| Author |
Message |
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
|
 You Know What's Sad? Batman Begins and War of the Worlds combined could end up with less than Shrek 2 aka Crapfest #1 did last year...
And SW3 will more or less end up in SM2 territory.
What a pathetic summer.
[ This thread will be reserved for future bitching about summer 2005. ]
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:55 am |
 
|
|
|
Harry Warden
Orphan
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:47 pm
Posts: 19747
|
Yeah, Shrek 2 really was awful, wasn't it? So cliched after the much better original.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:57 am |
|
|
|
MGKC
---------
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 11808
Location: Kansas City, Kansas
|
Obviously there's still 1 other film......
and it's...
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory!
Not really, but War of the Worlds still has a chance of a huge gross.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
|
Joe wrote: Yeah, Shrek 2 really was awful, wasn't it? So cliched after the much better original. Oh, and how.
Btw, word is WOTW might not be so good 
Obviously, too early to tell, but if that is true, this year will be in even greater trouble. _________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:58 am |
|
|
|
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
|
A look at the yearly charts (2004+2005) shows that is pretty bad at the moment. This year will fail to increase total Box office gross from last year.
_________________Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
|
Well realisticly as soon as I heard they made critics sign non-disclosure agreements I knew the film wasn't going to be as good as I had hoped.
I still think it could be 'fun'.
God I hate Shrek 2. It crushed HP3  _________________
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm
Posts: 7286
Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
Who cares????????
Here's another BO is more important than quality.
**************************
Nuf said
Go watch Titantic and Gone with the Wind then
Some of the greatest BO movies of all-time.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm
Posts: 3917
Location: Las Vegas
|
Same old shit, Box. You keep writing about the same shitty bad summer shit. Go get a life. 
_________________
Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006
The Greatest Actor Ever.
Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
Last edited by jb007 on Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
|
:Sleep:
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm
Posts: 7286
Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
Eagle wrote: Well realisticly as soon as I heard they made critics sign non-disclosure agreements I knew the film wasn't going to be as good as I had hoped. I still think it could be 'fun'. God I hate Shrek 2. It crushed HP3 That could just be a corporate policy or something
You can't put too much in that
*****************************
Maybe they don't want the secerts of the ending / aliens / etc. revealed too early.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm
Posts: 21572
|
Not in a way of putting down War of the Worlds but didnt they have a huge screening in Japan but we rarely ever hear any of the reviews at all coming from there. I also dont like how they make the critics sign a waver because even though it may not be true, it gives the impression that they wont let them release their reviews because they think it will not be a positive one and will affect the movie. I know it may not be true since M Night did the same thing for other critics but look at how that destroyed the Village's potential. I think they should just let critics release their reviews no matter what since most of the spoilers can be found on the net anyway for those who want to know about the movie
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:17 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
El_Masked_esteROIDe_user wrote: Not in a way of putting down War of the Worlds but didnt they have a huge screening in Japan but we rarely ever hear any of the reviews at all coming from there. I also dont like how they make the critics sign a waver because even though it may not be true, it gives the impression that they wont let them release their reviews because they think it will not be a positive one and will affect the movie. I know it may not be true since M Night did the same thing for other critics but look at how that destroyed the Village's potential. I think they should just let critics release their reviews no matter what since most of the spoilers can be found on the net anyway for those who want to know about the movie I'm all over War and I can only find snippets here and there of info.
Something's up with War. I can't quite place it.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
Goldie
Forum General
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:38 pm
Posts: 7286
Location: TOP*SECRET ******************** ******************** ******************** ********************
|
El_Masked_esteROIDe_user wrote: Not in a way of putting down War of the Worlds but didnt they have a huge screening in Japan but we rarely ever hear any of the reviews at all coming from there. I also dont like how they make the critics sign a waver because even though it may not be true, it gives the impression that they wont let them release their reviews because they think it will not be a positive one and will affect the movie. I know it may not be true since M Night did the same thing for other critics but look at how that destroyed the Village's potential. I think they should just let critics release their reviews no matter what since most of the spoilers can be found on the net anyway for those who want to know about the movie They have early screenings to space them out so the stars can be at them.
And then the critcs can release their reviews on or before opening day.
I don't think that is so bad.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
|
Devin at CHUD had this to say on WOTW:
Devin Feraci wrote: I can't give an official review until Wednesday, but I can tell you this - War of the Worlds is a damn good movie. It's like the Spielberg who made Jaws and the Spielberg who made Jurassic Park decided to get together and kick humanity's ass. and this: Devin Feraci wrote: My review is embargoed until release, but I don't think that Paramount is going to mind too much if I tell you that this is a damn good movie. Nothing I had seen had led me to believe that the film would be as good as it is. War of the Worlds is scary, smart and just plain well made.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:42 pm |
|
|
|
Kris K
Horror Hound
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:44 pm
Posts: 6228
|
Woah, woah.....wait.
Did anyone actually THINK that a big budget alien action movie would get raving reviews?
Emmm.....okay. Whatever.
I think i'm the only one that thinks this is going to do brilliant with over $70,000,000 in it's first 3 days.
