PAN : Box Office

[jo]

Not very strong forecasts --


pro.boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2015-08-long-range-forecast-pan

Will Warner Bros. successfully reboot another valuable property when they release Pan this October? This week we take a look at the fantasy flick's commercial prospects.

Pan
(Warner Bros.)

PROS:

- Warner Bros. had a lot of luck with the family-skewing Where The Wild Things Are in a similar release date.
- Moving out of a Summer release date in July will likely turn out to be a wise move.
- Co-star Hugh Jackman lends a lot of clout in what looks like a scene-stealing turn.

CONS:

- Reactions to the trailer on Facebook and Twitter have been mixed at best.
- Director Joe Wright's take on the story may be a little too unconventional for mainstream consumption

Check out our predictions for this film and others in the table below.



Title

Release Date

Distributor

Opening Weekend

Cumulative


Steve Jobs/ Oct 9, 2015/ Universal
$21,000,000 /$77,000,000

Pan /Oct 9, 2015 / Warner Bros.
$19,000,000 /$57,000,000

The Martian Oct 2, 2015 Fox
$46,000,000 $172,000,000

The Walk Sep 30, 2015 Sony / TriStar
$16,000,000 $64,000,000

*Reactions from Facebook and Twitter are mainly from fanboy types and other young adults and do not come from the likely demos ( the kids demos) and from those who have a fondness for the enduring hero Peter Pan.

*The female demos will likely strengthen the box office results -- from fans of Hugh, Garett, and maybe even the young tweens for Levi.

*I think word of mouth will be strong for this movie. The movie is supposed to open in many overseas markets a day ahead ( except for Australia where it is supposed to open on September 24)... and if word of mouth or critical assessment are favorable, that should help erase some of the cynicism for the movie when it opens in the USA/Canada.

*If they think Joe Wright's usual dark-themed auteur vision applies to this one -- that may be a wrong perception. There was buzz that the real reason for the postponement from July to October was to give Joe time to rework the film to a more lighthearted version that is more family-friendly. That was also the supposed reason for the replacement of the film scoring composer, to bring a lighter tone to the movie.

* I think Warner Bros is prepared to spend to support this movie in a big way. With a supposed production budget
of $ 150 million, they will likely push the movie with the appropriate marketing campaign.

[jo]

This source has more optimistic forecasts ==

boxofficefrontier.wordpress.com/early-box-office-forecast/2015-box-office-forecast/

OCTOBER

Several sleeper hits that are embedded throughout this month, including The Martian, The Walk, Pan and Goosebumps. Meanwhile, a bump is in stall for the latest Paranormal Activity, which will be the last one ever. Coupled with strong holdovers from Hotel Transylvania 2, and we are set for a month that is minimally on par with last year’s October (though it could have been bigger if London has Fallen and Frankenstein didn’t retreat)

Full Monthly Preview
Monthly Results

October 2nd 2015

-The Martian-
Estimates: $36 million- $135 million end gross
Actuals:

October 9th 2015

-Pan-
Estimates: $31 million- $100 million end gross
Actuals:

-Steve Jobs-
Estimates: $13 million- $48 million end gross
Actuals:

[jo]

Box office good not looking good based on early tracking --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-pan-serious-need-828723

[carouselkathy]

How do they know this before the film has even opened here?

[jo]

It could be based on early ticket purchases?

Do young kids talk about their movie choices among themselves ( like when they are in school), Kathy?


Jo

[carouselkathy]

Oct 2, 2015 19:24:23 GMT -5 jo said:

It could be based on early ticket purchases?

Do young kids talk about their movie choices among themselves ( like when they are in school), Kathy?


Jo

Sometimes they do, Jo, but it's usually after they've seen a film...not before it's opened. Maybe I should bring it up! Yeah! Want extra credit boys and girls? Go see PAN and write a 5 paragraph essay comparing and contrasting it with the Disney version. Maybe one paragraph? No. Just go see it. Ticket stub gets you an extra recess. Yeah. That works for me.

[jo]

LOL!

[hughmanity]

Unfortunately not feeling optimistic. The Martian, out this week, I feel is going to overshadow Pan in a big way even though the target audiences may be different. I know Hugh usually has no regrets when he signs on to a project; success or failure it feels right to him. However can't help feeling a bit dispirited that after his professional and promotional commitment, this, as with Chappie before, does not appear to be on the path to critical or commercial success.

