Weekend Actuals (Page 150): Apes 56.3M | SMH 44.2M | DM3 19.4M | Baby 8.7M | Big Dick 7.5M | WW 6.8M | Wish Upon 5.5M | Tomatoes losing their power

[UNDERDOG]

Holy shit, you guys locked the Justice League thread!

 

 

 

But....

 

Its not even November yet!

 

Oh, for fucks sake...

[BATMOOSEMIKE]

How bad is SpiderMan Homecoming's drop? I know it's technically the second biggest MCU drop, but there was the new Apes movie that came out. Any chance it'll drop sub 55 next weekend?

[dxmatrixdt]

the repercussions of having a Marvel and a DC movie in the top 10 being discussed by a forum....  Will next week be better or worse?  We have a Nolan Movie and a 200 million Luc Besson movie.

[UNDERDOG]

5 minutes ago, BATMOOSEMIKE said:

How bad is SpiderMan Homecoming's drop? I know it's technically the second biggest MCU drop, but there was the new Apes movie that came out. Any chance it'll drop sub 55 next weekend?

 

If I'm not mistaken, I think it's the MCU's biggest drop, not second.

Edited July 17, 2017 by UNDERDOG

[Subzero]

11 minutes ago, BATMOOSEMIKE said:

How bad is SpiderMan Homecoming's drop? I know it's technically the second biggest MCU drop, but there was the new Apes movie that came out. Any chance it'll drop sub 55 next weekend?

 

Next week Dunkirk/Valerian is up to the plate, I think SPidey will take a hit, but hopefully it's not as bad as this weekend.

If I have to take a guess it will be around 50% drop (I use MOS as an example, since the OW was similiar and the 2nd week drop similiar although little better than MOS)... . If it does any worse, then $300M DOM would have to be in question. Then someone open the club SMH under MOS

Edited July 17, 2017 by Subzero

[dxmatrixdt]

according to the BOG weekend article, Wish Upon was not released in Canada.  Could someone please confirm when this will arrive in Canada and approx how many locations is it when a movie increases to include Canada?  I am thinking we will see less than a 50% drop if it expands next weekend. 

[MikeQ]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

 

My open minded lovely  happy romance with ambiguous yet high spirited ending doesn't need mopey sequels!

 

This is interesting. I love the 'Before' trilogy. One of the aspects that I find so interesting about it is that one's feelings about the three separate films are often shaped, I think, by wherever one is located in their own life course. I mean, each of the films themselves were created at very different times within the life course for the three central artists involved (Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy), and so I love how each film reflects the way we often view love and what love means when we're young and as we get older. You're a young person, and so it is interesting that you love 'Sunrise' but dismiss the other two. I encourage you to revisit the trilogy later in your life, once you hits your 20s, mid-20s, and 30s, etc. (I don't have time to get into it right now, but any argument that 'Sunset' is a cynical film, just doesn't hold up. Each of the films in the trilogy inspires in its own way.)

 

I was actually first introduced to Jesse and Celine in 'Before Sunset', back when it was released in 2004 - so at the time only Sunrise and Sunset existed. I fell in love with it. So I went back and watched Sunrise and I fell in love with it too. And it made 'Sunset' even richer. 

 

Now with the full trilogy, I find that my favourite of the three will change depending on where I am in my life or my mood for the day/week/month. I seem to mostly go back and forth between 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' right now. And yet 'Midnight' sits with me in a way that the other two don't. I wonder how my perspectives on the three films will change as I get older.

 

When I revisit the films, I sometimes will watch them in a different order, and I learn something new from doing so. I often wonder if the fact that I discovered 'Sunset' first, before the other two, shapes my perspective. I look forward to every time I revisit the trilogy, because I know that it will be a different experience each time, as I continue to evolve as a person and work through my own trajectories of love and life. It is such an interesting, complex, and beautiful trilogy.

 

Peace,

Mike

[aabattery]

5 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

 

This is interesting. I love the 'Before' trilogy. One of the aspects that I find so interesting about it is that one's feelings about the three separate films are often shaped, I think, by wherever one is located in their own life course. I mean, each of the films themselves were created at very different times within the life course for the three central artists involved (Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy), and so I love how each film reflects the way we often view love and what love means when we're young and as we get older. You're a young person, and so it is interesting that you love 'Sunrise' but dismiss the other two. I encourage you to revisit the trilogy later in your life, once you hits your 20s, mid-20s, and 30s, etc. (I don't have time to get into it right now, but any argument that 'Sunset' is a cynical film, just doesn't hold up. Each of the films in the trilogy inspires in its own way.)

 

I was actually first introduced to Jesse and Celine in 'Before Sunset', back when it was released in 2004 - so at the time only Sunrise and Sunset existed. I fell in love with it. So I went back and watched Sunrise and I fell in love with it too. And it made 'Sunset' even richer. 

 

Now with the full trilogy, I find that my favourite of the three will change depending on where I am in my life or my mood for the day/week/month. I seem to mostly go back and forth between 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' right now. And yet 'Midnight' sits with me in a way that the other two don't. I wonder how my perspectives on the three films will change as I get older.

