The Zone

by **Pacino86845** on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:59 am

This yet again confirms that teenaged girls are the most powerful force in the entertainment industry.

by **The Vicar** on Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:21 am

Pacino86845 wrote:This yet again confirms that teenaged girls are the most powerful force in the entertainment industry.

But extremely dim.

by **DennisMM** on Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:This yet again confirms that teenaged girls are the most powerful force in the entertainment industry.

And James Cameron thanks them every day of his life.

by **travis-dane** on Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:14 pm

So, New Moon took in 258 million dollars worldwide for his opening weekend.

by **RogueScribner** on Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:16 am

How in the hell did this movie rake in $140 million domestic this weekend? WTF? Are the teenyboppers that starved for romance? Holy shit! When I first saw that figure I just stared at it in amazement. New Moon is now the third biggest opening weekend ever. I'm astounded. :shock:

And who saw 500 Days of Summer? Absolutely no one.

by **Bloo** on Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:32 am

I went tonight and took a bullet for the rest of the Zone (don't see it folks)

lots of girls there I heard talking about seeing it for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time...on a Sunday night!

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:19 am

more evidence that the end of humanity is near.

by **magicmonkey** on Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:28 am

The amazing thing to take from this is that young teen girls ARE the target audience for horror films! This trend apparently took off when Japanese horror films were advertised in girls magazines in Japan, it was teenage girls (admittedly Japanese) that lead to the Ring phenomenon.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:34 pm

RogueScribner wrote:And who saw 500 Days of Summer? Absolutely no one.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:54 am

twilight get's 'blind-sided' by the Blind Side

by **Pacino86845** on Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:10 am

I'm really surprised that Blind Side has become such a runaway hit. I mean I thought word of mouth had gotten it as far as it was gonna go in terms of box office earnings, but holy crappa: #1 of the box office in its third week!? I know not much has come out lately, but still!

by **The Todd** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:32 pm

Avatar = $73 million

EDIT - $73 million domestic.

EDIT2 - #31 best domestic opening weekend. #9 best worldwide opening weekend.

by **Leckomaniac** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:35 pm

The Todd wrote:Avatar = $73 million

Let's not forget the $159 million foreign box office.

by **Pacino86845** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:06 pm

It's a solid opening weekend, but not spectacular, especially considering the budget... Cameron et al. are counting on, I think, this film's having strong legs over the holiday season.

Avatards.

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:16 pm

Oh just join in and see this film multiple times like the rest of us, Pacino.

by **Fried Gold** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:21 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:It's a solid opening weekend, but not spectacular, especially considering the budget... Cameron et al. are counting on, I think, this film's having strong legs over the holiday season.

Avatards.

Just talking about this on Twitter with Chilli.

It cost $237 million to make and it's taken $232 worldwide in just this weekend.

Extrapolate into the next week and Fox & co will be happy, meaning the 2010/2011 budget for up to eleven low-quality Fox romcoms and fartcoms is secured.

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:26 pm

Thought it cost like 500 milly or something?

by **Fried Gold** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:28 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Thought it cost like 500 milly or something?

SRSLY

You are worse than Chilli.

"Reports of $500M budget are overblown" - http://bit.ly/6mpQ9a

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:07 pm

Fried Gold wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Thought it cost like 500 milly or something?

SRSLY

You are worse than Chilli.

"Reports of $500M budget are overblown" - http://bit.ly/6mpQ9a

Comments
December 11, 2009, 6:11PM
Dave Says

This movie needs to make at least $750m to return the budget and distribution costs, but it'll need like $1.2billion to make a significant profit, the company needs to give part of the profits to the main actors and director/film crew.

by **Fried Gold** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:38 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Thought it cost like 500 milly or something?

SRSLY

You are worse than Chilli.

"Reports of $500M budget are overblown" - http://bit.ly/6mpQ9a

Comments
December 11, 2009, 6:11PM
Dave Says

This movie needs to make at least $750m to return the budget and distribution costs, but it'll need like $1.2billion to make a significant profit, the company needs to give part of the profits to the main actors and director/film crew.

Why would you take the word of someone called Dave?

by **TheButcher** on Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:57 pm

From Risky Business:
What kept the ‘Avatar’ grosses low? Hint: it wasn’t the snow.

Jay A. Fernandez wrote:I’m finding the picayune back-and-forth over whether the “Avatar” numbers were good, or good enough, or snowed under, or inflated, or whatever, just a little vaporous. The truth is, this movie was going to need long, Na’vi-like legs to make its bank from the very beginning.

As such, $77.3 million is a plenty fine opening.

Yes, the East Coast snow probably dented the haul by a few million, but word of mouth is what will carry Cameron’s film forward into the black.

What kept the Avatar grosses low? Hint: it wasnt the snow.If anything is keeping the box office numbers from bursting through the multiplexes like one of those ornery Pandora rhino-bugs, it’s this: People are waiting to see it in 3D.

Much more than any other 3D film to date, “Avatar” demands to be seen in its full dimensions. The nature of its depth and immersiveness has been part of every review — professional or amateur. And audience members — even those dying to see this new cinema universe — are not going to settle for a 2D version.

Given that the full Imax 3D treatment is still under-represented in the exhibition space, not everyone who wanted to see it this weekend was able to. Seats were filled. So others are waiting for their chance to see it in full-blown 3D.

Christmas weekend will be the real test. My prediction is that Fox and Cameron will see less-than-normal fall-off as new audiences flood in to get the premium experience.

As they should. Two dimensions of Pandora is decidedly one dimension too few.

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:11 pm

Yeah, one dimension too few by half. I'm thinking of taking my Mum to see this, as I recommend this to just about everyone. I'm wondering though if she can handle 3D for nearly 3 hours, and she is due a minor eye operation in Jan, so maybe her eyes can't take the strain (it strained my eyes too) with our without this minor problem. If not, would I let her settle for a 2D experience? I just think this film deserves so much more.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:23 pm

well, i know i wouldn't bother going to see this at all unless it's in 3D and imax... REAL imax... i mean otherwise, why bother?

i also know that nobody in the philly-baltimore-dc area was going to see ANY movies anywhere this past weekend.

by **Cpt Kirks 2pay** on Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:32 pm

Are they Armish?

by **Pacino86845** on Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:49 am

Actually they're rather Leggish.

by **Leckomaniac** on Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:38 am

I was surprised to see that AVATAR actually was underestimated by about $4 million. The actual weekend haul was $77 million and not $73, which brings it a hair away from besting I AM LEGEND as the top December opening.

And, according to BoxOfficeGuru:

Still, Avatar was a giant at the box office and its figure would have been even higher had it not been for the blizzard. Fox reported that theaters in heavily-populated markets like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. reported huge Friday-to-Saturday sales declines with some plunging by 70-80%. Grosses typically rise on Saturdays. Nationwide, Avatar bowed to $26.8M on Friday, slipped 5% to $25.5M on Saturday, and dipped a scant 3% to $24.7M on Sunday. Sunday ended up playing like another Saturday.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:40 pm

I usually couldn't give a rat's ass about Box Office take as long as I enjoyed a film. But I REALLY want Avatar to find financial success because I want to go back to Avatar, and in the world we live in, that's going to take money. Also, it will lead to more filmmakers pushing the envelope instead of being lazy, I hope.

But I agree. This needs to be seen in 3D.

by **Leckomaniac** on Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:26 pm

AVATAR continues it's domination.

Fox easily dominated the North American box office for the third time in a row with its sci-fi megahit Avatar which remained the most popular film in the land with an estimated $25M on Friday. That sent the 15-day total for the James Cameron smash to a staggering $308.8M making it the second biggest blockbuster of 2009 trailing just Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Avatar also shot up to number 29 on the all-time domestic blockbusters list passing 1996's alien hit Independence Day.

With Friday being the New Year's Day holiday, moviegoing was extremely busy with the top ten films grossing a muscular $77M. The last time the holiday fell on a Monday was in 1999 and that day accounted for 40-43% of the weekend grosses for most major films. This year's contenders should perform similarly.

Up 9% from last Friday's Christmas Day haul, Avatar also became the third fastest film ever to smash the $300M mark. Only the summer sensations The Dark Knight and the Transformers sequel have broken the mark faster in 10 and 14 days, respectively. The Pandora adventure is now on course to easily break the record for the biggest third weekend gross ever beating Spider-Man's $45M from 2002. The Na'vi pic looks likely to pull in $59-62M this weekend and send its 17-day total to a stellar $345M or so.

With no new films opening, holdovers filled up the rest of the top chart positions too. Sherlock Holmes remained in second place on Friday with an estimated $14.9M, but tumbled a troubling 40% from last Friday's Christmas bow. A weekend take of $35-38M seems likely with the ten-day total set to get close to $140M for Warner Bros.

Fox's hit kidpic Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel collected an estimated $12.5M on Friday, down 9% from last week. A weekend take of $28-31M should result pushing the 12-day tally to around $151M.

Off a scant 1% from its opening day a week earlier, It's Complicated followed with an estimated $7.1M for Universal. The R-rated Meryl Streep comedy is headed for about $17M this weekend which would lift the cume to $57M in ten days.

Sandra Bullock kept drawing in business with The Blind Side which looks set to spend its seventh straight weekend in the top five. Friday saw an estimated $4.5M for an impressive 34% boost sending the football hit across the $200M mark - a first for the star. Look for a weekend of roughly $11M for a total of $207M.

2010 is kicking off with an explosive start as the Top 20 this weekend should take in close to $200M crushing the $147.3M from a year ago. Having the holiday fall on a Friday has contributed to the success as have the bigger blockbusters in the mix.

by **quiethell** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:11 am

Avatar has passed $2 billion internationally, and it's just days away from breaking Titanic's domestic record. That's just insane. Imagine how much the sequel is going to rake in.

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:19 am

i guess cameron was right when he said this film was a gamechanger.
unfortunately, the "game" turned out to be a con game where hollywood cons the audience out of millions of dollars for the next 3-5 years by getting people to pay higher ticket prices for a cheap gimmick.

by **minstrel** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:23 pm

TheBaxter wrote:i guess cameron was right when he said this film was a gamechanger.
unfortunately, the "game" turned out to be a con game where hollywood cons the audience out of millions of dollars for the next 3-5 years by getting people to pay higher ticket prices for a cheap gimmick.

"Cheap gimmick"? What are you talking about?

As I posted earlier, the amazing thing about Avatar is not the 3D. It's the realistic motion capture. Sure, the 3D enhances the movie, but the motion capture has raised the bar on what's possible. Robert Zemeckis is hiding under a rock because Cameron just schooled him.

I wish Cameron's motion capture process had been used in films like both recent versions of The Hulk. The animation in both is crap, and Avatar-style motion capture would have made a huge difference in the quality of both movies.

by **The Vicar** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:59 pm

I think the motion capture advances Cameron made get buried under the 3D, which is a shame.

by **TheBaxter** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:12 pm

minstrel wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:i guess cameron was right when he said this film was a gamechanger.
unfortunately, the "game" turned out to be a con game where hollywood cons the audience out of millions of dollars for the next 3-5 years by getting people to pay higher ticket prices for a cheap gimmick.

"Cheap gimmick"? What are you talking about?

As I posted earlier, the amazing thing about Avatar is not the 3D. It's the realistic motion capture. Sure, the 3D enhances the movie, but the motion capture has raised the bar on what's possible. Robert Zemeckis is hiding under a rock because Cameron just schooled him.

I wish Cameron's motion capture process had been used in films like both recent versions of The Hulk. The animation in both is crap, and Avatar-style motion capture would have made a huge difference in the quality of both movies.

i'm not talking about mo-cap, i'm talking about 3D. 3D was a cheap gimmick in the 50s, and it's still a cheap gimmick today. i don't know about the motion capture, but i haven't seen a ton of announcements and articles post-avatar about how Dune is going to be mo-cap, and Clash of the Titans is going to be mo-cap, and transformers 3 is going to be mo-cap, ad infinitum. on the other hand, hollywood has decided that they can simply slap 3D onto every single film coming out in the next several years and think they can trick people into paying an extra $3-5 bucks for it. i think the joke will ultimately be on them, once the fad wears off and people get tired of wearing those dumb glasses every time they go out to a movie, just like they did in the 50s and the 80s and every other era when hollywood tried this.

by **TheButcher** on Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:05 pm

From THR:
Hollywood Stock Exchange set to launch - Targets April 20 to begin listing b.o. projections for live trading

Carl DiOrio wrote:Hollywood Stock Exchange is tentatively set to launch as a real-money commodity exchange April 20.

A spokesman said the exchange is "on track" to begin listing films' boxoffice projections for live trading from that date. HSX filed with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission for approval as an active trading site in November 2008 and recently entered the final phase of regulatory review.

Since 1998, HSX has allowed just-for-fun traders to buy and sell valueless shares in Hollywood films based on forecasts of what the pics will ring up. Once launched, a new HSX site will list current and imminent movie releases with their projected four-week domestic grosses and allow exchange users to take long or short positions on the films.

A formal announcement about rules and guidelines for HSX users is expected closer to the launch. The exchange hopes to lure hobbyist investors as well as industry professionals, though the latter will be prohibited from improper insider activity.

For instance, distribution execs with access to early boxoffice data will be barred from making trades on the exchange after a film has opened. But film financiers will be allowed to invest in HSX an amount equal to a minority percentage of their total investment in a movie.

Investors wishing to participate in the exchange will buy "contracts" priced at one one-millionth of a film's projected boxoffice, with films to be listed on the exchange from the time productions are announced in the industry trade papers. Trading will begin six months before a movie's anticipated wide release.

HSX is owned by U.K.-based investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

"The number of people who visit movie theaters each year and form opinions about a film's success is in the tens of millions," Cantor Exchange president Richard Jaycobs said. "We believe that's the reason the public response to this product has been very positive."

Cantor Entertainment chief Andrew Wing said the exchange targets movie distributors, exhibitors, producers and other investors seeking "an unprecedented public market to create liquidity and hedge their daily business activities."

Until now, HSX revenue has come from industry ad sales and the sale of customer-use data to Hollywood marketing outfits.

by **Nachokoolaid** on Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:50 pm

I used to play HSX all the time. It was a great way to pass the time. Mmm. I wonder what this will be be like.

by **TheButcher** on Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:55 pm

ALICE IS A MONSTER! Opens $41M Friday; $120M Weekend Possible For 'Wonderland'?

by **RogueScribner** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:15 am

Wow. If it has a strong second week, it could end up as being Burton's biggest hit yet.

by **travis-dane** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:46 am

RogueScribner wrote:Wow. If it has a strong second week, it could end up as being Burton's biggest hit yet.

Nah, it will drop like a stone after word of mouth gets out about how bad the movie is.

by **Al Shut** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:54 am

But the word is mixed

it might as well spread it's wings and fly like a (stone) eagle

by **RogueScribner** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:15 am

If it plays well to the younger set, it'll do just fine. There's plenty of movies that kids love and adults hate that bring in the big bucks (pretty much any successful animated movie that Pixar doesn't produce, as well as shit like Alvin and the Chipmunks).

by **Pacino86845** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:30 am

If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

by **RogueScribner** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:31 pm

Alice in Wonderland grosses $116 million over the weekend.

by **minstrel** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:40 pm

RogueScribner wrote:Alice in Wonderland grosses $116 million over the weekend.

I've seen the posters in the bus shelters. I've seen a commercial on TV. There is something terribly, terribly wrong. This film looks hideous.

by **buster00** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:13 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

by **Ribbons** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:11 pm

minstrel wrote:
RogueScribner wrote:Alice in Wonderland grosses $116 million over the weekend.

I've seen the posters in the bus shelters. I've seen a commercial on TV. There is something terribly, terribly wrong. This film looks hideous.

But it's in 3D!

by **so sorry** on Sun Mar 07, 2010 10:00 pm

buster00 wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

Interesting... my 16 year old cousin went out to see it last night with her friends, and I thought that was a bit odd...didn't strike me as a teenage girl movie.

by **Bloo** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:33 am

so sorry wrote:
buster00 wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

Interesting... my 16 year old cousin went out to see it last night with her friends, and I thought that was a bit odd...didn't strike me as a teenage girl movie.

it's the siren like call of Depp, it amazes me how many of my female friends will go see a movie just because he's in it

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:59 am

Bloo wrote:
so sorry wrote:
buster00 wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

Interesting... my 16 year old cousin went out to see it last night with her friends, and I thought that was a bit odd...didn't strike me as a teenage girl movie.

it's the siren like call of Depp, it amazes me how many of my female friends will go see a movie just because he's in it

well, that and the fact that the protagonist is a teenage girl herself? granted, from the marketing you'd think johnny depp was the star of the film, but it is called ALICE in wonderland. maybe that has something to do with the big teen girl draw.

i totally didn't see this one coming. $40M for the whole weekend, maybe (even with the inflated 3D ticket prices) but certainly not $40M per day. i suppose, better this than twilight, though.

by **Bloo** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:41 am

TheBaxter wrote:
Bloo wrote:
so sorry wrote:
buster00 wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

Interesting... my 16 year old cousin went out to see it last night with her friends, and I thought that was a bit odd...didn't strike me as a teenage girl movie.

it's the siren like call of Depp, it amazes me how many of my female friends will go see a movie just because he's in it

well, that and the fact that the protagonist is a teenage girl herself? granted, from the marketing you'd think johnny depp was the star of the film, but it is called ALICE in wonderland. maybe that has something to do with the big teen girl draw.

i totally didn't see this one coming. $40M for the whole weekend, maybe (even with the inflated 3D ticket prices) but certainly not $40M per day. i suppose, better this than twilight, though.

all the girls I've talked to that want to see it is because of Depp, not because of Alice herself, but it might have something to do with it.

I gotta say I was surprised by the big opening weekend too

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:09 am

Bloo wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Bloo wrote:
so sorry wrote:
buster00 wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:If you ask me the target audience for Alice in Wonderland is the almighty teenage girl. The screening I went to had mostly teenaged girls in the audience, and I was dragged to see the film by my (technically) teenaged sister. I thought the film was pretty crappy, but the girls in the audience really seemed to dig it.

BINGO. It's the perfect recipe for a way to make money off chicks. Everything about it reeks like the marketing department.

Interesting... my 16 year old cousin went out to see it last night with her friends, and I thought that was a bit odd...didn't strike me as a teenage girl movie.

it's the siren like call of Depp, it amazes me how many of my female friends will go see a movie just because he's in it

well, that and the fact that the protagonist is a teenage girl herself? granted, from the marketing you'd think johnny depp was the star of the film, but it is called ALICE in wonderland. maybe that has something to do with the big teen girl draw.

i totally didn't see this one coming. $40M for the whole weekend, maybe (even with the inflated 3D ticket prices) but certainly not $40M per day. i suppose, better this than twilight, though.

all the girls I've talked to that want to see it is because of Depp, not because of Alice herself, but it might have something to do with it.

I gotta say I was surprised by the big opening weekend too

i guess i don't talk to enough teenage girls :twisted: