Friday Numbers - ED 30M+, JP 17 (30M and 17M predicted OW)

[theultimatebiu]

The CS score for Evil Dead is surprising maybe some did not take to the gore.

 

Which one are you talking about?

 

Scream 4

Edited April 6, 2013 by theultimatebiu

[Krissykins]

Oh dear.

 

Scream 4 was one of the best cinema experiences I've ever had. I guess I seen it with the right crowd. Clapping at the end too, which is kind of rare in the UK.

[wileECoyote]

Good start for JP. I'm actually a bit optimistic about a good Saturday number after seeing The Croods jump. While a good hold it jumped about 67% vs 87% for HTYD and 99% for MvA for the first Friday after Easter. I'm thinking that JP stole some of the family audience away with parents wanting to show the dinosaur movie that they remember. Or am I reading too much?Good numbers overall though. Glad that it looks like the BO is holding up now after a miserable start.

[ddddeeee]

I loved Scream 4 when it first came out but I've went off it since. Like Scream 3 it's the exact type of movie it's trying to spoof. Scream and Scream 2 were smart enough to stay ahead of the audience but by Scream 4 the 'meta' aspect collapsed on itself. It wasn't clever,  it was a by the numbers slasher.

[Krissykins]

I often search Scream 4 on Twitter and it seems that a lot of people are watching it now, but skipped it when it first came out. I don't know if they just assumed it was going to be crap, I don't know if it was the decade wait, the fault of Scream 3 etc etc.

 

But it has definitely been discovered since. It hung around on the rental chart in the US for a long time. 8 consecutive weeks in the top 20. And it's premiere on SkyMovies in the UK attracted 800,000 viewers. So much so that SkyMovie channels here in the UK still play it on an almost weekly basis.

 

I actually think a Scream 5 could open to more than Scream 4 did. Not by a lot, but I think it would gross over $20m OW.

[Krissykins]

Or they could just put Scream 5 in 3D and it would seem like more people turned up. lol.

 

 

If you use Final Destination 5's 3D share on opening weekend, with the 2011 3D ticket prices, if Scream 4 was 3D it would have opened to $23.8m and grossed $49.0m.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Krissykins

[Shawn Robbins]

Yea, but Drive was billed to be something that it wasn't. That's what pissed people off. Evil Dead ended up being exactly what it told you it would be. I'm not sure why people gave it a negative score.

 

I kind of disagree here, but only because the marketing billed it as more of a straight-up horror sometimes. The gore is probably what did the CS in for some people. Where there are a lot of people who like horror and gore at the same time (ED's audience and fans), there are probably just as many--if not more--that don't go in for the graphic violence as much as the psychological thrills.

[theultimatebiu]

I often search Scream 4 on Twitter and it seems that a lot of people are watching it now, but skipped it when it first came out. I don't know if they just assumed it was going to be crap, I don't know if it was the decade wait, the fault of Scream 3 etc etc.

 

But it has definitely been discovered since. It hung around on the rental chart in the US for a long time. 8 consecutive weeks in the top 20. And it's premiere on SkyMovies in the UK attracted 800,000 viewers. So much so that SkyMovie channels here in the UK still play it on an almost weekly basis.

 

I actually think a Scream 5 could open to more than Scream 4 did. Not by a lot, but I think it would gross over $20m OW.

I agree that alot of people found out about it after it left cinemas. I know my cousins had no clue there was a 4th and rented it on LOVEFILM.

[kayumanggi]

Guru says 11.9 M for ED.

[Shawn Robbins]

Nothing like a little Saturday morning box office controversy: claims abound that the $11.9m figure included $1.8m from pre-midnight.

[Krissykins]

Even then, a $10.1m first day is a great start for any R rated horror film.

[kitik]

Nothing like a little Saturday morning box office controversy: claims abound that the $11.9m figure included $1.8m from pre-midnight.

 

isn't that how it always goes?

[RyneOh1040]

Technically, some might argue that it was definitely billed to be something it's not. The marketing is calling it "The Scariest Movie Ever!"What they should have done, is call it "The Bloodiest Movie Ever!" Because it ain't scary in the slightest.

Couldn't agree more.  This is the exact reason I was disappointed with my first viewing, it wasn't scary.  Gory? Of course.  Disgusting and twisted? Sure.  But I genuinely wasn't scared once during the entire film.  For me, gore isn't scary and it doesn't create suspense.  A lot of people have treated this like it's pushing some envelope but I just don't get that.  Movies like Hostel and Saw have been doing that for years.    But the fact that they used that tagline left a bad taste in my mouth.I feel like in general, films aren't really scary any more, which is a shame.  Maybe it's just because I've gotten older but I don't think that's the case.  The Strangers is still the scariest film I've seen in the past 10 years.  Started crying under my jacket in the theater, hahaha.

Edited April 6, 2013 by RyneOh1040

[Fake]

How much for GIJ2?

[John Marston]

How much for GIJ2?

 

 

6.5 I believe

[Shawn Robbins]

isn't that how it always goes?

 

Yeah, but the fact that Sony isn't responding to anyone is a bit... suspicious.

[baumer]

I kind of disagree here, but only because the marketing billed it as more of a straight-up horror sometimes. The gore is probably what did the CS in for some people. Where there are a lot of people who like horror and gore at the same time (ED's audience and fans), there are probably just as many--if not more--that don't go in for the graphic violence as much as the psychological thrills.

Yea, but Shawn, people knew this was going to be blood and gory. The trailer told you it was going to be. This is what surprises me. The only way they could have told you it was going to be any more violent is if there was a voice over in the trailer that said, "There will be more gore in this film than in any horror movie you have ever seen...EVER....no really, we are not kidding."

[baumer]

Couldn't agree more.  This is the exact reason I was disappointed with my first viewing, it wasn't scary.  Gory? Of course.  Disgusting and twisted? Sure.  But I genuinely wasn't scared once during the entire film.  For me, gore isn't scary and it doesn't create suspense.  A lot of people have treated this like it's pushing some envelope but I just don't get that.  Movies like Hostel and Saw have been doing that for years.    But the fact that they used that tagline left a bad taste in my mouth.I feel like in general, films aren't really scary any more, which is a shame.  Maybe it's just because I've gotten older but I don't think that's the case.  The Strangers is still the scariest film I've seen in the past 10 years.  Started crying under my jacket in the theater, hahaha.

I will never understand what was scary about The Strangers. It was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. It scared me as much as puppy dogs and rainbows do.

[Shawn Robbins]

Yea, but Shawn, people knew this was going to be blood and gory. The trailer told you it was going to be. This is what surprises me. The only way they could have told you it was going to be any more violent is if there was a voice over in the trailer that said, "There will be more gore in this film than in any horror movie you have ever seen...EVER....no really, we are not kidding."

 

I think that's very true for a lot of the Internet ads, but some of the ads that general audiences would have seen merely pitched it as "the scariest movie experience you will ever see". When many people think "scary", they don't immediately think "gory".

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Evil Dead" production budget is an estimated $17 million.