Tuesday Numbers: IT 11.4 M

[TalismanRing]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

So what's the end game here are we still talking box office properties or are we going to start talking ESPN and HBO next? 

Yeah, ESPN is why Disney dominates merchandise sales....

 

[Boxofficerules]

It cost less than The Dark Tower did, outgrossed it in one day, Sony must be wondering WTF went wrong.

[Fancyarcher]

5 hours ago, a2knet said:

IT mini-series also gets a lot of credit imo. Important for nostalgia and cutting across age groups.

I would say the mini-series & the book both helped, especially the book, which is still one of King's best selling novels, & was huge when it was first released.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[TalismanRing]

14 minutes ago, Boxofficerules said:

It cost less than The Dark Tower did, outgrossed it in one day, Sony must be wondering WTF went wrong.

It went wrong as soon as they decided to not make the easily adaptable streamlined The Gunslinger but instead some bastardization of The Dark Tower  (a series of 8 books and 4000 pages)

[somebody85]

6 hours ago, George Parr said:

I wouldn't underestimate the impact of there not being any movie worth of note for weeks on end. August was more or less devoid of any big start, with the last weeks before the start of It being especially empty. The last big start (and counting that as big is already pushing it) was Dunkirk in July, seven weeks before It came out. The last blockbuster start was Spiderman in early July. When there is so little going on, the first interesting new release will benefit a lot.

 

It would have broken out anyway, but this complete lack of anything worth of note in the weeks prior to it gave it a big boost as well.

It's true, but the trailer numbers (especially the first) showed that the interest was up there with the biggest Superhero tentpoles of the year. 

One thing that IT and TFA have in common....they had great trailers that hyped people to no end but didn't give away the movie.

Glad it's doing really well. 

[kitik]

1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said:

Uh nah man. IT can and will move merch. Potter moves merch. Wonder Wonder has already moved tons of merch.

 

LOL, get real. The difference between WB merchandising and Disney merchandising is ZERO.

 

And by that, I mean add a big fat 0 to the end of Disney's number because they make so much more money.

For every $100 million in Batmobiles and Harry Potter wands that WB can sell, Disney is reeling in another $1 billion from their ridiculous library of characters.

 

Wonder Woman may have been a huge hit at the box office this year, but you'd better believe that there were a lot more Spider-Man web shooters sold this year than any WW toy.

 

There's no Avengers movie this year, but Disney will still move more Avengers merchandise in 2017 than WB will move Justice League merchandise. (Though sometimes it's murky as to whether something is specifically branded Batman or Thor as opposed to Avengers or JL.)

 

Now so I don't sound like a hater, I will mention that WB has done a fantastic job with their new DC Superhero Girls line. That specific branding has been on fire this year, and hopefully they'll be able to keep that branding strong for years to come. It could be a permanent presence for a long time. A great new addition to their merchandising and licensing arm!

 

But that's still a drop in the bucket compared to all the Disney princesses.

 

As mentioned above, Cars 3 has moved a ton of merchandise this year. 

 

And all the new Star Wars product has just launched within the past few weeks. That's a money-printing machine that will never end.

 

And believe it or not, but Mickey and Minnie are still big money makers for Disney.

 

It's not close. Never has been. Never will be.

[somebody85]

3 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

I don't know what lesson you can take from this.  I mean, how do you replicate it.

 

Stephen King films have never set the box office on fire.  This one bucked that trend.

September is usually a barren (see what I did there....lol) wasteland for films.  IT bucked that trend.

WB never in their wildest dreams could see this coming, hence the miniscule budget.  IT bucked all box office trends

 

Yes, the trailer caught on.  But no one saw that coming.

 

The point is, I'm not sure what kind of lesson is here.  80's and 90's nostalgia sells?  But that's not always true either.  You can find a litany of remakes that didn't catch on.  Footloose, Vacation and pick most horror remakes.  So the lesson here is that the more we think we know about the film business, the more the universe extends its middle finger to us.

I don't hate it as much as everyone else, but if the Nightmare On Elm Street remake had a Freddy more people approved of and wasn't by Platinum Dunes....it could have also blown up. Especially if it was co produced by Wes Craven before he passed. If there's anything CGI is good for in horror, it's to create insane dream sequences but they didn't really do anything unique with the idea. Then WOM killed that film. Rooney Mara put in so little effort. I think it would have been received better if Nancy wasn't half asleep the whole movie (before Freddy even shows up).