[jo]

I am anxious about the USA market ( too much negative word of mouth even before the movie was completed), but I am a lot more optimistic about the overseas market.

[jo]

Variety continues with its woeful predictions for PAN --

variety.com/2015/film/news/pan-box-office-flop-1201612622/

[jo]

Weak opening results in the North American market --


deadline.com/2015/10/martian-pan-the-walk-weekend-box-office-1201572119/

Excerpts --

celebrate The Columbus Day holiday weekend, it’s providing some extra ducats to studios’ bank accounts thanks to 14% K-12 schools off on Friday and 40% off on Monday. Reaping the benefits of this are the top three movies: 20th Century Fox’s The Martian which just continues to mine dollars from people’s wallets with an estimated $10.85M Friday night (besting its $9M-$10M matinee projections) and a $36.4M second weekend (vs. its earlier $32M-$34M estimate), Sony’s Hotel Transylvania 2 which is looking at a strong third weekend hold of -21% with $21M and a total cume by Sunday of $117.5M, and Warner Bros.’ Pan which needs every single child out of school and in theaters so that it can make up some ground on its $150M estimated budget. Friday’s B.O. was only $5.2M, with an estimated second place debut of $18.25M…not so good. If Pan cost $15M, we’d be screaming that it was the cash cow of all ages. That’s not the case with its budget right up there on the screen with full-on VFX and zero sets.



PANPrevious feature adaptations of J.M. Barrie’s novel, Hook and Peter Pan, received A-s, but the Joe Wright origins-take on the material from Jason Fuchs’ 2013 Black List script pulled in a B+ CinemaScore. PostTrak shows that 78% of the entire audience said Pan was excellent or very good. It would be nice if these were promising signs for Pan in the long run, however, it carries a 22% Rotten Tomatoes score. If reviews were better for Pan, that would certainly help drive business given Joe Wright’s Oscar-lauded resume at the arthouse. Rentrak’s PostTrak reports that largely older females are turning up for the film respectively at 57% and 58% over 25. However, this appears to be the Hugh Jackman fan club outnumbering moms at the cinema, since only 3% of the audience was under 12...

Zero sets? This writer is trying to sensationalize his report. In the paragraphs not reproduced here, he is trying to assume certain things to give a more colorful picture of the report on PAN's box office results. I think he should stick to facts or check the facts!


Jo

[foxie]

It has the worst reviews I ever saw for any movie I am shocked and broken hearted for HUGH

[jo]

It almost sounds like a great big demolition campaign with all those wrecking ball reviews! It almost sounds like no one ( among the reviewers) wanted to revisit the Peter Pan tale. I wonder why smiley-rolleyes010

But have you seen some comments on IMDB, Facebook, and Twitter from those who have seen the movie ? Many are disagreeing with the "reviews"! I wonder if there is a young people twitter how the American market reaction would have been really assessed?

On the overseas market, there is a note of optimism, also reported by Deadline --

deadline.com/2015/10/pan-international-box-office-results-hugh-jackman-warner-bros-1201573812/

Hey, I am from the overseas market -- and I have already have seen it twice! It was even more enjoyable the second time around, with an even better appreciation of Hugh's remarkable skills as an actor.

I am glad that this is not a passion project for Hugh. He would have been heartbroken if this had happened to LES MISERABLES...but as it did for XMEN ORIGINS. His portrayal as Blackbeard has been generally noted by most critics as a solid and remarkable performance... and he did what he could to promote the movie.


Jo

[foxie]

I haven't seen it which I will but am shocked!!!!

[jo]

I saw it with a young relative with whom I share similar tastes. She is a 14 year old, who dresses like a Taylor Swift wannabe, adores One Direction (the boy band), is class president, is very well-travelled ( USA, Europe and Asia because her parents are doctors who travel a lot in connection with their professions), likes the theatre, museums, books, art, and has musical skills ( piano, singing lessons). She can sing I Dreamed A Dream and was once "Wendy" in a school event ...She has even visited the Warner Bros Leavesden Studios in the UK where PAN was mostly filmed - well, because she is a great Harry Potter fan and that franchise series was shot entirely in that studio over the years.

Her reaction : " I enjoyed it!" She liked the references to the original Pan stories ( she has seen a few Pan adaptations), appreciated the CGIs ( she said she liked how the colorful fumes represented blood in some of the more savage fight scenes, which I did not know), grinned a lot when Cara Delevingne showed up as mermaids ( she is a teener after all), recognized Hugh right away and knew Amanda was Mary ( we saw Les Miserables together and she used up my supply of tissues crying in that movie), said the she is going to get some of the songs and music from ITunes, and knew the last lines that came from the original book by Barrie by heart( "second to the right and straight on till morning").

Wise beyond her years!

Jo

[hughmanity]

I am also feeling dejected.  The movie performed more poorly  here than could have been imagined.  I feel hurt for Hugh and struggle to understand why I take it to heart as if he were actually a friend or family member!  I know I'm not an "original" , but glad to have this forum to express what I know others would not "get".

Oct 10, 2015 15:03:18 GMT -5 foxie said:

It has the worst reviews I ever saw for any movie I am shocked and broken hearted for HUGH

[foxie]

Just heartbreaking

[jo]

Hey, go visit IMDB -- surprisingly, there were many positive reactions( take a look at the last two-three pages of thread titles) when I expected not much.

And whose loss is it if they are deliberately blind to a beautiful creation -- and sadly, for some, it is simply the herd mentality that is working?

But what could be heartbreaking if you believe that you have made something beautiful but others did not appreciate it? Also, this is not a passion project with Hugh. Maybe for Joe Wright?

Had this happened with Les Miserables -- he and I would be heartbroken ...and my response to the reaction to The Fountain ( my heart sunk when the first critic reports from the Venice Film Festival came out -- yeah, I was monitoring it at that time ) was a real heartbreaker for me. Lol - I guess it depends. But in the case of Hugh, we have to get used to his preference for doing unusual or untested or even controversial material. So long as he believes in it, and so long as he tried his best -- that is good enough for me. He is not the type who will only look for populist material. The next two projects will be Wolverine 3 and Greatest Showman, two passion projects for him. It seems he will have greater control over the material because he is supposed to be co-producing them. Let's hope for better reception for those forthcoming projects.

In the meantime --


This is what I posted on IMDB ( among other posts I have made) --

Before the movie opened, there were numerous threads started here which sent messages of doom for this film. Some reasons seemed valid ( such as those decrying connectivity to the original tale, use of too much CGIs based on the trailer, even issues on the casting, etc) but others seemed more troll-ish.

What I would like to point out is that after people have had a chance to see the film, quite a number of positive threads have emerged. I have sometimes been skeptical of IMDB ( as many people are) but this tells me that while some posts are outright dismissive of the opinions of others or have personal agendas to pursue), there seems to be a creeping respect for those disagreeing with their personal views. I find this healthy and elevates the discussions to a more enjoyable level.


Chacun a son gout


I am a fan of PAN --

*I had a chance to read the original script, and with some changes brought into the script, I thought it was an excellent origin story even if there were some deviations from the Barrie narrative. For one, the timing of the kidnapping of the orphans during the bombardment of London in the second world war deviated from the Barrie timeline because it gave the "flying ship" a chance to hide in the busy skies full of fighting airplanes. I liked the tale of his parentage -- it is enchanting even if it was a fairy tale, so to speak. And that element including Peter's search for his Mum gave the movie its heart! The introduction of Blackbeard was certainly new ( even if there is mention in the Barrie book of Hook being the bosun in Blackbeard's ship) but it was a fascinating conflict between Peter and Blackbeard. There were moments of antagonism but there were also moments when they seemed they could relate to each other. The element of Blackbeard being in love with Peter's mother in the past was a new one and not part of the original script. That gave the story the reason why Blackbeard's feelings towards Peter was occasionally vacillating ( maybe he was thinking that Peter could have been his son had Mary stayed with him)...there were other elements in the plot which I appreciated and I disagree with those critics who say it is all empty storytelling.

*The issue of connectivity to previous adaptations did not bother me. Unlike franchises ( superhero movies or Harry Potter), the Peter Pan movies are adaptations and may not necessarily dovetail with each other -- whether we are talking about the characters or timelines. People complained that PAN never explained how the conflict between Peter and James Hook arose. The character of Hook in this movie was selfish and self-centered even if he teamed up with Peter against Blackbeard. To me that could have been the basis for the eventual rift between the two, albeit it was not further explored in this movie. Also, the issue of who the Neverlanders are is a source of disagreements -- if the creative minds ( screenwriter and director) wanted to paint a different portrait, to me that only enriches why this movie dared to be different. Just like in life, there are many perspectives and views which are not always in agreement. Take a look at paintings of the same subject -- traditional or classical artists will paint the subject a different way while impressionists and modernists may present almost unrecognizable artistic treatments.

