Weekend Actuals (Page 130): Cars 53.7M | Wonder Woman 41.3M | All Eyez 26.4M | Mummy 14.5M | 47 Meters 11.2M | POTC 9M | Rough Night 8M

[JohnnyGossamer]

10 minutes ago, Heat Vision said:

For a moment I actually believed Wonder Woman would beat Man of Steel's second weekend. 

Still can... Wait until after Saturday/Sunday. 

[SWXII]

24 minutes ago, GiantCALBears said:

That's a really good Cars 3 number, way higher than what I was expecting. I'd argue it's fantastic given what it is at this point. A bit stunned. 

 

Just wait until tomorrow. Should hit overdrive.

[baumer]

51 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

 

Please tell me that isnt jonah hill

[aabattery]

Just now, SWXII said:

 

Just wait until tomorrow. Should hit overdrive.

 

It'll shift into a higher gear.

[MrPink]

47 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

  The things I miss not regularly reading the Conversation thread remind me why I don't regularly read the Conversation thread.

 

 

The prequel memes are fun though.

[nomyth]

Why are we acting like we know how much WW is gonna make this weekend?

 

Don't get me wrong, I've always thought 40+ was a tall order. But we don't even have a Friday estimate yet. If it's around 10 then 40 is definitely not dead imo.

[MrPink]

Just now, aabattery said:

 

It'll shift into a higher gear.

 

[aabattery]

Just now, MrPink said:

 

 

I have something for you Pink.

 

Spoiler

 

Second half where he rubs his nipples is on it's way.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by aabattery

[grey ghost]

50 minutes ago, elcaballero said:

I'm trying to figure out who he reminds me of now, but I can't place it.

 

Brett Ratner?

 

Ben Stiller?

[MrPink]

5 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

I have something for you Pink.

 

  Hide contents

 

Second half where he rubs his nipples is on it's way.

 

 

You have done a service to mankind.

[aabattery]

Just now, MrPink said:

 

You have done a service to mankind.

 

Spoiler

 

[MrPink]

Just now, aabattery said:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

YES YES YES

 

This scene was greatness.

[elcaballero]

8 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Brett Ratner?

 

Ben Stiller?

I was probably thinking of Ben Stiller, but I can definitely see a lot of Brett Ratner too.  

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

Why not, the whole movie basically took place in 3 rooms, had meh CGI, short run time, and nothing was shot on location except for 2 short scenes. Nothing points at it having a bigger budget than the 140m for ghost protocol and 150m for rogue nation.

 

Not sure we known those movie budget thought (considering how many real location they tend to shoot and the high salary of sequels they would be at a good price).

 

For example that Jack Reacher 2 60 million budget is a bit suspicious:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jackreacher2.htm

 

It had a 96 million gross budget and should get below 22 million in tax credit:

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=GqkbSZEd3QDTAlWLjuQ2Rw%3d%3d

 

Same for Oblivion 120 million budget, it had a 160 million gross budget and got 22.93 in total granted tax credit:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=oblivion.htm

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=dds9lTP6WsNtuzsgF6cvDw%3d%3d

 

Except if there is some source behind the number, what the studio tell the trade to say during the movie opening does not mean that much, but that is pretty common to every movie made in house and were not on a selling block with many player bidding on them, they can keep the cost secret and usually do (except when the movie is made in a jurisdiction that make it public when they ask for tax credit and other incentives).

 

With the pound exchange rate being really advantageous, nice tax credit location, it is not an impossible number 125 million, but them saying that it was 125 does not mean much (and the strange blame game that followed the really big number global opening for a 125m make more sense if the movie was in fact significantly more expensive.

 

 

 

[nomyth]

1 hour ago, nomyth said:

So, I think the first sign of All Eyez's frontloadedness would be that it's already back behind WW on Pulse. I'm sure it didn't have that much of a lead to begin with but I can't imagine that it's not in for a fairly big drop tomorrow. Or at least, bigger by comparison for Sat drops this year. 

Ugh. Go fig. I post this and now All Eyez is #1 on Pulse.

 

I guess the top 3 is pretty close. Wish they would've given us Fri #'s instead of projections. Perched for the next update.

[keysersoze123]

20 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Not sure we known those movie budget thought (considering how many real location they tend to shoot and the high salary of sequels they would be at a good price).

 

For example that Jack Reacher 2 60 million budget is a bit suspicious:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jackreacher2.htm

 

It had a 96 million gross budget and should get below 22 million in tax credit:

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=GqkbSZEd3QDTAlWLjuQ2Rw%3d%3d

 

Same for Oblivion 120 million budget, it had a 160 million gross budget and got 22.93 in total granted tax credit:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=oblivion.htm

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=dds9lTP6WsNtuzsgF6cvDw%3d%3d

 

Except if there is some source behind the number, what the studio tell the trade to say during the movie opening does not mean that much, but that is pretty common to every movie made in house and were not on a selling block with many player bidding on them, they can keep the cost secret and usually do (except when the movie is made in a jurisdiction that make it public when they ask for tax credit and other incentives).

 

With the pound exchange rate being really advantageous, nice tax credit location, it is not an impossible number 125 million, but them saying that it was 125 does not mean much (and the strange blame game that followed the really big number global opening for a 125m make more sense if the movie was in fact significantly more expensive.

 

 

 

 

Awesome stuff. Can you capture this data in your thread. It would be useful to have all this in one  place. There is no doubt studios under report budget so that there is feel good factor about reporting its BO. Publicly listed companies then provide update through its quaterly earnings if the studio is making money or losing and sometimes provide names of movies that caused a write off. May be comcast will do it for Mummy in next quarter earnings. 

[Napoleon]

46 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Wonder Woman beating Man of Steel's second weekend was always a huge long shot and it doesn't have to beat it. I wonder why people set themselves up for disappointment?

These unrealistic goals make Wonder Woman's holds seem less impressive.

 

[HesAPooka]

26 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

 

 

 

if mummy cost more than 125m after credits then wonder woman must cost 200m+

[Dementeleus]

Speaking of quality children's entertainment, the Tele household is currently (re)watching CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT. 

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

Speaking of quality children's entertainment, the Tele household is currently (re)watching CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT. 

Show Tele Jr Coraline.