Weekend Thread | Weekend Estimates - Coco 26.11M, JL 16.58M, Wonder 12.5M, T:R 9.65M, MOTOE 6.7M, LB 4.54M, 3BOEM 4.53M, TDA 1.22M

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

A fad that's lasted longer than you've been alive.

 

 

Does that make you a flash in the pan?

@That One Guy you just got schooled, son.

[miketheavenger]

This debate about JW being liked or not really irks me. It's a FACT that people loved it. It had better legs and a slightly bigger opening than The Avengers and nobody is denying that The Avengers is a beloved film. So why JW is not? Because it's not a Marvel/Disney movie? Its box office performance was arguably more impressive than TA, too, because literally nobody expected it to break records like it did. JW is at least as well-liked than TA, full stop.

Also, Ultron dropped considerably from TA despite that movie being so beloved. Same thing will happen for JW2, but not because of its reception, but because it was a giant pop culture event that - like TA - can't be replicated by its sequel.

[That One Girl]

Just now, filmlover said:

@That One Guy you just got schooled, son.

 

as far as I can tell,  the fad has been around since 2008 when the MCU got jumpstarted.  I was, in fact, alive in 2008.  Even if we wanna go to 2002 when Spider-Man was a smash, I was also alive then.

 

Before, superhero movies existed but they were on the level where they would be made but not nearly as mass produced as they are today.

[ThomasNicole]

15 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

It's amazing how the clowns always yapper about the alleged "differences" between the massive production budget DC films and the massive budget Disney/Pixar films. Last week, some dumb soul tried to argue that even though Disney spent as much money on The Lone Ranger as WB did on Justice League, that somehow they weren't 'expecting' it to make as much money and so it didn't matter that it lost a ton of money. As if Disney isn't bound by the same investor constraints, etc. No! JL was WB's "Avengers" so it was supposed to make $600m DOM so that's a lot worse! Laughable. 

 

Now we have a pup trying to define alleged 'differences' again, and they all add up to a gumbo of useless jabber. Bottom line is OF COURSE when Disney made CoCo they expect it to do massive box office like other Disney/Pixar animated titles, and OF COURSE it should be judged in comparison to other studio's big films like JL and to their own stable of prior animated films. 

 

CoCo is a typical massive-budget Pixar film. It should be judged by the highest standards of box office success or failure. Period.

 

So let's compare JL to CoCo straight up, no more yammering about trivial, miniscule daily holds. Let's focus on what matters, the big picture of overall grosses. 

 

 

Coco will outgross JL with a $ 100 - 125M smaller budget

Deal with it

[narniadis]

3 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

It's amazing how the clowns always yapper about the alleged "differences" between the massive production budget DC films and the massive budget Disney/Pixar films. Last week, some dumb soul tried to argue that even though Disney spent as much money on The Lone Ranger as WB did on Justice League, that somehow they weren't 'expecting' it to make as much money and so it didn't matter that it lost a ton of money. As if Disney isn't bound by the same investor constraints, etc. No! JL was WB's "Avengers" so it was supposed to make $600m DOM so that's a lot worse! Laughable. 

 

Now we have a pup trying to define alleged 'differences' again, and they all add up to a gumbo of useless jabber. Bottom line is OF COURSE when Disney made CoCo they expect it to do massive box office like other Disney/Pixar animated titles, and OF COURSE it should be judged in comparison to other studio's big films like JL and to their own stable of prior animated films. 

 

CoCo is a typical massive-budget Pixar film. It should be judged by the highest standards of box office success or failure. Period.

 

So let's compare JL to CoCo straight up, no more yammering about trivial, miniscule daily holds. Let's focus on what matters, the big picture of overall grosses. 

 

 

I wish you would read what you write as others see it because you almost always come off as an ass . 

 

Films are not made in a static vacuum in which x film can always be compared with a/b/c films. I am sure that when Disney oked Coco they already had it in mind that the chances of it being a 300m smash were small. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WITH JUSTICE LEAGUE !!. 

