Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[jvcarroll]

After How to Train Your Dragon 2's weak debut last weekend, there was a hope that the well-reviewed movie would perform similar to its predecessor: slow out of the gate, but leggy in the long-run. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case this time around. The animated sequel fell 49 percent to $25.3 million this weekend; in comparison, the first movie eased 34 percent in its second outing. Through 10 days, How to Train Your Dragon 2 has earned $95.2 million, and is on track for a final tally around $170 million. (boxofficemojo.com)

This is what I'm thinking now, so ya it's not doing so hot here, it's the truth, it's just really sad that even with so much critical acclaim that the film won't even come close to its predecessor's total, I looked negatively, and now its even worse than I expected, this is literally Kung Fu Panda 2 all over again. Also here's what forbes has to say on the topic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brianso...on-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-disappointment/

It's really no travesty. The film will at least hit close to $200M (even though I don't know why everyone has a bizarre preference for that particular figure) and recoup its budget domestically. The bigger picture is that Dragons 2 was supposed to hit strong and eradicate the stink left over from Rise of the Guardians (a film that's actually good, yet wildly underperformed).

Also, there might be a silver lining here. When a sure-fire film like this underperforms it cites an overall domestic box office problem. Not only have trends shifted, but attendance is generally weak across the board. I can't help but turn this into a positive for the Muppets.

Muppets Most Wanted also underperformed so maybe the movies aren't the best place for them these days. Like Dragons, maybe television is the better format - and there's never been a better time for TV considering Netflix, Hulu and OnDemand services. People still love the Muppets, but why is Disney pinning the franchise to films? They are first and foremost creatures of television. That's the better investment.

 

[Drtooth]

No doubt that there's going to be a report by the end of the year that movie sales all over are down. There is no way this movie should have underperformed in a Pixar-free Summer. Maybe if they didn't get so insanely defeatist and pulled all advertisement for the movie in the second week, it would have least had a chance. They should have had better marketing for this film. Maybe blurting out the whole "Hiccup finds his mother" bit made the film look chintzy, even though it was pulled off brilliantly. Seriously, this was the best animated movie of the year, along with Lego. There should be a bigger box office pull, unless families are collectively cheaping out and waiting for everything to hit home video.

After this one, for sure Dreamworks needs to fire the heck out of the head of marketing. This film should have sold itself, and they managed to botch it terribly.

Meanwhile, 90 million domestic is more or less what Planes made, and Disney's still forcing that one out as a "hit," probably on toy sales and international.

 

[Muppet Master]

No doubt that there's going to be a report by the end of the year that movie sales all over are down. There is no way this movie should have underperformed in a Pixar-free Summer. Maybe if they didn't get so insanely defeatist and pulled all advertisement for the movie in the second week, it would have least had a chance. They should have had better marketing for this film. Maybe blurting out the whole "Hiccup finds his mother" bit made the film look chintzy, even though it was pulled off brilliantly. Seriously, this was the best animated movie of the year, along with Lego. There should be a bigger box office pull, unless families are collectively cheaping out and waiting for everything to hit home video.

After this one, for sure Dreamworks needs to fire the heck out of the head of marketing. This film should have sold itself, and they managed to botch it terribly.

This is the confusing part. The film WAS advertised a lot, I mean the TWC commercials were all over the place, so there's really no excuse for this film to turn into a KFP 2 scenario. So in the end, I mean well, maybe it was TOO soon for HTTYD 3. Anyways, CG animation has gotten bleak.

• Pixar = Have gotten mixed to terrible reviews for their last 3 films (Cars 2, Brave, and MU) plus Cars 2 made a total less than $200 million domestically; one of pixar's lows
• Blue Sky = Meh reception and box office performance for Epic and Ice Age 4

So ya bottom line is you just can't plop any CG film and expect it to be a success, it's not 2005 anymore, but I still think Dreamworks is still going to get at least $400 million in the foreign markets, but if that doesn't work out then...good luck for Dragon 3.

 

[jvcarroll]

This is the confusing part. The film WAS advertised a lot, I mean the TWC commercials were all over the place, so there's really no excuse for this film to turn into a KFP 2 scenario. So in the end, I mean well, maybe it was TOO soon for HTTYD 3. Anyways, CG animation has gotten bleak.

• Pixar = Have gotten mixed to terrible reviews for their last 3 films (Cars 2, Brave, and MU) plus Cars 2 made a total less than $200 million domestically; one of pixar's lows
• Blue Sky = Meh reception and box office performance for Epic and Ice Age 4

So ya bottom line is you just can't plop any CG film and expect it to be a success, it's not 2005 anymore, but I still think Dreamworks is still going to get at least $400 million in the foreign markets, but if that doesn't work out then...good luck for Dragon 3.

I don't understand what skewed prism you're looking through, but it's rather extreme and overly dramatic.

Pixar has gotten watered-down in recent years and some reviews have been mixed, but "terrible reviews" are still not a common trend for them.

Blue Sky's Epic did underperform. That's true. However, the Ice Age films are doing quite well. I don't know why it's important to you that films hit $200M domestically, but that's really not important. Love it or hate it, Ice Age 4 took in a worldwide total of $877,244,782. That's friggin amazing. The first How to Train Your Dragon film made $494,878,759 worldwide. That's fantastic too, but, again, your perspective on these matters seems to be short-sighted.

And what's TWC? I have no clue. What movie are you referencing? The Weinstein Company?

 

[Drtooth]

I honestly love how everyone hates Pixar for the last 3 films (yet never complains about how terrible the third party film makers are), when the truth is that they set the bar too high for themselves after extremely emotional Up and Toy Story 3. It's like if the movie doesn't have some intangible indie movie for old people feel, it's terrible. Yeah, I agree Cars 2 was nothing more than a commercial move, Brave's backstage drama ruined the film (and the same thing is happening with Good Dinosaur, so I'm a little skeptical about that one), but MU didn't deserve the crap it got. In fact, after Wall*E's very blunt environmental message (which outweighed the more important "Beware of corporations and government combining into something horrible" something we're clearly not listening to), I was refreshed that they had a film who's message was subtle and bravely realistic. In a summer where half the kid's films messages were the same tired "You can be anything and do anything ever if you just believe," it, Pixar went to the more realistic "You may not be as good as what you want to do as you think, but what you can accomplish can surprise you." That and "Mike and Sully were able to achieve their dreams without being forever indebted to impossible to pay student loans," something very subversive, actually. Not saying the film had flaws or was quite the same as the first one, but it wasn't the soulless toy commercial with a Saturday Morning cartoon plot.

Nor was it about talking Gnomes stealing a famous play's plot, but that's another story. A B to a straight A student is like an F, but a C+ to a D- student is an A.


As for Dragons, it speaks to the lack of interest this movie season on anything that isn't a blockbuster or features Marvel characters or Legos (or that overrated Maleficent Wicked knockoff). Has anything opened up this month over 22 Jump Street's 66 Million? We had a month of 3 straight 90 million openings. May was the month to release movies in, but due to the overly crowded market, it seemed logical at the time to release this in June. I'm sure had it not been for Maleficent, Dragons would have got the nice Memorial Day boost. It just got release in a market where, regionally, kids were still in school. And if not, were probably movied out by the time it was released. Still, I don't see this being a money loser if it managed to take in 90 in over a week. Theaters still have Rio 2. If that's still around and making money, Dragons isn't over yet.

 

[jvcarroll]

I honestly love how everyone hates Pixar for the last 3 films (yet never complains about how terrible the third party film makers are), when the truth is that they set the bar too high for themselves after extremely emotional Up and Toy Story 3. It's like if the movie doesn't have some intangible indie movie for old people feel, it's terrible. Yeah, I agree Cars 2 was nothing more than a commercial move, Brave's backstage drama ruined the film (and the same thing is happening with Good Dinosaur, so I'm a little skeptical about that one), but MU didn't deserve the crap it got. In fact, after Wall*E's very blunt environmental message (which outweighed the more important "Beware of corporations and government combining into something horrible" something we're clearly not listening to), I was refreshed that they had a film who's message was subtle and bravely realistic. In a summer where half the kid's films messages were the same tired "You can be anything and do anything ever if you just believe," it, Pixar went to the more realistic "You may not be as good as what you want to do as you think, but what you can accomplish can surprise you." That and "Mike and Sully were able to achieve their dreams without being forever indebted to impossible to pay student loans," something very subversive, actually. Not saying the film had flaws or was quite the same as the first one, but it wasn't the soulless toy commercial with a Saturday Morning cartoon plot.

Nor was it about talking Gnomes stealing a famous play's plot, but that's another story. A B to a straight A student is like an F, but a C+ to a D- student is an A.


As for Dragons, it speaks to the lack of interest this movie season on anything that isn't a blockbuster or features Marvel characters or Legos (or that overrated Maleficent Wicked knockoff). Has anything opened up this month over 22 Jump Street's 66 Million? We had a month of 3 straight 90 million openings. May was the month to release movies in, but due to the overly crowded market, it seemed logical at the time to release this in June. I'm sure had it not been for Maleficent, Dragons would have got the nice Memorial Day boost. It just got release in a market where, regionally, kids were still in school. And if not, were probably movied out by the time it was released. Still, I don't see this being a money loser if it managed to take in 90 in over a week. Theaters still have Rio 2. If that's still around and making money, Dragons isn't over yet.

Monsters U was quite paint-by-numbers for Pixar and it's jokes were aimed at the kids this time out. That's what disappointed me. Even though I liked the ending, the entire film was unnecessary and didn't add much to the story that a 5 minute short couldn't have done.

What's happened with Dragons? Well, the best I can say is this just happens sometimes. Some of the marketing and placement could have been handled better, but the timing is probably the issue. No one can really predict that. Maleficent probably did play a part, but who knew that would actually be such an audience-pleaser? I thought it would bomb.

Did you see Maleficent? It wasn't a knockoff, it was actually amazing. That's not to say it isn't without some problems, but I never thought the core of the character would have been caused by such a dark, allegorical incident. Those who don't like it either wanted some cardboard villain who's evil just for evil's sake or something more like Tim Burton's dreadfully dull Alice in Wonderland. I still don't get why that fared so well at the box office. All of my friends have a disdain for that film. That just goes to show that you never know about these things.

 

[Drtooth]

Monsters U was quite paint-by-numbers for Pixar and it's jokes were aimed at the kids this time out. That's what disappointed me. Even though I liked the ending, the entire film was unnecessary and didn't add much to the story that a 5 minute short couldn't have done.

Going the opposite direction, it really should have been a television show or series of shorts. I liked the new student characters, but felt the time frame of the movie didn't let them reach their full potential. Still, you have to admit it's much more fun as a movie than the past 2. It doesn't deserve the random hate it gets, especially since the other proposed sequel of the movie would've just been the first movie in reverse- monsters in the human world that Boo had to hide.

What's happened with Dragons? Well, the best I can say is this just happens sometimes. Some of the marketing and placement could have been handled better, but the timing is probably the issue. No one can really predict that. Maleficent probably did play a part, but who knew that would actually be such an audience-pleaser? I thought it would bomb.

Did you see Maleficent? It wasn't a knockoff, it was actually amazing. That's not to say it isn't without some problems, but I never thought the core of the character would have been caused by such a dark, allegorical incident. Those who don't like it either wanted some cardboard villain who's evil just for evil's sake or something more like Tim Burton's dreadfully dull Alice in Wonderland. I still don't get why that fared so well at the box office. All of my friends have a disdain for that film. That just goes to show that you never know about these things.

It has to be the timing. Something tells me if Malifiecient and Dragons switched places, it would be a different story for both films. Still, it wouldn't have hurt to continue marketing the film past the first week, maybe using better review sources than Shawn Edwards. The film certainly was the best thing Dreamworks has done since at least KFP2, if not the first Dragons (which I saw only a week before because it was on television), and HTTYD is the shiniest jewel in Dreamworks' crown, if not one of them. It would be a shame if this was considered on of their disappointing films when crappier CGI films manage to make money overseas. Still, why is the overseas market completely devoid from the equation for this film? It opened internationally at half its budget. Not bad considering that technically even high grossing Superhero movies barely make back their money, due to the HUGE budgets they get. Besides, if it's making KFP2 money, that's still going to get a third movie, and it's a decent ratings hit for Nick as a TV show (to say the least of it being endlessly rerun on Nicktoons. There's a Marathon a day).

As for Maleficent, I'm sure it's actually decent and not the Twilight-ified thing that the marketing and fanbase make it out to be. And it seems that even those who didn't like the film felt Jolie and her character were the best thing about it. I'll agree the endless stream of garbage like "Snow White and the Huntsman" hurt the film in some eyes. Still, this film doesn't appeal to me. Sleeping Beauty was a beautifully done film, but I always preferred Jungle Book and Pinocchio. Actually, I might just check out one of the two Jungle Book movies. But I'll agree, it does look a LOT better than Burton's Alice in Wonderland film that appeals only to Tim Burton fangirls. I just wouldn't see it. Now if they had a movie about Ursula or Gaston, I'd be there.

 

[mr3urious]

It doesn't deserve the random hate it gets, especially since the other proposed sequel of the movie would've just been the first movie in reverse- monsters in the human world that Boo had to hide.

Now that would have truly been a paint-by-numbers sequel.

 

[Drtooth]

Now that would have truly been a paint-by-numbers sequel.

Like I said before, every movie Pixar has done a sequel to was exactly what Disney planned for them had they still been under the leadership of Eisner. We're fortunate that we've been spared those movies. They would have barely been DTV quality. MU may get the business for some reason, but what Pixar did with the movie was brilliant. Not make a sequel out of fear of ruining the ending of the first one. Meanwhile every other animation studio makes a living off of sequels of varying quality, and Pixar's the one that looks bad. Even though they had a sequel as their third movie... albeit one Disney mandated.

There's about as many Ice Ages as Pixar released sequels so far. And they're still going to make Ice Ages. And when they don't make a sequel, they still get the business.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I was going to wait for Maleficent to go to DVD, but now it seems my friend really wants to see it in the theater, so I may have no choice, lol. I don't know, it may be a good movie. But any movie whose IMDB page is filled with "Better than that old movie!" instantly turns me off, however unfairly, lol.