Weekend Thread: weekend #s (Actuals) Dumbo $45.99M, Us $33.23M, CM $20.66M

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

https://www.boxofficepro.com/long-range-tracking-aladdin/

 

Aladdin: 85/235 (70-95 3-Day range/85-115 4-Day)

Way,way to soon for prections on Alladin. Not enough data. And I think in the case of Aladdin,the reviews and WOM will matter.

 

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

WTF STOP THIS DISCUSSION HERE. PLEASE GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THIS WEEKEND. MODS ANY HELP... 😔😔😔😔😔

Who died and made you king?

Edited March 29, 2019 by dudalb

[Matthew]

4 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

https://www.boxofficepro.com/long-range-tracking-aladdin/

 

Aladdin: 85/235 (70-95 3-Day range/85-115 4-Day)

These Predictions are way off. After the trailer most of the people are happy with Alaadin and Genie in particular. 

 

I predict 150M 4-Days atleast of the reviews are Mediocre. 

 

1B+ is sureshot for Alaadin. 

[Ent]

Most tentpoles are international products made for consumers around the world. 

 

They are designed to please the kind of taste that is widely shared among different people whatever their national sensitivity.  Disney produced that kinda of products and of course the financial return per movie is more impressive since the size of consumers is global.

 

Movies like US and others are designed first and foremost for consumers whose size is smaller as national sensitivity plays a larger part in it.  They are not as immune as tentpoles to different sensitivitis, tastes found around the world. 

 

Besides, those types of movies have to deal with lethal opponents : TV, streaming.

 

Let's be honests, theaters are the perfect vehicle for tentpoles that are usually grand spectacles with visuals.  Considering financial constraints, most people will rather spend money to the theaters to experience grand specatcle or a 4 quadrant movies they can share with their kids.

 

The like of US, will be a second choice for families and will be postponed more easily.

 

Another aspect to consider is that tentpoles and animation movies have a bigger market shares abroad within their genres because they are mostly US made and they are virtually no national rivals.  But for non tentpoles movies, they find themselves competing also with national movies as most countries produce also those kind of movies.

[chuck0]

My contribution to the Disney/Sequel/Remake discussion

 

 

 

the intro is pretty well made actually... the rest is a bit long winded/sensationalist

Edited March 29, 2019 by chuck0

[DisposedData]

25 minutes ago, Matthew said:

These Predictions are way off. After the trailer most of the people are happy with Alaadin and Genie in particular. 

 

I predict 150M 4-Days atleast of the reviews are Mediocre. 

 

1B+ is sureshot for Alaadin. 

I kind of agree. Just have a hard time seeing this making so much less than Beauty and the Beast when the original Aladdin was more popular than the original Beautym

[chuck0]

6 minutes ago, DisposedData said:

I kind of agree. Just have a hard time seeing this making so much less than Beauty and the Beast when the original Aladdin was more popular than the original Beautym

BatB had the reignited princess brand. Aladdin has Jasmin, but she is not the main character. So i am not quite sure if that is comparable. Also, Emma Watson was probably very important for BatB. Again i dont think that Aladin has comparable star power.

Edited March 29, 2019 by chuck0

[Jonwo]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

I’m not. I’ve given credit to Disney for making original content recently in the Dumbo thread (and used that as my argument for why they don’t even need to be doing these remakes)and in the comment you’ve quoted, I’ve talked about Disney making many great original characters. But right now Disney is focusing a lot on these remakes. Hence why my comment was geared more towards them. 

It's interesting that it's solely the live action that are remakes or new adaptations of the IPs and not the animation, it's an area Disney used to struggle with with a couple of exceptions before they bought Marvel and Lucasfilm. It's one of the reasons they had Touchstone, Miramax and Hollywood Pictures in the 90s as it allowed to venture into more adult fare which they did have success with films like Pretty Woman, The Rock etc but they seemed to slowly lose interest from the 2000s with Miramax being sold off, Hollywood Pictures mothballed and Touchstone relegated to distributing DreamWorks films which ended after 4 years. 

 

 

[Krissykins]

1 hour ago, Litio said:

Queen of Katwee was a limited release

Technically it wasn’t a limited release. It was in 1300 cinemas. 

 

600 cinemas is wide according to BOM. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Krissykins

[terrestrial]

1 hour ago, Rumpot said:

I get where you're coming from and I absolutely appreciate the art like everyone here.  But profits drive it and if I'm one thing it's pro-cinema.  I am very worried that without a largely by the numbers profit driver like Disney theaters are nearing the end.  

 

I otherwise don't hate on or shill for any specific company (or at least if I do it's not conscious)

That is exactly what drives me as well. Worldwide.

