Wkd Box Office 06•14-16•13 - 'man' steals box office, the end is near

Status
Not open for further replies.
It'll get to 300.

Warners will just keep it in theaters until it gets there. Just like they kept Superman Returns in theaters until it crossed 200. And they did. That film limped across that finish line, and they pulled it pretty swiftly once they made it.
 
Although I'm sure you're being sarcastic, iron man 3 can afford that kind of drop when it's already made 1 billion. Mos, in its second week, can not. It's barely going to break even
Yes, I was being sarcastic just to point out how ridiculous that statement is.

BB didnt break even but was enough to kickstart that franchise, not saying it's the same here but there seems to be enough sense at WB that they are willing to spend more (and take a hit) when turning a franchise around after a shitty movie (Superman Returns).
 
MoS's reception on virtually every front has been one of the more interesting stories in film this summer. I'm really curious to see where Nolan's standing with superhero films will be perceived from this point out; I know that by and large that TDKR was well-liked, but MoS has some really fierce polarization, and his hands were all over the film. It's just as well that his next film is an original work.
 
It'll get to 300.

Warners will just keep it in theaters until it gets there. Just like they kept Superman Returns in theaters until it crossed 200. And they did. That film limped across that finish line, and they pulled it pretty swiftly once they made it.

Yup. Same thing happened with the Hobbit.
 
WB is going forward regardless. They're all-in. It might only BARELY top 300 mil, but they can say "It got 300 mil domestic, 600 mil worldwide, plus home-video/on-demand" when that comes in. That'll be enough to get "Man of Tomorrow" in production. Again, they kind of have to. They really don't have anywhere to go on this.

Batman Begins was considered a modest hit, not a huge one. It had legs, but it really only found its footing on DVD. People gave it more first & second chances there.
 
Yes, I was being sarcastic just to point out how ridiculous that statement is.

BB didnt break even but was enough to kickstart that franchise, not saying it's the same here but there seems to be enough sense at WB that they are willing to spend more (and take a hit) when turning a franchise around after a shitty movie (Superman Returns).

Begins was received and reviewed better than this wasn't it? Also the dark knight was a pretty damn spectacular movie which had a hell of a lot going for it. Just because it was able to turn the dark knight franchise into a monster doesn't mean that having a small starting point is a good thing.

Again i'm not sure people are saying that the box office take is what is going to affect future sequels but rather the seemingly toxic WoM.

Edit: I have no doubt we will get sequels and some of the hyperbole in here is just way over the top.
 
If that was the case for the wider public it wouldn't be on pace to have a 65% drop for its full second weekend.

When the movie makes great box office is not a good arguement to make for its quality and when it doesn't make great box office it is?

So what is it?

If making lots of money should't be taken as a quality sign then not making lost of money shouldn't be taken as a sign either.

Transformers movies = box office success = not a good movie?
John Carter = bomb = a good movie?

What that tell us about the general public and the quality of a movie?

It doesn't mean shit.

MoS drop doesn't mean is shit the same as Transformers making billions doesn't mean they are masterpieces.
 
Begins was received and reviewed better than this wasn't it? Also the dark knight was a pretty damn spectacular movie which had a hell of a lot going for it. Just because it was able to turn the dark knight franchise into a monster doesn't mean that having a small starting point is a good thing.

Again i'm not sure people are saying that the box office take is what is going to affect future sequels but rather the seemingly toxic WoM.

Edit: I have no doubt we will get sequels and some of the hyperbole in here is just way over the top.

It's not that toxic. This is more the effect of mixed-decent word of mouth compounded with tons of demand already being burned off and two huge openers.

Again, I'm pretty confident that the drops will stabilize going forward after the weekend.
 
Begins was received and reviewed better than this wasn't it? Also the dark knight was a pretty damn spectacular movie which had a hell of a lot going for it. Just because it was able to turn the dark knight franchise into a monster doesn't mean that having a small starting point is a good thing.

Again i'm not sure people are saying that the box office take is what is going to affect future sequels but rather the seemingly toxic WoM.

Edit: I have no doubt we will get sequels and some of the hyperbole in here is just way over the top.

Wouldn't the word of mouth be a boon for sequels, though? Everyone seems to agree on the film having problems, and what those problems are, and I don't think they're unsolvable issues at all.
 
Begins was received and reviewed better than this wasn't it? Also the dark knight was a pretty damn spectacular movie which had a hell of a lot going for it. Just because it was able to turn the dark knight franchise into a monster doesn't mean that having a small starting point is a good thing.

