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

[Legion Again]

Really funny how the default position from movies geeks is “sequels and remakes are inherently worse than original films” while the position from GA is pretty clearly “ sequels and remakes are generally superior to original films.” These corporations are efficiently satisfying people’s true entertainment desires, yet somehow they get held at fault while the real drivers of the sequel and remake culture (the audience) are almost completely ignored in the discussion.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Thanos Legion

[dudalb]

8 minutes ago, john2000 said:

read my next comment they dont care about originality they care about the money read my next post i explain it in more detail and if you disagree then thats ok

I can't understand why anybody would be a fanboy for a huge corporation like Disney.

But they exist, we have one poster here who gets very upset if any criticism of Disney is made and think Disney can do no worng and never make a mistake.....

I think the conspiracies theories about Disney are a bunch of crap, and I think Disney does catch some flak here for doing what every big company does like it is something uniquedly evil, but that is not the same like mindlessly rooting for The Mouse.

I really disliked what Disney did with Fox 2000. Bad move.

[HouseOfTheSun]

2 minutes ago, The Panda said:

I agree that the difference isn’t that other studios aren’t continuing their IPs (I don’t think people are complaining that franchise movies are being made)

 

The difference is Disney is doing it at the expense of making non-franchise films.  Could you tell me with a straight face that Disney would finance a movie like Us?

 

And even within franchises WB, Fox and Univeral have taken risks I haven’t seen Disney take.  For example, Fox made Logan and Deadpool, I have 0 faith that Disney would let Marvel Make an R-rated MCU film like either of those.  If they make a Deadpool 3, it’ll only be because that’s no longer risky after the success of Deadpool 1 and 2.

Is it really at the expense of not making non franchise movies? Their business mode is just simply different. And for now, simply superior in terms of money. 

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, HouseOfTheSun said:

Let’s also not ignore the fact that Disney is releasing pretty much the same number of remakes and sequels as the other guys. Sure if you want to be mad at them for doing basically only that plus some animation originals, go ahead. It really wouldn’t be that hard to find a few Original live actions a year, and maybe they will with Fox Studios in their belt now. 

 

But it seems to me that they are adapting to the reality of the “going to the cinema” model. People don’t really want to go see artsy movies on the big screen anymore. If you’re spending 50+ dollars to take a family to the movies, you probably want to see a 200 million dollar blockbuster product. I doubt the bigwigs at Disney knew five or 10 years ago that they’d be this dominant in terms of revenue share with so few releases. On a box office forum is seems a little silly to knock a company making so much money with this efficiency 

Then why did US open to 70m+ and seems to be having strong legs.

 

I also didn’t count Fox Searchlight or sub-studios that release the indie movies (which would further skew the ratios).

 

Dont be obtuse and actually look at ratios.

 

Im also not arguing Disney isn’t doing what’s in their best interest profit wise.  I’m showing why people are (rightfully) annoyed at Disney’s success.  Disney growing larger in market share leaves less room for original fair.

 

Even looking at remakes, I’m counting auteur remakes like Little Women and A Star is Born for Fox and WB.  Meanwhile, Disney’s remakes are certainly not creative equivalents to those

[Barnack]

20 minutes ago, john2000 said:

as long as they make money why stop ? do you really believe  that others studios wouldnt ? the only reason the others have a more diverse movies its not bc of art or for the sake of more variety and try news things but its bc the DONT HAVE the ip that disney has see what universal does with fast and furios and sony with spiderman and etc and then tell me that they wouldnt do with with ip like disney

Why stop ?

No reason and they should not stop (thus why it is perceived an issue for people that like the kind movie that cannot help sells family parks tickets, knowing they have no reason to stop that model)

 

Others studios wouldn't

I doubt any other main studio would act differently in their shoes, if they were Disney they would be Disney.

[john2000]

2 minutes ago, The Panda said:

I agree that the difference isn’t that other studios aren’t continuing their IPs (I don’t think people are complaining that franchise movies are being made)

 

The difference is Disney is doing it at the expense of making non-franchise films.  Could you tell me with a straight face that Disney would finance a movie like Us?