 

When I revisit the films, I sometimes will watch them in a different order, and I learn something new from doing so. I often wonder if the fact that I discovered 'Sunset' first, before the other two, shapes my perspective. I look forward to every time I revisit the trilogy, because I know that it will be a different experience each time, as I continue to evolve as a person and work through my own trajectories of love and life. It is such an interesting, complex, and beautiful trilogy.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

I'm out of likes but this is a great post. Agree with all of it.

[Spidey Freak]

2 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Anyways Sunrise is the greatest movie ever made so I'll just forget the other two and enjoy perfection

 

In my early 20's I used to think that too to a certain extent. Now that I'm in my late 20's, Sunset is the one I rewatch and connect to the most.

 

I won't be able to take it when I reach the Midnight phase. *gulp*

[Spidey Freak]

48 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

 

This is interesting. I love the 'Before' trilogy. One of the aspects that I find so interesting about it is that one's feelings about the three separate films are often shaped, I think, by wherever one is located in their own life course. I mean, each of the films themselves were created at very different times within the life course for the three central artists involved (Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy), and so I love how each film reflects the way we often view love and what love means when we're young and as we get older. You're a young person, and so it is interesting that you love 'Sunrise' but dismiss the other two. I encourage you to revisit the trilogy later in your life, once you hits your 20s, mid-20s, and 30s, etc. (I don't have time to get into it right now, but any argument that 'Sunset' is a cynical film, just doesn't hold up. Each of the films in the trilogy inspires in its own way.)

 

I was actually first introduced to Jesse and Celine in 'Before Sunset', back when it was released in 2004 - so at the time only Sunrise and Sunset existed. I fell in love with it. So I went back and watched Sunrise and I fell in love with it too. And it made 'Sunset' even richer. 

 

Now with the full trilogy, I find that my favourite of the three will change depending on where I am in my life or my mood for the day/week/month. I seem to mostly go back and forth between 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' right now. And yet 'Midnight' sits with me in a way that the other two don't. I wonder how my perspectives on the three films will change as I get older.

 

When I revisit the films, I sometimes will watch them in a different order, and I learn something new from doing so. I often wonder if the fact that I discovered 'Sunset' first, before the other two, shapes my perspective. I look forward to every time I revisit the trilogy, because I know that it will be a different experience each time, as I continue to evolve as a person and work through my own trajectories of love and life. It is such an interesting, complex, and beautiful trilogy.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Yeah, accurate. At least for me regarding Sunrise and Sunset. Dunno about Midnight... yet.

 

Me in 10 years

 

[MikeQ]

 

Yeah, accurate. At least for me regarding Sunrise and Sunset. Dunno about Midnight... yet.

 

Me in 10 years

 

 

Haha!

 

Every time I reflect on 'Midnight' I remember just how rich and rewarding it is. It ends on a very hopeful and uplifting note. Even as life inevitably gets complicated, love can endure, if you choose it. It carries the weight of 'Sunrise' and 'Sunset' before it and delves deep.

 

Man, looks like I'm gonna have to revisit the trilogy again soon, maybe next weekend!

 

Peace,

Mike

[Fancyarcher]

11 hours ago, Jayhawk said:

Often times we look to technological advancements from our childhoods as a touchstone...

 

Nostalgia and memories man. I still have fun memories with earlier dial-up, despite it being slow as as shit. 

[Brainbug]

Now that TOMATO LAW is dead, maybe we should welcome CONCEPT LAW:

 

CONCEPT LAW works like this: Whether or not a movie will be a hit and open above tracking will be determined by the concept of the movie: Is it appealing/fresh/new/exciting? One has to account for the fact, that the GA is not a nerd community but a bunch of casuals. They dont watch that many trailers, they dont know who Edgar Wright is and they dont care for Hollywoods need for money. If they go to the theater, they need a hook, something about the film that gets the interest of the masses.

 

How do you do that?

 

You dont even need that much originality. Just change the formula - the CONCEPT a bit. Weve seen countless superhero movies - but one where the main characters are all villains? Thats something new and interesting! That is the reason i believe that SS was so succesfull: Weve never seen something like it in the theaters and here is why TOMATO LAW had its limits: Good critical reception CAN help a movie but sometimes it DOESNT HAVE TO help a movie. Some conceps - like BvS, Avengers, JW, Valerian, SW - have so many people that like them from the get-go that they will always be initially succesfull. Wether or not they have staying power is ofc decided by WOM and the rush factor.

War for the Planet of the Apes underperformed because 1) the CONCEPT just wasnt that appealing to many people. Theyve already seen kind of an ape vs humans war in Dawn and the trailers looked like Planet of the Apes: gritty and even more serious! which isnt what many people want to see nowadays where the world has already so many conflicts in the real world. Apes also underperformed because it -again, trailers and marketing play extremely important roles - looked like Dawn 2.0. It just didnt look new in any way. It didnt have a hook, a good CONCEPT.

 

SH movies work so well at the box office because nearly everyone has a fresh CONCEPT that creates interest. Lego Batman was a spoof comedy - since when did we have a good spoof comedy let alone about Batman? Logan was a western drama and maybe Jackmans last turn as Wolverine - now thats a CONCEPT, no matter how dark it was. GotG2, a follow-up to a very succesfull original, take my money! And i really dont have to explain why Wonder Womans CONCEPT was appealing , have i?

