The Box Office Buzz and Tracking Thread (December 2021 - July 2023)

[Shawn Robbins]

1 hour ago, excel1 said:

 

Shawn and BOP had the high end forecast for this film at $140m 1 month ago. This would be an all-time large miss tbh 

 

1 hour ago, Borobudur said:

I always thought ATOW was one of the bigger miss since reopening. 

 

1 hour ago, Into the Legion-Verse said:

Initial range 135-175, actual 134. Pretty fine.   
 

I haven’t explicitly been keeping track or anything but I think some of the biggest misses (for movies opening like 20M+) have been:

TSS

Shazam

Flash

 

1 hour ago, Borobudur said:

The lower end was that low? I remember most tracking even until the last week before release still had it going over at least $150m. The meltdown during OW shouldn't be that bad if 135m was "somewhat expected". 

 

But anyway, I agree Flash is the bigger miss now. 

Shazam low-end was just over 40. I've been more displeased with other "misses", TBH.

 

Flash hasn't lived up to its original tracking, that's for sure, but it has some unusual asterisks (Ezra + DC box office imploding) not unlike TSS (mid-pandemic + streaming day-and-date). And to be fair, Flash's floor was lowered pretty quickly to $85M one week after that range, which isn't the" initial" (that was 12 months ago, at $90M+) but just the first publicly published.

 

Like I always stress, the ranges aren't meant to be treated as final forecasts but as snapshots of where tracking is at that moment. Much like we track ticket sales and don't take certain comps/projections as the final destination, that's how the ranges on BOP function as well and why the written analysis should be taken into equal consideration. Numbers alone are easily taken out of context.

 

Flash's range essentially baked in a more positive critical reception based on industry screenings and higher walk-up/late stage sales. Barring that last thing happening over the weekend, it was a double whammy of "no go"s. Such is the imperfect science of tracking. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time, but the flashing caution signs were certainly acknowledged from very early on.

[GOGODanca]

(D-1) Elemental:                           459 tickets sold (+146)/(208% growth since D-5)
 

(D-15) Indiana Jones 5:              355 tickets sold (+7)

 

(D-27) Mission Impossible 7*    218 tickets sold

 

4.5 hours after sales officially started and not including any EA tickets

 

(D-36) Oppenheimer:                 471 tickets sold (+8)

[keysersoze123]

30 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

Walkups will be good on Thursday if this is family attracting b/c acres of K-12s are out and it has 3pm previews...$3M just seems low to me if we're getting into the $30s for the weekend - it should be like a 3.5 day weekend in 3 days...

 

That said, I did check my Cinemarks, and they are not starting a preview after 8:40pm for this movie...and now looking all weekend, that's every day.  They are not planning for this to draw teens or non-kid toting adults, unless they are 65+ with the showtime sets:)...

previews above 3m needs something extraordinary based on current PS and pace seen on tuesday. But let us revisit tonight to see if the pace has improved.  

[excel1]

17 minutes ago, Shawn said:

 

 

 

Shazam low-end was just over 40. I've been more displeased with other "misses", TBH.

 

Flash hasn't lived up to its original tracking, that's for sure, but it has some unusual asterisks (Ezra + DC box office imploding) not unlike TSS (mid-pandemic + streaming day-and-date). And to be fair, Flash's floor was lowered pretty quickly to $85M one week after that range, which isn't the" initial" (that was 12 months ago, at $90M+) but just the first publicly published.

 

Like I always stress, the ranges aren't meant to be treated as final forecasts but as snapshots of where tracking is at that moment. Much like we track ticket sales and don't take certain comps/projections as the final destination, that's how the ranges on BOP function as well and why the written analysis should be taken into equal consideration. Numbers alone are easily taken out of context.

 

Flash's range essentially baked in a more positive critical reception based on industry screenings and higher walk-up/late stage sales. Barring that last thing happening over the weekend, it was a double whammy of "no go"s. Such is the imperfect science of tracking. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time, but the flashing caution signs were certainly acknowledged from very early on.

 

I think WB has pretty much done all they can help the film reach its highest potential, and 120-140m would seem like a reasonably attainable high end. If it really just comes down to $70m, there was just very little natural demand for a Flash film and no reasonable person would have been able to foresee this 1 month out.

 

It is a "miss" as a concept from the producers perspective more than anything.

Edited June 14, 2023 by excel1

[filmlover]

36 minutes ago, Shawn said:

This was rounded up accidentally, should be $750K.

Oh ok, this sounds more like it lol.

[21C]

14 minutes ago, Shawn said:

 

 

 

Shazam low-end was just over 40. I've been more displeased with other "misses", TBH.

 

Flash hasn't lived up to its original tracking, that's for sure, but it has some unusual asterisks (Ezra + DC box office imploding) not unlike TSS (mid-pandemic + streaming day-and-date). And to be fair, Flash's floor was lowered pretty quickly to $85M one week after that range, which isn't the" initial" (that was 12 months ago, at $90M+) but just the first publicly published.

 

That kinda strikes me as a bizarre comparison.

[ChipDerby]

Just now, 21C said:

That kinda strikes me as a bizarre comparison.

 

Those are all unusual asterisks.

[excel1]

My outside of BOT life is seeing declines in advanced ordering and purchasing in a number of our businesses than we did last year or even this spring. Marketing folk threw out the theory that sticker shock is having an impact on certain things...wonder if the same could be true for some people with movie tickets.I just paid $19 and change I believe for tickets in southern Connecticut along with a $7 "convenience fee".

 

Maybe thats it and the flash is really headed for $130m+ ow

Edited June 14, 2023 by excel1

[21C]

6 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Those are all unusual asterisks.