*I liked the occasional references to the original narrative ( the hello from Tinkerbell, Peter's whimsical headgear at the end, the wink towards Hook's fear of crocs, the wink to "Jolly Roger" and " second to the right...and straight on till morning").

*I think the casting is very good - from the leads to the support cast! What an interesting mix of character portrayals. Even Hugh Jackman surprised me, as initially I thought it would just be an over-the-top portrayal as told by some critics. Surprisingly, there were moments ( quieter ones) which allowed us to see the character more intimately, including his vacillating relationship with Peter. But I must admit I liked him best in his dramatic entrance -- not just the impressive intro to the trapped miners... but when he delivers his speech he reminded me of some famous Brit stars of stage and history! ... Levi is a very good find -- his face alone mirrored the varying emotions ( wonderment, fear, love for his Mum, courage) that was required of our young hero. Rooney was both feisty ( as the warrior princess) and shy ( in her budding relationship with James Hook) while Garrett portrayed the brash young man who was self-centered well. I really like the actors who portrayed Smee and the tyrannical Mother Superior...and Bishop was a loyal bosun! Hey, the cameo by Cara was a delight because she made us believe that all mermaids look the same. Her model's face was perfect for the underwater scene.

*The visual design -- sets (the ships and the Neverland forest were actual sets) -- the costumes -- and other creative elements were well put together. Have you noticed that the color palette for Blackbeard, Peter and Hook's costumes, as well as the miners, were deliberately neutral to contrast with the colorful Neverland tribal territory scenery and people?

*The other creatives were equally a source of delight - I loved the gorgeous film scoring by John Powell ( even if the Nirvana songs seem to preoccupy most people's minds and ears) -- and the cinematography is awards-worthy. I have a feeling that the technical creatives will be recognized come awards time.

*There was excellent use of animation - such as that one illustrating the backstory on Mary and Blackbeard and the Fairy Prince. Also, CGIs were used very well -- my favorite was the sight of the ship of Hook and Peter trying to avoid the cannonfire of the enemy ship by going completely under - that drew laughs from me! I was touched when the image of Mary manifested to Peter at the end - it is almost heartbreaking! And it is amusing to hear how the older moviegoers (anyone who is not a kid) asked what was the sense of the colorful smoke that sprung up when a Neverlander was shot -- a young relative explained to me that she appreciated not having to see blood spilled over -- the plumes of smoke looked better compared to total gore. The earlier scenes of Peter wandering in the skies -- that is also complete fantasyland -- but it was equally enchanting and we realize it could very well exist -- in the world of a child's imagination.

For that is what the movie is all about -- what goes through the prism of a child's mind -- it must be all rich and wonderful ( even if colored with occasional horrific scenes, too) and makes the child in us keep hoping that sometimes we wish the real world were a little different!


I can't wait to see this again when it is released on BluRay/DVD...I have already ordered the soundtrack

Time to celebrate Hugh's birthday -- we have much to be thankful for him


Jo

[foxie]

I am just afraid it isn't a very happy birthday he has accepted bad bad reviews before but this one he wanted to be so great for his kids and he traveled the world to push it I just figured it had to be good!but anything is better than Deception,Van Helsing and Ellen said it was good so I will still see it!!

[foxie]

I am afraid the reviews did it in even if people see it and like it everyone I ask if they r going to see it say god no did u see the reviews no movie ever got zeros before!

[jo]

It is not only good -- it is brilliant, Carol! it is obviously a movie for children and for the child in us!

That is why I am not that downhearted -- they made a good movie -- and I am proud of his work there!

I have seen it already twice -- and I actually felt wanting to see it a third time today if I have not been very busy.

You will not be sorry -- it is enjoyable, entertaining, and Hugh delivers another acting gem!


Jo

[jo]

The NYTimes analyzes the PAN box office debacle --

www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/movies/pan-bombs-at-the-box-office.html?smid=tw-nytimesarts&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Excerpts --

LOS ANGELES — Savage reviews from critics. Lingering cultural soreness from NBC’s “Peter Pan Live!” Nobody wants to see Hugh Jackman as a creepy bald pirate.

Those were some explanations kicking around Hollywood over the weekend as Warner Bros.’s “Pan” bombed at the box office. Costing at least $250 million to make and market worldwide, “Pan” took in about $15.5 million at North American theaters. The film has taken in about $25 million from partial overseas release...

