Let's talk BUSINESS: movie is performing worse than Black Widow. It seems it's gonna be a BIG flop. - Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) Discussion

It seems that it's gonna perform worse than Black Widow and will end up being around $350M worldwide. That's a flop.

Even if it's $150 million (just to humor the Disney estimate), it would still flop pretty hard at a $350 million worldwide gross.

I'll even be generous and include the marketing budget in that $150 estimate. That would mean it would still have to double that ($300 million) just to break even. And that would mean it would only barely eke out a profit at $50 million. But that's being generous. Typically movies have to make back triple their budget to not just break even but post profits. So that would mean it would have to do at least $450 million in global gross to justify the ROI and post black on the sheets.

With how little buzz this movie has generated, I tend to doubt it will do $450 million.

Plus, the main guy just isn't charismatic or good looking enough to warrant people going to see it for him alone, not the way people flocked to theaters to see Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, or Denzel Washington during their heyday.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Being released right now says a lot. There's articles about the movie breaking Labor Day records... which happens because big budget movies aren't released during early September. This a is month for indie movies.

And there's a reason for that: even though Shang-Chi is the only big budget movie this month, even though it's breaking Labor Day records... it's still a big flop. No milk today. Or "tomonth".

Plus, the main guy just isn't charismatic or good looking enough to warrant people going to see it for him alone, not the way people flocked to theaters to see Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, or Denzel Washington during their heyday.

There's no charismatic actors anymore (Chris Pratt, maybe... and that'd be it). I wonder why. Of course, white actors are mostly casted to play evil or stupid people, so there's little room for charming ones. Actors like Tom Cruise, John Wayne, Bogart, Steve McQueen, they wouldn't have a chance nowadays. However, you haven't seen black or Hispanic equivalents neither. There's not a single black actor who's even close to 90s' Denzel Washington or 60s' Sidney Poitier, which is surprising (to say the least) given the zeitgeist of our times.

My theory is that Hollywood has become such a fundamentalist neo-religious place that actors who have some balls are thrown away. White ones for sure, but I think that (up to a point) it happens to non-white ones too. And that shows.

But that's just a theory.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

My theory is that Hollywood has become such a fundamentalist neo-religious place that actors who have some balls are thrown away. White ones for sure, but I think that (up to a point) it happens to non-white ones too. And that shows.

I actually don't think you're far off. I've noticed the EXACT same thing you mentioned.

I think about guys like Michael Ealy, who -- if he were around back in the 1990s -- would absolutely be cast in a bunch of big-production dramas for looks alone. Yet he scoots by as secondary characters in forgettable dramas and smaller films. There are a bunch of other Hispanic, black, and Asian actors who COULD be the face of their generation and land top-billing in various romcoms, buddy-up films, or action vehicles, but they're passed over for charisma-free diversity hires.

One big standout in miscasting to me seemed to be David Washington in Tenet. He just didn't seem like the right fit for that movie, and he's not even memorable in the role the way Denzel was in Deja Vu (which seemed to operate on a similar sci-fi wavelength). I didn't like Deja Vu, but no one can deny that Denzel at least put some heft of star power into attempting to make it memorable.

But yeah, it looks like Hollywood is purposely going out their way to (mis)cast EVERYONE; denying straight-white males leading roles where they should be leading, and casting forgettable, unlikable, or lame minorities in roles that lack stickiness. It's all about pushing their agenda and beating people over the head with their politics.

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

It is like you are living in an alternative universe or something...Just this year alone, here are some major movies with lead white male:

Free Guy
No Time to Die
Infinite
Army of Thieves
Chaos Walking
Reminiscence
The Tomorrow War
Venom: Let There Be Carnage
The Last Duel
Top Gun: Maverick
Dune
Power of the Dog
Nightmare Alley
Stillwater
.
.
.

There are plenty of movies with plenty of roles for everyone. But keep acting like a crybaby.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

I'll give you Free Guy.

But No Time To Die is literally part of the James Bond franchise. I think it's been delayed into 2022, actually. So of course Daniel Craig SHOULD be the star since it's his last film, but they're already talking about turning Bond black.

Infinite? Is that actually out?

Army of Thieves? When did this come out?

Chaos Walking? Was this a big budget blockbuster? Almost sounds familiar but don't remember seeing any ads for it.

Reminiscence. I can give you this one because it stars Hugh Jackman. So far you're 2 for 6.

The Tomorrow War... didn't even get a theatrical release. And hilariously enough there were only three-straight white males in that film with major speaking roles.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage, it's a sequel so of course Tom Hardy should be returning as a straight-white male, it would be weird if he didn't.

The Last Duel, actually the lead is a female and it's a revisionist #MeToo story, which really takes away from what would otherwise be a very compelling film.

Top Gun: Maverick, sure but again, it's a sequel to a movie that's what? 30 something years old?

Dune....lol, no just no. This is woke-washing to the extreme. They race-swapped almost all the major white characters from the books. And they got an Italian femboy for the lead who is best known for playing a lovestruck gay boy.

Power of the Dog... isn't this another streaming-only release?

Nightmare Alley... never heard of it.

Stillwater... half and half. Yeah Matt Damon, is the lead, but it's also a very heavy Left-leaning film.

Now if you want to talk about original theatrical releases starring women and POCkers? Ha, that list is huge.

Jolt
Gunpowder Milkshake
Protege
Cruella
Green Knight
Snake Eyes
Black Widow
Without Remorse
Sentinelle
Rogue Hostage
Outside The Wire
Mortal Kombat
Redemption Day
Vanquish
The Forever Purge
Those Who Wish Me Dead
Stowaway
The Colony
Spiral
Karen
...man I can just keep going.

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

LOL, except for Black Widow, none of those movies you listed are anywhere near the status of my list. Nightmare Alley, Dune, The Last Duel, Power of the Dog, not to mention House of Gucci, Red Rocket, Cyrano, and The French Dispatch are all on track to be nominated for awards. All feature prominent white males in the lead. No Time to Die, Venom, and Top Gun are 3 of the biggest blockbusters around. Then you have Free Guy, Chaos Walking, Infinite, Reminiscence, The Conjuring 3, The Tomorrow War...This December you have Spider-Man 3. On your list, you have Stowaway and Karen? Seriously?

