What's new

2011 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

Jose Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,113
Real Name
Jose Martinez
I actually believe the extra 3D surcharge is actually preventing Thor from making more. I think people are more fed up with 3D (especially when it's upconverted) more than it has to do with it being a superhero movie. 60% of its screenings are in 3D. Why did Fast Five make a lot more the week before? Was it because it was in 2D only?

Please, Hollywood, wake up! No more 3D.

Unless you're James Cameron.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
TerryRL said:
What's America got against the Norse god of thunder?


It's nothing personal, probably. Just overall superhero fatigue, perhaps. As Exhibitor Relations box-office analyst Jeff Bock reminded, "This is the umpteenth superhero movie to open the summer season."
I think it's that and that outside of a comic book store, you're probably hard pressed to find many people that are that familiar with Marvel's Thor. The same could be said for Iron Man but I think having Robert Downey, Jr. as a superhero made up for that.
 

mattCR

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
10,897
Location
Lee Summit, Missouri
Real Name
Matt
I'm OK with 3D if that's how it was done. Took the son to see "Thor" yesterday afternoon in 2D at AMC.. it was packed, full house. Meanwhile, all of the 3D showings had plenty of seats left. There was an older (let's say over 65) couple who decided to leave because they couldn't get a 2D showing.. despite the fact that it was pointed out that plenty of 3D and "CinemaSuite 3D" seats were available, they just left.

I think there are a lot of people who just don't like it... for a lot of different reasons. But a film like Thor really should be seen in 2D. It was shot that way. And frankly, while 3D can be cool, when I watch a film in a regular presentation, it's not that I can't grasp that there is depth to a picture. The cinematographer users light, depth, character placement to give me all the sense of location I need. I seldom think of Natalie Portman as an early South Park cutout moved around a flat background.

Enjoyed the flick a great deal; the son thought it was good stuff..
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
12,949
Real Name
Sam Favate
Having seen Thor in 3D, I can say that I will be seeking out Green Lantern and Captain America and the rest in 2D.
 

Todd H

Go Dawgs!
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 27, 1999
Messages
2,269
Location
Georgia
Real Name
Todd
Sam Favate said:
Having seen Thor in 3D, I can say that I will be seeking out Green Lantern and Captain America and the rest in 2D.
I agree. I think I'm over the whole 3D thing.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,141
Real Name
Malcolm
Originally Posted by Jose Martinez

I actually believe the extra 3D surcharge is actually preventing Thor from making more. I think people are more fed up with 3D (especially when it's upconverted) more than it has to do with it being a superhero movie. 60% of its screenings are in 3D. Why did Fast Five make a lot more the week before? Was it because it was in 2D only?

Please, Hollywood, wake up! No more 3D.

Unless you're James Cameron.

I agree. I've pretty much decided not to attend anymore 3D movies unless I hear news/reviews that it's the "greatest 3D ever." Then I might consider it. But I'm done paying extra to wear cheap glasses that darken the picture, give me a headache, and offer minimal if any visual enhancement.



I went to the theater this weekend and considered seeing "Thor," but it was only showing in 3D. I went to "Fast Five" instead.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
Thor is playing in both 3D and 2D at my local theate. I'll see it in 2D, eventually. I was thinking of seeing it yesterday, but I decided I wanted to see RIO more. I wish they had kept RIO in the 3D theatre a little longer. I would have liked to have seen that one in 3D; although, the 2D version was also adequate.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
I went and watched CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS yesterday and was shocked to see how brilliantly the 3-D was used. Yes, 3-D in a documentary.


I'm not writing the format off but it's clear most are just using it was a gimmick to make extra money. When people, like Herzog or Cameron, use it for a reason OTHER than money then it works.
 

Jose Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,113
Real Name
Jose Martinez
So, I'm predicting Priest to join Sucker Punch as one of the biggest boxoffice bombs of the year. Bridesmaids will place 2nd behind Thor.
 

TerryRL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Messages
3,977
Early Friday estimates...


1. Thor 3D (Marvel/Disney/Paramount) Week 2 [3,963 Theaters]
Friday $9.2M (-63%), Estimated Weekend $32M


2. Bridesmaids (Universal) NEW [2,918 Theaters]
Friday $8.5M, Estimated Weekend $23M


3. Fast Five (Universal) Week 3 [3,793 Theaters]
Friday $6M, Estimated Weekend $19M


4. Priest 3D (Screen Gems/Sony) NEW [2,864 Theaters]
Friday $5.5M, Estimated Weekend $15M


5. (TIE) Something Borrowed (Warner Bros) Week 2 [2,904 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M (-49%), Estimated Weekend $7.3M


5. (TIE) Jump The Broom (TriStar/Sony) Week 2 [2,035 Theaters]
Friday $2.3M (-49%), Estimated Weekend $7.3M
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Sam Favate said:
I wouldn't have believed it, but he names a whopping 27 films this year alone that are sequels in some fashion.
6 of the 10 highest grossing movies last year were sequels or remakes (and the top 5 was all sequels and a remake). Of the remaining 4 high grossers, three were cartoons and Inception was the only movie that wasn't a sequel or a kids movie. Apparently, people are most interested in seeing sequels and kids movies so I don't blame Hollywood for producing what is going to make them the most money.
 

