Holy crap, I didn't know Revolutions made that much on it's first 5 days.

83.8 for the first 5, and 139.2 total. Wow. That's gotta be one of the most frontloaded and hardest falling campaigns ever, and that was in November even. Forget The Hulk, Matrix Revolutions is the king of the freefall. I don't know why we don't pick on it more, heh.

I disagree. I know it's the cool thing to do these days to hate the Matrix sequels, but when Reloaded was originally released I heard solid WOM. Not as fantastic as the first but certainly solid. This isn't exactly exact science but is as good as possible. On IMDB it has a 7.0 and a B on Yahoo. Sure, it's not great word of mouth but it is still solid.

What WB did to Revolutions is laughable. A 47% weekend-weekend drop between Reloaded to Revolutions is a disgrace for a film that did not have bad word of mouth. While I certainly give credit to WB for how it handled the marketing for Reloaded, I laugh at what it did to Revolutions. Revolutions should have opened up to atleast 65-70 million that weekend.

Also, there is a huge difference between a studio being able to create awareness and actually building hype among the public. Disney was able to build hype for POTC while WB was able to only build awareness for Superman Returns. Yeah Superman Returns' advertisments were everywhere, but there was little to no hype built up unfortunetely. I just wonder what could have been if Fox's marketing department handled movies such as Superman Returns and Batman Begins.

Marketing for PotC2 was not anything special at all, people just really wanted to see it because of how well recieved the first was, Disney knew all they had to do is get awareness out there and that hype would come from the amount of love the first film had.

You can give me some IMDb grade, but Reloaded just wasnt that well recieved by the general public, we gotta remember that there was quite a few people who probably didnt even see the first film. Just saw the second one on hype and build up alone, the amount marketing and hype on Reloaded ( a movie that was anticipated for years ) was never gonna be replicated for Revolutions, a movie that was coming out just 6 months after Reloaded.

If Reloaded had good wom the only thing Revolutions needed would've been high awareness to do it's business, but it wasnt and the fact the movie was awful didnt help either.

Yes, Pirates didn't really build "hype" like a lot of people here are suggesting, I'm not even sure what that is exactly. Everyone knew it existed already, so there was no point. Superman had much more ads, and was marketed more as an event, but in the end noone cared for what they were presenting. That's why I think that the WB doesn't need to go crazy for Batman Begins 2, everyone loved the original, so they can just let the people build their own awareness. As long as they don't put out crappy ads, it'll do well.

Ive heard alot of people who enjoyed Reloaded - almost as much as the first and in some cases more. Nobody I know except my cousin who was a die hard Matrix fan hated it. An extra $100m to market Revolutions would have been ridiculous and uneccessary - but an extra $10-$15m or more effective marketing could have netted atleast $60m more total gross. As I said - WB already dropped the ball by releasing it in November (likewise with Azkaban in June - but was a good idea at the time judging by Lion King and Nemo success).

If anything, I dont think Superman was that bad a marketing job by WB. Realistically, Superman was never going to make more than say $230m and anything above was wishful thinking.

Granted POTC2 didnt have the loudest marketing in the world and it worked. But quantity of ads doesnt mean quality. It seems POTC's marketing was more effectual than Superman or Revolutions etc.

In the end some films - POTC, Shrek, Spiderman, LOTR, Star Wars - are born for greatness - the others need good marketing.

My friends friend whose friend said he liked it, I could care less. At the end of the day Revolutions did less then half of what Reloaded did, that cannont speak good for either Revolutions or Reloaded. X2 was well recieved ( sequel increased yet the quality of the film isnt on par ) Pirates was well recieved ( sequel increased yet to most the quality isnt on par ). Reloaded had mediocre wom at best, a sequel to a film that almost did 300m doesnt just free fall like that for no reason. Obvioulsy alot of the blame goes to the poor quality of the film, but it's weak opening weekend can be blamed on Reloaded.

Again PotC2's marketing wasnt better or more effective then SR, it's just that PotC is such a popular and well recieved film that a sequel doing great was inevitable.

No see the thing is that Disney was smart with POTC. They knew they did not need to put posters and ads everywhere like WB did with Superman Return. However, the marketing that was very effective and did build hype. Of course it helped that the original so widely loved but at the same time credit must be given to an effective, not redundant, marketing strategy. POTC was just an example. Da Vinci Code, X3, etc were also summer movies that used effective marketing strategies to build hype. There's a difference between marketing a movie to public awareness and marketing to build hype. Hype is something that WB was not able to do for Superman Returns and Revolutions.

Reloaded WAS well recieved. Surely not great, but solid none the less. Give me some evidence to counter some solid IMDB and Yahoo numbers. WB could have done much more to build up hype for Revolutions, much much more. Awareness might have been there to a certain extent, but the hype needed to open to big opening weekends was not there.



Pirates did build hype by having "Effective" marketing, by which the marketing may not have been "in your face" like the marketing is for other movies, but it built the hype necessery. Sorry, without hype a movie is not going to shatter the opening weekend record. You just cannot argue that Disney did not build hype. A movie is not going to make 135 million in 3 days without plenty of hype.



The 130 something finish by Revolutions has nothing to do with the hype built up by the studio, that's just poor WOM for Revolutions. The lack of hype is shown through the 48 million opening. Yes, Reloaded was not as well recieved as Pirates or X2, but it did not have poor WOM by any means. Numbers do not lie. It even got a B (B+ from men which were the target audience) from Cinemascore, which just goes to show that it was not recieved poorly. It wasn't great, but it wasn't poor either. WB has no excuse to lose that much audience from Reloaded to Revolutions.

