8/12-8/15 Weekdays Thread | It Ends With Us $6.2m Monday

[Torontofan]

5 minutes ago, AnthonyJPHer said:

Avengers: Endgame was front loaded though. It opened to 357m in its domestic opening weekend and only ended up grossing 858m, which, while still incredible, is slightly disappointing. It’s only an 2.5x multiplier. Not horrible but very underwhelming. Especially considering all the hype it had, and it couldn’t even beat The Force Awakens despite opening 100m ahead. Heck, it actually grossed almost 100m more than Endgame did. Yes, that had holiday legs, just like No Way Home did (and the only reason I brought that movie up was because it’s the only comparable movie post pandemic that got even close to its domestic gross and had almost equal hype) but Endgame released in early summer with absolutely no competition for weeks and collapsed even during the weekdays in its second week. Black Panther released in February and still grossed over 200m in its opening weekend and managed to have better legs despite massive hype as well behind it, grossing 700m DOM. I’m not downplaying its success or performance (although it might sound like it) but it was front loaded. It wasn’t nearly as front loaded as something like Multiverse of Madness or Batman v Superman though so I’ll give you that. 

I think issue with Endgame is that it maxed out it audience and they all mostly came in the first 2 weeks to all see it. 

 

It was a film with a massive but limited audience. 

 

If you not into the MCU you likely would not watch endgame while a film like Star wars or titanic or something takes far less investment. 

 

 

[ZattMurdock]

20 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

i don't have a chart but i think biggest movies of the 90s are like Titanic, Indipendence day, saving private ryan, forrest gump, pretty woman, ghost, the sixth sense, the matrix, armageddon, the lion king..all originals- new

 

star wars and indiana jones for how big they were with their third chapter still it was the last chapter in that era of hollywood. Now for fast and furious we have 11 movies with one every 2-3 years plus spin off and everything. 

 

We have universe have made 30 movies in 10 years.

 

You can't really compare even the 80s with our era.

 

I mean the number one movie in the 80s is E.T. Imagine E.T coming now and making 900M dollars domestic like it made at the time counting the inflation. No sequel happened. Now we would get E.T 2 and E.T 3 and E.T 4 in a decade. We all know that right? 😅

 

 

I mean… if it wasn’t for Titanic, Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Menace would be number one, and most of those end up becoming major franchises themselves. One could argue that if The Lion King as a brand new Disney animation - there are controversies rooted with that film being based in another animation - it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch call Black Panther an ‘original’ MCU film that featured highly at the 00s Top 10 Dom as well. 
 

Here is the list:

 

http://www.boxofficereport.com/domestic1990s.html

[ZattMurdock]

8 minutes ago, wattage said:

5 of 10 of the list are original movies lmao what kind of argument is this. I can't even imagine in the modern day having more than 1 original movie being top 10 for the year, much less it being the number one movie of the year. And for multiple years in a row? Definitely not. Those are IP *now* and they were not when the movies came out. 

 

Unless I'm mistaken and some of these are based on some previously popular book or something? ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to The Future. 

Blockbusters started with Star Wars. The term didn’t exist before that. So it stands to reason that a lot of the films you mentioned did become major franchises. Empire’s point about nostalgia and originality very much works for Batman (Batman ‘66 was a major thing, same for Superman), Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, so 5 of the 10, with ALL the others becoming major franchises on their own that spawned several sequels but E.T.. 

[Mandatory]

7 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Blockbusters started with Star Wars. The term didn’t exist before that. So it stands to reason that a lot of the films you mentioned did become major franchises. Empire’s point about nostalgia and originality very much works for Batman (Batman ‘66 was a major thing, same for Superman), Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, so 5 of the 10, with ALL the others becoming major franchises on their own that spawned several sequels but E.T.. 

 

There was also Jaws and the usage of "blockbuster" in terms of its mega-success in the summer of '75.

[Mojoguy]

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

so 5 of the 10, with ALL the others becoming major franchises on their own that spawned several sequels but E.T.. 

I'm bummed we never got an E.T. 2 with Elliot working at McDonald's and desperately trying to hide ET, who is playing peekaboo under some tables while costumers come in all day.

[ZattMurdock]

1 minute ago, Mandatory said:

 

There was also Jaws and the usage of "blockbuster" in terms of its mega-success in the summer of '75.

Correct, which also became a franchise itself.

 

Quote

In 1975, the usage of "blockbuster" for films coalesced around Steven Spielberg's Jaws. It was perceived as a new cultural phenomenon: fast-paced, exciting entertainment, inspiring interest and conversation beyond the theatre (which would later be called "buzz"), and repeated viewings.^[6] The film is regarded as the first film of the "blockbuster era", and founded the blockbuster film genre.^[7] Two years later, Star Wars expanded on the success of Jaws, setting box office records and enjoying a theatrical run that lasted more than a year.^[8] After the success of Jawsand Star Wars, many Hollywood producers attempted to create similar "event" films with wide commercial appeal, and film companies began green-lighting increasingly large-budget films, and relying extensively on massive advertising blitzes leading up to their theatrical release. These two films were the prototypes for the "summer blockbuster" trend,^[9] in which major film studios and distributors planned their annual marketing strategy around a big release by July 4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)

[YM!]

