| Author |
Message |
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
|
Spider-Man 3 or Star Wars.
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
snack
Extraordinary
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 12159
|
 jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: POTC was a fluke. That is a meaningless comment. All hugely successful phenominons are at least partial flukes. The audience is still there for a sequel, as they are there for the next Star Wars and the next Spider-Man and The Hobbit and the next Harry Potter film. Quote: They can't repeat that. It would like repeating the success of Forest Gump and Sixth Sense with sequels. Not going to happen. A Forrest Gump sequel (there is a sequel to the novel, I think it is called Gump & Co.) at the right time, two or three years after the origional, would have been massively successful. The Sixth Sense was a one trick pony that revealed all it had in its last act. Neither of these two comparisons make any sense when talking about Pirates of the Caribbean. Quote: Spiderman is "the least successful" franchise in the top 25. Just check the facts. I'm not big on Spider-Man, I think the movies are awful, but this comment is absolutely ridiculous. Quote: I am not saying EP3 will gross 50 mil. in one day. It is part of the "Most Successful movie Franchise" in history and doesn't have to prove itself to 2, 3 or the bottom feeders of top 25 like SM. Sounds like sour grapes from a Star Wars fan. The position of Star Wars at the top of the "successful franchise" list is not what this topic is about. Number Movie Gross Studio Cost Profit 1 Titanic 1845 923 240 683 2 ROTK 1119 559 144 415 6 JP 915 457 78 379 13 E.T. 793 396 20 376 17 EP4 775 388 20 368 5 EP1 925 462 130 332 4 TTT 926 463 139 324 3 HP1 977 488 165 323 7 Shrek 2 879 439 120 319 15 Lion King 784 392 75 317 10 Nemo 865 432 130 302 9 FOTR 871 436 143 293 8 HP2 877 438 150 288 12 ID4 817 409 130 279 20 Sixth Sens 673 336 75 261 19 Forrest Gu 677 339 80 259 24 Passion 610 305 55 250 11 Spider-Man 822 411 189 222 14 HP3 788 394 180 214 23 JP2 619 309 100 209 22 EP2 650 325 140 185 25 Men in Bla 589 295 120 175 18 Reloaded 739 369 200 169 21 POTC 654 327 180 147 16 SM2 782 391 250 141 Here are the top 25 WW grosses of all time. Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. SM 2 is the least profitable movie in the top 25. SM franchise is the least profitable franchise in the top25. Check the facts before you open your mouth. Response: No.
My Guess: Shrek 7
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
snack
Extraordinary
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 12159
|
jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: POTC was a fluke. That is a meaningless comment. All hugely successful phenominons are at least partial flukes. The audience is still there for a sequel, as they are there for the next Star Wars and the next Spider-Man and The Hobbit and the next Harry Potter film. Quote: They can't repeat that. It would like repeating the success of Forest Gump and Sixth Sense with sequels. Not going to happen. A Forrest Gump sequel (there is a sequel to the novel, I think it is called Gump & Co.) at the right time, two or three years after the origional, would have been massively successful. The Sixth Sense was a one trick pony that revealed all it had in its last act. Neither of these two comparisons make any sense when talking about Pirates of the Caribbean. Quote: Spiderman is "the least successful" franchise in the top 25. Just check the facts. I'm not big on Spider-Man, I think the movies are awful, but this comment is absolutely ridiculous. Quote: I am not saying EP3 will gross 50 mil. in one day. It is part of the "Most Successful movie Franchise" in history and doesn't have to prove itself to 2, 3 or the bottom feeders of top 25 like SM. Sounds like sour grapes from a Star Wars fan. The position of Star Wars at the top of the "successful franchise" list is not what this topic is about. Number Movie Gross Studio Cost Profit 1 Titanic 1845 923 240 683 2 ROTK 1119 559 144 415 6 JP 915 457 78 379 13 E.T. 793 396 20 376 17 EP4 775 388 20 368 5 EP1 925 462 130 332 4 TTT 926 463 139 324 3 HP1 977 488 165 323 7 Shrek 2 879 439 120 319 15 Lion King 784 392 75 317 10 Nemo 865 432 130 302 9 FOTR 871 436 143 293 8 HP2 877 438 150 288 12 ID4 817 409 130 279 20 Sixth Sens 673 336 75 261 19 Forrest Gu 677 339 80 259 24 Passion 610 305 55 250 11 Spider-Man 822 411 189 222 14 HP3 788 394 180 214 23 JP2 619 309 100 209 22 EP2 650 325 140 185 25 Men in Bla 589 295 120 175 18 Reloaded 739 369 200 169 21 POTC 654 327 180 147 16 SM2 782 391 250 141 Here are the top 25 WW grosses of all time. Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. SM 2 is the least profitable movie in the top 25. SM franchise is the least profitable franchise in the top25. Check the facts before you open your mouth. Response: No.