I entirely disagree. First, the drop was much better overseas. Furthermore the WOM wasn't terrible with a B+ at Cinemascore and a B at Yahoo. That's not nearly on par with POTC 2, but it's hardly horrible.

The size of the drop was due to WB's terrible marketing.

Bingo

:snort:

A person who has elevated judging cinemascores to an art should know that a B+ for a fanboy movie opening weekend isn't very promising. Hell, The Fast and the Furious sequels both got A-. Face it D, a lot of the B.O. for Reloaded came from regular Joe's who went to it because everyone was talking about it (It made the cover of Time, for crying out loud). When they had no frikkin clue what the big deal was, they skipped the third one. I'm sure it also turned off casual fans (i.e. not you) that felt it ruined the original. A LOT of people feel this way D.

Revolutions heavy drop = Reloaded's bad reception. And if it dissapointed due to marketing, then why can't we use that same excuse for MI3? Marketing did the best it could to recover from Reloaded.

I also think that if Revolutions didn't have like, the worst WOM for a blockbuster ever, it wouldn't have done that inhumanly bad. It still made 24 mil off it's Wednesday in November, which is pretty damn good. It's just that it fell like a rock after that, worse than The Hulk referring to my comment up there. If it was released on a Friday, it probably would've gotten like a 75 mil weekend, which isn't bad at all. A decent 2.5-2.6 multiplier in November from that projected number, which was possible for the movie if it wasn't absolutely terrible, and it would've landed at 180-190 mil. Half the blame for Revolutions in my mind is on Revolutions, which just had the worst legs ever.

I actually think both the marketing and the WOM for Revolutions sucked, but yeah it's freefall was due to horrid WOM if anything. Doesn't marketing have the most effect on opening weekend?

I agree with that. However, that's not "horrible."



Who would say the MI3 marketing was poor? The ads were all well made; they were all effective. I think that could be said objectively.

I actually predicted the legs would be that poor. Right on opening weekend. I could show you the thread. I don't think WOM made a difference for Revolutions; it was just on of the most naturally frontloaded movies to ever be released.

It really all boils down to the fact that The MATRIX simply wasn't meant to be a drawn out trilogy and was only done so to make The Wachowski Bros a bunch of $$$ and no matter what they say otherwise, there full of shi*.. The End..


Meanwhile back at the ranch, I say a BATMAN BEGINS SEQUEL is going to have to do considerably well to make people forget the abortion known as SR for the mere fact that most people know WB owns both properties and they can't afford to fuc* up another movie..

The whole Matrix trilogy was a big $$$$ scheme so the tranny Wachowski bro could get his fake vagina. Those things cost an arm and a leg......... I KNOW!!!!

I say one thing.

The Matrix is in my all-time Top 10 of movies. I saw the second film three times in theatres.

I didn't see the third movie up until 6 months after it hit DVD.

It still dropped -40% overseas. And I sometimes wonder if you'd say Titanic had bad WOM if it had a C+ Cinemascore. Or that Basic instinct 2 had excellent WOM if it scored an A.

But I don't think anyone could predict the legs would be that poor. We're talking about a less than 2 multiplier in November, had it been released on a Friday. That trumps every other movie in the history of the box-office.

Neither of those happened, so I don't see what your point is. You act as if Cinemascores are random when they are far from it. Titanic would have bombed with a C+ Cinemascore. It was one of about 5 movies I know of to ever get an A+. Coincidence that Cinemascore indicated one of the most amazing runs ever on opening night?

In any case, Revolutions would have dropped no matter what, but if it had earned more then the original people would talk of it differently.

I predicted on opening weekend that the legs would be that poor. People thought I was going way overboard. Yes, it was the most frontloaded movie ever (not named Star Trek) and I predicted it would be not because of WOM, but because I knew it was built to be that frontloaded.

It is when it completely fumbles The Ring and The Matrix Revolutions. And get over your fanboyism. Revolutions had toxic WOM. The film was not built to have a mediocre opening weekend (w/ rush factor) and 2x multiplier. If we were to see the thread where you predicted those legs, would we also see you putting it at a number quite a bit above $48m opening weekend?

But it didn't. It predicted the Ring Two perfectly; we just didn't listen. It simply disagrees with what many think/want to be true, so it must be wrong, right? I mean the consensus that emerges and the simple commonly held beliefs that people have are always right (whether or not have the evidence to back them up). Like 300m+ grossers not having sequels to earn far more.

Ring Two had very mediocre WOM. The Ring evidenced the best legs in the horror genre for a decade. It still comes off like desperate bullshit that you argue The Ring had poor WOM because the sequel didn't surpass it -- despite the fact Ring Two still doubled the original's opening weekend gross. Please point me out another horror sequel that has done that with an apparently-disliked (or at best, 'meh'-inducing) original. In fact, outside of Scream 2, please point out another horror sequel that's managed that feat in the last two decades.

You're counting Ring Two's legs against the first film's reputation. Further, your original $60m+ prediction didn't take into account an overcrowded horror marketplace. If Pirates 3 doesn't outgross Pirates 2's opening weekend due to the presence of Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third, are we to assume Dead Man's Chest has mediocre word-of-mouth?

If it makes more than Pirates 2's opening weekend, but is a disliked film and ends up making quite a bit less overall, does that count against DMC too?

The Ring was Brilliance, as the Ring 2 was Brilliantly Crappy on all levels. There's no explination really.