Steve Rogers Birthday Bash Weekend Thread | 5-Day #s: Indy 83.4, Elemental 18, Spidey 17.65, Sound of Freedom 14.2, No Hard Feelings 11.3

[WorkingonaName]

The Mangold star wars sounded too much like a real movie to get made.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

14 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I've posted like a trillion times in the last month that I don't care one lick about budgets. Why do I give a shit if a studio breaks even? I don't care if something like Air cost 50 mill or 300 mill either. I care about what a movie can make relative to reasonable expectations, and no doubt Indy is doing slightly better than other notable flops in that department, though still obviously very disappointing.

 

It doesn't matter anyway. CJohn is the only other poster who gets it. Shit just sucks!!

 

 

This is a forum where people claim that a film that makes $100 million is more popular than a film that makes $200 million if the budget for the former is smaller.

 

But that's not how popularity works. The film that makes more money is more popular. Popularity and budget are unrelated, yet people act like they are.

 

You'd think EEAAO was a super popular film when it only made $141.1 million WW. Sure, relative to its budget it did great, but as I stated a couple weeks ago, it's still less popular than the bomb currently known as The Flash is WW.

[rebelscum86]

11 hours ago, LegionWrex said:

Wanna add to this by also saying this is still somehow higher then Crystal Skull, which got a B.

 

Aliens are less popular than time travel? I thought the most hated plot devices by general audiences was:

 

1) Clones

2) Time Travel

3) Aliens

[LegionWrex]

2 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

The Mangold star wars sounded too much like a real movie to get made.

Weirdly I still think it'll happen - gut feeling - but I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out to studio noted to hell and back.

[Mulder]

1 hour ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

And it'll certainly make more than The French Dispatch when all is said and done. But it's going to lose theaters way quicker than past Anderson films because of the stacked July.

 

This forum is just as bad as the Box Office subreddit when it comes to playing favorites. It's obvious so many folks care more about a particular film failing than the numbers. 

 

But yeah, as someone said above, hopefully budgets will come down now that COVID isn't throwing a wrench into every film. Also, hopefully studios will space their films out better going forward.

 

Like, it's great Mario made $1b and Spider-Verse was a hit (I don't have its numbers in front of me), but theaters need more than this to survive. Studios do too, especially ones that aren't Universal or Sony, although Fast X and RotB kneecaps Universal a little bit.

This is a lot of talk for what could just be tldr'd to "I made a bad post". The only Anderson film I've seen is Budapest way back in 2014, it's still silly to make the post you made where you used the final totals for films against a film's first week in wide release gross as a 1:1.

[JustLurking]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

This is a forum where people claim that a film that makes $100 million is more popular than a film that makes $200 million if the budget for the former is smaller.

 

But that's not how popularity works. The film that makes more money is more popular. Popularity and budget are unrelated, yet people act like they are.

 

You'd think EEAAO was a super popular film when it only made $141.1 million WW. Sure, relative to its budget it did great, but as I stated a couple weeks ago, it's still less popular than the bomb currently known as The Flash is WW.

EEAAO is not more popular. It is however more successful which is what ultimately people care about.

[screambaby]

To paraphrase a line from 'the last crusade' for spideyverse there should be medals for second place with how often it keeps being there....

[MysteryMovieMogul]

8 minutes ago, Mulder said:

This is a lot of talk for what could just be tldr'd to "I made a bad post". The only Anderson film I've seen is Budapest way back in 2014, it's still silly to make the post you made where you used the final totals for films against a film's first week in wide release gross as a 1:1.

I admit it, Asteroid City was the wrong film to use as an example, because it won't end up doing as poorly as his last few films. I'm just tired of all the focus Disney and the bomb known as The Flash are getting, when there are countless films underperforming all-around. But Asteroid City isn't one of them.

[Boxx93]

16 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Don’t understand why there are so many Bob Iger simps over the internet. He was just lucky to be able to buy so many studios. He was also the one that started the huge focus on streaming. At least under Michael Eisner, Disney made a variety of films for different audiences. Movies like Dead Poets Society, Pretty Woman, The Rock, Con Air, Enemy of the State, The Sixth Sense etc. all Disney movies 

This. Michael Eisner may have done some big mistakes in the past (mainly the direct-to-video sequels fiasco), but he gets a lot of unfair bad rep. We got so much variety of content back then.

[ringedmortality]

Just now, Boxx93 said:

This. Michael Eisner may have done some big mistakes in the past (mainly the direct-to-video sequels fiasco), but he gets a lot of unfair bad rep. We got so much variety of content back then.

He did fuck up the People Mover though 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

9 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

EEAAO is not more popular. It is however more successful which is what ultimately people care about.

It's what people care about here, but if I were in the ancillary business, I'd rather be selling The Flash merch than EEAAO merch.

[JustLurking]

12 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

It's what people care about here, but if I were in the ancillary business, I'd rather be selling The Flash merch than EEAAO merch.

Sure? This forum is called box office theory, you want to discuss ancillary hop on merch sales theory or whatever. And to be entirely frank I'm not exactly sure flash merch will be booming either.

 

We can argue all we want, but at the end of the day this film is going to lose a ton of money and likely cost Muschietti his batman flick, while EEAAO was a huge success for A24, gave the Daniels plenty of clout and won awards. Success in this industry does not exist in a vacuum.

 

Besides, we could go on a tangent that it would be a hell of a lot sadder if people were on a BO forum to care if a film made money based on kids and nerds collecting toys rather than caring if a film made money based on, well, being a film.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JustLurking

[Cmasterclay]

26 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

This is a forum where people claim that a film that makes $100 million is more popular than a film that makes $200 million if the budget for the former is smaller.

