reddwarf666222

2 hours ago, Straw-Man said:

preamble:  other than the limp-noodle ending with her brother, i think WW is the better film [vis-a-vis homecoming].

still, it's looking like homecoming will get awfully close to 750M by the time it peters out over here and internationally sans china.  i have a morbid interest in seeing china push it past WW's global total, to see if that in turn inspires daily articles from the forbes guy about said potential outcome.

China means possibly a 100 mil more for Spider-Man. I don't think you will get daily from him on that topic. WW is outperforming Avengers on a daily basis now. That is the point and with nothing much coming out Avengers picked back up in September. WW is now picking up steam

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

DEADLINE.COM: Early Saturday Box Office Updates

That's a nice Friday jump as this week's average has been around $129.3K daily.

http://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-chart/daily/2017/08/25

Is reporting 485k, which puts this film's Friday earnings between what it earned week 10 and 11. So my guess for this weekend is a finish between 1.6 and 1.7 million.  The McGregor/Mayweather buy ins may effect the intake some. I do think it is safe to say now that this film will pass Captain America: Civil War at some point after the final totals come in this weekend, but whether that films beats Iron Man 3 is a toss up at this point.

We really don't have any big films coming out til September 8th with It..

20 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Hard to say. Though being a Friday versus earlier in the week, it gives the movie a chance to go much higher than the $124K range on average.

I'm reading some sources predict 2.5 mil this week and because the film will be added to over a thousand more screens domestically.

On 8/23/2017 at 11:37 AM, Bosco685 said:

'Wonder Woman' Returning To IMAX For Limited Run

 

Any thoughts on how that will effect the box office for WW this weekend. Will it be a rare occasion a big budget film does more this week than the previous week?

10 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Say what?  Downey Jr. had about ten minutes screen time  total in Homecoming.  

Okay so by your logic(?), Civil War (a billion dollar + earner) was essentially "Spider-man Homecoming- the Prequel", since Spider-man was in that for about 15 minutes.  That means two Spider-Man movies have made about a total of 2 billion dollars in two years.  

Looks good to me.  

-J.

The point is with RDJ and moving into the MCU the film should have made in the 400 mil range or more domestically. That move is why the film done more, but the film has underperformed for where it should be at.

14 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

This is a different market than when the first set of movies came out, the novelty factor of superhero movies is gone, now people just want to see a good movie.  Homecoming was a good movie and is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal summer at the box office.   Planet of the Apes tool a calculated risk to release kneweek after Homecoming, and paid the price big time at the box office, but still likely took a bite out of Homecoming's second week numbers.   And still, it's shown to have long legs.  Marvel not only showed Sony to make a good Spider-Man movie, they showed them how to make a smart one (financially speaking).  It's been said that Spidey's extended intro in Civil War likely pumped $100MM extra into that movie's coffers.  Homecoming will likely end with between $820-$850MM, which is a fantastic multiple and a very good result for a solo hero project  (particularly one on his sixth individual outing in 16 years).  Those are numbers very close to what Wonder Woman will do, and that's with the advantage of releasing earlier in the year against no or weak competition for a solid month, and near universal critical and SJW fawning, and being Wonder Woman's first solo movie ever in that character's 75 year+ history.   With that individual novelty now worn off time will tell how well that character "ages" on the big screen, particularly after what is likely to be an extensive appearance in (if early reports are any indication) a really terrible JLA movie.  Regardless of all of the non-stop heaps of acclaim , I still find Gal Gadot miscast for that role, the movie overly long and tedious, narratively disjointed and choppy and the SJW themes of the movie as about as subtle as a jackhammer to the side of the head during nap time.   Meanwhile I found Holland's performance genuinely wide eyed and earnest, and perfect for the MCU.  While that movie was also 30 minutes too long, and too jokey (a problem I have with almost ALL marvel movies) it at least had a smooth narrative and one single compelling villain performance by a great , seasoned actor who nailed it.  

-J.

