NOPE Weekend Thread | Weekend Estimates: Nope 44, Thor 22.1, Minions 17.71, Crawdads 10.3, TGM 10

[Borf the Borf]

Sorry if posted alrady but this gaslighting is too much. 

 

Yes, yes it is.  didnt meet his previous levels as a mid summer release well below expectations.  SO cringe.  I wont speculate why.  


https://variety.com/2022/film/box-office/jordan-peele-nope-box-office-explained-1235324188/#article-comments

Edited July 26, 2022 by Borf the Borf
for got article

[setna]

12 hours ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

TOP GUN: MAVERICK HIGHWAY TO $700M DAY 58

 

BLACK PANTHER: $39.8m ahead

TOP GUN 2 GAIN: +$1.68m

 

CURRENT SEA LEVEL: $660.1m

LOCK ON BOGEY: $678.6m

AVERAGE (LAST 32 DAYS): $680.79m (-0.01% YD)

 

TOP GUN: MAVERICK HIGHWAY TO $700M DAY 59

 

BLACK PANTHER: $38.4m ahead

TOP GUN 2 GAIN: +$1.4m

 

CURRENT SEA LEVEL: $661.6m

LOCK ON BOGEY: $682.4m

AVERAGE (LAST 32 DAYS): $680.84m (+0.007% YD)

I really will miss your daily posts when this will be finished.  It´s really exciting for me this kind of runs, so leggy and watching daily if the drop or bump is a joy or a dissapointment. Now is entering in its final phase and every friday and monday is a real test for its final result.
I really hope Paramount don´t put it on streaming soon and we can enjoy more weeks of excitment.
Thanks for your work on this, me and i think several members here appreciate it a lot.

 

[setna]

TGM + 35 % this weekend in UK!!!!
It also earned more in its 9th weekend than in the 7th!!!
A truly legendary run!

[stripe]

Finally saw TGM last night. I really understand the leggy run. A well deserved legendary run

[JohnnyGossamer]

8 hours ago, Borf the Borf said:

Sorry if posted alrady but this gaslighting is too much. 

 

Yes, yes it is.  didnt meet his previous levels as a mid summer release well below expectations.  SO cringe.  I wont speculate why.  


https://variety.com/2022/film/box-office/jordan-peele-nope-box-office-explained-1235324188/#article-comments

If anything, it's a very mild disappointment. Nothing wrong with a 44.5M OW DOM for Nope. We'll see if it legs out to 120M+ DOM now.

[snarkmachine]

14 hours ago, ThePrinceIsOnFire said:

Millie Bobby Brown had a streaming success with Enola Holmes, too, but her power as a box office draw is yet to be tested (Godzillas did alright but she wasn't the main pull).

Chalamet is, much like Florence Pugh, the "It" young actor who can alternate prestige projects with big budgeted movies, playing the main lead or, more rarely, a side character. Neither of the two have a defining box office success that can prove them to be real box office phenomenos (Dune did fairly well but just how much of it was due to the popularity of the book or to the rest of the star-studded cast is hard to know). 

 

Personally, I think that very few  young actors (under 40) have proven themselves to be worthy of a 10+ M investement. Who are those? Out of the actresses, first and foremost Scarlett Johansson  in the right role (see Lucy), then Keira Knightley in period pieces (though the last decade has not been very kind to her career) pheraps Soairse Ronan in mid-budget movies. Jennifer Lawrence used to be a big draw but it seems like things are not great for her right now; Emma Stone is a draw but she is going for very artsy projects (her collabs with Lanthimos, who is a real genious but not exactly a box office hero).  Then there is Emma Watson who is de facto retired and Kristen Stewart who always generates buzz around her films but usually has flops at the B.O. Zendaya is the most popular with teens right now, but can she make an impression on the older moviegoers? who knows. Last but not least, there is Margot Robbie, who has been box office poison so far but will likely get two big wins with Babylon and Barbie. 

As for the men... Tom Holland has a nice resumé  and seems to have a huge appeal when in action roles; Andrew Garfield can be a draw for middle-budget high profile movies, and Robert Pattinson is having some nice results as of late; then there is Zac Efron (who is in an endless list of flop, but still very well known internationally)....and that's about it.

 

None of those listed are comparable to Dicaprio, Cruise etc... nor will they ever be, probably. Scarlett Johansson is an international superstar and the best known young actor out of America, mainly due to having starred in a couple of Woody Allen's movies that were insanely popular in Europe even before she got to become Black Widow, which literally made her a living icon. Emma Watson is probably a close second.

 

 

Andrew Garfield? He hasn't had a non Spidey hit since what...The Social Network?

 

Pattinson is even less of a bet. Let's ignore Tenet because of COVID, but Good Time didn't break even with its paltry budget and neither did The Lighthouse. 

 

We'll see how much of the Spidey afterglow Holland can keep with his next films, but dragging a terrible movie over $400m internationally is an achievement only Tom Cruise and The Rock can do anymore, so he has that going for him.

Edited July 26, 2022 by snarkmachine

[baumer]

Hacksaw Ridge was a good sized hit.67/180

[Borf the Borf]

2 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

If anything, it's a very mild disappointment. Nothing wrong with a 44.5M OW DOM for Nope. We'll see if it legs out to 120M+ DOM now.

Yea I agree its not a big deal i wouldn't go touting it as a flop or really even comment on it.,  The thing is when htey overcompensate and gaslight it forces you to say well actually if you are bring it up no by all metrics it is  a disappointment .  ITs actually insane I cant think of another director they swarm around and try and protect like this.  


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/logan-paul-reviews-nope-internet-195126851.html

Edited July 26, 2022 by Borf the Borf

[Krissykins]

4 hours ago, setna said:

TGM + 35 % this weekend in UK!!!!
It also earned more in its 9th weekend than in the 7th!!!
A truly legendary run!

School holidays in full effect here in the UK. Minions increased and went back to #1 over Thor. 
 

Elvis, Top Gun, Dominion and even Lightyear all had increases this weekend. Still great for Top Gun. 

[efialtes76]

4 hours ago, setna said:

TGM + 35 % this weekend in UK!!!!
It also earned more in its 9th weekend than in the 7th!!!
A truly legendary run!

Minions and Elvis increased too.

[JohnnyGossamer]

12 minutes ago, Borf the Borf said:

Yea I agree its not a big deal i wouldn't go touting it as a flop or really even comment on it.,  The thing is when htey overcompensate and gaslight it forces you to say well actually if you are bring it up no by all metrics it is  a disappointment .  ITs actually insane I cant think of another director they swarm around and try and protect like this.  


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/logan-paul-reviews-nope-internet-195126851.html

I understand what you mean. I think it's more of an extremely vocal minority. Most see Peele for what he is... Aggressively opaque in his storytelling inviting the audience to engage with one another after the show but certainly has ways in which he can grow to become an even better filmmaker overall. There's especially a lot of equivocation in Nope is some of the messages and story beats. It's not unlike Nolan zealots... M. Night zealots... And,  mostly I fear this because I've been on the Bong Joon-ho train since Memories of Murder, Bong zealots. Peele has his... Is what it is... I guess at least Bong's aren't quite super duper vocal yet but I'm sure we'll see them when his next flick releases.

[Chaz]

55 minutes ago, Borf the Borf said:

Yea I agree its not a big deal i wouldn't go touting it as a flop or really even comment on it.,  The thing is when htey overcompensate and gaslight it forces you to say well actually if you are bring it up no by all metrics it is  a disappointment .  ITs actually insane I cant think of another director they swarm around and try and protect like this.  


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/logan-paul-reviews-nope-internet-195126851.html

Those journos are terminal White Savior Complex patients.

[baumer]

I know we have discussed this a Gazillion times but I'm going to wade in any way. There really seems to be only a handful of actors that people will pay the see simply because they are headlining a movie. Again, we've discussed this ad nausea but Leonardo DiCaprio and Denzel Washington at least here in  North America are maybe the only two actors that can completely headline a movie and get people to want to see it just because they're in it. Id say you can put Daniel Day-Lewis in that category as well but he doesn't really make movies anymore.

