what a total ass wipe


im loving that his flick is floppin





such a dope
[Edited 5/7/06 15:29pm]

Natsume said:

I've never threatened anyone on the internet! I think that's a bit cowardly. But I have told them to fuck off, many, many times. But all in jest. I love every quark of everyone here. Especially you.

Number23 said:

If you've read some of my posts, I don't play the Wonka persona all the time around here.

On a few occasions I've actually revealed quite a bit about my real self.

Number23 said:

Oh, but I've been on the receiving end of that shit, and it's lovely to know that some fellow orgers are definitely BATSHIT FUCKING CRAZY!

I'm sure whatever you're doing can't be as bad as that. I also didn't know you were such a fan of Sponge bob.

shausler said:

It's gonna bring in around $50 million for the weekend...not quite a flop, there...lol

Natsume said:

Spongebob lives the life I always wanted to lead when I was wee, before telephones and student loans got in the way. He's truly free - devoid of hang-ups, fear or trepidation. Spongebob is my fucking hero, man.

Byron said:

It's all relative. The production budget is $150-200 M (studio won't release an exact figure), not including the ridiculous cost of prints. A $48M opening when Paramount was expecting and tracking over $60M is bad. Adjusted for inflation, the first Mission: Impossible would have come in at $62 M in today's dollars, and MI2 would have seen $64.7 M today. The first movie brought in 10.3 M viewers on opening weekend, the second 10.7 M and this one only 7 M. Combine this with the underwhelming reception for War Of The Worlds, and it seems that Cruise's public persona is starting to erode his box office appeal. The film had saturation marketing, great reviews and 4000+ screens (second-biggest live-action release of all time) - basically everything going for it to open huge this weekend. But people were talking and writing about Cruise and not the film itself. The opening ranks 18th all time for May, which is pretty bad for a film with this kind of pedigree. X-Men 2 was able to open to $85.6 M on this weekend in 2003, while Spiderman 2 managed $115 M on the same weekend in 2002.

Finally, the film had a Friday:weekend internal multiplier of 2.9, which indicates poor legs. It will probably drop like a stone next weekend.
[Edited 5/7/06 15:58pm]

Byron said:

It's all relative. The production budget is $150-200 M (studio won't release an exact figure), not including the ridiculous cost of prints. A $48M opening when Paramount was expecting and tracking over $60M is bad. Adjusted for inflation, the first Mission: Impossible would have come in at $62 M in today's dollars, and MI2 would have seen $64.7 M today. The first movie brought in 10.3 M viewers on opening weekend, the second 10.7 M and this one only 7 M. Combine this with the underwhelming reception for War Of The Worlds, and it seems that Cruise's public persona is starting to erode his box office appeal. The film had saturation marketing, great reviews and 4000+ screens (second-biggest live-action release of all time) - basically everything going for it to open huge this weekend. But people were talking and writing about Cruise and not the film itself. The opening ranks 18th all time for May, which is pretty bad for a film with this kind of pedigree. X-Men 2 was able to open to $85.6 M on this weekend in 2003, while Spiderman 2 managed $115 M on the same weekend in 2002.

Finally, the film had a Friday:weekend internal multiplier of 2.9, which indicates poor legs. It will probably drop like a stone next weekend.
[Edited 5/7/06 15:58pm]

VoicesCarry said:

To add to the relativeness:

"Along with potential Cruise backlash, the long six-year interval since "Mission: Impossible II" may have dulled audience appetites.

Head-to-head comparisons are difficult, since the previous "Mission: Impossible" movies and "War of the Worlds" opened over long holiday weekends, when Sunday grosses typically are much stronger than during a regular weekend.

Debuting in about 55 other countries, "Mission: Impossible III" took in $70 million, for a worldwide total of $118 million. Paramount noted that the new movie beat the $115 million worldwide debut of "Mission: Impossible II" in those same countries."

VoicesCarry said:

But you need to factor in that it's a threquel. Law of diminishing returns and all that?

VoicesCarry said:

But you need to factor in that it's a threquel. Law of diminishing returns and all that?

Number23 said:

Have you seen the original Spanish version, Open Your Eyes? It's great.

Oh I know, but I just think people will find it difficult to find any real empathy with you if they're confronted by a picture and the name of Willy Wonka when they read your 'real' posts.

fathermcmeekle said:

Not to mention that movies like X-Men and Spiderman have built-in audiences of the comic books they're derived from...Mission: Impossible doesn't have that advantage, there is no sizeable built-in audience from the old tv show to draw upon. That six-year lull between MI2 and MI3 dulled the desire of moviegoers...

Byron said:

Sure it beat it - but not when 6 years of inflation are accounted for ! And Sunday grosses are not going to be large enough to make up the difference. Maybe $2-3M, but that's it.

This was labeled a disappointment when its $17M Friday number was released, and people realized Scary Movie 4 made more on opening day
[Edited 5/7/06 16:07pm]

VoicesCarry said:

Scary Movie 4 only made $40 million it's first weekend...so even if it did more on that opening Friday, its first weekend total was $8 million less...

Byron said:

I think you'll see what I mean when the bottom drops out from under it next weekend

These films, like the Bourne franchise, are now manufactured to open huge. Even Big Momma's House 2, which also had a 6 year gap after the original, managed a higher opening than the first
[Edited 5/7/06 16:12pm]

Byron said:

I think you'll see what I mean when the bottom drops out from under it next weekend

These films, like the Bourne franchise, are now manufactured to open huge. Even Big Momma's House 2, which also had a 6 year gap after the original, managed a higher opening than the first
[Edited 5/7/06 16:12pm]

fathermcmeekle said:

Doesn't work with a franchise like this. Even Scary Movie 3 saw an uptick relative to SM2 The studio was also tracking a $60M+ opening, as were most analysts.
[Edited 5/7/06 16:05pm]

Number23 said:

An avatar of Jesus in a Santa hat elicits more empathy and credibility than does a photo of Willy Wonka?

I do appreciate your thoughts and - who knows? maybe you're right to a degree... but the fact is I've interacted quite well, and in a very "real" way, with a number of very nice people since joining this site. Obviously people know I'm not really Willy Wonka and that I don't really think I am he (just as I assume you're not Jesus in a Santa hat nor do you think you are Jesus). Using "WillyWonka" as a username hasn't seemed to inhibit the sharing of true emotions or how people respond to me on a more personal, genuine level.

In fact, I've found most seem to enjoy the Wonka persona to a point, and they have fun with it. I know I do.
[Edited 5/7/06 16:10pm]

VoicesCarry said:

Um, BM2 managing a higher opening than BM1 isn't exactly anything to brag about...lol ...try making a sequel that will top a $60 million opening, and you've got something to compare it to.

VoicesCarry said:

Yeah, I read MI3 was opening in the fifth most theaters ever. For them to get $12 million below projections is a big deal.

VoicesCarry said:

Just because SM3 outperformed SM2 doesn't mean anything. Generally speaking sequels gross less than their predecessors. And you say franchise, I say tomato...

And enough of the number crunching, it's still not a flop. Perhaps it's fallen below expectation, but flop?

WillyWonka said:

Gimmie a hug.

fathermcmeekle said:

I said it was a disappointment, not a flop. I was actually agreeing with Byron.

u2prnce said:

MI3 was in 4,000 theatres...Ice Age 2 was in 3,900 theatres...lol...so "fifth most theatres ever" doesn't really mean too much anymore...

Byron said:

Actually, it is. Because BMH2 had a washed-up star, absolutely terrible reviews, and a dumping-ground release date, and still managed this. Of course it wound up with a much lower gross than the original, but that is how sequels are supposed to perform. Big opening, smaller overall gross.

u2prnce said:

MI3 was in 4,000 theatres...Ice Age 2 was in 3,900 theatres...lol...so "fifth most theatres ever" doesn't really mean too much anymore...

Byron said:

Actually, it does!

Here's what one analyst had to say:

While opening a Mission: Impossible film with 4,054 venues may seem like a good idea on paper, it is actually quite the opposite. With this opening, some theaters on the continent may have been 25% full at best. Paramount will have trouble maintaining an audience next weekend as its total availability and its awareness meant that anybody who wanted to see it this weekend could have.