Father's Day weekend June 18 -20

[TwoMisfits]

6 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Not to speak for @TwoMisfits, but I believe she was referring to Fant4stic Four, since she bolded that movie when she quoted DJAK. 

 

Yup, the power of looking for a short streaming movie late at night:)...someone mentioned 2 hours is a problem for theater movies - nah!  It is a problem for at home streaming movies selected by those not quite as young as they used to be, started at almost 11pm at night:)...

Edited June 21, 2021 by TwoMisfits

[charlie Jatinder]

I don't think Mojo new thing is as bad as made.

 

Yes there are some really good things lost and may be data entry errors have increased manifold but I like the new UI a bit and there is more INT data being reported now.

 

 

 

 

 

[charlie Jatinder]

10 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Not to speak for @TwoMisfits, but I believe she was referring to Fant4stic Four, since she bolded that movie when she quoted DJAK. 

 

urgh

 

[BK007]

8 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

Some folks thought they had an IP with In the Heights: Lin Manuel Miranda.  Turns out that while he is IMO undeniably talented (setting aside whether or not MPR was a disappointment at the box office, Moana proves he ain't a one-hit wonder), his name alone isn't enough to draw a crowd.  Not yet at least.

 

If we want to set absolutely everything else working against the film aside, I wonder if this isn't a source of a lot of the disappointment.  LMM's name wasn't enough to get people curious in the film and check it out.

I mean, does anyone really care for LMM? 

 

As someone who doesn't live in the US, I only heard his name after it was tied with Moana, which I assume is where most people outside of the US heard of him & then Hamilton was also in the same year so I remember vaguely about discussions of the two.

 

But, if what others are saying is true, about there not being very catchy songs in In the Heights, then what does it really have as a musical? People calling the death of the musical or only talking about Broadway spawned ones when we've just recently had La La Land and The Greatest Showman earning over $150m. 

 

Of course people are also saying that In the Heights is a crowdpleaser like the other two, but it definitely lacked a story from the trailers and of course starpower which you could say was massive for La La Land at the time, and Hugh Jackman is no slouch though TGS I feel was more to do with the feel-good nature of its songs. I don't think any other musical movie besides Frozen and A Star is Born (Gaga) had songs transcend onto radio/charts/etc. 

 

Based on that evidence, I don't think Dear Evan Hansen will do very well especially with its very weird premise. West Side Story has the years of awareness and Spielberg but has no one with any clout as a star besides the sex assaulter Elgort who may sink the whole thing anyway.

[BK007]

7 hours ago, grey ghost said:

 

Star power is completely dead.

 

You can't just rely on big names anymore whether its Lin Manuel or Nolan.

 

We are in the age of IP's. That's how something like GvK and QP2 get better than expected numbers. They're both franchises and events. People already were focused on franchises before but now, after corona, it's even more pronounced. 

 

And yet Peter Rabbit, In the Heights, Cruella etc. 

 

These proclamations are always ridiculous. Never in the history of anything has only one factor made a difference.

 

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

 

 

 

So basically follow the money? 

 

I don't think anyone watched TFATF franchise for diversity, but I won't complain if that's what Hollywood took away from it. Seems like their takeaways more often than not completely miss the point. 

 

As a minority, I don't think we like diversity for the sake of, so shoehorning comes across like how being China funded meant you needed a Chinese actress to deliver some irrelevant lines in a blockbuster. 

 

Also GvK was clearly fudged this weekend. Only a 14% drop? I'm sure it could've eventually made it to $100m anyway though.

[Cooper Legion]

20 minutes ago, BK007 said:

Also GvK was clearly fudged this weekend. Only a 14% drop? I'm sure it could've eventually made it to $100m anyway though.

Please don’t make claims like this unless you actually know what you’re talking about. GvK had Father’s Day+Canada, not fudging. You can see a very similar drop from Demon Slayer this weekend, and even Cruella and AQP2 are in a pretty similar ballpark.

[Cap]

@Porthos

 

I dug up some charts I had from my In The Heights Box Office Club (#RIP #TheImpossibleDreamIsDead), since BOM is useless.  

