‘Hunger Games’ Passing $250M Domestic For #1 Again, #2 ‘Wrath Of The Titans’ Can’t Beat Original, #3 ‘Mirror Mirror’ Disappoints

COMMENTS (106)

• “The Hunger Games” will still be number 1 this weekend too much hype still surrounding it.

  Comment by GRJR721 — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 9:23am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Yep just like the above article clearly stated.

    Comment by Will — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 11:29am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Wow, you called it!

    Comment by Penchant for the Obvious — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:51am PDT  Reply to this post

  • While for any defined period of time (a day, a weekend) all movies collectively in theaters are, yes, somewhat competing together to draw attention & ticket sales from all people who are heading out to the movies. But not completely.

    Not all movies appeal to the same people. Therefore, this constant pitting of one movie against another is based on a false premise. It corrupts the creativity of the movie-making process from script forward.

    When people say Hollywood movies suck these days, or are all formulaic and derivative, it’s because of a mindset that simplistically says movies are out there battling against each other to be #1. Likely, those with more extensive marketing budgets will likely pull in more money. But there’s no reason to dismiss the other movies as “disappointing” or draw similar negative conclusions.

    Comment by sidewalk — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 2:08pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • I don’t know about that, but I do know Andrew Stanton should have been less concerned about beating Brad Bird.

    Comment by Bill Bailey — Monday April 2, 2012 @ 1:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Not to many losers in America after all. Movie looks like crap.

  Comment by captain Lashout — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 9:23am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Surprised to see MIRROR MIRROR doing well. It will probably do solid weekdays for the next few weeks.

    Comment by FG — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• It’s a good thing Ryan Kavanaugh’s magic movie formula can make money off movies even when they appear to lose millions, or Relativity might be in trouble on Mirror Mirror.

  Comment by Mirror Mirror Mirror — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 10:11am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Dude, just look at the spreadsheet. It’s all good!

    Comment by Magilla — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 11:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • More like Smoke and Mirror Mirrors.

    Comment by MontyCarlo — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 10:12am PDT  Reply to this post

    • WTF happened to julia roberts…

      Used to be so classy. No these roles smell gassy.

      Comment by Billy Bushing It — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 1:03pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If only audiences found Julia Roberts’ performance as amusing to watch as she apparently found it amusing to do . . .

  Comment by Lillian Push — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 10:49am PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m a college student and was actually surprised by Mirror Mirror. It does the job for the children’s demographic it’s catering to.. jokes, visuals, and story were on point. Hope to see this do well over the weekend, even with Hunger Games pulling in the audiences it will.

  Comment by Anonymous — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 1:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I am not a hater…I am a fanboy…and I can’t help but feel disgust and boiling anger at how awful Wrath of the Titans looks. As we all know, Clash was a debacle…both for the 3D and the film itself.

  Wrath looks even worse. I am the target audience for this movie, and I’m going to go out of my way to avoid it. Truly don’t understand where 40M worth of opening weekend is coming from. Crap of the Titans better describes it.

  Comment by Wrath of the Moviegoer — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 1:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • I saw Wrath today… atrocious does not even get close to describing the dullness I experienced. Sam Worthington and the script (which has its paw prints all over) are simply awful and some decent production design and vfx work is wasted by fast moving and confused directing that never establishes any empathy with the characters or the geography scenes are happening in. The worst film Ive seen so far this year

    Comment by Life Through A Lens — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:40pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • I “feel your wrath”

    …I’m hilarious.

    Comment by Geek — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • I wanted to like Clash, but it was horrible. It looks like all concerned with Wrath set out to reproduce the worst of Clash and then… make it even worse. As a colleague said to me afterwards, “We should have gone to McDonalds instead. We’d have got more out of it.”

    Comment by Ripsnorter — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • The sad irony is that WRATH “looks” a lot better than CLASH…the 3D is much improved and the visual FX/creatures are pretty spectacular. But the story and characters are weak to the point of nonexistent, and the whole thing comes off like a VFX showreel with people talking every so often. What a shame…I love the Ray Harryhausen mythology movies and wish someone could do a decent homage to them.