The FANTASTIC FOUR will follow with a $35,000,000 opening and DARK WATER with a $17,000,000 opening.
Then CHARLIE, STEALTH, DUKES, ISLAND and the slew of horror movies in AUGUST will help summer.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:52 pm |
|
|
|
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm
Posts: 14631
Location: Pittsburgh
|
Considering the movie is helmed by Speilberg, yes I did expect over 60% fresh.
_________________
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:23 pm |
|
|
|
scottb
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:50 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
|
I'm thinking WOTW could be this year's ID4. I mean ID4 didn't have stellar reviews but still made a boat load of money at the box office.
Oh and by the way all this talk about the 2005 box office underperforming 2004 and the panic surrounding it isn't called for. If 2005 ends up with a decline over 2004, it wouldn't be unheard of for such a thing to happen. The years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1991 all saw declines but the box office managed to rebound in following years, so lets not start predicting doom yet.
_________________
All time North American box office.
1. Titanic - $600.8m
2. Star Wars - $461.0m
3. Shrek 2 - $441.2m
4. E.T. the Extra Terrestrial - $435.1m
5. The Phantom Menace - $431.1m
6. Spider-Man - $403.7m
7. Revenge of the Sith - $380.3m
8. Return of the King - $377.0m
9. Spider-Man 2 - $373.6m
10. The Passion of the Christ - $370.8m
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:32 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
scottb wrote: I'm thinking WOTW could be this year's ID4. I mean ID4 didn't have stellar reviews but still made a boat load of money at the box office.
Oh and by the way all this talk about the 2005 box office underperforming 2004 and the panic surrounding it isn't called for. If 2005 ends up with a decline over 2004, it wouldn't be unheard of for such a thing to happen. The years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1991 all saw declines but the box office managed to rebound in following years, so lets not start predicting doom yet. Yeah, but those years didn't have DVD, VOD, etc...
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
scottb
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:50 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: scottb wrote: I'm thinking WOTW could be this year's ID4. I mean ID4 didn't have stellar reviews but still made a boat load of money at the box office.
Oh and by the way all this talk about the 2005 box office underperforming 2004 and the panic surrounding it isn't called for. If 2005 ends up with a decline over 2004, it wouldn't be unheard of for such a thing to happen. The years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1991 all saw declines but the box office managed to rebound in following years, so lets not start predicting doom yet. Yeah, but those years didn't have DVD, VOD, etc... Last year did, and so did the year before. So I think the decline has nothing to do with DVD, or VOD its just the lack of interest people have for the current crop of movies. I should know I work in a DVD retail place and buisness isn't exactly booming over last year in relation to the decline at the box office. If you've noticed this year's lack of sequels vs recent years you can see why the box office might be down a tad. Sequels are the bread and butter of the summer box office and really the only sequels so far this summer have been Revenge of the Sith and Batman Begins. Last summer 4 of the top 5 grossers were sequels so if you remove 2 of those sequels, and well 2004 doesn't look as good next to 2005.
_________________
All time North American box office.
1. Titanic - $600.8m
2. Star Wars - $461.0m
3. Shrek 2 - $441.2m
4. E.T. the Extra Terrestrial - $435.1m
5. The Phantom Menace - $431.1m
6. Spider-Man - $403.7m
7. Revenge of the Sith - $380.3m
8. Return of the King - $377.0m
9. Spider-Man 2 - $373.6m
10. The Passion of the Christ - $370.8m
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:24 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
scottb wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: scottb wrote: I'm thinking WOTW could be this year's ID4. I mean ID4 didn't have stellar reviews but still made a boat load of money at the box office.
Oh and by the way all this talk about the 2005 box office underperforming 2004 and the panic surrounding it isn't called for. If 2005 ends up with a decline over 2004, it wouldn't be unheard of for such a thing to happen. The years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1991 all saw declines but the box office managed to rebound in following years, so lets not start predicting doom yet. Yeah, but those years didn't have DVD, VOD, etc... Last year did, and so did the year before. So I think the decline has nothing to do with DVD, or VOD its just the lack of interest people have for the current crop of movies. I should know I work in a DVD retail place and buisness isn't exactly booming over last year in relation to the decline at the box office. If you've noticed this year's lack of sequels vs recent years you can see why the box office might be down a tad. Sequels are the bread and butter of the summer box office and really the only sequels so far this summer have been Revenge of the Sith and Batman Begins. Last summer 4 of the top 5 grossers were sequels so if you remove 2 of those sequels, and well 2004 doesn't look as good next to 2005. I own more DVD titles than some stores so I would have to consider myself a bit knowledgeable on the subject. You can't compare 2005 to 1980, 1985, or even 1991.
Shrinking theater to DVD release windows and options like VOD, along with weak product, and rising gas prices are all factors. Sequels, remakes, adaptations, it's not as if Hollywood in 2005 is deviating from the norm. It's definitely the same ole, same ole.
