Thanksgiving Weekend Thread: ESTIMATES (Page 40) | Ralph 55.7M (84.5M Total) | Creed II 35.3M (55.8M Total) | The Grinch 30.2M | Grindelwald 29.7M | Robin Hood 9.1M (14.2M Total) | AMAZING BLACK FRIDAY SALE

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Red Sparrow didn't even do well and Atomic Blonde only did okay but it does show you what a difference a star makes sometimes. Both of those films second weekend was above Spider's Web by the way. 

 

Yep, this isn't a victory lap at all. I don't watch SNL anymore so I have no idea how she'll do. Hopefully she is given the chance to do well. 

Spider's Web flopping is hardly her fault, though. The ship simply sailed for this property years ago. Even if they had brought back the Fincher/Mara/Craig team, it still would've been greeted with a sense of "why now?"

[CoolioD1]

claire foy will have a better career when she can get to be a maggie smith or judi dench. long wait.

[Webslinger]

I don't think First Man or Girl in the Spider's Web are Claire Foy's fault at all. First Man got swallowed up by competition (and was ultimately too clinical to be the long-running leggy hit it seemed like it would be from afar) and Girl in the Spider's Web was hard-pressed to generate much audience interest as a tepidly-reviewed B-team sequel to a film that didn't live up to financial expectations seven years ago. She also still has the acclaim she's won for The Crown working in her favor.

[Zakiyyah6]

Why do you guys keep saying that it's not her fault? No actor can be blamed for their flops really and yet people do it here and everywhere else all the time. Was John Carter and Battleship flopping really that long haired Friday Night Lights dude's fault? No, they weren't and yet it hurt his career anyway. People only say it's not an actors fault when they like an actor. And I agree 99% of the time a flop isn't an actor's fault and yet they are blamed anyway. Foy doesn't get to bypass her flop breakout year just because you like her.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Zakiyyah6

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

Mostly small drops.  Internal multis will be around 2.5-2.6

 

 

Thank you! 

[filmlover]

11 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Why do you guys keep saying that it's not her fault? No actor can be blamed for their flops really and yet people do it here and everywhere else all the time. Was John Carter and Battleship flopping really that long haired Friday Night Lights dude's fault? No, they weren't and yet it hurt his career anyway. People only say it's not an actors fault when they like an actor. And I agree 99% of the time a flop isn't an actor's fault and yet they are blamed anyway. Foy doesn't get to bypass her flop breakout year just because you like her.

To be fair, Taylor Kitsch probably would've overcome his breakout year being a bust if he weren't a fairly bland pretty boy actor (thus, it's no surprise he's pretty much faded away). Claire Foy in the meantime is a recent Emmy winner who has been working with filmmakers like Soderbergh, Chazelle, and Andy Serkis and will likely continue to do so, plus she's British so she'll likely always get decent work in her home country even if her career in the States ends up going nowhere.

Edited November 24, 2018 by filmlover

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Solid numbers for many of the films. Can Spider's Web get a 2.0 multiplier? Spider's Web will actually have a lower total than comparable movies, Red Sparrow (16.85mil) and Atomic Blonde (18.28mil) opening weekends. That is with far more well known source material. Holy shit are its numbers embarrassing. 

At the same time, the big franchise material aspect of it make it's lower multiplier expected.

 

The domestic failure was expected by pretty much everyone, what is arguably more embarrassing are the number in the traditionally solid market that was Scandinavia for the franchise.

 

The Girl Who kicker the Hornet's Nest the previous smallest entry of the series vs Spider Web OW

 

Denmark: $1.415M vs $0.097M

Sweden: $1.45m vs $0.226M

Norway: $1.02m vs $0.06M

 

Those are some 7x to 17x time smaller opening Weekend, that is quite the spectacular rejection (not being from the same author is probably part of it, but still), for a franchise that was a 80 millions book sellers able to make a small budget swedish speaking movies a 100m blockbuster and sustain the release of 3 movies in the same 8 months not so long ago.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Barnack

[Valonqar]

18 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Why do you guys keep saying that it's not her fault? No actor can be blamed for their flops really and yet people do it here and everywhere else all the time. Was John Carter and Battleship flopping really that long haired Friday Night Lights dude's fault? No, they weren't and yet it hurt his career anyway. People only say it's not an actors fault when they like an actor. And I agree 99% of the time a flop isn't an actor's fault and yet they are blamed anyway. Foy doesn't get to bypass her flop breakout year just because you like her.