    Comment by michael — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 6:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • “Clash was a debacle…both for the 3D and the film itself.”

    a half a billion dollar debacle.. riiiiight

    Comment by steve22 — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:32am PDT  Reply to this post

• Neil Gaiman wrote a very cool revisionist take on the Snow White legend called GLASS, APPLE, SNOW. That one was also from the Queen’s point of view, but she was neither goofy (Mirror Mirror) or bwahahaha evil (Snow White and the Huntsman). Wish someone had made his version…

  Comment by 100stones3x — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Or they could have filmed Gregory Maquire’s excellent novel, Mirror Mirror, whose title they stole.

    Comment by incredulous — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 4:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Stole? It’s the phrase most associated with the story in the English speaking world, this gets a pass on ‘stealing’ from Maguire.

      Comment by Mike — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 10:37pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Ha, I always thought that would have been a great idea to do Gaiman’s story. Mirror, Mirror is flat out hideous, although the visuals are lovely. Snow White and the Huntsman will most likely be decent to good (I know someone involved in the project and they swear the good buzz is apparently deserved). The trailer makes me a little suspicious though, as Theron doing that bwahahaha is bordering on camp and not the good type in my opinion. Then again, it is a trailer and Theron is usually fantastic.

    Comment by Agree — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:38am PDT  Reply to this post

    • Theron is quickly becoming Faye Dunaway.

      Comment by ari — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 7:43am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Seems related to the source material for, “Maleficent”, the Angelina Jolie project starting this June.

    Comment by Neil — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 8:42am PDT  Reply to this post

  • The Neil Gaiman short story is called Snow, Glass, Apples. And you’re right, it’s remarkable. Check out the audio play version on YouTube.

    Comment by Ricky Rood — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 10:54am PDT  Reply to this post

• I just saw ‘Bully’ and I have to admit I was disappointed. Its a great subject for a documentary and the filmmakers found some very brave and amazing children. But the execution and narrative are all over the place, and unlike other recent documentaries (e.g., Waiting for Superman, Inside Job) there were very few (if any) facts provided to support its messages.

  And I have no idea why the MPAA wanted to rate it ‘R’ except to provide the Weinsteins a soap box to stand on and free advertising. There’s more violence on an episode of ‘Dance Moms’ than in this film.

  My advice is to save your $15 and see it On Demand.

  Comment by Truthteller — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • You haven’t been paying attention, have you? It was (bogusly) rated R because of language, not violence.

    Comment by incredulous — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 4:35pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • It was rated R for the use of “4 or more F-Bombs”. That’s it. Not the suicide of an 11 year old or countless scenes of violence against minors…4 F Bombs. (there are actually 6). I guess my kids are Rated R. High school is rated R. Middle School is rated R, the bus stop is rated R, the mall is rated R. You get the point.

      Comment by MPAA Committee — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:56am PDT  Reply to this post

• Poor ‘Mirror,Mirror’ it appears to be a cute colorful kids movie and might have had a chance of being entertaining if not for the woefully miscast Julia Roberts. Evil? Maybe, she’s an actress do she can try and pull that off but ‘Fairest of them all’? Ah, no. Even the comedy aspect of the role doesn’t suit her limited abilities…but folks do like her so she’ll likely get a pass but they. Ouldve at least given her better styling. What color is her hair exactly?

  Comment by JJ — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Poor Mirror Mirror? Eh.. It cost $84 mil. By the end of its run, domestic+foreign should be pretty decent–and that’s before the home market kicks in in 4-5 months.

    Comment by Dan — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 9:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • …faded construction pylon???

    Comment by ROclockCK — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:37am PDT  Reply to this post

  • I think it was a mistake to release Mirror Mirror only a week after The Hunger Games, they should have waited another week. Most of the young kids (who are the audience for Mirror Mirror) went to see The Hunger Games. Mirror Mirror may benefit when the kids are off school for Easter this week though.

    Comment by lisa — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 2:00pm PDT  Reply to this post

• You…haven’t seen the movie. Which makes your whinnying kind of embarrassing. Hush.

  Comment by Jay — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:51pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Go see Goon. It’s the best out there.

  Comment by puck it — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 2:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• isn’t WRATH falling at least $21 million short of the original’s opening?