Otoh, SH movies which dont offer new concepts - like or bullshit like Fant4stic, will always underperform, even in this golden age of CBM.

So my theory is:

 

1. You need a new/fresh/interesting/exciting CONCEPT

2. You need good marketing and trailers

3. You get $$$$$$$

 

 

 

[Fancyarcher]

9 hours ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

Whoa!!! I can't believe Scabab is here too. 

 

He used to be a pretty much active user on imdb. I remember him from The Expendables 3 and Fant4stic boards. Those boards were madness, literally madness. If it's indeed the same Scabab, that's surprising.

 

Scabab, you used to be a great user. This forum is probably the only real decent place where we can discuss about movies, series and so on, without being insulted. I'm pretty sure you remember the hard times on The Expendables 3 forums, for example. Rough times. 

 

After imdb closed the boards, this and perhaps reddit ( which I'm not really a fan ) are the few places where people can speak their pieces. 

 

That being said, guys here are much better at predicting numbers than most of the other places, Scabab. Come on, have fun here. Let off some steam.

 

You had an IMDb account Blaze? Huh, never realized that. I actually posted a few times on The Expendables 3 board back in the day, ha. 

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, Brainbug said:

Now that TOMATO LAW is dead, maybe we should welcome CONCEPT LAW:

 

CONCEPT LAW works like this: Whether or not a movie will be a hit and open above tracking will be determined by the concept of the movie: Is it appealing/fresh/new/exciting? One has to account for the fact, that the GA is not a nerd community but a bunch of casuals. They dont watch that many trailers, they dont know who Edgar Wright is and they dont care for Hollywoods need for money. If they go to the theater, they need a hook, something about the film that gets the interest of the masses.

 

How do you do that?

 

You dont even need that much originality. Just change the formula - the CONCEPT a bit. Weve seen countless superhero movies - but one where the main characters are all villains? Thats something new and interesting! That is the reason i believe that SS was so succesfull: Weve never seen something like it in the theaters and here is why TOMATO LAW had its limits: Good critical reception CAN help a movie but sometimes it DOESNT HAVE TO help a movie. Some conceps - like BvS, Avengers, JW, Valerian, SW - have so many people that like them from the get-go that they will always be initially succesfull. Wether or not they have staying power is ofc decided by WOM and the rush factor.

War for the Planet of the Apes underperformed because 1) the CONCEPT just wasnt that appealing to many people. Theyve already seen kind of an ape vs humans war in Dawn and the trailers looked like Planet of the Apes: gritty and even more serious! which isnt what many people want to see nowadays where the world has already so many conflicts in the real world. Apes also underperformed because it -again, trailers and marketing play extremely important roles - looked like Dawn 2.0. It just didnt look new in any way. It didnt have a hook, a good CONCEPT.

 

SH movies work so well at the box office because nearly everyone has a fresh CONCEPT that creates interest. Lego Batman was a spoof comedy - since when did we have a good spoof comedy let alone about Batman? Logan was a western drama and maybe Jackmans last turn as Wolverine - now thats a CONCEPT, no matter how dark it was. GotG2, a follow-up to a very succesfull original, take my money! And i really dont have to explain why Wonder Womans CONCEPT was appealing , have i?

Otoh, SH movies which dont offer new concepts - like or bullshit like Fant4stic, will always underperform, even in this golden age of CBM.

So my theory is:

 

1. You need a new/fresh/interesting/exciting CONCEPT

2. You need good marketing and trailers

3. You get $$$$$$$

 

 

 

 

Doesn't really work when Beauty and the Beast is the highest grossing film of the year.

 

[thelich343]

1 minute ago, aabattery said:

 

Doesn't really work when Beauty and the Beast is the highest grossing film of the year.

 

And the reason behind it being so is literally because it's not  a fresh new concept.

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

Doesn't really work when Beauty and the Beast is the highest grossing film of the year.

 

 

BatB concept was very similar to JW: An old property of your childhood comes back to the big screen - for many people that was an exciting concept (not for me but what can i do?) and the trailers sold that very good.

 

To be clear, the concept doesnt have to be fresh. It must be fresh/new or interesting or exciting/appealing. BatB fits in.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Brainbug

[That One Girl]

.

Edited July 17, 2017 by That One Guy

[aabattery]

3 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

BatB concept was very similar to JW: An old property of your childhood comes back to the big screen - for many people that was an exciting concept (not for me but what can i do?) and the trailers sold that very good.

 

To be clear, the concept doesnt have to be fresh. It must be fresh/new or interesting or exciting/appealing. BatB fits in.

 

I guess. But this makes the law incredibly broad. Kinda pointless.

 

These laws are pretty silly anyway. Don't think you can ever slap a single reason on why these movies do well.

[aabattery]

Just now, That One Guy said:

 

Maybe we can make TOG's brain cells law.

 

If I actively lose brain cells while watching a movie, it'll be the highest grossing movie domestically for the first half of the year.

 

This implies you have any brain cells.