Weekend Thread: Friday #s - Onward 12.1, Invisible Man 4.3, Way Back 2.6 | Blame It On the Roni

[a2k]

4 minutes ago, Arendelle Legion said:

My gut says this is on the A side of A- whereas Cars 2 was on the B+ side of A-.  
 

Zootopia has a massive 4.1x True IM, but imo this will be lucky to hit HTTYD3’s 3.6x.  
 

2+9.5*3.6->36. 100 could be tough with covid

hyyd3 was a tri-quel. despite some pixar front-loading i don't think it will do that badly. maybe 37.5 odd minimum with 9.5 true-fri.

[keysersoze123]

Onward OD END

MTC1 - overall 4570 shows 121741/857262 1719583.90 1414173.16 post 6PM 2172 shows 80127/415766 1193438.76 962747.74

MTC2 - overall 4391 shows 138055/696915 1466572.59 1150933.55 post 6PM 1686 shows 78822/274993 947335.31 670949.34

 

Weird run. MTC1 is like 8m friday while MTC2 is like 13m friday. But MTC1 has much bigger impact on overall BO. I would say 9-9.5m true friday. 

[titanic2187]

Pixar has been obsessed with sequels in the past decade, only 3 of the 11 release are original, a awfully low number for a studio that was once champion original & innovative IP. 

 

With their addiction to sequels, they forgot how to make a great original film , they even forgot how to market them now.   

[Legion Again]

2 minutes ago, a2k said:

hyyd3 was a tri-quel. despite some pixar front-loading i don't think it will do that badly. maybe 37.5 odd minimum with 9.5 true-fri.

I believe Sat bumps will suffer across the board as covid awareness is higher than it was on Fri, and Sun drops will suffer across the board as covid awareness is higher than it was on Sat. Not a huge effect in either case, but shaving a couple tenths off most internal multis. Hopefully end up wrong on that though.

[keysersoze123]

4 minutes ago, Arendelle Legion said:

I believe Sat bumps will suffer across the board as covid awareness is higher than it was on Fri, and Sun drops will suffer across the board as covid awareness is higher than it was on Sat. Not a huge effect in either case, but shaving a couple tenths off most internal multis. Hopefully end up wrong on that though.

 

PS is up like 65% and walk ups generally are better on saturday but COVID-19 impact cannot be quantified. Looking at OD MTC1/2 break up some cities might have slowed down. Requires city level BO data that only charlie can confirm. 

[Ryan Reynolds]

1 hour ago, Johnny Tran said:

Disney botching Star Wars as they have is almost as incredible as their Marvel run of success.  

Bob threw George's sequel treatments in the trash, and Pixar screenwriter left cause he could not turn in a good script in timetable Disney mandated to please shareholders

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

I saw Way Back at 430 and theater had about 20 or so people. Surprising amount of younger adults. I think it lacks enough basketball to satisfy the mainstream who isn’t expecting something so dark and gray 

[keysersoze123]

Way Back OD

MTC1 - overall 1489 shows 41989/194234 493325.96 391864.30 post 6PM 704 shows 24545/91861 311152.89 239572.43

MTC2 - overall 1258 shows 36771/157834 351224.32 275283.56 post 6PM 534 shows 19500/66768 217702.15 150297.66

 

Again MTC2 overperformed relatively though not as much as onward. I would say 2.8-2.9m OD. 

[Webslinger]

23 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

With their addiction to sequels, they forgot how to make a great original film , they even forgot how to market them now.   

I definitely wouldn't write Pixar off just yet. Their recent output has still been generally very well-received, and Soul looks promising if only because of Pete Docter's presence at the helm. His past two films both overperformed against expectations, and Inside Out did it after a period where Pixar's preceding three films fell well short of their typical standards. I'm hopeful that he has another big winner waiting in the wings, but I guess we'll see.

[Darth Lehnsherr]

I don't think anyone is seriously writing off Pixar with originals. But I think with the major focus on sequels in the last 10 years have meant Pixar originals are no longer must see events. The loyalty of the GA is to the 2000s Pixar films not necessarily Pixar itself anymore. 