 

And even within franchises WB, Fox and Univeral have taken risks I haven’t seen Disney take.  For example, Fox made Logan and Deadpool, I have 0 faith that Disney would let Marvel Make an R-rated MCU film like either of those.  If they make a Deadpool 3, it’ll only be because that’s no longer risky after the success of Deadpool 1 and 2.

first what HouseOfTheSun said and second its always about the leadership of the company and also if you recall fox didnt want to make deapool in the first place and they didnt want logan to be rrated and i bet you that no other studio would make r rated movies superhero before deapool an the reason they did continue it with logan it was bc of hugh jackanman call it a favor or whatever but they cut the original bugdet A LOT and they knew by now that r rated superhero movie could be success full plus guys guys guys pg 13 HAS MORE AUDIENCE AND IT IS WIDER

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, HouseOfTheSun said:

Is it really at the expense of not making non franchise movies? Their business mode is just simply different. And for now, simply superior in terms of money. 

Yes, it’s rather obvious.

 

And I’m not arguing that their business model isn’t effective financially (it is).  I’m showing why people are rightfully annoyed at its success.

[HouseOfTheSun]

3 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Then why did US open to 70m+ and seems to be having strong legs.

 

I also didn’t count Fox Searchlight or sub-studios that release the indie movies (which would further skew the ratios).

 

Dont be obtuse and actually look at ratios.

 

Im also not arguing Disney isn’t doing what’s in their best interest profit wise.  I’m showing why people are (rightfully) annoyed at Disney’s success.  Disney growing larger in market share leaves less room for original fair.

 

Even looking at remakes, I’m counting auteur remakes like Little Women and A Star is Born for Fox and WB.  Meanwhile, Disney’s remakes are certainly not creative equivalents to those

Why look at the ratios and knock Disney for it when you can look at the bottom line of these big studios and see that their ratio is easily superior right now. This is a forum about money that movies make. And to me it’s clear which one stands above the rest. The people can be annoyed all they want to no consequence when the people are the ones responsible for purchasing a movie ticket. How can the general audience be annoyed at their own decisions? If you were to ask the people complaining about Disney to show you all of their movie ticket purchases over the last 3 years, it would likely be hilariously hypocritical 

Edited March 29, 2019 by HouseOfTheSun

[john2000]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Why stop ?

No reason and they should not stop (thus why it is perceived an issue for people that like the kind movie that cannot help sells family parks tickets, knowing they have no reason to stop that model)

 

Others studios wouldn't

I doubt any other main studio would act differently in their shoes, if they were Disney they would be Disney.

Oh sorry then yeah i was saying the same thing maybe i understood your comment wrong i am so sorry

[terrestrial]

Just now, Barnack said:

but about what they do not.

You might want to think about burned figers and thinking about how to approach the theme new content fter those 2 as an example:

John Carter (2012 mega bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm

 

Lone Ranger (2013 bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=loneranger.htm

 

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010 bad to bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=princeofpersia.htm

 

before those (and partly still tilll) they did romance, sport, .... movies not related to the parks

 

Not sure how to classify the Narnia movies,

 

even some small budget movies fell through

The Fifth Estate (2013)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fifthestate.htm

 

2015

Tomorrowland (2015, bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=1952.htm

 

Bridge of Spies (2015, not a bomb, but small)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=coldwar2015.htm

 

McFarland, USA

The Good Dinosaur

both budget N/A (means usually = bomb or not good at least)

 

2016

The Light Between Oceans (bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lightbetweenoceans.htm

 

The Finest Hours (bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=finesthours.htm

 

The BFG (bomb)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bfg.htm

 

Alice Through the Looking Glass (bad, yeah, I know, was not something new)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=alice2.htm

 

2017

extreme few movies

 

2018

again a few more...

A Wrinkle in Time....

 

I disagree, I think its strange that you picked the only year they seem to have taken a break to 'proof' they only do movies that will help the parks (summarized in a way)

 

[The Panda]

Just now, john2000 said:

first what HouseOfTheSun said and second its always about the leadership of the company and also if you recall fox didnt want to make deapool in the first place and they didnt want logan to be rrated and i bet you that no other studio would make r rated movies superhero before deapool an the reason they did continue it with logan it was bc of hugh jackanman call it a favor or whatever but they cut the original bugdet A LOT and they knew by now that r rated superhero movie could be success full plus guys guys guys pg 13 HAS MORE AUDIENCE AND IT IS WIDER

Except they did.

 

Anyone arguing that Disney hasn’t been the most reluctant studio to take creative risks are being obtuse.

[TalismanRing]

10 minutes ago, The Panda said:

I agree that the difference isn’t that other studios aren’t continuing their IPs (I don’t think people are complaining that franchise movies are being made)

 

The difference is Disney is doing it at the expense of making non-franchise films.  Could you tell me with a straight face that Disney would finance a movie like Us?

