Like "Batman V Superman," "Suicide Squad" Experiences Steep Box-Office Plunge

[Vegtam]

it certainly is, just about as well as any other "fact" you claim to be making or discussing one day or another. but by all means, stand by your "facts" - they seem to keep changing.

Nope, still not an actual fact, and nothing I've said has changed. To review:

1) The movie is a hit. It is a success.

2) Despite being a hit, it does have problems. The reception has been mixed to negative, and the box office has very small legs. It might actually end up with a decent multiplier of around 2.3, but in the context of an August release, especially the last big movie of the summer, that's not very good. For more on this, check out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen.../#2bad7aaf7dcb

According to him, at $305 mil, it would be top-20 most front-loaded August movies ever, putting it on the same level as Fantastic Four and Kick-Ass 2.

So, the bottom line remains WB isn't going to be satisfied with this, and they're going to want to fix the issues with future movies.

[AcesX1X]

Nope, still not an actual fact, and nothing I've said has changed. To review:

1) The movie is a hit. It is a success.

2) Despite being a hit, it does have problems. The reception has been mixed to negative, and the box office has very small legs. It might actually end up with a decent multiplier of around 2.3, but in the context of an August release, especially the last big movie of the summer, that's not very good.

So, the bottom line remains WB isn't going to be satisfied with this, and they're going to want to fix the issues with future movies.

where do you get your "facts" from again?

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/rec...the-Box-Office


Rank
1 Aug 5, 2016 Suicide Squad $133,682,248 4,255 $31,418 $133,682,248 3
2 Aug 1, 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy $94,320,883 4,080 $23,118 $94,320,883 3
3 Aug 3, 2007 The Bourne Ultimatum $69,283,690 3,660 $18,930 $69,283,690 3
4 Aug 3, 2001 Rush Hour 2 $67,408,222 3,118 $21,619 $67,408,222 3
5 Aug 8, 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $65,575,105 3,845 $17,055 $65,575,105 3
6 Aug 14, 2015 Straight Outta Compton $60,200,180 2,757 $21,835 $60,200,180 3
7 Aug 2, 2002 Signs $60,117,080 3,264 $18,418 $60,117,080 3
8 Aug 5, 2011 Rise of the Planet of the Apes $54,806,191 3,648 $15,024 $54,806,191 3
9 Aug 7, 2009 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra $54,713,046 4,007 $13,654 $54,713,046 3
10 Aug 10, 2007 Rush Hour 3 $49,100,158 3,778 $12,996 $49,100,158 3

[inisideguy]

Nope, still not an actual fact, and nothing I've said has changed. To review:

1) The movie is a hit. It is a success.

2) Despite being a hit, it does have problems. The reception has been mixed to negative, and the box office has very small legs. It might actually end up with a decent multiplier of around 2.3, but in the context of an August release, especially the last big movie of the summer, that's not very good. For more on this, check out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen.../#2bad7aaf7dcb

According to him, at $305 mil, it would be top-20 most front-loaded August movies ever, putting it on the same level as Fantastic Four and Kick-Ass 2.

So, the bottom line remains WB isn't going to be satisfied with this, and they're going to want to fix the issues with future movies.

Some one once said thre are lies ,lies and statisitcs. You harp on this drop claiming its a problem almost to an extent that a studio would rather have a 100 million dollar movie with a small drop than a 200 millon dollar movie with a big drop. Its wacky. You claim the drops will affect the dceu movies in the long run like 5 movies down the line somewhere but there is no evidence of this happening at all.

[Midvillian1322]

where do you get your "facts" from again?

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/rec...the-Box-Office


Rank
1 Aug 5, 2016 Suicide Squad $133,682,248 4,255 $31,418 $133,682,248 3
2 Aug 1, 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy $94,320,883 4,080 $23,118 $94,320,883 3
3 Aug 3, 2007 The Bourne Ultimatum $69,283,690 3,660 $18,930 $69,283,690 3
4 Aug 3, 2001 Rush Hour 2 $67,408,222 3,118 $21,619 $67,408,222 3
5 Aug 8, 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $65,575,105 3,845 $17,055 $65,575,105 3
6 Aug 14, 2015 Straight Outta Compton $60,200,180 2,757 $21,835 $60,200,180 3
7 Aug 2, 2002 Signs $60,117,080 3,264 $18,418 $60,117,080 3
8 Aug 5, 2011 Rise of the Planet of the Apes $54,806,191 3,648 $15,024 $54,806,191 3
9 Aug 7, 2009 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra $54,713,046 4,007 $13,654 $54,713,046 3
10 Aug 10, 2007 Rush Hour 3 $49,100,158 3,778 $12,996 $49,100,158 3

Sounds like hes just saying the movie is having a larger then normal drop and WB would rather the movies have legs. Look at Deadpool it opened big and had legs because people almost unanimously loved it. So they go see it again and get friends to go see it etc.. DC doesnt have to choose between big opening and legs, big hits have both. But he didnt like the movie so his common sense logic is wrong i guess.