The writing is on the wall.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:38 pm |
|
|
|
scottb
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:50 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: scottb wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: scottb wrote: I'm thinking WOTW could be this year's ID4. I mean ID4 didn't have stellar reviews but still made a boat load of money at the box office.
Oh and by the way all this talk about the 2005 box office underperforming 2004 and the panic surrounding it isn't called for. If 2005 ends up with a decline over 2004, it wouldn't be unheard of for such a thing to happen. The years 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1991 all saw declines but the box office managed to rebound in following years, so lets not start predicting doom yet. Yeah, but those years didn't have DVD, VOD, etc... Last year did, and so did the year before. So I think the decline has nothing to do with DVD, or VOD its just the lack of interest people have for the current crop of movies. I should know I work in a DVD retail place and buisness isn't exactly booming over last year in relation to the decline at the box office. If you've noticed this year's lack of sequels vs recent years you can see why the box office might be down a tad. Sequels are the bread and butter of the summer box office and really the only sequels so far this summer have been Revenge of the Sith and Batman Begins. Last summer 4 of the top 5 grossers were sequels so if you remove 2 of those sequels, and well 2004 doesn't look as good next to 2005. I own more DVD titles than some stores so I would have to consider myself a bit knowledgeable on the subject. You can't compare 2005 to 1980, 1985, or even 1991. Shrinking theater to DVD release windows and options like VOD, along with weak product, and rising gas prices are all factors. Sequels, remakes, adaptations, it's not as if Hollywood in 2005 is deviating from the norm. It's definitely the same ole, same ole. The writing is on the wall. Yeah but you can compare 2005 to 2004 which also had DVD, and VOD. If you look here http://www.entdata.com/charts/seasonal.html you can see 2005 is only down 7% from last year at this point. Thats not a number that can't be overcome later in the year its not like 2004 is blowing 2005 out of the water. 2004 had the Olympics in the fall and an ok holiday slate so its very possible that 2005 still ends up higher then last year.
_________________
All time North American box office.
1. Titanic - $600.8m
2. Star Wars - $461.0m
3. Shrek 2 - $441.2m
4. E.T. the Extra Terrestrial - $435.1m
5. The Phantom Menace - $431.1m
6. Spider-Man - $403.7m
7. Revenge of the Sith - $380.3m
8. Return of the King - $377.0m
9. Spider-Man 2 - $373.6m
10. The Passion of the Christ - $370.8m
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:54 pm |
|
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
|
2005 is still in the game to beat 2004. The fall and winter line up is strong this year, which should make up for the big loss in the Spring and potentially, a small dropoff for the summer.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
Anonymous
|
...Only time will tell.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
scottb
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:50 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
|
2005 vs other years by month. These numbers are the total gross of each movie released or went wide during that calender month. So for example The Passion Of the Christs entire $370m gross was counted toward the Feb. 04 total, and Shrek 2's entire $440m was counted toward the May. 04 total. So obiviously May and June are still tracking for 2005.
January
2005 - $586.0m
2004 - $410.2m
2003 - $612.6m
2002 - $689.2m
2001 - $678.1m
2000 - $317.4m
1999 - $378.6m
1998 - $345.6m
February
2005 - $513.3m
2004 - $749.2m
2003 - $550.9m
2002 - $409.4m
2001 - $412.4m
2000 - $426.8m
1999 - $424.4m
1998 - $244.6m
March
2005 - $591.2m
2004 - $512.7m
2003 - $485.3m
2002 - $829.9m
2001 - $466.3m
2000 - $531.1m
1999 - $579.3m
1998 - $285.3m
April
2005 - $457.4m
2004 - $669.5m
2003 - $460.9m
2002 - $325.3m
2001 - $378.0m
2000 - $430.4m
1999 - $282.0m
1998 - $351.0m
May
2005 - $931.4m
2004 - $959.5m
2003 - $1,406.2m
2002 - $1,179.4m
2001 - $749.0m
2000 - $740.7m
1999 - $775.3m
1998 - $545.1m
June
2005 - $380.8m
2004 - $1,322.2m
2003 - $521.0m
2002 - $847.2m
2001 - $855.8m
2000 - $914.1m
1999 - $791.2m
1998 - $689.5m
July
2005 - Yet to come
2004 - $764.6m
2003 - $1,117.5m
2002 - $807.3m
2001 - $856.1m
2000 - $743.4m
1999 - $912.2m
1998 - $1,124.8m
numbers from BOM
These numbers show that 2005 is holding its own compared to other years. Yes 2005 has had a pretty weak June so far but should end up ahead of 2003 which also had a weak June.
_________________
All time North American box office.
1. Titanic - $600.8m
2. Star Wars - $461.0m
3. Shrek 2 - $441.2m
4. E.T. the Extra Terrestrial - $435.1m
5. The Phantom Menace - $431.1m
6. Spider-Man - $403.7m
7. Revenge of the Sith - $380.3m
8. Return of the King - $377.0m
9. Spider-Man 2 - $373.6m
10. The Passion of the Christ - $370.8m
Last edited by scottb on Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:43 pm |
|
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
|
Nice charts, scottb! =D>
|
| Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:49 pm |
|
|
