Non-Sport Update's Card Talk NSU Home | NSU Store | In The Current Issue... | Contact Us |
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Hits and Misses of 2020
 Login/Join
 
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Yahoo reports that Wonder Woman 84 has grossed almost 29 M domestically so far which means that it is now the # 11 film of 2020. Looks like it dropped significantly in Week 2 which suggests that people are staying home to watch it on HBO.
 
Posts: 2859 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
It looks like Hollywood just can't do cat people. For all the advances in make up, costumes and CGI, the fully transformed Cheetah of WW84 was only marginally better than the fur balls of Cats. They went for a realistic CGI version of the comic character and it just didn't work. They should have left Wiig half baked. Big Grin

Decades ago they showed cat people in films as shadows on the wall and the audience had to use their imaginations. Sometimes less is more.
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
Looks like Wonder Woman is struggling to make the Top 10 films of 2020, domestically.

It is stuck at # 11, having made less than 33 M so far. Meanwhile, the # 10 film, Croods, is up to about 37 M.

Was it a mistake to release it in theaters ? Perhaps they should have waited.
 
Posts: 2859 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
Something called The Marksman, starring Liam Neeson, has unseated Wonder Woman 1984 at the weekend box office with a grand domestic total of $3.2M.

WW84 is up to $141.7 worldwide box office after 3 weekends, but it cost over $200M. What is less clear to me is how much it made with the HBO Max deal?

Same thing with Netflix announcing one new movie a week for 2021 and getting these all-star cast productions going very fast. The studios and the streaming channels have to be making money on these deals, even if its not movie theatre money.

If COVID ever goes away, and increasingly more its beginning to look like it won't, some things in business and regular life don't look like they will ever return to "normal".

Somebody's going to have to start a 2021 Hits and Misses thread, but I don't know if it even matters. Wink
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
I wonder if the "big" 2021 releases are really going to make it to theaters this year, or will they be kicked off until 2022 ?

Is the new James Bond film really coming out this April, after originally being scheduled for fall 2019 ? Is Top Gun really coming out this summer ?

Why would they release these if hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost ?
 
Posts: 2859 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
They are now saying the Bond release will be delayed until at least October 2021, maybe later.

Sounds like millions of dollars have been lost due to the 2 year delay.
 
Posts: 4465 | Location: Bayonne, NJ, USA | Registered: May 06, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
At the present time, "Wonder Woman 84" is about 5 M behind "Croods 2" for the # 10 spot of 2020 Domestic releases.

What a disaster for Warner Bros. WW84 cost at least 200 M to make and so far it has grossed about 38 M in the U.S.
 
Posts: 2859 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Silver Card Talk Member
Picture of WOMBLE
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
....
WW84 is up to $141.7 worldwide box office after 3 weekends, but it cost over $200M. What is less clear to me is how much it made with the HBO Max deal?
....


From a company point of view, HBO and Warner are owned by the same company, so a net nothing.
 
Posts: 1039 | Location: UNITED KINGDOM | Registered: December 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by WOMBLE:
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
....
WW84 is up to $141.7 worldwide box office after 3 weekends, but it cost over $200M. What is less clear to me is how much it made with the HBO Max deal?
....


From a company point of view, HBO and Warner are owned by the same company, so a net nothing.


Then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have not held off on the release until some movie chains were operating with enough capacity to make a decent box office..

I know that they didn't charge streaming subscribers a separate fee to see WW84, as Disney has done. So revenue had to come from advertisers or some sort of accounting transaction between the corporations. WB is going to put all their 2021 movies on HBO Max the same day as released and there is no way they are not getting some kind of revenue from it. They would go bankrupt, losing potentially millions per film, if they just let them stream essentially for free.

At the very least, they would have to switch to a pay-per-play model or raise the subscription fee through the roof. I think there is something hidden that makes this work for the studio.
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Silver Card Talk Member
Picture of WOMBLE
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
... WB is going to put all their 2021 movies on HBO Max the same day as released and there is no way they are not getting some kind of revenue from it. They would go bankrupt, losing potentially millions per film, if they just let them stream essentially for free.
...


According to the news HBO doubled its subscriptions in the US, which is what I guess what the plan was. In the UK you can rent online WW84 for £15.99, which is a little above what they usually charge for a new DVD/Blu-ray, so pretty expensive.

