| Author |
Message |
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
 Quote: Revolutions had toxic WOM. The film was not built to have a mediocre opening weekend (w/ rush factor) and 2x multiplier. Yes it was. I hate to compare us to Star Trek fans, but one thing Matrix fans do have in common is that we are nearly all male, young, likely to know the release date and to want to see it opening weekend. After Reloaded it was the hardcore fans who were left, so the level of frontloading was predictable. At least that's why I predicted it. Maybe I was dead right for the wrong reasons, but I honestly highly doubt that. Quote: 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? That thread was made during opening weekend (I already posted it the last time we argued). I wasn't posting in the 2 and a half months before Revolutions opened. But, I did overpredict it, however, everyone did. The Dark Shape wrote: And get over your fanboyism. Yes, continue your favorite tactic of not making a logical answer to disprove my arguments. Rather just take any random shots you can to try to discredit me as a fanboy or Cinemascores/yahoo as unreliable. It reminds me of the way creationists don't try to respond to the evidence for evolution, but take any random shots they can to see what will stick.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:18 pm |
 
|
|
|
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12119
Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the Matrix sequels were disliked and that The Ring was loved in the marketplace than there is for creationism.
And I'm still waiting for you to point out a horror film with mediocre WOM (and a wide release) whose sequel managed to double its opening weekend.
Last edited by The Dark Shape on Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
The Dark Shape wrote: 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? I think every point you make has something wrong with it. If I repond to this I'm just going to repeat the arguements I have made a dozen times before. I'll probably have to repeat them again after this, so I don't think it's worth it.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12119
Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
Please point them out. I can't wait. I think there's a pretty simple answer to the Ring bit: you have absolutely no grasp on the horror marketplace.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
The Dark Shape wrote: There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the Matrix sequels were disliked and that The Ring was loved in the marketplace than there is for creationism. Not really. Both are based on commonly held beliefs from simplistic sources. One the bible the other simple shared views that develop that have never really have been put to the test of any statistical analysis.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
The Dark Shape wrote: And I'm still waiting for you to point out a horror film with mediocre WOM (and a wide release) whose sequel managed to double its opening weekend. 1) Distort my argument
2) Simplify it
3) Take a factor I can explain (opening weekend being doubled), and try to twist it into evidence for your sidem forcing me to go back and establish my argument from the beginning again.
etc.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
How do you always bring up The Ring? I'd accuse you of being insulted as a fanboy be the cinemascore, but I can't be sure if that's true. Besides, if it were, it's would be irrelevent.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
DP07
The Thirteenth Floor
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 am
Posts: 15475
Location: Everywhere
|
Eh, and for the 2nd POTC bet on it's gross for the 2nd week, you can just have in your sig "The Ring Cinemascore = B-" That's all I want to see, hehe.
No opinion of mine added, just the fact, so anyone can interpret it however they want to. 
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12119
Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
DP07 wrote: The Dark Shape wrote: There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the Matrix sequels were disliked and that The Ring was loved in the marketplace than there is for creationism. Not really. Both are based on commonly held beliefs from simplistic sources. One the bible the other simple shared views that develop that have never really have been put to the test of any statistical analysis. I'd take The Ring's box office numbers -- more specifically, the legs --, positive critical reviews, and IMDb score (7.3/10, massive for a horror film) as 'statistical analysis' over Cinemascore, thanks. But here's a simple question, one you've been asked before but have never answered. If The Ring was so mediocre in reception, why did The Grudge open so well? A very similar type of horror film that a large chunk of people thought was The Ring 2.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 40226
|
Batman Begins 2 is definitley gonna kick ass.
Yeah...
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
is it safe to assume this will be summer 2008's "fanbase" movie ala xmen and pirates this year, sith last year, spidey/pirates next year...if so thatll def. inflate its opening day and weekend but then deflate its legs.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:21 pm |
|
|
|
liesse00
Commander Coo Coo Bananas
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 10:45 am
Posts: 585
Location: North Central Illinois
|
_________________Last FMTwitter
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
hes famous, girls like him, an dhe cant act. but in no way at all is bankable in the least. he will make a good joker, but wont send hype through the roof the way johnny depp would of/jack nicholson did. if and when the offer was made iuts good as done. jokers the most coveted role hollywoods since superman and thats bveen gone for 2 years.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 21855
Location: Walking around somewhere
|
Im not sure if this is a Wed or Friday release so i will do it accordingly.
