Weekend Thread | Hotel 3 $44.1 Skyscraper 25.4, Ant Man’s size does matter with $28.8M

[FantasticBeasts]

Is it an unpopular opinion to think that The Rock is not hot?

[a2k]

33 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

he will give the next update on tuesday 

"WOW did not smell this jump cooking! THANK YOU"

 

[YLF]

Dwayne johnson is annoying on twitter when he has a movie out. I dont even follow him and I always happen to see his ridiculous tweets somehow

Edited July 16, 2018 by YLF

[Captain Craig]

1 hour ago, SteveJaros said:

IMO, it's fair to use the term 'flop' in this context, though if you want to reserve it for films that truly are financial disasters like a John Carter, I can respect that. But, just keep that in mind the next time a DCU film does $200m DOM/ $600m WW on a $200m budget as well. A lot of folks around here don't. 

 

Using the term flop haphazardly diminishes the actual meaning of the word. It waters it down to be so broad that it's applied not only unfairly but inaccurately. 

 

It's like using racist, fascist and Nazi comparisons to things you don't like even though they don't really apply.

Hard to take you serious. 

[filmlover]

Eighth Grade posted the highest opening PTA of any movie since The Shape of Water's $83K average in early December. I think we're looking at a sleeper hit here.

[sfran43]

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Captain Craig said:

Using the term flop haphazardly diminishes the actual meaning of the word. It waters it down to be so broad that it's applied not only unfairly but inaccurately. 

 

It's like using racist, fascist and Nazi comparisons to things you don't like even though they don't really apply.

Hard to take you serious. 

 

THANK YOU!  You've been here for a loooong time CC.  Thank your for shedding light on this.  As you said, using the word flop indicates that it tanked and will hurt the studio etc.  A disappointment is pretty much everything else that this site discusses.  Ant-man might be a disappointment domestically but it is far from a flop.  I'm sure that will be the case with Skyscraper as well, probably MEG also, and dozens of other films this summer.

[SteveJaros]

1 hour ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Again, you're describing a disappointment, not a flop. It's the MCU, but not every MCU movie has to gross 300M DOM. This is Goddamn Ant-Man 2, the character didn't even appear in Infinity War, it's his 1st sequel and the original opened to 57M and grossed 180 DOM. I imagine there were some lofty predictions for it, but those were usually wishful thinking more than anything. I'll give you that it is being more quickly forgotten by the masses than the other two MCU films this year, as it was apparently a disposable film (I haven't even seen it yet). And should it do better than it's doing? Yeah, it should at least be on par with Doctor Strange imo and it's gonna fall way short. But the term "flop" does not unironically apply to any movie that isn't a "flop". It just does not. Disappointment is not the same thing.

 

And clearly that last line proves you're still bitter about Justice League. May I remind you that JL made 200+ and 600+ on a 300M budget? 300. And it was reported to lose around 60M according to Deadline. A big movie like that should not be losing any money at all, and 60M isn't John Carter, but it's still substantial. AM2 will end with similar, probably inferior box office numbers but it has little more than half of its budget. Do you not see the damn difference?

 

Ugh, anyway.

 

What part of "So we're down to arguing semantics over "disappointment" vs "flop"? OK. I can live with disappointment if that makes you feel better" didn't sink in?

Sheesh. 
 

 

 

[SteveJaros]

14 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Using the term flop haphazardly diminishes the actual meaning of the word.

Right ... like when DCU films that gross $650m WW are called 'flops'. Gotcha. 

[MrGlass2]

14 hours ago, Barnack said:

Did Rampage cost went up from 120m ?

The cost hasn't changed, of course. But when bloggers smell blood, the reported budget gets closer to the real value - to make a flop look even bigger. Same thing happened to Solo.

 

Meanwhile, we are supposed to take the comically precise $162M number for AntMan2 seriously: it is most likely below the actual (net) budget as well.

[YM!]

6 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

Right ... like when DCU films that gross $650m WW are called 'flops'. Gotcha. 

If a film had a $300M budget and an estimated loss regardless of brand it’s a flop. Not to mention if it’s supposed to be your studio’s answers to the Avengers.

 

I do admit Ant Man is a disappointment but it’ll at least break even.

[Captain Craig]

2 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

Right ... like when DCU films that gross $650m WW are called 'flops'. Gotcha. 

Do you have a film in mind you saw posters saying that on? Man of Steel? Which costs way more and is more a marquee name than Ant-Man. That was a disappointment. Hence, no MoS2 but maybe we get it yet. 

So because someone(s) used flop on your film wrongly you feel justified being equally wrong vs being intellectually above. ???

Everything is relative.

Example:

The Amazing Spider-man 2 didn't spawn a TAS3 because despite doing $700m WW and $200m Dom it cost way, way more to make and market. Ant-Man&Wasp is not in the same financial straits. 

[MCKillswitch123]

12 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

Right ... like when DCU films that gross $650m WW are called 'flops'. Gotcha. 

DCU films that gross 650M WW on a 300M production budget and still lose their studio ~60M. Are we gonna refrain from calling movies that were amongs the most anticipated of the year (supposedly), should have made bajillions in profit and ended up losing their studios money anything but a flop? Gotcha.

 

Also, you kept harping on about why it was, according to you, a 'flop', to respond to your quite with letters in white background, so that's why I did the same.

Edited July 16, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[Jonwo]

I wonder if we'll get Ant-Man 3? I think Disney will still do it but perhaps they'll change the director and maybe add another character like they did with Ragnarok. I wouldn't be shocked if there is a longer gap say 4 years instead of three and they release it in either Spring or November instead of summer. 

[Eric Loves Rey]

18 minutes ago, sfran43 said:

 

Bit confused by "New Est." Is it saying we don't have actuals yet?

[JohnnyGossamer]

17 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

THANK YOU!  You've been here for a loooong time CC.  Thank your for shedding light on this.  As you said, using the word flop indicates that it tanked and will hurt the studio etc.  A disappointment is pretty much everything else that this site discusses.  Ant-man might be a disappointment domestically but it is far from a flop.  I'm sure that will be the case with Skyscraper as well, probably MEG also, and dozens of other films this summer.

Yeah. This. It's one of the more reliable irksome phrases that gets tossed around here. And, it's done sans irony more than folks like to admit. 

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Jonwo said:

I wonder if we'll get Ant-Man 3? I think Disney will still do it but perhaps they'll change the director and maybe add another character like they did with Ragnarok. I wouldn't be shocked if there is a longer gap say 4 years instead of three and they release it in either Spring or November instead of summer. 

That's exactly what they'll do. 

[SteveJaros]

Just now, YourMother the Edgelord said:

If a film had a $300M budget and an estimated loss regardless of brand it’s a flop. Not to mention if it’s supposed to be your studio’s answers to the Avengers.

 

I do admit Ant Man is a disappointment but it’ll at least break even.

 

To me, "flop" can't just be about finances. Something can lose money and still be a smash hit. "Hit" and "flop" refer at least as much to public response as to costs, because the public doesn't care about the costs. 

Otherwise, we end up with absurd conclusions like saying a movie that made $8m on a $2m budget (made a nice $4m profit) is a big hit while one that made $100m on a $80m budget (and lost $30m) is a flop, when truth is, the second movie was a lot more popular than the first. The second movie was a popular hit while a studio flop, the former was a popular dud while a studio hit. 

 

So "flop" is subjective, depending on the POV. Have to specify whether you are talking from the public or studio POV.

 

 

[Firepower]

2 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

To me, "flop" can't just be about finances. Something can lose money and still be a smash hit. "Hit" and "flop" refer at least as much to public response as to costs, because the public doesn't care about the costs. 

Otherwise, we end up with absurd conclusions like saying a movie that made $8m on a $2m budget (made a nice $4m profit) is a big hit while one that made $100m on a $80m budget (and lost $30m) is a flop, when truth is, the second movie was a lot more popular than the first. The second movie was a popular hit while a studio flop, the former was a popular dud while a studio hit. 

 

So "flop" is subjective, depending on the POV. Have to specify whether you are talking from the public or studio POV.

 

 

That was one of the dumbest quotes I've seen in years, wow...

[Captain Craig]

4 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I wonder if we'll get Ant-Man 3? I think Disney will still do it but perhaps they'll change the director and maybe add another character like they did with Ragnarok. I wouldn't be shocked if there is a longer gap say 4 years instead of three and they release it in either Spring or November instead of summer. 

I said that last part days ago, add a character. 

Yes, Ant-Man 3 happens. Probably be a 2021/2022 film. Get Cassie into her early teens, give us Statue. 

My dream would be a Spider-man extended cameo on top of Statue.