[charlie Jatinder]

49 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

Onward OD END

MTC1 - overall 4570 shows 121741/857262 1719583.90 1414173.16 post 6PM 2172 shows 80127/415766 1193438.76 962747.74

MTC2 - overall 4391 shows 138055/696915 1466572.59 1150933.55 post 6PM 1686 shows 78822/274993 947335.31 670949.34

 

Weird run. MTC1 is like 8m friday while MTC2 is like 13m friday. But MTC1 has much bigger impact on overall BO. I would say 9-9.5m true friday. 

Issue with coverage. MTC 2 actuals are within your range assuming 100% coverage while MTC 1 is toward higher end with our regular coverage ratio.

Edited March 7, 2020 by charlie Jatinder

[Krissykins]

1 hour ago, stealthyfrog said:

Stark divide between an A- Cinemascore and the 97% verified audience score on RT

Probably because the kids didn’t like it as much as the parents, and the kids don’t use RT. 

1 hour ago, PNF2187 said:

Iparents a fantastic 5 stars, and kids under 12 (largely boys at 61%), an OK 3 1/2 stars.

 

 

[The Futurist]

You all make it sound like creating a world and characters, especially in the genre/fantasy/sci fi/ animation world that have global appeal is an easy task.

And you whine about sequilitis all day.

Evil creatively bankrupt Disney amirite ?

 

Meanwhile QT recreates 1969 and Mangold recreates  Le Mans, Gerwing & Scorcese re-creates a time period, and they all get praised for it.

All hail the Xerox method.

But they are not evil sequels, so that  s good, these movies love the mundanity and banality of our world and get praised for it.

Oh My gods, those Korean apartments in Parasite were so creative, rumor has it there are millions of them over there.

I know the filmmakers add their creativity to their films but don't pretend you are missing  my point.

Creating a movie like Onward and  xeroxing 1969 with a twist are NOT the same thing and If you don't understand the fundamental difference, I don't what to say to you.

Chris Terrio gets an Oscar for adapting true life events but he is the laughing stock of geeks worldwide for participating in the sabotage of two iconic fantasy/sci-fi franchises.

See ?

 

Am I the only one seing the hilarious double standard here ?

Seems so.

 

My premise is that creating ten different Toy Story & Finding Nemo in a lifetime is an impossible task for any person or entity.

Or even adapting fictionnal material like a comic book or other source material and make it work on film is ultra hard :

John Carter, Green Lantern, Suicide Squad, Lone Ranger, Green Hornet, Prince Of Persia, Assasin s Creed, Battleship ( lol), Pacific Rim, Speed racer, Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrow Land, Rampage, Wolverine 1   etc etc ring a bell ?

Even Mad Max Fury Road barely mad its money back & BR 2049 lost money.

The list goes on and on, dozens, hundreds of big blockbusters  films failed, creatively, commercially or both.

 

YOu think Disney could afford more flops on the magnitude of Prince of Perisa,  Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tomorrow Land, John Carter and Lone Ranger just to prove that, in your eyes, they are creative and take enough risks ?

 

Plus, what s wrong with giving new films with characters and worlds people love ?

 

People whine about the Marvel formula all day, but their(well,his) genius until now has been to be able to add just enough novelty with each new film to keep people interested & excited to move people s butts in seats.

Are the three Captain American movies the same ?

The MCU team is very self aware of that and every franchise producer too.

You are all forgetting on purpose all the franchises starters hopefuls that crashed and burnt at the box office to allow yourself to whine in an unjust manner about franchise filmmaking.

 

The flop list goes on and on but when you invest 100 to 300m in a movie your margin of error is pretty thin and then you learn the notion of taking a risk is absolutely not what you think it is.

Every movie is taking a risk, nut its nature and scope can be very different.

 

I remember Scott Derrickson saying how hard it had been to sell the world and laws of Dr Strange to audiences and make it work on film, everything had to be somewhat coherent, plausible & understandable to audiences when you are dealing with magic and inter-dimensionnal Gods & forces.

Bong Joon Ho took two hours to explain to you there are haves and have nots, that is is not cool, and that their co-existence can be somewhat difficult.

