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

[ThomasNicole]

6 minutes ago, jedijake said:

But movies like US, John Wyck 3, and OUAT, are making the same amount as movies like Pikachu, Shazam, How to Train3, and SLOP2. It's just that we are in a situation where $150-$200 million is great for one time of film but horrible for another. That's where we are right now. That's because some studios have tapped into how to spur MONSTER blockbusters, making average box office success look horrible. Fractured interests make some look like failures. Disney has excelled in making movies that reach a broad audience because they have existing themes. If the free market is to work, then perhaps the onus should be on the other studios to put out better products IF they want to get $300, $400, and $500 million movies. But I will say that those expectations are VERY unreasonable and unfair to be the measure for success.

I kinda agree, you have a good point.

 

It’s really a question of perception, for example, US and John Wick are both Rated R movies, not being part of one really big franchise and with not enormous budgets, so the numbers are great.

 

But for Pets for example making less than $ 400M after the first one made almost $ 900M, or Pikachu making $ 440M against a $ 150M budget, doesn’t seem that good. 

[cannastop]

25 minutes ago, Alli said:

I have not seen OUATIH yet. but US was trash. The legs prove the audience didn't enjoy it either. I expect the same for Once...

Well I mean. If people hated it, wouldn't it have declined from Get Out?

[Avatree]

10 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Is more complex, but obviously i’m talking in general. The big tentpoles this year didn’t do great because the movies are not that well received. 

 

Midsommar is an art house A24 movie, and from what i read (sadly the movie will be released here just in September) way more weird and polarizing than Hereditary. 

 

Alita face a lot of delays, problematic marketing campaign, and a not so good release date, it did really well considering the expectations.

 

Booksmart are released by a really tiny studio, with a really cheap campaign, in less theaters than usual.

 

I don’t think is fair compared those movies with blockbusters. I keep my opinion that Disney don’t own anything, they just made a good selection this year and are releasing decent enough movies for GA, the other studios failures is more because they’re blockbusters aren’t that good or have that much appeal. The only exception are Pikachu, but Warner did messed up the marketing with this one and was not able to sustain the hype after the teaser. 

 

so you're contradicting yourself. There are reasons that films do badly other than "being terrible".

[ACSlater]

18 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

Oh now I know why there is no E grade in India. All my life I thought F for Fail that's why F. Fuck.

 

Let's be honest here. Anything below a A is a failure in the Indian world. 

 

I learned that very quickly getting all those Bs and Cs. My Afrikaaner mom was like it's okay and my Indian dad was like you are a failure. 

[Avatree]

2 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Well I mean. If people hated it, wouldn't it have declined from Get Out?

It did.

 

Get Out

Uni.

$176,040,665

 

Us

Uni.

$175,005,930

 

[FlitcherBooks]

5 hours ago, HeadShot said:

TarantiNO getting a B-cinema score. 

 

"CINEMA IS DYING. Disney's blockbusters are destroying REALLL FILMS"

Well there you have it guys. The movie that was supposed to "save" (lol) the industry is getting a worse reception than a shitty shot-for-shot remake (TLK). 

 

 

You must be one of them *drags on a fag* coño heads?

[cannastop]

1 minute ago, Avatree said:

It did.

 

Get Out

Uni.

$176,040,665

 

Us

Uni.

$175,005,930

 

yeah by statistically 0%.

[ThomasNicole]

2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

so you're contradicting yourself. There are reasons that films do badly other than "being terrible".

There are, but primarily the big tentpoles this year did bad because they’re not well received or didn’t have appeal, not because people “choose” to watch only Disney or something. 

[Porthos]

Gods I hate all this Disney/original vs unoriginal talk so I'm going to swing it back to the Regal plan:

 

Quote

Despite sharing the same name as its European corporate parent’s Cineworld Unlimited subscription scheme, Regal’s solution has been specifically modified for the U.S. market. The plan is available in three tiers: Unlimited, priced at $18/month and available at 200 locations; Unlimited Plus at $21/month and available at 400 locations; and Unlimited All Access at $23.50/month which unlocks over 550 locations nationwide.

 

Consumers looking to access a location not included in their plan will be charged a surcharge between $1.50 and $3 on top of their monthly fee, with additional surcharges applying to premium auditoriums like RPX (Regal’s private-label PLF), IMAX, 4DX immersive seating, and ScreenX panoramic screens. There is no cap to the number of standard-format movies consumers can attend each month, nor blackout dates for new releases. A 10% discount on all concessions and non-alcoholic beverages is included in the plan.

I saw discussion about how this is "worse" than AMC, and maybe it is.  I wouldn't know, not having an AMC within 60 minutes of me.  But I think this beats the pants off of Cinemark's plan if one wants to watch three or four films a month and you don't mind seeing it in standard.