TerryRL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Messages
3,977
At the end of the day, the industry is doing the "right" thing. Why? Because as Travis pointed out, that (sequels) is where the money is.


The success of the movie industry is largely carried by the box office strength of the various franchises. 11 of the top 20 domestic earners in history are sequels, 10 of which were released during the last ten years. The list of worldwide hits is even more skewed toward follow-up films as 15 of the top 20 of that list are sequels.

Since 1999, only three times has a non-sequel ended up being the year's top grossing box office hit. 'The Grinch' in 2000, "Spider-Man" in 2002, and "Avatar" in 2009. Between 1975 (when the era of the blockbuster began with "Jaws") and 1998, a follow-up film was the top earning flick at the box office only (ironically) three times. "The Empire Strikes Back" in 1980, "Return of the Jedi" in 1983, and T2 in 1991.

Since 1999's 'The Phantom Menace', sequels have become the absolute backbone of the yearly box office. Regardless of the quality of said sequels, we as moviegoers tell the studios every year that we simply can't get enough of the various franchise friendly material they throw at us. "Fast Five" currently reigns as this year's biggest box office hit and will end up being the biggest hit of the franchise. In fact, I'd be very surprised if a sequel doesn't end up being the top grosser for this year as well. My money is on either Harry Potter or Transformers.
 

SilverWook

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
2,033
Real Name
Bill
Did critics grumble back in the golden age when there were all those sequels to Tarzan, The Thin Man, and Andy Hardy? Probably a bunch of other vintage "franchises" I'm forgetting about here...


I also think I've found the solution for people who loathe 3-D.


http://www.2d-glasses.com/
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Bowery Boys, Dead End Kinds, East Side Kids, Mexican Spitfire and not to mention the countless sequels Universal turned out for their monsters. Not to mention them remaking one film two times in less than ten years.


They've been around since the earliest days of cinema. People need to face the fact that Hollywood hasn't changed since the pre-Griffith days and that 97% of the products are simply made to make money.

In regards to the box office, I'd agree with most of what's been said but I do remember going to see BLACK SWAN when it was first released and I saw a trailer for NO STRINGS ATTACHED and a poster for YOUR HIGHNESS. I remember walking out of BS and being disappointed that a "great" film like this wouldn't make half the money as those two "mainstream" films. Of course, the art, "high class" picture ended up killing both of them so I think people DO want "class" productions but just not during the summer.
 

TerryRL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Messages
3,977
While there are still a few sure things at the box office, it is refreshing to see films like "The King's Speech", "Black Swan", "The Fighter" (there's still talk of a sequel for this one), and "The Social Network" all make a lot of money in theaters.
 

Jose Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,113
Real Name
Jose Martinez
About those 2D glasses. Are they really for real or just a prank? Think Geek had them as an April Fool's joke (click on the Buy button): http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/e8be/


If you read some of the reviews on Amazon, they look kind of planted.

Originally Posted by SilverWook


http://www.2d-glasses.com/

/forum/thread/307416/2011-at-the-box-office/60#post_3812902
 

Greg.K

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 15, 1998
Messages
3,121
Location
NY Capital Region
Real Name
Greg K.
True 3D is fine with me. Upconverted is not.



The ThinkGeek glasses are an April Fool's Day joke, but these are real:


http://www.amazon.com/2D-Glasses-com-2D-Glasses/dp/B004X4L1UC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305737008&sr=8-1
 

Jose Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,113
Real Name
Jose Martinez
There seems to be 3 types of 3D movies: Upconverted, hybrid, and true 3D


The only true 3D films I know of so far have been Avatar, Residential Evil Afterlife, Saw 3D, and of course most CGI toons. Of the live action ones, only Avatar seems to have succeeded.


Marvel seems to be going the hybrid way with their Avengers movies starting with Thor then Captain America this summer. The 3D FX work but the upconverted 2D shots still fail for the most part. I believe this is how Transformers 3 will as well.


Straight 2D to 3D upconverted films are a total miss for me. I just won't see them. However, with less and less theaters showing the movie in 2D only I may just have to buy those 2D glasses after all!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,804
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top