(And omg did this take longer than it should've to get them here.  My mobile and computer were like NOPE)

 

**

 

Disney Musicals (Animated and Live Action) dominate at the Box Office.  So we're going to remove all of those, including Mary Poppins Returns.  We're left with:

 

All Time, Top Ten, Non-Disney, Not Adjusted for Inflation, Musical Grosses
	MOVIE	YEAR	DOM	WW TOTAL
1	Grease	1978	$181,813,770	$387,510,179
2	The Greatest Showman	2017	$174,340,174	$440,973,522
3	Chicago	2002	$170,687,518	$306,770,545
4	The Sound of Music	1965	$163,214,286	$286,214,286
5	La La Land	2016	$151,101,803	$426,351,163
6	Les Miserables	2012	$148,809,770	$442,169,052
7	Mamma Mia!	2008	$144,130,063	$615,748,772
8	Into The Woods	2014	$128,002,372	$213,116,401
9	Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again!	2018	$120,634,935	$395,438,126
10	Hairspray	2007	$118,871,849	$203,035,572

 

Traditional Musicals don't earn as much at box office as they used to.  Long gone are the days of Arthur Freed's domination.  In recent years we've seen a healthy revival of musical biopics (Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman) and musical-hybrids (A Star Is Born 2018, Yesterday) at the box office.

 

**

 

Traditional Musicals: Even Christmas Legs and Disney couldn't stop Mary Poppins Returns from cracking 200M.  Disney could only get Into The Woods to 127M, another Holiday Release. The Greatest Showman's 174M was a miracle of legs, legs, legs.

 

Past Decade, Top Ten, Non-Disney, Not Adjusted for Inflation, Musical Grosses
MOVIE	YEAR	DOM	WW TOTAL
Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again!	2018	$120,634,935	$395,438,126
The Greatest Showman	2017	$174,340,174	$440,973,522
La La Land	2016	$151,101,803	$426,351,163
Into The Woods	2014	$128,002,372	$213,116,401
Annie	2014	$85,911,262	$139,829,625
Black Nativity	2013	$7,018,188	$7,454,184
Les Miserables	2012	$148,809,770	$442,169,052
Rock of Ages	2012	$38,518,613	$61,031,932
Joyful Noise	2012	$30,932,113	$31,157,914
Footloose	2011	$51,802,742	$62,989,834

 

 

 

[Dementeleus]

So which studio “screwed up” their release more: Disney with LUCA or WB with ITH?

[charlie Jatinder]

2 hours ago, grim22 said:

 

 

 No one cares what race/color anyone has in Fast films INT. It's the action that sells it, not diversity.

[Cap]

9 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

So which studio “screwed up” their release more: Disney with LUCA or WB with ITH?

 

Spoiler

I think neither, tbh.  Cause I think if WB tried to hold ITH for like November/Award Season, it would've run into direct composition with WSS and everything else.  And I feel like Disney SHOULD have put Luca in a movie theater, but it's not exactly like movie theaters are pulling in the big bucks at the moment.  It's just a bad situation all around.

 

[Eric Prime]

16 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

So which studio “screwed up” their release more: Disney with LUCA or WB with ITH?

Warner. Very easily. Luca will probably be a hot ticket item for D+ for a while and will likely get a Best Animated Feature nom/win. Might even get a D+ series or shorts for all we know. Heights lost its awards chances and doesn't seem like a hit on HBO Max either. A total lose-lose.

[Cooper Legion]

WB screwed up the movie more. Conditional on having the movie they have I think they released it fine — does anyone think this would have avoided flopping with a different release date, marketing, or even distribution plan? It just doesn’t connect that much with prospective audiences.   
 

Disney screwed up the release more imo. Even if they really want it as a D+ goodie could go 0-day free hybrid and pick up some additional $$.

[Dementeleus]

It’s funny, for me it feels like LUCA is the loser here. 

[filmlover]

24 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

So which studio “screwed up” their release more: Disney with LUCA or WB with ITH?

I watched Luca last night and it is a shame that it won't play on any screen (besides the El Capitan), let alone have a chance at making money in theaters, but it's certain to be a hit on D+ regardless. And, as @Eric is Full of Pride said, it's certain to receive awards recognition at the end of the year.

 

In the Heights is a total blunder though. Its numbers are downright embarrassing for a movie that was touted to be one of the absolute must-see movies on the big screen during The Summer Movies Came Back, and it would be easy to excuse the poor performance on the day-and-date release if it was doing great there (which it apparently isn't). Definitely gonna go down as one of the more puzzling examples of a "what the hell happened?" dud in a while even though it's becoming clear now that the appeal just wasn't there to begin with.

[Dementeleus]

31 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

 No one cares what race/color anyone has in Fast films INT. It's the action that sells it, not diversity.

I mean, I don’t think this is true at all. The demographics domestically bring out strong African-American and and Asian and Hispanic audiences in a way few other blockbusters do.

[Dementeleus]

Just now, filmlover said:

I watched Luca last night and it is a shame that it won't play on any screen (besides the El Capitan), let alone have a chance at making money in theaters, but it's certain to be a hit on D+ regardless. And, as @Eric is Full of Pride said, it's certain to receive awards recognition at the end of the year.

