Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 The movie is a critical success, he has been the one carrying it, and unless it falls apart completely tonight and tomorrow (which is possible, but doubtful) the movie has done well in the box office. For a September movie, 17 million is a critical success. For the Rundown, it is not. This movie was expected to make like 25+ million and it is not going to do so. So the Rock takes a step backwards in becoming an established star in Hollywood. And the Rock is not going to do as well as Denzel so you should get that out of your head now. A couple of known Denzel movies, Malcolm X and The Hurricane made about 50 million total. The Rock was expected to pass that with the Rundown, but it won't likely happen.
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 You also have to consider that the studio is banking mostly on Rock's drawing power, which is obviously wrestling fans Untrue. They consider Rock mainstream, which means to appeal to everyone. No studio would waste their time on a wrestler only known by wrestling fans like Chris Benoit. However it seems that the Rock may not be as mainstream as people thought with the weekend projection for the Rundown.
Guest Ghettoman Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 So your suggesting in no way can the money this movie makes this weekend imply Rock is a movie star?
the pinjockey Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 "critic"al success Critical success. Meaning successful with critics. Meaning movie critics enjoy the Rock and The Rundown. I haven't read a bad review yet, therefore The Rundown is a critical success.
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 So your suggesting in no way can the money this movie makes this weekend imply Rock is a movie star? Right because it won't be making nearly enough money to consider him a movie star
Vern Gagne Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 So it could remain at around 13 or 14 million for the next couple weeks, and it wouldn't be a success?
Guest El Satanico Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 It's his first movie where he is the focus of everything. I didn't know he had to be one of the top Hollywood draws from the start. To already expect him to be a top draw is completely unrealistic. Of course he's not a top draw yet, but his career is off to a strong start.
Vern Gagne Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I see this movie holding steady at around 11 to 13 million the next month . By the end of its run it will make around 60 to 70 million.Not great, but for a fall release very solid.
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I'm kind of getting the feeling that Thrall WANTS this film to tank for one reason or another (doesn't like Rock, wants him to come back to WWE, or whatever). The movie is getting some damn good reviews, he is getting a lot of media exposure, and he's probably making a good chunk of change. I'd call that a success. You don't have to have a movie make $100 million to call it a success. If it makes back it's budget or more (I don't think it was $95 million, by the way), then it's a success to me.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 How did the "other" action hero's do in their first films?? Of course, I don't think they at-the-time were billed as "the next ____" like The Rock is, but I would be interesting to compare.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Recent movies or At the timeframe where Rock Is now? Because haven't the Arnold Movies aside from T3 bombed anyways? 17 Million is better then the $290 Bucks Van Damme makes with his Rehashed Lionheart direct to Video Movie...
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Well, Arnold's first movie (Hercules in New York) is #23 on IMDB's Bottom 100 list.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 but was he a ACTION STAR? No...See what his first Movie after his breakout in Terminator did...
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Arnold says that all of his movies have made a profit. I am talking about their debut films... or at their equivalent to what the rock is doing now. Like Arnolds Conan or JCVD's Bloodsport or Segals Under Siege or whatever...
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 That was Red Sonja Budget: $17.9 Million Gross: $13.4 Million Conan the Barbarian made $37.5 million gross and $21 million in rentals. Of course, it came out 21 years ago, so you can disregard the rental number if you want.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Arnold says that all of his movies have made a profit. And this guy is the one who thinks he can solve the budget problems in Cali? Yikes.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I thought that Bridget Nielson was the star of that, with Arny in a bit-part.
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 He's first billed at IMDB. And we might as well ship this to the Movies folder now.
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 People overall think Rock is a joke, which is why the movie opened to a very subpar number (compared to what was expected for the movie) for its debut. However since the movie has been labeled "so good" and everyone from the theaters says the Rock is "for real" that will tell the rest that the Rock is no joke and they will see the movie. Or the rest will no sell what the people who saw the film think and won't see the film because they think a guy labeled the "newest action star" coming from wrestling is a joke. So far the box office numbers for the movie are disappointing but that could change, but somehow I doubt it, because people don't take wrestling seriously, and the Rock is still viewed as "that wrestling guy now in Hollywood".
