Weekend Thread: FvF vroooms past 30M+; Say Goodnight Angels with 8M for CA; Waves washes up 37k+ PTA

[keysersoze123]

28.5% drop at AMC and tad over 29% drop at CIN. Definitely should increase 0.5m or so with actuals. Of course OD/D2 also get adjusted and that could have an impact on overall numbers.

[Cooper Legion]

12 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

28.5% drop at AMC and tad over 29% drop at CIN. Definitely should increase 0.5m or so with actuals. Of course OD/D2 also get adjusted and that could have an impact on overall numbers.

Those drops would be a 1M increase, if Fri and Sat stay steady. Projected drop was 37, 8% diff is 1/12, Sat was 12M.

[filmlover]

2 hours ago, Jonwo said:

Interesting article about Warner Bros' mid budget misfortunes:

 

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/warner-bros-flops-doctor-sleep-goldfinch-1203400046/

 

TBH I don't think this year's misfires will stop WB green lighting mid budget films, they will either be more prudent with the number of them and their budgets or anything they're not too confident will quietly moved to HBO Max. I would probably say the 2019 flops that stung the most for them due to both having good reviews were Doctor Sleep and The Lego Movie 2. 

 

I will be interested to see how Richard Jewell fares, it's premiering next week at AFI so we'll get an idea if it's good or not. 

Of the 17 movies they've put out this year, 7 of them have or will finish with totals of less than $25M (and 3 of them with totals in the single digits). Pretty rough.

[Marcus Cato]

Why is Elizabeth Banks blaming men for this? Wasn't the target demographic for Charlie's Angels supposed to be young females?

[charlie Jatinder]

11 hours ago, Impact said:

lol at how bad Charlie did

[Zakiyyah6]

9 minutes ago, Marcus Cato said:

Why is Elizabeth Banks blaming men for this? Wasn't the target demographic for Charlie's Angels supposed to be young females?

Because she is upset and not thinking straight. Girls didn't want to see the film either, if they did it would have opened with at least 18-20 million.

[Firepower]

Joker Sunday number??

[CJohn]

@MCKillswitch123 JOKER WON AGAIN LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Disappointing opening for Ford v Ferrari. I expected more.

 

https://www.ica-ip.pt/fotos/downloads/ranking_fds_14_a_17_novembro_2019_40575dd2790fc831e.pdf

[MrGlass2]

2 hours ago, Marcus Cato said:

Why is Elizabeth Banks blaming men for this? Wasn't the target demographic for Charlie's Angels supposed to be young females?

You just need to make an appealing film with the appropriate movie star. That is why Last Christmas is dominating FvF in Europe (Mangold should have cast Statham and The Rock).

[TalismanRing]

8 hours ago, Eric Plus said:

 

 

If just the women who went to see the last SM movie showed up for Charlies Angels  it would have made about $170m domestic.

 

There have been numerous female audience skewed films that have made money even if a certain % of men stay away because they think those are films just for "girls'.   Women aren't a niche film going demographic. and we're more than 50% of the population in the U.S.

 

The film just wasn't appealing enough to women or men.

[a2k]

Kill Bill, Salt, Lucy come to mind thinking about non-CBM female lead action movies that have done very well. Mad Max Fury Road too even if it wasn't sold as one. These movies didn't have their leads adhering to the stereotyped male gaze.

 

2018 Tomb Raider was a great comp for CA and that did 23.63 ow and 58.25 dom (average 2.47x legs).

 

Among less mainstream films that didn't work very well, 9 years back Haywire still had more footfalls than CA. 19m dom on 23m budget wasn't good but still loads better than CA considering it didn't have as many big names.

 

Jan 20-22	6	$8,425,370	-	2,439	-	$3,454	$8,425,370	1
Jan 27-29	10	$4,002,760	-52.5%	2,441	+2	$1,639	$15,281,962	2
Feb 3-5	18	$1,202,767	-70%	1,251	-1,190	$961	$17,847,671	3
Feb 10-12	38	$204,442	-83%	263	-988	$777	$18,579,451	4
Feb 17-19	50	$69,716	-65.9%	79	-184	$882	$18,751,460	5
Feb 17-20 Presidents' Day wknd	48	$84,365	-	79	-	$1,067	$18,766,109	-
Feb 24-26	61	$40,071	-42.5%	37	-42	$1,083	$18,827,165	6
Mar 2-4	78	$9,890	-75.3%	32	-5	$309	$18,852,951	7
Mar 9-11	58	$41,369	+318.3%	82	+50	$504	$18,898,179	8
Mar 16-18	70	$14,263	-65.5%	69	-13	$206	$18,934,858	9

 

Proud Mary recently did 10 ow and 21 dom. Not good legs, isn't a success as budget was rumored as high as 30 (14 reported) but better performance than CA.

