to be very huge. But they're splitting it up and overstuffing it. Honestly, all these movies have pretty hard ceilings at this rate, even with their good median performances and high floor. In fact, I don't see another superhero movie hitting 400 until 2020 at least. That's my bold prediction. I'm very high on Black Panther and I think that finishes 100m short. If Wonder Woman had an incredibly leggy goodwill generating run and then it proceeded to get terrific reviews, I could see Justice League doing it. But I think WW is gonna have "just" a good run and JL is going to have terrible reviews, so I am predicting New Moon numbers for it, like 140/280. 

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, DAR said:

The Numbers website has the budget listed as 250 million.  I'm assuming that's after the tax rebate.

 

No, I think it's just The Numbers not updating from the original absurd "official" budget as listed by Disney. 

[TalismanRing]

2 minutes ago, DAR said:

The Numbers website has the budget listed as 250 million.  I'm assuming that's after the tax rebate.

 

They, like BOM, never updated the budget after the gross budget was leaked a couple of years later.  Even with a tax rebate it would be well into the $300s.

[Rman823]

I've never understood the complaining about having to watch previous Marvel movies to understand the new one. I don't see why you'd go to Civil War without seeing TWS and AOU (it's two biggest tie ins first). Even if each movie isn't a sequel they're made to build and cumulate off each other. I'm sure as DC builds the same will happen. They expect their audience to follow along not just start at the newest movie. What's the point of connecting all the movies in the same universe if a number of them are standalone. 

[That One Girl]

let's gooo

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/24108-killer-queen-atomic-blonde-over-john-wick-and-john-wick-2s-combined-domestic-gross-135m/

[Dementeleus]

Expense doesn't automatically equate to "looking amazing or expensive" -- it's just the byproduct of paying a lot of people for a long period of time. 

 

I read an amusing anecdote from a line producer about how no one realizes the cost of a director wanting a pig in the background of a shot. He mocked up some numbers and it came to something like $32,000. (Don't take that number as gospel, he was just illustrating a point.)

[JohnnyGossamer]

I won't believe a movie with Avengers in the title will do less than $400M+ DOM until it happens.

Edited June 4, 2017 by JohnnyGossamer

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, Rman823 said:

I've never understood the complaining about having to watch previous Marvel movies to understand the new one. I don't see why you'd go to Civil War without seeing TWS and AOU (it's two biggest tie ins first). Even if each movie isn't a sequel they're made to build and cumulate off each other. I'm sure as DC builds the same will happen. They expect their audience to follow along not just start at the newest movie. What's the point of connecting all the movies in the same universe if a number of them are standalone. 

 

People who are interested in that arent complaining. Only people like @God Emperor Tele are despite not being big fans of the genre.

 

I love that they are connected.

[Cmasterclay]

5 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I agree that not all the different franchise can have different fans but CW made $300m more than GOTG 2 WW - more people saw it and more were interested in seeing it the first w/e.   Maybe GOTG 2 had better legs because there was a less of an urgency to see it - which also explains why it's Thur preview numbers were comparatively low for a sequel for it's w/e.  Even with legs in the end it won't do as much domestically.  The addition of the GOTG characters though do nothing to increase my anticipation for IW - I don't mind them in it, I just hope they're not in it that much.

 

 

Oh I don't really care about worldwide or international numbers, I'm a domestic box office guy. But I do agree they'll be huge overseas. I am with Cal in that contrary to people on these boards I don't really give a shit about whether a movie is profitable, I care about how it does relative to potential and expectations. The only time I care about profitablity is when it's an indie/smaller movie I love that actually needs the money. Otherwise, I care about "Is this movie doing well relative to the things it has going for it and against it?"

[franfar]

1 minute ago, Rman823 said:

I've never understood the complaining about having to watch previous Marvel movies to understand the new one. I don't see why you'd go to Civil War without seeing TWS and AOU (it's two biggest tie ins first). Even if each movie isn't a sequel they're made to build and cumulate off each other. I'm sure as DC builds the same will happen. They expect their audience to follow along not just start at the newest movie. What's the point of connecting all the movies in the same universe if a number of them are standalone. 

Because if I'm a fan of Captain America, but didn't see AoU because, idk, didn't feel like it, then I don't want to be subject to confusion from Civil War.

 

Intertwining these movies have benefits to those following the franchise movie-by-movie, but not to those who have more specific favorites in the franchise.

 

For example, I didn't see the first Thor until like a year ago because it looked boring. I have no intention of seeing any more Thor films. 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, GiantCALBears said:

No way those official estimates for WW are right, Saturday too big and Sunday too small. They could be but I don't buy with actual the Saturday number is $35m+ and then is going to drop 27% today. 

 

Yep. Youre right. RTH is lying to us as well.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, God Emperor Tele said:

Expense doesn't automatically equate to "looking amazing or expensive" -- it's just the byproduct of paying a lot of people for a long period of time. 

 

I read an amusing anecdote from a line producer about how no one realizes the cost of a director wanting a pig in the background of a shot. He mocked up some numbers and it came to something like $32,000. (Don't take that number as gospel, he was just illustrating a point.)

 

Now we know where the budget for Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul went.

[YM!]

Having Guardians, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel and Loki might help build up hype. I feel IW will be the typical Avengers sequel of the MCU, it'll open big enough to get to $400M, but it won't do much over it. It'll probably have a big rush on Thursday previews and OD. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by YourMother

[Rman823]

5 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

I won't believe a movie with Avengers in.the title will do less than $400M+ DOM until it happens.

I will be sorely disappointed if it can't at least outgross Civil War and Iron Man 3. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Rman823

[Dementeleus]

3 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

People who are interested in that arent complaining. Only people like @God Emperor Tele are despite not being big fans of the genre.

 

I love that they are connected.

 

It's not that there's confusion. I'm sure I miss some of the finer nuance but the stories aren't that hard to follow. It's just that I just don't care. 

[YM!]

Just now, Water Bottle said:

 

Now we know where the budget for Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul went.

On trying to make Rodrick look decent.