Again i'm not sure people are saying that the box office take is what is going to affect future sequels but rather the seemingly toxic WoM.

Edit: I have no doubt we will get sequels and some of the hyperbole in here is just way over the top.
It was but thing with BB was not the critics opinion but how well it did once it hit DVD. That set it apart, we'll see how MoS does.

Yes the hyperbole is completely over the top as people were calling toxic word of mouth on it's second day even with a normal drop.
 
When the movie makes great box office is not a good arguement to make for its quality and when it doesn't make great box office it is?

So what is it?

If making lots of money should't be taken as a quality sign then not making lost of money shouldn't be taken as a sign either.

Transformers movies = box office success = not a good movie?
John Carter = bomb = a good movie?

What that tell us about the general public and the quality of a movie?

It doesn't mean shit.

MoS drop doesn't mean is shit the same as Transformers making billions doesn't mean they are masterpieces.

You're in the wrong thread. He isn't saying the movie is shit. He is saying that it has been received poorly by the general public (just like lots of people hate 2001 a space odyssey). If you want to argue about the quality of a movie the box office thread isn't really the place for it. You can only really talk about what the general reaction to the movie is, your personal opinion doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

It's not that toxic. This is more the effect of mixed-decent word of mouth compounded with tons of demand already being burned off and two huge openers.

Again, I'm pretty confident that the drops will stabilize going forward after the weekend.

This may well be true. I'm just saying that the reason people in this thread are talking down the potential of sequels has more to do with the general reception to the movie than its total box office gross (which isn't THAT bad).
 
Basically iron man 3 dropped 65% being the 2nd highest opening of may ever

Man of steel dropped 63 percent being the highest june opener ever

Iron man 3 is at 400 million right now
Man of steel will end up between 285-320

Successfully rebooted as Man of Steel will cross Superman Returns unadjusted gross of 200 million by sunday and cross its adjusted 226 million by next weekend

And thats all that matters in the end.
 
When the movie makes great box office is not a good arguement to make for its quality and when it doesn't make great box office it is?

So what is it?

If making lots of money should't be taken as a quality sign then not making lost of money shouldn't be taken as a sign either.

Transformers movies = box office success = not a good movie?
John Carter = bomb = a good movie?

What that tell us about the general public and the quality of a movie?

It doesn't mean shit.

MoS drop doesn't mean is shit the same as Transformers making billions doesn't mean they are masterpieces.

Don't be mad bro.
 
The drops aren't necessarily an indicator of word of mouth, either. there are multiple factors that could be weighing in.

For example, here's some blockbusters, some of which had great WOM, some that didn't set the world on fire in the least. Most of these films are considered definite successes, financially.

Iron Man 3 - 71% drop
Hunger Games - 72% drop
The Hobbit - 72% drop
The Avengers - 64% drop
The Dark Knight Rises - 76% drop
Harry Potter 7 pt. 2 - 84% drop
Fast Five - 69% drop
 
Basically
Man of steel dropped 63 percent being the highest june opener ever
.
71%

Seven
One.

You can't magically cut out the midnight numbers off the Friday gross just because you want to. No one does that. Not deadline, not BoxOffice Mojo. You can't just make up your own drop percentage.
 
When the movie makes great box office is not a good arguement to make for its quality and when it doesn't make great box office it is?

So what is it?

If making lots of money should't be taken as a quality sign then not making lost of money shouldn't be taken as a sign either.

Transformers movies = box office success = not a good movie?
John Carter = bomb = a good movie?

What that tell us about the general public and the quality of a movie?

It doesn't mean shit.

MoS drop doesn't mean is shit the same as Transformers making billions doesn't mean they are masterpieces.

Relax, man.
 
This may well be true. I'm just saying that the reason people in this thread are talking down the potential of sequels has more to do with the general reception to the movie than its total box office gross (which isn't THAT bad).

Right, but I don't think the audience's reaction right now is aversion to future Superman films. I think a lot of people have problems, but plenty of people will be willing to give it another shot. Not to mention this is Warner's justification to create their cash cow for the foreseeable future. We'll get sequels whether we like it or not.
 
71%

Seven
One.

You can't magically cut out the midnight numbers off the Friday gross just because you want to. No one does that. Not deadline, not BoxOffice Mojo. You can't just make up your own drop percentage.

Oh? Well in that case i should adjust too, iron man 3 dropped 71% too and is already at 400. :D
 
Box-Office discussion doesn't work the way regular film discussion works. It's not really about the movie. It's about stats.

You can't tie the quality of a film too closely too it's numbers. And you can't just apply formulas from one movie to another and think things will play out that way.

