Jump to content

WrathOfHan

Weekend Actuals (Page 92): Ant-Man and the Wasp 75.8M (#CRUMBLING EVEN MORE) | Jurassic World 28.6M | Incredibles 2 28.4M | The First Purge 17.4M

Recommended Posts

Ant-Man2 will at least do high 80s ow imo. That's a 55% bump from Ant-Man1 like with Gotg1&2. What more can one expect? How can this be disappointing...god.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just now, a2k said:

Ant-Man2 will at least do high 80s ow imo. That's a 55% bump from Ant-Man1 like with Gotg1&2. What more can one expect? How can this be disappointing...god.

I've noticed some people here tend to overhype themselves with unrealistic numbers and then get disappointed when a movie doesn't reach it.

  • Like 10
  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

Can people not see the preview number already posted at the bottom of the last page? Lol

 

Well their early estimate was $13-15m unless this is sarcasm

Their early estimate was $11M with a possibility of $13M+ 

 

That $13-15M came from users on here talking about the link or something for the article but the article never mentioned anything about $13-15M 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

No they said 11m.. with a possibility of 13m+

 

4 minutes ago, Nova said:

Their early estimate was $11M with a possibility of $13M+ 

 

That $13-15M came from users on here talking about the link or something for the article but the article never mentioned anything about $13-15M 

It didn’t come from users here though, it was on the Deadline article link, written by Deadline. That’s where the users seen it. 

Edited by Krissykins
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Quake said:

Deadline - “just were we had it” 

yet they also said 13 million 

 

lies lol

Very early projections from Deadline sources show that the Peyton Reed-directed sequel is off to a fantastic start with an estimated $11M, with some sources believing the movie could see an even bigger growth spurt north of $13M+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

 

It didn’t come from users here though, it was on the Deadline article link, written by Deadline. That’s where the users seen it. 

Quote

Very early projections from Deadline sources show that the Peyton Reed-directed sequel is off to a fantastic start with an estimated $11M, with some sources believing the movie could see an even bigger growth spurt north of $13M+.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Dunno if anyone's noted this but I'm pretty sure this is the first weekend ever when we have three movies playing in 4,000+ theaters. 

It happened last year with Kingsman, Ninjago, and It

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

It didn’t come from users here though, it was on the Deadline article link, written by Deadline. That’s where the users seen it. 

Yea and considering the article itself was never updated, it’s safe to assume that the article link stating $13-15M was a mistake. That’s my point. There was never an actual update from Deadline saying $13-15M. 

 

It happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Rebeccas said:

 

Lol we’re going round in circles.

 

See page 2 of this very thread. 

 

Deadlines original article link said $13-15m. That’s all.

 

The body of the article said “$11m - $13m+”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



9 minutes ago, nevermore said:

Captain Marvel's audience score will probably be Marvel's first rotten one.

 

 

I think Captain Marvel will get a ton of fanbase buzz due to its connection to MCU plotline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

Lol we’re going round in circles.

 

See page 2 of this very thread. 

 

Deadlines original article link said $13-15m. That’s all.

 

The body of the article said “$11m - $13m+”

Exactly, the link title was probably a mistake since it appears absolutely nowhere in the text of the article itself and never did. So their initial estimate was accurate..

Edited by Rebeccas
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



20 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

So it’s $11.5m 

 

the $13-15m from Deadline must’ve been a mistake, that’s why they changed it quickly to $11-13m. 

 

2 minutes ago, Nova said:

Yea and considering the article itself was never updated, it’s safe to assume that the article link stating $13-15M was a mistake. That’s my point. There was never an actual update from Deadline saying $13-15M. 

 

It happens. 

Literally see my first post about it, 20 minutes ago. I said it must’ve been a mistake and that’s why they changed it to 11-13+

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Rebeccas said:

Exactly, the link title was probably a mistake since it appears absolutely nowhere in the text of the article itself and never did.

Yeh I wouldn’t call them spot on when they had a confusing potential range of 11-15m 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

 

Literally see my first post about it, 20 minutes ago. I said it must’ve been a mistake and that’s why they changed it to 11-13+

The article wasn't changed though - that's the number that was always in the article with $11m being in the headline.

  • Like 1
  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.