Kinda? But I don't think the effect that a mid-pandemic/day and date release is at all comparable in scale; especially being that The Flash also has an unusual asterisk in its favor (Michael Keaton return as Batman, and the inclusion of Batman in general in nearly all of its marketing material) and TSS had several more against it as well (R-Rating, also part of the same franchise in a downwards trend, had a terrible first movie)

Edited June 14, 2023 by 21C

[reddevil19]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

I think WB has pretty much done all they can help the film reach its highest potential, and 120-140m would seem like a reasonably attainable high end. If it really just comes down to $70m, there was just very little natural demand for a Flash film.

Except the one big thing - get this released 5 years ago. The fall from grace of DC, maybe a bit of fatigue for superhero movies except the truly outstanding-looking ones, the Miller issues and simply the general "fuck me, another multiverse movie out of nowhere" or simply "late to the party" feeling a lot of people surely have now because of what Marvel has done would have been avoided if WB had their shit together. Simply put, they're reaping what they sowed. 

[Cooper Legion]

2 minutes ago, excel1 said:

My outside of BOT life is seeing declines in advanced ordering and purchasing in a number of our businesses than we did last year or even this spring. Marketing folk threw out the theory that sticker shock is having an impact on certain things...wonder if the same could be true for some people with movie tickets.

 

I just paid $19 and change I believe for tickets in southern Connecticut along with a $7 "convenience fee".

This is probably not a significant difference compared to a week ago when rotb did fine, or a week before that when Atsv did awesome, or a week before that when mermaid did solid.

 

 

[Shawn Robbins]

11 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

I think WB has pretty much done all they can help the film reach its highest potential, and 120-140m would seem like a reasonably attainable high end. If it really just comes down to $70m, there was just very little natural demand for a Flash film and no reasonable person would have been able to foresee this 1 month out.

 

It is a "miss" as a concept from the producers perspective more than anything.

You may be right. I feel like I underestimated the Miller factor, personally. But that may be one of those intangible, once-in-a-thousand-tentpoles type of situation. DC and comic book movies in general being in regression from their peak doesn't help either.

[excel1]

2 minutes ago, Into the Legion-Verse said:

This is probably not a significant difference compared to a week ago when rotb did fine, or a week before that when Atsv did awesome, or a week before that when mermaid did solid.

 

 

 

Flash may be doing "fine" too and we just don't know it yet because comping to 1 yr old + Marvel films looks horrible while most recent non-Marvel films are a bit more friendly. 

[excel1]

4 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

Except the one big thing - get this released 5 years ago. The fall from grace of DC, maybe a bit of fatigue for superhero movies except the truly outstanding-looking ones, the Miller issues and simply the general "fuck me, another multiverse movie out of nowhere" or simply "late to the party" feeling a lot of people surely have now because of what Marvel has done would have been avoided if WB had their shit together. Simply put, they're reaping what they sowed. 

 

The film wasn't ready 5 years ago so thats life. As far as releasing a Flash film post covid, they have made a high quality popcorn film, threw an older but likeable Batman and Supergirl into it, given it a very solid marketing campaign, lucked out with a fairly favorable release date in terms of competition pre and post release...

 

What else could they have done? Don't try and say better special effects = $30m more on opening weekend. 

[Shawn Robbins]

14 minutes ago, 21C said:

That kinda strikes me as a bizarre comparison.

They're only compared in the sense that they were very unusual factors in play that weren't present in any kind of normal forecasting model for other or similar films. For very different reasons, yes, but people were highly inclined *not* to rush out and see those movies in a theater, and those were outside the typical spectrum of reasons for why movies misfire at the box office.

[excel1]

7 minutes ago, Shawn said:

You may be right. I feel like I underestimated the Miller factor, personally. But that may be one of those intangible, once-in-a-thousand-tentpoles type of situation. DC and comic book movies in general being in regression from their peak doesn't help either.

 

Time will tell but I think the handling of Cavill's Superman sudden return then evermore sudden removal irked some people and creates a sense of mistrust. Add in some announcements of pending giant change to the DCU and one is left with a film where nobody feels like they must see it to follow along with the grander plan...its just a random one off.  

Edited June 14, 2023 by excel1

[filmlover]

Tabloid gossip has long had a hit or miss effect on a movie but I can see where @Shawn is coming from re: Miller. Because of the persona non grata status they've picked up since this finished filming (for good reason), they have been nowhere promoting this, a rarity for the star of such an expensive movie. And their other big draw, Keaton, is too busy filming Beetlejuice 2 to do much promo for this (even though they're from the same studio and likely could've made time for him to promote this if they really wanted to). I can see where "the movie is everywhere and nowhere" arguments are coming from.

[21C]

6 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Flash may be doing "fine" too and we just don't know it yet because comping to 1 yr old + Marvel films looks horrible while most recent non-Marvel films are a bit more friendly. 

The reason is being comped to Marvel films it's because, like Marvel films, it's a superhero/comic book film with a 200 million dollar budget. Why do you keep acting as if they're unfair comps when it's both the same genre, and DC has comfortably reached Marvel numbers in the past? And also when this movie has been heavily advertised with Batman at the forefront, who's as popular as any of the Marvel characters. The inclusion of Batman alone makes the Marvel comps 100% fair. 

Also you know, what... Flash isn't even an unpopular character. As far as DC superheroes go, he's one of their most popular aside from Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.  I dunno why, when ignoring the obvious elephant sized bat in the room, the consensus is acting as if Flash is a D-List character when he really isn't. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by 21C

[Menor the Destroyer]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Flash may be doing "fine" too and we just don't know it yet because comping to 1 yr old + Marvel films looks horrible while most recent non-Marvel films are a bit more friendly. 

You keep spamming this line and don't seem to realize that most people are using "recent non-Marvel films" and they still look horrible. 

[THUNDER BIRD]

What about the much discussed "Comic Book Fatigue"