It's a box office disappointment with RDJ in the film this is essentially Iron Man 4 and made the film apart of the MCU. All this did was put 100 mil more into the film if he was not in it it would have done less. This film should have done around Iron Man 3/Civil War numbers from RDJ in it and Spidey now being in the MCU because you had more film goers who won't miss a single film in this series awaiting for the conclusion and if anything important happens in this film

So we really don't know where this film would have finished without him 230 mil maybe. 

6 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

The Phelps betrayal is what *made* Mission Impossible -- nobody saw that coming. The problem that movie had is that they killed off his team in the opening sequence, so the rest of the film was more a Tom Cruise movie than a true "Mission Impossible" one. That same issue is a large reason why 2 sucked as well. (Still, we all owe a great debt to Mission Impossible 2 for giving us Hugh Jackman as Wolverine rather than Dougray Scott).

They fixed this going forward, though. Mission Impossible 3-5 are all legit team films.

 

On Tom Cruise in general, it's worth resurrecting this piece from Scott Mendselson two years ago: Tom Cruise Hasn't Had a Real Flop in Nearly 30 Years.

Since then he's had two movies under-perform (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back and The Mummy) but Mendelson has defended both of those as well (he notes that The Mummy has made well over 3x its production budget worldwide -- not great, but not anywhere near a flop. It's also one of the few films ever to gross more than $400 million worldwide while making less than $100 million U.S.).

Im the guy who thinks the even numbers  are great and the odd films are soso films. The Cruise films work because essentially he is playing Nimoy's character type the best character because of what he does in the tv series.

4 minutes ago, 40sJohn said:

For some reason, I rewatched the first Mission Impossible movie a few days ago.  It's a really, really good film. Cruise was perfect for it.  Maybe I will it a shot on dvd.

The first Mission Impossible is one of the worst films ever made. You don't take the main hero from the tv series and make that hero the villain. The biggest smack in the face to fans of a franchise I have seen within my lifetime.

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

Okay, they aren't what I thought they were. They are not bus ads, but are the top of a pretty rare Spider-Man Slot bank, as seen in the video. 

Still no idea what they are worth, but I imagine the distribution is pretty limited.

 

 

Essentially worth most to a guy who needs to buy that part to his machine to complete it

7 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

WB getting the Japanese market primed for the upcoming release.

They plan on marketing her like a Disney Princess 

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

I think that's a pretty good guess, but can't find any online. you'd think some would survive and be for sale. Thanks.

I would have to read the small writing on the bottom to give you a better guess, but could be part of an advertisement exclusive to one theater chain or part of a store display. It's just too hard to tell your in answer is on the small writing on the bottom

1 hour ago, 40sJohn said:

movies at expensive  ticket prices equals disaster.  The Mummy movie, for me, is the poster child for a movie that never stood a chance.  I loved the Mummy movie with Brendan Fraser so a reboot gets my attention... quickly.  However, when I saw the trailer last year, it completely turned me off from wanting to see it.  It was way too heavy on the CGI and it looked like it was going to be more explosions than story.  Tom Cruise, while usually an actor that does movies I like, may have been a liability in this one as he didn't seem to fit the role.  I hope we are getting to the end of overdone CGI.  

 

 

With Cruise the critics are tired of him, hold Scientology against him, and rate his movies bad lately. The film was not bad by any stretch and decent in a lot of ways. The question is did you want Mission Impossible combined with a horror film.

1 minute ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

I must admit The Lego Batman Movie was hilarious, DC Animated Cinematic Universe or not.

Yes it was

30 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

Not sure why they didn't include that one. 

It's not apart of the D.C. Animated Universe  Cinematic Franchise 

Wonderful article from Scott Mendelson of Forbes.

Crosses 800 million today, beats out Spider-Man 2002 for best super-hero debut of all time, and still has Japan left as gravy.

Now this is all estimates, but makes up for a lackluster performance last weekend.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/08/20/box-office-wonder-woman-ends-summer-by-topping-800m-worldwide/#cfe3ecd296ee

Quote

We all thought it would take until next Friday, or the film’s opening day in Japan, before Wonder Woman topped the $800 million mark. But the picture has specialized in moving the goal posts all summer long. And frankly, it feels appropriate that the big event movie of the summer will end the season by soaring past the $800m mark. So yeah, that’s happening today. Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman has now made over $800m worldwide, which means she’s probably going to get whatever she’s asking for to direct Wonder Woman 2.

