Jump to content

sfran43

Weekend Thread: Top 5 Actuals- The Lion King $76.62M | OUATIH $41.08M | SM: FFH $12.45M | TS3 $10.45M | CRAWL $4.06M

Recommended Posts

Just now, LawrenceBrolivier said:

How much do the 4pm start times factor into this preview number? You can probably stagger more than a few extra screenings into the 3 hour difference between this open and every other movie's opening.

It's a very good number no matter what, but is this a bad sign for frontloading? 

If I had to guess not too significantly. Being an over 2.5 hour movie meant that they probably wanted to start earlier to get more showtimes in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, keysersoze123 said:

I hope people stop underestimating Leo. He is THE Star. He picks his projects wisely as well.

Some are saying just slow down. The Revenant did 40m OW. Monstrous legs though so even if it did 8x (46.4m) it could still do awesome with great legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

I guess 17 14 11

I forgot Dunkirk is perfect comp for this, same Calender placement and Director having his own following. Here Leo is bonus. 

 

Dunkirk did 20 Friday after 5.5 Previews, but those were 6PM. Adjusting for that and yearly front loading of business, 17 seems about right.

Edited by Charlie Jatinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Unless you're J. Edgar lol (even if that movie really did look lame and boring and even his starpower couldn't rescue it from being label "Failed Oscar Bait 101").

J. Edgar barely even had an ad campaign too. I can see why it did so poorly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TMP said:

J. Edgar barely even had an ad campaign too. I can see why it did so poorly. 

It actually had a decent-sized marketing campaign at the time. It's just that the movie looked dull as shit and the reviews were the nail in the coffin. Movies like that always struggle to find an audience when they don't really have anything going for them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



No matter how you look at this, that’s a great number for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood! This is a tough comparison since R-rated 2 and a half hour tentpoles are rare.  So hopefully $50 million+ does happen! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Unless you're J. Edgar lol (even if that movie really did look lame and boring and even his starpower couldn't rescue it from being label "Failed Oscar Bait 101").

Well, that's one underperformer/bomb this decade while there are actors who are called stars despite a long chain of back to back bombs to their names. for example, Natalie Portman was hailed a boxoffice star cause of Black Swan success (where concept was arguably bigger draw than its "star") yet everything she headlined since was bombtastic to put it mildly. Ryan Reynolds found star power with Deadpool and not much else. 

 

There's no actor without bombs to their resume so it's amusing to me when someone has very consistent streak yet people nitpick those rare times when actor/actress couldn't safe some unappealing looking dud. 

Edited by Valonqar
Link to comment
Share on other sites



No matter how you look at this, that’s a great number for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood! This is a tough comparison since R-rated 2 and a half hour tentpoles are rare.  So hopefully $50 million+ does happen! 

  • ...wtf 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites











2 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

High 30s would make sense TBH. My 42 is probably on optimistic side, which I am more often than not.

This is a movie appealing to older demographics, it's not gonna be that front-loaded. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites













  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.