 

If AMC's plan is similar/better than this one, I can see it putting a fair amount of pressure on Cinemark to alter their Movie Club.

 

Thinking about it, the break even point for a single person is probably two movies a month, unless one usually pans their visits to matinees/Tuesdays.

 

The biggest downside I can see off the top of my head is the one that @TwoMisfits mentioned in that there is nothing in there about family pricing or the ability to buy even a single extra ticket.  This is one nice feature about Cinemark's plan in that it's actually ticket based.  Their tickets roll over and, theoretically, accumulate forever. Cinemark also allows a couple of extra tickets to be bought per month.  Not a lot, but more than zero.

 

As I think about it some more, the biggest downside to Regal's plan, outside of the lack of a family plan and the ability to buy extra tickets, is that one can only have three reservations in advance at any one time.  I think for most people that probably isn't a problem.  But it does pose a potential problem for folks who MUST have the best seats in the house when a blockbuster goes on pre-sale and they already have bookings "in the queue".

 

The more I think about it, the more I think this plan is tailored to a single person or at most a childless couple (subscriptions are absolutely tied to a person and non-transferrable [including tickets bought]). 

 

They've clearly decided to go for one segment of the market here and aren't trying to expand beyond it.  Be interesting to see how it evolves over time.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Porthos

[Porthos]

Also L-O-L at no discount for the yearly plan versus the monthly one.  Like not even a measly dollar.

 

Only reason I can think to get a yearly plan is 1) Fire and forget (that is one doesn't want to deal with the hassle of a monthly bill) or 2) Lock in a rate before Regal raises it unexpectedly.

 

There is something to be said for the latter reason.  But, still.  L-O-L at not even five or ten dollars savings on the yearly plan.

[Porthos]

BTW, here's the theater list, as of right now, for the three levels of Regal tiers.

 

https://www.regmovies.com/static/en/us/unlimited/theatre-list

 

Not surprisingly every location near me in the Sacramento region is in the so-called "Plus" tier.   No real surprises on there about where is the "expensive tiers" and where isn't.

[THUNDER BIRD]

1 minute ago, ThomasNicole said:

There are, but primarily the big tentpoles this year did bad because they’re not well received or didn’t have appeal, not because people “choose” to watch only Disney or something. 

Exactly my point, Disney is excelling because they are providing to audience what they want whereas other studios aren't (atleast not in 2019 so far).

 

So how is Disney destroying Hollywood? By giving people what they want? Considering movies are made primarily so that people come to watch them in theatres, Isn't Disney actually saving Hollywood?

 

Considering other studios this year have failed to attract audiences to theatres and Disney has, it means Disney is actually saving the Hollywood & it's business. The destroyer is the savior in reality.

[Alli]

9 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Well I mean. If people hated it, wouldn't it have declined from Get Out?

ummm Get Out opened less than half of US. 33M and it had monster legs. people (and myself) loved that movie. WOM was exceptional. US benefited from a huge opening because people loved Peele's previous movie

[baumer]

6 minutes ago, cannastop said:

yeah by statistically 0%.

you know the only reason why Us made as much money as it did is because of the Goodwill of get out. It opened to a monster amount. That movie was garbage and I think a lot of people who saw it actually felt that as well.

[cdsacken]

3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

BTW, here's the theater list, as of right now, for the three levels of Regal tiers.

 

https://www.regmovies.com/static/en/us/unlimited/theatre-list

 

Not surprisingly every location near me in the Sacramento region is in the so-called "Plus" tier.   No real surprises on there about where is the "expensive tiers" and where isn't.

What I think sucks is the surcharge for nicer seats with the same 2d screen. That's weak

[Alli]

Critics really blew it  with US. And the same thing seems to be happening with OUATIH. The raves and 5/5 scores look ridiculous now that people have seen the movie

Edited July 27, 2019 by Alli

[cannastop]

8 minutes ago, Porthos said:

They've clearly decided to go for one segment of the market here and aren't trying to expand beyond it.  Be interesting to see how it evolves over time.

Well yeah how else are they going to get money from the CPA and Lawyer and their two kids?

[Avatree]

8 minutes ago, cannastop said:

yeah by statistically 0%.

that's a 0.005% drop actually. Pretty steep. #NotARecord

[cdsacken]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

you know the only reason why Us made as much money as it did is because of the Goodwill of get out. It opened to a monster amount. That movie was garbage and I think a lot of people who saw it actually felt that as well.

I can't wait to see this. You hated it yet others loved it. Seems unlikely I will fall in between

[FilmBuff]

Regal going to be taking more losses. AMC’s A LIST is so much better. Regal bought out the recent theater we go to, and it’s basically gone to sh*te since then. Regal’s acquisition of Warren theaters was a catastrophic failure.