Here's a breakdown of the Pirates of Caribbean films, all 5 of them, in reverse order:

U.S Gross vs. Worldwide

5) 165 M / 543 M

4) 241 M / 804

3) 305 M / 348

2) 309 M / 654

1) 423 M / 642


So a noticeable drop off at the U.S. box office

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tommy C,

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:

I saw Cars 3 with the family this weekend, and we were the only ones in the theater for the 1 PM show. That film hasn't done that great, either, a far cry from Cars 1 and 2 which were big hits. Franchise fatigue, maybe.

Did Cars 2 do well? I know it's kind of universally heralded as Pixar's worst film, although I liked it. We saw Cars 3 on Father's Day and the theater was nearly full, but that was still opening weekend.

Cars, 244 M in the U.S.

Cars 2, 191 M U.S.

Cars 3, 120 M U.S. so far

It's a fairly broad generalization, but where pop culture stuff like the popularity of movie stars are concerned, those countries that haven't been swathed in it for nearly 100 years like we have been, are basically 10 years behind us. In other words, they are just now growing tired of the stuff we got tired of 10 years ago. Internationally, Tom still has a few years left. Domestically, he's pretty much done. Top Gun 2 could sell a few tickets, I guess. The good news for Cruise is that he can still rely on decent int'l grosses 'til he's around 60. By then, he'll probably be ready for one of them awesome SeaOrg jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
The only hit this summer--at the U.S. box office--seems to be Wonder Woman

I'm not counting Guardians 2 and Fast and Furious 8 as they came out in April and very early May

Transformers, Pirates 5, Cars 3, all seem to be under performing

Aliens and Mummy flopped domestically

Wonder Woman does appear to be the box office smash of the summer.

Transformers 5, is way below expectations and will probably lose Paramount a lot of money when they were expecting another hit.

It would appear that Wonder Woman is on its way to being the # 2 highest grossing film of the year, so far.

It is at 368 M and will no doubt pass Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in another few weeks, which made 385 M.

Don't know what to make of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, but it would seem to be a mega bomb for 2017. It cost 180M and just made 17M in opening US weekend.

Its based on French comic and has no real stars, but visuals are supposed to be impressive SiFi.

In reading the so-called plot, its hard to believe that anyone would invest that much money in it. It sure was not promoted in the US either, so I don't know how this one makes the money back unless it is somehow loved internationally. With that kind of budget, it could be the biggest loser of the year.

quote:

In reading the so-called plot, its hard to believe that anyone would invest that much money in it.

It's banking heavily on the French release. It's a 50 year old French comic book and directed by a passionate French director who's been trying to get the film done for over a decade. We live in an era where studios have recognised comic books to be a gold mine of already-market-tested storytelling and eccentric characters so it's hardly surprising why it got made.
As per boxofficemojo, "90% of the budget was reportedly covered with foreign pre-sales, equity financing and tax subsidies" so the US box office is probably very disappointing but likely not catastrophic.

I am interested in seeing it, but probably going to wait for the discounted ticket days rather than desperate enough to see it opening weekend. I love VFX movie magic so I hope it impresses even if the plot is wonky.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rwn410,

I saw it yesterday. I put it at much better than Cloud Atlas and just a little bit better than Jupiter Ascending. Not a great story and the acting was just ok. It felt like a re-worked script of The Fifth Element without all of the good parts. Dane DeHaan sounds annoyingly like Keanu Reeves.

It's a beautiful movie and the visuals give me hope that one day a proper production of Heavy Metal can be accomplished.

I would be surprised if European audiences go for this one in a big way. I think the wild card is Asia as far as box office dollars are concerned.

It does have stars-- Ethan Hawke and Rutger Hauer. In other words, stars from 20-30 years ago.

Rutger is only in it for a minute. I would almost call it a cameo. The fact that they pushed his name out front should tell you something. :-P

Ethan's role isn't much longer.

What was the last hit that Ethan Hawke had-- Training Day with Denzel Washington, way back in 2001 ?

I also saw War for the Planet of the Apes. There were many links to the 1968 film which is in the future as the timeline goes.

I really enjoyed it.

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
What was the last hit that Ethan Hawke had-- Training Day with Denzel Washington, way back in 2001 ?

He's still out there, he was in Boyhood which I hated but got a best picture and supporting actor nod. The Magnificent 7 and The Purge were a couple I enjoyed.

Yes, but I think it's been awhile since Ethan has been in a movie that has made more than 20 M in profit !

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
Yes, but I think it's been awhile since Ethan has been in a movie that has made more than 20 M in profit !

Hawke has turned to writing, directing and producing these little arty films. His acting buddies give him lots of love for these terribly personal efforts. And yeah I'm being sarcastic.

The last movie he made that I liked was the remake of Assault on Precinct 13. The Purge was not as good as it could have been. Boyhood, that decade in the making vanity piece, was mind numbing. So he doesn't have to do block busters, he is an artist.

As far as Valerian goes, it might look visually great on the big screen, but that alone won't bring in audiences because we have already seen it before. I watched the trailers and the lead actors, DeHann and Delevingne, look so bloodless than should be in a vampire flick. They are playing the humans, maybe no one told them. The director says that the film will have to make 350M to break even. Good luck with that!

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The Purge was not as good as it could have been.

I agree but I give the movie credit for making nearly 30 times its production budget. Quite possibly the most successful film of 2013. ;-)

That's what you do. When you are a movie star whose time has passed, you try your hand at theater or write novels, claiming that you "haven't found the right script" or that you "can't find challenging roles." Like 80s teen star, Andrew McCarthy.

Kong: Skull Island did well (March release) but I watched it when my brother got it through PPV. Overall, it was okay as an action movie - better than I expected but I don't need to see it again. It's just that a few things were not believable even for a monster movie.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
Kong: Skull Island did well (March release) but I watched it when my brother got it through PPV. Overall, it was okay as an action movie - better than I expected but I don't need to see it again. It's just that a few things were not believable even for a monster movie.

Veering a bit off course, I thought Kong was a waste of all the tools the makers had at their disposal. As a monster movie, there were too few monsters. Or maybe I should say too few varieties of monsters. The Skulldiggers, or whatever they were called, all looked alike and looked like a lot of the designs from other monster movies. You had a big spider, never really seen, some prehistoric flying reptiles and a friendly prehistoric reptile. And you had Kong himself, who a thought was scaled a bit too large and I just didn't bond with it as a character.

That's all there was for designs. Compare that to even the original King Kong with the stop motion photography. Kong fought all kinds of monsters in 1933. So on a technical level, I just thought it was lazy. Jurassic Park movies have way more designs to look at.

Then the story of Viet Nam era politics and soldiers was just thrown in to give SLJ an excuse to act crazy and all the other stars to act bored.

Yet I imagine it made enough money not to be a total flop. Which brings me back to the topic of this thread. There are many movie misses that go on the books as hits because these days lousy movies still make money. Lousy movies get sequels, sometimes even lousier sequels. The only standard we can use is box office numbers, but that doesn't really mean a movie didn't miss. It just means people saw it anyway. When you look at the box office totals of recent movies you would think that some great films are being made. But when you actually watch those films, more often than not you are disappointed. Its almost like everything has been done before and it was done better.