Passengers | Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence | Dec 21, 2016 | Trailer pg 70

[Valonqar]

16 minutes ago, fracfar said:

I don't think Passengers moviegoers will go to another movie. They can stay home or do some other activity 

 

It's not the 90s anymore when entertainment options were limited 

 

This. Agreed.

 

@Grand Moff Tele

 

The Blacklist scripts aren't the final movie, though. They usually aren't even the final script that's shot.

 

Explains why some overpraised blacklist scripts spawned mediocre to awful movies. 

 

 

[CoolioD1]

1 hour ago, 4815162342 said:

Every Christmas movie is tanking. Really straining the options for the annual family tradition of a movie followed by Chinese food.

This is terrible for me because my birthday is december 30 and i always go to the movies on my birthday. might have to hold out a couple days since silence opens jan 1st.

Edited December 15, 2016 by CoolioD1

[Talkie]

22 minutes ago, DAJK said:

My friend from work was talking to me I class today. "Ya I knew it was gonna be a stinker."

 

"um... no lmao yesterday you asked me if it was gonna get a best picture nomination"

 

 

Well, I definitely thought it would be bad as soon as I saw the "romcom in space" trailer. People gushed so much about how great they knew it would be that I simply read comments and waited to see if the reaction to the film would bear out my assessment. 

[Dementeleus]

3 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

Explains why some overpraised blacklist scripts spawned mediocre to awful movies. 

 

But why do you say they're "over-praised"? We tend to associate them with a product that they're not, which isn't particularly fair. Best to consider them a moment in time from when they made the list, and consider them from that perspective (and that perspective alone).

 

Remember, at the time they made the Blacklist, they were unproduced for a reason. (Too expensive, genre not trendy, too daring, etc.)

[DAJK]

1 minute ago, Talkie said:

 

Well, I definitely thought it would be bad as soon as I saw the "romcom in space" trailer. People gushed so much about how great they knew it would be that I simply read comments and waited to see if the reaction to the film would bear out my assessment. 

Tbh I thought the trailer was so good that I am still hyped af to see this. I guess we'll see Wednesday

[4815162342]

2 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

What's awful about the core concept of COLLATERAL BEAUTY?

 

 

If you read the reviews you'll see that the premise of the trailer isn't really the premise of that movie.

 

And that premise apparently gets bungled and a half.

[CoolioD1]

On 5/19/2015 at 10:03 AM, CoolioD1 said:

 (btw, that script is good but has a horrible ending. If they didn't change it it's going to launch 1000 think pieces)

this what i said about the script early in the thread last may. sounds like the didn't change it lmao. studio shoulda meddled with this one more, goddamn.

[La Binoche]

 

[La Binoche]

6 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

What's awful about the core concept of COLLATERAL BEAUTY?

 

 

CB is the worst kind of script. Shallow, empty and dumb, but thinks it's deep, powerful, moving and intelligent. 

[La Binoche]

When they explain the meaning of "collateral beauty" I physically cringed

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, La Binoche said:

CB is the worst kind of script. Shallow, empty and dumb, but thinks it's deep, powerful, moving and intelligent. 

 

That's just your perception of the script, though... not the concept.

[Fancyarcher]

1 hour ago, MikeQ said:

 

Yeah, you're probably right. I just remember seeing that the industry tracking has it at a $50 million opening. If it opens around the tracking, I think it definitely ends up above $100 million, even with poor WOM, because of the holidays. I think the poor critical reception needs to impact the opening weekend enough that it's opening is significantly lower. The winter holidays prove time and time again that the market expands and accommodates many films, so that even the crappy films end up with surprising total grosses and legs. But you could very well be right - it will be interesting to follow.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Fan4stic was also tracking for a 50m opening weekend. Keep in mind that industry tracking isn't always right, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's really wrong here. Starpower alone isn't going to help this movie, in fact it might prove that once and for all that starpower is indeed a fading concept.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Fancyarcher

[Valonqar]

5 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

But why do you say they're "over-praised"? We tend to associate them with a product that they're not, which isn't particularly fair. Best to consider them a moment in time from when they made the list, and consider them from that perspective (and that perspective alone).

 

Remember, at the time they made the Blacklist, they were unproduced for a reason. (Too expensive, genre not trendy, too daring, etc.)

 

Agreed. I got carried away because I read praise for Passengers and thought "why are they praising this script, sounds so stupid". I'm not surprised the movie's bad cause I didn't think the premise was any good, but I guess the reviewers didn't review just the premise but how the script was written. 

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Fan4stic was also tracking for a 50m opening weekend. Keep in mind that industry tracking isn't always right, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's really wrong here. Starpower alone isn't going to help this movie, in fact it might prove that once and for all that starpower is indeed a fading concept.

Yeah, I feel like this and Collateral Beauty are true tests as to how much big stars/ensembles can lure in to see an unappealing movie.

[Hatebox]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

Yeah, I feel like this and Collateral Beauty are true tests as to how much big stars/ensembles can lure in to see an unappealing movie.

 

We already know audiences won't watch Will Smith unless the film itself has some appeal, and the rest of the actors in it won't make any difference.

 

Passengers is more interesting. If it cruises past 100m then you could argue Lawrence and Pratt's stars will shine even brighter for saving such a dud. 

[Fancyarcher]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Yeah, I feel like this and Collateral Beauty are true tests as to how much big stars/ensembles can lure in to see an unappealing movie.

 

I don't think either's gonna do that well. In fact it wouldn't surprise if Collateral Beauty did less then Concussion, which would not be good.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Hatebox said:

 

We already know audiences won't watch Will Smith unless the film itself has some appeal, and the rest of the actors in it won't make any difference.

 

Passengers is more interesting. If it cruises past 100m then you could argue Lawrence and Pratt's stars will shine even brighter for saving such a dud. 

I feel like the combo of Lawrence and Pratt would be more irresistible if they were in something that looks like it was taking advantage of their natural charismas and not playing it completely stone-faced. Then again, the press would've likely had a field day with tabloid-manufactured cheating rumors, so they probably dodged at least one bullet there.

[babz06]

9 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

I'm expecting something like this now:

 

Dec 23: 30M (42M five-day, 20M weekdays, 62M Total)

Dec 30: 20M (5M weekdays, 87M Total)

Jan 6: 7M (1.7M weekdays, 95.7M Total)

Jan 13: 3.1M (900k weekdays, 99.7M Total)

Jan 20: 1.2M (500k weekdays, 101.4M Total)

 

Final Total: 104M (3.47x)

 Your multiple is too low.

 

2011 Christmas openers:

Mission Impossible Ghost protocol- 29.4m 3-day (45.6m 5-day) = 209.3m total (4.58x)

Dragon Tattoo- 12.6m 3-day (21m-5 day)  =102m total (4.85x)

The Adventures of Tin Tin- 9.6m 3-day (17.7m 5-day) = 77m total (4.35x)

We Bought A Zoo-9.8m OW= 75.6m total (7.71x)

 

2005 Christmas openers:

Fun With Dick and Jane- 14.3m  3-day (21.9m 5 day) =110m total (5.02x)

Cheaper By the DOzen 2- 9.3m 3-day (14.5m 5-day) = 82.5m total (5.68x)

The Ringer- 5.1m OW= 35.4m total (6.94x)

 

 

 

 

 

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, babz06 said:

 Your multiple is too low.

 

2011 Christmas openers:

Mission Impossible Ghost protocol- 29.4m 3-day (45.6m 5-day) = 209.3m total (4.58x)

Dragon Tattoo- 12.6m 3-day (21m-5 day)  =102m total (4.85x)

The Adventures of Tin Tin- 9.6m 3-day (17.7m 5-day) = 77m total (4.35x)

We Bought A Zoo-9.8m OW= 75.6m total (7.71x)

 

2005 Christmas openers:

Fun With Dick and Jane- 14.3m  3-day (21.9m 5 day) =110m total (5.02x)

Cheaper By the DOzen 2- 9.3m 3-day (14.5m 5-day) = 82.5m total (5.68x)

The Ringer- 5.1m OW= 35.4m total (6.94x)

 

Look at the multipliers dive -- only six years apart. Probably worth knocking 0.3-0.4x off the 2011 ones for 2016. Also, worth considering that PASSENGERS currently doesn't have a critical reception anywhere near any of the 2011 openers.

[Cochofles]

8 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I feel like the combo of Lawrence and Pratt would be more irresistible if they were in something that looks like it was taking advantage of their natural charismas and not playing it completely stone-faced. 

 

Speaking of stone-faced...who the fuck thought that Lawrence and Pratt's charisma and star-power would somehow be conveyed through this???----->

Edited December 15, 2016 by Cochofles