Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,722
Reaction score
6,567
Tcch... Even if that film was good, there's no way it manages to live up to the artistry of the the original one. Like I said, Sleeping Beauty's not one of my favorites for the content, but the film's look blows most things away. It's a very beautifully animated work, and on that level alone a classic.

Just I like Pinocchio a heck of a lot better.
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,285
Just I like Pinocchio a heck of a lot better.
Let me guess, next time Disney is going to teach us that Monstro was just a misunderstood, gentle soul who was tortured by a fisherman as a young guppie? :wink:
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1,994
There be decreasing Dragons numbers

I'm not even sure why $200 million is the mark for people. Out of 687 domestically charted films last year, less than 2% reached that number. That's a mere 13 films. Judging by this second weekend of Dragons, it will likely perform under the $217 original and may even fall underneath the $200 mark, but not by much. I think the greatest force working against the picture is the fact that they already have a tv show out. Why shell out ridiculous ticket prices when it can be outright purchased a few months later? I predict strong home video sales.

The mark of success

Entertainment companies are no longer what they used to be. There's always been a battle between commerce and creative (with commerce usually winning out) but never before have companies been so entirely run by the bean counters. They no longer create films. Studios don't really have ideas beyond money anymore. They just acquire brands, hire talent based on perceived trends and then set up profit expectations. Don't get me wrong, they've always done this, but now they seem to ONLY do this. It's now a pass or fail industry. Either your picture is a smash success or a complete failure. In truth, most enterprises in life and film fall somewhere in between.

That's the truth of the matter. Dragons isn't doing poorly. The Muppets were generally well received. The sour point is that they didn't meet unrealistic expectations of people who only understand money and not the creative side of the business. Both are important.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,722
Reaction score
6,567
There be decreasing Dragons numbers

I'm not even sure why $200 million is the mark for people. Out of 687 domestically charted films last year, less than 2% reached that number. That's a mere 13 films. Judging by this second weekend of Dragons, it will likely perform under the $217 original and may even fall underneath the $200 mark, but not by much. I think the greatest force working against the picture is the fact that they already have a tv show out. Why shell out ridiculous ticket prices when it can be outright purchased a few months later? I predict strong home video sales.
The TV show hasn't been on for some time, actually. Like I said, CN has not so much as run an episode before the run up to the movie's release, only running the same 5 shows in succession all day long (before Adult Swim, of course). An opportunity was lost. Meanwhile, Nicktoons runs KFP and Monsters VS Aliens (despite cancelling it after one season) even more into the ground.

The fact of the matter is, every month but May has been weak for movies. Lego and Captain America were the only ones to really perform well in those months. March failed everyone, not just The Muppets. Heck, Dragons pretty much made what Peabody and Sherman did in 2 weeks. And P&S was probably the most successful of the bunch. Above all, there seems to be a sense of ennui considering there hasn't been a blockbuster film in this month so far. Though there's been "Edge of Tomorrow" which in 2 weeks made barely what Dragons did in its first (why isn't anyone calling THAT a bomb?). Maybe the long winter has kept kids in school over the summer preventing real weekday numbers. Still, there's NO excuse for pulling advertisements for the film (minus the merchandising) after the first week had a modest, but disappointing opening.
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1,994
The TV show hasn't been on for some time, actually. Like I said, CN has not so much as run an episode before the run up to the movie's release, only running the same 5 shows in succession all day long (before Adult Swim, of course). An opportunity was lost. Meanwhile, Nicktoons runs KFP and Monsters VS Aliens (despite cancelling it after one season) even more into the ground.

The fact of the matter is, every month but May has been weak for movies. Lego and Captain America were the only ones to really perform well in those months. March failed everyone, not just The Muppets. Heck, Dragons pretty much made what Peabody and Sherman did in 2 weeks. And P&S was probably the most successful of the bunch. Above all, there seems to be a sense of ennui considering there hasn't been a blockbuster film in this month so far. Though there's been "Edge of Tomorrow" which in 2 weeks made barely what Dragons did in its first (why isn't anyone calling THAT a bomb?). Maybe the long winter has kept kids in school over the summer preventing real weekday numbers. Still, there's NO excuse for pulling advertisements for the film (minus the merchandising) after the first week had a modest, but disappointing opening.
Edge of Tomorrow is pulling in monster numbers overseas. Nearly 75% of its total box office take. That's why Tom Cruise is still relevant. Foreign markets. Yeah, I don't get it either.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,722
Reaction score
6,567
That could be due to the fact it's based off a Japanese novel with a completely different title (if I'm to understand correctly, this film shares the title of a completely irrelevant novel, at least half of a Star trek episode title). You know. One that's probably never been released here in any shape or form prior. And if it did, it certainly slid past the radar. And, well... the character from the book (as per my understanding) is much younger. A Teenager.

But if that's not proof that we should always look at the overseas market for a film's success, I don't know what is.
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1,994
That could be due to the fact it's based off a Japanese novel with a completely different title (if I'm to understand correctly, this film shares the title of a completely irrelevant novel, at least half of a Star trek episode title). You know. One that's probably never been released here in any shape or form prior. And if it did, it certainly slid past the radar. And, well... the character from the book (as per my understanding) is much younger. A Teenager.

But if that's not proof that we should always look at the overseas market for a film's success, I don't know what is.
That's a far-fetched assessment that would only be true for Japanese and niche markets. It's much more likely that Edge's success is due to Cruise's overseas appeal. That's the ingredient that works there that doesn't quite work here anymore. They still like him over there like auds used to here.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,722
Reaction score
6,567
Seems that's why they cast him instead of a logical teenager/Dawson Casting 20+ year old that looks like a teenager. I wonder how the film is actually doing in the Japanese market for that matter.
 

Muppet fan 123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
1,488
It's a shame Edge of Tomorrow isn't pulling in more money domestically. It's such a brilliant film, it deserves every dollar it gets.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,722
Reaction score
6,567
Jamie has a point on this one. For those who have actually heard of the original book, this would have a niche market (minus those who feel that someone over 40 in the teenager's role for the sake of celebrity deviates too far from the concept and wouldn't want to see it). Then again, there's that "we hate [such and such celebrity] now" thing that dooms movies with a star everyone randomly hates. Those factors probably overshadow the actual film. At least here... if it's doing as well overseas as they say, that's more than enough reason to never count a movie out if it doesn't gross double budget domestically.
 
Top