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

[Brainiac5]

The only bad thing about this projected 2.8x+ for WW will be if it only gets an 2.4x many will blame the previous films for it.

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

Honestly, this is well received with little competition for a nice space of weeks her. A 3.0+ multiplier is very possible.

[baumer]

10 minutes ago, Brainiac5 said:

The only bad thing about this projected 2.8x+ for WW will be if it only gets an 2.4x many will blame the previous films for it.

 

 

OW can use previous films as an excuse. The multiplier usually comes from WOM... especially for an origin story. Films in universes like Harry Potter and Twilight have an insanely Looney fanbase that rushes out to see them. So they can't really count. But even the original Twilight and the original Potter had good multipliers.

[Plain Old Tele]

18 minutes ago, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

While we are still in the subject of Disney live action remakes....i wouldn't mind seeing a Disney remake of Robin Hood.

 

That could have a potential to be faithful to the animated film. What could make this live action Robin Hood-adaptation different and stand out from the others....is that:

 

A. It's Disney.

B. The characters in the animated version, are all anthropomorphic animals. That alone could be something that could make the Disney live action adaptation, more unique than the other "Robin Hood"-films.

C. It's more family-friendly, which makes sense since the 1973 animated version is already family-friendly.

 

All Disney needs to do.....is to pick the fitting voices for the live action-version, and make sure it captures the elements & the charm of what made the 1973 version so enjoyable for the Disney-Fans & the "Robin Hood"-fans. And also....Disney just needs it to be not just a good movie.... but also faithful to it's animated counterpart.

 

Oh my dear lord, I hope not.  

[Brainiac5]

3 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

OW can use previous films as an excuse. The multiplier usually comes from WOM... especially for an origin story. Films in universes like Harry Potter and Twilight have an insanely Looney fanbase that rushes out to see them. So they can't really count. But even the original Twilight and the original Potter had good multipliers.

Trust me many will blame those films if WW doesn't make over a2.5x.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

4 minutes ago, God Emperor Tele said:

 

Oh my dear lord, I hope not.  

Well, i do, IMO. ?

 

And like i said.....it could work if it's done well. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Edited June 5, 2017 by MrFanaticGuy34

[baumer]

I have a reaaaaaally hard time seeing WW finishing with a similar multiplier as MOS.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Well, i do, IMO.

 

And like i said.....it could work if it's done well. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

 

I'm not a fan of the earlier Disney movie and not much of a fan of them choosing to remake all their animated movies with live-action ones, so I'll just leave it at that.  

[ttr]

Well, i do, IMO. ?
 
And like i said.....it could work if it's done well. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

I think we've seen more than enough Robin Hoods. I also do not think animal Robin Hood would work.

[Krissykins]

So happy to see Wonder Woman underestimated. $103.1m is fabulous. 

 

I'm so happy! Will return for a third viewing this weekend. 

[WrathOfHan]

The 2D showings of WW have been performing well at my theater today, but 3D is selling like shit. CU is selling strongly, and POTC isn't doing too hotly.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

1 minute ago, ttr said:

 

I think we've seen more than enough Robin Hoods. I also do not think animal Robin Hood would work.

 

It's all about execution, dude. And if it was featuring them as humans....it would just be like the other (more adult oriented) versions. Not enough uniqueness & difference.

[a2k]

It will be fun to compare multipliers of all original CBMs in MCU and DCEU, IM1 onward (commensurate to the release dates/days).

[IM1, CA1, Thor1, GOTG1, ANT-MAN, DS, MOS, WONDR]

[Celedhring]

Mmmm...coming up with the best multipliers for non-animated films opening over 90m in the summer, I get:

 

GotG1 : 3.5x (August)

JW: 3.1x

TA: 3x

TDK: 3.3x (9 years ago)

Dead Man's Chest: 3.1x (11 years ago)

Spider-Man: 3.5x (15 years ago).

Crystal Skull: 3.1x (9 years ago).

Iron Man 1: 3.2x (9 years ago)

Matrix Reloaded: 3x (13 years ago)

 

And that's it. Everything else - and there's a couple dozens films in there - falls below 3x. I think the pattern is clear.

 

So it seems to me that 3x is the absolute best case scenario for WW, and we should actually be looking at less than that given how few films have managed to get there in recent times, even with good WOM.  All in all, I'm not seeing those 300m predictions. Even a WOM wonder like the first Spider-Man film "only" managed 3.5x, 15 years ago. 

 

That said, I hope to be proven wrong. It would be nice to have WW buck that trend and become a rare box office surprise. But BO history is not on her side.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Celedhring

[DAJK]

Really glad they didn't have to fudge it over. The film totally deserves every penny.

 

I don't think it's hitting 3x, but legs should be better than MOS. I'm thinking 275M domestic total is the goal, but 300 would be amazing

[kayumanggi]

Marvelous! 

Int'l numbers for WONDER WOMAN also exceeded expectations, as WB's hit grossed $125M this weekend in 55 markets.

— Exhibitor Relations (@ERCboxoffice) June 5, 2017

[miketheavenger]

People are already throwing around a 3x for WW being "very likely". Just like with the movie's OW, you're just setting yourselves up for disappointment. This is not making 300m, mark my words. Not trying to sound like a hater, I HOPE I'm wrong and if I am, I'll be the first one to admit it, but right now I'm feeling pretty confident that this will top out at 280-285m.

Edited November 13, 2017 by miketheavenger

[redfirebird2008]

9 minutes ago, Celedhring said:

Mmmm...coming up with the best multipliers for non-animated films opening over 90m in the summer, I get:

 

GotG1 : 3.5x (August)

JW: 3.1x

TA: 3x

TDK: 3.3x (9 years ago)

Dead Man's Chest: 3.1x (11 years ago)

Spider-Man: 3.5x (15 years ago).

Crystal Skull: 3.1x (9 years ago).

Iron Man 1: 3.2x (9 years ago)

Matrix Reloaded: 3x (13 years ago)

 

And that's it. Everything else - and there's a couple dozens films in there - falls below 3x. I think the pattern is clear.

 

So it seems to me that 3x is the absolute best case scenario for WW, and we should actually be looking at less than that given how few films have managed to get there in recent times, even with good WOM.  All in all, I'm not seeing those 300m predictions. Even a WOM wonder like the first Spider-Man film "only" managed 3.5x, 15 years ago. 

 

That said, I hope to be proven wrong. It would be nice to have WW buck that trend and become a rare box office surprise. But BO history is not on her side.

 

 

 

Crystal Skull and Matrix Reloaded were not Friday openers.

[JohnnyGossamer]

26 minutes ago, baumer said:

I have a reaaaaaally hard time seeing WW finishing with a similar multiplier as MOS.

I have an impossible time seeing that. At the moment, I think $275M+ DOM is the worst case scenario.

[Premium George]

Uhm,?