Its also reported that actors/directors/producers/partners ect., are furious that HBO are doing this.
 
Posts: 1039 | Location: UNITED KINGDOM | Registered: December 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by WOMBLE:
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
... WB is going to put all their 2021 movies on HBO Max the same day as released and there is no way they are not getting some kind of revenue from it. They would go bankrupt, losing potentially millions per film, if they just let them stream essentially for free.
...


According to the news HBO doubled its subscriptions in the US, which is what I guess what the plan was. In the UK you can rent online WW84 for £15.99, which is a little above what they usually charge for a new DVD/Blu-ray, so pretty expensive.

Its also reported that actors/directors/producers/partners ect., are furious that HBO are doing this.


Well yeah, that's what I was saying. You can't simply look at box office numbers now because its not just fannies in the seats anymore. They are pulling in revenue from additional streaming subscription fees, pay-per-play buys and maybe straight deals.

So WW84 has lost a fortune by box office take, but when you add in the back ended money, maybe it broke even or better or not much more. We can't tell anymore how good or bad a film did money wise unless you are privy to all the income records that the studios get.

No matter how you look at it, they are already projecting this into 2022. The new Bond is re-scheduled for October 2021 and that is very optimistic, but they could just wind up following the same split model anyway.
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by WOMBLE:
Its also reported that actors/directors/producers/partners ect., are furious that HBO are doing this.


I'm guessing that's because these people have their own percentage deals on the films and either they think they will be losing more money this way or they have no way of figuring out if they are being cheated on their percentages this way.
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Contest Czar
Picture of barobehere
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
quote:
Originally posted by WOMBLE:
Its also reported that actors/directors/producers/partners ect., are furious that HBO are doing this.


I'm guessing that's because these people have their own percentage deals on the films and either they think they will be losing more money this way or they have no way of figuring out if they are being cheated on their percentages this way.


It is the backend points deal that many of the top performers receive. I have an actress/friend who is high enough that said her pay package deal includes a whooping .002% of the total revenue from theatre ticket sales. She gets 0 from streaming. So, the last film she was in made around 10million in profits which netted her an addition 20,000 dollars. If it was streamed that is 20,000 she would not have received. For a working actress (not a named star) that 20,000 can mean a lot.
 
Posts: 5726 | Location: Meridian, Mississippi | Registered: November 23, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of mykdude
posted Hide Post
At the global box office Tenet sits at #4 while WW84 struggles at 13. I think this would have happened without covid. Tenet was a bit pretentious but WW84 betrayed its much superior predecessor.
 
Posts: 3627 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: March 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
Not having another place to put this, the nominations for the Academy Awards for the 2020 year should be announced in a few weeks. I have been looking over the potential contenders for best films and leading and supporting actors.

I have seen none of the films mentioned. In reading about them, I want to see none of them. They are the most depressing lot I can think of to be collectively gathered in a year when there has been no shortage of real life depression. This is what passes for Hollywood entertainment these days. This is what happens when every big money crowd pleaser is held back and only independent, arty, message laden, pc films get released because somebody has to win something. Big Grin

It's also why TV streaming shows are booming. Wink
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
The Top 10 Films of 2020, domestically, turned out to be:

1) BAD BOYS FOR LIFE
2) SONIC THE HEDGEHOG
3) BIRDS OF PREY
4) DOLITTLE
5) THE INVISIBLE MAN
6) THE CALL OF THE WILD
7) ONWARD
8) TENET
9) THE CROODS: A NEW AGE
10) WONDER WOMAN 1984
 
Posts: 2859 | Location: NY | Registered: August 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
In a fitting tribute to the 2020 movies, the Academy Awards show on Sunday was a train wreck from beginning to end. It was the lowest rated telecast in modern Oscar history, with less than 10 million viewers. Way down from last year, which was the lowest viewed at that point.

A combination of films very few people have seen, a general distaste for the woke Hollywood establishment and a production that was full of miscalculations really did this one in. No host, no film clips, no live music numbers, no limit on the speech time, no comedy banter and most of all, no fun.

