5-day Weekend #s: DM3 99M, BD 29.97M, WW 24.07M, TF5 24.05M, Cars 3 14.2M, House 11.9M

[The Panda]

12 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

That sound a bit surprising to me. Like you said I would have suspecting for the small movie for studio to push more on the marketing of "good movie" creating a correlation (even without causation), and for big budget movie to have better score in general (and once again creating some correlation).

 

Trying to google it, there is lot of noise by terrible research (that use all movies all together and not by release size or they are only looking at the successful movie by looking just at those who achieved a high number like 20 million or top 50 of the year's type of huge mistake in creating the sample)

 

 

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-quality-vs-box-office-grosses?ref=hp

 

Metascore Range	# of Films	Avg. Opening  Weekend	Avg. 2nd Weekend  Decline	Avg.  Multiplier	Avg. Total  Gross
Films scoring 0–19	22	$13,961,514	▼ 52.5%	2.6	$35,081,918
Films scoring 20–39	301	$16,503,055	▼ 50.2%	2.8	$47,785,166
all with bad reviews:	323	$16,329,947	▼ 50.4%	2.8	$46,919,929
Films scoring 40–50	294	$21,353,058	▼ 49.5%	2.9	$62,658,866
Films scoring 51–60	255	$26,890,484	▼ 46.2%	3.1	$81,265,377
all with mixed reviews:	549	$23,925,086	▼ 48.0%	3.0	$71,301,234
Films scoring 61–70	163	$35,480,314	▼ 44.2%	3.4	$112,446,672
Films scoring 71–80	87	$37,112,105	▼ 42.1%	3.8	$137,787,032
Films scoring 81–90	29	$49,583,445	▼ 38.8%	4.3	$197,836,138
Films scoring 91–100	7	$59,076,012	▼ 37.7%	4.1	$238,356,646
all with positive reviews:	286	$37,984,253	▼ 42.8%	3.6	$131,895,188

 

 

 

 

in 2007, when RT didn't had the reach than today, the 90-100% were making 2000$ more by screen and had a much better average box office by fresh movie than by rotten one:

 

 

If you would take the last 3 year's 2000 or so movie that got a theatrical release and split them by 0-9, 10-19%, etc... RT score, and look at those category of movie performance, I think you would see a pattern (now correlation does not mean causation).

 

Thats a pretty simple and rough analysis they did though.  They didn't even test for the significance of the correlation.

 

Rotten films are also more likely to have poor WoM (which I'll agree there's a correlation between reviews and legs, but that's because a movie is bad or good, not because of the reviews themselves.  In that case they're a possible indicator) which will lead to more lower grossing rotten films.

 

The argument is that RT is causing movies to make or break, which simply isn't the case at all.

[Jonwo]

With Wonder Woman being a juggernaut and Dunkirk coming in three weeks, I suspect WB knowing The House was a stinker decided to wash their hands with it. 

 

 

[The Panda]

23 minutes ago, kswiston said:

 

On a different forum, I had a thread examining RT score vs domestic gross for all big budget films (~$75M+) released from the start of 2017 until two weeks ago (with estimated final totals for Cars 3, Wonder Woman, and the Mummy).

 

Here's a plot

 

 

Here are some summary statistics

 

 

The No Outliers Average column is the average for Fresh and Rotten films if you drop the Top 5 and Bottom 5 grossers from each.  

 

There's definitely a correlation between critic consensus and audience receptivity for larger films, even if RT score is not directly causing the box office results above. 

 

Small films can do well on much smaller returns, so I don't think reviews matter as much (outside of prestige dramas). 

 

You'll really need to look at OWs if you're wanting to see if RT has a potential BO effect.  Not DOM grosses.  I remember finding a significant correlation between reviews and a movie's legs (especially when accounting for genre and budget), but that isn't likely a causation relationship, more of a happenstance.

[baumer]

@Wonder of Rth is still sleeping. His night doesn't begin until 11 p.m. and then I'll fucking hell breaks loose. LOL

[Nova]

Correlation does not equal causation. For all you folks throwing out numbers and what not....that's statistics number one. 