Jan 12-14	8	$9,959,053	-	2,125	-	$4,686	$9,959,053	1
Jan 12-15 MLK wknd	8	$11,701,440	-	2,125	-	$5,506	$11,701,440	1
Jan 19-21	11	$3,568,996	-64.2%	2,125	-	$1,679	$16,850,600	2
Jan 26-28	23	$1,326,285	-62.8%	1,003	-1,122	$1,322	$19,250,153	3
Feb 2-4	26	$548,420	-58.6%	513	-490	$1,069	$20,194,353	4
Feb 9-11	34	$226,265	-58.7%	211	-302	$1,072	$20,604,576	5
Feb 16-18	46	$40,738	-82%	62	-149	$657	$20,769,998	6
Feb 16-19 Presidents' Day wknd	46	$46,946	-	62	-	$757	$20,776,206	-
Feb 23-25	53	$40,206	-1.3%	74	+12	$543	$20,828,945	7
Mar 2-4	56	$24,678	-38.6%	47	-27	$525	$20,868,638	8

 

EDIT:

 

Lucy took on Hercules btw

1	-	Lucy	Universal Pictures	$43,899,340	-	3,173	-	$13,835	$43,899,340	1
2	-	Hercules	Paramount Pictures	$29,800,263	-	3,595	-	$8,289	$29,800,263	1

 

FSS breakdown

Jul 25, 2014	Friday	1	$17,088,110	-	-	3,173	$5,385	$17,088,110	1
Jul 26, 2014	Saturday	1	$15,024,580	-12.1%	-	3,173	$4,735	$32,112,690	2
Jul 27, 2014	Sunday	1	$11,786,650	-21.6%	-	3,173	$3,714	$43,899,340	3

Edited November 18, 2019 by a2k

[MCKillswitch123]

1 hour ago, CJohn said:

@MCKillswitch123 JOKER WON AGAIN LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Disappointing opening for Ford v Ferrari. I expected more.

 

https://www.ica-ip.pt/fotos/downloads/ranking_fds_14_a_17_novembro_2019_40575dd2790fc831e.pdf

WTF IS THIS MOVIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[sabrecmc]

12 hours ago, dudalb said:

Well, given that the most famous member of the original cast is no longer with us.....

I was talking about the movies, as I said, not the TV show.  I think the 2000 movie actresses are still alive?  

[Nova]

Mini rant: Female led films do well. We have seen it time and time again. Men go and watch those movies. We have seen it time and time again. The problem with CA wasn't men not supporting it. The problem is that no one supported it. And instead of pointing the finger at men, maybe Banks and Sony should look in the mirror and realize they're at the top of the list of why their movie flopped. The fact that Banks can look at an $8M OW domestically and come to the conclusion that men are the reason why it flopped is wild. It's like she is saying women supporting the film but men didn't. So she only expected $8M worth of tickets to come from women, her target demo for the film? How much more than that $8M did she expect men to contribute to the box office? And thats making the assumption that only women supported the film this weekend which obviously isn't true when looking at the breakdown. 

 

There are obviously situations were fragile egos of men are out in full force to try and take down female led films but Charlie's Angels was not one of those cases. And blaming men for CA flopping is actually a hindrance to other female led movies. When there are actual situations in which some men on the internet try to take down a female led film, people won't take it seriously. Finally, pin pointing the blame where blame does not belong does not fix what the actual problem was with the film and prevents studios from fixing the actual problem that CA had for future women led films. 

[TigerPaw]

2 hours ago, CJohn said:

@MCKillswitch123 JOKER WON AGAIN LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Disappointing opening for Ford v Ferrari. I expected more.

 

https://www.ica-ip.pt/fotos/downloads/ranking_fds_14_a_17_novembro_2019_40575dd2790fc831e.pdf

The title Le Mans 66 is tough to attract walk-ups..

[TigerPaw]

6 minutes ago, Nova said:

Mini rant: Female led films do well. We have seen it time and time again. Men go and watch those movies. We have seen it time and time again. The problem with CA wasn't men not supporting it. The problem is that no one supported it. And instead of pointing the finger at men, maybe Banks and Sony should look in the mirror and realize they're at the top of the list of why their movie flopped. The fact that Banks can look at an $8M OW domestically and come to the conclusion that men are the reason why it flopped is wild. It's like she is saying women supporting the film but men didn't. So she only expected $8M worth of tickets to come from women, her target demo for the film? How much more than that $8M did she expect men to contribute to the box office? And thats making the assumption that only women supported the film this weekend which obviously isn't true when looking at the breakdown. 

 

There are obviously situations were fragile egos of men are out in full force to try and take down female led films but Charlie's Angels was not one of those cases. And blaming men for CA flopping is actually a hindrance to other female led movies. When there are actual situations in which some men on the internet try to take down a female led film, people won't take it seriously. Finally, pin pointing the blame where blame does not belong does not fix what the actual problem was with the film and prevents studios from fixing the actual problem that CA had for future women led films. 

I think Banks is getting too much Backlash for her comments. I mean the context of it was not defending the bad box office. From the date of the interview, it seems that she said this as a response to Why The Movie was Made.

[Zakiyyah6]

1 minute ago, TigerPaw said:

I think Banks is getting too much Backlash for her comments. I mean the context of it was not defending the bad box office. From the date of the interview, it seems that she said this as a response to Why The Movie was Made.

People often ask "why was this movie made?" Joker had those exact same questions before it was released. Banks letting that question get under her skin is weird.

[Nova]

4 minutes ago, TigerPaw said:

I think Banks is getting too much Backlash for her comments. I mean the context of it was not defending the bad box office. From the date of the interview, it seems that she said this as a response to Why The Movie was Made.

I don’t think that makes it any better. You shouldn’t be making a movie for the purpose of sticking it to another gender. And if that wasn’t the reason why CA was made, she shouldn’t have answered the way she did. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Nova

[filmlover]

Aren't those Banks comments from last week before the movie opened?

[The Panda]

5 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Because she is upset and not thinking straight. Girls didn't want to see the film either, if they did it would have opened with at least 18-20 million.

Nobody wanted to see Charlie’s Angels