2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Transformers wasn't coming off a universally hated movie like Spider-Man 3 and replacing actors everyone knew by heart. It was the first one. Clean slate. Not the same thing and before you say Revenge of the Fallen, the hate on that was clearly more Internet-based on anything else.

Hyperbole on your part, but I'm not surprised.

I didn't like Spider-man 3, but I wouldn't say it was universally hated. I'd say it was more on par with Batman Forever in terms of reception.
 
Last edited:
So finally one of them did blink, although I thought it would've been Total Recall instead. But in this case Total Recall would lose most of its business to Bourne next week.

I don't know what Sony's thinking putting TR so close to TDKR. Given what TDK did back in 2008 and what even The Hunger Games and The Avengers have done this year, you should be releasing your low budget films and counter programming. The Mummy 3 opened at number 2 on TDK's third weekend back in 2008. The X-Files 2, Wrath of Titans, Dark Shadows, Battleship were all pushed aside. Part of the reason is that they were crappy movies that were marketed poorly and the demand was lukewarm for them, but still.

Now they have a $200 million sci-fi remake with Colin Farrell who isn't exactly a breakout star or Mr.Blockbuster (SWAT with just over $207m worldwide, Miami Vice under $165m). Maybe it will do well enough internationally but it needs to do $400 million to break even and it doesn't look like a $400 million film.

Good on Universal to move Bourne. It will likely gross over $400 million but they'll turn a nice profit.
 
Last edited:
SM3 wasnt universally hated. It's only forums like this that give that impression. The general public was largely " meh" on sm3. They didn't love it, but they certainly didn't hate it. It wouldnt have made that much money If they had. They general public thought it was okay.

I think the general public is pretty "meh" on this movie. I actually don't know anyone really anticipating it outside of internet forums.
 
Now they have a $200 million sci-fi remake with Colin Farrell who isn't exactly a breakout star or Mr.Blockbuster (SWAT with just over $207m worldwide, Miami Vice under $165m). Maybe it will do well enough internationally but it needs to do $400 million to break even and it doesn't look like a $400 million film.

Yeah I think it's weird that they shelled out $200 mill on Colin Farrell. I think Total Recall is going to be a commercial disappointment
 
Last edited:
I actually meant to write commercial disappointment. The movie looks fine to me
 
Why is total Recall $200 million? No offense to Colin Farrell (because I do like him in his British movies), but why spend that kind of money who's proven to not be that profitable in American movies? BM is right, it doesn't look like a $200 million movie either.
 
I think the general public is pretty "meh" on this movie. I actually don't know anyone really anticipating it outside of internet forums.

It's definitely a low excitement level. But the large number of ads for the NBA playoffs definitely helped (especially considering these were some of the highest ratings the playoffs had in a while.)

Also, this is Spider-man. It's going to have tons of 6 to 12 year old kids turning out for this. Which was the same reason SM3 still made solid money despite having bad WOM. And if this has good WOM, it'll do fine.

BB was pretty much the same. It had low buzz, but got great reviews and good WOM ended up having it do solid. I don't think TASM will be huge, but if it's a solid film it'll have a respectable BO.
 
ASM has such a prime release date to bring in that money. Especially since GI Joe helped it out even more.
 
ASM has such a prime release date to bring in that money. Especially since GI Joe helped it out even more.

If it's a solid film it should do good money for those two weeks. Though I do wish they had more space from TDKR, because that film is really going to kill TASM's legs if it's starting to form some solid ones.
 
Why is total Recall $200 million? No offense to Colin Farrell (because I do like him in his British movies), but why spend that kind of money who's proven to not be that profitable in American movies? BM is right, it doesn't look like a $200 million movie either.
Wow, I had no idea the budget was that high.
 
200 million is a normal budget for a blockbuster for 5-6 years. the reason people are suprise is because they belive boxofficemojo which is a lot of times reporting what the studio told them.
 
Except recent movies in August do not usually have that high budget, especially a movie like Total Recall. Which seems to be Bourne in the future.
 
They gave it 200 Million because they know guys will fork out the dough to see a Arnie remake and having biel, beckinsale and Farrell does help. Internationally is where this movie will make it's cash. On top of that it looks effing cool.
 
Newsies was also not originally supposed to be a musical. Disney decided late in the game to turn it into one after the success they were having with their animated musicals at the time, so they only had about 4 months to write the music and teach their main cast, most of whom weren't musically trained, how to sing and dance.

That's how we ended up with a clearly uncomfortable Christian Bale singing and stomping around pretending to ride a horse. He was cast before the movie was a musical and was somehow cajoled into staying. And the lyrics of that song throw his character's entire story out of whack too. At least he was cute. :funny:

I still love the hell out of that movie. Just watched it again last night. I even think that if wasn't a musical, it never would have achieved the cult status it has today, because the last hour, that has fewer songs, is where the movie starts to drag.