 

So while there maybe a correlation between a good/bad RT score and the film's box office numbers....that doesn't mean it's the cause of said box office numbers. 

 

Statistics 101 right there 

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, Nova said:

Correlation does not equal causation. For all you folks throwing out numbers and what not....that's statistics number one. 

 

So while there maybe a correlation between a good/bad RT score and the film's box office numbers....that doesn't mean it's the cause of said box office numbers. 

 

Statistics 101 right there 

 

Exactly.  Especially from a logical perspective, the correlation they're using is with DOM BO gross, which factors in WoM, which is known to have to do with people thinking a movie is good or bad (it just so happens GA tends to roughly agree with critics, minus some exceptions).

 

If RT actually has an effect on BO you'd have to see it be with OWs.  And even then, any stats you can do with that would be rough and not be factoring in nearly everything.

[Nova]

1 minute ago, The Panda said:

 

Exactly.  Especially from a logical perspective, the correlation they're using is with DOM BO gross, which factors in WoM, which is known to have to do with people thinking a movie is good or bad (it just so happens GA tends to roughly agree with critics, minus some exceptions).

 

If RT actually has an effect on BO you'd have to see it be with OWs.  And even then, any stats you can do with that would be rough and not be factoring in nearly everything.

There are just waaaaaay too many factors to take in when considering why a film did poorly or why it did really well at the box office that I think it's insane to say it's all RT. Can RT play a part? Sure. Is there anyway to prove how big of a part it's playing or if it's the direct cause? No. Because there are just a multitude of factors that go into all of this and each one plays a part in how a film does. 

 

I think eventually one may just find a correlation between RT score and box office but again just because there is a correlation does not mean it is the direct cause ESPECIALLY when it comes to something as complex as the box office 

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, The Panda said:

The argument is that RT is causing movies to make or break, which simply isn't the case at all.

 

Oh I thought people were joking about that, but I think it can goes has high as 15-20% on a movie between a really rotten and a 90%+ score (and that is the operating margin of the best studio out there).

 

For certain movie (really small one) it could be much more, but giant marketing affair will not need critics has a marketing tool much.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Barnack

[The Panda]

The ultimate thing to remember is each movie is a culmination of a near infinite number of unique factors that cannot be repeated.  Each movie is unique, and you can't shoehorn how they'll do in a little box because of this.

 

It's why studio execs thought George Lucas' Star Wars would bomb yet didn't think twice to greenlight stuff like Lone Ranger.

 

Theres no all powerful rule that'll tell you how a movie will perform or what makes a movie good.  That's why it's an art and not a science.

Edited July 1, 2017 by The Panda

[CJohn]

10 minutes ago, The Panda said:

The ultimate thing to remember is each movie is a culmination of a near infinite number of unique factors that cannot be repeated.  Each movie is unique, and you can't shoehorn how they'll do in a little box because of this.

 

It's why studio execs thought George Lucas' Star Wars would bomb yet didn't think twice to greenlight stuff like Lone Ranger.

 

Theres no all powerful rule that'll tell you how a movie will perform or what makes a movie good.  That's why it's an art and not a science.

Wrong. Lone Ranger got canceled before getting his budget down to a more manageable 200M (we all know it inflated back to 250M during production, tho). 

[AniNate]

55 minutes ago, Blankments said:

I have a hot take though on that whole "best action comedy in years" thing, but IK if I post it, everyone will call me a fanboy of a certain other director(s)

 

They have a lot in common, really

Edited July 1, 2017 by tribefan695

[grim22]

It's looking very likely Transformers 5 won't hit 100M till Monday. Kind of unprecedented when you consider that time taken to 100M by:

 

Transformers 1 - 4 days

Transformers 2 - 3 days

Transformers 3 - 4 days

Transformers 4 - 3 days*

 

Huge comedown for a franchise which almost broke a OW and OD record with its second movie.

 

Pirates 5 is, weirdly enough, not the slowest of the franchise to get to 100M, but that is because the first movie was a word of mouth hit rather than a big splash. Still a big comedown for a franchise which broke the OW and OD record with its second movie.

