New Year's Day Weekend Thread: Late Friday estimates (DHD) - TLJ 19.5M, Jumanji 17.5M, PP3 6.7M, TGS 5.3M

[grey ghost]

20 minutes ago, mikee11 said:

It was a fun dumb movie meant for kids, it didn't pander directly to the  critic class with unnecessary class war, veganism, and "toxic masculinity" bs. That gave it inflated critic score and at odds with the audience which is between 6-7.

[Sal]

3 hours ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

It's entirely subjective, just like any other kind of art, be it music, photography, literature, theatre, and yes, film as well.

 

It is widely considered by most people as high quality art. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with those people, because if you disagree with them, that's what should matter more: what you think. Art is something that's pretty much impossible to be universally agreed on, and it's meant to be that way. Even Picasso - or Da Vinci for that matter - must have his detractors out there, and whether I disagree with them or not, it's impossible to say that they are factually or objectively wrong.

 

The same thing applies with movies. If 90% of professional critics agreed that a movie is good, that may be seen as more credible source than an opinion of some shmuck regarding what they should expect going into a film that they haven't seen yet. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to obligatorily agree with those critics, though, cause they can just as easily end up siding with the shmuck who disagrees instead, and there would be nothing wrong with that. That's the nature of art.

 

So, the quality of Picasso's art depends entirely on your point of view, and if someone think that it's bad, then it really doesn't matter if a lot of people like it - to those people, it's bad. End of story. Exact same applies to films well scored on RT.

 

As an artist, I'm gonna say this is not entirely true. There are actual objective criteria that art can be judged on.  For example, taking a painting and analyzing its use of composition and form.  There IS a baseline for what is considered good form and composition even if most people aren't aware of why something looks better or worse.  You can also measure how well it uses value and colour.  And absolutely anatomy.  That's not to say you can't have something that does all of these things well and still isn't appealing for some other reason - like say, subject matter - but that doesn't change the fact that there are objective facts one can utilize to examine a piece of art.  Of course not everyone is going to like the work of a particular artist for whatever reason, but your dislike doesn't make good anatomy or layout somehow bad.

 

The same is true for movies.  For example, a movie may have great composition.  It may have very effective use of CGI.  The make-up and props might be great.  Does this mean the movie as a whole is great?  Not necessarily.  But also doesn't make the good things in a movie bad.  It just means the movie couldn't effectively use those good things or that the good things don't outweigh other bad things.

 

 

[Barnack]

9 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

I mean, when $200M is sunk the 1st time, what's another $200M more if

I do not think it cost that much to reshoot a movie, far from the double, like when Fincher said when he did quit a project for what sounded a small amount of money vs the announced budget, there is a lot of fixed cost on a movie that do not change regardless of the actual principal photography, so loosing 7 million on a 100 million budget is not necessarily close to 7% less stuff on screen.

 

Lot of pre-production, above the line, post production, SFX, scoring, etc... are not spent 2 times even if the movie is shoot 2 times.

[Porthos]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Lot of pre-production, above the line, post production, SFX, scoring, etc... are not spent 2 times even if the movie is shoot 2 times.

Exactly.  

 

It's not going to be a minor cost, as shooting isn't cheap.  Especially if they worked extra hours to cram a longer shooting schedule into a smaller timeframe.
At the same time this isn't Ron Howard's first trip to the rodeo.  He's not going to be especially wasteful in trying to figure out what he wants shot.  At least he better not be.

 

Also, there was going to be a reshoot budget already baked in.  Allegedly there was still two to three weeks of filming left.  Throw in three weeks or so of reshoots already planned, and that's five weeks, more or less already budgeted.  Ron Howard shot for about seventeen weeks or so, from what I can gather.  That's potentially 'only' twelve extra weeks of shooting of a five month shoot (Feb-Jun).

 

So, maaaaaaybe they added three months of shooting above and beyond what they were planning on doing?  That's not nothing.  But it might not be a disaster, either.

[NoLegMan]

15 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Exactly.  