[Vegtam]

where do you get your "facts" from again?

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/rec...the-Box-Office


Rank
1 Aug 5, 2016 Suicide Squad $133,682,248 4,255 $31,418 $133,682,248 3
2 Aug 1, 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy $94,320,883 4,080 $23,118 $94,320,883 3
3 Aug 3, 2007 The Bourne Ultimatum $69,283,690 3,660 $18,930 $69,283,690 3
4 Aug 3, 2001 Rush Hour 2 $67,408,222 3,118 $21,619 $67,408,222 3
5 Aug 8, 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $65,575,105 3,845 $17,055 $65,575,105 3
6 Aug 14, 2015 Straight Outta Compton $60,200,180 2,757 $21,835 $60,200,180 3
7 Aug 2, 2002 Signs $60,117,080 3,264 $18,418 $60,117,080 3
8 Aug 5, 2011 Rise of the Planet of the Apes $54,806,191 3,648 $15,024 $54,806,191 3
9 Aug 7, 2009 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra $54,713,046 4,007 $13,654 $54,713,046 3
10 Aug 10, 2007 Rush Hour 3 $49,100,158 3,778 $12,996 $49,100,158 3

I said it was probably going to be one of the most front-loaded August releases ever. So biggest August opening weekends isn't relevant. The point is what happens after that opening weekend. To put that in perspective, let's say Suicide Squad ends up with $305 mil, which is the most reasonable guess at this point. That means its opening weekend would be 43.8% of its total. Now for the others in your list:

GotG - Opening weekend = 28.2%
Bourne Ultimatum - 30.4%
Rush Hour 2 - 29.8%
TMNT - 34.3%
Straight Outta Compton - 37.3%
Signs - 26.4%
Rise of Planet of the Apes - 31%
GI Joe: Rise of Cobra - 36.4%
Rush Hour 3 - 35%

This is what I'm talking about with front-loading. The next closest one there is Straight Outta Compton. To equal what that did in this list, SS would need to hit $355 mil, which is not going to happen. August releases tend to be leggier because they have less competition but still benefit from summer vacation for the first 2-3 weeks of their release.

Again, SS is making enough overall that this isn't a huge deal for WB, but it's still a problem.

[Vegtam]

Some one once said thre are lies ,lies and statisitcs. You harp on this drop claiming its a problem almost to an extent that a studio would rather have a 100 million dollar movie with a small drop than a 200 millon dollar movie with a big drop. Its wacky. You claim the drops will affect the dceu movies in the long run like 5 movies down the line somewhere but there is no evidence of this happening at all.

I think WB would rather see SS hit $290 mil off a $95 mil opening weekend than see it hit $310 mil off a $133 opening weekend. Yes, this part is conjecture, but generally studios like to see the legs because it means better overall reception and more anticipation heading into the next installment.

I claim the front-loaded nature of the movies will affect the DCEU unless the quality of the movies improves. Not 5 movies down the line. Wonder Woman will probably do well regardless of quality, and Justice League has a good shot too, but without the novelty of seeing these characters onscreen for the first time, the poor quality will have a significant effect.

[kalorama]

Some one once said thre are lies ,lies and statisitcs.

To be precise it's "Three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." It is most commonly attributed to Mark Twain, though Twain himself claimed to have cribbed it from Benjamin Disraeli.

[nightrider]

I think WB would rather see SS hit $290 mil off a $95 mil opening weekend than see it hit $310 mil off a $133 opening weekend. Yes, this part is conjecture, but generally studios like to see the legs because it means better overall reception and more anticipation heading into the next installment.

I claim the front-loaded nature of the movies will affect the DCEU unless the quality of the movies improves. Not 5 movies down the line. Wonder Woman will probably do well regardless of quality, and Justice League has a good shot too, but without the novelty of seeing these characters onscreen for the first time, the poor quality will have a significant effect.

That is just so much nonsensical talk in this post, I can't even. WB would rather have legs and make lesser than have no legs and make more.

