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

[Krissykins]

On 15/01/2017 at 1:28 AM, UTJeff said:

The movie clearly isn't a complete flop.  It's an under-performer for sure, but all things considering, and possibly finishing with at least $100 million domestic, it did OK.  I don't think you can call it a flop.

 

You're speaking domestically, so we'll ignore international grosses just now:

 

 

So if Passengers makes $10m less than its budget domestically, but "clearly isn't a flop"

 

Ghostbusters makes $16m less than its budget domestically, yet it's considered a flop?

 

Yeh, Hollywood.

[JennaJ]

2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

You're speaking domestically, so we'll ignore international grosses just now:

 

 

So if Passengers makes $10m less than its budget domestically, but "clearly isn't a flop"

 

Ghostbusters makes $16m less than its budget domestically, yet it's considered a flop?

 

Yeh, Hollywood.

 

Maybe I'm making a wrong assumption, but I think the "All things considered" part implies that OS grosses are also taken into account.

[misafeco]

16 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

You're speaking domestically, so we'll ignore international grosses just now:

 

 

So if Passengers makes $10m less than its budget domestically, but "clearly isn't a flop"

 

Ghostbusters makes $16m less than its budget domestically, yet it's considered a flop?

 

Yeh, Hollywood.

You can't decide if a movie flopped based only on DOM gross. If a movie made 10M DOM on a 100M budget but 500M OS, it's not a flop. If it makes 10M DOM + 10M OS than it's a flop.

 

Ghostbusters WW total is under 2x the budget. It likely lost money for the studio.

[XO21]

 

With $255m and counting worldwide, it is the biggest live-action “not based on anything” Hollywood release of 2016.

The picture has earned $91 million in North America in its first 27 days, but it has (relatively speaking) broken out overseas. The Morten Tydlum-directed/Jon Spaights-written offering has earned around $165m overseas,

Forbeshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/01/16/jennifer-lawrence-and-chris-pratts-passengers-just-became-2016s-biggest-live-action-original-hit/#3fe220326652

 

Typo? $20m difference

Edited January 16, 2017 by XO21

[Krissykins]

25 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

 

Maybe I'm making a wrong assumption, but I think the "All things considered" part implies that OS grosses are also taken into account.

 

10 minutes ago, misafeco said:

You can't decide if a movie flopped based only on DOM gross. If a movie made 10M DOM on a 100M budget but 500M OS, it's not a flop. If it makes 10M DOM + 10M OS than it's a flop.

 

Ghostbusters WW total is under 2x the budget. It likely lost money for the studio.

 

I think you both missed this part from the original post :  "with at least $100 million domestic, it did OK.  I don't think you can call it a flop."

 

I've been following the box office since 2002, but thank you for explaining how things work 

[JennaJ]

51 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

  On 15 בינואר 2017 at 3:28 AM, UTJeff said:

The movie clearly isn't a complete flop.  It's an under-performer for sure, but all things considering, and possibly finishing with at least $100 million domestic, it did OK.  I don't think you can call it a flop.

 

21 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 

 

I think you both missed this part from the original post :  "with at least $100 million domestic, it did OK.  I don't think you can call it a flop."

 

I've been following the box office since 2002, but thank you for explaining how things work 

 

Look at the line before the one you quoted. "But all things considering, and..."

you can't take what is clearly meant to be part of the argument and act like it's the entirety of it. He's talking about it making 100m dom, along with the rest of the circumstances. That's what "all things considered" means.

[JennaJ]

30 minutes ago, XO21 said:

 

With $255m and counting worldwide, it is the biggest live-action “not based on anything” Hollywood release of 2016.

The picture has earned $91 million in North America in its first 27 days, but it has (relatively speaking) broken out overseas. The Morten Tydlum-directed/Jon Spaights-written offering has earned around $165m overseas,

Forbeshttp://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/01/16/jennifer-lawrence-and-chris-pratts-passengers-just-became-2016s-biggest-live-action-original-hit/#3fe220326652

 

Typo? $20m difference

 

Hmm. So who has the right numbers? It would be awesome if this is correct.