 

It's not going to be a minor cost, as shooting isn't cheap.  Especially if they worked extra hours to cram a longer shooting schedule into a smaller timeframe.
At the same time this isn't Ron Howard's first trip to the rodeo.  He's not going to be especially wasteful in trying to figure out what he wants shot.  At least he better not be.

 

Also, there was going to be a reshoot budget already baked in.  Allegedly there was still two to three weeks of filming left.  Throw in three weeks or so of reshoots already planned, and that's five weeks, more or less already budgeted.  Ron Howard shot for about seventeen weeks or so, from what I can gather.  That's potentially 'only' twelve extra weeks of shooting of a five month shoot (Feb-Jun).

 

So, maaaaaaybe they added three months of shooting above and beyond what they were planning on doing?  That's not nothing.  But it might not be a disaster, either.

I agree, and I also think it's not particularly fair to say this movie has poor WOM, that all changes after a trailer drop if the trailer looks awful the fans won't react well like say a F4 type of trailer, but if it drops and it looks awesome, that  can have a major impact on its word of mouth. the wide audience is just now starting to see the marketing of Solo. It's impossible to predict WOM at this point. imo.

[Porthos]

Just now, NoLegMan said:

I agree, and I also think it's not particularly fair to say this movie has poor WOM, that all changes after a trailer drop if the trailer looks awful the fans won't react well like say a F4 type of trailer, but if it drops and it looks awesome, that  can have a major impact on its word of mouth. the wide audience is just now starting to see the marketing of Solo. It's impossible to predict WOM at this point. imo.

IMO the biggest danger for Solo is if it is VERY apparent that two different movies were stitched together. If, for good or for ill, this is Ron Howard's film through and through, I think that is the biggest hurdle for the film to clear, with the second biggest hurdle being how well Han Solo and Lando Calrissian are portrayed.

 

Problem is, punters on the internet seem to be incredibly bad at detecting what is from one director and what isn't going by some of the reactions to Suicide Squad.

 

I don't guarantee much, but I 100% guarantee that some folks who complain about Solo will point to how scenes don't match and that it is obviously because of one scene being from L&M and one being from Howard, even though it will be very possible, if not probable, they're wrong.  The pump is just too primed for it not to happen.

 

That's not to say that folks complaining about an inconstant tone would be wrong to do so.  Just they might be firing their guns at the wrong target.

[NoLegMan]

10 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

 

I don't guarantee much, but I 100% guarantee that some folks who complain about Solo will point to how scenes don't match and that it is obviously because of one scene being from L&M and one being from Howard, even though it will be very possible, if not probable, they're wrong.  The pump is just too primed for it not to happen.

 

 

 

What i was reading, is that L&M disregarded the script. and tried to improv Kasdans script, and he was getting annoyed by it, RH reshot all of those sequences and then did some extended reshoots.

[Wonder Midget]

7 hours ago, mikee11 said:

There's no consensus that it's a great movie. The average mean on imdb is 7.2 and it's gonna drop even more, maybe even to prequel levels as it gets more votes. Rotten tomatoe score has hundred thousand votes, r/movies voted it 6.9/10 which is their 50th highest rated movie of the year behind king arthur .

This are mediocre movie numbers, not great movie numbers

It's already under ROTS, which has a 7.6 on IMDB.

 

 

 

[Porthos]

It's 2018 and people are STILL trotting out self-selected samples of glorified web polls that are subject to manipulation (pro and con) as if it were some sort of objective standard.

 

SMDH. 

 

--

 

This isn't to say they're useless.  But let's put them in the proper perspective here.

[JonathanLB]

Production on a bigger film from what I understand is often a smaller amount of the total than it would be on much smaller films. Music, sound, and SFX work can cost a huge chunk and is only done once in general. I guess it would also depend on actor salaries what percent is spent during production. I think for us 1/4 of the budget was spent in post which isn’t much. Bigger films may easily spend half their budget on post-production and pre-production or more. We built no sets so we had very low pre-production costs. Just a handful of people like casting and AD team plus producers before we shot. I don’t think we even spent $10,000 on pre-production haha.