Warner may be able to right this ship a bit through word of mouth. Those who did see “Pan” seemed to like it. Exit polls indicated that 48 percent of the audience was under the age of 25, and that segment of the audience gave the film an A-minus grade.

But the movie, even with a strong response from a planned release in China, will be a substantial money loser for the studio. Based on its cost and factoring in the percentage of ticket sales kept by theater owners, analysts estimate that “Pan” needs to take in at least $500 million worldwide to break even.

[hughmanity]

Jo's positive insights always make me feel more optimistic. It still bothers me, though, just to keep reading Hugh's name in the same sentence as "major flop". Can't help it. Anyway I'm sure Hugh celebrated his big day with what is most important to him: his family.

[jo]

Lol -- if you have been a longtime fan of Hugh, you would have gotten used to the occasional dips.

I remember how bad it was on the day after The Boy From Oz opened -- scathing reviews ( but praises for the new star on Broadway) -- with everyone saying that the show would close as soon as the advance runs out. Someone on the predecessor-board of our forum ( that was the official TBFO forum) who was part of the Broadway community as an investor was predicting a funeral for the show based on his inside info. But guess what - word of mouth and Hugh's indefatigable effort raised the show's stamina and it closed a year later ( when his contract ran out and he did not renew)!

Then there was the time of THE FOUNTAIN -- it had the most scathing reviews by critics of the Venice Film Festival. In a public screening, one famous director ( not sure if it was Cuaron or another Latin American director) almost got into a fight with someone who was booing the movie. By a stroke of coincidence, it was also a Warner Bros release -- the studio did not support the release of the movie ( and Hugh was in Australia filming) and it did not make any money. But guess what -- almost ten years later - it has not only become a cult hit but it has also prodded many revisionist thinking from the internet and critics. Main reason for the negativity was the failure to understand the message of Aronofsky's film masterpiece. Hey, Aronofsky recently chaired the Venice Film Festival board of judges - haha- what a comeuppance!

One movie that must have been a real heartbreak for Hugh is XMEN Origins: Wolverine!  He was producer and actor for that passion project!  First, there was the case of the stolen master copy which leaked the movie before it was released. Then the reviews were also not very kind. At least it did well at the box office! I cannot understand why the fanboys were scathing about it -- the general consensus seems to be their hatred of the treatment of Deadpool.

Onstage -- it's been disappointing when his efforts for A Steady Rain and The River have not been rewarded with at least a TONY nomination.

But we get over it

To me, what is important is if he believes in the project ( he has already apologized for Movie 43 and said he did not realize it would bring such notoriety) and works hard to give us his best performance - and that is good enough for me! He is known to like new and untested material, even controversial ones -- that doesn't bother me - that is his artistic inclination.

Which is why, over the years, I have always rolled with the tide on his choices of projects. I do trust his judgment!

One thing which crossed my mind as I go through the negative internet messages on PAN ( from critics and critic-wannabes) -- what is so different between PAN and XMEN:DAYS OF FUTURE PAST? Is the script for DOFP any better ( not so sure -- it was too disjointed for me)? PAN made it to the Black List -- DOFP never did! Is the acting of the DOFP cast any better than the very good performance of the PAN cast? Were there less CGIs and were they put to better use -- not necessarily! Did DOFP solve all the connectivity issues - it tried! PAN did not attempt to do that -- it is not part of a franchise but an adaptation of the tale of Peter Pan. Is Bryan Singer considered an auteur director -- no way. It is Joe Wright who is respected for his artistic vision. Did Hugh turn in a more solid performance in DOFP? No -- he had shown more versatility as Blackbeard!

Sometimes I begin to think of conspiracy theories

Oh well smiley-rolleyes010


Moving forward -- we have WOLVERINE 3 and GREATEST SHOWMAN up ahead. APOSTLE PAUL down the line. Hopefully, as Odysseus ( THE ODYSSEY) in the film adaptation of the epic poem of Homer!

Broadway -- I hope so


Jo

[jo]

From our corner of the world --

www.philstar.com/entertainment/2015/10/13/1510242/pan-grosses-p49m-4-days


P49.64 million translates to about 250,000 tickets sold, based on approximate average ticket prices here. Had this been in the USA - that will likely amount to about $ 2.5 million in four days! If one were to simply convert to the exchange rate between the US$ and our local currency - that would be around $ 1.08 million. The better gauge is really the number of tickets sold as comparisons using foreign currency translations could be misleading.


Hey, I did not see the movie 100 times


Maybe Asia loves (Peter) PAN!


Jo