Weekend Thread: Endgame 40.6M Friday, 61-62.5m Sat (per Asgard p.49)

[Brainbug]

10 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

And how JW is the only one from this millennium not owned by Disney.

 

The one shining light of hope for cinema among the evil darkness, that is Jurassic World.

[Legion Again]

27 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

Wow that is some revisionist history. An “out of nowhere film” ? The next Cameron film 12 years after the phenomenon that was titanic, that boasted “impressive” new technology, had an insane (by 2009 standards, hell even by today’s standards it is big) 240 million production budget and was hyped beyond belief everywhere in the world was an “out of nowhere” film ? What’s next, Avatar was similar to something like “my big fat Greek wedding” ?

 

Oh and it is nice to see that something that was considered a HUGE disadvantage in this forum before IW opened , the fact that it was to be the culmination of a gazillion films so it couldn’t break a certain box office ceiling because you must have watched all these films and so on and so on (the posts are still here), suddenly became a big .....advantage, again revisionist history.

 

Cameron’s films were phenomenons, the whole MCU is a phenomenon , the end.

It is extremely funny how fast we went from “being based on 20 previous movies is an issue that will turn away casuals” to “being based on 20 previous movies is a huge advantage and it’s unfair to compare Endgame to normal movies because of it”

[cannastop]

 

[LonePirate]

45 minutes ago, Ruthie said:

Movies like Long Shot aren't my cup of tea, but if they were, the trailer would have done nothing to entice me to see it.  It left me with the impression that the movie is another routine schmuck-and-out-of-his-league-beauty-fall-in-love story with a loud sidekick thrown in to make an unfunny movie seem like it's funny. 

Using your definition style, Endgame is another routine outing of people and creatures with impossible physical abilities to save the world from its greatest threat since the last time using a deus ex machina to give them a chance so as not to make it seem like a carbon copy of the previous film. In fact, that summary can be tweaked just slightly to describe just about every superhero movie.

[Jim Shorts]

35 minutes ago, Sagemode87 said:

The beautiful thing about Avatar is that it was an out of nowhere new IP. It opened up to just 70 opening weekend, wasn't part of a huge saga 12 years in the making. I'd say Avatars record is way more impressive regardless. 

Avatar opened to $70 mil because the east coast was hit with one of the biggest snow storms in years.

[IceFire9yt]

17 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

It is extremely funny how fast we went from “being based on 20 previous movies is an issue that will turn away casuals” to “being based on 20 previous movies is a huge advantage and it’s unfair to compare Endgame to normal movies because of it”

Part 2 movies always decrease.  Infinity War had everyone, what can Endgame bring?  The ceiling for CBMs Domestically is the Avengers adjusted for inflation.  No movie can gross more than 70 80M in a day.  Game of Thrones is going to sabotage its opening weekend.  The 3 hour runtime is going to hurt it.  The spoiler leak will hurt it.  Detective Pikachu opening in its third weekend will hurt it.

[Avatree]

1 minute ago, IceFire9yt said:

Part 2 movies always decrease.  Infinity War had everyone, what can Endgame bring?  The ceiling for CBMs Domestically is the Avengers adjusted for inflation.  No movie can gross more than 70 80M in a day.  Game of Thrones is going to sabotage its opening weekend.  The 3 hour runtime is going to hurt it.  The spoiler leak will hurt it.  Detective Pikachu opening in its third weekend will hurt it.

since when have people claimed that part 2s always decrease? i've never heard anyone make that claim.

[Alli]

1 minute ago, Avatree said:

since when have people claimed that part 2s always decrease? i've never heard anyone make that claim.

this is the argument some folks use to justify WW1984 making less than the first.  they use some examples like Sam Raimi Spidey 2 Under the first one

[Brainbug]

4 minutes ago, IceFire9yt said:

Part 2 movies always decrease.  Infinity War had everyone, what can Endgame bring?  The ceiling for CBMs Domestically is the Avengers adjusted for inflation.  No movie can gross more than 70 80M in a day.  Game of Thrones is going to sabotage its opening weekend.  The 3 hour runtime is going to hurt it.  The spoiler leak will hurt it.  Detective Pikachu opening in its third weekend will hurt it.

 

That was always my favourite since i am convinced (and try to convince other people here) that TV shows have exactly 0 influence on the peformance of movies, no matter how big they are. Endgame shattered the Sunday record with 90M and how many fucks did it give that GoT aired its longest episode that night?

Edited May 5, 2019 by Brainbug

[Avatree]

Just now, Alli said:

this is the argument some folks use to justify WW1984 making less than the first.  they use some examples like Sam Raimi Spidey 2 Under the first one

sequels often decrease, we are talking about part 1/2 films. last time I checked Spider-Man was not a two part film

[lorddemaxus]

59 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

 

 

1

51 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

 240 million production budget and was hyped beyond belief everywhere in the world was an “out of nowhere” film ?

