ecstasy Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Damn, I didn't realize Sparkle was only in 2200 theaters. That's damn good.And a good Friday increase for Bourne as well. Edited August 18, 2012 by ECSTASY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Prometheus isn't awful, per se, it just isn't very good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Damn, I didn't realize Sparkle was only in 2200 theaters. That's damn good.And considering it had the worst and most non-existent marketing campaign of the summer makes its OW pretty good too. Obviously Houston was still a draw for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nAlkaline Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I would only put the trilogy itself on pedestal.Fair enough. I'm not arguing the quality of the films. They're great films, no doubt about it. I have them in the top 3 among trilogies in the last decade. Just think the 2D argument doesn't make sense. Nolan could have made it in 3D if he wanted, and it wouldn't have beat films like TA. I don't think the 2D release is justification for a lack of comparisons between its performance against 3D films, especially given the fact we can account for the gross adjustment because of 3D tickets sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Ridiculous argument. I don't think anyone can reasonably say that the amount of people that want to see a movie purely because it's in 3D is relevant. Everyone, kids included, don't care if a terrible movie is in 3D. Say you tell kids that a movie is coming out. It's a serious expose on Shakespeare in Victorian England and the impact of the social environment on his writing. But WAIT, it's in 3D. Kids won't give a damn about the format, if the movie doesn't interest them first. People went to see Avengers because the concept was cool and executed well, not because of the 3D.This conversation will never happen:Kid: I want to see TA.Parent: Why?Kid: It's in 3D!This will.Kid: I want to see TA.Parent: Why?Kid: It's got the Hulk, IM, CA, and Thor wrecking shit up.Sure, the visuals may push people who will go see it to see it in 3D, but we know the 2D/3D split and can adjust for it with the numbers.The only film that you can argue about this absurd 3D effect is Avatar, and that's a completely different ballgame. That movie sold itself on the next generation of film visuals alone. TA did not...and certainly not in any manner to change the facts of its adjusted performance against TDKR. It whipped it, fair and square.Yes. No help at all from some lunatic killing 12 people. It was never going to beat Avengers gross but no one thought TDKR would have opened to 160M OW.No one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Just think the 2D argument doesn't make sense. Nolan could have made it in 3D if he wanted, and it wouldn't have beat films like TA. I don't think the 2D release is justification for a lack of comparisons between its performance against 3D films, especially given the fact we can account for the gross adjustment because of 3D tickets sales.Completely agree with this. TA crushed TDKR's ticket sales. The only thing that might make TDKR the "last" 2D movie to hit a billion worldwide is simply the fact that Hollywood is going to release all of their big movies in 3D going forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nAlkaline Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Yes. No help at all from some lunatic killing 12 people. It was never going to beat Avengers gross but no one thought TDKR would have opened to 160M OW.No one.Haha, I'm not arguing about the impact of the shootings on TDKR's run. It definitely put a large damper on its BO performance, especially in the first 2 weeks. We will never know where it would have ended up otherwise. I just think there's no harm in comparing the performance of 2D vs 3D films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Eh, TDKR doesn't really belong in that group. Until there's a relative comparison to make (and there probably never will be), those arguments don't hold any weight. All we know for a fact is what the film was tracking for and how it performed relative to its market, which was on par with TDK. It might not have hit $600m like some speculated, but implying that its run so far has been completely natural just fails to hold any perspective. It has an invisible asterisk beside it. Always will, and unfortunately nothing can change that.I don't deny the shooting had any effect, but I don't buy for a second that it cost the film around 150m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 there are a few countries where TDKR is beating Avengers in admissions. And/or gross. UK, Australia and Germany for instance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Yes. No help at all from some lunatic killing 12 people. It was never going to beat Avengers gross but no one thought TDKR would have opened to 160M OW.No one.I'll give you one. BKB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 there are a few countries where TDKR is beating Avengers in admissions. And/or gross. UK, Australia and Germany for instance And finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nAlkaline Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 there are a few countries where TDKR is beating Avengers in admissions. And/or gross. UK, Australia and Germany for instanceFair, but TA outperformed TDKR in the overwhelming majority of markets, both domestically and abroad. I just assume people on this board are talking about US BO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted August 18, 2012 Founder / Operator Share Posted August 18, 2012 We can always account for the gross differential -- more or less -- but what we can never account for is exactly how many people see a film *only because* its in 2D. Or *only because* its in 3D. In other words, the gross differential makes a blanket presumption that people would have bought their ticket to the movie regardless of what format it was playing in. That in itself kills any one-to-one comparison no matter how much we want to make/find one. Its just a new fact of this new era in the business. For example: how many people would have seen Avatar were it only in 2D? There are valid arguments suggesting "not as many" -- especially considering its huge 3D share. Same applies to TDKR: how many tickets would it have sold had it been in 3D? Again, valid arguments to suggest it would have sold fewer. That's the trend Hollywood is just now starting to learn: its not just about having 3D -- its about what kind of film is in 3D, and what kind doesn't belong in the format. Its an entirely new perspective on the marketing and gross of a movie, and one that will perpetuate the arguments among those looking for black and white answers that will never come. Case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I'll give you one. BKBEven BKB admitted that his prediction only came true because of the shooting. I was predicting 160 for a long time and then bumped it to 175 within the last couple weeks leading up to it. With 30 at midnight (the only unaffected number of its opening weekend), I think it definitely would have reached 175 for the weekend and likely around 180. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Even BKB admitted that his prediction only came true because of the shooting. I was predicting 160 for a long time and then bumped it to 175 within the last couple weeks leading up to it. With 30 at midnight (the only unaffected number of its opening weekend), I think it definitely would have reached 175 for the weekend and likely around 180.But he predicted it nonetheless. I don't care how it came true. This guys said no one predicted 160m. BKB did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 I'll give you one. BKBme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted August 18, 2012 Founder / Operator Share Posted August 18, 2012 I don't deny the shooting had any effect, but I don't buy for a second that it cost the film around 150m.I'm not saying it did or didn't. I'm just saying its an abstract number pulled from the thin air of someone's prediction. Surely someone would say the same exact thing had it been Avengers that the tragedy occurred during. But, knowing what we know, some probably wouldn't... because hindsight is 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#ED Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 But he predicted it nonetheless. I don't care how it came true. This guys said no one predicted 160m. BKB did.He predicted it correct because of the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) Fair, but TA outperformed TDKR in the overwhelming majority of markets, both domestically and abroad. I just assume people on this board are talking about US BO.Oh Absolutely. I just thought it would be interesting to point out. India, South Korea and Hong Kong, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Israel are others where Rises wins in admissions Edited August 18, 2012 by John Marston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 He predicted it correct because of the shooting.He predicted it nonetheless. Which makes your statement false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
