Weekend Thread: Weekend Actuals - John Wick: Chapter 3 $56.82M | Avengers Endgame $29.97M | Detective Pikachu $25.10M

[a2k]

So PIKACHU hitting 25 after all the mletdowns

150+ / 55 more back on the menu.

[MagnarTheGreat]

# of >=$200M domestic releases before June

2019: TBD (2 so far) ($1,195,949,389 latest estimates)
2018: 4 ($1,911,133,986)
2017: 4 ($1,346,112,719)
2016: 5 ($1,806,784,623)
2015: 3 ($1,013,164,241)
2014: 6 ($1,396,389,178)
2013: 4 ($1,111,384,330)
2012: 3 ($1,245,399,102)
2011: 3 ($705,373,782)
2010: 4 ($1,102,942,459)

 

images:

Spoiler

 

 

I guess that patterns this year most closely to 2015 so far, and with Endgame taking the place of The Force Awakens as the leading movie for its year. With popular movies yet to come in the back half of the year, I don't expect the slope to be quite as drastic as 2015. More money is potentially freed up for the back half of the year if Endgame and Captain Marvel alone didn't lay claim to it already with their huge hauls.

Edited May 20, 2019 by MagnarTheGreat
added total combined box office from those movies

[charlie Jatinder]

What a terrible last 2 years if not for MCU and Pixar.

In fact if removed superhero genre, last year was just $8.34 Billion domestically. This year in 5 months is just $2.8Bn.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Charlie Jatinder

[Mulder]

4 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

What a terrible last 2 years if not for MCU and Pixar.

Aquaman did a billion last year and 300+ million domestically last year not to mention Bohemian Rhapsody and MI Fallout. While MCU's def the top movie franchise rn, it's not just MCU and Pixar succeeding.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Mulder

[Juby]

2 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

hmm. Too precise. Would prefer to wait until tomorrow. if true its awesome hold. Would help definitely towards 850m finish.

 

That still over 51% drop. 

[charlie Jatinder]

34 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Aquaman did a billion last year and 300+ million domestically last year not to mention Bohemian Rhapsody and MI Fallout. While MCU's def the top movie franchise rn, it's not just MCU and Pixar succeeding.

I don't think 300 is any long a blockbuster number. I think that's over 400 or even 500 now.

 

Also Aquaman is again Superhero film.

[Mulder]

Just now, Charlie Jatinder said:

I don't think 300 is any long a blockbuster number. I think that's over 400 or even 500 now.

 

Also Aquaman is again Superhero film.

Superhero=/=MCU. 300 is still a blockbuster number because of how hard it is to hit. A lot of MCU movies didn't hit 300 and one just last year didn't.

[Minnale101]

Hopefully new decade next year we get some new franchises

[MikeQ]

19 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

I don't think 300 is any long a blockbuster number. I think that's over 400 or even 500 now.

I disagree, and I think this kind of thinking is problematic as it contributes to a climate on these boards in which box office performances are all or nothing. With the exception of one outlier this decade, only 2 to 6 films make $300+ million per year. If those aren't blockbusters, then what are they?  This is still a very hard threshold to reach, and doing so will still put you into the top 100 grossing films of all time.

 

If you want to make a designation that some films are uber blockbusters, that is one thing. But just because some franchise films make incredible numbers, doesn't mean $300+ million no longer represents blockbuster status, IMHO.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Legion Again]

Low 300s is medium sized now. It’s true that only a handful of movies a year hit it, but on the other hand, a handful of movies hit it every year. Around 7 a year for 2015-2018. Definitely not true blockbuster status anymore like it was in 2011.

 

 

[Legion Again]

And to be clear, nothing wrong with that. Inflation is as inflation does. Once upon a time 150M DOM was mega blockbuster status. Come mid 2020s 400 won’t be a huge deal anymore.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Thanos Legion

[charlie Jatinder]

All it need for 300mn is 30mn admits Approx. That's around 30% of potential capacity. Not a Blockbuster number IMO.

 

And we have a film now doing 300mn in weekend.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Charlie Jatinder

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

All it need for 300mn is 30mn admits Approx. That's around 30% of potential capacity. Not a Blockbuster number IMO.

 

And we have a film now doing 300mn in weekend.

Which most people thought was impossible until the presales came in. Endgame doing it was no easy thing.

[MikeQ]

5 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

Low 300s is medium sized now. It’s true that only a handful of movies a year hit it, but on the other hand, a handful of movies hit it every year. Around 7 a year for 2015-2018. Definitely not true blockbuster status anymore like it was in 2011.

 

 

I would say by definition, a $300+ million grosser cannot be "medium sized" if it guarantees you a spot in the top 10 films of the year, which it does. If $300+ million is "medium", then from my perspective, even if we don't want to call these blockbusters, we have a warped sense of what a film must gross in order to constitute a highly grossing film.

 

Peace,

Mike

[a2k]

3 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

All it need for 300mn is 30mn admits Approx. That's around 30% of potential capacity. Not a Blockbuster number IMO.

 

And we have a film now doing 300mn in weekend.

I think depends on the maximum potential that a movie has in the first place. 327 for IT was a blockbuster number, 330 for BVS wasn't cause unlike IT BVS's potential was far higher than 30mn admits.

[Legion Again]

300M is good for 82nd place. Rough equivalent of 208M 10 years ago.

[charlie Jatinder]

2 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

I would say by definition, a $300+ million grosser cannot be "medium sized" if it guarantees you a spot in the top 10 films of the year, which it does. If $300+ million is "medium", then from my perspective, even if we don't want to call these blockbusters, we have a warped sense of what a film must gross in order to constitute a highly grossing film.

 

Peace,

Mike

I am not saying 300 is medium. It's definitely a HIT number but not a Blockbuster as it was early this decade.

[charlie Jatinder]

2 minutes ago, a2k said:

I think depends on the maximum potential that a movie has in the first place. 327 for IT was a blockbuster number, 330 for BVS wasn't cause unlike IT BVS's potential was far higher than 30mn admits.

That's obvious. Its like saying 100cr was a Blockbuster number in India in 2011 but not even a HIT now for Khans. 

 

For a film like Badhaai Ho, 100cr is still relevant.

[Legion Again]

Even as recently as this point in year 2012, 300M was 41st place. Equivalent to 375M now. I’d call that a blockbuster, probably anything over 350 or so. But another half dozen years pass, 350 won’t be blockbuster anymore. That’s just the natural progression of these things. 

[Mulder]

If anything I think 'hit' is more relative to budget. Pikachu was a disappointment at 54 while John Wick is a massive success at 57.