Breaking news information, call CNN. 

 

The director of Parasite couldn't create ten new Toy Story and Fast & Furious if he tried, Cameron,  Lucas, Spielberg ,Nolan could not either.

 

Plus it is way harder to do it in a real live action film setting than in animation where you can cheat way more with the suspension of disbelief :

Boss Baby in a live action anyone ? Good luck with that.

The baby in Incredibles 1&2 would be impossible to do in a live action setting too and he is a an audience favorite, same goes for all the crazy stuff that happens in Spiderman Into the Multiverse you just couldn't do in live action.

That s why sometimes people say they feel there is more creativity & new Ips in animation blockbusters than live action ones.

 

To cut a long story short, my premise is the following :

 

Making Good Fellas is easier to do than Making The Avengers.

But they are both herculean tasks done by brilliant men and women.

Yet, conceited cinephiles are condescending,  patronizing and arrogant with one of these two films, i'll let you guess witch one of the two.

You have the right to prefer or dislike one to another, but you should treat both of them with equal respect, at the very least.

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Open an history book on Star Wars whith hundreds of articles and quotes of  late 70's sci-fi writers and critics about how stupid and void George lucas creation was, how it was silly escapism for the masses).

 

Some of you sound like those grumpy late 70's guys I am referring to sometimes.

Edited March 7, 2020 by The Futurist

[john2000]

1 hour ago, charlie Jatinder said:

Issue with coverage. MTC 2 actuals are within your range assuming 100% coverage while MTC 1 is toward higher end with our regular coverage ratio.

sorry but what does this mean ?

[misafeco]

4 hours ago, narniadis said:

Seems like some posters need to read the conversation a few pages back....

 

Sony and Illuminations business models are dramatically different versus Pixar being a 100% US based and in California no less company. That right there on top of the cost of research and technology design that comes with each of their films is where a ton of the cost comes from. 

It would be a shame if Onward's underperformance convinces the studio heads to release less originals. That's why I was worried about the overpriced budget. Inside Out is my favorite movie of the whole last decade and I loved Coco too, I'd hate if we'd get less of these because of financial reasons. They should keep the budgets reasonable and there will be no problem.

[john2000]

5 minutes ago, misafeco said:

It would be a shame if Onward's underperformance convinces the studio heads to release less originals. That's why I was worried about the overpriced budget. Inside Out is my favorite movie of the whole last decade and I loved Coco too, I'd hate if we'd get less of these because of financial reasons. They should keep the budgets reasonable and there will be no problem.

personally i doubt it , as the 1 bill movies from pixar was sequel that were created by original movies, if that makes sense

[Sandro Mazzola]

47 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

You all make it sound like creating a world and characters, especially in the genre/fantasy/sci fi/ animation world that have global appeal is an easy task.

And you whine about sequilitis all day.

Evil creatively bankrupt Disney amirite ?

 

Meanwhile QT recreates 1969 and Mangold recreates  Le Mans, Gerwing & Scorcese re-creates a time period, and they all get praised for it.

All hail the Xerox method.

But they are not evil sequels, so that  s good, these movies love the mundanity and banality of our world and get praised for it.

Oh My gods, those Korean apartments in Parasite were so creative, rumor has it there are millions of them over there.

I know the filmmakers add their creativity to their films but don't pretend you are missing  my point.

Creating a movie like Onward and  xeroxing 1969 with a twist are NOT the same thing and If you don't understand the fundamental difference, I don't what to say to you.

Chris Terrio gets an Oscar for adapting true life events but he is the laughing stock of geeks worldwide for participating in the sabotage of two iconic fantasy/sci-fi franchises.

See ?

 

Am I the only one seing the hilarious double standard here ?

Seems so.

 

My premise is that creating ten different Toy Story & Finding Nemo in a lifetime is an impossible task for any person or entity.

Or even adapting fictionnal material like a comic book or other source material and make it work on film is ultra hard :

John Carter, Green Lantern, Suicide Squad, Lone Ranger, Green Hornet, Prince Of Persia, Assasin s Creed, Battleship ( lol), Pacific Rim, Speed racer, Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrow Land, Rampage, Wolverine 1   etc etc ring a bell ?

