-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Wkd Box Office - 10•20-22•17 - Thursday is the new Sunday this week
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
- Status
The Thor number is fine, but the JL number is way more than pessimistic it's downright apocalyptic.
When I did my ten minutes of research to give my prediction, the first Thor had an opening weekend of 65 and the second at 85. Why are so many predictions expecting almost a 50% bump from the last movie?
People saying the Snowman could've been great because the source and crew are good but even if it didn't get terrible reviews the poster being a 5 year olds drawing of a snowman and the killer referring to the cops as Mister Police just made me question how the hell anyone approved that and the movie would be just as bad.
The Snowman reminds me of The Bye Bye Man (or that Ba Ghoul movie whatever it was called) where it is hard to take anything seriously because of the dumb killers' names, except the latter is a dumb, cheap horro movie and the former was kind of presented as a more prestigious thriller.
There are a couple of reasons. First is the positive reception of the trailers and early word of mouth. Second is the change of directors, he's actually having fun with the characters and it shows. Third is the timing, the last big release was It a month ago so the people who only occasionally go to the theater are ready to see something. Finally this movie is Thor & Hulk: Space Bros Adventures, their interaction was one of the best things in The Avengers. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic.
(Dark World + Ruffalo + Thompson + Blanchett) - (Dennings x Mew Mew) / Goldblum = Dhaark Waurld ²
I think that's how it works.
I did and will use italics for It in the future. I shall also use Spider Man: Homecoming in the future as well, although I probably won't refer to that movie in the future.. although, in the context of domestic box office, I think that should've been obvious I wouldn't compare it to a 2002 film..
Just got back from watching Thor, really surprising movie. Easily the best Thor movie, good action, Hulk is awesome again and it's extremely funny too, like laugh out load funny, it had the whole cinema laughing throughout. Very enjoyable from start to finish.
Thor: Ragnarok: $113 million.
Justice League: $118 million.
I think Thor will be the better movie but Justice League might have more pull, with Batman being in it.
Thor: Ragnarok: $113 million.
Justice League: $118 million.
I think Thor will be the better movie but Justice League might have more pull, with Batman being in it.
Thor Ragnarok: $115M
Justice League: $150M
I'm not a big fan of the DCEU movies, but they always seem to do better than I expect them to on their OW.
Justice League: $150M
I'm not a big fan of the DCEU movies, but they always seem to do better than I expect them to on their OW.
Last edited:
Thor: -$20 because no one will show up and Marvel will owe me money after watching that basura.
JL: All the GATDAMN MONIES.
Jk
Thor: $115.6 million
Justice League: $156 million
JL: All the GATDAMN MONIES.
Jk
Thor: $115.6 million
Justice League: $156 million
Even if you combined Batman v Superman 's and (Academy Award Winner) Suicide Squad's scores it still wouldn't do that.
It's not called that.
Thor 2 2 is acceptable though.
LOL no, but I thought after 300 he would be a big deal. Looking at his IMDB, there is going to be a third Fallen movie? Are they any good?
First one alright for a B tier die hard. Second I wouldnt know trailer looked rancid .
They need to get started on the Olympus Has Fallen/White House Down shared universe cross-over.
Aww but Slayven I think you're really gonna like his next movie: Den of Thieves starring 50 Cent and Ice Cube Jr.
Directed by the writer of London Has Fallen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKd_ks0rdAM
Blade Runner's weak box office performance was easy to predict. A lot of people tried to convince themselves and others that Ghost in the Shell underperformed at the box office over a storm in a teacup controversy, or because it wasn't faithful enough to the source material, or because they felt it simply wasn't a good film on its own merits. But that's really overlooking the essential problem.
Audiences do not like cyberpunk.
Not just cyberpunk, either. Any sort of "gritty" futuristic film is really prone to flopping. DREDD is a cult classic, but it tanked at the box office. The Total Recall reboot didn't do well. The RoboCop reboot was successful, but barely. With the latter two, fans of the older film, or film adaptations try to argue they weren't good enough, but that's just denial. Heaps of films do really well. Cyperpunk and urban dystopia films do not.
There have been moderate successes like TRON: Legacy and AI: Artificial Intelligence, but the genre has a fairly consistent problem. The average moviegoer doesn't care about the source material of Blade Runner and GitS respectively. They don't have any attachment to neon soaked streets. For them, two films may as well have been interchangeable "what does it mean to be human, bra?" stories. One just had better marketing and performed slightly better at the box office while costing a lot more to make thus negating the benefit of higher box office.
Audiences do not like cyberpunk.
Not just cyberpunk, either. Any sort of "gritty" futuristic film is really prone to flopping. DREDD is a cult classic, but it tanked at the box office. The Total Recall reboot didn't do well. The RoboCop reboot was successful, but barely. With the latter two, fans of the older film, or film adaptations try to argue they weren't good enough, but that's just denial. Heaps of films do really well. Cyperpunk and urban dystopia films do not.
There have been moderate successes like TRON: Legacy and AI: Artificial Intelligence, but the genre has a fairly consistent problem. The average moviegoer doesn't care about the source material of Blade Runner and GitS respectively. They don't have any attachment to neon soaked streets. For them, two films may as well have been interchangeable "what does it mean to be human, bra?" stories. One just had better marketing and performed slightly better at the box office while costing a lot more to make thus negating the benefit of higher box office.
considering the first one came out in the 80s, it's unlikely that China has the same nostalgia for it that we have (market reforms happened later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in particular). For one, the original movie bombed on release as well, before getting its rewards as part of the VHS craze. Ditto for Carpenter's version of The Thing.
Y'all are pretending that cinema's still determine what people like, when, in a way, video has been the real to determine that for four decades already (in the bigger picture that is, beyond mere Hollywood BO). It just took a long time for a easy delivery system to make it logistically viable (streaming) beyond having to know exactly where the physical store is.
I am fairly sure that if you checked the data thoroughly, you'd find that the streaming market is a few standard deviations away from a 'neutral' growth position that you get from simple population growth. And I suspect you'd find that near neutral position among cinemas. So in terms of 'where should I invest', cinema ain't it if you're just in it for the money. I think we'll talk about those the way we talk about retail today in less than a decade, if not less. The fact that movies are getting loud as fuck to the point of ear damage is just an extra nail in the coffin.
But I don't think BR2049 is a "just for the money" kind of movie anyway, despite not having seen it yet. I'm one of those assholes waiting for the home release.
edit: this post is more of a general thought than a specific reply though.
- Status