Monday (27 Nov) - JL $2.1m - Down 76%, Coco 2.3M - Down 84%

[babz06]

1 hour ago, Mr Impossible said:

The biggest mystery to me in terms of box office this year is why the f-ck was August so fcking barren?!?! They made July & November needlessly competitive when you had a perfectly good month begging for a big release! 

Some movies weren’t ready but they could have and should have given Spider-Man and War for The Planet of the Apes some space. August needed a bigger movie besides Annabelle 2. Some people say Valerian could have moved but I don’t think that would have made much anywhere, it was just too niche and had unappealing leads. 

[RichWS]

My God, the Pirates talk is spreading.

[cannastop]

 

[cannastop]

 

[Napoleon]

2 hours ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

Weak for Justice League.

 

BVS and SS definitely killed the hype, and the numbers don't lie. Not good. Perhaps it'll have a nice Tuesday, but a movie can't survive just counting on Tuesdays.

 

Drops will be high this week for everything, I think. 

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

[Walt Disney]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

But 4 movies over 800 m and 6 movies over 600 m is kind of incredible.

 

What other genres can boast those kinds of numbers?

 

Over 3 billion from a single genre is unprecedented, not including Avatar's freak of nature global take.

That is very true. I guess those screams about superhero fatigue that we have been hearing since 2012 still aren't right.

[Blaze Heatnix]

3 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

 

I think BVS and SS were very bad movies that alienated a lot of the audience and possible audience for JL, which is another Snyder movie ( in theory ).

 

Sure, that's not the only problem but you have to live in another world if you think that's not one of the things that are responsible for JL's weak performance. 

[YM!]

4 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

WW and Lego Batman is an example of this being false. They just need to be good.

[baumer]

4 hours ago, somebody85 said:

Going away from JL, I just hope TLJ is lives up to expectations because Beauty and The Cash Grab needs to be knocked down from #1 both domestically and globally. A film that lazy does not deserve that spot. 
 

Say what you want about Jurassic World but at least it didn't copy the exact same movie line for line in many areas.
 

It's a really sore spot in a year of good films.

 

So what movies aren't made to make money?

 

I'll hang up and listen.  

[MCKillswitch123]

12 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

Dude, regardless of being grittyfied or pussyfied, Justice League was doomed to perform like this considering that not only its own wom wasn't all that good to begin with, but BVS and Suicide Squad both ruined a lot of goodwill with the DCEU. Yes, Wonder Woman was a megahit, but between it and BVS, what would audiences connect the most with the Snyder directed crossover event JL? The Snyder directed crossover event BVS, which recieved piss poor wom from the GA, and which JL is a sequel to. And the Godawful Suicide Squad that came right after BVS as well. Add to that muted marketing, and you've got a perfect storm of disappointment.

 

So no, the problem is not that DC shouldn't be fun and colorful. The problem is that the DCEU hasn't been.... good (outside of Wonder Woman), and JL not being great only downplayed its own chances.

Edited November 28, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[dudalb]

9 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

Ever hear of  a DC movie called "Wonder Woman"? I think that fits the "fun and colorful" category.

I am beginning to think that being delusional and denying reality is a basic requirement for being a Snyder fan.

And I think a number of people here who claim to be DC fans are not;they are Snyder fans,and would not give a damn about the DC charecters If Snyder were not involved.

Edited November 28, 2017 by dudalb

[TwoMisfits]

2 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Blaming BVS for JL's disastrous OW was already a reach, but now using this card to justify JL's horrible legs is just embarrassing.

 

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

I don't know who said it should be "fun and colorful"...but I know I've said it should be "in character" with a tight plot.  This movie kinda got part way there, but didn't make it...and the "patience" the audience had with early movies not being very good probably was exhausted after a year of great supers...it's one thing to release this movie in a year of supers suck when there's been a dearth of supers movies for months...but JL didn't release then...the audience had "only if it's great expectations" and when it wasn't great, they didn't really go.

 

I mean, anecdotally, my brother (and my senior mom) decided to take his 3 boys to Thor over Thanksgiving...his kids never saw the 1st 2 Thors, but chose that movie b/c it was considered better than JL.  I couldn't recommend otherwise to him...

 

All these folks saw WW, but passed on JL b/c it wasn't up to par...I mean, WW wasn't "fun and colorful" but it nailed the character, and it had a tight, sensible plot...

 

 

[somebody85]

5 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

So what movies aren't made to make money?

 

I'll hang up and listen.  

You're right, all movies are made to make money. But some are more cash grabs than others. This one especially. 