Friday opening- 85 million/ 240-300 final.
Wendnesday- 30 million
Thursday- 18 million
Friday- 27 million
Saturday- 30 million
Sunday- 24 million
81 3day/ 129 5-day
260-300 million total
I dont know what to expect. batman Returns was so much better than the first and only made 2/3 of the original's gross. But I think no matter what it will gross more and have worst legs. It just depends on how well its liked
_________________ Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
LMAO nobody in the public found it better then Batman 1. we're def. looking at opver 250 million for this, probably over 270 as a an mummy/xmen sized 33% increase seems like the minimum.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 21855
Location: Walking around somewhere
|
excel wrote: LMAO nobody in the public found it better then Batman 1. we're def. looking at opver 250 million for this, probably over 270 as a an mummy/xmen sized 33% increase seems like the minimum. Are you talking to me Excel? _________________Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
yeah. i think batman returns is a better film, but batman was certainly more entertaining and the public agreed, hence why the change to batman forever paid off in 185 million.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm
Posts: 21855
Location: Walking around somewhere
|
See I disagree, I think if you ask a lot of people these days, Batman Returns would many times win out, or even now Batman Begins as the best Batman film. I think the original Batman was good, but it wasn't the best of films, and focused more on the villain than the hero. I think the reason it was so big was that it was literally different than anything ever seen, especially the campy 60s TV show. Batman Returns also unfortunately was a movie about Christmas during June.
I think a lot of it was in that era, a sequel never made as much as the original, not even the mighty ESB, Temple of Doom, Back to the Future, and for a better comparison Superman II.
_________________Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
| Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:03 am |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
rumor has it* this is coming May 16Th, 2008.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:31 am |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
it has not been confirmed, just lilttl esurces who post at the ype are saying w.b. circling the date as nobodys called it, june 17th/july 4th weekend have been ok, but obviously not great for batman begins and superman returns, but they are very pleased with how 3 weekend of may worked with matrix reloaded. iron man claimed may 2nd, and supposably w.b. think memorialdays too frontloaded, and narnia is lookinglike a monster for june. not only that, but jett t batman-on-film has comfirmed shooting starts january 2007. that would be a LONG shooing schedule for any other rleease then may 2008. if they had the same 15 month productionbegins had, itd land in may. batman begins began filming febuaryu 20024 and june 2005 release.so january 07 would indicate may 08. if it gets may 16th, this would hav to be the fav for the summer crown im sure, especially now that they have a star-albeit nto a very bankable one-for the joker, and im sure theyll get another name for harvey dent.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:47 pm |
|
|
|
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am
Posts: 22181
Location: Places
|
perhaps. depends on who gets cast a harvey dent, too. if they get another star.....and remember this castingchoice is more important then ledger due to he has to be in 2 films, as dent in 2 and two-face is batman 3, so the chances of getting a great actor and a famous one are considerably high. i just pray its not jake gyllenhaal now that ledgers cast as joker.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:06 am |
|
|
|
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 18501
|
Magnus wrote: excel wrote: perhaps. depends on who gets cast a harvey dent, too. if they get another star.....and remember this castingchoice is more important then ledger due to he has to be in 2 films, as dent in 2 and two-face is batman 3, so the chances of getting a great actor and a famous one are considerably high. i just pray its not jake gyllenhaal now that ledgers cast as joker. I hope its Liev. I think all these internet fanboys who are going anti-Ledger right now would shut up if Liev is casted as Dent. 
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:43 am |
|
|
|
Speevy
Veteran
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
|
This was posted elsewhere but I think Nolan should go in this direction in terms of looks for the Joker in Batman Begins 2. It looks fantastic and keeps with the style of Batman Begins.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
FILMO
The Original
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:19 am
Posts: 9808
Location: Suisse
|
Joker= not that long hair. Cmon that isnt a Crow Sequel
_________________Libs wrote: FILMO, I'd rather have you eat chocolate syrup off my naked body than be a moderator here.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:30 pm |
|
|
|
Speevy
Veteran
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
|
The Joker in the next Batman isn't going to look like the Joker in the comics, it's going in a more realistic direction. I think it looks perfect.
|
| Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:38 pm |
|
|