Even Mad Max Fury Road barely mad its money back & BR 2049 lost money.

The list goes on and on, dozens, hundreds of big blockbusters  films failed, creatively, commercially or both.

 

YOu think Disney could afford more flops on the magnitude of Prince of Perisa,  Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tomorrow Land, John Carter and Lone Ranger just to prove that, in your eyes, they are creative and take enough risks ?

 

Plus, what s wrong with giving new films with characters and worlds people love ?

 

People whine about the Marvel formula all day, but their(well,his) genius until now has been to be able to add just enough novelty with each new film to keep people interested & excited to move people s butts in seats.

Are the three Captain American movies the same ?

The MCU team is very self aware of that and every franchise producer too.

You are all forgetting on purpose all the franchises starters hopefuls that crashed and burnt at the box office to allow yourself to whine in an unjust manner about franchise filmmaking.

 

The flop list goes on and on but when you invest 100 to 300m in a movie your margin of error is pretty thin and then you learn the notion of taking a risk is absolutely not what you think it is.

Every movie is taking a risk, nut its nature and scope can be very different.

 

I remember Scott Derrickson saying how hard it had been to sell the world and laws of Dr Strange to audiences and make it work on film, everything had to be somewhat coherent, plausible & understandable to audiences when you are dealing with magic and inter-dimensionnal Gods & forces.

Bong Joon Ho took two hours to explain to you there are haves and have nots, that is is not cool, and that their co-existence can be somewhat difficult.

Breaking news information, call CNN. 

 

The director of Parasite couldn't create ten new Toy Story and Fast & Furious if he tried, Cameron,  Lucas, Spielberg ,Nolan could not either.

 

Plus it is way harder to do it in a real live action film setting than in animation where you can cheat way more with the suspension of disbelief :

Boss Baby in a live action anyone ? Good luck with that.

The baby in Incredibles 1&2 would be impossible to do in a live action setting too and he is a an audience favorite, same goes for all the crazy stuff that happens in Spiderman Into the Multiverse you just couldn't do in live action.

That s why sometimes people say they feel there is more creativity & new Ips in animation blockbusters than live action ones.

 

To cut a long story short, my premise is the following :

 

Making Good Fellas is easier to do than Making The Avengers.

But they are both herculean tasks done by brilliant men and women.

Yet, conceited cinephiles are condescending,  patronizing and arrogant with one of these two films, i'll let you guess witch one of the two.

You have the right to prefer one to another, but you sould treat both of them with equal respect, at the very least.

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Open an history book on Star Wars whith hundreds of articles and quotes of  late 70's sci-fi writers and critics about how stupid and void George lucas creation was, how it was silly escapism for the masses).

 

Some of you sound like those grumpy late 70's guys I am referring to sometimes.

Tl;dr

[Madhuvan]

2 Disney original movies have made 1b+. Disney movies can connect to far wider audience than Pixar. 

Pixar is generally male dominated. 

 

(Frozen in 2014 and Zootopia in 2016)

 

There is a chance that Raya The Last Dragon also does over billion. 

 

 

[john2000]

19 minutes ago, Madhuvan said:

2 Disney original movies have made 1b+. Disney movies can connect to far wider audience than Pixar. 

Pixar is generally male dominated. 

 

(Frozen in 2014 and Zootopia in 2016)

 

There is a chance that Raya The Last Dragon also does over billion. 

 

 

what i have see in general is that for most of the time walt disney animation movies have bigger buzz than pixars in general

 

 

ps moana ,big hero 6 

Edited March 7, 2020 by john2000

[RealLyre]

4 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

ONWARD (2020)

 

yeah this puts the nail in the coffin. Pixar movie with less than average Pixar reviews, less than average Pixar cinemascore and audience reception, it only makes sense for it to underperform.

COVID-19 impact on onward is very minimal. Disney just have a miss on their hands. 

 

 

 

 

unless people start blaming the less than expected CS and reviews on this outbreak