Not disagreeing with what you said overall but Titanic was hyped to become one of the biggest flops of all time because of the overbudgeting, production troubles, 3 hours long, leads no one cared for etc. Every time the media talked about the movie, it was always toxic. It was completely different to what you said. No one expected it to become as big as it became. Everyone thought it was going to be a mega-flop. It's like the opposite of what happened to Justice League. And a lot of people also did say Avatar is a flop on its opening weekend. No one expected those great legs after that terrible 77 mil (for a movie with a 237 mil production budget I mean). I would call what you said history revisionism too. But I do agree that both the Cameron films and MCU are phenomenons.

Edited May 5, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Alli]

2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

sequels often decrease, we are talking about part 1/2 films. last time I checked Spider-Man was not a two part film

oops yeah. We don't have many examples of that. Harry POtter part 2 increased and Twilight 2 increased too. only Hunger Games decreased

Edited May 5, 2019 by Alli

[JB33]

58 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

Wow that is some revisionist history. An “out of nowhere film” ? The next Cameron film 12 years after the phenomenon that was titanic, that boasted “impressive” new technology, had an insane (by 2009 standards, hell even by today’s standards it is big) 240 million production budget and was hyped beyond belief everywhere in the world was an “out of nowhere” film ? What’s next, Avatar was similar to something like “my big fat Greek wedding” ?

 

Oh and it is nice to see that something that was considered a HUGE disadvantage in this forum before IW opened , the fact that it was to be the culmination of a gazillion films so it couldn’t break a certain box office ceiling because you must have watched all these films and so on and so on (the posts are still here), suddenly became a big .....advantage, again revisionist history.

 

Cameron’s films were phenomenons, the whole MCU is a phenomenon , the end.

Bingo! Hell, outside of the technological advancements and stuff, Avatar already had a huge built-in hook: the next film from the director of Titanic 12 years in the making. Avatar 2 will have that hook too. It certainly won't be some underdog.

[IceFire9yt]

6 minutes ago, Avatree said:

since when have people claimed that part 2s always decrease? i've never heard anyone make that claim.

I was thinking it would take a while to dig up a post mentioning this, but nope, found it in like 30 seconds.

On 3/17/2019 at 4:48 PM, shayhiri said:

OK, here's SEVEN MAJOR REASONS!! why it is 100% certain that Endgame will make LESS than IW:

 

1. Second parts of dual-movies ALWAYS do worse. Understandably. (Pirates, Matrix, etc...)

 

[keysersoze123]

Just now, JB33 said:

Bingo! Hell, outside of the technological advancements and stuff, Avatar already had a huge built-in hook: the next film from the director of Titanic 12 years in the making. Avatar 2 will have that hook too. It certainly won't be some underdog.

Actually as we approached the release, Avatar seemed to be hit with negative buzz. Even the reviews were not overly glowing. That definitely impacted the OD. Saturday was impacted big time by snowstorm and sunday was when we could see WOM impact as it increased big time from saturday. So it was never a sure thing. We lost BOM forums but even in KJ we had threads like Sherlock holmes beating Avatar from good ol' @excel1

[Porthos]

2 minutes ago, IceFire9yt said:

I was thinking it would take a while to dig up a post mentioning this, but nope, found it in like 30 seconds.

You do realize that quoting shay here doesn't actually improve your point about it being something this board generally thinks. 

[DeeCee]

Walt Disney Co's Avengers: Endgame passes Walt Disney Co's Titanic for the #2 spot on the all time worldwide box office and is closing in on Walt Disney Co's Avatar for the all time #1 spot.

 

(Yes, I know Titanic was Paramount in North America)

[Thrylos 7]

 

9 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Not disagreeing with what you said overall but Titanic was hyped to become one of the biggest flops of all time because of the overbudgeting, production troubles, 3 hours long, leads no one cared for etc. Every time the media talked about the movie, it was always toxic. It was completely different to what you said. No one expected it to become as big as it became. Everyone thought it was going to be a mega-flop. It's like the opposite of what happened to Justice League. And a lot of people also did say Avatar is a flop on its opening weekend. No one expected those great legs after that terrible 77 mil (for a movie with a 237 mil production budget I mean). I would call what you said history revisionism too. But I do agree that both the Cameron films and MCU are phenomenons.

Agreed about Titanic, many thought that it would flop and ruin Cameron. Avatar is another story entirely though.

[Ruthie]

14 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

Using your definition style, Endgame is another routine outing of people and creatures with impossible physical abilities to save the world from its greatest threat since the last time using a deus ex machina to give them a chance so as not to make it seem like a carbon copy of the previous film. In fact, that summary can be tweaked just slightly to describe just about every superhero movie.

LonePirate, I don't engage in enough conversations here at BOT to consider myself accustomed to how members typically communicate with each other, so I am legitimately baffled by your response to my post.  My post had nothing to do with Endgame or any other superhero movie, but everything to do with how off-putting I considered Long Shot's trailer and, by extension, was agreeing with whomever I quoted that Lionsgate did a miserable job of promoting the movie.   

[IceFire9yt]

4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

You do realize that quoting shay here doesn't actually improve your point about it being something this board generally thinks. 

Haha, fair enough.  My post isn't really aimed at the board in general though.  Some of that stuff was widely held, but stuff like GoT, the 3 hour runtime, and the spoiler leak was really just a few vocal people.

Edited May 5, 2019 by IceFire9yt