Wonder Woman (2017)

[captveg]

Originally Posted by chip75

I'd be surprised if Wonder Woman does more than $250 million domestically (I hope it does). I'd imagine Warner Bros. are looking at $175-225 million with a decent international performance.

Doctor Strange box office is where they expect it to end up.

I think it does better.

[Drewbee87]

Seen this MasterCard gift card at Walmart:

[hawaii sun]

http://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-e...ptain-america/

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by hawaii sun

http://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-e...ptain-america/

Hmm. Well, I loved Captain America so ...

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ClownPrinceofCrime

ROFL...that is so outrageously laughable that even calling it hyperbole doesn't cut it. Let's just say for argument sake that audiences are going for the character, this Wonder Woman is nowhere near substantial enough to command a 130m plus opening weekend, and it is largely due to the fact that she is part of the DCEU. Again, nothing more than conjecture at this time, but an educated guess that can change once reviews start coming in. And I'm looking slightly beyond averaging the numbers of the other DCEU movies.

That's not accurate. DiCaprio can still sell almost any movie on his name alone, tentpole or otherwise.

And I'm saying, for WW to do MoS type overall numbers at the domestic BO, it has to have an opening closer to 150m and not 115m given the circumstances.

Sorry, but that is not correct. There is no verifiable proof that a movie performs better during summer weekdays than any other time. Actually, the reason for that is because wom for MoS and even SS were stronger than BvS. That's why both of those movies managed to get close to BvS' overall domestic gross even after having significantly lower openings.

(I can't believe you got me defending MoS, but facts are facts)

He's pretty much right. Stars don't sell movies anymore. Oh, Jennifer Lawrence is the top female movie star? Hunger Games and X-Men are big hits... then Joy and Passengers did lukewarm business. People love Johnny Depp in Pirates... but many of his other films flop. RDJ? Great as Iron Man... but did The Judge, Chef or Due Date make a billion dollars? Nope. People go for the characters/franchise. It doesn't matter who's really in them anymore.

It's a far cry from Tom Cruise/Dustin Hoffman making Rain Man — a small character-driven road movie — as big a box office giant as The Dark Knight (adjusted for inflation).

The age of the movie star is sadly over.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

He's pretty much right. Stars don't sell movies anymore. Oh, Jennifer Lawrence is the top female movie star? Hunger Games and X-Men are big hits... then Joy and Passengers did lukewarm business. People love Johnny Depp in Pirates... but many of his other films flop. RDJ? Great as Iron Man... but did The Judge, Chef or Due Date make a billion dollars? Nope. People go for the characters/franchise. It doesn't matter who's really in them anymore.

The age of the movie star is sadly over.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, J-Law has a career gross of nearly $2.5b -- so while some of her films haven't nailed it, the woman is bringing in the cash on a regular basis. Granted, a lot of that is Hunger Games and X-Men. But that's still bringing it in.

Michael Fassbender has a lifetime average of almost $50M -- and he's been in a lot of small movies. How many people saw Hunger for example?

Sure, X-Men helps all these people. I don't pretend otherwise. But they still make some killer small films.

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

He's pretty much right. Stars don't sell movies anymore. Oh, Jennifer Lawrence is the top female movie star? Hunger Games and X-Men are big hits... then Joy and Passengers did lukewarm business. People love Johnny Depp in Pirates... but many of his other films flop. RDJ? Great as Iron Man... but did The Judge, Chef or Due Date make a billion dollars? Nope. People go for the characters/franchise. It doesn't matter who's really in them anymore.

It's a far cry from Tom Cruise/Dustin Hoffman making Rain Man — a small character-driven road movie — as big a box office giant as The Dark Knight (adjusted for inflation).

The age of the movie star is sadly over.

And I will tell you like I told him, tell that to DiCaprio or Bullock.

The point isn't whether stars sell movies or not. "Tentpole" movies need a combination of vehicle and star power to succeed was my point. Since when are Joy, Judge, Chef, or Due Date considered "tentpole" movies? Depp is the only one on your list who has multiple "tentpole" movies that have been utter failures at the BO. I noticed you conveniently left out Sherlock Holmes and A Game of Shadows, which were "tentpole" movies for RDJ, thus proving my point that it has to be a combination of vehicle and star power.

Rain Man is a terrible example. A movie like that would never be successful in today's landscape for a number of reasons. And it wasn't even a "tentpole" movie for back when it was released.

Not while DiCaprio, Bullock, and Denzel are still around.

[chip75]

It's hard to argue against cold-hard-numbers, movie stars don't open movies anymore. Movies open movies.

Its debatable when they lost their power, but back when Harrison Ford was at his best, he knew full well that his smaller movies weren't going to be BOFO at the B.O., he knew they'd 'underperform' in the studios eyes (compared to his Indy, Star Wars and Jack Ryan pictures).

Today, compared to franchise tent poles, movie stars (with the few exceptions) don't open pictures anymore.

[Geoff D]

I can see what all of y'all are saying, but I think a bit of both is true in the modern movie era: swap out RDJ before the release of Avengers 1 and there would've been a global outcry. It's the James Bond effect writ large across multiple franchises: a casting decision becomes such a perfectly felicitous choice that it's the combination of character and actor which keeps drawing people in. The franchise without said actor won't draw as much, and the actor outside of said franchise won't draw as much, but bring them together and POW! Movie magic, baby.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

The age of the movie star is sadly over.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I can see what all of y'all are saying, but I think a bit of both is true in the modern movie era: swap out RDJ before the release of Avengers 1 and there would've been a global outcry. It's the James Bond effect writ large across multiple franchises: a casting decision becomes such a perfectly felicitous choice that it's the combination of character and actor which keeps drawing people in. The franchise without said actor won't draw as much, and the actor outside of said franchise won't draw as much, but bring them together and POW! Movie magic, baby.

I think Paul Newman said "In the right role I'm priceless."

That's still pretty much the case, RDJ makes Iron Man, Craig makes Bond Bond (until he gets replaced!).

Funny you posted a picture of Gosling, Batmon77, he's pretty much considered box office poison, but in the right role a la (or a LA LA Land) Newman, he's been priceless.

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

That picture only means that Hollywood hasn't noticed, not that Star Power is still a thing.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

That picture only means that Hollywood hasn't noticed, not that Star Power is still a thing.

Star power isnt a factor here?

[mwynn]

Resident Evil Afterlife in 30 seconds - YouTube

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

Originally Posted by chip75

It's hard to argue against cold-hard-numbers, movie stars don't open movies anymore. Movies open movies.

Its debatable when they lost their power, but back when Harrison Ford was at his best, he knew full well that his smaller movies weren't going to be BOFO at the B.O., he knew they'd 'underperform' in the studios eyes (compared to his Indy, Star Wars and Jack Ryan pictures).

Today, compared to franchise tent poles, movie stars (with the few exceptions) don't open pictures anymore.

And yet, some of you are insistent on doing just that.

You're just a whole bunch of contradictions, aren't you? Movie stars never opened movies unless it was the right vehicle. And a movie star opening a movie, which still happens given the 3 names I listed, are completely different from a movie star opening a "tentpole" movie. Maybe that's why some of you are finding it difficult to understand because all of you are painting all openings with a broad brush.

Smaller moves like Presumed Innocent, The Fugitive, or What Lies Beneath, you mean?

Please explain how is that any different from what I have been saying.

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I can see what all of y'all are saying, but I think a bit of both is true in the modern movie era: swap out RDJ before the release of Avengers 1 and there would've been a global outcry. It's the James Bond effect writ large across multiple franchises: a casting decision becomes such a perfectly felicitous choice that it's the combination of character and actor which keeps drawing people in. The franchise without said actor won't draw as much, and the actor outside of said franchise won't draw as much, but bring them together and POW! Movie magic, baby.

Precisely.

Who here is going to argue that a 30-year old Jolie would be a lesser draw than a 30-year old Gal in the role of Wonder Woman? Whatever WW opens at add another 50m to that at least, if you were to replace Gal with Jolie from back in the day.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by ClownPrinceofCrime

Smaller moves like Presumed Innocent, The Fugitive, or What Lies Beneath, you mean?

You seem to be saying that movie stars can still open movies, the numbers don't support that, Bullock can't really open a movie like she used to, Tom Hanks, one of the industry's most bankable stars can't open a movie anymore (he needed the combination of Sully and Captain Phillips to buck his recent underperformers). It's the movie that's the draw opening weekend. That's what we're talking about, star power may give a picture legs to some degree, but it's won't open a picture to any great extent. DiCaprio and Washington are still filling seats opening weekend to some degree, but they still have their blips.

Presumed Innocent and The Fugitive where large properties even before Harrison was attached. Just look at Witness, Mosquito Coast and Regarding Henry, three of Ford's better roles and they made little impact.

A movie's success is now a combination of factors, star power alone just doesn't cut it anymore, but if you get the right property and the right performer, you should be onto a winner. But you can take a star and put them in an original property and all bets are off.

Sure back in her Tomb Raider days a Angelina Jolie starring Wonder Woman would have been a draw, but now? The margins are so small her fee would cut in too deep. Gadot is a far safer bet, she would have been signed for multiple pictures at a fraction of the cost. And at the end of the day they want Wonder Woman to be the main attraction, not lovely Gadot.

[Groot]

The movies may be bigger than ever, but movie stars are over.

Johnny Depp — a genuinely great and inventive actor — tops the Forbes list of the film stars generating the least box-office bang for the buck.

The (extremely oversimplified) tabulation by Forbes puts Depp in first place because his movies lately have returned only $2.80 for each dollar spent on him. Movies cost a lot more than just the salary of the leading man, though; his too-long-delayed sequel to “Alice in Wonderland,” “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” took in $300 million on a budget of $190 million plus unknown worldwide distribution and marketing costs, perhaps in the $80 million to $100 million range. Movie studios only pocket about half of the box-office take, so break-even for the sequel would be something like $550 million.

Every star has flops, but today’s audiences are no longer following favorite stars around. They aren’t even turning up for the opening weekend for films like Depp’s “Mortdecai” (worldwide gross $47 million), “Transcendence” ($103 million) or even the well-crafted “Black Mass” ($100 million).

Will Smith, generally considered the biggest movie star on Earth a few years ago, was second on Forbes’ most-overpaid list because of duds such as “Concussion” ($48 million) and “Focus” ($159 million). Smith’s ensemble piece “Suicide Squad” was a big hit, but would it have earned less if his role had been played by a no-name actor? The franchise sells the picture.

Audiences are showing up for special-effects spectacle and for intriguing characters: Benedict Cumberbatch may be great in “Doctor Strange,” but no one bought tickets to that saying, “Look, honey, there’s a new Benedict Cumberbatch movie!”

Jennifer Lawrence has more star wattage than anybody, but does that mean audiences will show up to her next one, “Passengers,” which is generating bad buzz? Only if the audience is pulled in by the story. They certainly weren’t there for her last one, “Joy” ($101 million). Her appeal couldn’t prevent audiences from noticing the deterioration of quality in the “Hunger Games” franchise, in which the third episode did worse than the second and the fourth did worse than the third.

Audiences have rejected star vehicles for Bradley Cooper (“Burnt,” “Aloha”), Channing Tatum (“Jupiter Ascending”), Christian Bale (“Exodus: Gods and Kings”) and Matthew McConaughey (“Free State of Jones”).

Leonardo DiCaprio, who has first crack at the best scripts and directors, is riding a string of four straight hits, but before that he had four flops out of six. George Clooney? His entire movie career has been a stream of red ink with a few scattered exceptions (the three “Ocean’s” movies and “The Perfect Storm”).

Comic actors pose less financial downside because their films are much cheaper than action spectacles, but the catch is that most comedy doesn’t travel well across cultures. Will Ferrell movies do OK here, but Europeans and Asians don’t get him. That goes double for Kevin Hart. (Put them in the same movie, “Get Hard,” and the results overseas are especially woeful: $21 million from the whole rest of the world.)

According to Forbes, the world’s leading movie star is a Nautilus machine in human form: Dwayne Johnson, who took in $64.5 million this year and has had four big hits (including the animated “Moana”) in the past two years. Sure, everybody loves The Rock, but only as long as he doesn’t get too fancy. Johnson’s name on a movie signifies one important thing to audiences: No one is going to ask you to think for the next couple of hours. If he tries to stretch his wings and make “Mortdecai 2,” don’t expect audiences to follow.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/07/the-movie-star-is-dead/

[ClownPrinceofCrime]

Originally Posted by chip75

[Show spoiler]You seem to be saying that movie stars can still open movies, the numbers don't support that, Bullock can't really open a movie like she used to, Tom Hanks, one of the industry's most bankable stars can't open a movie anymore (he needed the combination of Sully and Captain Phillips to buck his recent underperformers). It's the movie that's the draw opening weekend. That's what we're talking about, star power may give a picture legs to some degree, but it's won't open a picture to any great extent. DiCaprio and Washington are still filling seats opening weekend to some degree, but they still have their blips.

Presumed Innocent and The Fugitive where large properties even before Harrison was attached. Just look at Witness, Mosquito Coast and Regarding Henry, three of Ford's better roles and they made little impact.

A movie's success is now a combination of factors, star power alone just doesn't cut it anymore, but if you get the right property and the right performer, you should be onto a winner. But you can take a star and put them in an original property and all bets are off.

Sure back in her Tomb Raider days a Angelina Jolie starring Wonder Woman would have been a draw, but now? The margins are so small her fee would cut in too deep. Gadot is a far safer bet, she would have been signed for multiple pictures at a fraction of the cost. And at the end of the day they want Wonder Woman to be the main attraction, not lovely Gadot.

No, that is definitely not what I have been saying, even though there are certain stars that can still open based on their name alone. I would like to know what's any of your definition of "opening a movie" for any of these names, whether it be now or from 30 years ago? When has it ever been otherwise that the movie is the primary draw? And I'm not talking about as far back as the golden age of cinema.

That is not how this line of discussion started off. You maybe talking about it now but what I initially said has been misconstrued and twisted from the start, particularly by the guy thanking your posts. Come to think of it, you did it yourself, which is why your post began with, "You seem to be saying that movie stars can still open movies", but that could very well depend on where you picked up my argument.

Those 2 have their blips only when it is an indie, Fences for Denzel, or in Leo's case when he is playing a character that is not particularly liked - J Edgar Hoover.

Sorry, but they were not. They have large production budgets because Ford commanded a high salary for each of those movies but they weren't large properties in the traditional sense. It's the same with DiCaprio. His movies are not exactly "tentpole" releases, other than Inception, but they all have insane budgets largely due to his salary. Of course they did because none of them were "tentpole" movies. They weren't even wide releases.

It's always been that way for "tentpole" movies. Will Smith built his career on them. A combination of star power with the right vehicle every time. As did Angelina Jolie.

You mean if Jolie were cast as WW now when she's in her 40s? Of course not, but are you going to sit there and tell me that if she was the same age as Gal and were cast as WW, her name wouldn't add even more to WW's opening weekend? Maleficent sold itself entirely on Jolie's performance and did quite well at that. Another example of star power with the right vehicle, and the movie is nowhere near the gold-standard that Disney has since achieved with their live action adaptions of animated classics.

No argument there at all. Gadot is not just the safer bet rather the economical choice. She is not even going to sniff 5m by the time WW has appeared in her 5th movie.

[dallywhitty]

I kinda like it...