Lincoln - $68 million so far, took $65 million to make
It's a flop. No way it's going to make box office history. Poor Spielberg. His Oscars have already been bought though.
[quote]No way it's going to make box office history.
Who said it was going to make box office history in the first place?
I don't think it is a flop. It didn't lose money and it was not supposed to break records anyway. It is far too intelligent a movie for today's average moviegoer. There are no car chases and the White House does not blow up.
R2, if you want to know who dumbed down the movies, look no further than Spielberg.
R3, that started in large part on the basis of two Spielberg masterpieces: Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark. He's gotten worse over the years, but I'd kill for more "dumb" movies like those two.
Did anyone really think a movie about American history was going to be a blockbuster? No tits? No CGI? No guys calling other guys "fag" 100 times or even once for that matter? Did the money guys think just because a geezer has-been was directing it it had to be "boffo box office".
MARY TODD LINCOLN!!!
So a film must make box office history, or else it's a flop?
It's also not even close to finishing its theatrical run. It will be in theaters through March, to capitalize on the awards buzz.
We have the oddest "box office" queens here.
It's all Sally Field's fault. Her movie days are over. She deserves to be living on the street with the rest of the degenerates.
[quote]Who said it was going to make box office history in the first place?
The studio. They drummed this shit up to no end. It was going to be box office gold. Sorry, studio, it ain't. You produced another bomb. Spielberg is shit.
Hollywood was shocked by "Cloud Atlas"' performance too not even a month ago. $102 million to make. $52 million return.
Oh, well. Sorry, Stephen, we're just not into you anymore.
Spielberg is a pos. He thinks he owns the industry, and bullies everyone around. I'm surprised he didn't cast his boyfriend, Tom Cruise in this.
[quote]We have the oddest "box office" queens here.
In fairness, because they think tickets cost a quarter, everyone in America has already seen the movie multiple times, so 68 mil has to be the max.
It would be premature to say it is a flop. It will have legs.
[quote]So a film must make box office history, or else it's a flop?
Yes, it's a business, Pollyanna. The industry lives by test audiences to ensure that their shareholders make money. Independent movies are the only films with any sort of integrity.
[quote][R3], that started in large part on the basis of two Spielberg masterpieces: Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark. He's gotten worse over the years, but I'd kill for more "dumb" movies like those two.
Did you see the last Indiana Jones movie? No way do I want more of that. Spielberg can't direct or produce shit. He sold out decades ago.
It is starting to seem like more and more that the movies for grownups, even with good word of mouth and good reviews, are just not bringing in the crowds like before, and it is quite obviously because more and more people are choosing to wait until dvd/on-demand/streaming rather than deal with the headaches and costs associated with going to the movies anymore. Seems like the only movies hitting the $200 million mark are genre movies and animated family movies.
I didn't say the last IJ movie was good, fucknut, I said the first was. Dipshit. Go suck Lynn Stairmaster's dick.
I'm going to the 4pm showing just to take a poop in the middle of the floor and then leave.
I'll bump this thread when it passes 100 mil.
R11/crazy troll, did you even read what you quoted?
Read it again. Slowly this time. It's a ludicrous "either/or" proposition.
R8 Please post a link from "the studio" where they clearly claim it will make box office history.
r8, please be my unpaid intern.
I thought it was a pure Oscar bait movie where Hollywood pretends to be about credibility and art and stuff so foreign films and actors are not taking away all the Academy Awards this year?
R20 Clearly it must be true that you did rape and murder a 7 year old girl in 1998.
R3 is correct. I like Spielberg but he really is the one who kickstarted the dumb movie take over we have seen. Obviously not his intention but he was one of the first.
I guess I'm not typical but this was the only movie I bothered to go to the cinema to see this year. A family seated in front of us did leave half way through, and I've heard elsewhere of idiots who hated it because there "weren't enought action scenes". Sure, Spielberg is no saint but this was a good film on its own merits. Does this subject matter sell at all outside the US? We watch movies about British monarchs over here but do other countries give a shit about Lincoln.
Sally Field will bring down the entire motion picture industry with this flop.
Take another look. Licoln has LONG legs!
This is the only movie out there that everyone I know intends to see at some point. It will recoup.
What the hell is your problem OP? Lincoln is not even out of theaters yet. With the upcoming awards attention, it should be no problem getting to $100million, not to mention it hasn't been released internationally yet.
Whatever you think of Spielberg (and I bet I agree with you on plenty), these are good numbers.
Sales revenue for the video game and the action toys will make up for Lincoln's sluggish box office.
Daniel Day Lewis gives a 5 star performance in a 2.5 star movie.
It will be as huge as my own artistic triumph, Romeo and Juliet!
OP is probably going by the idiotic "if a film isn't a box office blockbuster in its opening weekend and doesn't keep drawing through-the-roof numbers of people for the next several weeks, it's a flop" guideline.
Hey, OP, if you want to name a Spielberg film that really was expected to do boffo box office but certainly did not, look at WAR HORSE. Any judgment of LINCOLN'S financial success is ridiculously premature.
I really don't know how important box office take is in this streaming day and age. My take on it is like saying "his new album just sold 100 c.d.s"
It's no War Horse!
You're ridiculously premature, R32!
I don't think Spielberg is a great director. I think he happened to be one of the few directors entrusted with large sums of money to make blockbuster movies. If you wanted to see big movies with great special effects you went to see Spielberg movies. I will say E.I. was a great film and his best. The other movies he's made have not stood up to time and the recent ones (last 10 years) have been outright terrible.
There is a production budget and a advertising budget. The advertising budget is usually half of the production budget. Lincoln would have cost $95 million to make.
Sigh. "Lincoln" looks boring; "Cloud Atlas" looked weird. And I'm a film buff. Just sayin.
[quote]We have the oddest "box office" queens here.
They have an over-whelming need to be the first to say something. It's fucking stupid.
I meant to write E.T. instead of E.I. and an advertising instead of a advertising.
You do realize that most Oscar bait films jump 42% after the nominations are announced and another 36% after a few wins. Lincoln's box office trek is far from over.
You cannot believe any movie cost. They are all inflated to protect the profits. Ask any Hollywood accountant.
Inflate the cost so you will not have to pay any taxes on profits.
It will do fine for both the studio and Spielberg.
[quote]"Lincoln" looks boring
Well, it's not. Not in the least.
Sally Field has destroyed Hollywood for a generation. I hope that bitch has a Merry Fucking Christmas.
And another thing! You know this new Marion Coyillard film, "Rust and Bone"? It looks to be so depressing! No way is it going to be a giant feel-good hit!
[quote]Sigh. "Lincoln" looks boring; "Cloud Atlas" looked weird. And I'm a film buff. Just sayin.
Right. What kind of film buff refuses to watch a movie because it looks boring or weird.
This I thread is one if the dumber ones I've come across on DL- from the OP on down.
[R23] I don't think E.T., Jaws, Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan were junk movies.
What R46 said.
charlie, it's telling that you manage to work the word "I" into a sentence where it isn't needed at R46. There are enough errors in that post to suggest that your cocktail hour arrived promptly at four today. One ought not to show such poor form when accusing others of stupidity.
I saw it and I thought it was great. D.D. Lewis will at least be nominated for the Academy Award. Sally Field was very good as Mary Lincoln. I don't get the Sally hate. Is this a DL thing?
You're a fucking idiot, R36. You're describing Michael Bay.
I don't understand that - here in RI it sells out weekend shows no problem.
I liked Doris Kearns Goodwin's book. I'm interested in "Lincoln" but I have no faith in Stephen Spielberg. His movies have always disappointed me, at least all of them after "Jaws" which scared the shit out of me that Summer but I was a kid.
I'm sure "Lincoln" will make its money back. It's not the kind of movie that makes a skillion dollars. I'll see it sooner or later and so will a lot of people.
I'm actually not all that interested in many of the "Adult's Season" movies this year. It's usually my favorite time of the year film-wise. I'm sure that putting Bradley fucking Cooper and Jennifer fucking I-can't-think-of-her-last-name in a movie they are calling Oscar bait has something to do with it.
Jennifer LAWRENCE is pretty awesome, R53. Ratface Cooper is the movie star no one asked for.
They dint put no zombies in the sequel so why shud we see it?
Rat Face is right.
Bradley Cooper can use a good nose job.
Park Avenue Plastic Surgeon
I was never into E.T. You know he was directing Poltergeist at the same time. There was some technicality that wouldn't allow him to take credit for directing both movies, so he only had producer credit on Poltergeist. But they say he'd rush over from the E.T. set to direct Poltergeist too. I preferred the latter, but my favorite Spielberg movie is Jaws. It's a fun adventure and all 3 of the male leads gave great performances. Maybe a little overlong though, so it's not perfect.
The Hurt Locker tanked at the box office, but it still won the Oscar and is regarded as a great film.
It probably has to make about $150 mil to make a profit. I'm sure you realize that they don't get 100% of the box office. Don't know how well this will do overseas - are there are figures yet or hasn't it opened?
This isn't the kind of movie that theaters are willing to give up their box office receipts to get into their theaters - eg. studio takes 100% of OW or a higher than normal percentage for the first week or so. So this is probably a 50-50 deal.
I didn't pay enough attention so not sure what the marketing costs were - but maybe about 30 million. That could be recouped somewhat if it was a studio owned/affiliated marketing firm.
It's a history film. Of course it probably won't make a huge BO but as someone already mentioned there are motivations other than box office for making a movie especially like this.
There are further revenue streams to add to its coffers. This may do really well in DVD and other licensing avenues.
How is audience attendance in the South for this movie?
It will become standard in high school history classes in the North, Midwest and West.
Saw it on a Sunday afternoon in Dallas. Theater was full.
I saw a Wednesday 3:00 matinee at a huge theatre (by NY multiplex standards). It was pretty packed. I would think that would be a good sign. The crowd ate it up, too.
Spielberg doesn't care if it makes money. It's just supposed to contribute to the de-gaying of the Lincoln story, reinforcing the historical fraud perpetrated by bigoted "historians."
Homophobia is the ONE AND ONLY REASON he made this movie.
It's now made $83.5 million.
Is there any truth to r64, has Larry Kramer weighed in on the movie? I might believe it if Kramer thinks that's Spielberg's intention.
Tihis should have made much more money - it's a fascinating topic.
Filmgoers are pathetic for the mmost part.
Bitch bitch bitch - oh no the characters are talking too much.
I, too, think Speilberg is a coward for not even hinting at it.
[quote]It will become standard in high school history classes in the North, Midwest and West.
No, it won't.
[quote]Right. What kind of film buff refuses to watch a movie because it looks boring or weird.
Most, idiot. If they didn't, they'd never be able to do anything else but watch movies 24/7. You need to sell a film to an audience. This film didn't do it.
Yes it will.
And you people are crazy if you think Spielberg is a homophobe. He donated $100K to fight Prop 8.
It'll be at 100mil by this time next week and it still hasn't experienced the Oscar nom bump and the Oscar win bump. The flop argument is now rendered irrelevant.
Hmmmm... NYTimes calls Lincoln 'a runaway hit.' Want to re-think, OP?
He is now, r51, but not at the time. The effects were a reason the budgets for his movies were high.
As the spectacle increased, the coherent plot and acting decreased, hence Michael Bay movies now.
It's no coincidence that Spielberg is the exec producer on Bay's movies.
It has a lot to do with the American public rather than Bay particularly, although his movies could be so much better with a decent screenwriter who doesn't dwell up Bay's ass.
Dumb move to release it AFTER the election when everyone is burned out on politics.
It's like waiting until after you cum to pop in the porn DVD.
Yes, Spielberg is such a phobe he had the writer of Angels in America write the script, after working with him on the "Munich" script. I'm sure Larry Kramer will weigh in because he's got nothing better to do except be bitter that HE isn't the gay writer Spielberg chose to work with.
Why hasn't OP weighed in? Did she die of toxic poisoning from eating Lynn Stairmaster's shit?
blah blah blah R77, spare us your tokenism. If he didn't make Lincoln gay, he didn't make a true movie.
Box office is such a small part of it now. After world wide release and DVDs and sales to cable and such, even the crappiest films routinely pull in ten times their box office.
I think that Spielberg is a controlling bully. Have you ever notice how he always has to meet with and try and work with the latest talent? Like hiring Diablo Cody to develop HIS tv show idea about mpd. Or work with Peter Jackson after his Lord of the rings success on Tintin. He literally latches onto whoever has broke through most recently. I'm sure he's desperately trying to figure out how to work with Christopher Nolan right now. People say you know you've made it when you get a call from Uncle Steven. But isn't it a little like a mafia don asking you to kiss his ring?
OMG, Steven Spielberg approaches the latest successful "It" people in Hollywood and asks them to work with him? And they actually want to do it because he's so famous and powerful and talented and accomplished?
Stop the presses!
It hasn't even gone into fall wide release yet and has made back its cost...and it has the largest per screen average of any film
op is an idiot
Hiring Diablo Cody means he has no judgement at all. It is as we all suspected: Kathleen Kennedy was the real genius. Spielberg was just an empty suit.
Some seriously mentally ill people on this thread. Are they all Les Jizzers?