 

you are blinded by your preconceived notions about how things should work and not looking at the reality of how they do. And that young "pup" as you called him knows more in a pinky about the box office than your entire body of knowledge. 

[fabiopazzo2]

1 hour ago, Brainbug said:

 

OMG a Mosasaur is NOT a fish, its a marine reptil.

 

And YES, the end-fight of JW is one of the best climaxes of any blockbuster ever. Fight me.

Mmm no. But is a good scene. 

[ZeeSoh]

39 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I don't think there's a fad that I can't wait to die out more than superhero movies.

 

Unless it's Gore Verbinski's Gambit.  I hope that makes $1B domestically.

Then don't see SH movies and ignore them. How difficult can that be?

[Maxmoser3]

Even though I thought the movie was dissaponting. Kingsman 2 has now passed $100 million domestic

[SoSaysI]

18 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

It's amazing how the clowns always yapper about the alleged "differences" between the massive production budget DC films and the massive budget Disney/Pixar films. Last week, some dumb soul tried to argue that even though Disney spent as much money on The Lone Ranger as WB did on Justice League, that somehow they weren't 'expecting' it to make as much money and so it didn't matter that it lost a ton of money. As if Disney isn't bound by the same investor constraints, etc. No! JL was WB's "Avengers" so it was supposed to make $600m DOM so that's a lot worse! Laughable. 

 

Now we have a pup trying to define alleged 'differences' again, and they all add up to a gumbo of useless jabber. Bottom line is OF COURSE when Disney made CoCo they expect it to do massive box office like other Disney/Pixar animated titles, and OF COURSE it should be judged in comparison to other studio's big films like JL and to their own stable of prior animated films. 

 

CoCo is a typical massive-budget Pixar film. It should be judged by the highest standards of box office success or failure. Period.

 

So let's compare JL to CoCo straight up, no more yammering about trivial, miniscule daily holds. Let's focus on what matters, the big picture of overall grosses. 

 

 

You are a troll or literally one of the dumbest people in existence.   Oh and let's compare Justice League to Avengers, the movie WB was trying to replicate, it's going to finish almost $400M shy of that domestically and Over $800M shy worldwide.  I'm sure WB is just thrille with its performance.  

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, ZeeSoh said:

Then don't see SH movies and ignore them. How difficult can that be?

 

I see almost every movie that gets released, so nah, I'm fine.  I'll still see them.

 

btw the quality of the movie has nothing to do with it.  I've liked most superhero movies this year (barring Thor and Justice League).  It's just a genre that I'm tired of being done to death.  It's one of the only genres of film that makes a lot of money box office wise and I'm sick of it being overexposed.  my favorite superhero movies are the ones that offer their own unique spin on the genre and try to stray from conventions (Logan and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 are my favorite superhero movies of the year for that reason). 

[MCKillswitch123]

17 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

It's amazing how the clowns always yapper about the alleged "differences" between the massive production budget DC films and the massive budget Disney/Pixar films. Last week, some dumb soul tried to argue that even though Disney spent as much money on The Lone Ranger as WB did on Justice League, that somehow they weren't 'expecting' it to make as much money and so it didn't matter that it lost a ton of money. As if Disney isn't bound by the same investor constraints, etc. No! JL was WB's "Avengers" so it was supposed to make $600m DOM so that's a lot worse! Laughable. 

 

Now we have a pup trying to define alleged 'differences' again, and they all add up to a gumbo of useless jabber. Bottom line is OF COURSE when Disney made CoCo they expect it to do massive box office like other Disney/Pixar animated titles, and OF COURSE it should be judged in comparison to other studio's big films like JL and to their own stable of prior animated films. 

 

CoCo is a typical massive-budget Pixar film. It should be judged by the highest standards of box office success or failure. Period.

 

So let's compare JL to CoCo straight up, no more yammering about trivial, miniscule daily holds. Let's focus on what matters, the big picture of overall grosses. 

 

 

And right there you reveal your trollish/baitish side right there, Mr. Jaros. Yet still, I will reply to all of that.

