"The Hunger Games" - film

Bryancd · March 22, 2012, 05:09:29 PM

Lions Gate Film stock, symbol LGF, had been on a tear in an anticipation and the CEO has been all over financial news. They need $100-150 million opening weekend to meet Wall Street analysts expectations. I think they have a good shot unlike John Carter. This movie was well marketed and has a built in modern fan base. I'm looking forward to it as well!

Rico · March 22, 2012, 05:51:30 PM

The movie will do well, but a $100 - $150 million dollar opening weekend in March is very unlikely. Summer blockbusters barely can hit that.

Bryancd · March 22, 2012, 08:17:30 PM

Quote from: Rico on March 22, 2012, 05:51:30 PM
The movie will do well, but a $100 - $150 million dollar opening weekend in March is very unlikely. Summer blockbusters barely can hit that.

Let's wait and see. A lot is riding on this for the studio and I am telling you the professional projections.

Rico · March 23, 2012, 05:23:34 AM

I certainly hope it does well, and I think it might be able to do $100 million. But $150 in March for a pretty violent movie (no little kids should be seeing this one) might be pushing it. I loved the book, so I'm certainly hoping for a blockbuster hit. I know many of Lynn's students (high school teens) are wanting to see it.

Bryancd · March 23, 2012, 05:27:43 AM

Quote from: Rico on March 23, 2012, 05:23:34 AM
I certainly hope it does well, and I think it might be able to do $100 million. But $150 in March for a pretty violent movie (no little kids should be seeing this one) might be pushing it. I loved the book, so I'm certainly hoping for a blockbuster hit. I know many of Lynn's students (high school teens) are wanting to see it.

Yeah, I think if they do $100 i.e. code to it that would be considered a financial success by investors. And as you say, it has built in young audience of both boys and girls, more so then say Twilight, so the recipe is good for a hit.

X · March 23, 2012, 07:08:50 AM

I think that this is easily going to hit the 150 mark opening weekend, given the popularity and fanbase.

Bryancd · March 23, 2012, 07:15:37 AM

Quote from: X on March 23, 2012, 07:08:50 AM
I think that this is easily going to hit the 150 mark opening weekend, given the popularity and fanbase.

If it's opening on a lot of screens, maybe!

Rico · March 23, 2012, 08:26:24 AM

I'm just glad it's not in 3D. :)

billybob476 · March 23, 2012, 08:35:57 AM

Quote from: Rico on March 23, 2012, 08:26:24 AM
I'm just glad it's not in 3D. :)

You know, now that you mention it that's actually interesting. Why isn't it?

Rico · March 23, 2012, 08:37:40 AM

Quote from: billybob476 on March 23, 2012, 08:35:57 AM
Quote from: Rico on March 23, 2012, 08:26:24 AM
I'm just glad it's not in 3D. :)

You know, now that you mention it that's actually interesting. Why isn't it?

Oh, Joe. Don't set me up like that. :)

Because you don't needing frakking 3D to make a good movie! Just make a frakking good movie! - hehe :)

Bryancd · March 23, 2012, 09:20:30 AM

Not to take this OT but I don't think for a second that 3D is used in an effort to make a weak movie better, it's just a visual enhancement. I never understood or see any correlation in that argument you make against it's use.

X · March 23, 2012, 09:26:54 AM

Quote from: Bryancd on March 23, 2012, 09:20:30 AM
Not to take this OT but I don't think for a second that 3D is used in an effort to make a weak movie better, it's just a visual enhancement. I never understood or see any correlation in that argument you make against it's use.

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. I don't think anyone has ever made a 3D movie with the idea of it needing 3D to make it good. I think that most 3D movies are made because the director or production house want to make it in 3D.

3D doesn't make a bad movie better, but it can and does enhance the experience when done well for a good movie.

billybob476 · March 23, 2012, 09:30:40 AM

I guess that's where I get confused. This movie is definitely being marketed as a blockbuster, it seems to be a common trend to release a post-process 3D version. Also being that this is more of an action-oriented movie I could see arguments for it. Frankly I'm glad they haven't, maybe it'll buck this trend that every 'summer blockbuster' needs to come out in 3D even though it won't enhance the experience in any way.

Bryancd · March 23, 2012, 10:35:05 AM

It is interesting it's not in 3D, although I wouldn't take that to be meaningful in regards to the current future use of 3D for big movie releases in general, that is likely to continue. There must have been a cogent reason why the studio/Producers decided not to. It would be interesting to hear if it was an econimic choice or a creative one.

Jobydrone · March 23, 2012, 11:20:15 AM

Quote from: X on March 23, 2012, 09:26:54 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on March 23, 2012, 09:20:30 AM
Not to take this OT but I don't think for a second that 3D is used in an effort to make a weak movie better, it's just a visual enhancement. I never understood or see any correlation in that argument you make against it's use.
I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. I don't think anyone has ever made a 3D movie with the idea of it needing 3D to make it good. I think that most 3D movies are made because the director or production house want to make it in 3D.

3D doesn't make a bad movie better, but it can and does enhance the experience when done well for a good movie.

I'm not sure I agree completely here, because at least in the first year or so after Avatar hit huge, I think 3D postprocessing was most definitely used to try to cash in on the 3D craze and draw in audiences to features that would not necessarily have come out otherwise. I think it doesn't happen as much anymore because it failed to have the desired effect. Clash of the Titans comes to mind here.