[grim22]

59 minutes ago, Blankments said:

I have a hot take though on that whole "best action comedy in years" thing, but IK if I post it, everyone will call me a fanboy of a certain other director(s)

 

But Han Solo is now a straight adventure movie apparently and no comedy anymore.

 

Spoiler

Trigger warning?

 

[The Panda]

7 minutes ago, CJohn said:

Wrong. Lone Ranger got canceled before getting his budget down to a more manageable 200M (we all know it inflated back to 250M during production, tho). 

 

Way to nitpick and ignore the point of the post.

[Nova]

2 minutes ago, grim22 said:

It's looking very likely Transformers 5 won't hit 100M till Monday. Kind of unprecedented when you consider that time taken to 100M by:

 

Transformers 1 - 4 days

Transformers 2 - 3 days

Transformers 3 - 4 days

Transformers 4 - 3 days*

 

Huge comedown for a franchise which almost broke a OW and OD record with its second movie.

 

Pirates 5 is, weirdly enough, not the slowest of the franchise to get to 100M, but that is because the first movie was a word of mouth hit rather than a big splash. Still a big comedown for a franchise which broke the OW and OD record with its second movie.

Trying to kill two franchises with one post, I see. 

 

 

Dont worry. They're already dead. 

[AniNate]

Too early to declare myself vindicated re DM3? Can't believe how touchy some people got at the idea that it would also get hit with franchise fatigue.

[grim22]

2 minutes ago, Nova said:

Trying to kill two franchises with one post, I see. 

 

 

Dont worry. They're already dead. 

 

Both have followed the exact same trajectory, and the solution being proposed by fans for the 6th installment is also pretty much "Bring back the leads from the first 3 movies as full time characters"

[MikeQ]

One of the fundamental problems of the notion of "Tomato Law" is that it is a so-called law, that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are met. If you want to make the argument that a good rotten tomatoes score can help a movie and a poor rotten tomatoes score can hinder a movie, in certain situations or cases, dependent on genre, how established the property is, etc, etc, that seems reasonable to me, and in no way supports there being a "Tomato Law" of sorts.

 

But still, like Panda, I think it is a mistake to say that RT scores cause films to open well or open poorly, generally speaking. It may very well be the case sometimes that a film's success is very heavily dependent on reviews, but it is a mistake to place critical reception as the arbiter of what will or won't do well. For so many movies, the writing was on the wall well before reviews are released. Factors like excellent vs poor marketing, established vs unknown property, mainstream vs niche appeal, etc, are all very important. Suicide Squad last year opened to a record $133 million dollars in August, besting the previous August record by nearly $40 million (!) despite a 25% RT score. Many credit its success to its terrific marketing/trailers. You could also add that it is a kind of established property (comic book film) with mainstream appeal to a wide audience, and since it looked terrific, people flocked to see it. It even had very reasonable legs!

 

Finally, in terms of overall box office performance, there may be some kind of moderate correlation between RT percentage scores and audience reception - in that its likely that for most mainstream movies, a film where a lot of critics that rate it positively/"fresh" is likely to reflect a general audience that would mostly rate the film positively/"fresh" as well. So, this may entice us to say "ah, good reviews caused this film to do well", but really the good reviews largely reflect good WOM, not cause it. So yes, we want to acknowledge reviews and the role that aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes play in the landscape of movie box office today, but we ought to be careful about making claims of there being a "Tomato Law" and that critic reviews are the fundamental predictor of box office success or failure.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by MikeQ

[grim22]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

Too early to declare myself vindicated re DM3? Can't believe how touchy some people got at the idea that it would also get hit with franchise fatigue.

 

Well, if it can push itself to 30M, or slightly more today, then 95M is still a big possibility. If it falls to 27M, then we end up in the low-80s.

[Fancyarcher]

5 hours ago, grey ghost said:

 

I can't decide if Bruce Willis isn't getting good scripts anymore or if he's intentionally semi-retired.

 

Willis does 10 minute roles essentially for the "money". He's basically gotten "greedy".