Even if I am to take your list seriously, doesn't that prove what I am saying? There are plenty of movies for everyone. Every year the US releases like 700-800 films.

Lastly, just because you think a movie is "woke" doesn't mean a white male wasn't the lead. Why the hell are you such a crybaby? Like you are crying over nothing. Next year, you have The Batman, Jurassic World 3, Morbius, Scream, Death on the Nile, Uncharted, Ambulance, Doctor Strange, The Northman, The Lost City of D, Fantastic Beast 3, Indiana Jones 5, Mission Impossible 7, The Ant Man 3, The Flash, Avatar 2...And guess what? They all feature white male leads!

Dude, white men are doing fine. Don't be so insecure that you have to marginalize minorities.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

LOL look at your list, though. Majority of them are sequels to franchises that started decade(s) ago, or they're cape films.

Look at the list I put together, you can say they're crappy films (I agree, they are, but that's what Hollywood is releasing these days), but majority of all the non-sequel original theatrical releases don't actually star straight-white males.

Out of your list, the only non-cape film that isn't a sequel starring a straight-white male in the leading role of an action film is Uncharted. Never heard of Ambulance, and I'll have to check into Death on the Nile.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

In Death on the Nile the detectives are white (Brannagh and Tom Bateman), but the rest of the cast is "diversified". Except the bad/stupid guys, obviously, who are white guys. That's happening in some movies right now, to "dress" someway the level of wokeness.

Besides that obvious wokeness, "diversity" has additional problems in the mystery genre. In Death on the Nile, you know from the beginning that the murderer is the white dude, because it's a diverse mystery movie. Duh.

I'm not kidding. I read the novel years ago, I've checked the cast: the murderer is the white dude. I just don't understand why they spend time "solving" the mystery, when you could just take a shortcut and arrest the white dude from the very beginning. Something similar happened in Elementary. I watched a few episodes and it was a waste of time: the murderer was always the white guy. It was quite disappointing that Holmes pretended to be smart and wasn't even aware of it.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

In Death on the Nile the detectives are white (Brannagh and Tom Bateman), but the rest of the cast is "diversified".

Oh snap, it's a follow-up to Agatha Christie's' Murder on the Orient Express! I can't believe I didn't recognize the title. But once again, even in Orient Express, the villain was the straight-white male.

I liked the way Orient Express was filmed, but yeah once you have a diversified cast you know the diversity hires aren't going to be the baddies.

It was quite disappointing that Holmes pretended to be smart and wasn't even aware of it.

Yeah it was literally that way with Knives Out, too!

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

What exactly is your problem with actors of color being cast in roles that white actors have always been cast in? You need to get over that, or just quit watching movies period. That's the norm now, because white males are no longer just the only ones running things in Hollywood anymore. Diversity is simply making sure that actors of color get the same chances and opportunities to play good sold roles in film and TV just like their white contemporaries do. And there is more diversity, thankfully, because there are more directors/producers/writers of color behind the scenes to make sure that happens. What you call "wokeness" is Hollywood catching up to the fact that they can cater to diverse audiences with diverse films. Nothing wrong with that----it's just good business for them.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

What exactly is your problem with actors of color being cast in roles that white actors have always been cast in?

Two cases:

■ 1st case. I have a problem with non-white actors being cast in historical or history-based environments where those actors make no sense, except for the sake of the political/religious woke agenda.

■ 2nd case. I'll link another comment of this thread, since it's a bit boring to repeat the same a zillionth times, and then being asked (again) the same.
https://moviechat.org/tt9376612/Shang-Chi-and-the-Legend-of-the-Ten-Rings/6135aa68ddc7087758609a6c/Lets-talk-BUSINESS-movie-is-performing-worse-than-Black-Widow-It-seems-its-gonna-be-a-BIG-flop?reply=613ae94529c8a631a299de2a

That's the norm now, because white males are no longer just the only ones running things in Hollywood anymore.

Sure. Several generations of white males built that industry, and the current one is giving it away for free. That usually doesn't work very well at the end of the day, though. Zimbabwe or South-Africa are perfect examples: whites built those countries, blacks got them for free, and now there're just two more standard African shitholes. Hollywood is already starting to lose track too. From here on, it's only down the hill. Mark my words.

Diversity is simply making sure that actors of color get the same chances and opportunities to play good sold roles in film and TV just like their white contemporaries do.

Whites didn't happen to "have more opportunities". They BUILT those opportunities. Hollywood didn't appear magically, it was not a gift, it didn't fall from the sky, it was BUILT by a couple of generations of American white males.

A community builds something from the ground, and then you have Wokes talking about that as a "privilege", like it appeared magically, abracadabra!

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

Yeah, and those same white males literally kept women and people of color out of any power positions in the business until the 1970s, when, frankly, movie audiences got tired of seeing only white men dominate films, and that's when black action films, and kung-fu films got popular. The point is, white men are not the only people in the world who can make movies, period. The success of Black Panther and Shang-Chi prove that. Keep your racist white supremacist BS out of he sheer joy of simply enjoying movies.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Yeah, and those same white males literally kept women and people of color out of any power positions in the business until the 1970s

Again: white males didn't "keep" people of color or similar out of power positions. White males BUILT that industry. Those industries were populated by white males because... it was white males who built them.