IT has it's problems but at least everyone involved were passionate about the project. I think it also helped that many thought the source material could be improved which isn't the case with most adaptations/remakes (Beauty & The Beast, Total Recall, Halloween, etc.)

I've said it before but I had it in my top 10 most anticipated films of the year long before the trailer. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by somebody85

[Cochofles]

Can a mod put "Not The Fucking WB-Versus-Disney Merch Sales Thread!" in the title? 

 

Or take that shit to the Stan Wars thread...

[kitik]

10 minutes ago, kitik said:

 

Now so I don't sound like a hater, I will mention that WB has done a fantastic job with their new DC Superhero Girls line. That specific branding has been on fire this year, and hopefully they'll be able to keep that branding strong for years to come. It could be a permanent presence for a long time. A great new addition to their merchandising and licensing arm!

 

 

I'm going to be one of those idiots that quotes their own post here, but I've got more to say. (Sorry, my work makes it easy to follow branding and merchandising.)

 

First, on the subject of new additions, obviously Disney is always coming up with those too. Rocket, Groot, Star-Lord and Co are an obvious example that comes to mind over the past few years. Those characters are going to be moving toys and boomboxes and even plants (go figure!) for years to come. 

 

And on the subject of Superhero Girls specifically, that line has been so successful that others are trying to follow up. Now obviously, DC Superhero Girls and all the other new ones are just trying to get in on all the $ action that Barbie and the Disney Princesses and Monster High and whatever else have been enjoying for years, so you can't say that they're specifically copying DC Superhero Girls, but I'd say the success of that line has inspired others to push forward with their launches. WWE has launched a line of fashion dolls for all their female wrestlers, and not only do they have multiple price ranges available, but you can even get women's championship title belts. And I'm sure all you Star Wars fans have noticed their new Forces of Destiny line. The Leia and Rey fashion dolls are likely to be popular gifts this Christmas, and you know damn well they won't just be for girls.

 

And just as I'm typing this out, it occurs to me that notable by it's absence from this subset would be the women of Marvel. I wonder if we'll be hearing about a new line next year featuring Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Jean Grey, Storm, etc. Though now that I think about it, I wonder if they'd hope to center that launch around their Captain Marvel movie. Might not be a bad idea to push a line like that out before the Captain Marvel movie. That way they could each help each other grow in awareness.

 

And finally, that DC Superhero Girls/Wonder Woman stuff is another great example of the murky line between specific licensing and branding. Harley Quinn probably generated more income as part of the Girls line than the entirety of the Suicide Squad merchandise added together last year. Probably the same for Wonder Woman as part of the DC Superhero Girls line versus specifically branded Wonder Woman movie merchandise this year. And yet it goes without saying that the SS and WW movies were both big helps when it came to driving DC Superhero Girls items. (Thought without a doubt, the brand would have been a hit, even without those two movies.)

[kitik]

24 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

Can a mod put "Not The Fucking WB-Versus-Disney Merch Sales Thread!" in the title? 

 

Or take that shit to the Stan Wars thread...

 

really?

wasn't trying to say anything bad about one or the other, just dropping some info

 

sorry you had to see it

I'll leave

[Boxofficerules]

I'm kinda tired of superhero stuff taking over every thread. There shouldn't be much to talk about until Thor comes out.

[Premium George]

6 minutes ago, kitik said:

 

really?

wasn't trying to say anything bad about one or the other, just dropping some info

 

sorry you had to see it

I'll leave

Eh, I liked what you wrote. There was no stanning or something, just clarifying that disney is much closer to time warner and comcast than universal and wb. 

[Johnny Tran]

stans are strange people, can't even discuss fucking IT the biggest horror OW ever without someone being insecure about the outcome.

[Premium George]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

stans are strange people, can't even discuss fucking IT the biggest horror OW ever without someone being insecure about the outcome.

Yeah. Have some interaction with them for sharing my opinion that IT OW was more surprising than some other movies.

