Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Thread Manager, Dec 17, 2012.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]449915[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]449379[/split]
I am not saying people don't want to see this film. The numbers indicate that they clearly do. All the polling clearly indicates we all wanted to see it and most are quite pleased with the results. My questions are more around how it will compare to its predecessors. Opening, legs, overall gross. The SW prequel numbers are interesting reading for those very reasons and these are similar circumstances.
So with those first couple of sentences, how does that signify how 'disappointing' the box office of it is? I'd hardly call it a disappointment. Unless people truly did expect the numbers to be the same when - when LOTR first came out it was the FIRST of its kind. A true event like Avengers is today. Skyfall seems to be the odd man out here in that it did better than all Bond films except for Thunderball (if a certain site is correct).
I'd say you can definitely see a huge difference actually in how much of a difference there is in box office looking at Star Wars, sadly. Star Wars I and III were the top grossers of those years, yet III is about a billion less domestically and I is about half a billion less. And there is only one film in the top 13 when adjusted of all time and that was in 1997 (Titanic) showing that mostly as years go by it is hard to get a break-through hit like in the past. BUT, maybe VHS and TV could partly account for that as well... today if you miss something in theaters, you just have to wait for the DVD - whereas in the past you'd have to wait year-round to be lucky enough to catch it on TV.
He predicted 94.5 Million, which is why he's dissing the film. He didn't diss Batman when it didn't make his projected $215 million, perhaps because of the tragedy surrounding that, but everyone who studies this stuff knew it wasn't going to make that kind of money, it was logistically impossible.
My problem with stubers and most of these people making predictions is they aren't based on anything concrete. Look every once in a while you get a film like Avengers that comes out of nowhere and surprises.
For Hobbit to open to 100M means it would have had to have broken the record by 23%, when a film like Avatar, with 3D and IMAX just 3 years ago only broke ROTK by 6.5%. Granted Avatar was a new film, but it was highly anticipated and got better reviews than the Hobbit did.
These entertainment media types need to stop pulling numbers out of their buts and look at historical data and trends. The only reason they do this stuff, is because they completely missed the predictions on Avengers and their ego's won't get over it, which means they're going to over predict every tentpoll movie that comes out, so they can pat themselves on the back that they were right.
It's not dissapointing, but this is the narrative Stubers has to put forth, in order to regain his credibility he never had.
As I said, now that Brandon Gray is gone, you can pretty much ignore anything Box office mojo has to say.
Again, look at how much better this did than Avatar, and I dare anyone to call it a dissapointment. I guarantee you this film is going to make 60M or more in week 2.
Didn't hear a word of this before this opening weekend. It was nothing but how huge it was going to be and how it was going to clubber the December 3-day record by a huge margin. It was always going to take it from I Am Legend. But with all the bumps it had (3D, IMAX, adjusted costs of regular tickets plus more screens), it still only got past it by $7M... despite selling less tickets. That's not good. No way to spin that, especially considering how shockingly soft it's doing overseas.
Stubers (and Ed Douglas too) was one of the few to come out and say, "You know what, guys? The marketing sucks and I'm not buying these tracking numbers." And he was dead on. So again, he's an idiot? Stop.
But only now are we hearing the "Oh it was never going to make THAT much!" excuses. Pardon me while I laugh.
Exactly. Now I don't think it is hugely disappointing, but it is a disappointment, even if you only consider it a slight one. This was to be the wave of destruction, and instead it simply did very well. The backpedaling is funny though.
Of course, $84.5M is not a bad number by itself. But it is when you factor it against the huge expectations and projections.
Yes, it is a very good number. It just needs to be put into perspective in terms of the expectations, projections and past numbers.
Yep....people need to be put in their places....got it.
I never called it disappointing. To me it just further shows how well it did with the times.
Just looking at the all time adjusted in the top thirteen only having one of late that's from the 90s is kind of depressing as a film maker. It makes me wonder what has changed. Are less people going to the theater overall like they did in the past? Is it the DVD market that's mostly to blame here and nothing really has changed? Is it TV which has changed the name of the game to this degree what with movie channels and all these days? Just unsure what could be causing the top thirteen to only have one recent/old film and that was in the 90s. All that Star Wars example shows is that while those films are still number one at box office, the overall box office continues to shrink as the years go by. Thus putting even less on "look at the past films!" Because the ONLY exception is Skyfall - IF that Bond inflated site was right.
What people? I am talking about the movie.
I see your point. I want the film to be financially successful so that Hollywood will continue to make films like this. It's just hard to view it as a disappointment because it will still double it's budget.
Exactly. It's performance will undoubtedly continue to have films like this come out and maybe even in a rising number.
it's like watching the fun get sucked out of a thread right before my eyes.
As mush as I liked this movie I would not be surprised if it only made 300 million domestically when its run is over. What I mean is that it would not be shocking if it struggled to make even FOTR numbers. I think 850-900 million ww is likely as well.
You're giving reasons why it didn't live up to all expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that that is what happened.
As for the release during exams, the other films had basically the same release date in their respective years.
The film's gross certainly isn't a disappointment, all people are saying is that the "Record Breaking Gross!" headlines are completely meaningless when it only outgrossed other recent winter films by a few million despite all the added things it has going for it.
If there is any blame for lack of big bucks which I think 84 Million is a right number for a Middle Earth December release. The Blame needs to go to people who have basically ripped this movie for month and then when actually see the film discover it was not as bad as they had been expecting it to be. The true blame is those that have slammed PJ and every single decison made in the film. Never have I seen a movie hated and yet nobody had seen it.
Have I mentioned how much I loved the the giant dwarf statues outside the gates of Erebor? (sp?)
Except that a lot of the people ripping the film the past few weeks HAD seen it.
And many people have the same complaints now as they did before.
Many of the choices involved are still quite suspect.
PJ spent a lot of the good will he had by making several bloated films in a row and giving every indication that these films as well would be bloated, and having seen the first film, people's feelings in that regard have not been alleviated.
The film didn't have a great reception from everyone on the planet. These things happen.
At the very least though, this movie will likely have some serious legs in the weeks to come.
A question Is This Better Then Transformers films.
How is that relevant?
My point is gonna be Transformers was a big cash cow. And yet had no substance. The first one was fun and liked it allot. But sequels were cash cows. The Hobbit to me had weight and substance. If it only makes 250 domestically I am good. I am good because the movie Had subtance and was not just another Cash Cow only film.
Maybe it's that I never expected it to become yet another over 400 mil film this year that I don't see it as disappointing in the least. All I expected was for it to do great business and be in the top five and it's looking like it probably will. I've never seen anything getting into the top five as 'disappointing.'