Thanksgiving 5-days Weekend thread | BOSS: 42.2m, Napoleon: 32.75m, Wish: 31.6m, Trolls: 25.6m, Thanksgiving: 10.9m

[Dominic Draper]

Saw Saltburn tonight. Really loved it.

 

Reminded me of the talented Mr Ripley.

[Chrysaor]

I really think that BOSS is going to have comparatively good holds for at least a couple of weeks (maybe until Wonka hits). I saw it on Tuesday and there were a grand total of four empty seats in the theater. I was trying to remember the last time I went to a showing at our local theater that was that packed... probably No Way Home. 

 

I realize this is all anecdotal, but to me this really feels like a textbook case of there being a potential audience for the film, but them being on the fence about seeing it (perhaps in part, because of being burned by other films they were looking forward to but feel didn't deliver), and now that positive word of mouth is taking effect, more and more of those fence sitters are seeing it and then spreading the word themselves.

 

I also understand that in many cases a B+ Cinemascore is nothing to write home about, but in this case maybe it's enough.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Chrysaor

[Eric Prime]

2 hours ago, HummingLemon496 said:

You called sub $100m domestic total for The Marvels back in September 

That’s nice.

[Gavin Feng]

Incredibles level opening incoming next weekend.

 

 

[Arlborn]

6 hours ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

 

if they make styles the main villian or something I guess I could understand why they might want to give it a shot, risky, but it makes some sense to try 

Oh yeah, I forgot Styles was going to be in it.

 

Well, if they do make a new one, Styles should be the villain obviously and they really need to make Angelina Jolie the focus and actually give her a badass personality and something to work with.
 

She’s a star, make her the damn lead already, I don’t care if they lift her personality from every other action movie she has, just do it, we all know it works.

 

 I actually liked the Eternals just fine, but I never understood why they had Angelina Jolie but didn’t even attempt to use her at what she does best.

 

Just look at Viola in HG:BOSS this weekend, that’s how Viola should be used in a blockbuster, being an absolute badass, and look at that, it works!

[wildphantom]

7 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Are people ignoring that it was the most watched Marvel project of 2022 on Disney+?

 

If that film is genuinely getting made, it means Disney truly isn't as Box Office obsessed as folks assume they are.

of course they are. They want to make money like they’re used to doing, and at the moment they’re top of the class of losing it by the bucketload on every other film they release. 
 

The precarious nature of having to retain the gargantuan amount of subs they have to turn said profit isn’t a great situation to be in. They need their theatrical movies to be profitable well before the subscribers click play. 

[Kon]

29 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Oh yeah, I forgot Styles was going to be in it.

 

Well, if they do make a new one, Styles should be the villain obviously and they really need to make Angelina Jolie the focus and actually give her a badass personality and something to work with.
 

She’s a star, make her the damn lead already, I don’t care if they lift her personality from every other action movie she has, just do it, we all know it works.

 

 I actually liked the Eternals just fine, but I never understood why they had Angelina Jolie but didn’t even attempt to use her at what she does best.

 

Just look at Viola in HG:BOSS this weekend, that’s how Viola should be used in a blockbuster, being an absolute badass, and look at that, it works!

 

Eros (the character of Harry Styles) isn't a villain on the comics. So, I really doubt they planned to go on that route.

 

If there is a sequel for Eternals, I suspect the direction will be pretty different. Maybe they even focus on Harry Styles character as a main character.

 

 

PS: I wouldn't be surprised if the Eternals sequel just drop Angelina Jolie character or recast (hiring her should be expensive).

Edited November 26, 2023 by Kon

[Kon]

25 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

of course they are. They want to make money like they’re used to doing, and at the moment they’re top of the class of losing it by the bucketload on every other film they release. 
 

The precarious nature of having to retain the gargantuan amount of subs they have to turn said profit isn’t a great situation to be in. They need their theatrical movies to be profitable well before the subscribers click play. 

Disney doesn't seem to have plans to create more exclusive movies for Disney+. That should be hint that movies on Disney+ weren't working.

 

Movies aren't a good way to retain subscribers. That's why it's extremely unlikely Eternals being popular on Disney+ is the reason why Disney will make a sequel.

 

If there is a sequel for Eternals, expectatives on Harry Styles character and a new direction are more likely the reason.

 

 

PS: I should add that movie sequels won't necessarily have the same numbers in Disney+ than the first one. Frozen 2 isn't close to the numbers of Frozen in Disney+.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Kon

[grim22]

18 minutes ago, Kon said:

Disney doesn't seem to have plans to create more exclusive movies for Disney+. That should be hint that movies on Disney+ weren't working.

 

Movies aren't a good way to retain subscribers. That's why it's extremely unlikely Eternals being popular on Disney+ is the reason why Disney will make a sequel.

Streaming services seem to have forgotten how to promote movies as well. On Peacock I saw that there's a random Melissa McCarthy movie written by Richard Curtis released this week and I had genuinely not seen one bit of advertising for it until it's on the Peacock "Newly added" list.

 

Why even invest tens of millions into making a movie and then not even giving it the most token of promotions.