  Comment by mike jevons — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 3:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Yeah, and it actually cost $25 million more to produce, but the studios are desperate to justify their ridiculous budgets, so they have to skirt all those inconvenient facts so they can, you know, pretend the industry isn’t in trouble.

    “Wrath” really shouldn’t have been produced. It’s a sequel nobody asked for. I’m surprised it’s actually grossing as much as it is, considering the Neanderthals who usually lap up the thinnest of Hollywood slime slammed “Clash.” I mean, the first film only had a 2.5 multiplier during Spring 2010, when its biggest competitor was Kick-Ass. “300″ it ain’t.

    But that’s okay. Warner Bros. is falling victim to Disney’s lunatic budgeting template, and although they won’t humiliate themselves with Batman, they’ll have plenty of humble pie with Man of Steel next summer.

    Comment by DK — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 8:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Problems?

      Comment by Book-Brain — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 8:31am PDT  Reply to this post

    • nobody asks for most sequels. so what.

      Comment by steve22 — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:58am PDT  Reply to this post

• How is THE RAID doing in its slowly expanding platform release?

  Comment by Sam — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 3:56pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The weekend total for Mirror Mirror looks low. I thought it would make much more. Definitely disappointing.

  Comment by EM — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 6:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • Most outlets predicted it opening between 20-25, so it’s right on target. Even if it does HALF the worldwide BO of movies like Enchanted, it’s OK.

    Comment by Jason — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 9:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • NO WAY ON EARTH THIS DOESN’T LOSE MONEY. Ryan is the only person who ever makes money on most of his movies since he pays himself a massive producer fee even though he is the principal of the studio. Good old fashioned double dipping, on a massive scale.

      Comment by Judypants — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 7:26am PDT  Reply to this post

  • disappointing to whom? no one cares

    Comment by steve22 — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:55am PDT  Reply to this post

• @ EM: LOL! What? Most people had it pegged for sub-$20 million opening less than a week ago. The internet community has been pretty down on this movie for whatever reason. $25 million is actually pretty good considering it doesn’t have 3D or IMAX to inflate prices and it’s going up against two huge movies.

  What I’m baffled by are Wrath’s numbers compared to Clash. Would have thought it would have more support no matter it’s mediocrity. It’s got 3D, IMAX and is allegedly slightly better than it’s crap predeccesor. I know it doesn’t have the holiday bump to take advantage of but still 21 Jump St and HG can’t be poaching that much of it’s fanboy audience?

  Comment by Lewis — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 8:00pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The Hunger Games prediction for this weekend has decreased, right? Box Office Mojo was betting something around $70M yesterday, and now it may not even get to $60M… Anyway, it would be a drop of 60% over the last weekend, but still really strong.

  Comment by Pedro Henrique — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 8:15pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Impressive take for Mirror Mirror, thought for sure it’d bomb.

  Comment by roy — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 10:06pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Wrath” is opening below “John Carter”, yet nary a hint of the term “failure” and “turkey” do I see attached to it. True, the budgets were not the same (I think this was ~$150 vs. $250 million) but this is a sequel to a (financially) successful film. Where’s the schadenfreude? That’s all I saw from a lot of the comments and stories here…

  Comment by Anonymous — Friday March 30, 2012 @ 10:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • There are many distinctions between the two. For one thing, JOHN CARTER was ostensibly the LAUNCH of a massive franchise, not a sequel. Making up the difference between 150M and 250M when you extrapolate the money that actually ends up in a studio’s pocket (especially from foreign revenues) is pretty huge.

    WRATH is a big movie, but Warner Bros is not betting their entire studio on the film in the way that Disney basically did with JOHN CARTER. Warner Bros. still makes other movies — including mid-budget movies and God forbid, original scripts, so the resentment towards Warner Bros. is nowhere near what it is for Disney in the wake of their new “tentpole only” strategy, which leaves a lot of people in the creative community with a lot less work.

    Then there were Disney’s decisions to cast a basically unknown actor in the lead and put an animation director at the helm, and their basic lack of respect for the audience in that they seemed sure the audiences will show up if you yell at them loud enough, and their botched and increasingly desperate ad campaign as the release date got nearer. And on and on and on….there really is no sense in comparing these two films.

    Comment by HW — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 7:57am PDT  Reply to this post

    • I disagree. I saw John Carter. While it was not *great* it sounds as if it was much better than Wrath (the reviews seem to bear that out as well). There were plot issues, but there was no talking down to the audience as you seem to imply (did you see it?) And Sam Worthington, while definitely better known as a lead, is hardly Mr. Charisma. If you see Disney’s stock lately, it actually went up 5% since John Carter came out; I don’t think they’re too worried. Also, Disney was putting out a lot of schlock even worse than John Carter before this new strategy. ALSO what’s the dig at “animation director”? Most “LIVE ACTION” directors can’t hold a candle to Brad Bird or Andrew Stanton. I’m sure both of them will continue to make films with “LIVE ACTION” despite what “HOLLYWOOD EXPERTS” think.

      Comment by Anonymous — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:38am PDT  Reply to this post

      • That’s over-egging Bird and Stanton just a teensy bit…………..but clearly Bird handled that first transition from animation to live action a LOT better than Stanton did.

        Comment by Sigh — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 10:23am PDT  Reply to this post

      • Anonymous always makes the most idiotic comments. he clearly knows nothing about film economics and even more clearly has a man crush on Stanton.

        Comment by Disney Man — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 2:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • Wait a minute. Is there really widespread “resentment” in Hollywood’s “creative community” over Disney’s tentpole-only strategy which has supposedly led to “a lot less work”?

      To your satisfaction, how many theatrical motion picture projects should the Mouse green light? Because that company produces a ton of television and live entertainment that employs thousands of people.

      But you’re probably above-the-line “talent”, right, HW?

      Comment by Bailout your damn self. — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

      • Mmm, yeah, there’s a fair amount of resentment in the creative community. I don’t know how “widespread” it is, but it’s there. How many theatrical motion pictures should the Mouse greenlight? I don’t have a magic number, but 8-10 sounds about right, which is what they’ve been doing in recent years, as compared to 3, which is what they’re doing now. It was a pretty drastic rollback of the feature film arm of one of the major buyers. I’m not commenting on nor care much about their television and live entertainment components.

        Comment by HW — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 12:09pm PDT  Reply to this post

  • 100 million between them. 100 million is a big number. Truth is, Wrath will probably do exceptionally well overseas, and in more than just a handful of countries.

    Comment by Brian — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 8:18am PDT  Reply to this post

• How many people are going to be laid off from Relativity now that their 2nd huge risk failed? They’ll be lucky if this makes $60M domestic, probably a loss of $50M-$60M considering they won’t get any foreign money. With literally no operating cash they’re going to have to fire a handful of people, or maybe a bunch of execs will leave and do Ryan (and themselves) a favor. Don’t worry though, private planes, multiple assistants for RK and his cronies, and pricey, unnecessary gifts to all the celebs that refuse to work with the studio will still continue.

  Comment by Ha! — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 12:42am PDT  Reply to this post

  • julia roberts = good foreign box office

    Comment by steve22 — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:51am PDT  Reply to this post

    • Used to be’s don’t count anymore

      Comment by Erhello — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 2:57pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I surprised that Mirror Mirror went beyond 20 millions. It looks so awful in trailers that 22 millions is great success for it.

  Comment by Shy — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 1:04am PDT  Reply to this post

• Re – Anonymous.

  ‘Wrath’ is definitely a turkey. But that was to be expected. ‘John Carter’ on the other hand had a whole bunch of issues broader than that pre-release including about a year of bad buzz and the fact the nerd crowd were boasting about how awesome it was going to be to see the story that ‘everyone’ else cribbed from be made on a ludicrous budget.

  Which is why it’s so hilarious that it was actually crap and people (apart from the nerds) realised that.

  ‘Wrath’ was going to be a turkey anyway.

  Comment by Iwannabeanonymoustoo — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 2:37am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Yeah it wasn’t great, but I would hardly call it crap. Better than most of the sci-fi fantasy that Hollywood puts out, which is a low bar indeed. I would sum it up as wasted potential. I have to ask: did you see it? I’m guessing not by the way you liberally denigrate “nerds”.