My Guess: Shrek 7
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
snack
Extraordinary
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 12159
|
jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: POTC was a fluke. That is a meaningless comment. All hugely successful phenominons are at least partial flukes. The audience is still there for a sequel, as they are there for the next Star Wars and the next Spider-Man and The Hobbit and the next Harry Potter film. Quote: They can't repeat that. It would like repeating the success of Forest Gump and Sixth Sense with sequels. Not going to happen. A Forrest Gump sequel (there is a sequel to the novel, I think it is called Gump & Co.) at the right time, two or three years after the origional, would have been massively successful. The Sixth Sense was a one trick pony that revealed all it had in its last act. Neither of these two comparisons make any sense when talking about Pirates of the Caribbean. Quote: Spiderman is "the least successful" franchise in the top 25. Just check the facts. I'm not big on Spider-Man, I think the movies are awful, but this comment is absolutely ridiculous. Quote: I am not saying EP3 will gross 50 mil. in one day. It is part of the "Most Successful movie Franchise" in history and doesn't have to prove itself to 2, 3 or the bottom feeders of top 25 like SM. Sounds like sour grapes from a Star Wars fan. The position of Star Wars at the top of the "successful franchise" list is not what this topic is about. Number Movie Gross Studio Cost Profit 1 Titanic 1845 923 240 683 2 ROTK 1119 559 144 415 6 JP 915 457 78 379 13 E.T. 793 396 20 376 17 EP4 775 388 20 368 5 EP1 925 462 130 332 4 TTT 926 463 139 324 3 HP1 977 488 165 323 7 Shrek 2 879 439 120 319 15 Lion King 784 392 75 317 10 Nemo 865 432 130 302 9 FOTR 871 436 143 293 8 HP2 877 438 150 288 12 ID4 817 409 130 279 20 Sixth Sens 673 336 75 261 19 Forrest Gu 677 339 80 259 24 Passion 610 305 55 250 11 Spider-Man 822 411 189 222 14 HP3 788 394 180 214 23 JP2 619 309 100 209 22 EP2 650 325 140 185 25 Men in Bla 589 295 120 175 18 Reloaded 739 369 200 169 21 POTC 654 327 180 147 16 SM2 782 391 250 141 Here are the top 25 WW grosses of all time. Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. SM 2 is the least profitable movie in the top 25. SM franchise is the least profitable franchise in the top25. Check the facts before you open your mouth. Response: No.
My Guess: Shrek 7
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:10 pm |
|
|
|
andaroo1
Lord of filth
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 9566
|
jb007 wrote: Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. You most certainly do not. The formula is inconsistant and doesn't work from picture to picture. A rough guess at best? We may as well be using adjusted dollars if you want to use theoretical money.
If you are going to try to make a case, you should do it on real data you can actually pull from.
You have also changed your position that being "successful" now means "profits", a slight change in your argument.
Try again later, bucko, you might have a shot at the debate team yet.
I also find it funny that you are making a case against the case of Spider-Man when it has two entries instead of 5 (like Star Wars) or 3 (like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings) does Men In Black or The Matrix Reloaded not count because you didn't want to stretch beyond the invisible line of the 25th position on the chart, or you just wanted to make a point that you are hard up for Star Wars?
You make me defend Spider-Man's success, and for that, I loathe you.