One of the dogmas of Wokeness is that Whites shall not have the right to own shit: no right to have their own land, no right to have their industries, no matter they built them. Nobody bats an eye about countries in black Africa being homogeneously black and having zero "diversity", nobody bats an eye if a company was created by a black guy who hires only black people. However, when the same thing happens with whites, then it's a crime.

reply

[–] Kowalski (57833) 3 years ago

LMAO...YOU MIGHT BE THE WORST ONE.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

The new Snow White is brown. Let that sink in.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

"According to NWS, the snow turns brown as pollutants are picked up by the snow or dirt kicked up in the air by strong winds. "Strong winds associated with our storm today picked up dust and salt and mixed it with our snow. "

Makes sense :D

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

Again, there are 700-800 films made a year. So yeah, if you can easily find minority starring films if you just randomly search for them. The fact is, white males are still anchoring big franchises and are the face of big budgeted Hollywood. White males are also the face of the acclaimed film circuit. I am not sure what you are trying to say other than the fact that you can find a list of new films with minority leads. You keep moving the goal post. First it is white males don't lead. Then white males only lead in sequels. And now, white males only lead in action films?

Reality: White males are doing fine in Hollywood.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

Again, there are 700-800 films made a year. So yeah, if you can easily find minority starring films if you just randomly search for them.

Except I wasn't randomly searching for them. Those are what's popping up as the lead films for their respective studios. I usually check out new trailers each week to see what's new and almost ALL of the big-budget fanfare are either feminist or POCKer led films, especially of the action variety.

First it is white males don't lead. Then white males only lead in sequels. And now, white males only lead in action films?

Those aren't goalposts moving it's defining the minutiae of the goalposts. Of course white males are going to lead in sequels that they were stars of in previous films. You'd have to be incredibly daft to not understand that.

Majority of the complaints are centered around the big-budget action-adventure genre which is where straight-white leads used to be the majority, but not so anymore. It's also a genre that targets a specific demographic (i.e., straight males), yet the leads are now being swapped.

As I stated before, look at majority of the non-cape films and non-sequels. Lots of new stuff NOT starring straight white males. You're using established franchises as prevarication to say "see, they're still in lead roles", when in reality they're leading franchises where they're about to be replaced or are wrapping up their series, like Thor, James Bond, The Matrix, and Top Gun.

reply

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

Who cares? Is watching movies that star people who aren't white males painful to you or something? I'm saying this being a white male myself.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

Who cares?

People who enjoy good entertainment?

Is watching movies that star people who aren't white males painful to you or something?

Not at all. It's just unbelievable and a complete spear through the bubble of suspension of disbelief when historical films are brown-washed, when white folklore is tan-washed, and when my favorite genre of film is turned into a feminist, man-hating power-fantasy.

I'm saying this being a white male myself.

...with no pride. The worst kind of white man.

reply

[–] Kowalski (57833) 3 years ago

WHITE ISN'T A RACE...YOUR PRIDE IS MISPLACED AN WRONG-HEADED.

reply

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

I have a lot of pride, I just don't need every lead in everything I watch to look like me. I don't understand why anyone would want that, sounds boring.

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

Seriously? Idris Elba (who should be the next James Bond, as far as I'm concerned) more than fills the bill----he's great at dramatic and action roles, so it was nice to see him in a rare comedic role is Suicide Squad, which he was hilarious as the straight man in. I'd love to see him do more comedies. There's also John David Washington, who was really good in Tenet, which I also liked. Also, your theory about Hollywood makes no sense at all, since it's mainly white men who run Hollywood.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Elba is not Hollywood and is not young. Just checked his age, he looks older than he is.

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

He's starred in plenty of Hollywood films, and just starred in the sequel to Suicide Squad, where he finally got a chance to show his comic skills, and use his real accent for once----he was hilarious in it.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Yeah, but he is not Hollywood per se, even if she played in some Hollywood movies and hopefully he will be the next 007 ...

reply

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

He starred in one of the most popular dramas in the US ever...

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Which one is that??

reply

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

The Wire....

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

couldn't get in that one ... tried 2 episodes at some point after I saw Justified and I notice that Boyd was in it but didn't catch me. Too outdated or too raw, not sure what pushed me away. But heard it's really good ...

Elba was in The Wire as well? Then maybe I should try again to watch it, lol.

reply

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

Yeah, he was one of the leads lol. Definitely an amazing show. IMDb ratings don't mean a whole lot but it's #6 on the TV Shows Top 250. The show is written by a former news reporter so most of the characters are based on real people and events. They even had to tone down a real-life character in later seasons because the real-life story was too realistic to be believable lol. He's great in Luthor as well and was pretty entertaining in The Office (US).

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

Yeah...except we are in the middle of a raging pandemic and Shang-Chi is a new character. A $90+ million four day debut for a character no one has heard of is damn good. Marvel movies are never about the actors. Chris Hemsworth is handsome as fuck and he couldn't draw anyone outside of Marvel. Shang-Chi already opened bigger than Thor, Ant-Man. People go see Marvel films because they are Marvel films. The surveys conducted for Shang-Chi shows the same thing. The important thing for this film is that it got a 8.1 rating on IMDB, and a 92% rating on RT. That means it has good word of mouth.

Mortal Kombat did not make 3 times multiplier, but they are planning a sequel. Jungle Cruise has yet to make back its $200 million budget and they already confirmed a sequel. The Boss Baby 2 barely make over its budget and they are planning a third film. Even F9 barely cleared the 3x multiplier worldwide and that was an established franchise. We are in unprecedented times. Shang-Chi has a $150 million budget, so anywhere near $300 million is a success. Because that means in a pandemic times, that translates to $500-600 or more. It would have opened over $100 million pre-pandemic.

I understand it frustrates you because you want to sell the false narrative that this movie won't be successful, but the truth is, it most certainly already is. It shattered expectations already. People were predicting $25 million - $50 million opening numbers.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (5702) 3 years ago

raging pandemic?, bro turn off CNN for a day or so

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

Bro, return to reality for a day. Please.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (5702) 3 years ago

let's call it a "ho-hum pandemic" and agree on that

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Wait, so Shang-Chi made more than other movies but in 4 days instead of 3?

What a surprise :D

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4359) 3 years ago

Dude , its been in release for 2 days and already made 127 million , and your saying its a big flog ? me thinks you want it to flop , it aint going to happen

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Yeah, I'm saying it'll be probably a big flop. Movies make a big chunk of their box office in their opening weekend. Black Widow made 45% of its box office in the first weekend. F9 Fast and Furious made 40% of its box office in the first weekend.

