Tower Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I still think this can pass 500M, but it but we will have to see how the legs will be for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Is it low? The overseas number isn't big. It already opened in 80% of the markets. I'll change my predicts after the second weekend. Did it open in China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I`ll never understand love for this movie so the success boggles my mind. One of big BO stories of 2012 for sure. It's simple. The movie is fantastic. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bacon Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I think 80m for a Wizard of Oz prequel where James Franco is the biggest name is very, very impressive, I don't give a shit how much anybody spent making it. I yearn for older, simpler times on this site, soon it's gonna eat itself alive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 No one doesn't think it's a good opening. It's simply undercut by Disney's current production model in which few to none of their films are successes before home video and merchandising sales, and by its underwhelming overseas launch, which doesn't usually happen anymore with blockbusters in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sims Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Is The Wizard of Oz not as popular overseas? Edited March 11, 2013 by Sims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 In other news, SLP will probably finnish above Robert Parker in the US. I would also argue that the Oscar SLP leak cost the movie around 20m in bo receits. The movie could have done 150m dom. It will finish in the 130m area, probably a bit under. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 ?? LIFE OF PI. The tiger is named "Richard Parker". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I`ll never understand love for this movie so the success boggles my mind. One of big BO stories of 2012 for sure. Why? Ang Lee is a master film maker and his talent is showing through and through this movie. Great visuals, strong story, very good performance by the lead and ending with a strong message. It earned it's money through great WOM. Whats not to like? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 LIFE OF PI. The tiger is named "Richard Parker". thanks. thought it was. But "Richard" not "Robert". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Why? Ang Lee is a master film maker and his talent is showing through and through this movie. Great visuals, strong story, very good performance by the lead and ending with a strong message. It earned it's money through great WOM. Whats not to like? Wasn't the film declared unfilmable for a long time until Ang Lee came in and took over? He sure proved that wrong I agree about the acting performance as well, by both the older and younger Pi IMO. The ending exchange between the older Pi Patel and the novelist especially stood out for me. His line delivery, facial expressions are so powerful and full of emotions Edited March 11, 2013 by Sam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) thanks. thought it was. But "Richard" not "Robert". Oh, LOL. Read that too fast. Edited March 11, 2013 by Telemachos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Sequel won't happen at all. It had a 200 production budget and 100 for marketing = 300. It needs 600+ to get a pass. I'm not quite understanding the logic here. Because Disney spent too much making Oz that means they would spend too much on the sequel as well? If you had a franchise that can make 200m+ per film domestic....that sounds like you lower the budget and proceed. Marvel is certainly going ahead with Thor and Cap and they made less than Oz is going to make. I see later some are claiming Disney spent over 325m on it. If the "rule" were true about a movie needing to make x2 its budget...why would Disney ever spend that much in the first place? That would make it practically impossible to make a profit. I think Disney knows something we don't about making money off their movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I'm not quite understanding the logic here. Because Disney spent too much making Oz that means they would spend too much on the sequel as well? If you had a franchise that can make 200m+ per film domestic....that sounds like you lower the budget and proceed. Marvel is certainly going ahead with Thor and Cap and they made less than Oz is going to make. I see later some are claiming Disney spent over 325m on it. If the "rule" were true about a movie needing to make x2 its budget...why would Disney ever spend that much in the first place? That would make it practically impossible to make a profit. I think Disney knows something we don't about making money off their movies. Yes, Disney doesn't follow "rules" made up by people on a forum who don't actually know much about the financial situation of their films. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball Lightning Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I seriously doubt Disney were expecting anything over 500 OS. Hoping for more, yes. Expecting more, no. Also don't forget the original budget was smaller but the new Disney boss wanted re-shoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Sequel won't happen at all. It had a 200 production budget and 100 for marketing = 300. It needs 600+ to get a pass. Would need 350M-380M OS to make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Would need 350M-380M OS to make it.I still see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 No one doesn't think it's a good opening. It's simply undercut by Disney's current production model in which few to none of their films are successes before home video and merchandising sales, and by its underwhelming overseas launch, which doesn't usually happen anymore with blockbusters in the states. No, imo, the reason why people look at this as kind of disappointing opening is because we want everything to fail. We are also so used to films like Twilight and Potter and Dark Knight and so on, opening to such ridiculous numbers that too many of us are not impressed by a film that opens to 80 mill. But there are not many films that do this, unless they are a sequel. I realize this is technically part of a very popular property, but that film came out in 1939, that might as well be 500 years ago in terms of the film climate. This opening is impressive. If you didn't know the budget for the film, you'd think this opening is huge. 150 mill in 3 days is enormous. Our perspectives are what need to come in check now, imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Stingray Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 80m is a great number for sure. No 2 ways. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Did it open in China? Not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