 

But that's not how popularity works. The film that makes more money is more popular. Popularity and budget are unrelated, yet people act like they are.

 

You'd think EEAAO was a super popular film when it only made $141.1 million WW. Sure, relative to its budget it did great, but as I stated a couple weeks ago, it's still less popular than the bomb currently known as The Flash is WW.

Yeah you lost me on this one. EEAAO and Asteroid City are both much bigger success stories than The Flash or Indy. I'm just saying that when it comes to "bigger bomb" I don't care if Indy cost $50 mill more than the Flash when the expectation for Flash was like NWH numbers from alot of people and it won't even make that opening day in total. Now that's a bomb.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Cmasterclay

[excel1]

29 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Don’t understand why there are so many Bob Iger simps over the internet. He was just lucky to be able to buy so many studios. He was also the one that started the huge focus on streaming. At least under Michael Eisner, Disney made a variety of films for different audiences. Movies like Dead Poets Society, Pretty Woman, The Rock, Con Air, Enemy of the State, The Sixth Sense etc. all Disney movies 

 

You need to define "lucky" and this is some serious cherry picking. Obviously what has been done with LucasFilm properties is extremely franchise-oriented but that was the entire point of that purchase. He purchased Pixar, which was quite risky at the time, and they continued to produce original contest for 10+ years after. Iger purchased Marvel and did something extremely creative with the companies existing IP. The film mentioned above, which were mostly released under Touchstone I believe, are obviously from a passed era and were largely produced while the company sank. And above all, what on Earth would have happened to the company during cover if they did not have Disney+?

 

Are some of these people brand new to following businesses of any sort? Chapek handled some PR situations terribly and needed to go from that front. Iger has just retaken the reigns, everything happening right now was before his time. 

[KC7]

2 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

What they decided to do with Indy 5 just isn't gonna work as well right now. Maybe if was a phenomenal movie? PWB being the female lead was a fun risk and she has a ton of fun in the movie but that risk didn't pay off... She's famous for Fleabag and writing stuff. Audiences have close to zero clue who she is... Would've been better server doing as they did for Jungle Cruise when they cast Emily Blunt... Should've cast someone of her stature rather than close to a complete unknown.

 

This reminds me of when the 2015 Vacation bombed and some (I think in Deadline's analysis) tried blaming it on Christina Applegate, and how they should have hired someone hotter, or younger, or a bigger name to play Ed Helms' wife. Somehow it's always the female lead's fault.

 

I don't think anyone is coming to an Indiana Jones movie for the female lead (was any of the box office success of Crystal Skull attributable to Blanchett?). Also, I doubt Emily Blunt is enough of a box office draw to help this movie, but she, or anyone who's a big enough name, would probably require the character of Helena be built up more to be a co-lead with Ford. Considering how much people have bitched about Helena as played by Waller-Jones (and despite the rumors, I thought she was allowed to get her shots in and have great moments while still very much being a secondary lead to Jones), that would have given them even more to bitch about.

 

(Even if Waller-Bridge didn't help the box office, I do think she helped the movie. The movie really lacked the character development and moments of the first three, so Helena's character leaned heavily into Waller-Bridge providing her with personality that wasn't on the page. I didn't necessarily like her through the first half, but I appreciated that she was very much doing the tough, resourceful, independent 1930 movie dame that felt like she could have stepped out of the serials that inspired this series to begin with.)

[rebelscum86]

32 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

This is a forum where people claim that a film that makes $100 million is more popular than a film that makes $200 million if the budget for the former is smaller.

 

But that's not how popularity works. The film that makes more money is more popular. Popularity and budget are unrelated, yet people act like they are.

 

You'd think EEAAO was a super popular film when it only made $141.1 million WW. Sure, relative to its budget it did great, but as I stated a couple weeks ago, it's still less popular than the bomb currently known as The Flash is WW.

 

who cares about popularity though? I have been a box office autist for 25 years and this is honestly the 1st time I have ever heard it mentioned that it's a popularity contest? Is this part of the appeal for some, figuring out what's more popular? What is the appeal, is it like power rankings or trying to understand what groups of people like?

And why wouldn't people focus on Disney? They are the big dog and the studio most visibly picking fights with certain audiences and refusing to admit when things go poorly or were bad. If you say yeah that was bad we won't do that again the issue dissapears, forcing it invites conflict. All movies are suffering from a bad economy, inflation, and recession, but there are elements in the films that are succeeding like Mario, GOTG, and Spiderverse that aren't in other movies. I have never seen such a huge generational gap in our culture and it sucks, but multiple sides and generations do exist, Disney could appeal to disney adults and teens without purposefully offending Gen X and parents with young kids.

Edited July 1, 2023 by rebelscum86

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

EEAAO is an original IP that is like one year old, while The Flash is a DC comics character that’s been in movies for years and on TV. Can we not?

[XXRDJisDoctorDoom]

1 hour ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

can Indy get 65m OW?

 

My math barely gets it to 55. 

[filmnerdjamie]

Weeks ago, Film Twitter went out of its way to blame Zaslav and Gunn for The Flash. Even though neither greenlit it, were creatively involved and merely inherited it from the previous WB/DC regime.

 

So I'm gonna very curious if they are equally vicious to Bob Iger over the failure of Dial of Destiny. Or will everyone suddenly handle him with kid gloves and point out how he too inherited this?

[Bob Train]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/07/01/disney-reveals-doctor-strange-2-cost-100-million-more-than-its-estimated-budget/?sh=79aa2455320b

 

Doctor Strange 2 actually had a 295m budget