Maleficent wasn't a cash grab. Cinderella wasn't a cash grab. The Jungle Book wasn't a cash grab. Beauty And The Beast was. It was made to cash in on 90s kids fondness of the characters and songs. They didn't even bother trying to take it in any different direction. They remade the same movie and added a few different scenes. Worse they ruined the pacing of the original and took out elements that actually worked. It was more of an edit than a remake. 

If they wanted to do it, why not take it in a completely different direction instead of repeating it like a play? Because it's easy money.

It feels like a live action extended cut of the animated film.

Edited November 28, 2017 by somebody85

[Lancelot Gold]

3 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

Fantastic Beasts was an incredibly shitty movie and maybe one of the worst, most boring blockbusters of all time watching Eddie hanging his mouth open all movie long collecting a paycheck. It dropped like a rock because it sucked so badly. There. Someone has now said something about FB. Happy?

I thought it was amazing. Way better than the Harry Potter movies. 

[Dementeleus]

3 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

You're right, all movies are made to make money. But some are more cash grabs than others. This one especially. 

Maleficent wasn't a cash grab. Cinderella wasn't a cash grab. The Jungle Book wasn't a cash grab. 

 

Uh... those all were cash grabs. Like every single franchise movie or reboot/remake ever. You might think some of them were made better than others, but their sole reason for existence is Disney (or any studio) mining their IP libraries for content to generate a buttload of cash.

[wildphantom]

3 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

You're right, all movies are made to make money. But some are more cash grabs than others. This one especially. 

The Jungle Book wasn't a cash grab. Beauty And The Beast was. It was made to cash in on 90s kids fondness of the characters and songs. They didn't even bother trying to take it in any different direction. They remade the same movie and added a few different scenes. Worse they ruined the pacing of the original and took out elements that actually worked. It was more of an edit than a remake. 

If they wanted to do it, why not take it in a completely different direction instead of repeating it like a play? Because it's easy money.

It feels like a live action extended cut of the animated film.

I kind of see where you’re coming from here in them not doing anything new. 

 

Yet they hardly phoned it in. Beauty and the Beast was a clear labour of love for everyone involved in the production, and that shone through. 

Besides, trying to recreate beloved scenes that people worship was arguably playing with fire. Man if those scenes hadn’t worked then audiences would have rejected the movie. 

 

Agree that Jungle Book was the better movie though. 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, somebody85 said:

You're right, all movies are made to make money. But some are more cash grabs than others. This one especially. 

Maleficent wasn't a cash grab. Cinderella wasn't a cash grab. The Jungle Book wasn't a cash grab. Beauty And The Beast was. It was made to cash in on 90s kids fondness of the characters and songs. They didn't even bother trying to take it in any different direction. They remade the same movie and added a few different scenes. Worse they ruined the pacing of the original and took out elements that actually worked. It was more of an edit than a remake. 

If they wanted to do it, why not take it in a completely different direction instead of repeating it like a play? Because it's easy money.

It feels like a live action extended cut of the animated film.

 

They made it because they knew there was an audience for it.  That's what Hollywood does....it makes movies for people so they can make money off those people.  Why would they take in a different direction?  That's like saying why didn't they make the fourth Rambo film with Rambo being a farmer, have him milk cows, feed chickens and clean up horse manure.  And the answer is everyone just wants to watch Rambo blow shit up and kick the shit out of people.  You don't mess with a formula when you are spending 300 million dollars on a film.

 

I think you are incredibly narrow minded to think that some films aren't made to make money.

[Brainbug]

One cant blame the studios to make the products moviegoers want to see. BatB 17 made 500M DOM and 1,2B worldwide. Clearly there was a massive audience out there that wanted to see it.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Brainbug

[somebody85]

1 minute ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

 

Uh... those all were cash grabs. Like every single franchise movie or reboot/remake ever. You might think some of them were made better than others, but their sole reason for existence is Disney (or any studio) mining their IP libraries for content to generate a buttload of cash.

But the creative process was not the same for Jungle Book, etc. as it was for Beauty And The Beast. 

And I wouldn't call every remake a cash grab. A lot of film makers set out to make a completely different film but still stay true to the original. Beauty And The Beast just copied the script and added a few extra tweaks. I wouldn't call the Evil Dead remake a cash grab.

Yeah it's trying to make money but the film makers have a love for the franchise and they didn't just watch the original and say "let's do all of that over again but replace it with new actors"! That would be different.

[cookie]

1 hour ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

Davy Jones might be the single best thing of the whole POTC trilogy.

Over a decade later and the CG makeup on him is still unrivaled imo.