I agree with this. the whole point is being a star (and all actors are called stars even though 98% can't open a door let alone a movie that isn't a franchise and many times even a franchise) is to put butts in seats no matter what. that's why actor's pay is dis-proportionally bigger than his stunt double's and other members of the team whose job is to make the actor look and sound good, and that's why actors are the face of the movie and identified with it even though the real boss is the director (and in rare cases, directors becomes a star such as Spielberg, Lucas, Nolan, Cameron, few more). So when a movie hits, actor takes all the credit for team work so it's only fair that when the movie flops actor is blamed for the team work. Foy picked wrong movies and now it looks like they flopped because of her not that she picked movies that big names would have hard time selling  let alone a Netflix starlet that many never heard of. She knew the risk.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Valonqar

[Zakiyyah6]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

To be fair, Taylor Kitsch probably would've overcome his breakout year being a bust if he weren't a fairly bland pretty boy actor (thus, it's no surprise he's pretty much faded away). Claire Foy in the meantime is a recent Emmy winner who has been working with filmmakers like Soderbergh, Chazelle, and Andy Serkis and will likely continue to do so, plus she's British so she'll likely always get decent work in her home country even if her career in the States ends up going nowhere.

That's true enough. Foy is a very good actor and I hope that she plays a good role in a non under performer soon.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

The source material though isn't that well known. 

Or not that well liked, even if it was not prime Millennium it still did sold over 2 millions of copies quite fast and went number 1 in many markets:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/15/stieg-larssons-millennium-series-sequels-david-lagercrantz

According to its publishers, Lagercrantz’s The Girl in the Spider’s Web has sold 2.3m copies worldwide, topping charts in the US, UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.

[MCKillswitch123]

Spider's Web is partly her fault. She just doesn't have the same pull that actresses like a JLaw or a Charlize do, and that meant that her own presence wasn't good enough to drag people to watching this. But Liz Salander is a popular enough character that shouldn't really need a name actress to sell, so this is overwhelmingly more Sony's fault than hers for greenlighting this too late, making it based on the Millenium novel that's not written by Stieg Larsson and that no one cares about, and giving it vapid marketing. It was doomed to die.

 

First Man is hardly her fault at all, though. She got top billing, sure, but she was just in a supporting role that no one really cared about going into this (all GA's likely cared to see was Neil Armstrong in space). Again, I know that a bigger name actress would have helped it more than her, but this was still a Gosling vehicle directed by the same guy who did La La Land, and the on paper concept was pretty huge for it not to do well, at least in America (as a matter of fact, every Gosling vehicle released in wide, apart from Blade Runner 2049, opened in the teens, just like First Man; so I'd put that flop more in his basket than hers).

Edited November 24, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[Zakiyyah6]

5 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

I agree with this. the whole point is being a star (and all actors are called stars even though 98% can't open a door let alone a movie that isn't a franchise and many times even a franchise) is to put butts in seats no matter what. that's why actor's pay is dis-proportionally bigger than his stunt double's and other members of the team whose job is to make the actor look and sound good, and that's why actors are the face of the movie and identified with it even though the real boss is the director (and in rare cases, directors becomes a star such as Spielberg, Lucas, Nolan, Cameron, few more). So when a movie hits, actor takes all the credit for team work so it's only fair that when the movie flops actor is blamed for the team work. Foy picked wrong movies and now it looks like they flopped because of her not that she picked movies that big names would have hard time selling  let alone a Netflix starlet that many never heard of. She knew the risk.

Yep. You can't take all of the credit and none of the blame. That's not how things work. Believe me, I know how silly the star system is when you look at the reality of it. 

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

At the same time, the big franchise material aspect of it make it's lower multiplier expected.

 

The domestic failure was expected by pretty much everyone, what is arguably more embarrassing are the number in the traditionally solid market that was scandinavia for the franchise.

 

The Girl Who kicker the Hornet's Nest the previous smallest entry of the series vs Spider Web OW

 

Denmark: $1.415M vs $0.097M

Sweden: $1.45m vs $0.226M

Norway: $1.02m vs $0.06M

 

Those are some 7 to 17 time small opening Weekend, that a spectacular rejection (not being from the same author is probably part of it, but still), for a franchise that was a 80 millions book sellers able to make a small budget swedish speaking movies a 100m blockbuster and sustain the release if 3 movies in the same 8 months not so long ago.

 

 

 

Those numbers are bad, bad, bad. I don't know what its updated international total is right now but the film is clearly not doing good in any big markets. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Thanos Legion said:

Nope, Solo. Not sure if Nutcracker even cost enough to be a bigger bomb if it grossed $0.

 

Gross budget on that was over 130m.

[WrathOfHan]

I like Claire Foy a lot, and it's too bad all three of her films this year disappointed at the box office. Unsane and First Man are two of my favorites this year (tho Foy isn't a main reason why for the latter lol)

[Legion Again]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Gross budget on that was over 130m.

I don’t know if this means yes or no. It looks like Solo might have pulled in some 180M in theatrical revenue, which should more than make up for the difference in production budget, but Solo probably spent a lot more on marketing too.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

I don’t know if this means yes or no. It looks like Solo might have pulled in some 180M in theatrical revenue, which should more than make up for the difference in production budget, but Solo probably spent a lot more on marketing too.

Considering movie with world release ambition can loose more than their budgets when things goes wrong, it mean that it probably had potential to loose more than Solo did.

[a2k]

Quote

2nd Saturday Update 9:46AM after 7:37AM post: While mid-week projections for Disney’s Ralph Breaks the Internet and MGM/New Line’s Creed II have simmered, that doesn’t mean that these movies aren’t hot. With $85.6M, Ralph 2 continues to be the second-best Thanksgiving stretch opener after Disney’s own Frozen ($93.5M)...Creed II, hands downs, is the best live-action debut the autumn holiday has ever seen with $56.5M, pummeling past Disney’s 2007 Enchanted...

 

In regards to the advance opening heat on social for Ralph 2, RelishMix exclaims that the animated sequel “is a social media juggernaut, with a combined reach of 856.9M” across Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube views. Ralph 2 videos have gone viral at an amazing rate of 56:1, versus the average animated feature, which is passed around at a rate of 16:1. RelishMix gives high praise to the studio for “leveraging the Disney Princesses and many other Disney properties – from Iron Man to stormtroopers” to resonate with moviegoers across social leading up to pic’s opening. “These princesses add an additional 109.9M reach from Facebook alone – and the posts were well-coordinated over the last week, not to mention #NationalPrincessDay last Sunday on Nov. 18,” says the social media monitor. Our key image above of the princesses was used on each of the Facebook pages of Disney’s Frozen, Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, and more.

 

RelishMix adds, “The social star of Ralph 2 is Gal Gadot, with more than 38M followers, whose casting was a real coup for the campaign earlier in the spring.” Vanellope herself, Sarah Silverman, brings 15.1M followers, along with Imagine Dragons at 24M, who performed the movie’s song “Zero,” which is earning 275-300K views a day.

 

The biggest disaster here for the weekend is Lionsgate’s near $100M production of Robin Hood, which, at this point in time, is bound to be wounded with an under $14M five-day take.

https://deadline.com/2018/11/ralph-breaks-the-internet-creed-ii-thanksgiving-box-office-1202505947/

[RealLyre]

So how much higher can the nutcracker go domestically? 55-60M? 

[DAJK]

16 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

So how much higher can the nutcracker go domestically? 55-60M? 

hopefully no more than that. Fuck that movie, it was pretty awful after the 1st act. Go see Kiera Knightley in Colette instead; she was great in that. 

[MattW]

Being generous to Fantastic Beasts, with the same post thanksgiving drop that the first one had here's what I get:

 

	Weekly	Cume
Opening	62.2	62.2
Nov 25	54.1	116.3
Dec 2	18	135
Dec 9	12	147
Dec 16	8	155
Dec 23	6	161
Dec 30	8	169
Jan 6	6	175
Rest	10	185

 

More likely it'll end in the low 170's

 

Grinch I think has a chance at holding well over christmas but I'll take a stab and say 220-230m total for it.