If Shang-Chi follows the same rule, and there's no reason to think this movie is gonna be different, it'll finally make between $300M and $350M, which would be a big flop.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4359) 3 years ago

Lets see at the end of its run, and also it would be good if you understood how the box office works which you obviously dont.

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

It is already a success. It will probably have longer legs than BW, and is generating buzz with good word of mouth. Kukuxu is trying really how to stress how "woke" movies don't do well, like cyguration. They constantly fail. Shang Chi is already shattering all expectations. A sequel is probably already in their minds now.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i would be very, very surprised if it doesn't gross a good amount more than black widow domestically.

international is harder to pin down, with so many areas in various states of lockdown. & who knows if it will ever get a chinese release. likely it won't.

honestly, i don't think it would be terrible overall if china shuts down disney & hollywood in general. it might actually produce better movies, instead of endless films designed to play to as many nations as possible - ie in the most generic, blandly enjoyable way, even by hollywood measures.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

Making between $300-350 million would be a big, profitable success, not a flop. You clearly don't understand Hollywood if you believe what you write.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4359) 3 years ago

Plus there is streaming to come aswell , not sure why people are obsessed with BO these days , its like a pissing contest, id be more concerned if the film was crap , who gives a shit what it makes

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

Like everything, it becomes about politics. Ku Kux Klookie up there is convinced that Disney is terrible for casting non-white actors, so everything he sees is filtered through that lens. It's a form of wish projection-- he hates Disney, so he creates a scenario in which everything they do fails.

We all know that budgets are exaggerated, and marketing costs are minimized. The accepted industry norm to market a blockbuster is approximately $35 million on the high end, but in his mind it becomes $200 million. He tacks on an extra $50 million to the production budget, then declares that the film must earn double that solely at the box office or else it's a flop. So in his mind, $800 million is the minimum box office haul to merely break even. He's convinced himself this is all true, and it becomes pointless to discuss it with him.

Meanwhile, those of us grounded in reality, who don't buy into the us vs. them, black vs. white, left vs. right, everything is politics mindset, realize that Disney probably needs to make between $150 and $185 million to break even on the film, and between revenue from theaters, streaming, DVD sales, product placement, toy sales, and all the other revenue streams, that will exist for decades, they will once again rake in massive profits. The only proof one needs is to see that they keep churning out more films. Shang Chi is what, the 28th entry in the MCU franchise, with additional chapters scheduled ad infinitum? Were these films losing money, they would cease making them.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i will say, & this has nothing to do with what the op is talking about - i'm done with that guy - the fact that this has no set china date, & there's no china date for eternals, could truly be a game-changer for these films. it may be the case that the ccp will lay down a permanent barrier, either just for disney or for a lot of hollywood blockbusters.

not that they were solely getting by on china, but without that china revenue, the return on investment doesn't look like what it was, and that could create a need for readjustment on this stuff.

but as i said above, shang-chi is doing as well as could be expected domestically. based on how it performed over the weekend - it really held, as opposed to bw which underperformed based on thursday previews - it will probably play very well over the coming weeks.

i'd put money on it making more money than bw domestically. not a lot. i'd feel more confident after seeing next weekend's holds. but i bet it will at least match it and probably surpass it by 20+30m.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

Was Black Widow ever released in China? It seems that other American films, including other Disney films, play there, so are the MCU films specifically being delayed?

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

neither bw or shang-chi have been released there yet, & eternals doesn't have a release date.

the implicit reason for this is eternals director chloe zhoe's comments on china & the ccp. the denial of release is retribution for that, apparently. whether that's a short term thing or permanent, i'm not sure anyone knows.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 3 years ago

"The accepted industry norm to market a blockbuster is approximately $35 million on the high end"

Nope. Way back in 2011, some Sony exec said a 60 million dollar marketing budget for a tentpole was on the low end and could often go over 100 million. It's been ten years. Since this particular movie got very little marketing, at least here in the states, it is hard to pin down exactly what the worldwide marketing budget is, but it has to be more than 35 million.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16386) 3 years ago

I don't think it's a fair comparison since it isn't on streaming at the moment. In theaters it's performing well I think since it was jammed pack and large line up when I went to see it unlike BW. Once it goes to streaming will it earn even more in addition to theater first release.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Quite the opposite: because Shang-Chi is not being released in streaming yet, it should do better in theaters than Black Widow, which was released simultaneously in theaters and internet. It's not.

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3193) 3 years ago

So I honestly almost didn't even reply to this thread because this is by far one of the most desperate and pathetic attempts at trolling I've ever seen.

At first it didn't seem worthy or reasonable to reply to this thread considering it's coming from a known marvel troll who is clearly angry, jealous and depressed right now due to marvel studios embarrassing DC by Opening 2 marvel movies to 75 million + while DC put out a comic book movie directly in the middle and it flopped horrifically with a $26 million opening, so it's clear the OP is just badly BADLY hurting right now and this thread really doesn't warrant a reply

Buuuuuuuuuuuut...

I literally could not help myself but to reply because of what a failure this trolling attempt is.

For the life of me I cannot understand what the what the OP was going for, this trolling attempt makes absolutely no sense... It's like the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot.

I get how much the OP must be hurting right now with the success of marvel and the failure of DC, but it doesnt seem like a very good idea to try to claim the 2 most successful movies of the pandemic era are in fact flops??? Lol

I mean hypothetically speaking , the OP has to have some sort of movie he's rooting for either now or in the future right... He has to have some sort of upcoming movie that he wants to do good and would want to take joy in its box office success right... Yet by this horrible trolling attempt where he has now set the standard of calling 2 films with $75 million plus opening weekend flops the OP has now set a pandemic standard that no film, even films that he likes can be successful.