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. You most certainly do not. The formula is inconsistant and doesn't work from picture to picture. A rough guess at best? We may as well be using adjusted dollars if you want to use theoretical money. If you are going to try to make a case, you should do it on real data you can actually pull from. You have also changed your position that being "successful" now means "profits", a slight change in your argument. Try again later, bucko, you might have a shot at the debate team yet. You are a genius  Nobody other than some impressionable teenagers gives a hoot about the gross. Success is based on profit not gross, as anybody with common sense would know.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:16 pm |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
andaroo,
Let me make sure, according to you Van Helsing(210 mil. cost) at approx. 300 mil. ww gross would be a bigger SUCCESS than F911 (16 mil. cost) with about 230 mil. in WW gross.
You lack a lot more than just debating skills, bud.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Moviebuf
Angels & Demons
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:44 pm
Posts: 270
|
jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: POTC was a fluke. That is a meaningless comment. All hugely successful phenominons are at least partial flukes. The audience is still there for a sequel, as they are there for the next Star Wars and the next Spider-Man and The Hobbit and the next Harry Potter film. Quote: They can't repeat that. It would like repeating the success of Forest Gump and Sixth Sense with sequels. Not going to happen. A Forrest Gump sequel (there is a sequel to the novel, I think it is called Gump & Co.) at the right time, two or three years after the origional, would have been massively successful. The Sixth Sense was a one trick pony that revealed all it had in its last act. Neither of these two comparisons make any sense when talking about Pirates of the Caribbean. Quote: Spiderman is "the least successful" franchise in the top 25. Just check the facts. I'm not big on Spider-Man, I think the movies are awful, but this comment is absolutely ridiculous. Quote: I am not saying EP3 will gross 50 mil. in one day. It is part of the "Most Successful movie Franchise" in history and doesn't have to prove itself to 2, 3 or the bottom feeders of top 25 like SM. Sounds like sour grapes from a Star Wars fan. The position of Star Wars at the top of the "successful franchise" list is not what this topic is about. Number Movie Gross Studio Cost Profit 1 Titanic 1845 923 240 683 2 ROTK 1119 559 144 415 6 JP 915 457 78 379 13 E.T. 793 396 20 376 17 EP4 775 388 20 368 5 EP1 925 462 130 332 4 TTT 926 463 139 324 3 HP1 977 488 165 323 7 Shrek 2 879 439 120 319 15 Lion King 784 392 75 317 10 Nemo 865 432 130 302 9 FOTR 871 436 143 293 8 HP2 877 438 150 288 12 ID4 817 409 130 279 20 Sixth Sens 673 336 75 261 19 Forrest Gu 677 339 80 259 24 Passion 610 305 55 250 11 Spider-Man 822 411 189 222 14 HP3 788 394 180 214 23 JP2 619 309 100 209 22 EP2 650 325 140 185 25 Men in Bla 589 295 120 175 18 Reloaded 739 369 200 169 21 POTC 654 327 180 147 16 SM2 782 391 250 141 Here are the top 25 WW grosses of all time. Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. SM 2 is the least profitable movie in the top 25. SM franchise is the least profitable franchise in the top25. Check the facts before you open your mouth. You said "Least Successful" not least profitable.
Anyway, I would say The Hobbit, because it probably is not coming out until like 2008 and by that time movie ticket prices will be WAY up and the anticipation for The Hobbit will be out of this world.
_________________
Proclaimed King of Loonies!
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:39 am |
|
|
|
Moviebuf
Angels & Demons
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:44 pm
Posts: 270
|
jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. You most certainly do not. The formula is inconsistant and doesn't work from picture to picture. A rough guess at best? We may as well be using adjusted dollars if you want to use theoretical money. If you are going to try to make a case, you should do it on real data you can actually pull from. You have also changed your position that being "successful" now means "profits", a slight change in your argument. Try again later, bucko, you might have a shot at the debate team yet. You are a genius Nobody other than some impressionable teenagers gives a hoot about the gross. Success is based on profit not gross, as anybody with common sense would know. People have many different ideas of what Success means, it is a SELF DEFINING term. Whatever a person thinks success is, success is for that person...period.
You can't make an argument based on your opinion of success then attack a person cause they are defending their definition of success. You need to say "most profitable." That way you have nothing to worry about.
_________________
Proclaimed King of Loonies!
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:43 am |
|
|
|
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
|
Harry Potter 5 has the best chance as of right now.
