Weekend Numbers | actuals | 27.75M THE FALL GUY | 8.72M SW: EP I - TPM | 7.59M CHALLENGERS | 6.50M TAROT

[excel1]

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

You'd referenced Gen Z earlier.

 

Joker was the 5 years ago. It was absolutely aimed at Millennials and older.

 

ItSV was 6 years ago. Aimed at Gen Z and Millennials.

 

Young millennials and older GEN Zers.

 

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

Wonka was easily the least original, most risk averse Wonka movie yet. Super, super safe.

 

Nobody was out there asking for a Wonka origin film. 

 

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

I don't know what NWH is... No Way Home? I mean, X Men did the same thing before ot, no? Regardless,  that movie is aimed at everyone Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X. Not a Gen Z thing.

 

XMen had 3 different famous people playing the same character on the screen at the same time?

 

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

Oppenheimer is less of a risk than older Nolan summer tentacles.

 

Disagree entirely and feel free to revisit the Oppenheimer thread to read the pre-Barbenheimer mania consensus on the projects commercial potential. 

 

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

Summer of 2015? You mean when Fury Road and Inside Out were hits? Wouldn't they fit your criteria of original?

 

Fury Road was not exactly a summer smash, and IO is Pixar, the king of originality at the time. 

 

Edited May 4 by excel1

[cannastop]

38 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Inside Out is an expensive, original movie that came out in summer 2015. It was far riskier than the movies you are listing here, other than Oppenheimer. 

 

I'm not sure if Pixar movies are as inherently risky as Oppenheimer. Yes they have huge budgets, but there is (or there used to be) an audience that was already there because of expectations. The stories aren't based on previous things but there is still a deep trust that audiences had with Pixar and Disney.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say Pixar movies are inherently an "IP" play but someone I know does say that.

 

Then again, Christopher Nolan also had a great amount of trust behind him.

Edited May 4 by cannastop

[excel1]

PIXAR was the IP for their original content, they're obviously unique. 

[cannastop]

38 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'

I would say all of those movies, even Oppenheimer, could have been part of a Summer 2015 lineup. Christopher Nolan was a big enough of a name in 2015.

[Firepower]

No Way Home was as risky as The Force Awakens or Avengers: Endgame.

[excel1]

If the premise for BOND 26 was Pierce Brosnan's retired 'James Bond' training and grooming a younger, new 'James Bond', it would be awesome. 

[excel1]

1 minute ago, Firepower said:

No Way Home was as risky as The Force Awakens or Avengers: Endgame.

 

revisionist history, go read the threads on this very board around the time it was being filmed 

[cannastop]

Just now, excel1 said:

 

revisionist history, go read the threads on this very board around the time it was being filmed 

It's a freaking Spider-Man movie. I'd be shocked if anything suggested that it was at risk of not making a profit.

[Kon]

13 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Nobody was out there asking for a Wonka origin film. 

 

True. However, the movie was pretty safe for a Christmas movie.

 

I recognize Wonka as IP isn't so big, but I don't think the idea was especially risky.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, excel1 said:

XMen had 3 different famous people playing the same character on the screen at the same time?

The idea of NWH is risky because it used three different Spidermen seems ridiculous. Fans were asking for that the moment the multiverse were confirmed to be a thing.

 

Hiring the actors of previous Spiderman iterations is the safe thing to do.

Edited May 4 by Kon

[excel1]

Just now, cannastop said:

It's a freaking Spider-Man movie. I'd be shocked if anything suggested that it was at risk of not making a profit.

 

There was a metric ton of commentary around the risk of confusing the audience and overstuffing the film affecting quality. Nobody said it wouldn't make profit but long term damage certainly was possible. 

[excel1]

18 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

 

True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? Fans of course are still elated at Palpatines iconic return in Star Wars 9.

 

Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, Bayformerswatch etc.

 

Bumping this post for its epic truths. 😎

 

Edited May 4 by excel1

[JohnnyGossamer]

Joker and ItSV/AtSV were absolutely aimed squarely at Millennials in addition to other generations. Not just young Millennials. All Millennials. Oldest Millennials are what right now? 42/43? That's not that old.

 

As original as Spider-verse feels, I'd say given the filmmakers, The LEGO Movie from a decade+ ago now, was a very similar fresh, fun, meta event. That movie was huge DOM in 2014. Did 260M. Same filmmakers.

 

Nobody was asking for a Wonka movie in 2005 either. But, Burton and especially Depp were huge they were hired to make it. Not unlike why the new one happened with King and Chalamet being hip at the moment. Theyre a good fit for a new take on Wonka... Just like Burton/Depp in 2005. I see no difference aside Burton/Depp took a much bigger swing with it.

Edited May 4 by JohnnyGossamer

[JustLurking]

17 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

 

True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? 

 

Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, etc.

 

See things through the eyes of a normal fan. New major tentpole film had ever done anything like what occurred in NWH. It is inherently risky to take that approach. 

nearly all of these were fucking DEAD franchises to begin with that were ATTEMPTED to being brought back to life through nostalgia, no fucking shit

 

you're talking about a spiderman film at pretty much the height of MCU popularity bringing in more spidermen, including some from one of the absolute most popular trilogies of all time

 

and you're trying to come at me saying this is a risky project

 

please. just don't. it wasn't.

[CoolioD1]

spending near $150mil on a fall guy movie was always weird. like are they gonna try and turn TJ Hooker into a blockbuster franchise next?

[Kon]

11 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

There was a metric ton of commentary around the risk of confusing the audience and overstuffing the film affecting quality. Nobody said it wouldn't make profit but long term damage certainly was possible. 

 

People on forums could have different ideas, which could be pretty biased (and our knolwedge limited).

 

The studios likely knows that the hype to see Three Spiderman will attract a lot of people. So, the decision of three different Spiderman iterations working together wasn't likely a big risk for them.

Edited May 4 by Kon

[redfirebird2008]

22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Oppenheimer is less of a risk than older Nolan summer tent poles.

 

 

I'm not sure about that. It's a mixed bag in some ways.

 

On the negative side:  The last time Hollywood put out a movie with Oppenheimer as a main character, it bombed hard in 1989 with a $30 million budget and less than $4 million of total box office. That $30 million budget in 1989 was pretty damn big. Burton's 1989 Batman film had a $40 million production budget for perspective. The 1989 Oppy film had Paul Newman in the Matt Damon role of General Leslie Groves. Paul Newman won Best Actor at the Oscars for The Color of Money in March of 1987. So his name brand in the late 1980's was about as hot as you can get, and the Oppy film still bombed really bad. Knowing these facts about what happened with the 1989 movie, it seems like a pretty big risk by Universal to spend $100 million on production & another $100 million on marketing the new Oppy film. 

 

On the positive side:  Nolan obviously gained a lot of credibility and brand power with his earlier films in the 2 decades leading up to the release of his Oppy film last year. The film accidentally ended up with a perfect release date, thanks to all of the Barbie hype on the same opening weekend. Oppy did not have the full screen count Nolan probably hoped to have, but a pretty decent chunk of the Barbie audience decided to also check out the Oppy film. That's a pretty unexpected boost for Oppy's box office from the Barbie fans. Another accidental element that helped Oppy's box office is Vlad Putin constantly threatening to launch nukes at Western countries. This could have created a negative effect in the sense that people would rather bury their heads in the sand instead of watching a movie about such a serious subject matter. But maybe this type of nuclear fear-mongering in real life actually gave the movie some kind of extra boost at the box office. 

[excel1]

5 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

nearly all of these were fucking DEAD franchises to begin with that were ATTEMPTED to being brought back to life through nostalgia, no fucking shit

 

you're talking about a spiderman film at pretty much the height of MCU popularity bringing in more spidermen, including some from one of the absolute most popular trilogies of all time

 

and you're trying to come at me saying this is a risky project

 

please. just don't. it wasn't.

 

a 2 second google search will show tons of material around the premise 

[Maggie]

5 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

spending near $150mil on a fall guy movie was always weird. like are they gonna try and turn TJ Hooker into a blockbuster franchise next?

It worked for Mission Impossible. That was first  a series from the 60s i believe

[JustLurking]

2 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

a 2 second google search will show tons of material around the premise 

Yeah ok. Next you'll tell me Deadpool and Wolverine is super creative and super risky.

[excel1]

3 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

I'm not sure about that. It's a mixed bag in some ways.

 

On the negative side:  The last time Hollywood put out a movie with Oppenheimer as a main character, it bombed hard in 1989 with a $30 million budget and less than $4 million of total box office. That $30 million budget in 1989 was pretty damn big. Burton's 1989 Batman film had a $40 million production budget for perspective. The 1989 Oppy film had Paul Newman in the Matt Damon role of General Leslie Groves. Paul Newman won Best Actor at the Oscars for The Color of Money in March of 1987. So his name brand in the late 1980's was about as hot as you can get, and the Oppy film still bombed really bad. Knowing these facts about what happened with the 1989 movie, it seems like a pretty big risk by Universal to spend $100 million on production & another $100 million on marketing the new Oppy film. 

 

On the positive side:  Nolan obviously gained a lot of credibility and brand power with his earlier films in the 2 decades leading up to the release of his Oppy film last year. The film accidentally ended up with a perfect release date, thanks to all of the Barbie hype on the same opening weekend. Oppy did not have the full screen count Nolan probably hoped to have, but a pretty decent chunk of the Barbie audience decided to also check out the Oppy film. That's a pretty unexpected boost for Oppy's box office from the Barbie fans. Another accidental element that helped Oppy's box office is Vlad Putin constantly threatening to launch nukes at Western countries. This could have created a negative effect in the sense that people would rather bury their heads in the sand instead of watching a movie about such a serious subject matter. But maybe this type of nuclear fear-mongering in real life actually gave the movie some kind of extra boost at the box office. 

 

Oppenheimer success formula is pretty clear in hindsight.

 

Nolan-directed film on Oppenheimer = $30m base opening weekend

Decide to cast tons of big names = +15% = $34.5m

Make it Josh Hartnett comeback film = +25% = $43m

Make it Best Picture quality film = +15% = $50m 

Open against a film of dolls coming to life and make their audience want to feel smart afterward = + 60% = $80m opening