Weekend Thread (6/3-5) | Top Gun 2 drops 29% for 90M. The smallest second weekend drop ever for a 100M+ opener!

[EmpireCity]

Just now, IronJimbo said:

I mean its common sense to think that it's going to negatively impact the gross. The amount lost though seems difficult to predict and I've not seen enough to take any of these numbers seriously. 

 

Perhaps studios know they're going to lose box office but they don't care as more people subscribe to their shitty streaming service?

 

This right here is the core of the whole issue.  There is really nothing to show that they gain or lose a single subscriber if they release it at Day 45 or Day 90 where it will remain literally forever.  

 

The core question is "What in the hell is the rush?"

 

I can tell you this, there is no evidence that streaming is impacted (over what is lost) by putting it on there after 45 days vs. 90 days or 120 days.  

 

There is a mountain of evidence that actual billions have been lost by shoving them on streaming too early.  It cost the leadership of an entire company (Warner Bros.) their jobs and likely is going to cost the leadership of Disney their jobs as well.  I also would guess the leadership of Paramount+ is going to feel the heat very soon if the guy they brought in doesn' reverse course.  Lucky for him that Tom Cruise likely did him a favor and saved his job.  

[XXR vs XXR]

**Me, watching 2 people argue unprovable hypotheticals based on personal bias**

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by T-ReXXR

[YM!]

7 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Fine, then use The Batman as your example.  That lost out on $50m-$70m in WW gross the second it was announced on streaming at 47 days or whatever.  Now imagine if it was pre-announced as that.  The impact would have easily been $100m+

It was kind of pre-announced already, Kilar said exactly 45 days for it and I believe the day but even in that case prior that’s like in the 10% range. Disney did the same but to a larger extent with Encanto which imho stopped it from getting to 100m domestic. Interestingly enough Shang-Chi didn’t collapse at its date being announced ahead of time, but that was outside the 45 day window.

Edited June 5, 2022 by YourMother

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

likely is going to cost the leadership of Disney their jobs as well.

I really hope so, not going to pretend Disney was holy or something prior but fuck Bob Chapek and his whole team. 

 

2 minutes ago, T-ReXXR said:

**Me, watching 2 people argue unprovable hypotheticals based on personal bias**

 

 

[lorddemaxus]

9 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

Fine, then use The Batman as your example.  That lost out on $50m-$70m in WW gross the second it was announced on streaming at 47 days or whatever.  Now imagine if it was pre-announced as that.  The impact would have easily been $100m+

Announced April 11: https://deadline.com/2022/04/the-batman-premiere-date-hbo-max-1234999900/ 

 

Domestic, the movie had a 41% drop after that weekend, which was no different to its previous drops. Had a 60% drop on its 8th weekend (where it made 1.4 mil) but at that point, it would've made a 6-7 mil difference (even if it dropped just 30% that post-HBO Max weekend, it would've made a mere $2 mil that weekend). You think the movie would've lost another 40-60 mil + internationally?

Edited June 5, 2022 by lorddemaxus

[TomCruiseTop]

5 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

 

This right here is the core of the whole issue.  There is really nothing to show that they gain or lose a single subscriber if they release it at Day 45 or Day 90 where it will remain literally forever.  

 

The core question is "What in the hell is the rush?"

 

I can tell you this, there is no evidence that streaming is impacted (over what is lost) by putting it on there after 45 days vs. 90 days or 120 days.  

 

There is a mountain of evidence that actual billions have been lost by shoving them on streaming too early.  It cost the leadership of an entire company (Warner Bros.) their jobs and likely is going to cost the leadership of Disney their jobs as well.  I also would guess the leadership of Paramount+ is going to feel the heat very soon if the guy they brought in doesn' reverse course.  Lucky for him that Tom Cruise likely did him a favor and saved his job.  

Well said. The studios are acting in a stupid manner and should be called out for it.

[awkwardaardvark]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

Announced April 11: https://deadline.com/2022/04/the-batman-premiere-date-hbo-max-1234999900/ 

 

Domestic, the movie had a 41% drop after that weekend, which was no different to its previous drops. Had a 60% drop on its 8th weekend (where it made 1.4 mil) but at that point, it would've made a 6-7 mil difference (even if it dropped just 30% that post-HBO Max weekend, it would've made a mere $2 mil that weekend). You think the movie would've lost another 40 mil + internationally?

Not to mention, HBO Max isn’t even a thing in a lot of major markets worldwide. And if it is available, it is essentially a non-factor in much of Asia and Latin America. 

[M37]

38 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Top Gun: Maverick will lose its premium screens next week, but I can guarantee you right now that every single film booker in North America is planning on keeping nearly every screen of TG2 and not reducing their showtimes by much if anything.  

 

Downton Abbey 2, The Bad Guys, Bob's Burgers and others are the ones that are going to suffer this week, not TG2.  The poor chaps from Universal are going to get slaughtered on their holdover films.  