Maybe some OS territories reported late and that's the cause for the disparity?

[aftershocks]

10 hours ago, therana said:

Or unless it is directed by Nolan. Nolan can do risky original movies with big budgets and doesn't need either Pratt or JLaw for it to succeed.

 

Nolan still had considerable star power helping out. DiCaprio and McConaughey are huge stars. Those movies also have sizable casts with other big names in them. If Inception and Interstellar had received horrible reviews, you can bet your ass that Nolan would have needed the stars to help them succeed financially. If Passengers had the reviews that Interstellar did, it potentially could have made over $700M.

[AniNate]

Interstellar probably not, Inception maybe

[misafeco]

11 minutes ago, aftershocks said:

 

Nolan still had considerable star power helping out. DiCaprio and McConaughey are huge stars. Those movies also have sizable casts with other big names in them. If Inception and Interstellar had received horrible reviews, you can bet your ass that Nolan would have needed the stars to help them succeed financially. If Passengers had the reviews that Interstellar did, it potentially could have made over $700M.

Nah. He never was.

[JennaJ]

After actually reading the article, looks like 255m is the correct WW number. It's a full article devoted to this number and its implications, would it be written without a solid source?

 

really like the closing paragraph:

 

Quote

The good news is that the relative success of Passengers makes the case that studios can still make money from high concept and star-driven big-budget original genre fare. The bad news is that the chance to prove as much is getting smaller each year with big money being (understandably) allocated for brand adaptations, reboots and sequels. At the very least, the strong worldwide showing makes a case that Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt are more than just “Internet famous.”

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by JennaJ

[TalismanRing]

From Comscore

(Estimates) Weekend Ending Jan. 15

 

1

Passengers

$38,125,000

$32,500,000

$5,625,000

$237,104,731

$147,100,000

$90,004,731

SNY

66

SNY

[XO21]

nvm he took the international gross with China and added China OW again 

[therana]

1 hour ago, aftershocks said:

 

Nolan still had considerable star power helping out. DiCaprio and McConaughey are huge stars. Those movies also have sizable casts with other big names in them. If Inception and Interstellar had received horrible reviews, you can bet your ass that Nolan would have needed the stars to help them succeed financially. If Passengers had the reviews that Interstellar did, it potentially could have made over $700M.

Interstellar didn't have stars of JLaw or Pratt's calibre. McConaughey wasn't a box office draw. A lot of people were unhappy about his casting. My point is, Nolan has an excellent reputation of his own--such a good reputation that WB is backing Nolan's original movie about WW2 that has an unknown young actor as the lead.

Edited January 16, 2017 by therana

[JennaJ]

23 minutes ago, XO21 said:

nvm he took the international gross with China and added China OW again 

 

Oh FFS. And here I was thinking "no way would he write a full article without double checking".

 

[robertman2]

41 minutes ago, therana said:

Interstellar didn't have stars of JLaw or Pratt's calibre. McConaughey wasn't a box office draw. A lot of people were unhappy about his casting. My point is, Nolan has an excellent reputation of his own--such a good reputation that WB is backing Nolan's original movie about WW2 that has an unknown young actor as the lead.

The kid from One Direction is an unknown?

[XO21]

The unknown Harry Styles

[therana]

28 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

The kid from One Direction is an unknown?

Harry Styles isn't the lead. Fionn Whitehead is.

[ecstasy]

1 hour ago, therana said:

Interstellar didn't have stars of JLaw or Pratt's calibre. McConaughey wasn't a box office draw. A lot of people were unhappy about his casting. My point is, Nolan has an excellent reputation of his own--such a good reputation that WB is backing Nolan's original movie about WW2 that has an unknown young actor as the lead.

 

Matthew MConaughey is a bigger star than Chris Pratt. Come on now.

[misafeco]

7 minutes ago, ecstasy said:

 

Matthew MConaughey is a bigger star than Chris Pratt. Come on now.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=freestateofjones.htm