[TalismanRing]

 

1 hour ago, Boxofficerules said:

I'm kinda tired of superhero stuff taking over every thread. There shouldn't be much to talk about until Thor comes out.

This wasn't about SH stuff.  It was about studio profitability and merchandising. 

 

But we seemingly can't discuss anything anymore w/o someone whining about it being about SH stuff or fan wars or whatever if it involves Disney or WB -  even when someone in the business is giving us a unique insight.

 

 

[lilmac]

6 hours ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

I don't know what lesson you can take from this.  I mean, how do you replicate it.

 

Stephen King films have never set the box office on fire.  This one bucked that trend.

September is usually a barren (see what I did there....lol) wasteland for films.  IT bucked that trend.

WB never in their wildest dreams could see this coming, hence the miniscule budget.  IT bucked all box office trends

 

Yes, the trailer caught on.  But no one saw that coming.

 

The point is, I'm not sure what kind of lesson is here.  80's and 90's nostalgia sells?  But that's not always true either.  You can find a litany of remakes that didn't catch on.  Footloose, Vacation and pick most horror remakes.  So the lesson here is that the more we think we know about the film business, the more the universe extends its middle finger to us.

 

Audience: we liked IT because it was a well crafted movie

 

Hollywood: they want more Stephen King movies

[lilmac]

11 hours ago, jayr said:

 

But the numbers for SW will stop counting by the time it reaches 12am by Jan. 2018. So if you predict SW will have 725m dom, it is possible only 500 will be counted and the other 225 will be for 2018. Just a thought. So it will be really close. 

It's amazing to me that in the last 10 years Disney has only come out on top once (2016). I once assumed they were dominant this whole time (except for 2015 when Universal had that banner year). Just once.  

 

The future is bright, regardless, when you own properties the likes of Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney animation and Disney live action. 

[a2k]

1 hour ago, lilmac said:

It's amazing to me that in the last 10 years Disney has only come out on top once (2016). I once assumed they were dominant this whole time (except for 2015 when Universal had that banner year). Just once.  

 

The future is bright, regardless, when you own properties the likes of Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney animation and Disney live action. 

2019 looks insane for them. sw9, avengers 4, lion king, aladdin, ts4 [if it's not moved to 2020]

 

loosing count of how many 400+ films disney gonna have from 2015-2019

 

2015: sw7, aou

2016: ro, dory, cw

2017: batb, sw8

2018: iw1, [maybe han-solo]

2019: sw9, iw2, tlk, [maybe aladdin], [maybe ts4]

 

so 11 to 14 400+ films in 5 years.

 

edit: added ts4. but don't know if it's gonna come in 2019. i have a feeling it will go to 2020.

Edited September 14, 2017 by a2knet

[JB33]

2 hours ago, a2knet said:

2019 looks insane for them. sw9, avengers 4, lion king, aladdin, ts4 [if it's not moved to 2020]

 

loosing count of how many 400+ films disney gonna have from 2015-2019

 

2015: sw7, aou

2016: ro, dory, cw

2017: batb, sw8

2018: iw1, [maybe han-solo]

2019: sw9, iw2, tlk, [maybe aladdin], [maybe ts4]

 

so 11 to 14 400+ films in 5 years.

 

edit: added ts4. but don't know if it's gonna come in 2019. i have a feeling it will go to 2020.

Why wouldn't it come in 2019? Disney likes having a Pixar movie in that 3rd weekend of June slot. It has been lucrative for them, especially in recent years, with TOY STORY 3 in 2010, MONSTERS UNIVERSITY in 2013, INSIDE OUT in 2015 and FINDING DORY in 2016. CARS 3 this year not so much....but you get the idea.

 

Also, it's coming 2 weeks after SLOP 2, which is unfortunate, but it's also enough time for the children and families demographic to regroup and go see another big animated movie. 

[KeepItU25071906]

8 hours ago, kitik said:

There's no Avengers movie this year, but Disney will still move more Avengers merchandise in 2017 than WB will move Justice League merchandise. (Though sometimes it's murky as to whether something is specifically branded Batman or Thor as opposed to Avengers or JL.)

I don't think so.

Wonder Woman in 2015 was sales  near all Avengers sales.

 

And that's 2015, before nowdays success: