Summer 2011 box office predictions - Part 1

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That's because it's a very ambitious film. It's very deep but it just fails in a lot of it's execution to me. As I said in the Avengers thread about the movie a few weeks ago, I don't care about the idea if the result is terrible.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Hey, thats fine man, not trying to change your opinion on it lol. I'm just saying some are finding a love for it.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I try to hold my resentment for that movie haha.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

LOL.

Trust me, tons of people do.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Cars 2 didn't do any better than the first movie ticket sales wise. Lame. I'm sure the studio is fine with what it did though.

 

[KangConquers]

Cars 2 didn't do any better than the first movie ticket sales wise. Lame. I'm sure the studio is fine with what it did though.

In studio spin speak

Fine= Disappointed
Happy= Fine
Ecstatic= Happy

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

In studio spin speak

Fine= Disappointed
Happy= Fine
Ecstatic= Happy

lol Thats so true it hurts.

I think that it hurts the Pixar brand to release such an obvious cash grab. And I also think that Pixar has to be reeling from the poor reviews.

The only studio that should be estatic this weekend is Sony because the reported 20million dollar Bad Teacher is going to make money no matter if it drops 60% next weekend. It's a hit already.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

In studio spin speak

Fine= Disappointed
Happy= Fine
Ecstatic= Happy

You forgot one:

Avatar overall or TDK opening money = Estatic

 

[KangConquers]

I think that it hurts the Pixar brand to release such an obvious cash grab. And I also think that Pixar has to be reeling from this poor reviews.

Cars is such an obvious weak link in the Pixar chain. I mean this is the company that made a $ 500 M+ hit starring a little robot who can basically say 3 words: his name, the name of a pesky cleaning robot, and the name of his girlfriend. This is such a brave company, one that has 90%+ ratings on RT for 9 of it's films; the two that don't? Oh yeah, those are the two Cars films.

Shame on you pixar.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Pixar's reason to releasing Cars:

$10 billion dollars in merchandising (comapred to 2.8 for Toy Story 3)

But the real platinum lining here is all that Cars-branded merchandise which parents are going to buy for their kids. Disney has put 300 or so products on the market -- Cars Kleenex, anyone? -- and Wall Street expects those licensed retail sales to total $10 billion making it the biggest movie merchandising ever. (Toy Story 3 made about $2.8 billion.) It's a supremely cynical move -- lousy movie, great crap -- that includes a videogame releasing Tuesday, ice and stage shows, and a 12-acre Cars Land expected to rejuvenate California Adventure next year. On the other hand, the Pixar brand may wind up hurt by its first bout of bad PR for a company whose first 11 feature-length animated films have earned $6.5 billion at the global box office and 29 Academy Awards. "Families (flyover or not) are deciding for themselves and disregarding reviews," an unconcerned Disney exec replies to me. "Critics not liking a movie doesn't seem like it will hurt the Pixar brand in my opinion. It will be their 12th #1 film in a row and will rank near the top for opening weekends. Should I send you a Larry the Cable Guy DVD?"

I don't need to say this, but I will: They only released Cars 2 for the money.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I get the impression Cars 2 was made as a compromise in exchange for Disney not turning around and making more Toy Story sequels or something else.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ That could be a reason. I just wish Brad Bird wasn't done with animation so we could get an Incredibles 2.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I get the impression Cars 2 was made as a compromise in exchange for Disney not turning around and making more Toy Story sequels or something else.

Hmm. I just wish that both Cars movies looked interesting to me. I refuse to see either of them on the bases that they look boring and trite.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Just like Cars, there's absolutely no need for a sequel to The Incredibles.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

You and others probably said the same thing about Toy Story 2

Sure there's no need for it, but it was probably the only Pixar film with a sequel hook.

 

[terry78]

Diz-Nee.

Sorry, but there's money to be had.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I wouldn't mind an Incredibles sequel. Does it have to be made? No but I'd go see it in a hot second if it were because it's my favorite Pixar movie.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Has POTC4 really made nearly a billion worldwide?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yep, it's only a matter of time before it hits the mark.

 

[Rocketman]

Here's some reality about Green Lantern, for those claiming that it "bombed":

10-day total = Worldwide: $118,711,000
Budget: $200 million

In 10 days, it's made more than half its budget. That's not bad at all. In another month, I'd say it breaks even. No money lost on WB's part. Just no profit.

Granted, I don't know how merchandising and marketing works, but I assume that merchandising is making a decent amount of money too.

So... it's not a bomb, technically.

 

[CB Fan]

^ Not that I care either way but I thought that it cost 300 mill?

 

[Rocketman]

^ Not that I care either way but I thought that it cost 300 mill?

Nope. Urban internet myth.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm

 

[CB Fan]

^ Well thats good as a 300 mill budget made WB look Stupid.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Well, you do realize that's only talking about production budget and not stuff like marketing and things like that, right? And that it making $100 million doesn't mean it made exactly that much, since there's also the factor of theater cut and things of this nature.

 

[DACrowe]

That's because it's a very ambitious film. It's very deep but it just fails in a lot of it's execution to me. As I said in the Avengers thread about the movie a few weeks ago, I don't care about the idea if the result is terrible.

I tend to agree. While I don't hate the movie and will stick up for it when people rank it alongside Catwoman or X3 (and GL, now), it is a failure. It has moments of greatness (like when Nick Nolte recounts to Connelly how his wife died or the scene between him and Bruce before the left field lightning bolt plot device), it is mired down with terrible effects and a comic book-styled plot that just does not work. An ambitious film that I respect as being one of the few superhero films I can count to have such high minded goals. But it still falls so far short that I didn't enjoy watching the movie the several times I did in 2003 and don't really want to see it again.

But I can understand why it is has passionate fans who defend it. I feel the same way about those who critique Batman Returns, another one of those truly visionary superhero films that tries to be more than the genre dictates and (in my mind) actually succeeds. By the same token, I will defend SM3 as an enjoyable film, not because of artistic sensibilities, but just because it has any form of sincere sensibilities instilled by Raimi and Maguire while I find many superhero movies mechanical and manufactured (I'm looking at you GL), not to mention most summer movies.