V For Vendetta Box Office Tracking Thread

[The Guard]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

 

[The Guard]

Let's face it, the film would *not* be as complex as it's graphic novel counterpart.

No, it wouldn't. What film ever is/ever has been? The film adaption of WATCHMEN will still kick the crap out of pretty much any comic book movie/adventure movie/philosophical drama ever made.

WATCHMEN as a graphic novel cannot be devalued by the film, but I couldn't help but feel that no matter how well done the film was, I'd just miss so much of the excess material.

Why? I mean seriously, there are certain aspects of the story that simply are not neccessary to tell an amazing story.

And if you have your copy of WATCHMEN, appreciate what they put onscreen and read the graphic novel to reassure yourself that it is still an amazing work. Film and comic books are two very different mediums, with different demands in translating them.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a moment in WATCHMEN that just isn't pure gold.

Agreed. And this is true of a lot of books. But how would a movie filled with moments of pure gold except for a few of them quality as a failure?

And for the record, I really liked the film version of V FOR VENDETTA, which I thought was actually superior to the graphic novel at certain moments.

So did I. And couldn't a similar approach to WATCHMEN work well? Something that keeps the essences rigidly intact, follows the main storylines, and seeks to make WATCHMEN even more timeless or relevant (most versions of the script are even more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was to it's source material).

I am not a "perfect adaptation" mongerer. I tend to give a lot of room for adaptations.

I'm not neccessarily referring to you. But I'm sure you realize that this attitude does exist.

If a WATCHMEN film is made, I'll probably go to the theatres, fall in love with it, add it to my collection, and watch it over and over again. I'm just wary of it - if they're going to do WATCHMEN, they better do it well, and I'm so afraid that a film wouldn't live up to the graphic novel. I'm not prepared to give that adaptation the leeway I gave V FOR VENDETTA.

You probably won't have to, but you should, at least, be realistic about what will translate well to screen from page. As I said, most drafts have been extremely faithful to the source material.

 

[Agentsands77]

No, it wouldn't. What film ever is/ever has been? The film adaption of WATCHMEN will still kick the crap out of pretty much any comic book movie/adventure movie/philosophical drama ever made.

Perhaps. I'm not sure that it would without all the complexity. A well-made WATCHMEN would sure as hell be the best comic book film ever made, but the best philosophical or adventure film? There's some pretty tough competition in that category. It definitely has a shot, though.

Why? I mean seriously, there are certain aspects of the story that simply are not neccessary to tell an amazing story.

Of course. I wouldn't want to see the whole "comic strip within a comic strip," etc. I'm more or less worried about losing some of the depth to each of the characters - for it's the characters that make WATCHMEN work for me, and there are just so many layers there.

I haven't read the script, but it would just seem to me that the characters would feel somewhat shortchanged, and I'd have a hard time accepting that with these characters that I love so dearly.

So did I. And couldn't a similar approach to WATCHMEN work well? Something that keeps the essences rigidly intact, follows the main storylines, and seeks to make WATCHMEN even more timeless or relevant (most versions of the script are even more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was to it's source material).

I'm not sure. V FOR VENDETTA changed a *a lot*, and honestly, I wouldn't WATCHMEN to do a lot to change things aside from leaving unnecessary stuff out. I wouldn't want to see a huge restructuring as the film adaptation of V FOR VENDETTA. I'd want to see WATCHMEN approached with a similar love and care for the source material to what Peter Jackson gave LORD OF THE RINGS, but even better crafted than those films were.

If it's not way more faithful than V FOR VENDETTA was, I'll be disappointed. It's one thing to change around V FOR VENDETTA, which I didn't think was the end-all, be-all of graphic novels (I think there are many elements of VENDETTA that don't work well), but with WATCHMEN, I'm not prepared to give anywhere near the same amount of leeway.

 

[TheVileOne]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Friday estimate for V For Vendetta is about $3.9 million. V is estimated at 3rd place for Friday.