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 People overall think Rock is a joke. They do? Sure, they may not have been sure if he could be the focal point of a movie, but a "joke?" That's kinda harsh.
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 But Arnie also said... "Let off some steam, Bennet."
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 People overall think Rock is a joke. They do? Sure, they may not have been sure if he could be the focal point of a movie, but a "joke?" That's kinda harsh. Rock has been advertised as the focal point of the movie so they would know. He is a joke because the movie underperformed (a lot of people don't want to see the Rock in a movie right now). Now it is whether to be seen if the movie continues with subpar numbers with a lot of people refusing to see a movie with a guy from WWE or if people will no sell that he's from wrestling and will see it based on the strong reviews of the Rock from people who have seen it.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 People overall think Rock is a joke, which is why the movie opened to a very subpar number (compared to what was expected for the movie) for its debut. However since the movie has been labeled "so good" and everyone from the theaters says the Rock is "for real" that will tell the rest that the Rock is no joke and they will see the movie. Or the rest will no sell what the people who saw the film think and won't see the film because they think a guy labeled the "newest action star" coming from wrestling is a joke. So far the box office numbers for the movie are disappointing but that could change, but somehow I doubt it, because people don't take wrestling seriously, and the Rock is still viewed as "that wrestling guy now in Hollywood". If Hollywood thinks of him as a joke, why does He get offered any role that involves Action? If People think of him as a Joke why did TSK do good numbers? YOU think of him as a joke because you don't want to think anything good comes out of wrestling, You fought and crashed and burned trying to argue that Austin wasn't over in 1997...and now your trying to say Rock isn't a name draw? Then Why not blame Williamson? He has equal Promotion for this movie... Maybe people don't buy Stifler as a Action Star...
KingPK Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 That's William Scott, Choken. I didn't know that about Thrall. Kind of takes the wind out of his sails. Scott was in Bulletproof Monk, and that didn't do well, so maybe Scott shares some blame too? Can we at least wait a few weeks to determine if Rock is a "joke" or not?
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 If Hollywood thinks of him as a joke, why does He get offered any role that involves Action? When I said people overall I meant the viewers, not Hollywood. If People think of him as a Joke why did TSK do good numbers? Had nothing to do with the Rock. It did good numbers because it was a Mummy movie. The Mummy movies with Brendan Frazier did good, so it had nothing to do with the lead role. YOU think of him as a joke because you don't want to think anything good comes out of wrestling, You fought and crashed and burned trying to argue that Austin wasn't over in 1997...and now your trying to say Rock isn't a name draw? Austin was over in 1997. I guess you no sold or didn't read my latest posts in that thread. Rock as of right now is not a name draw because his movie had a disappointing number. Once a non franchise movie in which the Rock has the main role generates good numbers, then he will be considered a draw, but we will have to wait to see if that happens.
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Can we at least wait a few weeks to determine if Rock is a "joke" or not? Rock is a joke right now based on the number the movie did, but that can change if the people who no sold the movie because of the Rock being from WWE change their mind from the great reviews from people from the theaters of the Rock. We will find out in the upcoming weeks.
{''({o..o})''} Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Kinda off topic but don't you hate it when people use wrestling terms to describe nonwrestling items(ie No sold)?
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 I guess but It seems to be catching on in Public places... I swear I hear the term "No Sell" or "No Sold" constantly at the oddest places... "That bitch at Wendy's No Sold my Nuggets" or "MARK" "I Mark for Car Accidents"... or Jobbed... "Tyson got Jobbed by Lewis"...
Guest thrall585 Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 Kinda off topic but don't you hate it when people use wrestling terms to describe nonwrestling items(ie No sold)? Why do you hate it? Because it is annoying? Why is it annoying? Because it is? Right. Please give an explanation.
Guest Choken One Posted September 28, 2003 Report Posted September 28, 2003 It's annoying because it's utterly stupid to use a wrestling term for something non-relating...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now