millarworld.tv Comics Creators

Box Office Mojo


#999

I would say that’s why Thor Ragnarok was so well received. It was so different from the first two Thor movies yet stayed true to the characters.


#1000

It is a really important part to retain that. It did up the comedy element but that was already there in Thor films, there’s a fish out of water and amusement at the ridiculous in all of them. The slapstick of him being run over, the Warriors 3 walking down midtown USA in full Asgardian regalia.

After reviewing the scripts for Kingsman in the competition I think they fell foul of the same problem as many there. The central theme is the juxtaposition of the suave James Bond character with the working class chav from a council estate. Lose sight of that and it just becomes over the top Bond with more jokes. 90% of the scripts were Bond cold opens with a few extra lewd jokes. The one that won played on the mix of high spy adventure and the banality of his mum making the tea.

They pay a little lip service to it but it’s mostly crazy set pieces and the heart of it is removed. They shouldn’t repeat but take a twist on the same central concept.


#1001

It’s a shame no-one making the second film was as aware of that.

They did try, but Eggsy’s past was not well incorporated.


#1002

I think most if the people who went to see them would argue that they have made great Star Wars movies.

Force Awakens is as good as any of the previous 6 movies, doing over 2 billion & much of that being repeat viewings

I have not seen it yet but my friends have come out about Last Jedi absolutely raving about it, at this stage I’m willing to wager that the negative reaction is the usual backlash we get nowadays following something really successful and popular.


#1003

Sorry but this is nonsense. You are letting your dislike of JJ Abrahams get in the way of a sensible point here.

Word of mouth for FA was about the strongest I have ever witnessed for a movie.

You don’t take in over 2 billion in ticket sales out of fan curiousity.

I’m not even that big a Star Wars fan but I can see some serious trolling here and it happens a lot when you don’t like a specific director or actor.


#1004

The price has a lot to do with it.

You need to understand that there’s people out there who don’t have the same disposable income as you do.

Taking a family of four to the cinema can cost £60+ plus, for a couple hours entertainment.
That’s ridiculous and I know a few friends who just won’t do it. You can get panto tickets for that price and watch a live show.

A trip to the cinema used to be a cheap night for a couple 10 years ago, £20 would cover petrol, tickets & snacks. Now you are looking at £50.

People who used to pop up to the cinema on a midweek night will only go as a weekend treat as it’s costing the same as a going out for a bite to eat and couple of drinks now.

I know a lot of people who will only use the 2 for one cinema tickets to go to the cinema now.

Students, and OAPs, even with their discounts, are still paying £7 or £8 for a showing.

Some people can’t afford to do that, not on pensions and lower paying jobs.


#1005

Maybe they would, it’s hard to compare experiences where that is concerned. My impression was that most people liked them, but weren’t blown away. But maybe that’s just how I felt about them.

Maybe wait until you’ve seen it yourself, then? Again, personal experience may simply differ. My son I saw it with and everybody I talked to - here and offline - once again more or less liked it, but not as much as they did Force Awakens.

Sorry but this is nonsense. You are letting your dislike of JJ Abrahams get in the way of a sensible point here.

I don’t dislike JJ Abrahans, and I liked Force Awakens. I just didn’t think it was a great movie.

In the case of Star Wars? Sure. This trilogy has been a huge part of popular culture for half a century, of course a sequel was always going to attract huge numbers of viewers simply because of that. Just like The Phantom Menace did. That seems rather too obvious to have to argue.


#1006

No I agree with Chris, $2bn is more than curiosity.

You get a huge opening weekend out of curiosity, the must-see factor kicks in and everyone wants to go.

But after that, $2bn is everyone else, And it’s repeat business. It’s people seeing the film multiple times.

You don’t have to rewatch a movie to satisfy your curiosity.


#1007

You’d lose the bet! It really isn’t. Some of it is what you describe, but I’d say the greater part of it isn’t.


#1008

There’s always some that can’t afford something, but it’s usually a small minority of the market and not worth the price reduction to try and get them. In your example if a ticket is ten quid and you lowered it to eight quid you wouldn’t sell 20% more tickets. I nean all these companies know what they can charge for a movie.

When it comes to most entertainment costs the markets know where the consumer will pay. From comics to meals to TV to sports.


#1009

Ticket price is the single biggest factor; that’s the conclusion from Price Waterhouse a couple of years ago;

Nothing is as motivating as lowering ticket prices. Fifty-three percent of all movie goers are interested in last-minute cheap seats.

Time is definitely a factor, inconvenience and hassle weigh heavily against going anywhere for something, but cheaper helps.

If cinemas can’t find a sweet spot on price for the customer and income for themselves they will continue to see a decline in attendance.


#1010

Yeah and as I know a few people in the business cinemas really don’t have a large margin. I’m not sure what business model could support much lower prices other than what they currently do with thing like half price or two for one on a Wednesday.

Equally I see where Chris is coming from, for a family it is quite a big cost. Even for the comparatively well off shelling out 50 quid plus means it becomes a special occasion thing.

They did try the Easy Cinema concept, using the budget airline model from Easyjet. So the first few rows started at a pound or whatever and went up as it filled. In theory it’s a good one but the studios didn’t like the risk it may cause in lowering their take so didn’t lease the latest films, without the latest films a cinema is generally buggered so it failed.


#1011

The entire poor market is served by home media options. It’s not like studios don’t get them at some point. Reducing prices at the cinema would be a terrible financial decision.


#1012

I don’t really know why Kingsman is being used as an example here. The second one actually outgrossed the first one, internationally. They both scored within the same range at the box office. That indicated that as far as general perception goes, there was no significant difference between them. Fans will complain, because fans always want the things they love to be bigger successes. And that’s another thing this era has distorted. Historically, really it’s only been Star Wars (and to lesser extents the first Superman and Batman movies) that was a massive fan success. Now we get all kinds of fan success stories, and so anytime there is a failure, or perceived failure, we blame the material. But fans by definition like material that bucks traditional expectations. In a lot of cases, fans love things in spite of their actual quality. And yet…


#1013

It made $10M more outside the US, but $30M less in America, and it the budget was $25M higher.

The actual reaction to it was a lot more negative too, and I can’t imagine a third movie being a success if they aim for a similar scale.


#1014

I enjoyed it more than the first movie, but a third one would really need to parse itself down. Golden Circle was about an hour and some plot hooks too long.


#1015

I’m just saying, it was probably unrealistic to expect it to be a continuing series. Getting a sequel at all was probably good enough. Given that fans rarely view the sequel to be as good as the original.


#1016

Even if it led to more money coming in overall?

I don’t know how everyone else feels, but I lose a bit of interest in a movie after the buzz does down.

When it’s out in the cinema I’m usually really motivated to watch it, by the time it comes to reaching on demand or streaming services I’ve lost a that drive because my attention has moved onto the other new releases that are being talked about.

There’s stuff I really wanted to see hit Netflix and Ive never got round to it.

I think people are more likely to create that habit of going to the cinema regularly when it’s affordable.

If you have 2 or 3 big releases out in a month most people are going to need to pick one of those to go and see.

I also think there is something in Ridley Scott’s point about the number of releases.

Also the number of tv channels and shows will be a massive factor.

When we only had 4 channels a trip to the video store was at least a weekly occurrence.


#1017

I think you are right and it aligns into the Easy Cinema issue, cheap movies 3 or 4 weeks late and nobody much cared.

To be honest I think most studios, outside of Netflix obviously, view streaming and DVD as gravy, a nice bonus if you get it. Really the Orange Wednesday idea (I know the sponsors have changed and it happens globally) is a sign of that, the film is cheaper when the lineup is about to change.

I don’t think from the business perspective there is any way at the moment to reduce radically ticket prices in the cinema.

The sheer number of entertainment options is also an issue. I do think it will calm down to an extent in a few years. Some of the people initially up for it like the console makers are backing off and learning to stick to their core business.


#1018