 

Anyone that doubts that The Lone Ranger was a gigantic failure is a fool. The only reason it was budgeted that high was because Disney held hopes that it would be the next Pirates Of The Caribbean, reuniting Depp with Verbinski again. Clearly, it wasn't meant to be and they lost a crapton of money.

 

That being said, JL, while not a Lone Ranger, is a disappointment, whether you're in denial about it or not. I'm not saying 600M DOM, but at least 400M was the mark it should have beaten. For a movie called "Justice League", 230-240M DOM / 650-700M WW, and under every single other DCEU film (except Man Of Steel WW, but it cost way more than MOS did and should've been, on paper, a bigger event) is an embarassment. Especially on a production budget of 300M + marketing at 150M. Barely making 700M WW when it cost 450M all things considered is only good in the Bizarro world you live in. It's not a bomb, but it's not good either.

 

And, also, if you wanna judge in direct comparison to Justice League - again, JL would be lucky to make 700+, while Coco is looking at probably 850-900M WW. Which is much bigger than the far more hyped up Moana did (that topped out at under 700M WW). This on a high end budget of 200M, probably 350M with marketing included, while JL was an all-costs 450M movie. It also has a shot at outgrossing JL DOM. So, what about comparisons now?

[MrPink]

45 minutes ago, a2knet said:

A gentleman's run I must say.

A bit underwhelming but it's ~21% drop from K1 is much lesser than DH2's or Bad Moms 2's 35-40%.

 

 

Yes but Kingsman is not a full on comedy like Bad Moms or DH2. It is as much an action sequel as it is a comedy sequel, which can often be highly premise dependent.

[grey ghost]

31 minutes ago, miketheavenger said:

This debate about JW being liked or not really irks me. It's a FACT that people loved it. It had better legs and a slightly bigger opening than The Avengers and nobody is denying that The Avengers is a beloved film. So why JW is not? Because it's not a Marvel/Disney movie? Its box office performance was arguably more impressive than TA, too, because literally nobody expected it to break records like it did. JW is at least as well-liked than TA, full stop.

Also, Ultron dropped considerably from TA despite that movie being so beloved. Same thing will happen for JW2, but not because of its reception, but because it was a giant pop culture event that - like TA - can't be replicated by its sequel.

JW was definitely a pop culture phenomenon but that doesn't indicate quality or whether it's equally iconic.

 

Pogs were a pop culture phenomenon.

[grey ghost]

1 hour ago, That One Guy said:

I don't think there's a fad that I can't wait to die out more than superhero movies.

 

Unless it's Gore Verbinski's Gambit.  I hope that makes $1B domestically.

"Fad"

 

Shouldn't a fad last fewer than 17 years?

[DAJK]

Holy shit, that's incredible for Disaster Artist! Up almost 100k from Deadline's late-night report even!

 

Now, as long as it isn't super front loaded throughout the weekend, which i am a bit nervous about just because of how strong it's pre sales were going into the weekend.

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

JW was definitely a pop culture phenomenon but that doesn't indicate quality or whether it's equally iconic.

 

Pogs were a pop culture phenomenon.

 

But what do you have to indicate that people didn't like JW as much as Avengers?  It had better legs than Avengers and made more than it on OW and overall.  People clearly loved it.

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

"Fad"

 

Shouldn't a fad last fewer than 17 years?

 

I didn't know it's been 17 years since 2008  

[Orestes]

38 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

as far as I can tell,  the fad has been around since 2008 when the MCU got jumpstarted.  I was, in fact, alive in 2008.  Even if we wanna go to 2002 when Spider-Man was a smash, I was also alive then.

 

Before, superhero movies existed but they were on the level where they would be made but not nearly as mass produced as they are today.

It started with Blade in '98.

 

The previous SH era died with Batman and Robin.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Orestes

[grey ghost]

1 hour ago, That One Guy said:

 

Yes, it did have great legs because people loved the goddamn movie.

If legs mean a movie is more beloved and better than others then Avatar is the most beloved and best blockbuster of our generation. 

 

 

[LaughingEvans]

I've seen the Lone Ranger being mentioned at least 5 times this week, and I gotta say this is not healthy behaviour.