 

Brad Pitt might seem like another name that should be up there but he makes movies so infrequently now as well and the last really big movie he did went right to streaming so kind of hard to judge. Sure once upon a time in Hollywood was huge but that was also Quentin Tarantino and Leonardo dicaprio. So for my money I'm going to say it's just Denzel and leo. I'm not ready to put Tom Holland there yet because he's only had one hit outside of Spider-Man but we'll see where it goes from here. I hope he does become the next big headliner. I'd also like to put Ryan Reynolds here because ever since Deadpool he really hasn't had a failure either. So as much as I love Ryan Reynolds as much as I want to put him here I still think he has to be in the right kind of movie. Denzel and Leo seem to be pretty eclectic.

 

Sure Dwayne Johnson can headline a movie but he's had a lot of mixed results and that brings me to the main point of my little rant here. I think most actors and actresses are like ketchup and mustard to a hot dog or a hamburger. You'll eat the hot dog and hamburger without them but when you add them to the mix it gives it that much more flavor. You can probably name three dozen actors who are the ketchup and mustard in this scenario. Sandra bullock, Ryan gosling, Michael B Jordan, Mark Wahlberg, RDJ, Chris Evans and like I said about three dozen others are the kind of actors that you need to headline your film. It's not that they're going to guarantee you box office success but they certainly add to the intrigue of the movie.  Tom Cruise basically has mission Impossible movies and now top gun. I don't know if people would pay to see him in a movie like The firm or A few Good Men like they used to 20 and 30 years ago.

 

For me personally, I like a cast with names that I recognize. Films that have a gigantic cast like JFK and once upon a Time in Hollywood and The Expendables.... These kind of films get me into the theater because I love seeing actors up on the screen together.

 

As others have mentioned, the movie star is not necessarily dead but it's definitely been replaced by properties.

 

So yes you still need movie stars to be in your movie although it's not the main reason people go to the theater anymore. At least that's how I see it.

[filmlover]

11 minutes ago, baumer said:

I know we have discussed this a Gazillion times but I'm going to wade in any way. There really seems to be only a handful of actors that people will pay the see simply because they are headlining a movie. Again, we've discussed this ad nausea but Leonardo DiCaprio and Denzel Washington at least here in  North America are maybe the only two actors that can completely headline a movie and get people to want to see it just because they're in it. Id say you can put Daniel Day-Lewis in that category as well but he doesn't really make movies anymore.

 

Brad Pitt might seem like another name that should be up there but he makes movies so infrequently now as well and the last really big movie he did went right to streaming so kind of hard to judge. Sure once upon a time in Hollywood was huge but that was also Quentin Tarantino and Leonardo dicaprio. So for my money I'm going to say it's just Denzel and leo. I'm not ready to put Tom Holland there yet because he's only had one hit outside of Spider-Man but we'll see where it goes from here. I hope he does become the next big headliner. I'd also like to put Ryan Reynolds here because ever since Deadpool he really hasn't had a failure either. So as much as I love Ryan Reynolds as much as I want to put him here I still think he has to be in the right kind of movie. Denzel and Leo seem to be pretty eclectic.

 

Sure Dwayne Johnson can headline a movie but he's had a lot of mixed results and that brings me to the main point of my little rant here. I think most actors and actresses are like ketchup and mustard to a hot dog or a hamburger. You'll eat the hot dog and hamburger without them but when you add them to the mix it gives it that much more flavor. You can probably name three dozen actors who are the ketchup and mustard in this scenario. Sandra bullock, Ryan gosling, Michael B Jordan, Mark Wahlberg, RDJ, Chris Evans and like I said about three dozen others are the kind of actors that you need to headline your film. It's not that they're going to guarantee you box office success but they certainly add to the intrigue of the movie.  Tom Cruise basically has mission Impossible movies and now top gun. I don't know if people would pay to see him in a movie like The firm or A few Good Men like they used to 20 and 30 years ago.

 

For me personally, I like a cast with names that I recognize. Films that have a gigantic cast like JFK and once upon a Time in Hollywood and The Expendables.... These kind of films get me into the theater because I love seeing actors up on the screen together.

 

As others have mentioned, the movie star is not necessarily dead but it's definitely been replaced by properties.

 

So yes you still need movie stars to be in your movie although it's not the main reason people go to the theater anymore. At least that's how I see it.

Pitt's drawing power (in the right vehicle) is likely about to be confirmed again with Bullet Train. He's also co-headlining Babylon opposite Robbie at the end of the year and their press combined star power (along with the rest of its ensemble) guarantees there will be plenty of coverage surrounding the movie, though the rumors going around that it's going to really push the boundaries of an R rating and needing edits to secure it (similar to The Wolf of Wall Street) will make it interesting to see how people respond to it.

Edited July 26, 2022 by filmlover

[PlatnumRoyce]

17 minutes ago, baumer said:

I know we have discussed this a Gazillion times but I'm going to wade in any way. There really seems to be only a handful of actors that people will pay the see simply because they are headlining a movie. Again, we've discussed this ad nausea but Leonardo DiCaprio and Denzel Washington at least here in  North America are maybe the only two actors that can completely headline a movie and get people to want to see it just because they're in it. Id say you can put Daniel Day-Lewis in that category as well but he doesn't really make movies anymore.

 

Brad Pitt might seem like another name that should be up there but he makes movies so infrequently now as well and the last really big movie he did went right to streaming so kind of hard to judge. Sure once upon a time in Hollywood was huge but that was also Quentin Tarantino and Leonardo dicaprio. So for my money I'm going to say it's just Denzel and leo. I'm not ready to put Tom Holland there yet because he's only had one hit outside of Spider-Man but we'll see where it goes from here. I hope he does become the next big headliner. I'd also like to put Ryan Reynolds here because ever since Deadpool he really hasn't had a failure either. So as much as I love Ryan Reynolds as much as I want to put him here I still think he has to be in the right kind of movie. Denzel and Leo seem to be pretty eclectic.

 

Sure Dwayne Johnson can headline a movie but he's had a lot of mixed results and that brings me to the main point of my little rant here. I think most actors and actresses are like ketchup and mustard to a hot dog or a hamburger. You'll eat the hot dog and hamburger without them but when you add them to the mix it gives it that much more flavor. You can probably name three dozen actors who are the ketchup and mustard in this scenario. Sandra bullock, Ryan gosling, Michael B Jordan, Mark Wahlberg, RDJ, Chris Evans and like I said about three dozen others are the kind of actors that you need to headline your film. It's not that they're going to guarantee you box office success but they certainly add to the intrigue of the movie.  Tom Cruise basically has mission Impossible movies and now top gun. I don't know if people would pay to see him in a movie like The firm or A few Good Men like they used to 20 and 30 years ago.

 

For me personally, I like a cast with names that I recognize. Films that have a gigantic cast like JFK and once upon a Time in Hollywood and The Expendables.... These kind of films get me into the theater because I love seeing actors up on the screen together.

 

As others have mentioned, the movie star is not necessarily dead but it's definitely been replaced by properties.

 

So yes you still need movie stars to be in your movie although it's not the main reason people go to the theater anymore. At least that's how I see it.

 

You say that, but take another look at the last 14 years of Sandra Bullock's filmography. 

* Lost City

* Bird Box

* Unforgivable

[neither are box office films but they both place in top 10 Netflix films of all time as of 2021 unadjusted for changes in netflix size]

* Ocean's 8

* Gravity

* The Heat

* The Blind Side

* The Proposal

 

She's elevating mediocre films and having good films break out constantly.  She's consistently working and demonstrating the box office pull  people assume Brad Pitt brings. 

 

downside
 

* Our Brand is Crisis - "in a rare move, Warner Bros took the blame, instead of the star. We’re of course talking about Sandra Bullock’s $30M-budgeted political comedy Our Brand Is Crisis, whose shaky Toronto International Film Festival reviews signaled problems early on, culminating in what became the actress’ worst wide opening of her career at $3.2M, saddled with a C+ CinemaScore by moviegoers and a 33% Rotten rating. On Saturday, Warner Bros. worldwide head of distribution/marketing Sue Kroll said to Deadline: “The weekend results for Our Brand Is Crisis are upsetting. The film was truly a collaboration between the studio and the filmmakers, and Sandy’s performance is terrific in this film. We cherish our relationship with her. Ultimately, neither the concept of the story, nor the campaign connected with moviegoers.” (from deadline)

 

* I'm treating "Bad and offensive 9/11 movie that somehow got a best picture nomination" as a push
* All About Steve
 

Edited July 26, 2022 by PlatnumRoyce
added unforgivable

[baumer]

You know I debated putting Sandra Bullock up there as well and I think you've convinced me that I should have. She's definitely a name that will get people in the theaters.