[Sckathian]

If your doing Eternals for the D+ audience just make a Tv show. Recast those not willing to do it but most of the Eternals were TV actors with Eternals as their first big break.

 

Even then I simply don’t believe it. If they are doing Eternals 2 we should know more by now.

[Issac Newton]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TwoMisfits]

2 hours ago, Kon said:

 

Honestly, I don't think so much people will see The Marvels in Disney+. I know there are people who wait for Disney+, but there seems to be a real lack of interest on that movie.

 

It was expected Disney+ will be profitable in 2024. Will this be achieved? Maybe.

 

I'll watch it on D+...not when it drops, but in the doldrums on April/May when nothing else new is around for streaming b/c of the strikes...I assume that will be how and when most Marvel fans eventually watch it...

[Juliet]

9 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Yep. I am very shocked that they didn’t send Marvels rotten though after that disaster opening. Would have been very on brand for them this year. 

This is a problem Marvel has now that it needs to turn around. Critics narrative. Before Endgame they saw a critical boost because the narrative was 'Marvel is doing good. People like Marvel' and post Endgame has seen that narrative changed to 'Marvel is repetitive and not Real Cinema, Scorcese said so'. I think they've gone into Hunger Games with the narrative of 'Franchise Nostalgia plays are bad' and as such scored it accordingly.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Juliet

[Eric Prime]

Why are we trusting a random Marvel fan account that an Eternals 2 is totes for sure happening? Do you not know you're supposed to trust verifiable sources? Like it doesn't even have 1K likes on that tweet. This feels like somebody just brought it up to start a random "Marvel sucks" fight.

[Kon]

23 minutes ago, Sckathian said:

If your doing Eternals for the D+ audience just make a Tv show. Recast those not willing to do it but most of the Eternals were TV actors with Eternals as their first big break.

 

Even then I simply don’t believe it. If they are doing Eternals 2 we should know more by now.

That's another good reason why Eternals sequel wouldn't exist due to popularity on Disney+. It wouldn't make sense to create a really expensive theatrical movie to appeal Disney+ audience. As you say, it would be more convenient to make a TV show (which retain more audience) recasting some actors.

 

Regarding the lack of news about Eternals 2, I also have many doubts about Eternals 2 really existing, but it's possible Disney is only recently considering a sequel. Currently, many characters in the MCU are pretty unpopular, so they may try something with Harry Styles character.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Kon

[CJohn]

Embarassing for Wish. 

[Arlborn]

53 minutes ago, Kon said:

 

Eros (the character of Harry Styles) isn't a villain on the comics. So, I really doubt they planned to go on that route.

 

If there is a sequel for Eternals, I suspect the direction will be pretty different. Maybe they even focus on Harry Styles character as a main character.

 

 

PS: I wouldn't be surprised if the Eternals sequel just drop Angelina Jolie character or recast (hiring her should be expensive).

I don’t know if an Eternals 2 will actually happen, but I do agree that if does it will go into a completely different direction.

 

Recasting or leaving Angelina Jolie aside though? Terrible optics, people will feel the movie is very disposable if they didn’t even bother to get her back. They should just make her the lead instead.

28 minutes ago, grim22 said:

Streaming services seem to have forgotten how to promote movies as well. On Peacock I saw that there's a random Melissa McCarthy movie written by Richard Curtis released this week and I had genuinely not seen one bit of advertising for it until it's on the Peacock "Newly added" list.

 

Why even invest tens of millions into making a movie and then not even giving it the most token of promotions.

Yeah, I’ve noticed it this year as well. I’m pretty sure Netflix used to be better at that, but this year? It’s like movies are just magically there, no building up to them at all no matter how expensive they were, it’s odd.

[Kon]

15 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Yeah, I’ve noticed it this year as well. I’m pretty sure Netflix used to be better at that, but this year? It’s like movies are just magically there, no building up to them at all no matter how expensive they were, it’s odd.

 

I've understood Netflix has said they will make less movies too.

 

Movies in Netflix were created to generate promotion for the streaming service, but these doesn't really help much to retain subs.

 

So, it isn't so weird Netflix doesn't have so much interest on promoting movies (even if these were expensive).

Edited November 26, 2023 by Kon

[M37]

So I was looking at legs & holds following Thanksgiving, and stumbled into a pattern. Not be a December Debbie Downer, but just pre-emptively setting expectations for the next few weeks...

 

Based on the last 2 years, we should expect most films to bring in over the next 3.5 weeks - from Mon 11/27 through Thu 12/21 - roughly the same amount (+/- 13%) as they did over the 5-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend

 

There will be some exceptions [last year Menu got a second wind and was +87%, Chosen & King Richard crashed well below, etc], and films on platform release (still expanding) should outkick the baseline, but pretty much the entire TG Top 10 followed that pattern

Which means the ~$150M we're getting from the Top 10 over the 5-day is roughly all we're also going to get until the pre-Christmas weekend (25 days) from those same films, plus whatever the new releases (and expansions) can bring to the table

 

December Doldrums incoming

Edited November 26, 2023 by M37

[Boxofficerules]

1 hour ago, CJohn said:

Embarassing for Wish. 

They're going to be wishing for soft drops and decent legs.