17 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

I mean… if it wasn’t for Titanic, Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Menace would be number one, and most of those end up becoming major franchises themselves. One could argue that if The Lion King as a brand new Disney animation - there are controversies rooted with that film being based in another animation - it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch call Black Panther an ‘original’ MCU film that featured highly at the 00s Top 10 Dom as well. 
 

Here is the list:

 

http://www.boxofficereport.com/domestic1990s.html

I count The Lion King as original mainly because whilst the Disney label was prominently used, it was an idea that was never established (although Kimba gets bought up, this happens a lot in animation). Black Panther, though I do think it’s one of the best tentpoles of the 2010s because it’s an adaptation of the comics. Adaptations are grey area as while new, they came from somewhere, it’s the same reason why I don’t count Oppenheimer as an original (Academy rules baybeee!).

 

The 1980s and 1990s years had an even split of originals and IP for the top ten. 2000s is when the shift to IP started, but two of the top 10 were original (Avatar and The Passion of the Christ) with only a few originals slathered in the top 50, all of which at 200m+. 2010s continues the trend but the highest original is Frozen at 27, with 2020s going further with Elemental at 47. The point is the stuff that breathes new franchises is starting to decay. Sure, the 1980s and 90s had IP and the top 10 had created franchises but most came from new entries. We still have that now but solely with adaptations.

Edited August 14 by YM!

[Mandatory]

1 minute ago, ZattMurdock said:

Correct, which also became a franchise itself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)

 

Oh, did it?

[vale9001]

21 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

I mean… if it wasn’t for Titanic, Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Menace would be number one, and most of those end up becoming major franchises themselves. One could argue that if The Lion King as a brand new Disney animation - there are controversies rooted with that film being based in another animation - it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch call Black Panther an ‘original’ MCU film that featured highly at the 00s Top 10 Dom as well. 
 

Here is the list:

 

http://www.boxofficereport.com/domestic1990s.html

 

 

Only SIX sequels in the top 30. Definitely not a decade of sequels like now. 

 

As i said It's pretty normal to make a sequel of a successfull movie. The point is at the time with few expections like Bond everything was meant to be a Trilogy ...now they start and never ends if they make Money. I don't think it's something controversial to say. 

 

even Disney for how huge were its Classic movies didn't make sequels (if not for home video or in form of animated series) for any of them. Now Frozen 2,3,4 - Oceania 2 etc.. are part of the official animated Classic series and "full movies"...this says how the sequels policy has changed. 

Edited August 14 by vale9001

[wattage]

22 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

I mean… if it wasn’t for Titanic, Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Menace would be number one, 

Okay but it wasn't. We're not speaking in hypotheticals here, Titanic was an original movie was the biggest movie of all time when it came out and topped the year. 

 

If you have to contort yourself to try and classify original movies as not original and vice versa to make your point then maybe you're not making a good point. Black Panther is not an original movie and Lion King's controversy (debunked by many) doesn't make it an IP movie or remake or whatever.

 

Movies that are based on pre-existing IP can be good and worthwhile additions to the culture and you can argue that. But it's not really being honest to pretend that the state of original property now and it's ability to be popular and successful is anywhere close to what it used to be. 

 

Black Panther is one of my favorite movies of the 2010s I think it's stunning. I love Jurassic World and I liked Infinity War and Inside Out 2 and all sorts of IP movies. And it's good that they're keeping theaters alive, I'm not complaining personally, though I know some do. All that doesn't change the fact that they're all sequels and part of mega franchises. It just is what it is. We mourn what was and live in the now, at least I do. A new original thing might pop off everyone once in a while and I'm happy about that at least, even if it's not number 1 of the year. 

Edited August 14 by wattage

[ZattMurdock]

9 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

I'm bummed we never got an E.T. 2 with Elliot working at McDonald's and desperately trying to hide ET, who is playing peekaboo under some tables while costumers come in all day.

Watching E.T. is one of the most traumatic film experiences in my entire life. Me and my homie both were home bound sick as fuck with chickenpox and it was bad. My uncle came from another town to present me with a VCR and rented E.T.. I remember crying and itching sick through the whole film. I never actually watched the film again and I do remember being good, it just was an awful, awful experience as a kid. Since then I actively avoid watching anything meaningful or that I’m anticipating if I have a flu or something.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mandatory said:

 

Oh, did it?

I’m saying that for the kids lmao.