[expensiveho]

28 minutes ago, Ent said:

Besides, those types of movies have to deal with lethal opponents : TV, streaming.

 

I would say that these movies are actually more popular than box office would led us to believe. 

 

As big as horror is right now, I consider it to be much popular when you factor people watching it at home. Same with Netflix romantic comedies (that gave Noah roles with studios, his new Netflix movie has nice trailer views, his social media stats) in contrast to every comedy bombing lately (except CRA DOM). 

 

Even the non-Disney animated movies and the awards contenders have a way bigger audience at home.

 

It's just that people don't go to the theater for certain kind of movies, and those are the movies that Disney doesn't make. Hopefully they'll change strategy after launching their streaming service. 

[terrestrial]

1 minute ago, expensiveho said:

As big as horror is right now,

its bigger by far as it was at certain times, but horror usually is still not a family outing movie (there might be exceptions I do not remember just now, but....)

The most females I know do not watch horror at all. A bit less refuse to watch dark-mooded Sci-Fi as well, again less refuse Sci-Fi completly.

Thats women with and without children.

Nearly every older 40y+ male out of the art circles in our RL circle wont watch horror as well, a bit more open to certain Sci-Fi, or also refusing the genre completly (I am married to someone like that, but he did watch and loves Raumpatrouille – Die phantastischen Abenteuer des Raumschiffes Orion (literal translation: Space Patrol – The Fantastic Adventures of the Spaceship Orion), also known as Raumpatrouille Orion, and Space Patrol Orion)

Myself, I like only certain horror movies, some of them I still call thriller, others are more Sci-Fi-horror mix or....

 

Genre hits in one country (or certain ages, ...) makes them not always a hit in another country, sometimes the story is too region specific.

[TombRaider]

Cruel intentions is one of my fav movies but they need to stop putting old movies again on theatres. it always fails at the box office, doesnt it?

[DAJK]

Just now, TombRaider said:

Cruel intentions is one of my fav movies but they need to stop putting old movies again on theatres. it always fails at the box office, doesnt it?

Maybe if they try to give it a wide release, but I would kill to watch Titanic on the big screen, or Spider-Man (2002) 

[Nova]

At this point might as well just release the classics as wide releases to theaters instead of trying to remake them (and ruining them in the process). 

 

There are a lot of older films that because classics that I never got to experience in theaters that I would love to experience in a theatrical setting. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Nova

[SchumacherFTW]

2 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

Cruel intentions is one of my fav movies but they need to stop putting old movies again on theatres. it always fails at the box office, doesnt it?

Down with this statement. I just got back from seeing South Park at the theatre, and that was one of my best crowds ever. 

[TombRaider]

3 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Maybe if they try to give it a wide release, but I would kill to watch Titanic on the big screen, or Spider-Man (2002) 

 

1 minute ago, Nova said:

At this point might as well just release the classics as wide releases to theaters instead of trying to remake them (and ruining them in the process).  

 

There are a lot of older films that because classics that I never got to experience in theaters that I would love to experience in a theatrical setting.  

Yeah I'm sure we all have movies we'd love to see on the big screen but financially wise its always a flop for studios

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

Cruel intentions is one of my fav movies but they need to stop putting old movies again on theatres. it always fails at the box office, doesnt it?

 

They put old movies in theater pretty much everyday:

http://akvalley.pythonanywhere.com/static/Fandango_track.txt

 

Today only on Fandango partnering theater:

Alien (1979)

Steel Magnolias

Howls Moving Castle (2004)

Rocky Horror Picture Show (I imagine that always play somewhere)

 

Yesterday, Barry Lindon, True Grit, 2001 a space odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, Dune, Shawshank, Karate Kid and Cruel Intention played.

 

 

I imagine that very often the only cost is the opportunity cost of not playing something new, awareness is already fully there for audience, in calm period of the year seem like a no brainer to play classics in theater, and they should never stop doing it imo.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Barnack

[SchumacherFTW]

3 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

 

Yeah I'm sure we all have movies we'd love to see on the big screen but financially wise its always a flop for studios

Is it actually a flop though? No production budget, don't really need to spend on new marketing. Maybe a few TV spots here and there, but it's really just a bit of free money for them. 

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

financially wise its always a flop for studios

Isn't it mostly when not completely free for them to let theater play their old movies and they just collect the money ?

[Eric Duncan]

Generally these re-releases are less about making big grosses (well, it was about making big grosses once Lion King 3D made all that money, but typically...), and more about maintaining popularity and fandom for a classic movie and siphoning out a couple of quick bucks. There's also little cost in re-releasing and sometimes even marketing, so it's low-risk and mild reward.