    Comment by Anonymous — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:44am PDT  Reply to this post

    • Re -Anonymous. Yes, I saw it. Which is why I’m totally comfortable with my choice of word. It doesn’t surpass it’s genre competitors in cinema form (because I’ve seen all of THEM as well) and whatever Stanton does next as a director, he blew this one big time.

      Comment by Iwannabeanonymoustoo — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 10:18am PDT  Reply to this post

  • “the fact the nerd crowd were boasting about how awesome it was going to be to see the story that ‘everyone’ else cribbed from be made on a ludicrous budget.”

    i like how you proclaim this as a “fact”

    Comment by steve22 — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:49am PDT  Reply to this post

• i dont think the multipliers are right.. both mirror mirror and hunger games shoukd have higher multipliers, wrath a lower one. i mean if Mirror Mirror is the kiddie/family film it is marketed as who would be able to watch it on a Friday? its numbers shoukd increase significantly even if matinees are usually cheaper than evening showings..

  Comment by bacio — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 4:12am PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m really tired of the whole 3D thing. Just because the actual BO numbers are deceptive. If the 3D additional cost was taken into account I actually think Mirror Mirror would have fared better. And not to mention the LARGE theater count.
  It’s just obvious that 3D is only being added to films for the extra money. Not to enhance the movie itself

  Comment by dopleganger — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 5:03am PDT  Reply to this post

  • In many cases 3D is being added for the extra money. But if the public were not willing to pay the extra money it would quickly disappear.

    Comment by Art Parker — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 5:23am PDT  Reply to this post

  • I agree with this. 3D is deceptive in knowing BO numbers. I wonder if they should start tallying 3D and non-3D BO numbers seperately or perhaps look at attendance rather than just the $$$. Then again I suppose all the studio cares about is the $$$. Mo’ money is the primary reason why most films are made in 3D no matter what the publicity materials say.

    Comment by Anon — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 6:55am PDT  Reply to this post

    • Whether 3D is deceptive or not doesn’t matter. Studios couldn’t care less if fewer tickets were sold than for previous entries, or the like. If the 3D makes them more money, it makes them more money. It’s pretty black and white.

      Comment by Brian — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 2:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

    • “…all the studio cares about is the $$$.” There is one other thing they covet more: Distribution Control. The studios see that ‘digital copy’ that comes bundled with your DVD/BR as a separate product. The consumer just sees it as another choice/option to see the movie, but the studios see such distribution outlets as another way to get the consumers to pay again and again to receive the same movie.

      They probably see 3D in the same way. They can put widescreen/letterbox in one package, even dvd and bluray discs together. But what are the odds that you will see a movie out on bluray with both 2D and 3D versions on it? Not a chance in hell. Viva la Distribution!

      Comment by Moby — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 5:29am PDT  Reply to this post

  • I saw Underworld: Awakening in 3D on IMAX (fakemax, really). You can’t spend ticket sales, only cash.

    Comment by mfan — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 7:26am PDT  Reply to this post

  • “If the 3D additional cost was taken into account I actually think Mirror Mirror would have fared better. And not to mention the LARGE theater count.”

    this makes no sense.

    and to your overall point of movies being 3d just for higher revenue: no shit, sherlock.

    Comment by steve — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 9:43am PDT  Reply to this post

• Julia roberts always comes off as highly self satisfied and annoying. She learned the hard way with Larry Crowne that no one likes her anymore but her face is so plastered on the ads for mirror mirror, hopefully this film will fail and she’ll realise that she should go away.

  Comment by Jones — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 5:52am PDT  Reply to this post

  • Agreed, Jones. The day Pretty Woman is remade with a 20 year old actress I’ll bet Roberts will decide to pose in Playboy to prove she’s “still got it.” You’d have thought being handed that Oscar would have shut her up already.

    Comment by Supercollider — Sunday April 1, 2012 @ 11:05am PDT  Reply to this post

• Why isn’t “Wrath” getting any of the ridicule you’re hurling at other pictures? Possible $37 million 3D and IMAX opening on a $150 million budget to a hugely successful prequel with established stars and the amount of promo this has had is pretty poor. Yeah, it isn’t John Carter-level numbers but it still ain’t good.

  Comment by Anon — Saturday March 31, 2012 @ 6:51am PDT  Reply to this post