As I predicted, it will most likely have a 50% dropoff this weekend.

 

[ThreeOfAKind]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Friday estimate for V For Vendetta is about $3.9 million. V is estimated at 3rd place for Friday.

As I predicted, it will most likely have a 50% dropoff this weekend.

Actually, that's just flat out wrong. V for Vendetta is actually now likely to have under a 50% drop off for the weekend. The approximate guess was about 50%, the average for the genre is about 60%. Vendetta is likely to do about a 44-48% decrease, which is very solid for this type of movie.

And the 3rd place will assuredly become 2nd by the end of the weekend. PG13 horror flicks always do extremely well on Friday's, there is no doubt in my mind (And any sane person's, for that matter) that V for Vendetta will dominate "Stay Alive" on Saturday and Sunday.

 

[TheVileOne]

Actually, that's just flat out wrong. V for Vendetta is actually now likely to have under a 50% drop off for the weekend. The approximate guess was about 50%, the average for the genre is about 60%. Vendetta is likely to do about a 44-48% decrease, which is very solid for this type of movie.

And the 3rd place will assuredly become 2nd by the end of the weekend. PG13 horror flicks always do extremely well on Friday's, there is no doubt in my mind (And any sane person's, for that matter) that V for Vendetta will dominate "Stay Alive" on Saturday and Sunday.

We'll see, but I did say ABOUT 50%. 48% is pretty close to 50, bleh .

 

[superion]

It made $8,742,504 its opening Friday.

It made $3,970,000 this Friday.

Thats a drop of 54.6% per the numbers from box office mojo.

 

[War Party]

The less money it makes in theaters, the quicker we get it on dvd. Even though I would love to see it make a lot of money. Looking forward to it anyway though.

 

[ThreeOfAKind]

BOM has the drop at 51%, HSX has the drop at 49% and SBD should have the drop around 48%.

It did tear apart Stay Alive for the remainder of the weekend though, as planned.

From here on out you will see if the movie has good "legs". The third fourth and fifth weekend is really when "legs" comes into play.

 

[TheVileOne]

BOM has the drop at 51%, HSX has the drop at 49% and SBD should have the drop around 48%.

It did tear apart Stay Alive for the remainder of the weekend though, as planned.

From here on out you will see if the movie has good "legs". The third fourth and fifth weekend is really when "legs" comes into play.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

So much for 50% being FLAT OUT WRONG.

 

[Nivek]

The god's did listen to my wishes, Larry the Cable-guys movie wasn't even in the top 5!

I was actually worried it would've been the number 1 film this weekend.

 

[Cinemaman]

Now i think it will hardly make $85m, what is good for movie with $55m budget.

 

[Nivek]

Well, I hope it does well, but I must point out that V is a stand alone movie. It's not like Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, or Daredevil where it's trying to establish an audience for possible sequels. Concidering how box office is changing, and that this isn't a summer film, I think it did damn good, myself.

 

[GL's Light]

It looks like it'll top out somewhere between $ 65 - 75 m. Whether it ends up a slight disappointment or a solid success now rests in how it does in foreign markets. I thought it would do better in foreign markets than domestically, but it's off to a relatively poor start in most territories.

 

[Cinemaman]

My forecast.

Domestic: $85m.
Overseas: $58m.
Worldwide: $143m.

 

[Nivek]

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.

 

[Darthphere]

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.

Thats not a rule of thumb but yeah.

 

[GL's Light]

Still, for the $54 million budget, and given it's very touchy subject matter, thats is still damn good. 3X the budget in Hollywood justifies it being a hit.

That's true - if it makes 3X its budget. Not clear yet that it will. The worldwide box office could be 2X its budget, which wouldn't be that great. We'll have to wait for more data before judging the level of its success.