I mean let's say hypothetically the OP is really rooting for No Time To Die to do great next month..This desperate, angry and jealous trolling attempt has just set an incredibly high standard for NTTD now, let's say NTTD opens to $60 million next month, OP is now forced to have the opinion that its a giant flop

This is clearly one of the very best examples I've ever seen of a troll just not thinking his/her trolling through.

To claim the 2 most successful films of the pandemic era are giant flops is just really dumb trolling that as far as I can tell can only backfire and make it impossible for the OP to claim any future film is a success...

Now let's get to the fun part..... showing with hard facts just how pathetic and how wrong the OP is about Black Widow and Shang-Chi-

1st Black Widow-- here are the facts( or as OP says let's talk business)

Black Widow
OW-$80 Million
Total Domestic-$182 Million+
World Wide-$371 Million+
Profit from Disney + release-$125 Million +(All profit for Disney)

* rough estimate box office breakdown---- Disney gets between 55-60% black widows domestic take, which is around 90 to 100 million +, Disney gets around 50% of its international gross, which is 90 million plus, and Disney recognizes all $125 million of pure profit from its sales on Disney plus.

90-100 M+-TD
90 M+-Int.
125 M+ from D + sales

=

305 to 315 M For Disney from Black Widow
Black Widow had a budget of 200 million

So Disney has netted a minimum of $105 million in profit from Black Widow during a pandemic.

GOOD call on black widow being a flop OP

now to Shang-Chi-----

this is pretty simple here .......you/The OP(a known Marvel Studios hater, with an extreme reason to be biased right now because of the incredible pain and jealousy you feel from marvel studios owning and embarrassing DC by opening 2 comic book movies to 75 million + while DC tried to open a film directly in the middle of these 2 MCU films and that DC film( the suicide squad) horrifically failed with 26 million +) ..... are claiming Shang-Chi's box office is not impressive and it's going to flop..

Hummmmmmmmm......

not surprisingly for some reason your opinion does not does not seem to be shared by a single person who knows or understands box office

so the question has to be asked....

who do we trust and who's right here?

are you right and everyone else is wrong?

is it reasonable to trust the LONE claims of a known marvel troll who has a really great reason to be very depressed and angry due to the success of 2 marvel films and the failure of a DC film in the span of three months

or is it more reasonable to trust the nearly 2 dozen + box office sites and professionals all reporting Shang-Chi 's box office is incredible

Lolol

Post 1 of 2(Continues in next thread )

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 3 years ago

Annnnnd...once again leave it to billbrown to get the % take for the studio wrong. Disney doesn't get 50% of the foreign gross and I guess Black Widow had zero marketing costs? LoL...you actually just said that BW has already made a MINIMUM(LOL) 105 million in "net profits" lololol making it clear you have no clue about how this business works .

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

You have no idea how this thing with budgets and box office works and when a movie makes money, right? :D

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 3 years ago

Ohhhh biiiiillllll?????

Come out, come out. LOLOLOLOL you're hiding again aren't you. LOLOLOLOLOL

Are you at a "comic convention" again and not able to use your phone?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 3 years ago

@billbrown...Please walk me through how you arrived at this number and don't try to go back and edit what you wrote lol. Use your own direct quote I provided below. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

*******************************************************************

"1st Black Widow-- here are the facts( or as OP says let's talk business)

Black Widow
OW-$80 Million
Total Domestic-$182 Million+
World Wide-$371 Million+
Profit from Disney + release-$125 Million +(All profit for Disney)

* rough estimate box office breakdown---- Disney gets between 55-60% black widows domestic take, which is around 90 to 100 million +, Disney gets around 50% of its international gross, which is 90 million plus, and Disney recognizes all $125 million of pure profit from its sales on Disney plus.

90-100 M+-TD
90 M+-Int.
125 M+ from D + sales

=

305 to 315 M For Disney from Black Widow
Black Widow had a budget of 200 million

So Disney has netted a minimum of $105 million in profit from Black Widow during a pandemic."

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3193) 3 years ago

Post 2 of 2

how about this, can you find one single box office professional or credible site that agrees with your odd opinions that both Shang-Chi and black widow are flops ?

because i can find about 2 dozen that say you are wrong and completely disagree with you..

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/shang-chi/shang-chi-smashes-labor-day-weekend-record-with-a-marvelous-90-million-domestic-haul-a187818

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/venom-let-there-be-carnage-moved-up-shang-chi

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/05/marvels-shang-chi-snares-71point4-million-domestic-box-office-opening.html

https://variety.com/2021/film/box-office/box-office-marvel-shang-chi-labor-day-record-1235057013/

https://deadline.com/2021/09/shang-chi-opening-weekend-box-office-1234826987/

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/06/1034594239/marvels-shang-chi-smashes-labor-day-box-office-records-with-71-4-million-debut

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2021/09/05/movies-box-office-shang-chi-84m-labor-day-simu-liu-tony-leung-awkafina-marvel-disney/?sh=46a900a11df4

Tweets from confessional box office analysts--

Exhibitor Relations Co.
@ERCboxoffice
·
2h
Sony doesn't want to miss out on this Marvel action.

VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE moves up two weeks--now drops Oct 1 (was Oct 15).

Great move to stay away from MICHAEL MYERS (he can be a dick) and Marvel seems pandemic-proof domestically. The OG made $856M WW. Place ur bets.

---------------------------------------------------

Gitesh Pandya
@GiteshPandya
·
Sep 5
Within the #MCU, $71.4M debut of #ShangChi was very close to the $75.8M of AntMan2 from Summer 2018 which was a sequel during pre-pandemic times. It went on to reach $216.6M. Too early to say if SC follows a similar path, but #boxoffice road ahead is very promising for #Marvel.
----------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Robbins
@ShawnRobbinsWho
·
Sep 4
The achievement of #ShangChi at the box office right now is difficult to overstate. Projections should maintain perspective and caution in this unprecedented time, but mere Labor Day records aren't even the real story anymore. Our early weekend analysis...

--------------------------------------------

Exhibitor Relations Co.
@ERCboxoffice
·
Sep 4
It’s a ringer.