[MovieMan89]

6 minutes ago, Porthos said:

It's 2018 and people are STILL trotting out self-selected samples of glorified web polls that are subject to manipulation (pro and con) as if it were some sort of objective standard.

 

SMDH. 

 

--

 

This isn't to say they're useless.  But let's put them in the proper perspective here.

And that proper perspective would be a sub 3x multi as a December release. 

[a2k]

3 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

The comic book movie sequel trifecta is Batman Returns, Hellboy II and Spider-Man 2. This is common knowledge.

Hellyboy II, DOFP, TDKR

[grey ghost]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

And that proper perspective would be a sub 3x multi as a December release. 

How many direct sequels in December opened above 80 m?

 

How do you determine what's normal for a direct sequel that opens to 220 m in December?

[MovieMan89]

Top 10 CBM sequels:

1. The Dark Knight

2. Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2

3. Thor Ragnarok

4. Days of Future Past

5. Spider-Man 2

6. X2

7. Civil War

8. The Dark Knight Rises

9. Winter Solider

10. Hellboy 2

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, Porthos said:

It's 2018 and people are STILL trotting out self-selected samples of glorified web polls that are subject to manipulation (pro and con) as if it were some sort of objective standard.

 

SMDH. 

 

--

 

This isn't to say they're useless.  But let's put them in the proper perspective here.

 

Honestly, this isnt up to debate. Online movie scores are just NOT a source when wanting to find out how many people like a movie. They're completely useless. By that logic, Interstellar would be Number 32 of all time and TDK would sit at Number 4 (!) - per IMDb. That doesnt mean any of the movies in the Top 250 dont "deserve" to be there, I believe TDK is a masterpiece and Interstellar, despite its bad 3rd act is very entertaining - but fanbases control online movie scores. The bigger the fanbase (SW), the bigger the effect.

 

250.000 people voted on IMDb for TLJ. Even if everyone of them actually saw the movie (which is to be doubted as fanboys often vote a 10/10 or 1/10 just because they can), thats 0,43% of the 58 MILLION people that saw TLJ to this point (per BOM calculator). Anyone stating that online rarings are in any shape or form representative - sorry - is just wrong.

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

How many direct sequels in December opened above 80 m?

 

How do you determine what's normal for a direct sequel that opens to 220 m in December?

Both LOTR sequels surely would have opened with 80m+ with a Friday release and still cleared 3x without a sweat. 

[grey ghost]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

Both LOTR sequels surely would have opened with 80m+ with a Friday release and still cleared 3x without a sweat. 

You don't know that. The 3 day with a Friday opening is more frontloaded.

 

And 220 million is in another stratosphere than The Two Towers' theoretical Friday-Sun OW.

[Porthos]

8 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Both LOTR sequels surely would have opened with 80m+ with a Friday release and still cleared 3x without a sweat. 

Congrats, we have exactly five movies that have opened north of 105m*+ OW adj in December.

 

* Chosen because I Am Legend just barely pips in at 100m adj or something like that.  And it had a shitty multiplier in 2007 anyway.

 

You seriously going to tell me that five movies, two of which were released in a different movie going environment 14+ years ago, is enough to tell us what films "should" be getting now.

 

You know as well as I do there's only been a handful of films to do north of 150 million dollars OW, adj at any time on the calendar.  One of which was an insane cultural behemoth.

 

Just like I don't compare the legs of something like Titanic, I think using the legs of something like The Force Awakens which was burning initial demand all the way to Christmas Day is... unwise.  Very very unwise.

 

So, yes.  I DO think we don't have enough data for mega blockbusters in the December period.  Or regular ol' blockbusters for that matter.

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Porthos

[MovieMan89]

If we imagine a scenario where ROTK opened on a Friday, it likely could have pulled 100m, which is backed up by a 34m OD on a Wednesday. Now adjust that and it's total and you get a run that looks something like 150/555. That's over a 3.6x multi. Now take out 3D and PLF from TLJ because ROTK didn't have that, and you're talking about something like a 150 vs 200 OW. Hardly a "different stratosphere." 

Edited January 2, 2018 by MovieMan89

[Rumpot]

Just adding myself to the list of people who really liked greatest showman.  That's all