Edited August 14 by ZattMurdock

[JustLurking]

2 hours ago, HummingLemon496 said:

What specifically makes NWH worse than Endgame

The climax is much better and the path to it not quite as annoying

[HummingLemon496]

Shang-Chi - 2.3925x
GOTG 3 - 2.3144x
The Avengers - 2.2574x
DPW - 2.3976x

 

Day 19 total/OW

 

3x legs is looking basically locked which would take it to $634.3M so yeah basically locked to pass Barbie

[wattage]

16 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Blockbusters started with Star Wars. The term didn’t exist before that. So it stands to reason that a lot of the films you mentioned did become major franchises. Empire’s point about nostalgia and originality very much works for Batman (Batman ‘66 was a major thing, same for Superman), Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, so 5 of the 10, with ALL the others becoming major franchises on their own that spawned several sequels but E.T.. 

That's not really supporting any point, they all got sequels down the line...so? They still were original works that people attended and loved enough to "franchise" in the first place. People like familiarity or course but there was a decent mix of new stuff in there for people to form attachments to in the first place so they'd show up for a sequel. 

[wattage]

5 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

The climax is much better and the path to it not quite as annoying

I agree as someone who'd put NWH above Endgame. Also personally it clicked more emotionally than Endgame did, being able to focus primarily on one main character arc made that a lot easier. I really liked Peter already as a character and his extended cast, so I really was feeling every emotional beat in that film. I definitely cried when May died.

 

Any issues I have with it are just on some sections of it lagging and the visuals (they worked with what they could). But it really came together in the end. 

[JustLurking]

Saying that the term blockbuster didn't exist before star wars is obviously wrong and a couple of minutes with google could tell you as much

 

Technically speaking the term existed even much earlier than that but even if we want to go by its "popularised" usage it was brought back with Jaws

Edited August 14 by JustLurking

[HummingLemon496]

6 minutes ago, wattage said:

I agree as someone who'd put NWH above Endgame. Also personally it clicked more emotionally than Endgame did, being able to focus primarily on one main character arc made that a lot easier. I really liked Peter already as a character and his extended cast, so I really was feeling every emotional beat in that film. I definitely cried when May died.

 

Any issues I have with it are just on some sections of it lagging and the visuals (they worked with what they could). But it really came together in the end. 

In JustLurking's and my case, it's more of a question of which one he dislikes less

[wattage]

Just now, HummingLemon496 said:

In JustLurking's and my case, it's more of a question of which one he dislikes less

Aw, well I'm happy the one I like more is the less disliked one then lol. 

[ZattMurdock]

13 minutes ago, wattage said:

That's not really supporting any point, they all got sequels down the line...so? They still were original works that people attended and loved enough to "franchise" in the first place. People like familiarity or course but there was a decent mix of new stuff in there for people to form attachments to in the first place so they'd show up for a sequel. 

It actually supports a point, I think. Originality and the top 10 at box office have been arguably at odds since the 80s. It stands to reason that with the rise of the blockbusters that that would happen. 
 

As for your point on the previous post that original IP doesn’t raise as it used to be I hear you but then again, I feel there is a lot of nostalgia and rose tinted lenses going on when we talk about the climate that received those films. Complaints about the top 10 from what I remember from film magazines from back then it was very much a thing, very much so like now. The integrity of cinema and how blockbusters are popcorn movies is an actual thing in film discussion as long as I’ve been alive. It’s not only that I enjoy adaptations of superhero films or love Star Wars and etc, it’s that this discussion is as old as my first SET magazine (the only major film magazine here in Brazil from the 80s). 
 

I think things transform and a lot of the ‘original’ stuff that would happen in different eras are now part of streaming. I actually don’t see streaming as a bad thing for me as a consumer, but they are a problem for movie theaters and in the long run, the studios themselves. I don’t have a solution for what could ‘elevate’ blockbusters. I think people look for a solution for that and discuss this for decades. Before they weren’t high art and not worthy of being at the top 10, now they aren’t high art, not original and deemed by many as not worthy of being at the top 10. I’m hopeful that movie theaters are still a popular experience that people go to watch films that move them until I’m old and dead. What happens next I don’t care really, it’s been a fun ride.

[JustLurking]

13 minutes ago, wattage said:

I agree as someone who'd put NWH above Endgame. Also personally it clicked more emotionally than Endgame did, being able to focus primarily on one main character arc made that a lot easier. I really liked Peter already as a character and his extended cast, so I really was feeling every emotional beat in that film. I definitely cried when May died.

 

Any issues I have with it are just on some sections of it lagging and the visuals (they worked with what they could). But it really came together in the end. 

I find it really hard to connect to it emotionally when the journey is such a pile of nonsense? Like, May's death almost felt catarthic in a "you reap what you sow for being this stupid" kind of way for Peter

 

I don't really hate endgame, just find it to be a deeply disappointing film after infinity war, I wasn't really into most of the film at all, and it's really only the final 30 minutes I care about (which admittedly are really great)

Edited August 14 by JustLurking