Pro.boxoffice.com puts AC's domestic opening weekend at only 13 million - is it realistic it will open that low?
Link: http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-passengers-sing-assassins-creed/
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html
Probably. This December is extremely competitive. It is really sad that AC will compete with Rogue One, Passengers, and Sing.
shareNo, of course not. I don't even know from what they've taken their numbers. And if you look at their forecasts, you'll see that they really do not often get to the point.
Nolan, I love you forever!share
Seems like they're lowballin' it to me. I don't have high expectations for this either way, but that seems too low. Star Wars undeniably casts a large shadow over the box office, which was the perfect reason to make it a hard R movie about Assassin's instead of competing for the same market. Not to mention the Lawrence and Pratt sci-fi vehicle that will, again, be competing for much the same market, as well as Sing. It almost seems like Fox is setting it up to fail.
http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/
It's undeniable that there's plenty of competition, but $13 is just ridiculous. To the point that I snirked when I read it. They really think this movie- which already has better reviews- is going to do worse than Prince of Persia?!
LOL
I liked Prince of Persia. I thought it was a lot of fun.
shareOh I did too!! As a movie, it's exactly what you said- a fun time. Despite not doing well domestically, PoP became the highest grossing video-game movie of all time. Given that AC looks to be even better, I find it funny that they would expect it to do worse than Pop. That's all.
shareI agree. I think 13 million is very low. I think it will make more money.
shareThey forecast a low opening in-part due to this film opening on a Wednesday.
shareThere was a similar thread like this months ago about the box office forecast on the Warcraft board. I thought that their projections on Warcraft were too low as well until the opening weekend actually happened. It opened a little lower than what they thought, though the upshot is overseas figures were much better than what people thought it was going to be. Truth is, in America people are probably going to ignore any video game movie unless the reviews are so good that being based on a game doesn't matter. The people on Box Office Pro usually make their predictions based on social media tracking like mentions of it on Twitter and Facebook to determine how much buzz there is about a movie but prior to when the second trailer was released there was very little and now it shot up again.
shareWarcraft had a huge collaboration with a Chinese film/theatre company, so that is what saved them after flopping in the States. I don't think AC has that. Regardless, I don't think Universal is going to do anything else with Warcraft.
shareVery limited fanbase.
shareI'd give it lower. Video game adaptations don't do well at the box office, and that's a very commonly seen trend. Not to mention Cotillard, Iron and Fassbender aren't really super bankable even though they are great actors. But, I can't be sure. Plus it depends on the marketing.
One day in the year of the fox came a time remembered well...
Warcraft and Prince of Persia almost did it in box-office, but the fact that they are aged game franchises played the role. Assassin's Creed is a "living" franchise, the games contrues to release and it's right on the spot of attention of much of the gamers worldwide.
As for the stars, in 2014 Cotillard was named the most bankable French actress of 21th century (http://madame.lefigaro.fr/celebrites/marion-cotillard-reine-box-office-francais-220414-850808). Fassbender is one of the most bankable stars in the world working today (http://junkee.com/michael-fassbender-is-more-than-just-a-pretty-face-in-frank/36565), he was rated 9 in the Top 10 highest-grossing actors of 2014 according to Forbes (http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/film/michael-fassbender-ranks-in-the-top-10-of-bankable-stars-30869051.html). Jeremy Irons is one of the UK's most bankable stars.
Nolan, I love you forever!share
"French" actress, not exactly international one. Just look at her filmography. Contagion - flop, The Immigrant - flop, Blood Ties - flop. She did two animated movies, one flopped, one barely broke even. The Dark Knight Rises is her biggest hit, and let's face it, not because of her.
Cut out the X-men series and Fassbender doesn't have any movie with high box office revenues, his recent stint at the box office (the Light Between Oceans) isn't doing so good. Macbeth (costarred with Cotillard), Slow West, Frank etc. were all flops. He wasn't the driving force behind X-Men's revenue, sorry to say it but it'd have done just as well without him. Even the acclaimed Steve Jobs didn't break even.
Irons is nowhere near the most bankable British actors in the world right now. He has been in a string of duds in recent times (High Rise, Beautiful Creatures, the Man Who Knew Infinity, Correspondence etc.). The only light in his recent filmography is Dawn of Justice and even that movie under-performed from the expectations.
Like I said, not exactly bankable stars even if all 3 are among the best performers in the world right now.
One day in the year of the fox came a time remembered well...
