Official Box Office Thread

@Rambo There's like seven.

Not that I counted, but good to know.

@Rambo I removed some, fixed some misspelled words.

yonny616 wrote:

@Rambo I removed some, fixed some misspelled words.

Ermm...

Quote :

Spelling mistakes, and too many exclimation points!)

@Rambo Goddammit!  

There fixed.

@yonny616 Film's budget and marketing budget are usually separated. So you're wrong if you think the rest of the budget is for marketing. RoboCop's marketing may be shit, but it doesn't change the fact that anything less than $300 million isn't enough to make a profit off of a $130 million budget movie.

Also Singer being too busy working on other films, is such a bullshit excuse. Nolan goes off to work on another projects after he finishes with Batman. Yet, he still comes back to do sequels. The truth is, Warner Bros. just wasn't interested enough to make a Superman Returns sequel, unless it made a lot more money at the box-office. Oh and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first Spider-Man, so yeah...

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Film's budget and marketing budget are usually separated. So you're wrong if you think the rest of the budget is for marketing. RoboCop's marketing may be shit, but it doesn't change the fact that anything less than $300 million isn't enough to make a profit off of a $130 million budget movie.

Also Singer being too busy working on other films, is such a bullshit excuse. Nolan goes off to work on another projects after he finishes with Batman. Yet, he still comes back to do sequels. The truth is, Warner Bros. just wasn't interested enough to make a Superman Returns sequel, unless it made a lot more money at the box-office. Oh and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first Spider-Man, so yeah...

Ermm, if a film costs 130 million and earns around 300 million, then that's a big profit.

I said LESS than $300 million. So far RoboCop has only made like $220 million, and a lot of theaters have already stop showing it.

@Mecha I know they are usually seperated, I just like putting them together. What the hell are you talking about? "Rest of the budget is marketing". I never said the rest of the budget is marketing? I put my hypothesized cost for marketing together with the budget! Never said the budget and marketing are one and the same. RoboCop had a budget of 100 million, your argument wasn't 300 million, it was 400+ million. You know I said 250+ million? You know that plus sign means anything at and above 250 million?

Bullshit excuse?

Bryan Singer wrote:

"I ended up having the opportunity to go and make Valkyrie, and I think the studio lost interest at that point. I can't say it was all the studio's fault and I can't say it was all my fault. It just fizzled out."

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=114329

Singer went to do Valkyrie, the film was delayed. Writers left the project, film was delayed. Writer strike happened, film was delayed. Routh thought they would start filming in 2009, but obviously that never happend. There was a sequel in development, it was just stuck in development hell. Singer dropped when WB decided to just reboot. So Spidey 2 made less than Spidey 1. Look at the difference in how much they made. To a studio its still dissapointing, but it still made them huge money and Spidey 3 went on to make the most in the franchise.

You said RoboCop had a budget of at least $130 Million, including marketing. Yes, I know I said $400+ million, but it could still possibly get a sequel at $300+ million. However, it all depends on the budget. I heard earlier today that the budget was actually $150 million, so I dunno? All I know is, the chances of a RoboCop sequel seem kinda slim at the moment.

Then you misunderstood me. I did say "$130 million (including marketing)", but that the "$30 million" in the $130 million is the marketing! Yes, I know it could get a sequel at 300+ million considedering it has a budget of $100 million. Then you heard wrong. IMDB and Box Office Mojo project the budget at $100 million, Wikipedia has it at $130 million, haven't read anywhere saying $150 million. The chances of a sequel are better than "slim".

Wait a minute, I'm confused here. You know that a film's budget and marketing budget is separated, yet you said that the $30 million in the $130 million is for the marketing. What!? Either my head is fucking with me from not sleeping all night, or you're just not making any sense. Also no. If the film only made $220 million so far, then the chances of a sequel are unlikely.

Yes, I know that market and budget is seperate. I've said it before, and seems like I need to say it again, I just prefer putting [budget and marketing] together in the same thing. The film has a budget of 100 million, 220 million would be at best a $150-$170 million profit (take out the cut for theaters and such).

Just because you prefer putting the budget and marketing together, does not mean it's factual. If the budget was $100 million, a $150-$170 million profit isn't enough to guarantee a sequel. It needs at least $300 million in order for the studio to even consider a sequel.

Never said it was factual! Always said I was adding what I believed was the marketing cost to the projected budget. Read! A 150-170 million, from the 220 million since theaters get a 20%-25% cut of each ticket sold, profit is enough to consider a sequel. 250 million would be the "yup, sequel on the way", but it doesn't need 300 million for a 100 million budget film to a get a sequel.

I'm guessing my dance routine on YouTube didn't crack the top box office returns this week.

I want to start a game. Same as the schmoes where you predict the next box office.

You can see the last Sunday's box office earnings on page one.

So lets start!

My prediction for next week:

1. Divergent
2. Muppets Most Wanted
3. Mr. Peabody & Sherman
4. 300: Rise of an Empire
5. Need For Speed

@Jack You're dance routine was downplayed. Shitty marketing by you.

There isn't going to be a RoboCop sequel, yonny. Trust me.

Anyway...

1. Divergent
2. Muppets Most Wanted
3. Mr. Peabody & Sherman
4. 300: Rise of an Empire
5. Need For Speed

1. Divergent - $54.6 Million
2. Muppets Most Wanted - $17 Million
3. Mr. Peabody & Sherman - $11.8 Million
4. God's Not Dead - $9.2 Million
5. 300: Rise of An Empire - $8.5 Million

Divergent wins big at the box office, Muppets aren't really that "wanted", Need For Speed falls off the top five in its second week, and God's Not Dead trumps the Greeks.

Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/

Well time for next weeks prediction:
1. Noah
2. Divergent
3. Muppets Most Wanted
4. Mr. Peabody and Sherman
5. 300: Rise of an Empire

yonny616 wrote:

@Jack You're dance routine was downplayed. Shitty marketing by you.

I genuinely thought it would sell itself.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni56997486/?ref_=hm_nw_tp_t1

Heil Noah!

I actually really liked Noah a lot, so I'm glad it's doing well. I was afraid it wouldn't because of the controversy and the butthurt Christians.

Jack the Spectre wrote:

I actually really liked Noah a lot, so I'm glad it's doing well. I was afraid it wouldn't because of the controversy and the butthurt Christians and Jews.

Fixed.

@Jack Christians were butthurt? Why? They eat these movies up! Just look at Son of God. They made it #2 over The LEGO Movie. Also managed to make God's Not Dead get in the top 5, and it seems like it'll be #5 again this week!   

Jack is talking about how Noah wasn't really all that faithful to the Bible. Like when Noah goes bat-shit crazy.