Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Tino, Dec 23, 2018.
^Except it was American Sniper that supercharged January. Not Paul Blart.
Sorry. I’m just used to ignoring you.
But you’re definitely correct that Hollywood is smartening up by finally releasing films in January. Looks like September is now the new January maybe.
The whole concept of "seasons" has been eroding for some time now. Sure, there will always be more "big" movies released around the summer holidays and Thanksgiving through New Years, because more people are off from work and/or school then. But the blockbuster "season" is really just about year-round now. Almost.
Aladdin is looking to do much better than the initially projected around $70 million opening. Deadline is now projecting a $86.1 million three day and a $107.7 million four day. The projected three day however is still around half of what Beauty and the Beast opened to in 2017. Aladdin got an excellent 'A' CinemaScore.
It doesn't surprise me that that Aladdin is doing significantly better than predicted, nor that it is only doing half what BATB did. BATB had the big advantage of having the Harry Potter girl as the lead, that captivated lots of little girls.
But I didn't expect Aladdin to do poorly. Many these days seem to regard the 1992 movie as a kind of "weak sister" among the 1990s "Disney revival" animated movies, but it was anything but. At the box office it was a smash hit, Aladdin was the #1 movie of 1992 by a large margin. And from a critical perspective, it was nominated for 5 Academy Awards and won 2, and all of those were against general competition, as there was as yet no "Best Animated Feature" category, which it would have won easily. The soundtrack was also a big commercial hit, and won 4 Grammy awards.
So it doesn't surprise me that there is a reservoir of good will for the new film to build on.
I don’t get that impression at all. Quite the opposite actually.
I didn't count "Sniper" because it was one of those movies that debuted in one year and went wide the next. I only looked at "pure" January releases, not ones that went wide in the month after a short Oscar bait run the prior month.
BTW, I didn't claim "Blart" "super-charged" January - I just claimed it was a "pure January" new movie that did really well, and it's arguably the first of the modern era.
It also had more of a "shovelware" feel to it than the Oscar-contending fare that often goes wide in January, so it was a surprise hit.
The "Star Wars" special edition made tons of money with a January 1997 opening, but studios probably viewed that with an asterisk since it wasn't a new film...
At least September gets the occasional "prestige" movie that comes out that month to prep for Oscar season. January is the worst month for movies that have Oscar aspirations - meaning those that didn't qualify in limited December runs, of course!
Agree. "Summer" used to be May through July, but now it's basically April through August - and March might be part of the act, too!
August always had some decent releases but studios rarely attempted "tent pole" flicks that month until "Guardians of the Galaxy" showed August flicks could rake in big bucks as well as those in June/July.
Was "Matrix" the first March movie to "extend summer"?
I looked and was surprised to see "Home Alone 2" did better than "Batman Returns"! I thought "Aladdin" and "BR" were neck and neck for the 1992 box office crown, but as you note, "Aladdin" actually did the best by business by a pretty good margin.
I remembered "Home Alone 2" as a box office disappointment, so I didn't think it'd be #2 for 1992.
I know "Returns" also disappointed at the box office, but I thought it still did well enough to be in 2nd place!
IMO, "Lion King" and "BatB" stand atop all of the 'Disney animated revival' flicks and then you'd get "Little Mermaid" and "Aladdin".
The subsequent traditionally animated flicks - "Pocahontas", "Hunchback", "Hercules" - disappointed. "Tarzan" bounced back but I don't see it as a cultural touchstone ala the 1989-94 flicks. (Minus "Rescuers Down Under", that is.)
Even back in '92, Aladdin was considered something of a step down from what Clements and Musker had done three years before. On the other hand this was overshadowed by the fact that the film made the most money of any Disney film since Snow White.
The three days:
1 N Aladdin (2019) BV $86,100,000 - 4,476 - $19,236 $86,100,000 $183 1
2 1 John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum LG/S $24,350,000 -57.1% 3,850 - $6,325 $100,988,941 - 2
3 2 Avengers: Endgame BV $16,841,000 -43.8% 3,810 -410 $4,420 $798,172,736 $356 5
4 3 Pokemon Detective Pikachu WB $13,300,000 -47.0% 3,824 -424 $3,478 $116,122,622 $150 3
5 N Brightburn SGem $7,535,000 - 2,607 - $2,890 $7,535,000 $6 1
6 N Booksmart UAR $6,512,154 - 2,505 - $2,600 $6,512,154 - 1
7 4 A Dog's Journey Uni. $4,090,000 -49.1% 3,279 +12 $1,247 $14,920,535 - 2
8 5 The Hustle UAR $3,812,554 -37.9% 2,377 -700 $1,604 $29,837,523 - 3
9 6 The Intruder (2019) SGem $2,265,000 -43.6% 1,612 -619 $1,405 $31,930,541 $8 4
10 7 Long Shot LG/S $1,565,000 -53.2% 1,354 -756 $1,156 $28,693,097 - 4
Dumbo actually had a big bump and came in at #11 an increase of 238.2%.
On Monday, Avengers: Endgame will become only the second movie in history to make more than $800 million at the domestic box office.
Noticed that, too! Holiday weekend/family moviegoing bump? Or cheap tickets?
Maybe some people wanted a Dumbo/Aladdin double feature.
Some people who got shut out of Aladdin might have opted for Dumbo, particularly if they were already at the theater with their family in tow. It's also possible that Disney allowed certain theaters (like drive-ins) to play an Aladdin/Dumbo double feature. Disney did this last year as a way of getting the Wrinkle In Time grosses up to an even $100 million.
Drive-in theaters are also opening for the season in the northern tier states. They may be booking a Disney double-feature that includes Dumbo.
Though one in this area chose an Aladdin/Endgame pairing.
It was Aladdin and Detective Pikachu at my local drive in.