Why do you tell this to me, I've listed links to the respected sources, tell it to them. And why, I should ask, you provided only worst examples of her projects' box-offices? Where did you forget Inception, Public Enemies, Midnight in Paris, Big Fish and La Vie en Rose, which was all box-office successes? Because they were meant to. They were movies for masses. The Immigrant and Blood Ties - not so much, so your argument doesn't exactly work here. And Contagion was not a flop. It received $135,458,097 with production budget of $60 millions, which means its gross exceeded its budget in 2.25 times. Yes, The Little Prince flopped, as well April and the Extraordinary World (was anyone really expecting it to be a huge box-office success), but this fate awaits pretty much every animated movie right now if it's not made by Pixar or Dreamworks. The Dark Knight Rises wasn't a hit because of any actor, it was a hit because it was a Batman movie and the success of The Dark Knight. You can rearch for an actors who has their biggest $1 billion movies because of them, how long is that list goes on?
About Fassbender: again, Macbeth, Slow West and Frank wasn't supposed to be hits. If Macbeth was a flop, do you think that Fox/Ubisoft would seriously consider the opportunity to give Kurzel helm a $200 million production? No, because the money Macbeth got were enough for it. Fassbender is pretty much the face of the modern-days X-Men franchise, you have to admit it. And without him, it couldn't do so well, not at all.
I didn't say that Irons is the most bankable UK actor right now, I've said that he is one of the most bankable UK actors. And here again, you only look at the recent filmography. The most bankable actors doesn't determined by the financial success of their latest entries, but by the overall career.
So yes, I consider the statement that all the thrio of Fassbender, Cotillard and Irons are all a very bankable stars as the proven fact.
Nolan, I love you forever!share
Inception? Midnight in Paris? Big Fish? Those are very bad examples of her box office power because Cotillard had minor roles those films. We are talking about how bankable she is, hence her roles require to be among the leads. Sorry about Contagion though, it wasn't my intention to add it in there.
La Vie En Rose's biggest revenues were in Francophone countries (check the box office mojo numbers). Like you said (and I agreed) one of the most successful "French" actress, not an International one. Also I don't understand your "masses" justification as La Vie En Rose wasn't a movie targeted at big masses either.
Macbeth is a flop though. And what do you mean "the money Macbeth got were enough for it"? Macbeth had a budget of 15 mil USD and its box office revenue was less than 14 million. Also let's not forget he's among the co-producer for AC, so the money's coming from him as well. I disagree. He's not the face of the X-Men. X-Men would do just as well without him because similar to Batman, it's a well known comic series, propelled to stardom way before he came onto the scene.
I meant "nowhere near one of the most bankable". You are forgetting the fact that Irons has been doing movies since the 80s. You cannot judge how bankable he is if you introduce that factor as the movie audiences then and now are widely different.
Anyway, instead of looking at dated articles, you should go to box office revenue sites and compare the numbers. You'll find that none among the three of them have had any big hits sans the big franchise movies in recent years. Which makes it all the more daunting as AC does not have the same fan following as series like Batman, X-Men, Star Wars etc. as it's based on a video game franchise, so it's niche-market.
One day in the year of the fox came a time remembered well...
It's a Shakespeare film on a very limited release.i don't think any you slice it, were they going to have a financial hit. Magneto and Wolverine are the face of X-men, so Fassbender has that in his favor and I would argue the same for the familiarity of Irons and Cotillard among the audience. There isnt a definitive bankable star besides the likes of The Rock. The massive AC following will be an advantage for the movie too.
shareBig Fish - totally, but the others? She was the main antagonist in both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. She was listed fourth in Inception credits, even before Ellen Page. In The Dark Knight Rises she was listed right after Tom Hardy in the credits. In both movies she had a plenty of screen time. The fact that she was supporting, not minor at all, is proved by Oscars' For Your Consideration ballot: http://media.comicbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/dark-knight-awards-ad.jpg And apparently you didn't watch or forgot completely Midnight in Paris, where she was completely the leading lady and her screentime was comparable to even Owen Wilson's lead.
And Francophone contries are not contries? Or does "international" in your opinion means only American? La Vie En Rose is an auteur movie, but it's not art-house, so yes, it was targeted on wide masses.
By writing "the money Macbeth got were enough for it", I meant that it wasn't supposed to be a huge hit. Would you list me a movies based on Shakespearean plays, excluding Romeo & Juliet and The Lion King, which were a commercial successes? If Fassbender is pitting his money into it, it's definetely not much. He's the fact of the younger generation of X-Men. Alongside McAvoy. They would do well, but not this well without him or they.
The audiences are different, but not as much as you might think. And if you list the name of the actors which might pull out the huge commercial success for their movies alone, without any brand or huge marketing, you will be surprised how small this list is. Even Lawrence and Pratt, while might seem like a box-office draws, are nothing without their franchises.
Haha, are you seriously calling video games "a niche-market"? The video game audience now is as big as cinema, if not bigger! Wake up.
Nolan, I love you forever!share
I can see that happening. I keep forgetting this fcking movie exists so multiply that by 100 million and I can see this bombing.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.