Yes, the film is the first female-directed live-action movie to cross $400 million domestic and $800m worldwide. And yeah, it’s the first film directed by a woman sans a male co-director (sorry, Frozen) to so likewise as well. But you’ve heard these stats a bazillion times. Here’s one I want to bring up yet again: Wonder Woman is now Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.’s third-biggest domestic grosser ever not adjusted for inflation behind Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight sequels. It is also the biggest domestic grosser not released by Walt Disney or Universal/Comcast Corp. since Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($424m in 2D) in late 2013.

And, again speaking entirely in North America for the moment, it’s the biggest 3D grosser not released by Disney or Universal since James Cameron’s Avatar back in late 2009. As far as the worldwide end game, Japan is a coin toss. The film could play like a standard comic book superhero movie and earned $15-$20 million in Japan or it could play like a Disney princess movie like Maleficent and earn $60-$70m or more. If it tops the worldwide total of Dawn of Justice and Sony’s Spectre ($880m in 2015 sans 3D), it’ll be the biggest non-Disney/Universal worldwide hit since Catching Fire ($865m sans 3D) in late 2013.

 

 

But that’s highly speculative and we can cross that bridge next week. Let’s just focus on that domestic figure for a second. Wonder Woman will today cross the $404 million domestic mark, meaning it has passed the (unadjusted) domestic total of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man ($403.7m in 2002 sans 3D) to become the biggest non-sequel comic book/superhero movie ever. It’ll still sit behind Batman, Superman and Spider-Man in terms of inflation, but that’s not bad company. It is the second-biggest domestic grosser of 2017 behind Beauty and the Beast ($504m) and the third-biggest single-territory grosser of the year behind Beauty and the Beast and whatever Wolf Warrior 2 has earned in China ($768m counting online ticketing fees, $716m without).

If Justice League can’t best Wonder Woman in North America, it may keep those non-WB/Universal records for a very long time. If you look at the output of Warner Bros., Paramount, Fox, Lionsgate, Sony and the smaller distribution houses, you’ll notice that there is nothing out there that could logically be expected to make anywhere near $400m in North America. That’s not intended as an insult. I’m sure Fox is just fine with a $225m domestic gross for Logan and Sony will be thrilled if the Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel makes another $300m+ in North America in two years. Ditto James Wan’s Aquaman and Matt Reeves’ Batman movie.

 

Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon’s Justice League may build upon the goodwill from Wonder Woman, the existing fandom of the DC Films universe and the sheer want-to-see factor of watching the Super Friends face their greatest challenge in live action on the big screen. At this point it’s a coin toss (and not the bar for success), especially with Thor: Ragnarok on one side and Star Wars: The Last Jedi on the other. But if the DC Films superhero sequel can’t top the domestic gross for Wonder Woman, I’d wager that said milestone will stay put at least until James Cameron’s Avatar 2 tries to make lightning strike thrice in December of 2020.

6 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Well with Friday's numbers we know Wonder Woman should beat Spider-Man on Sunday to be the number one super hero debut of all time.

I guess Scott Mendelson has a mega article that this film is going to pass the 800mil and Spider-Man 2002 ready for tomorrow 

On 8/18/2017 at 5:42 AM, Bosco685 said:

Box Office Mojo updated the international box office numbers after receiving new data from countries such as Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Slovenia ($700,000). Based on that substantial bump, as of Thursday's overall update we are looking at just $1.33M from an $800M worldwide total.

Including whatever Friday provides, we could now be looking at Wonder Woman breaking this barrier by Monday.

Well with Friday's numbers we know Wonder Woman should beat Spider-Man on Sunday to be the number one super hero debut of all time.

43 minutes ago, godzilla43 said:

Interesting to see how this summers bad ticket sale performance affect upcoming films. Wolf Warrior 2 has made almost 680 million in China alone. 

Wolf Warrior 2 is an example of how China will make their own films that resonate with them more an eventually the intake of Hollywood films will go down.