 

And even within franchises WB, Fox and Univeral have taken risks I haven’t seen Disney take.  For example, Fox made Logan and Deadpool, I have 0 faith that Disney would let Marvel Make an R-rated MCU film like either of those.  If they make a Deadpool 3, it’ll only be because that’s no longer risky after the success of Deadpool 1 and 2.

Making horror movies - especially during the horror boom we're experiencing isn't a risk.  Neither is making Rated R movies.  They're merely genre or content choices. 

 

Fox didn't take a big risk trying something new with IPs they'd slaughtered or ran into the ground previously with smaller budgets

 

Neither was as big a risk as a $225m Avengers.   Or a $210m Black Panther.   Or a $200m GOTG

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by TalismanRing

[john2000]

6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I can't understand why anybody would be a fanboy for a huge corporation like Disney.

But they exist, we have one poster here who gets very upset if any criticism of Disney is made and think Disney can do no worng and never make a mistake.....

I think the conspiracies theories about Disney are a bunch of crap, and I think Disney does catch some flak here for doing what every big company does like it is something uniquedly evil, but that is not the same like mindlessly rooting for The Mouse.

I really disliked what Disney did with Fox 2000. Bad move.

i am not fanboying at all hell i like wb WAY MORE THAN DISNEY but i cant hear bullshits and also i love how some people call the other fanboys bc they support disney or simply they disagree but are upset when other call them for do the same

Edited March 29, 2019 by john2000

[dudalb]

2 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Yes, it’s rather obvious.

 

And I’m not arguing that their business model isn’t effective financially (it is).  I’m showing why people are rightfully annoyed at its success.

It's ironic that the studio founding by Walt Disney, who built his career and his company on doing new things and taking big chances (people forget Disney staked the future of his company on "Snow White" an extremely risky venture;many in Hollwoo though there was no market for a feature length Cartoon) has become so risk averse.

 

[HouseOfTheSun]

4 minutes ago, The Panda said:

Yes, it’s rather obvious.

 

And I’m not arguing that their business model isn’t effective financially (it is).  I’m showing why people are rightfully annoyed at its success.

If the so called non franchise movie that you’re talking about had any merit, it wouldn’t have any problem finding another home. Based on the hundreds of duds released every year, there are actually probably to many blank checks being handed around

Edited March 29, 2019 by HouseOfTheSun

[Nova]

I thought we got the some early numbers cause this thread was popping. I wasted several minutes of my life reading the last several pages regarding topics that I can literally find posts about in every single thread on this forum. 

 

Just an FYI: If every single studio/corporation could do what Disney is doing, they would. In a heart beat. All corporations and studio operate with one bottom line: money aka greed. Don’t let them fool you into thinking otherwise. 

[Ms Lady Hawk]

https://deadline.com/2019/03/dumbo-box-office-results-disney-us-jordan-peele-weekend-1202584883/

 

DUMBO 46-49.

Us- 32

CM- 20

Edited March 29, 2019 by Ms Lady Hawk

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, The Panda said:

Then why did US open to 70m+ and seems to be having strong legs.

 

Horror is perceived to be a worth the theater experience for the crowd scare reaction, it is an high emotion/spectacle genre, like giant action.

 

4 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

Really funny how the default position from movies geeks is “sequels and remakes are inherently worse than original films” while the position from GA is pretty clearly “ sequels and remakes are generally superior to original films.”

 

Both sound false to me, there is no Godfather 2 is inherently worse than Movie 43, same goes versus Author vs non-author cinema I doubt many have a position that Transformer 4 is better than Casablanca/Gone With the WInd.

 

Is the position from the GA is clearly McDonald is better than those nice Italian restaurant, are easier/more covenant/more advertised/etc...

 

I think the position is more: Bigger the budget, superior the movie (and that tend to be obviously true), if you poll the general audience, Pixar sequel are generally better than Pixar first entry or franchise sequel are generally better than their first one (would it be Transformer, Stars wars or Pirates of the Caribbean) that they would say that usually the first one in the franchise was the weakest....

[Nova]

1 minute ago, Ms Lady Hawk said:

https://deadline.com/2019/03/dumbo-box-office-results-disney-us-jordan-peele-weekend-1202584883/

 

https://deadline.com/

Thank you!!! 

 

 

FYI:

$15M Friday for Dumbo for $46-45M for the weekend 

$9M Friday for Us for $32M weekend 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Nova

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

You might want to think about burned figers

Not sure why you are talking to me has if I was an idiot, to you think I do not know why they are doing this ? Do you think I become CEO that I would change anything ?