Yes it was a bad year. All the more reason to be entertaining, but instead the Oscar show was just boring and got what it deserved. Even the loyal late night talk show hosts said it was terrible. Can't get worse than when those lap dogs turn. Big Grin

Shame about Chadwick Boseman never getting the tribute he deserved because they were all waiting on a win that didn't come though. Hopkins won, nobody was there, the show was over, get out. Talk about an anticlimax.
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gold Card Talk Member
Picture of chesspieceface
posted Hide Post
I skimmed through the Oscars, but I could tell it wasn't going as they hoped.

Nice to see Harrison Ford, but yikes, if he's going to play Indy again, they might have to give him the CGI treatment for the action scenes like they did Christopher Lee's lightsaber battles in Star Wars.

Either so many people died last year, or more likely, they were so afraid of leaving anyone out, they played an uptempo jazzy Stevie Wonder song for the "In Memoriam" reel and at points, the faces flashed by so quickly, it was almost comical, obviously not what they were going for there.

Award shows notwithstanding, it was still a great year for movies. Several masterpieces joined the pantheon including Mank, Promising Young Woman, Lady Day, Ma Rainey, and Nomadland, to name a few.

That McDormand has 3 Oscars while Glenn Close still none is a bit unsettling, but Frances delivered again. I would've been happy with any of the Best Actress nominees winning. Kirby, Mulligan, Day, Davis, they all were spectacular.

I wanted Boseman in tribute (plus, he was great), but Hopkins deserved another Oscar by now, the way he keeps bringing it.

There were a ridiculous amount of excellent performances. I could make entirely new lists of people not nominated that could have been, and be happy with those. Beyond that, there were tons of genre pictures I really enjoyed.

Despite the oddness of the times, I think the slate of 2020 movies will ultimately be well regarded.

____________________
Everywhere around this burg they're running out of verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. Everywhere around this town, they're running out of nouns.
 
Posts: 2999 | Location: California | Registered: December 23, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Silver Card Talk Member
posted Hide Post
I wouldn't call it a train wreck. It just wasn't the flashy Hollywood production people like to see. I don't usually watch it but sat for most of this one to see how it was going. They were trying to do a more subdued awards show celebrating the year in movies but without too much of a party atmosphere given the pandemic and other recent tragedies. It really was the perfect time to bring back a host and someone who's hosted a show before. Yeah, someone is always saying the wrong thing and it gets out and they probably tried to get Tom Hanks or Whoopi Goldberg but maybe you go with someone like Craig Ferguson or LaVar Burton paired with someone from younger Hollywood or maybe a husband and wife team like Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick.

You did sense when an acceptance speech was running long, but to me, let them have their time at the podium especially if their work is long hours behind-the-scenes.

I don't think I saw any of the movies, but in the clips I saw, Hopkins overacted. Apparently, the Academy likes over the top more than a sentimental favorite.

Jess


quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
In a fitting tribute to the 2020 movies, the Academy Awards show on Sunday was a train wreck from beginning to end. It was the lowest rated telecast in modern Oscar history, with less than 10 million viewers. Way down from last year, which was the lowest viewed at that point.

A combination of films very few people have seen, a general distaste for the woke Hollywood establishment and a production that was full of miscalculations really did this one in. No host, no film clips, no live music numbers, no limit on the speech time, no comedy banter and most of all, no fun.

Yes it was a bad year. All the more reason to be entertaining, but instead the Oscar show was just boring and got what it deserved. Even the loyal late night talk show hosts said it was terrible. Can't get worse than when those lap dogs turn. Big Grin

Shame about Chadwick Boseman never getting the tribute he deserved because they were all waiting on a win that didn't come though. Hopkins won, nobody was there, the show was over, get out. Talk about an anticlimax.
 
Posts: 2415 | Location: San Jose, CA, USA | Registered: December 23, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Platinum Card Talk Member
Picture of Raven
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chesspieceface:
That McDormand has 3 Oscars while Glenn Close still none is a bit unsettling, but Frances delivered again.


The reason why Close has no Oscar to date is because in her heyday she played the grand diva to many younger unknown actors, now important themselves, and drove production people crazy. They all sing her praises publicly, but privately they haven't forgiven her and they don't vote for her. Artists or not, its still a popularity contest. Wink
 
Posts: 8654 | Location: New York | Registered: November 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  
 


© Non-Sport Update 2013