18 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Yeah from what I can see most likely happens Sunday, but Monday for sure

6 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

But that's the point - you _can't_ take Disney out of the equation to support the argument is "Hollywood is failing because it only does reboots and sequels." That'd be like taking Marvel out of the equation to support the argument "people don't like superhero movies."

Also, it was just two years ago that two studios dominated the blockbusters, not just one. In 2015 Disney had the # 1, 3 and 4 films, but Universal had # 2, 5, and 6.

More than that, Universal not only topped $1 billion in yearly revenue faster than any studio in history that year, it became the first studio ever to top $1 billion each worldwide for three separate movies.

I'm pretty sure that year, RedDwarf would have said "you can't count Disney or Universal."

And (going with the theme) 5 of the top 6 films of 2015 were reboots or sequels. Hell, 11 of the top 12 films were reboots or sequels. Inside Out (# 4) was the only original film. Then you had to go down to The Revenant at # 13.

 

It boils down to this: judging "summer movie releases" means nothing anymore because (for the third time) studios now release some of their heaviest hitters (from Fast & the Furious to Star Wars to Blade Runner to Thor) well outside of summer.

 

 

f people really wanted to see strong alternative fare like Atomic Blonde, it would have made more than $50 million in its first three weeks of release.

The point is outside of one studio aka Disney the other studios are not having very much luck with reboots/sequels domestically. 90 percent of them are performing less than the film before domestically.

I can careless about international because that market will eventually die out once they get used to big budget films with special effects, streaming speeds catches up with us, and more outlets open to see the film. 

Most of these films can't make 2.5 to 3x the budget domestically. In fact most of these films are hitting 1x the budget or less domestically that is a recipe for disaster.

Yes we can remove Disney from the equation because they are what the other studios need to look at their model to be successful. Which is make sure certain films fall underneath certain labels and acquisition properties that they know have a proven track record to own them.

Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and more. Simply put the other studios just aren't doing their job and would take a long time to get the track record that Disney has from the model Michael Eisner left them with.

Eisner saved Paramount in the early 80s and Disney acquired him and saved them. At this point it's only a matter of time before Disney acquires MGM To own James Bond.

So yes you can subtract one studio from the one equation because it explains the marketplace for the rest. Who cares if most of the top ten are big budget films if they are underperforming and doing less than previous films in the series.

Your logic makes no sense and you need to look more at the numbers of budget vs domestic gross intake

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

So you're literally exempting all Disney films (which captures Marvel/Star Wars/Beauty & the Beast) from your calculus?

That's idiotic.

Disney produced 4 of the top 5 of last year.

And guess what? Every one of them was a reboot or a sequel. They were:

Rogue One (# 1)

Finding Dory (# 2)

Captain America: Civil War (# 3)

The Jungle Book (# 5)

But back to this year.

 15 of the top 20 films of 2017 so far by worldwide gross were (all of which grossed more than $300 million+) were reboots or sequels.

Let's go deeper. Of the 11 films so far that have grossed more than $500 million worldwide, 10 have been reboots or sequels.

The literal lone exception among those 11 films is Wonder Woman.

So, as far as Hollywood is concerned, the formula works.

Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. Hollywood overwhelmingly produces reboots and sequels so they end up on top), but the reality is even original blockbusters like The Boss Baby and Dunkirk haven't come close to reaching the current top 10 films of the year. And at # 19, War for the Planet of the Apes (a sequel) was not only a better film but also made money, unlike vs. # 18, Matt Damon's folly of an original film, The Great Wall.

The data simply don't support what you're saying.

 

Hmm what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? Oh wait the studio Kool-Aid to make excuses.

One studio is having domestic success with reboots and that is Disney. All the other studios sequels/reboots are doing less than expected and less than the previous film in the series. It is a disaster year for big budget films outside of Wonder Woman and properties owned by Disney.

Plenty of indie films are setting records for studios this year. The top ten doesn't matter if you can't rake in the money domestically to help cover costs because at some point the foreign market will get use to the eye candy and stop going as well. It's the Hollywood Bubble that is going to pop anytime now and a bunch of studios will go bankrupt and up for sale.