 

[Nivek]

Well, thats why people are quick to label films as bombs anymore, because they dont see where the money goes. Something like Kong is labelled as a bomb because it "only" pulled in $500 million really just shows how ******ed people judge box office as some sort of gauge. Theres not any need for a sequel for Kong, it's a one shot, why does Box office really even matter when you stop and think about it? I can see for establishing a franchise, but every genre film doesn't need to be pulling in globs of cash to justify it being a good film.

And besides, it's not like it was 10-15 years ago, people know it will be out on DVD in 4-6 months so they can watch it at home on their 52" HD flatscreen with surround sound without having to deal with other people and bad seating. You want to know why theres a box office slump? Because after seeing it once, people are more willing to wait for DVD than they were VHS years ago, or dealing with theatre crowds again and again. I know personally I cant wait to own it.

And also as a note, films where the title character dies are never going to bring back that much B.O., its too much of a downer man.

 

[Cinemaman]

For VFV will not be hard to make more than budget is.

 

[GL's Light]

Well, thats why people are quick to label films as bombs anymore, because they dont see where the money goes. Something like Kong is labelled as a bomb because it "only" pulled in $500 million really just shows how ******ed people judge box office as some sort of gauge. Theres not any need for a sequel for Kong, it's a one shot, why does Box office really even matter when you stop and think about it? I can see for establishing a franchise, but every genre film doesn't need to be pulling in globs of cash to justify it being a good film.

Hollywood has a pack mentality. If a certain genre throws up a string of box office disappointments then they'll be reticent to greenlight more films of that genre. That's why I pay close attention to the BO of comic book films. It's a matter completely separate from quality.

 

[Nivek]

Hollywood has a pack mentality. If a certain genre throws up a string of box office disappointments then they'll be reticent to greenlight more films of that genre. That's why I pay close attention to the BO of comic book films. It's a matter completely separate from quality.

But this Hollywood Studio Accountant mentality of judging success from the last 10 years is on the way out. You cant really figure Box office sales as much, concidering technology has finally gotten to the point where Joe Average can have a better film watching exsperience in his own home. They have to start looking at the revenue generated by DVD sales as well. I know the number of films I see in the theatre a year has dropped significantly, mostly because of inconsiderate people inhibiting my film exsperience, the quality of projected films, and conditions of the theatre itself.

 

[GL's Light]

But this Hollywood Studio Accountant mentality of judging success from the last 10 years is on the way out. You cant really figure Box office sales as much, concidering technology has finally gotten to the point where Joe Average can have a better film watching exsperience in his own home. They have to start looking at the revenue generated by DVD sales as well. I know the number of films I see in the theatre a year has dropped significantly, mostly because of inconsiderate people inhibiting my film exsperience, the quality of projected films, and conditions of the theatre itself.

I almost always wait for DVD myself, for the same reasons you outlined.

DVD revenue is extremely important, and it is taken into account by the studios. The problem is the enormous cost of making, marketing, and distributing films means that a film needs to perform well both at the theatrical BO and on DVD to be judged a success.

Many films are still in the red when their theatrical run ends, and DVD revenue has to overcome that deficit and then some to push the film into profit. This is even true of a lot of films considered to be hits.

 

[Nivek]

Agreed, I just get sick of the people calling a film like Kong a bomb.

You want a bomb, look at that Larry the Cable Guy film, now THAT sir, is a bomb. I should've been more supportive because it was filmed here last year (support the local film making community and all that jazz), but I can only take so much.

But I never understood why people suddenly started weighing the box office draw over word of mouth and critical praise for how good a film is. It shows alot of people watched it, but Im more curious to who wants to see it again as a better gauge.

 

[Octoberist]

A.) V for Vendetta is not meant to be a blockbuster. I never had the notion that it would break records. However, 'V' like 'Sin City' before it, will be a moderate hit (for a March) but it's sucess will lie with it's critical raves.

B.) Is Larry suppose to be a Cable Guy...or a Health Inspector? Either way, the movie looked like rubbish!