 

In the Heights is a total blunder though. Its numbers are downright embarrassing for a movie that was touted to be one of the absolute must-see movies on the big screen during The Summer Movies Came Back, and it would be easy to excuse the poor performance on the day-and-date release if it was doing great there (which it apparently isn't). Definitely gonna go down as one of the more puzzling examples of a "what the hell happened?" dud in a while even though it's becoming clear now that the appeal just wasn't there to begin with.

Isn’t this just audiences being dumb, though?

 

I mean, LUCA’s a bit better than GOOD DINOSAUR, sure, is that really something to hang their hat on? Especially when it was significantly more expensive to make than HEIGHTS?

[grim22]

7 minutes ago, Lokis Legion said:

WB screwed up the movie more. Conditional on having the movie they have I think they released it fine — does anyone think this would have avoided flopping with a different release date, marketing, or even distribution plan? It just doesn’t connect that much with prospective audiences.   
 

Disney screwed up the release more imo. Even if they really want it as a D+ goodie could go 0-day free hybrid and pick up some additional $$.

There's nothing more WB could have done for In the Heights imo. They lifted the embargo super early, ensured that as many influencers and audiences as possible got a look at the movie through free screenings, marketed the hell out of the movie and made the cast and crew available for press interviews. The movie itself got great reviews as well.

 

Just turned out no one cared about the movie enough to go to the theater (or to Max as per the interview last week). 

 

As @Porthossaid, Miranda isn't a big enough name to draw. Him mentioning that prior to Hamilton, the only way he could have got In The Heights made as a movie was to add JLo is, ironically enough, probably what was needed to make it a bigger sell to audiences.

[Porthos]

35 minutes ago, Cap said:

@Porthos

Traditional Musicals don't earn as much at box office as they used to. [[[[[SNIIIIIIIP]]]]] In recent years we've seen a healthy revival of musical biopics (Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman) and musical-hybrids (A Star Is Born 2018, Yesterday) at the box office.

 

That's kinda what I instinctually thot, but wanted to make sure about.  If I want to discount MPR because of it being IP related, and Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again for being a sequel, I was having a difficult time thinking "what was the last 'traditional' musical to hit it big".  La La Land and TGS came to mind, of course. But seeing the chart helped put it in perspective.

 

At the same time I was also thinking "when was the last one outside of December to hit it big recently" and I got:

 

 

Just wonder if "traditional" musicals really need the holiday season for whatever reason.

 

Mind, and I realize just who I am talking to here [Cap is, IMO, the resident expert on Musicals in these here parts], so consider more a comment to the board at large, it might just be that the "musical" is undergoing an evolution.  It's still very strong in animation (in any time of year).  Music(al) biopics, as

you note, are pretty successful.  And then there are those hybrid releases.

 

Might just be the "traditional/theatrical" musical is in a bit of a rut/out of fashion.  At least for a vast majority of the year.  Still don't think it's RIP Musicals.  Do think it's even more of an uphill climb/brand dependent than it ever was.  Like Wicked is many things, but obscure is not one of them. 

 

Gonna be curious to see how WSS story does this December.  On the one hand, huge branding in more direction.  On the other hand, the knives may be out for it.  On the third hand, GA may not give a shit about the knives being potentially out.  But, and you knew there was a but, GA might also not give a shit about an updated WSS if they think the original is still good enough.  Gonna be fascinating no matter what happens.

 

[charlie Jatinder]

10 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

I mean, I don’t think this is true at all. The demographics domestically bring out strong African-American and and Asian and Hispanic audiences in a way few other blockbusters do.

because that demographic will show up for action genre.

 

the franchise is strongest in LATAM and Asia.

Edited June 21, 2021 by charlie Jatinder

[filmlover]

8 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

Isn’t this just audiences being dumb, though?

 

I mean, LUCA’s a bit better than GOOD DINOSAUR, sure, is that really something to hang their hat on? Especially when it was significantly more expensive to make than HEIGHTS?

I'm guessing Disney was already nervous about the movie's financial prospects while it was being made and given the global conditions, saw a good reason to use a force majeure on it. They could've given this (and Soul, for that matter) simultaneous releases even if it meant they still wouldn't have fared much better than Onward's impaled-by-circumstance total but hey, not much else to be said there. It's too bad that after making mostly sequels the past few years, Pixar made a couple of solid or better originals that ended up becoming victims to bad luck.

 

But on the bright side, it's still going to be up for awards, unlike In the Heights, which is dead for any recognition at this point given how the narrative they were pushing for it miserably failed.