Marvel’s SHANG-CHI leveled up with $29.6M on Friday, and Disney estimating $65M-$69M for the 3-day weekend, upwards of $80M-$85M over the 4-days.

---------------------------------------------------

Gitesh Pandya
@GiteshPandya
·
Sep 4
#ShangChi had amazing opening day with $29.6M FRI incl THU pre-shows (3rd best in pandemic after BW & F9). That's more than the $26.3M opening WKND of #TheSuicideSquad from just 1 month ago. Both films were above 90% on RT with critics, but TSS was R and also streaming at home.

----------------------------------------

hey here's A tweet for the giant Flop black widow...lol

Exhibitor Relations Co.
@ERCboxoffice
·
Sep 5
Marvel's BLACK WIDOW had the best hold in the Top 10 this weekend, dipping a miniscule -5% w/ $748k, $182M total.

OP..... i'm just not seeing a single person other than you claiming black widow and ShangChi are flops

instead everyone else seems to be claiming the exact opposite as you

call me crazy but i'll trust the professionals over a "lone marvel hater" during a really desperate time for said troll/hater where marvel is succeeding and DC is horrifically failing..

PS

i have a feeling out of everything i said, the thing you will want to respond to most is...

my claims of....... calling Black Widow and Shang-Chi "the 2 so most successful films of the pandemic era"

i have no doubt you're angry and delusional mind will see F9 and GvK and think you can prove me wrong

please feel free to try.... i'm more than happy to provide the facts why Black Widow and Shang-Chi are more successful and will be more profitable

this is a fight you can't win but i also have no doubt you're so dumb you'll try

reply

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

Shang Chi made 94m in 4 days, which is 7m more than Black Widow actually.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i don't even think it's all that useful to compare this to black widow.

i think it's more meaningful to compare it to dr strange - a standalone, relatively unknown character in his first film.

black widow is an existing character, known, defined. that's closer to thor ragnarok or something like that.

& if you use those pairings, & if you give an appropriate weighing for the covid anchor pulling everything down right now...

you'll see shang-chi did pretty great its first weekend and is likely set to have a very tidy, comparable run.

and black widow maybe did kinda ok, perhaps reflecting a not particularly high level of enthusiasm for that film.

at least, that's how i read it.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Dr Strange had a great actor as a lead ...

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

Any films that have been released since the pandemic began are impossible to compare to those of the past. Some theaters aren't open, and nearly all that are open are offering limited seating. On top of that, a large percentage of potential film-goers are too afraid of covid to enter a theater.

Specific to the MCU, you must consider that these films were intended to have been released quite some time ago, to build on the momentum from Endgame and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Black Widow was planned for a May, 2020 release, which would have put it 10 months after Spider-Man. That's an ideal amount of time after the final film of Phase 3 to build maximum anticipation for Phase 4 to kick off. Instead, it was delayed until July 9th, 2021, which is more than two years after the previous MCU film. That's a loooong time between films for a franchise that typically releases three films per year. Shang-Chi was meant for release on February 12 of 2021, the kick-off date for Chinese New Year, and was supposed to be released after the Eternals film. These delays clearly had an effect on the box office.

There's absolutely no way to know what sort of box office Black Widow or Shang-Chi would have garnered had the pandemic never happened. I think the best way to guess is to look at the recent MCU films that preceded them, and assume similar numbers.

Spider-Man: Far From Home $1.13 billion
Avengers: Endgame $2.8 billion
Captain Marvel $1.13 billion
Ant-Man & the Wasp $623 million
Avengers Infinity War $2.05 billion
Black Panther $1.35 billion
Thor: Ragnarok $854 million
Spider-Man: Homecoming $880 million

Five of the previous eight MCU films topped $1 billion, and two topped $2 billion. The lowest total was $623 million. A reasonable guess is that Black Widow and Shang-Chi would have been in the $800 million to $1 billion range had the pandemic never happened; we'll never know for sure.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

personally, i'm not even really looking at international results, because there's so many regions in varying levels of lockdowns. the fact that china is off the table for these movies alone means you can't look at total world numbers.

far from home made over 200m in china, for eg. captain marvel did 154m. if you're gonna look at how films are doing comparatively, you have to back those numbers out at minimum.

so i think it's probably more meaningful to focus on north america.

no question that there's an impact. what i was trying to get at above is that it's not necessarily meaningful to compare black widow and shang-chi, for the reasons i laid out above.

i think it's fair to say bw underperformed and shang-chi, at least so far, is overperforming. but as you said, all of this has a big, ugly covid asterisk attached to it.

as of now, i'm still sticking to my prediction that shang-chi will outgross black widow domestically, though i'll feel more confident in that once we see where it sits sunday.

reply

[–] Mephariel (57) 3 years ago

Dr. Strange is also far more popular as a character and was made at the height of the Infinity War saga. Plus, he has magical abilities that easily translate to the screen.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

fair points.

reply

[–] asom (6509) 3 years ago

Yeah, in 4 days, not in 3 … and BW was released in streaming as well …

reply

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

Yes, Black Widow made 87m in 4 days, not in 3. Which is 7m less than 94m, which Shang Chi also made in 4 days, not 3. What was your point again?

