Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2015

Yeah, those poor buggers must really be hurting with record profits this year.

 

I thought "Amistad" was terrible - just heavy-handed and turgid. Very disappointing movie.

"BoS" is much better - it's not great but it's enjoyable...

 

Tell that to Warner Bros….theft is wrong no matter how you try to spin the justification, I don't work for free and I'm sure you're the same.

 

Maybe so, but if you, me or Deesky had Warner Brothers' money, we'd surely burn ours!

 

I don't own a company that's worth $51.4 Billion and employs 25,600 people (Time Warner). Wish I did though and I would still hate the free ride downloaders…..it's a matter of personal ethics and understanding the cumulative effects of this type of behaviour, one person has no impact but when you get into 100 million or more business gets affected, cash flows are reduced, jobs get cut, project investment is reduced and they are less likely to take chances on unproven names or riskier projects.

 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens was always going to be a hit, but the scale of its success is staggering. I just got back from my second viewing of the film, and despite it being Monday afternoon after the film had already been out for the past two weekends, the first theatre I went to was sold out and the next theatre was PACKED (yes, I know kids are still on winter break, but still...!).

This Hollywood Reporter article suggests it could (will!) surpass Avatar's domestic box office-- perhaps by the end of the week! It always seemed likely that it would be the top film of the year, but given the massive success of Jurassic World, I didn't really think it'd be able to surpass it before the year ended.

Hollywood Reporter:
At this rate, there's no saying how high the Star Wars reboot will ultimately fly. Domestically, it's now assured of eclipsing 2009's Avatar ($760.5 million) to become the top-grossing title of all time, a record it could claim by the end of New Year's Eve weekend.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/final-box-office-star-wars-851206

 

WB problems have zero to do with piracy and everything to do with profoundly poor movie making decisions.

 

I saw it in a packed house today too, though there's an asterisk: this was a "real IMAX" theater, so it was likely to be better attended.

Still pretty amazing that a 3PM showing on a Monday would be sold-out, IMAX or no, and holiday or no - lots of people went back to work today...

 

And I was just at Plain Jane 2D showings!

I will check it out on a Real IMAX screen before its run is over, as I've heard it looks spectacular in that format.

 

It was fine, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.

I wanted to see it IMAX because I knew there was a scene shot with IMAX cameras.

And there is, but it's really brief - maybe 5 minutes, I'd guess. (I'll tell you which one if you want - don't want to post it since it could be regarded as a "spoiler".)

I think seeing "Force Awakens" on a really good non-IMAX screen would be just as good - if not better - than IMAX.

This isn't a case like "Interstellar" or "Dark Knight Rises" where substantial amounts of film were shot IMAX, so I don't think it's worth the premium for just the one short scene.

When I see it again, I'll go to the Uptown in DC - that's "the place" to see "Star Wars" here! I've seen all of the others except "Clones" there...

 

The Force Awakens is breaking every box office record that stands, so it's pretty stunning. I just saw where out of the estimated $600 million it's made so far in America, $100M of that has come from IMAX showings alone.

One of the things you can never underestimate with the movie business is timing. I think people were in the mood to see a big, sprawling, epic outer space movie, and seeing another Star Wars movie is kind of like revisiting old friends. I think everybody is relieved that the movie didn't suck -- least of all J.J. Abrams and Disney. One can argue that the film isn't spectacularly brilliant, but I think it does a serviceable job and it's a very entertaining film.

There was actually more than one scene shot in Digital IMAX with the modified Alexa 65 cameras. From what I've seen in set photos, it's an outdoor scene, so that's a major clue. One issue is that Arri was only shipping the Alexa 65 cameras this year, so what they had last year on Star Wars were hand-built prototypes.

There's so much digital imagery in the scene, you can't really tell where the 35mm film ends and the digital begins, so there is no visible difference. It also did not change aspect ratio for the IMAX screenings.

What did impress me yesterday at Universal was that the IMAX theater was jam-packed, even for an afternoon show. This movie's got serious legs.

 

The one scene I mentioned does change AR for the IMAX shots...

 

I was there, I didn't see an aspect change at the IMAX at Universal Citywalk. I asked my two industry friends who were with me, and they saw no aspect ratio change in Star Wars as well. This was the IMAX Laser 3D projected version.

 

I actually did pretty well with my predicitions this year. Jurassic World being a megahit was my biggest reach, and it turned out to be right.

Stuff I got really wrong...

50 Shades of Grey - A movie aimed at middle aged women, with no movie stars? I thought it would underperform and wow I was wrong.
Blackhat - I said it would be a disappointment, and it was a massive flop.
Poltergeist - Never bet against modestly budgeted horror flicks.
Magic Mike XXL - I just don't understand...

 

Your 50 shades prediction will be on point for the sequels. That was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. I think the book effect helped it sell, but that phenomena won't last.

Magic Mike succeeds bc lots of ladies love Channing Tatum and toned abs.

 

Did Magic Mike (XXL) succeed? I thought I kept reading that it underperformed.

 

Don't remember...didn't see it. But performance issues can happen.

 

production budget: $14.8M
total gross: $122,513,057 M

yeah, that film made serious profit. Plenty of ladies who paid to see naked men on the big screen

 

And between 6% and 10% of guys. It looked like a silly movie to me and I stayed far away.

Magic Mike made $167 million, and Magic Mike XXL made $122M, so in that respect, it wasn't too much of a disappointment... but I think they were expecting more. The first one only cost $7M, which was incredibly cheap, and the second one cost $15M which is still very economical. The key to movies like this is to make them inexpensively. If you'd done these for $40M, it would've been a lot harder to make a profit.

Note that Channing Tatum was a producer and had a small ownership percentage in the movie, so he made a huge amount of money on these films.

 

Dunno what to tell you, but when I saw "Force Awakens" at the Arizona Mills IMAX Monday, the AR did change for the scene in question.

It didn't go full 1.44:1 IMAX, but it did fill more of the screen - I suspect it went to 1.90:1 or so, the digital IMAX ratio...

 

That one might not have been a total bomb, but it sure wasn't a hit. It may make a little money, but it wasn't that cheap - $35 million is "expensive" compared to a lot of horror flicks - and it didn't even get to $100 million worldwide...

 

Well obviously they didn't need to spend a lot of money on wardrobe!

 

But a lot of dough on body makeup and personal trainers.

 

I just got back from the 3D Laser IMAX screening at Pacific Science Center in Seattle, and I can confirm that the scene where...

Spoiler

Rey and Finn steal the Millennium Falcon and fight off the TIE fighters

...is indeed in full IMAX, and there was an aspect ratio change, filling up the entire screen.

 

Here's a very interesting article on what was profitable and what bombed for the various Hollywood movie studios:

"There were too many flops, from tent poles that didn’t hit like Tomorrowland and Pan, to lower budget titles that included acclaimed entries like Steve Jobs and The Walk, that didn’t appeal to audiences the way they did to critics.

“There wasn’t enough depth at the box office (in regards to titles); there was too much business tied to few movies, instead of more movies,” observes 20th Century Fox domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson."

http://deadline.com/2015/12/2015-11...office-star-wars-universal-disney-1201674121/

What's interesting to note is that even though it was a huge year overall, Fox, Lionsgate, Paramount, and Sony, all had tough years with some huge failures. Anybody who hates blockbusters should look at this comment:

"One film packager assessed that over the last 15 years, films carrying production costs between $100M-$150M remain the safest bets, breaking even 205% or more than any other budgeted pic group."

So the problem is, if you don't have a $100M or $150M tentpole action film, they don't wanna hear from you. Getting a small $20M or $30M film made these days is very tough.