See I both understand this cannibalistic nature … and also hate it 

 

Outside of the premium markets & locations where capacity exceeds demand, how much added value is there in holding the 5th or 6th screen of TG2 at a 16-plex and clearing house of all but like 2-3 other titles for a few shows each? Isn’t that limiting the audience pool, especially when studios are all too eager to pull their product to streaming anyway? 

 

Sell-outs aren’t necessarily a bad thing IMO. I know there is alway a fear that business goes to a competitor or is otherwise “lost”, but TG2 sold out a large chunk of its PLF screens last week and people just kept coming back anyway 

[lorddemaxus]

9 minutes ago, T-ReXXR said:

**Me, watching 2 people argue unprovable hypotheticals based on personal bias**

 

 

All I am asking for is an argument based on even simple math here instead of touting out random numbers.

[VanillaSkies]

How is this even an argument? 
 

Of course shorter windows have cut off late legs and negatively impacted overall grosses. It’s both common sense and we’ve seen many examples of that over the last year now. 

[IronJimbo]

Just now, VanillaSkies said:

How is this even an argument? 
 

Of course shorter windows have cut off late legs and negatively impacted overall grosses. It’s both common sense and we’ve seen many examples of that over the last year now. 

thats not the argument, they both agree on that

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, ringedmortality said:

 

Dune was top 5 and had a lot of prestige going in. It's like arguing The Lord of the Rings and Mission Impossible are on the same level of prestige. Avatar also has prestige because of Cameron.

 

 

 

I often see this comparison between Dune and LOTR and I don't think it works.   Dune got nominated because its a competent adaptation of a seminal science fiction novel by one of the industry's new favorite critical darlings.  The film itself, while pretty, is kinda dry on the character level and nowhere near the masterpiece that critics and audiences thought Fellow of the Ring/LOTR was.  Other popular online metrics like imdb and RT reflect this too.  Will Part 2 be different?  Maybe. 

 

Going by all the online metrics and its WOM/BO numbers, Top Gun Maverick is clearly being embraced on a level much more akin to Lord of the Rings than Dune ever was.  TGM is shaping up to be one of the most surprising success stories in decades.

 

1 hour ago, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

What do you want to bet

 

I'll take that bet, bookmark or screencap this post.

[EmpireCity]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

All I am asking for is an argument based on even simple math here instead of touting out random numbers.

 

As I stated before, your simple math example is that everyone who took their companies down the path of day and date and short windows and pre-announcing their streaming is now hitting the unemployment line while the theatrical guys (the adults in the room) are taking back over from the silly kids that cost their companies billions.  

[Macleod]

1 hour ago, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

Top Gun has a chance with 10 but it's not very prestige, it's a sequel, and Paramount might not campaign heavily when they have Babylon. And getting Cruise to commit to months long campaign seems unlikely. Top Gun also will struggle to get into SAG + WGA + DGA which even most blockbusters can do like Black Panther. Academy voters will just vote for whatever they like and whatever is being pushed to them.

 

Why should whether it's a sequel or not even be a factor in why it gets chosen?  Sure, there's not much precedent for it, but this movie has pretty much universal praise from the industry, critics, audiences.  Many say it surpasses the original.  Plus, it's a huuuuuuuge hit.  And it's NOT a superhero movie, a genre that like it or not, the Academy still seems to have some bias against (though I would argue there have been very few worth considering for the Oscars).  I think MAVERICK will be there at the end of the year in Oscars talk, in one way or another.  

 

1 hour ago, Maggie said:

Are there such members?

 

Conservative members of the Academy?  Are you joking?  Quite a few...  

Edited June 5, 2022 by Macleod

[titanic2187]

17 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

This is not proof. The movie had great drops throughout its run. Proof would be the movie falling off a cliff.

You are assuming the opening box office aren’t affected by the streaming. That part is also unproven. You do know you can have a bigger start with same level of holding power. That is a very flawed assumption where people only assume the impact to take place when the movie hit digital, without factoring the impact have kicking in from the beginning. 

[YM!]

While I think it’s far too early to be discussing Oscar nominations, you’re going to tell me the majority old conservative white male voters won’t eat Top Gun Maverick? I find that ludicrous.

Edited June 5, 2022 by YourMother

[M37]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

All I am asking for is an argument based on even simple math here instead of touting out random numbers.

If people were willing to pay to see Black Widow at home to this degree, what makes you think they wouldn’t just wait and watch for free? Like they did with Dune

 

 

[YM!]

I have been noticing Netflix has been a bit more wide in terms of releasing stuff in theaters. If iirc just Cinemark got their stuff but now I think Marcus and maybe Regal are too.

[lorddemaxus]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

As I stated before, your simple math example is that everyone who took their companies down the path of day and date and short windows and pre-announcing their streaming is now hitting the unemployment line while the theatrical guys (the adults in the room) are taking back over from the silly kids that cost their companies billions.  

Disney is doing fine, Universal is doing fine, Paramount had their best year in years (even taking out Top Gun), and WB's change in executives had more to do with a huge multi-billion dollar merger. In the indie side, A24 had their biggest film ever with a short 45-day window.

[NCsoft]

So this thread is definitely on its way to the best performing "second weekend thread' since the pandemic, right?