Currently 22m more than Black Widow at the same point of release.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Let's talk BIAS. Even Hitler deemed it right to side with the Japs. You seem to be anti anything that isn't either totally (AKA unrealistically) neutral or else aggressively pro-Aryan

And could you just state for the record whether you are or are not a KKK sympathizer? Because your username obviously seems to imply as much

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

You can get a clue to his beliefs here:

https://moviechat.org/tt9140560/WandaVision/600d3ceec4bb141422ec8e90/How-is-this-show-in-the-wokediversity-scale?reply=60203baffdd68e6f8b48d310

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

I don't even wanna condemn him. This doesn't surprise me at all, but I just him want to express himself fully, even if it's full-blown hate speech. It's useless beating around the bush. This is an anonymous forum with not much moderation. Someone needs to explain to him that even though this place is sort of a haven for racists that his beliefs are still very much in the fringe and that he needs to accept that the movie industry will always be frustrating to a person like him because Hollywood will always be more liberal than, not only a KKK card-carrier, but even to the "average" American

And denying the economic reality that Hollywood's leftist "agenda" will always prevail over his own fantastical right-wing agenda is a horribly futile endeavor

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6684) 3 years ago

I have no issue with him speaking his mind. He routinely makes statements that are racist in nature, as in the example I linked where he takes issue with filmmakers portraying blacks as intelligent, because (according to him) they aren't as smart as whites. Though I disagree with what he says, I don't think there should be negative repercussions for saying such things, and he shouldn't have to hide behind a screen name to say them.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

He routinely makes statements that are racist in nature, as in the example I linked where he takes issue with filmmakers portraying blacks as intelligent, because (according to him) they aren't as smart as whites.

No. You routinely assign those statements to me. I routinely make my position clear, and you still routinely keep assigning to me what you made up.

Last time, I bookmarked my comment, so next time I could just copy-paste it.

Link: https://moviechat.org/tt9243804/The-Green-Knight/611272785e28973e8eb612d6/Flop?reply=6113a011e1c5bb359cbbfd66

I'll state again which is my position in that regard, so anybody who reads this can compare what I said and what you both are assigning to me.

My position is that movies/series should stay on average close to the reality of groups they're portraying, or to some idealized (either positively or negatively) version of them. The problem appears when they move away from it in different directions depending on the ethnic group / gender.

For example, in Nazi movies Jews were portrayed on average as much more stingy and greedy that the group was in real life. That wouldn't be a problem is that was the case for every ethnic group and stories were cynical and depressive. However, Non-Jews were represented in the opposite way, as less stingy and greedy that they were on average in real life. The intention wasn't to represent reality or some idealized reality, but to demonize Jews.

That can be equally applied to modern Hollywood. When white males are represented on average in a very negative way compared to the reality of the group, while blacks are represented on average in a much more positive way than the reality of the group, then you know that the intention is not to represent, but to demonize a group, the same Nazi movies did. The difference lies in the group: Hollywood wants to demonize white males instead of Jews.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

You can get a clue to his beliefs here:

https://moviechat.org/tt9140560/WandaVision/600d3ceec4bb141422ec8e90/How-is-this-show-in-the-wokediversity-scale?reply=60203baffdd68e6f8b48d310

Except that's not about beliefs. Or it shouldn't be, for rational people.

And yeah, black community has a low average IQ. That's not a "belief", that's not a political opinion, that's not even about politics, that's a simple fact.

If you're putting facts in the realm of "beliefs", then this is not about politics, this is not about opinion. This is about religion. That's one of the reasons I think Wokeness is much more of a religion than a ideology. Ideologies accept facts, but they can react to them in different ways. Religions dismiss facts and build their theology based on beliefs.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i have my own problems with kukuxu, but on this point he's correct.

you should be careful on these topics, because they're incendiary and these things can be hurtful.

but as currently measured, there is and has been as long as it's been measured a difference in iq between african americans and european americans. it had narrowed, but since the 90s the difference has remained about one standard deviation, meaning the average european-american has an iq score higher than 83% of african americans, if i have my stats right. stats class was a long time ago for me.

that's an ugly fact, but it is what the tests show. & that has consequences for how people do in life, in their outcomes.

iq doesn't tell you everything you need to know about a person, but it measures something.

there are lots of arguments and debates about why that is, and i won't pretend to know the answer. i don't know if it's even worth going into the topic, because there's so much potential for anger and bitterness and harm. that should matter to you. you shouldn't want to hurt people. it's fair to ask 'what kind of person wants to think about this and talk about it?'

any time you wade into this topic, you are aren't just grabbing the third rail of politics, you're gripping it with both hands and daring the world to electrocute you.

at minimum i think you should treat the topic carefully and respectfully. i would say that would mean not randomly interjecting it into your beef with tv and movies.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

i would say that would mean not randomly interjecting it into your beef with tv and movies.

I'd suggest you should say that to the user who brought up the topic, which wasn't me, btw.

any time you wade into this topic, you are aren't just grabbing the third rail of politics, you're gripping it with both hands and daring the world to electrocute you. at minimum i think you should treat the topic carefully and respectfully

No.

This is an argument I had about other religions before, it's not something specific about Wokes. And my position is clear: when religion is something that's kept private, I'm careful and polite. When some religious community is trying to push their religious beliefs into society, down the throat, then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be careful.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

this is why it's impossible to take you seriously.

you take a statement that you should be careful on this topic, one of the most sensitive, controversial things you could imagine - what's more controversial than this?- and argue against that.

you take an anodyne statement like 'it's ok for black people to make movies about black people' and equate it to demonizing jews or child abuse, like you did with me last week.

those aren't the words of someone trying to advance an idea in any way i understand it.

not too good.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

you take an anodyne statement like 'it's ok for black people to make movies about black people' and equate it to demonizing jews or child abuse, like you did with me last week.

The only problem is that is not what I said.

those aren't the words of someone trying to advance an idea in any way i understand it.

Probably, but again: those are not my words. They're yours. Or at least they're just words you're assigning to me.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The only problem is that is not what I said.

that conversation spoke for itself, i think. i'm fine with anyone looking at it and looking at what i said and how you responded. i think your responses were not great.

i can be incredibly silly and dense and clueless sometimes. but i don't think that was one of those times.

& i think it's very telling that, even with someone like me, who's pretty onboard with a lot of what you say - i hate woke messaging! i hate facile, gutless racial pandering that's in so many movies! i hate the lazy smearing of white guys! - you still find a way to be pointlessly combative.

i don't think you do your argument any favours when you behave the way you do here so often.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Well, it's easy to check. This is what you said I said:

you take an anodyne statement like 'it's ok for black people to make movies about black people' and equate it to demonizing jews or child abuse, like you did with me last week.

And since I used a comment to explain clearly my position in that conversation, I'll quote it, to compare:

You can't cherry-pick one element of a context, then isolate it from the context and pretend to continue the debate. If the context is 'Movies with a White-Demonizing Woke Agenda' you can't just cherry-pick the element 'has a black male lead' and isolate it from that context.

'Movies with a Jew-Demonizing Nazi Agenda' are bad. So let's cherry-pick the element 'has a Jew character' and isolate it from the original context. Why do you think movies with Jew characters are bad? Why do you hate Israeli movies?

Rape is Sex+Coercion and it's bad. So let's cherry-pick the element 'sex' and isolate it from 'coercion'. Why do you think sex is bad? Why do you hate couples having sex?

This is the link: https://moviechat.org/tt9347730/Candyman/612ccef92ae9663a06ef4a60/A-overtly-violent-and-racist-POS-designed-to-further-tensions-between-blacks-and-whites-SPOILERS?reply=612f13ef7dbf1d2005dc37cf

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

Both you and this ku ku person are full of it. As a black person myself, all that BS you're claiming about black people having low IQs simply because we're black is pure white supremacist nonsense that has been proven to be a bunch of BS time and time again, and it's not even supported by science. It's just a pure stupid racist insult to me as a black person. Only ignorant mediocre insecure racists like the two of you spout this nonsense. Go somewhere else with that BS. And, no, white people are not smarter than everyone simply because they're white. You only wish they were. Tired of white racists like the both of you always trying to justify some tired as hell, outdated, stupid white supremacist racist BS to make yourselves feel superior because you aren't all that superior or that smart to begin with.

Ku Ku, just admit you hate Shang-Chi because it hasn't got a white lead---that's why you hoped it wouldn't succeed, and since it has blown up huge worldwide, you just hate the fact that it has. Go crawl back in your little hole and cry over it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i'm the furthest thing from a white supremacist.

the facts are the facts on this matter. why it's this way is a different issue entirely. i'm absolutely willing to believe these differences can be attributed to history and poverty and all kinds of things. i have to be agnostic on that, because i just don't know.

but i don't think it does any good to hide away from reality on these things. they have real world consequences, and if we're going to have discussions on the variations in outcomes among groups, you have to take these things into consideration.

& the most important thing is to always treat everyone as an individual. knowing something about group attributes tells you nothing about any individual, and there are tons and tons of black people who are way more intelligent than the average white person and more intelligent than me, certainly.

(if anything, i'm a east asian and jewish and parsi supremacist, since those are the groups with the highest avg iqs).

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i also should add that i think it is absolutely possible that a certain kind of black culture could have impact on how iq is measured.

john mcwhorter spoke about this very eloquently on glenn loury's podcast a few months ago. if you're interested, i can drop a link here. let me know. he spoke to how there may be more focus on verbal storytelling that may lead to a different kind of 'black learning.' it's an intriguing idea, and i think it should be considered.

but he, as a black man, had to acknowledge that there are these group differences, and that we have to be realistic in taking them into account when looking at outcomes at high group levels.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Your claim that "Blacks are on average less intelligent." is not synonymous with "black community has a low average IQ."

Your equating the two is not fact.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Your claim that "Blacks are on average less intelligent." is not synonymous with "black community has a low average IQ."

Actually, it is.

Saying "group A has a lower average IQ than group B" is mathematically equivalent to say "group A has on average lower IQ than group B". You don't need to trust me: just take a paper, write the formulas and check it.

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

What "formula"? Some more white racist supremacist BS you made up yourself? Give it up, please. White people aren't superior to anyone----that's just some BS they made up to justify their way-too-long domination of everything. Write out this so-called "formula" which dosen't make any sense and probably dosen't even exist except in your outdated backwards racist mind.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

Let's talk BIAS. Even Hitler deemed it right to side with the Japs. You seem to be anti anything that isn't either totally (AKA unrealistically) neutral or else aggressively pro-Aryan

Well, I've only have found once one aggressively pro-Aryan user... and I had an disagreement with him, for what matters. It's hard to be anti something that barely exists, at least, if you're honest with yourself.

Anyway, I've said more than once that if I had to pick some position, it'd be close to moderate European center-left after WW2, during the 50s/60s, before wokeness began to appear.

And could you just state for the record whether you are or are not a KKK sympathizer? Because your username obviously seems to imply as much

The username is a Basque word that means flea. I have Basque blood, by the way, so it's not coincidental.

Unexpectedly, the username seems to be a very good Rorschach test too.

reply

[–] nufsaid16 (629) 3 years ago

You don't even seem to know what "wokeness" means. You just hate the fact that white people are no longer dominating everything in the entire damn world anymore. Whine, whine, whine. Get the hell over yourself-----the world dosen't revolve around ignorant white racist idiots like you anymore. If you don't like being in America, which has always been a multiracial country, then take your ignorant wish-you-knew-it-all racist behind back to Europe. Oh,, I forgot----there's black people over there too! Ha ha ha ha ha!

And nobody gives a damn what kind of "blood" you have---it sure as hell dosen't make you smarter or better then anyone else. Blood is the same color in everybody---red.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 3 years ago

Well your post about this got a little side tracked lol, but I will be interested to see this weekends drop to tell whether it really will flop.

Compared to BW, which was a box office disappointment, Labor Day is the primary reason at this point it is running ahead of BW. You cant deny it did better than most expected in the US. However The Numbers actually predicted it would make a little bit more than it did. The reality is BW was released simultaneously on Disney + a service with a large user base which I believe unquestionably stunted its box office performance overall. So any comparison has to take into account Shang Chi had a advantage since its audience wasnt given an alternative...even if that alternative is an absurd $30 rental fee.

The labor day weekend puff pieces aside. The international doesn't look great, it appears to have opened behind BW in most major markets they shared and that film didn't have a great international run. China has become too important for these films and a lack of a timely release or any release at all is killing these films. IF it lands in the same range as BW it will be a theatrical flop even with a lower budget.

reply