115 replies to this topic

[ShawnMR]

Full Article: http://www.boxoffice...what-went-wrong

 

 

Before Thursday, it was widely expected that A Good Day to Die Hard would win its debut weekend by a significant margin. Despite a heavy marketing campaign that tried to pitch the fifth entry of the 25-year-old franchise as 2013's first "event" film, the flick was neck-and-neck with the romantic drama Safe Haven on Friday (after outright losing to it, as expected, on Valentine's Day).

 

For the 3-day weekend, Boxoffice.com is projecting a $23.5 million take for Die Hard 5, but that's not enough to say that first place is locked when considering that Identity Thief is projected at $22.5 million and Safe Haven itself should be close behind with $22 million.

 

International results are yet to come, but the franchise is clearly on life support now. A $100 million domestic run is off the table. It would even be incredibly lucky just to reach 1988's non-adjusted $83 million domestic run of the original Die Hard. Ouch.

 

What happened? Take your pick from the crop of reasons.

Edited by ShawnMR, 16 February 2013 - 09:11 AM.

[Cmasterclay]

I don't think it's quality- WOM wouldn't have spread that fast and judging by the CinemaScore and Twitter, it's not near as bad as the reviews anyway. It has more to do with these type of 80s actions movies just not being a thing anymore- people want Fast and Furious and Taken, not Die Hard or the Expendables. The market it just different.

[Chewy]

They made a shitty movie and tried to sell it with shitty generic trailers

[ChD]

It's a 25 year old franchise... It seems that the fans don't die that hard after all...

Edited by ChD, 16 February 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[CJohn]

275M WW (at least, I would be shocked if it passes 300M) on a 92M budget. So much wrong...

[Robert Muldoon]

It's because of the bland trailers that showed no clear plot or villain, and the very poor quality of the film sealed its fate. It should have been obvious when the director and writer were announced how weak this film was

 

 

it is not because this franchise is "dead" or "nobody wanted another one" or "nobody likes Bruce Willis anymore:". If they had done a Fast Five/Skyfall/MI4 type movie with this, people would have turned up

Edited by John Marston, 16 February 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[CJohn]

It's because of the bland trailers that showed no clear plot or villain, and the very poor quality of the film sealed its fate. It should have been obvious when the director and writer were announced how weak this film was

 

 

it is not because this franchise is "dead" or "nobody wanted another one". If they had done a Fast Five/Skyfall/MI4 type movie with this, people would have turned up

They did. It is called Live Free or Die Hard, that is loved by the GA (even if fans didn't liked it). But for some stupid reason they waited 7 years to do another, and what they have done is a piece of shit.

 

R rating may have hurt it too, considering the last was PG-13.

Edited by CJohn, 16 February 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Floppit Floppeeeddd]

Did audiences really love DH4 though? It seemed like one of those movies that people kind of dug when it came out but it's reputation really fell after time, like KOTCS and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

[Robert Muldoon]

They did. It is called Live Free or Die Hard, that is loved by the GA (even if fans didn't liked it). But for some stupid reason they waited 7 years to do another, and what they have done is a piece of shit.

 

R rating may have hurt it too, considering the last was PG-13.

 

 

I hear it is barely an R. So what the hell is the point of making it R then? Might as well edited it for PG-13

[CJohn]

Did audiences really love DH4 though? It seemed like one of those movies that people kind of dug when it came out but it's reputation really fell after time, like KOTCS and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

That is why they shouldn't have waited 7 years to make another.

[ShawnMR]

I hear it is barely an R. So what the hell is the point of making it R then? Might as well edited it for PG-13

 

Probably to be able to drop more than one F-bomb.

[ShawnMR]

That is why they shouldn't have waited 7 years to make another.

 

I think the amount of time would have been fine had they actually made a movie people wanted to see and tell their friends was worth going to.

[CJohn]

Probably to be able to drop more than one F-bomb.

They can't use 'motherfucker' in a PG-13 movie. 

[CJohn]

I think the amount of time would have been fine had they actually made a movie people wanted to see and tell their friends was worth going to.

I think it would have been a problem either way. The only difference is that if the movie was good, it wouldn't have dropped from Thursday to Friday.

[ShawnMR]

They can't use 'motherfucker' in a PG-13 movie. 

 

Exactly. They can say "fuck" one time, as long as it's not sexual.

[Crusader]

They made a shitty movie and tried to sell it with shitty generic trailers

 

This 

 

 

Close this thread now 

[CJohn]

Die Hard 5 is another Expendables 2/Prometheus case. PG-13 movies that in post-production turned R to make fans happy.

 

Die Hard 5 is R to have John McClane saying 'motherfucker' because of his signature line (and also because the other movies of the franchise were R).

Prometheus 2nd fuck is clearly covered by some strange noise, but they inserted that vicious birth scene in the end to be R.

Expendables 2 doesn't have Arnold saying 'motherfucker' in the end of the Yippie Kay Yay line, but to make it R they inserted tons of fakest blood of all-time everywhere.

Edited by CJohn, 16 February 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[Hatebox]

1) It's a shit movie.

2) It's a shit movie.

3) People don't want to see old actors doing the whole action star thing.

[junkshop38]

I'm going to see for myself today.

They should have got it out sooner than they did. Of coarse, they also should have got someone other than Moore to direct as well. LOL

[junkshop38]

1) It's a shit movie.
2) It's a shit movie.
3) People don't want to see old actors doing the whole action star thing.

Haven't seen it yet but I disagree with your 3rd point. I think a decent size audience would show up for some these older guys if the movies were actually worth seeing.

It's not that people don't want to see Willis on screen, they just don't want to see him in a crappy movie.