KJ
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:50 am |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
Moviebuf wrote: jb007 wrote: andaroo wrote: jb007 wrote: Taking 50% of the gross as studio take and deducting the cost, you get the profit for each movie. You most certainly do not. The formula is inconsistant and doesn't work from picture to picture. A rough guess at best? We may as well be using adjusted dollars if you want to use theoretical money. If you are going to try to make a case, you should do it on real data you can actually pull from. You have also changed your position that being "successful" now means "profits", a slight change in your argument. Try again later, bucko, you might have a shot at the debate team yet. You are a genius Nobody other than some impressionable teenagers gives a hoot about the gross. Success is based on profit not gross, as anybody with common sense would know. People have many different ideas of what Success means, it is a SELF DEFINING term. Whatever a person thinks success is, success is for that person...period. You can't make an argument based on your opinion of success then attack a person cause they are defending their definition of success. You need to say "most profitable." That way you have nothing to worry about. Ok. SM2 is the "Least Profitable" movie in the top 25. SM Franchise is the "Least Profitable" in the top 25 movies.
LOTR 3 Movies - 344 mil. Av
SW - 3 Movies - 295 mil. Av
JP - 2 Movies - 294 mil. Av.
HP - 3 Movies - 275 mil. Av.
SM - 2 Movies - 182 mil. Av.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:22 am |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
|
jb007 wrote: Ok. SM2 is the "Least Profitable" movie in the top 25. SM Franchise is the "Least Profitable" in the top 25 movies.
LOTR 3 Movies - 344 mil. Av
SW - 3 Movies - 295 mil. Av
JP - 2 Movies - 294 mil. Av.
HP - 3 Movies - 275 mil. Av.
SM - 2 Movies - 182 mil. Av. So what? You were responding to my point that SW was a franchise in decline in terms of BO grosses as well as my statement that Spiderman as a franchise was declining less in terms of BO grosses (a fact). Profitability is not relevent.
I might also add that the formula you use greatly oversimplifies things. You can bet that SM got a whole lot more then 50% of the gross. The first week, which was made to maximize the gross, no doubt gave them a much higher percentage. It also doesn't take into account other very important factors such as DVD sales. So to say SM 2 is the least profitable of the top 25 is likely untrue.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:53 am |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
DP07 wrote: jb007 wrote: Ok. SM2 is the "Least Profitable" movie in the top 25. SM Franchise is the "Least Profitable" in the top 25 movies.
LOTR 3 Movies - 344 mil. Av
SW - 3 Movies - 295 mil. Av
JP - 2 Movies - 294 mil. Av.
HP - 3 Movies - 275 mil. Av.
SM - 2 Movies - 182 mil. Av. So what? You were responding to my point that SW was a franchise in decline in terms of BO grosses as well as my statement that Spiderman as a franchise was declining less in terms of BO grosses (a fact). Profitability is not relevent. I might also add that the formula you use greatly oversimplifies things. You can bet that SM got a whole lot more then 50% of the gross. The first week, which was made to maximize the gross, no doubt gave them a much higher percentage. It also doesn't take into account other very important factors such as DVD sales. So to say SM 2 is the least profitable of the top 25 is likely untrue. You mentioned SW is declining based on WW gross. Don't change the subject by bringing DVD sales. If you include video/DVD sales Shrek 1 (not Shrek2) crushes SM 1.
I don't think SM would have gotten more than the normal 55% domestic in the US. SM2 could have gotten a little bit more. By that standard, Lucas got 70% for the first 4 weeks of TPM and AOTC.
But overseas the movies probably get 40 percent of the gross. Hence the 50% studio take for the total. It is somewhat simplified, but far better than saying SM2 is more profitable than Passion based on grosses alone, which it clearly is not. I am pretty sure even in DVD sales Passion will beat SM2 handily.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 68375
|
First $50 Million day, hmmmmmmmmm:
Spiderman 3 most probably, although i'd like War of the Worlds to take it, even though i dont think it is gonna be that type of film, but i think it is gonna be big.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG
FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
FREE TIBET
LIBERATE HONG KONG
BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm
Posts: 21572
|
SW3-possible but not likely considering Lucas' history with low theater counts and the prequels seem to disappoint with each release
Batman Begins-it could happen since the first three Batman movies did break opening records when they were first released
Superman Returns-it could happen too since Singer is going to base it off the climax at Superman 2. Another fact is that the first Superman released broke first day opening records when it came out in 1978 thus setting off the trend of other movies breaking opening records.
Indiana Jones-it depends how well its going to be received with a fading A list actor but a still strong Spielberg and Lucas
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
neo_wolf
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Posts: 11033
|
It also depends on how long is the film.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
Shrek 3.
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
Passionate Thug
Top Poster
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:01 am
Posts: 5264
Location: Wakanda
|
I don't think it will ever happen until average ticket prices rise another .50- .75 cents or a 4000+ T.C. movie has a $12500 PTA
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
|
Matrix Preloaded: Part 4 Prequel to....
Perhaps Batman or Spiderman 3. But unlikely.
King Kong??: I dont think so. I guess Jackson will make a 200 Min King Kong so we have the Problem with less showings and then its a hard way.
_________________Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15573
Location: Everywhere
|
jb007 wrote: DP07 wrote: jb007 wrote: Ok. SM2 is the "Least Profitable" movie in the top 25. SM Franchise is the "Least Profitable" in the top 25 movies.
LOTR 3 Movies - 344 mil. Av
SW - 3 Movies - 295 mil. Av
JP - 2 Movies - 294 mil. Av.
HP - 3 Movies - 275 mil. Av.
SM - 2 Movies - 182 mil. Av. So what? You were responding to my point that SW was a franchise in decline in terms of BO grosses as well as my statement that Spiderman as a franchise was declining less in terms of BO grosses (a fact). Profitability is not relevent. I might also add that the formula you use greatly oversimplifies things. You can bet that SM got a whole lot more then 50% of the gross. The first week, which was made to maximize the gross, no doubt gave them a much higher percentage. It also doesn't take into account other very important factors such as DVD sales. So to say SM 2 is the least profitable of the top 25 is likely untrue. You mentioned SW is declining based on WW gross. Don't change the subject by bringing DVD sales. If you include video/DVD sales Shrek 1 (not Shrek2) crushes SM 1. Yes, I said that SW is declining based on gross. I'm hardly changing the subject, but I simply had to respond to your oversimlified claims about profitability. DVD sales are very important to profitability. So, what if Shrek was more profitable then SM. That might very well be the case, but you are just changing the subject. Quote: I don't think SM would have gotten more than the normal 55% domestic in the US. SM2 could have gotten a little bit more. You don't think so? Why not? I'm certain it did. You have nothing to base this on though, and any attempts like this to estimate profitability are going to be inaccurate at best. Quote: By that standard, Lucas got 70% for the first 4 weeks of TPM and AOTC. I easily could have been the same for SM2. It certainly had enough market power to demand a number like that. But, the point is we don't know. Quote: But overseas the movies probably get 40 percent of the gross. Hence the 50% studio take for the total. It is somewhat simplified, but far better than saying SM2 is more profitable than Passion based on grosses alone, which it clearly is not. I am pretty sure even in DVD sales Passion will beat SM2 handily. More speculation.
|
| Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Tyler
Powered By Hate
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:55 pm
Posts: 7578
Location: Torrington, CT
|
Hmm...
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:32 pm |
|
|
|
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm
Posts: 7087
Location: Crystal Lake
|
Great thread to bring back up.
Congrats to SW and its squeaking by the 50 mill mark.
_________________
Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
Last edited by baumer72 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:45 pm |
|
|
|
Jonathan
Begging Naked
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:07 pm
Posts: 14737
Location: The Present (Duh)
|
DP07 wrote: rusty wrote: Star Wars has a shot if it gets massively hyped up. No way. The fanchise has been in decline, and it doesn't open on a friday. I would say Batman has an outside chance. 50m Friday would probably be a weekend of 115m-120m. Possible IMO. Superman could do it too. However, I would say the best chance is the POTC sequel. Ifthat doesn't do it (which I doubt) I would give it to Spiderman 3, which will once again open on a Friday. As  worthy as that BB comment is, great call on POTC2, 21 months in advance, even if that franchise in decline beat it to the punch.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22214
Location: Places
|
look at dp07s first post  _________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Jiffy
Forum General
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:27 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: New York
|
Oh c'mon guys, why don't we bump up some of you guys' really bad predictions from years ago, heh.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:23 pm |
|
|