What's great about the new stage version is that they've re-written almost the entire script and re-worked the songs so that it flows better as a musical now. The "Santa Fe" number is totally different (Jack is now an artist instead of an aspiring cowboy, so no more horse-riding choreography), and it's actually a highlight of the show.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that the stage version has already grossed 5 times more than the movie did in 1992.

Didn't know all that. Not sure how I like getting rid of the Bill Pullman character (an aspect of the movie I liked) for another love interest, but I agree songs like "Santa Fe," "King of New York," and the "United" song made the movie. Son that, we do agree.
 
There is no reboot curse. Casino Royale and Star Trek were both successful reboots. X-men First Class was a prequel.

Also Batman Begins made close to 300 m if you adjusted for inflation and added 3D ticket prices. And that's coming off a box office bomb (Batman and Robin) not a blockbuster hit (Spider-man 3).

ST was rebooting a long-dead franchise (not counting the last two ST movies nobody saw) and Bond is a built in reboot.

The positive reviews for TASM is a pleasant surprise for me and I'm hoping it's good. I kept saying $200-$220 million (my final was $210), but if it's really good and just not a generic superhero origin film, I could see over $220 being possible. But $300 million? Not happening. Even if it's quality, the hype is not there. Not because of SM3 being poorly received by audiences. It's that audiences have yet to show any excitement about seeing the origin again with a new tone and cast. Audiences rejected MIBIII because they viewed it as a cynical cash-grab of a well-worn franchise. TASM will face the same backlash, in my opinion.
 
Star Trek and James Bond were also the first time those origins were told on screen, not the second time in ten years.
 
The Spider-Man brand is far more expansive and profitable than those properties though.
 
The Spider-Man brand is far more expansive and profitable than those properties though.

True. On the other hand, those movies were cheaper to make too.

Star Trek made $257 million US. If ASM makes that, it would be a disappointment.

Casino Royale made $167 million US. If ASM makes that, it would be a disaster. I don't think anybody is predicting ASM to do that bad.
 
While I agree that 167 would be a disaster. I really can't see - due to Batman Begins and X Men First Class - SONY viewing 257 mil as a disappointment. As said, I really don't see them entering expecting big numbers for it rather regaining the faith and looking to have an even bigger sequel. I expect Second Class to be very high in box office gross and top the other X-Men films just like TDK did. And I think ASM will possibly reach SM2 if not SM3 levels - but don't think ASM1 will get close nor do I think SONY is expecting that either. Some movies are made just with the studio thinking of replanting the flagship not taking over again.
 
ST was rebooting a long-dead franchise (not counting the last two ST movies nobody saw) and Bond is a built in reboot.

The positive reviews for TASM is a pleasant surprise for me and I'm hoping it's good. I kept saying $200-$220 million (my final was $210), but if it's really good and just not a generic superhero origin film, I could see over $220 being possible. But $300 million? Not happening. Even if it's quality, the hype is not there. Not because of SM3 being poorly received by audiences. It's that audiences have yet to show any excitement about seeing the origin again with a new tone and cast. Audiences rejected MIBIII because they viewed it as a cynical cash-grab of a well-worn franchise. TASM will face the same backlIash, in my opinion.

Casino Royale was a reboot that used not only new actors but it was grounded in realism and it told Bonds origin . The Bond fanbase was divided over it too.

ASM is no more of a ”cynical cash grab” than any other Hollywood blockbuster.

The so called back lash against MIB3 resulted in a 10% drop in box office from MIB2.. A 10% drop would be considered a success for ASM. A 140-150 m first six days would make that a very real possibility.
 
Last edited:
Casino Royale was a reboot that used not only new actors but it was grounded in realism but it told Bonds origin .

Judi Dench was a holdover from the Brosnan 007 films... so it wasn't a complete overhaul. But she is good, I can't imagine any other actress giving M the kind of spirit and authority Dench does so well.
 
True. On the other hand, those movies were cheaper to make too.

Star Trek made $257 million US. If ASM makes that, it would be a disappointment.

Casino Royale made $167 million US. If ASM makes that, it would be a disaster. I don't think anybody is predicting ASM to do that bad.

I meant that those reboots were successes for those franchises.

They are both top performers in the Star Trek and Bond franchise.

ASM will be fine. Should get at least 275 m domestic and 1 billion worldwide.
 
I meant that those reboots were successes for those franchises.

They are both top performers in the Star Trek and Bond franchise.

ASM will be fine. Should get at least 275 m domestic and 1 billion worldwide.

A billion WW? Surely you jest. :funny:

It ain't happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"