Man of Steel Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

[T"Challa]

We can all agree that low RT ratings is not an encouraging sign for the movie that is supposed to earn mega bucks.

Audience ratings and CinemaScores are better indicators of Box Offfice potentia of these big franchise movies. Transformers and Pirates of the carribbean are good examples.

 

[Pickle-El]

This is what I've been trying to say all morning but people just don't understand... Especially with the 1B predictions.

What are you guys talking about? There are countless films that have RT scores in the rotten category and have made ridiculous amounts of money.....

It all comes down to WOM. If the audience walks out of there with SR-like "meh" reactions and cinemascores are C's and D's....it will still "flop" to 225+ million domestic and end up in Star Trek Into Darkness levels of disappointment.

 

[JOE]

Transformers made 700M and that was considered a huge hit.

 

[schiz0id]

Thats not really fair. A small Shakespearan comedy which is purely centered around relationships and dialogue will always be more critic friendly than a big bombastic blockbuster type.

The real credit here is that Whedon put that thing together in a week..lol, i've seem the movie and its pretty great, and i not even into Shakespeare

In this context I am not comparing Much Ado with Man of Steel's individual ratings, rather the men behind those movies, if Whedon could whip up a script on a weekend and shoot the movie at his house in less than two weeks with his actor friends and in-between production of The Avengers then it says a lot about what kind of director Whedon is and what kind of director Snyder is not which is CONSISTENT.

 

[JOE]

What are you guys talking about? There are countless films that have RT scores in the rotten category and have made ridiculous amounts of money.....

It all comes down to WOM. If the audience walks out of there with SR-like "meh" reactions and cinemascores are C's and D's....it will still "flop" to 225+ million domestic and end up in Star Trek Into Darkness levels of disappointment.

So what's your prediction?

 

[Marvin]

I don't see why that should be a slight on critics? I've heard someone bring up This is the End getting good reviews as a reason critics are dumb.

Good films come in all stripes, comedies can be great films, indie Shakespeare plays can be as well...

Either way i've had my reservations about snyder for a while. I brought up suckerpunch a little while a go here and that didn't play out too well. I was just hoping he would be reigned in for this film.

I don't know about that. Sure, there is sometimes a certain snobbery to their tastes, but it is no different than criticism in any other field. Should food and drink critics be praising McDonald's, Budweiser, and Costco brand Zinfandel in a box because that is what average joes enjoy? I think it's a little early to start throwing around dismissive arguments about pretension and elitism.

Not saying anything about snobbery(not intentionally anyways). But these people in theory have a "job" that they and we like to think of as letting us know if we will like a movie. Obviously they are actually letting us know about the "Quality" of a movie which one would think is the same thing(but we all know it's not, so why even bother).

However what we have instead is a collection of celebrated opinions that are often in direction conflict with that very premise. For example if one day the entire audience turned into idiots, and liked idiotic movies. One could argue that the purpose of turning to critics would be to let the audience know if the film was "worth" their money based on how much the audience would "enjoy" the film. If one goes the route of saying no, the purpose would then be to enlighten the audience about what they should like...that would sour.

Film reception isn't a medical practice in which people need to be told and fed objective empirical quality over bad medicine. It's all art and when you walk into an art gallery you want to see stuff you like, not stuff some gala owner is telling you they like of that you are supposed to like.

Long story short, if these critics don't represent the mass audience when it comes to pre tasting food, whom do they represent exactly. If there was such a think as a system where the audience could get a score that almost always reflected the masses, wouldn't that be more contributive to society and the industry?
Something like the "audience rating"

Not to be mistaken. Sometimes the system works. Even when critics gang up on a summer punching bag...

Comparing food and film criticism is odd. Right off the bat not all food tastes the same, secondly there are no "heath benefits" to film...and so on.

 

[Marvin]

Transformers made 700M and that was considered a huge hit.

Untested brand. Far reduced budget. Far less star power. No inflation, 3D or otherwise.

Still that would be considered a hit for MOS. As long as it hit's IM numbers.

 

[Pickle-El]

So what's your prediction?

700 WW.

300 domestic and 400 international.

 

[robot]

Not saying anything about snobbery(not intentionally anyways). But these people in theory have a "job" that they and we like to think of as letting us know if we will like a movie. Obviously they are actually letting us know about the "Quality" of a movie which one would think is the same thing(but we all know it's not, so why even bother).

However what we have instead is a collection of celebrated opinions that are often in direction conflict with that very premise. For example if one day the entire audience turned into idiots, and liked idiotic movies. One could argue that the purpose of turning to critics would be to let the audience know if the film was "worth" their money based on how much the audience would "enjoy" the film. If one goes the route of saying no, the purpose would then be to enlighten the audience about what they should like...that would sour.

Film reception isn't a medical practice in which people need to be told and fed objective empirical quality over bad medicine. It's all art and when you walk into an art gallery you want to see stuff you like, not stuff some gala owner is telling you they like of that you are supposed to like.

Long story short, if these critics don't represent the mass audience when it comes to pre tasting food, whom do they represent exactly. If there was such a think as a system where the audience could get a score that almost always reflected the masses, wouldn't that be more contributive to society and the industry?
Something like the "audience rating"

Not to be mistaken. Sometimes the system works. Even when critics gang up on a summer punching bag...

Comparing food and film criticism is odd. Right off the bat not all food tastes the same, secondly there are no "heath benefits" to film...and so on.

There is... look at the 'Audience's ratings' on RT... that's what I usually look at and it's usually right...

 

[DKDetective]

What are you guys talking about? There are countless films that have RT scores in the rotten category and have made ridiculous amounts of money.....

It all comes down to WOM. If the audience walks out of there with SR-like "meh" reactions and cinemascores are C's and D's....it will still "flop" to 225+ million domestic and end up in Star Trek Into Darkness levels of disappointment.

Yeah, but those movies tended to be light hearted popcorn fair that provide simple laughs and entertainment. Films that kids drag the family to. Everything points to Man of Steel trying to be more than that and, as a result, it is probably unlikely to be critic proof in the same way. It is being sold as a serious epic and people tend to rely on critics' opinions more when it comes to those sorts of movies.

 

[mclay18]

71% is still pretty good. Remember guys, just because some critics didn't like it... doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

It's all a matter of opinions. Everyone has one.

 

[Sup3rman81]

71% is still pretty good. Remember guys, just because some critics didn't like it... doesn't mean everyone else doesn't.

It's all a matter of opinions. Everyone has one.

Totally agree! This movie has gotten some really good reviews. Even the negatives aren't truly negative just more "It was good not great" plus RT grades their reviews weird. I think 70-80% is a win and metacritic has only positive and mixed reviews so far. No negatives

 

[blackops]

Anyone trying to imply there is a 1 to 1 correlation between RT ratings and BO is totally worng. There are poorly rated films that do well and wonderfully rated movies that do poorly in BO.

My take is that most mass media critics gave MOS very positive results. Serioulsy, it all depends on the audience now. If people like, it will hit out of the park.

A cold light of day analysis will say that OW is around 100M with some upside to it. My predictions are: 300/400 domestic and 400/500 international. So 700M on the low range and 900 on the top of range.

 

[DKDetective]

Comparing food and film criticism is odd. Right off the bat not all food tastes the same, secondly there are no "heath benefits" to film...and so on.

And tastes regarding film aren't different? Furthermore, I've rarely seen any wine or beer reviews focusing on health benefits, same with reviews of most gourmet restaurants. Their menus tend to be just as rich and calorie dense as fast food. However, even if that was true, film has certain characteristics that are equivalent to "health benefits". Just like literature, complex films that make you think and question definitely improve one's intellectual fitness and understanding of other people and the world. Sorry, Marvin, but those points were just laughable.

 

[JOE]

700 WW.

300 domestic and 400 international.

I like it. I'm along the same lines only I don't think it'll clear 400 OS. The marketing was real weak over there.

 

[blackops]

Also, 70%-75% for this type of action movie is actually pretty good. The only way I see ratings having a serious impact on MOS Box Ofiice would be a huge deviation to the down side (something like 35% rating) or the upisde (near 100% rating). I think this is actually a sweet spot (65%-85%) where I believe any marginal increase or decrease (%1) in rating has actually a small impact on BO.

 

[Pickle-El]

I like it. I'm along the same lines only I don't think it'll clear 400 OS. The marketing was real weak over there.

That, with a high cinemascore, and you have a Transformers-like start to a trilogy....what more could you want. (without being greedy of course)

I get the sense, from these negative reviews, that they aren't that negative...this sounds like a summer crowd-pleaser to me. Ultimately, as IM3 showed, that's ALL that matters.

 

[robot]

That, with a high cinemascore, and you have a Transformers-like start to a trilogy....what more could you want. (without being greedy of course)

I get the sense, from these negative reviews, that they aren't that negative...this sounds like a summer crowd-pleaser to me. Ultimately, as IM3 showed, that's ALL that matters.

Unless they tried too hard making it serious, and then it lacks that 'fun'... it may prove not to be a crowd pleaser after all...

 

[Marvin]

And tastes regarding film aren't different? Furthermore, I've rarely seen any wine or beer reviews focusing on health benefits, same with reviews of most gourmet restaurants. Their menus tend to be just as rich and calorie dense as fast food. However, even if that was true, film has certain characteristics that are equivalent to "health benefits". Just like literature, complex films that make you think and question definitely improve one's intellectual fitness and understanding of other people and the world. Sorry, Marvin, but those points were just laughable.

Never said anything about wine reviews. As for Gourmet restaurants, I'm sure the critics take into consideration the amount you pay for an evening in Gordan Ramsey's store front vs how much you pay for a big mac when they make their "reviews...."
notice all films cost about the same

Intellectual fitness. There is much to be learned in film analysis, however this idea that you get dumber watching an action comedy and smarter watching a family drama is inane imo. Unless you think you are watching documentaries. That is not to say you can't learn some new science facts from star trek. Not the same with meal consumption. meal analysis on the other hand.

Sure you can come away from a film "a better person for it" but it's not even close to the same deal with eating fast food your whole life vs eating cleanly prepared clean food at the "right price"

Still, considering they are giving the public their opinions on what they like and don't, I suppose I could be equally against that industry too.

 

[Tony Stark]

Critics ratings notwithstanding, I think Man of Steel will perfom like the first Transformers film which is $300m domestic and $400m overseas so $700m worldwide which is a pretty solid number and one what WB should be happy about (and not the more than $1.3bn one WB exec predicted, crazy!).

Those are very doable numbers, and are pretty close to what I'm expecting. That's a success for the character, and sequels can ensue.

 

[schiz0id]

Those are very doable numbers, and are pretty close to what I'm expecting. That's a success for the character, and sequels can ensue.

Yup. I actually like Henry Cavill as an actor, I was rooting for him for the longest time. He was once dubbed "The Unluckiest Man in Hollywood" because he was almost McG's Superman (which went on to become Singers's Superman with Routh), almost Bond (which went to Craig), was considered to be Team Edward on Twilight and Cedric Diggory in Goblet of Fire.

So when I learned he was cast in this role I was happy for him. So I'll be lining up this Friday (probably a matinee to avoid the huge crowds) to watch Man of Steel.

 

[BestGirl]

Hmmm.. it's sort of split 50/50 with the 'top critics'... 3 rotten/3 fresh... looks like the 'regular critics' are liking it better...

It's always that way.

 

[Tony Stark]

Rotten Tomatoes has always been a reliable source. It's usually in the right ballpark.

I agree with this. Some are going to like movies more than others. I mean I know a lot of people are huge fans of No Country for Old Men, but personally I couldn't stand that film, but I know I'm in the minority there.

Generally on RT you will see that the critic ratings are pretty close to the fan ratings, with most films the fan ratings being slightly higher.

There are always exceptions and Transformers Revenge of the fallen is one, where the critic ratings are and abysmal 20% but the fan ratings were 76% (personally I was with the critics on that one).

Then there are other films like the first Spider-man where the critic ratings are close to 90%, but the fan ratings are a barely fresh 65%.

The vast majority of the time the critic and fan reviews are close, and definitely have an effect on word of mouth and longevity. I would guess that a film like this would do better than what the critic ratings suggest seeing as Nolan is involved, and I don't think he's delivered a "flop" to my knowledge.

 

[Anita18]

Yeah, but those movies tended to be light hearted popcorn fair that provide simple laughs and entertainment. Films that kids drag the family to. Everything points to Man of Steel trying to be more than that and, as a result, it is probably unlikely to be critic proof in the same way. It is being sold as a serious epic and people tend to rely on critics' opinions more when it comes to those sorts of movies.

They also tend to be spectacle.

People don't care about RT reviews. If it looks cool and there's lots of spectacle, people want to see it.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yup. I actually like Henry Cavill as an actor, I was rooting for him for the longest time. He was once dubbed "The Unluckiest Man in Hollywood" because he was almost McG's Superman (which went on to become Singers's Superman with Routh), almost Bond (which went to Craig), was considered to be Team Edward on Twilight and Cedric Diggory in Goblet of Fire.

So when I learned he was cast in this role I was happy for him. So I'll be lining up this Friday (probably a matinee to avoid the huge crowds) to watch Man of Steel.

I will say this, the guy looks like Superman. Way more than Routh did, IMO. I think there's certain actors that when they take on the role, they become the character, just as Reeves did.

For whatever reason Superman is one of those characters that has a definable look to them. Batman you can have a lot of leeway where you have Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney and Christian Bale who all look completely different, and you can make the character work.

I loved the Lois and Clark TV series, and my wife and I watched that show pretty religiously, but Dean Cain was passable as Superman, but was never someone I pictured as Superman, but I loved his Clark Kent interpretation.

As much as people shouted for Tom Welling to play Superman in a movie, I could never picture him as that. He worked well in that series, although I wasn't a huge fan of the show, but from what I saw he did a great job in the role. But as Superman? no.

The moment I heard Cavil was cast, I said "yeah that makes total sense".

Plus you have to give it to the guy, because he's a total nerd. He was playing World of Warcraft when he was cast in the role, and he wasn't able to return the call from his agent until he was done playing! lol!