[nightrider]

Sounds like hes just saying the movie is having a larger then normal drop and WB would rather the movies have legs. Look at Deadpool it opened big and had legs because people almost unanimously loved it. So they go see it again and get friends to go see it etc.. DC doesnt have to choose between big opening and legs, big hits have both. But he didnt like the movie so his common sense logic is wrong i guess.

Yes but deadpool made >10x its budget. Even avengers don't get that kinda multiplier so it's not fair to compare any movie with deadpool. But apparently from his post, he has mentioned that wb would rather choose legs than overall numbers which does not make sense at all.
Yes I would say ideally wb wants critical acclaim, fan support and big box office numbers. Which studio wouldn't want that?

[Vegtam]

That is just so much nonsensical talk in this post, I can't even. WB would rather have legs and make lesser than have no legs and make more.

The fact is, a movie's legs are a good indicator of success of future installments of a series. They are not the only one, but they do help. WB has to think long-term as well as short-term. They can be happy with how well this movie is doing overall, while also thinking long-term, realizing these short legs are a concern. Movies with good word-of-mouth and good overall reception have good legs, meaning audiences are likely excited for more. Movies with bad word-of-mouth and bad overall reception have short legs, meaning audiences came out at the beginning, but there's more disappointment than hoped for. That means less chance of excitement for another installment.

[Vegtam]

Yes but deadpool made >10x its budget. Even avengers don't get that kinda multiplier so it's not fair to compare any movie with deadpool.

For these purposes, budget isn't relevant. 10x its budget is amazing and hard to compare to, but it's not relevant to how front-loaded a movie is.

But apparently from his post, he has mentioned that wb would rather choose legs than overall numbers which does not make sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. Think of it this way:

WB is creating a cinematic universe they hope will last many years and many movies. Which of the following scenarios do you think they'd prefer:

A) Movie ends up with $300 mil in domestic box office, but a 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and generally mixed reception.
B) Movie ends up with $295 mil, but a 92% on RT and great reception overall.

You're right that at a certain point, they're going to choose money over appeal. For instance, they're not going to choose to make $100 mil less in exchange for great reception and legs. That's why I made the numbers close. I hope we both agree they'll take the $5 mil hit in that case, since it means better momentum into the next part of the cinematic universe.

[nightrider]

For these purposes, budget isn't relevant. 10x its budget is amazing and hard to compare to, but it's not relevant to how front-loaded a movie is.



It makes perfect sense. Think of it this way:

WB is creating a cinematic universe they hope will last many years and many movies. Which of the following scenarios do you think they'd prefer:

A) Movie ends up with $300 mil in domestic box office, but a 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and generally mixed reception.
B) Movie ends up with $295 mil, but a 92% on RT and great reception overall.

You're right that at a certain point, they're going to choose money over appeal. For instance, they're not going to choose to make $100 mil less in exchange for great reception and legs. That's why I made the numbers close. I hope we both agree they'll take the $5 mil hit in that case, since it means better momentum into the next part of the cinematic universe.

I can find 50 movies for you with critical acclaim but without "LEGS". Having a good multiplier off opening numbers does not equate to critical acclaim. Not sure how much simpler it could be for you.

[AcesX1X]

Sounds like hes just saying the movie is having a larger then normal drop and WB would rather the movies have legs. Look at Deadpool it opened big and had legs because people almost unanimously loved it. So they go see it again and get friends to go see it etc.. DC doesnt have to choose between big opening and legs, big hits have both. But he didnt like the movie so his common sense logic is wrong i guess.

if this movie is coming up on week #3 and consistently still performing positively against it's only real august peer (gotg) at #1, still blowing the rest of the 2016 summer movies out of the water, and still bringing in crowds, then i think it's time to drop this "legs" nonsense.

this movie's got legs. some people just don't seem to care for them.

[Vegtam]

I can find 50 movies for you with critical acclaim but without "LEGS".

I'm sure you can, but that won't prove much.

Having a good multiplier off opening numbers does not equate to critical acclaim. Not sure how much simpler it could be for you.

No, it doesn't, but I don't know what this has to do with anything. You're ignoring the question.

Would you want a movie (that's supposed to be part of a larger universe) that made $300 mil but wasn't received well and therefore didn't have good legs, or would you want a movie that made $295 mil and was received well and therefore had good legs? Not sure how much simpler I can make the question for you.

[Vegtam]

this movie's got legs. some people just don't seem to care for them.

You can argue whether or not it matters, but you can't argue that it has legs. It does not. That's a simple fact.