So your logic would make me homeless.

18 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

Exactly this. The reboots and sequels _do_ work, but the issue is that formerly  "summer tentpole" releases come out literally every week or two now. The market can't support them all, so the bad ones crash and a few good ones (Planet of the Apes 3) get overlooked.

And I had to be very careful in my "summer movie" analysis earlier because it's hard to argue that Fate of the Furious was a summer movie when it came out in mid-April.

But it arguably kicked off the "summer tentpole" season.

And for the record -- Beauty & the Beast is indeed a reboot. And explaining away the Marvel superhero films as "exceptions" doesn't help.

It's there in black and white - 4 of the top 5 biggest movies of the year so far are reboots and sequels -- Wonder Woman stands alone. So Hollywood has literally _every_ incentive to continuing producing them.

More interesting is that the # 1 movie of the year will likely (again) be a Star Wars sequel, yet released in December. As Jaybuck notes, that is as much as "summer movie" as Blade Runner or Fate of the Furious.

Beauty and the Beast falls into a special category of film that gets an exception and if you remove the Marvel/Star Wars films from the equation. Wonder Woman is the only film performing at or above expectations. The other reboots and sequels are underperforming across the board.

Its not that the market can't handle it. The market can't handle mediocre films that is all glitz. We have seen the special effects and they are nothing special now. We are bored as Movie goers who want good writing.

And if you don't see that the reboots and sequels are the problemthen you are apart of the problem and naive  of the Hollywood domestic bubble that is going to pop any moment 

4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Now only $2.62M from $800M worldwide. I thought it was going to take Japan to get this close - and beyond.

Remaining release dates:

- Japan: 25 August 2017

To be honest this film may be past 800 million before Japan's release no reason this film can't do between 1.5 to 2 mil more here in the US by then leaving only 700 thousand to 1.2 mil for the foriegn market to do. Japan is just gravy on the cake let's hope the Disney princess like campaign WB gave Wonder Woman a nice boost and does not back fire.

20 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

Marvel seems to be one of the few that has each sequel doing better than the previous film, with the exception of AoU.

There are plenty of good TV shows to occupy out time these days & with today's piracy, many people just watch those awful cam copies at home, rather than go to the theater.

Outside of Superhero films, it seems like most movies just aren't doing as well domestically anymore.

Well with Tv they are learning the British TV way. Limited number of episodes with great writing means can't miss Tv

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

But that logic doesn't hold when some sequels and reboots did well.

Three of the year's top five films are sequels: Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Despicable Me 3.

And the biggest movie of the year so far -- Beauty and the Best -- was a reboot.

Four of those five were released this summer.

In contrast, Baby Driver's barely broken $100 million and Atomic Blonde *might* end its run at $60 million domestic.

 

I don't blame Hollywood for trying to reduce risk by going with proven properties -- it's more an issue of too many studios releasing too many $100 million box office films. We've reached a point where the summer movie season begins in April (this year, with Fate of the Furious) and there's literally a wannabe blockbuster released every weekend.

So you roll the dice.

If anything I think we're seeing more quality low-to-mid-budget films than in prior years (Baby Driver, Split, last year's Hell or High Water) alongside every Transformers or Fast & The Furious sequel.

Let's see it was over 25 years since B and B came out in what many regard as the greatest animated film ever made parents were taking their kids, grandparents taking grandkids, and much more. B and B falls into a different category.

Ok SpiderMan and Guardians falls under Marvel Universe which is consistently performing well. 

Despicable Me 3 is performing terribly compared to the last two films on the series. Fate of the Furious also underperformed in the US.

Films with great reviews underperformed as well like War for the Planet of the Apes?

Did you ask for The Mummy, Chips, Power Rangers, Baywatch, Transformers 5, Diary of a Wimpy Kid 4, or Smurfs 3?

While original films like Baby Driver did great and you laugh at Atomic Blonde, but that is Focus Features number one grossing film of all time now domestically. 

The local art theater by me is consistently selling out every showing of the films they bring in this summer.

In general the sequels and reboots are doing less than what they did in previous years and the audience is speaking