It's a weird, volatile little science.
 
The hobbit had the December holidays. 4th of July does not have that same level of impact at all.

I'm not at all talking about holidays. The Hobbit had grossed $242M by Jan 2nd. It didn't hit $300M until mid Feb.

Studios have some influence over the tail end runs of their films. They can offer really favourable theatre/studio gross splits, or do a late run theatre re-expansion. If Man of Steel is heading for at least $290M, I think WB will push it the rest of the way there.
 
iron man 3's full second weekend drop was 58%. And deadlines numbers for the weekend show man of steel is on track to drop 65% for the weekend.

We shall see wont we ? Still under 70 as 63 was expected and keeps it on track to 300. Most successful reboot of all time..
 
iron man 3's full second weekend drop was 58%. And deadlines numbers for the weekend show man of steel is on track to drop 65% for the weekend.
You should stop, really.

After saying MoS wont gross 255M, this is another gem.

(Deadline's weekend projections are awful, especially if the dataset is just for Fridays)
 
I'm not at all talking about holidays. The Hobbit had grossed $242M by Jan 2nd. It didn't hit $300M until mid Feb.

Studios have some influence over the tail end runs of their films. They can offer really favourable theatre/studio gross splits, or do a late run theatre re-expansion. If Man of Steel is heading for at least $290M, I think WB will push it the rest of the way there.

I feel like you're this blinking beacon of semi-sanity that only gets to bob up when the angry waves are done smashing the hell out of the beach for a second. :)
 
Wouldn't the word of mouth be a boon for sequels, though? Everyone seems to agree on the film having problems, and what those problems are, and I don't think they're unsolvable issues at all.

Why would anyone want to give another 7-15$ to see if maybe they can get it right this time if they weren't satisfied? When Prometheus 2: Engineer Harder comes out, I'll wait for HBO, thanks.

I don't think we're allowed to link to stuff, but the (very small just starting out) geek culture site I write for has my review and another, both are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Our Facebook page comments are all over the place too, with some people taking it really personal on both sides.

So, it's kind of polarizing. It's a ground rule double when they needed a grand slam.
 
Why would anyone want to give another 7-15$ to see if maybe they can get it right this time if they weren't satisfied? When Prometheus 2: Engineer Harder comes out, I'll wait for HBO, thanks.
I disagree. I think that people will be willing to give a sequel to a movie they didn't like if they like the property AND if reviews suggest that the movie fixes the problems of the original. I'd give my money to Prometheus 2 if they fixed the problems from the first movie. Hell, I'd give my money to a sequel to Green Lantern if it looks like they fixed all the glaring issues from the first movie.
 
Why would anyone want to give another 7-15$ to see if maybe they can get it right this time if they weren't satisfied? When Prometheus 2: Engineer Harder comes out, I'll wait for HBO, thanks.

How many times have we seen/heard/read someone say "it already looks better than the first, I'm in!"?

If a sequel satisfactorily fixed all the issues the first one had (or appeared to), people will absolutely go see a sequel. Hell, since we're using personal anecdotes, I had people tell me that's the reason they continually went to see the Star Wars prequels.
 
How many times have we seen/heard/read someone say "it already looks better than the first, I'm in!"?

If a sequel satisfactorily fixed all the issues the first one had (or appeared to), people will absolutely go see a sequel. Hell, since we're using personal anecdotes, I had people tell me that's the reason they continually went to see the Star Wars prequels.

That's all there is to it, really. Hell, I thought the Star Wars prequels got worse and worse with each entry, and I still saw them in the hopes that they didn't.
 
I feel like you're this blinking beacon of semi-sanity that only gets to bob up when the angry waves are done smashing the hell out of the beach for a second. :)

Haha. Interesting analogy. I just try to be realistic given the info we have.

Friday Studio Estimates

1) Monsters University - $30.5M
2) World War Z - $25M
3) Man of Steel - $12.7M - $181M total
4) This is the end - $4.5M (down 41%) - $49M total
5) Now You See Me - $2.5M (down only 29%) - $89M
6) Fast 6 - $1.5M - $225M
7) The Purge - $1.1M (down another 65%) - $57M
8) The Internship - $1.1M - $36M
9) Star Trek Into Darkness - $855k - $214M
10) The Bling Ring - $680k
11) Iron Man 3 - $660k (down 12%) - $402M total

- I think that Now You See Me has done really well for itself. At this point, $100M is locked, and it's been having great holds.
- Iron Man 3 is bouncing back pretty well after last weekend. Especially when you consider it lost 40% of its venues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom