Originally Posted By DDMAN26 As the title says. <a href="http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/first-box-office-cars-2-bad-teacher-look-to-be-overperforming-friday/" target="_blank">http://www.deadline.com/2011/0...-friday/</a>
Originally Posted By Malin Thats a good result. And a lot of feedback I'm recieving from average movie fans does suggest this may be better than the original. I just hope people catching the movie are not going to reflect badly on the Pixar name if it does turn out to be complete crap. But its a positive sign that people are ignoring the negative online reviews from movie critics. Good luck to Cars getting the estimated $75 million this weekend.
Originally Posted By aquamoptop People should ignore MOST of the critics!! The movie was good. No, it wasnt UP or TS3 but it was better than the first. REALLY funny!! And if you just dont like the movie Cars, go see it for the TS short....that thing was hilarious!!!
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper I fail to see how the thing is projected to go to 70 mill when grosses tend to decrease as the weekend goes on. But who knows. I expect somewhere in the low-mid 60s.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Family films tend to either stay flat or go up a bit on Saturday's and Sunday's
Originally Posted By brotherdave Even with the critics panning it, I predict that it will be a huge hit. It's just a fun film that the whole family will enjoy. No, it's not as good as some of Pixar's previous efforts, but it's certainly not a bad film, either. "Fun" is the operative word in this movie, and kids (and parents) will eat it up. There's nothing wrong with a studio producing a servicable "popcorn flik" now and again, as long as they don't rely soly on those for all features in the future. I wouldn't be surprised that this film ends up in the top 5 or 10 money makers for the year. Besides, judging by the teaser trailer for Brave preceding the movie, that film looks absolutely stunning. I'm betting that will be the animated film to beat at the Oscars for next year.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper 68 is exactly the same as Up on opening weekend. Can that prove to Pixar that originals do just as well as cash-grab sequels? Because that would be great.
Originally Posted By magic0214 Agree brotherdave with the Brave trailer. I might have paid money just to see that trailer again...wow!
Originally Posted By leemac Less than 40% of the GBOR was from 3D though - that is even less that Panda 2 and Pirates 4. Strip out IMAX and it is even lower. Studios need to wake up and realize that 3D isn't the only option. They will kill the format if every major blockbuster is in 3D. My favorite popcorn flick of the year so far? X-Men: First Class - truly exceptional and no need for stupid glasses and a dimly lit projector. And no 3D premium.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones People are actively seeking out 2D versions. Ebert wrote in his review not to see it in 3D because it darkens the picture and adds nothing.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Yea, 3-D ruins anything not specifically made for the format. So basically on Avatar wasn't ruined. <<My favorite popcorn flick of the year so far? X-Men: First Class >> I completely agree. Spectacular film. Loved every minute of it.
Originally Posted By Manfried I saw it in 3D, but frankly, the 3D did not do much. However, the picture was very bright.
Originally Posted By brotherdave I saw Green Lantern last week and found it to be a good "popcorn flik" as well. Fun with some good effects. Better than I expected. And no, I didn't see it in 3-D either. Personally, I could do without that headache inducing gimmick.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I saw it in 3D and thought it was fine. It didn't add a ton of depth to the film (I actually forgot that I was watching 3D most of the time), but there were no problems with the film being too 'dark'. Maybe I'm just less sensitive to things like that, but it's never really been an issue for me. Yes, it's darker than with the glasses on, but there are two projectors, so the screen is intentionally brighter than you're supposed to see it. I did like how this was possibly the first 3D feature that I saw that had no 'cheap 3D tricks' of things flying out of the screen. I think there were moments where things came at you, but I don't remember any popping out at you, and I usually pay attention to those sorts of things. The 3D didn't add much, but it certainly didn't detract any.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Yes, it's darker than with the glasses on, but there are two projectors<< Not necessarily. The Sony system in most AMC theaters uses a single 4K projector and splits the available image between the two eyes ... meaning that each eye gets less than half the total brightness that the projector is producing. They can crank up the power on the bulb, but that shortens its life span and only works up to a certain point. The longer they keep it in service, the dimmer it gets. To make matters worse, it's very complicated to switch this system back to full 4K 2D operation, so most theaters don't bother ... projecting their 2D movies using the dimmer and fuzzier 3D system and counting on uninformed audiences to either not notice the difference, or blame the filmmakers. Next time you're watching a 2D movie, turn around and look up at the projection booth. If you see two images being projected, stacked vertically, you NEED to walk out, demand a refund, and tell 'em why. And then locate a theater that gets it right. No sense paying $10+ per ticket for an incorrectly projected image, says me. Here's the Boston Globe article on the situation: <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-22/ae/29571831_1_digital-projectors-movie-exhibition-business-screens" target="_blank">http://articles.boston.com/201...-screens</a> >>The difference can be extreme. Chapin Cutler, a cofounder of the high-end specialty projection company Boston Light & Sound, estimates that a film projected through a Sony with the 3-D lens in place and other adjustments not made can be as much as 85 percent darker than a properly projected film.<<
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Should be interesting to see if the "brighter" technology for Transformers is as good as folks are claiming. Do you know anything about this, mawnck? How many theaters are getting it?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Anyone else find it troubling that boxoffice dropped from Friday to Saturday? Also, this is about as cynical a statement as I've ever read: >>"Families (flyover or not) are deciding for themselves and disregarding reviews," an unconcerned Disney exec replies to me. "Critics not liking a movie doesn't seem like it will hurt the Pixar brand in my opinion. It will be their 12th #1 film in a row and will rank near the top for opening weekends. Should I send you a Larry the Cable Guy DVD?"<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, and as to 3D? It just doesn't work. Not at all. Roger Ebert says so. So that's that, doncha know.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Should be interesting to see if the "brighter" technology for Transformers is as good as folks are claiming.<< Nothing "technology" to it, really, although their marketing folks are making it sound like it. What they're doing is putting pressure on theaters to show the dang thing correctly, with the bulb cranked up to the brightness listed in the movie specs. (This shortens the life of the expensive bulb by a bit, which is why they don't like to do that.) And it sounds like the digital "prints" have been mastered with an overall brighter and more sharpness-enhanced picture, essentially the Hollywood version of messing with the video controls on your widescreen TV. And as with the controls on your widescreen TV, you're trading an accurate picture for one that's just *subjectively* better to an uninformed viewer. But under the circumstances, I can hardly blame them. In the end, it's the theaters' projectors. Short of sending someone with a light meter to every screen showing the movie, there's not much the studio can do about it. It's just like back in the 50s when filmmakers were dragged kicking and screaming into the widescreen era, by too many theaters chopping off the top and bottom of their carefully framed 4x3 pictures. Aside from Michael Bay's concerns (which I'm sure are genuine), it sure is a great marketing ploy to get people who have given up on 3D to try it one more time, huh.
