jack-jack INCREDIBLES 2 Weekend |🏆| ACTUALS: 182.7M OW | O8 19M, Tag 14.9M, Solo 10M, DP2 8.7M, IW 5.4M

[YLF]

How has no one talked about how GOTTI has a 0% critics rating on rotten tomatoes LMAO

Edited June 16, 2018 by YLF

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, L Silverman said:

Also, there's a difference between the re-release of a popular movie that people might want to see one last time in theaters like Avengers and the re-release of a movie that no one was really clamoring to see again like Wrinkle in Time.

Yeah, that's a huge difference in that PTA between AWIT and WW.  None of these movies would be expanded if theaters had other movies with better PTA to show that w/e.  There was room in the schedules so there were expansions. 

 

5

16

Wonder Woman

WB

$1,675,201

+53.4%

2,210

+1,407

$758

$406,193,262

$149

13

11

18

A Wrinkle in Time

BV

$1,156,780

+181.8%

1,984

+1,690

$583

$96,812,656

[Andreas]

18.5 + 53 + 59 + 53 = $183.5M OW for I2. Will pass CA:CW.

[FantasticBeasts]

Saying that fudge is "dishonest" is silly talk. It's business we are talking about what being honest has to do with it. The studio will benefit a lot from reaching those milestones so of cource they will do everything they can to make it happen. It's not like 2 or 3 millions are making that much of a difference all around.

[nevermore]

8 minutes ago, YLF said:

How has no one talked about how GOTTI for a 0% on rotten tomatoes LMAO

Has 81% audience score though, so sounds like people liked it.

[L Silverman]

10 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Yeah, that's a huge difference in that PTA between AWIT and WW.  None of these movies would be expanded if theaters had other movies with better PTA to show that w/e.  There was room in the schedules so there were expansions. 

 

5

16

Wonder Woman

WB

$1,675,201

+53.4%

2,210

+1,407

$758

$406,193,262

$149

13

11

18

A Wrinkle in Time

BV

$1,156,780

+181.8%

1,984

+1,690

$583

$96,812,656

WW had a -67% BO in w/e 15 (w/e after Labor Day) and lost half its theaters.  AWIT had an -87% BO and lost all its expanded theaters the very next weekend.

Edited June 16, 2018 by L Silverman

[Barnack]

29 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

It's relevant to business decisions that are made and why certain films are made.  The gross budget does not get green lit, the net budget does.

Sure sure, but the conversation was how much money at the box office those movie would be making in a no Marvel Disney distributed movies world versus now, on that it is only how much gross budget they are able to put on them that matter I would say, right ?

 

No one would even think mentioning net of intl pre-sales for example or of third party investor when trying to factor a correlation/causation between box office and budget, even thought it is absolutely taking into account when greenlight.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Barnack

[L Silverman]

Disney's been trying to scrounge that extra three or four million to get AWIT past $100m for over a month now.  First, the theater expansion and now the I2 double feature.

[dxmatrixdt]

30 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Because people aren't paying to see SPECTRE or Wrinkle in Time.  They're paying to see the more popular movie on the double bill and are basically getting the other film as a free bonus.

or they are drawn to the more popular movie because of the 2 for 1 feature and are seeing the free one first

Edited June 16, 2018 by mathemetrics

[L Silverman]

Exactly.  So, you could slot in Peter Rabbit or Sherlock Gnomes with I2 and still get the same PTA as AWIT.

[TalismanRing]

16 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

WW had a -67% BO in w/e 15 (w/e after Labor Day) and lost half its theaters.  AWIT had an -87% BO and lost all its expanded theaters the very next weekend.

Because there was less competition in Sept than in May for those theater screens.

 

 

[Joyous Legion]

29 minutes ago, YLF said:

How has no one talked about how GOTTI for a 0% on rotten tomatoes LMAO

100% of reviewers gave it the same review, amazing 

[dxmatrixdt]

10 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Exactly.  So, you could slot in Peter Rabbit or Sherlock Gnomes with I2 and still get the same PTA as AWIT.

drive-ins are probably more spread out otherwise.  random films everywhere, average attendance, hard to find in the actual numbers.

[Barnack]

56 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

It's relevant to business decisions that are made and why certain films are made.  The gross budget does not get green lit, the net budget does.

 

 

Sure (well in part, for big studio you are right but for a small one you often still has to get the money somewhere).

 

But that was not the conversation, were talking need to go back a bit of messages,

 

1)Someone: Would it not be for disney box office would be death

2) Me: I think Pixar, star wars, Marvel would still be making movies right now if not for Disney.

3) Long conversation about what it could look like if they were stayed independent or bought by someone else, pointing maybe they would have less production/marketing budget, leading to smaller scope and smaller effects/spectacle and smaller box office.

4) Me: Talking about how much other studio give their superheroes and how much money they would get for making movies if they would have stayed without disney, would it have been big enough production budget to deliver the same kind of movies they made.

 

For that budget number in that type of conversation(i.e. how much we get on screen), the relevant numbers is the gross budget and purely the gross budget, audience cannot have any or influenced by the net nor the final product on screen. The fact they could get nice tax credit back then or now is just a plus about being able to do the same movies without the help of Disney.

 

If the conversation was would they have been has profitable, you shift to net budget (well kind of, I would not even put net of pre-sales there necessarily), conversation about how much they would have made at the box office it is gross budget, imo. A bit like marketing, gross budget matter more than what the actual studio spent net of product placement deal I would imagine.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Barnack

[L Silverman]

13 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Because there was less competition in Sept than in May for those theater screens.

 

 

Yes, AWIT had the addition of Show Dogs to contend with (Deadpool 2, Book Club, Show Dogs) whereas WW only had It and Home Again.

[DisneyFanatic]

18 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Exactly.  So, you could slot in Peter Rabbit or Sherlock Gnomes with I2 and still get the same PTA as AWIT.

Why the hate of AWIT? This isn’t new as has been proven but every message digs at Disney and this movie.  

 

Why now? 

[Joyous Legion]

February, March, April, May, June, and July will all be topped by Disney superhero flicks.          

 

6 months in a row topped by the same studio+genre combination has got to be some kind of record.

[L Silverman]

6 minutes ago, DisneyFanatic said:

Why the hate of AWIT? This isn’t new as has been proven but every message digs at Disney and this movie.  

 

Why now? 

Because Disney has been keeping this movie on life support for over a month now just so they can get that extra two or three million to break $100m for no other reason than bragging rights.

 

Also, because it looks like it's finally going to manage to do it and people are going to say "Wow!  AWIT broke $100!"  But, what's going to get lost is that it did it by riding I2's coattails.

Edited June 16, 2018 by L Silverman

[Ledmonkey96]

5 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Because Disney has been keeping this movie on life support for over a month now just so they can get that extra two or three million to break $100m for no other reason than bragging rights.

 

Also, because it looks like it's finally going to manage to do it and people are going to say "Wow!  AWIT broke $100!"  But, what's going to get lost is that it did it by riding I2's coattails.

100$ mil gets them certain bonuses for TV deals from what i've heard.

[LonePirate]

6 minutes ago, L Silverman said:

Because Disney has been keeping this movie on life support for over a month now just so they can get that extra two or three million to break $100m for no other reason than bragging rights.

As mentioned upthread, there are television contracts and such that are boosted when the film hits $100M. It is not simply related to bragging rights.