DUNKIRK WEEKEND THREAD | ABSOLUTELY NO SPOILERS | Official estimates Dunkirk 50.5M, GT 30.3M, SMH 22M, Apes 20.4M, Val 17M | Wonder Woman is the new summer champ with 389M total | Summer Sale is Live!

[Valonqar]

Valerian was sold more on effects and less on leads. Still, they knew that they would be credited for success or blamed for failure when they signed up. Therefore, they are fair game for criticism cause they bit more than they could chew. Nobody signs up to lead a movie thinking that they can't. So they over-estimated themselves. 

 

Jupiter Ascending had 2 leads with some boxoffice clout (Tatum, Kunis) but it was a standard "appealing actors in an unappealing context" that sunk the ship. Tatum is a very solid opener in non-action and Kunis is a solid opener in comedy. OTOH, Valerian leads weren't even openers in other genres. They were just "I don't know why the fuck would anyone invest 200M in a movie headlined by them or Flopbender (Assassin's Creed)". 

 

John Carter was generic in every way imaginable - the name, the look, the leads. Same goes for Prince of Persia (Gylleenhaal is never going to be a big star and that's that, he's good at being a supporting actor or playing leading creeps in small budget movies but not the classic heroes in epic productions). Wrong leads are not entirely to blame but they knew the risk so that's that.  

Edited July 22, 2017 by Valonqar

[a2k]

7 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

John Carter was generic in every way imaginable - the name, the look, the leads. Same goes for Prince of Persia (Gylleenhaal is never going to be a big star and that's that, he's good at being a supporting actor or playing leading creeps in small budget movies but not the classic heroes in epic productions). 

[a2k]

Deadline didn't care for the chart this weekend. Wonder if Spidey and Apes have changed from Rth's 6 and 5.5 respectively.

[Alli]

really? People are blaming the leads for Valerian flop? Nobody knows who they are.  They are up-and-coming. A-listers have flops all the time. the concept just wasn't appealing to the masses. it's more of a John Carter than an Avatar.

[damnfine]

6 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

Especially if he spent the entire film inside the plane, chilling out.

Bane on a plane?

 

perhaps not my best effort..

[a2k]

1 hour ago, Alli said:

really? People are blaming the leads for Valerian flop? Nobody knows who they are.  They are up-and-coming. A-listers have flops all the time. the concept just wasn't appealing to the masses. it's more of a John Carter than an Avatar.

I hear you. But it doesn't matter that the leads are nobodies. The issue is how they come off as newcomers. And I am ok with Carla actually - I feel it's a case of director asking her to be colder and somber. There a couple of scenes in the promos where she is in a lighter mood and she is good. But DeHaan just gives me the creeps. Cold or warm, frowning or smiling.

 

He was unfit to carry such a big movie just like Gyllenhaal was so sleepy for an action lead in Persia. John Carter on the other hand, had a good lead in Kitsch...again a 'nobody', but still pleasant. I think someone like Kitsch would have better chemistry with Carla compared to DeHaan with any human ever on the planet (this or thousand others).

 

The movie would still bomb if Kitsch replaced DeHaan maybe, but I wouldn't complain about the lead.

 

Sometimes nobodies like JLaw in Hunger Games, or Watson in Potter (compared to say Rupert Grint in Potter) can runaway with a role. As a smaller example the 'V' got a lot of attention in Legend of Tarzan. Sometimes the casting strikes gold (Titanic) and sometimes it doesn't but even as newcomers they do bear some responsibility.

Edited July 22, 2017 by a2knet

[Scubasteve716]

Got a good laugh at Deadlines "that's a very good start from what I've been told" you couldn't decide that for yourself?

[BenedictL11]

3 hours ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

While my worries of frontloadedness are still very much there, 20M+ OD for Dunkirk is a damn good achievement. 50M OW, over Interstellar which sounded absurd a while ago for me, is at reach, which would be insane for a WW2 movie opening in July 2017 (proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that Nolan is one of Hollywood's top draws today). Still, beware of Saturday's hold. The Nolan fanbase is incomparable to that of any other director besides Cameron (who only shows up every 12 fucking years), and dare I say maybe any Hollywood star out there outside of Leo DiCaprio, and noticeable rush is a risk factor at play.

 

It did get an A- in CinemaScore which could reduce its chances of frontloaded.

Plus, its previews started at 6pm.

 

I'd say its OW should be in the low 50s followed by good legs (no films will have an IMAX release until Kingsman 2 in late September). After all, Suicide Squad held very well due to lackluster competition after its 3rd weekend.

Edited July 22, 2017 by BenedictL11

[Damianport1]

Disappointed with Dunkirk number. its not going to make 50M with tru 14.5 and being so frontloaded. probably OW under Interstellar still goood but disappointing after initial numbers from rth

[Zakiyyah6]

Getting A's on cinemascore didn't help Apes or Spidey have good legs.

[baumer]

Did we get an update?  Why are we going with 20 instead of 22?

[BenedictL11]

3 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Getting A's on cinemascore didn't help Apes or Spidey have good legs.

Dunkirk's Saturday will be the true test to see if its WOM is truly strong.

Edited July 22, 2017 by BenedictL11

[AniNate]

Why is Cinemascore still a thing and why do the good folks of this forum still care about it?

[BenedictL11]

5 minutes ago, Damianport1 said:

Disappointed with Dunkirk number. its not going to make 50M with tru 14.5 and being so frontloaded. probably OW under Interstellar still goood but disappointing after initial numbers from rth

Thursday previews started at 6pm so don't lose hope just yet.

 

Saturday's number will be its true test to see if it plays like Apes or if its WOM correlates with a good multiplier.

[Zakiyyah6]

1 minute ago, BenedictL11 said:

Dunkirk's Saturday will be the true test to see if its WOM is truly strong.

And Sunday.

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

Why is Cinemascore still a thing and why do the good folks of this forum still care about it?

people are gonna care about anything as long as it validates them.

[BenedictL11]

1 minute ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

And Sunday.

Yep. Sunday's drop is an indicator. Small Sunday drops during the summer during non-holiday weeks is a good sign for strong legs (Wonder Woman, The Dark Knight, Inception).

[a2k]

6 minutes ago, Damianport1 said:

Disappointed with Dunkirk number. its not going to make 50M with tru 14.5 and being so frontloaded. probably OW under Interstellar still goood but disappointing after initial numbers from rth

It would have to stay flat from true Friday to go under Interstellar.

5.5 + 14.5 + 15 + 11.5 (-23%) = 46.5

Would be anti-climatic if it happens .

[BenedictL11]

5 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

Did we get an update?  Why are we going with 20 instead of 22?

Deadline.com has Dunkirk for $20M. They updated nearly at 4 EST but that was the only Friday number they provided us.

 

Unless DL is on crack with their math, GT seems like it didn't drop too harshly at night like other female-oriented comedies (Trainwreck, Spy, Bad Moms, Rough Night)

[a2k]

BAD MOMS multiplier was an epic 4.76x.

 

What are the chances that GIRLS TRIP pulls off say 4.20x with a ~32 ow ... gives it 134+ dom ... above TF5.