[quote]Hmmmm... NYTimes calls Lincoln 'a runaway hit.' Want to re-think, OP?
Had you been able to read, we pointed out that the media did Hollywood's bidding, calling it not only a box office hit, but also an Oscar Award winning film before it even launched.
"Lincoln" is a failure.
[quote]It hasn't even gone into fall wide release yet and has made back its cost
No, it didn't, idiot.
[quote]Box office is such a small part of it now. After world wide release and DVDs and sales to cable and such, even the crappiest films routinely pull in ten times their box office.
lmao, put down the pipe.
S/he has a point, r88 (although I think American box office was implied).
A lot of movies that tank here pull themselves up by the bootstraps in the foreign market.
A movie like Lincoln would obviously not be one of them, but it's still a valid point.
From the film's wikipedia page:
[quote]As of December 2, 2012, the film has made $83,698,000 domestically from 2,018 theaters, already making back its budget.
That settles that.
No it doesn't r90, because it depends what the studio expected to take from it, for it to be considered a success.
Thanks for confirming that the film is a flop, r90.
I thought they only had drive-in theaters in the South. In any event, I'm sure they'll just splice in some car chases from old Dukes of Hazzard re-runs to bring in the hillbillies and no one will be the wiser.
Kind of like all the explicit gay porn scenes were removed for the U.S. market but will be shown in the version that will be released in France.
Yes, I watch American Dad.
It's not a flop OP/ It's A Flop Troll.
It's a historic epic that has extraordinary box office, major critical success, and a Grade A Cinemascore with audiencea. It has made back its budget in the first two weeks, and will have very long legs as it wins multiple awards through the holidays and Oscar season. It will be playing well into January, and longer if it wins BP, which is very possible.
It will be a major financial success for Spielberg and the studio.
It's made almost $99 million and poised to break $100 million today. It will make more money than "Magic Mike" when all is said and done.
The many, many, nominations it has and will receive will keep the wickets turning for weeks to come.
It is considered to be "overperforming"
suck it Hathaway!!!
R91, I think it can be considered a success in that it's been doing a lot better than they expected. Usually, historical dramas are a hard sell, so for the film to have crossed $100 million in one month is astonishing.
Still, its budget was $65 million and the conventional Hollywood rule-of-thumb is that a movie needs to gross about two-and-a-half to three times its budget to make a profit in order to cover marketing/distribution costs, the cut of the profits that theaters take, etc. It needs to gross another $95 million to be in the clear. After that it's just gravy. I think the foreign gross will help a lot.
It's up to $116.7M.
At about $130 million by end of this weekend.
Since it is a miserable flop that no one cares about can we just let it die?
It needed to be explicit about his homosexuality. Anything less is a whitewash.
You wish Anne, but it's not dying or flopping, it's made 130 million.
He didn't get much cock in the few weeks between his re-election and his inauguration, which is when the picture takes place.
OP must be trolling.
There is no historical consensus he was a homosexual. A definitive representation that he was would be a travesty of history. Personally I don't think he was gay
Agree w/ R106. James Buchanan on the other hand....
Nothing about Buchanan, except he had a roommate, but that was common practice at the time.
I think r102 was being sarcastic.
Buchanan was thought of as gay during his life. He probably was.
I wouldn't doubt that Lincoln had a physical relationship with Speed and maybe others before he was married. I doubt he had sex with men after he was married. I know that's hard to believe in this day and age, but he was truly believed in the law and oaths.
It's over $150 million and still hasn't opened worldwide yet.
Up to $168 domestic. But will it win Best Picture?
It's grossed $261,172,335. I think we can say it was a success.
Studios lie about a film's take all the time. Not that I care.
A great film that will last. Daniel Day Lewis gave a performance for the ages. Years from now, no one will remember most of the other nominees. "Silver Linings Playbook?"
"Lincoln" will be remembered just like "Gandhi" is: a musty biopic with a great lead performance.
Its legacy will be as homework for American History students.
[quote]It's grossed $261,172,335. I think we can say it was a success.
Where's OP? Still breathing bitter air?
I much prefer Spielberg's sweet cheese, then puke on those self-proclaim "I'm so crazy cool & badass" craps from Zero Dark 30, Argo, Silverlining Playbook and any Cristopher Nolan movies.
But a flop overseas!
Still a success for a biopic film. I was in vacation in Singapore and the theater i went was half full and guess what, only two person walked out right after the court house scene.
OP's last post was at R92, almost 4 months ago.
What a buffoon.
Movies are made for public consumption.
I think it's apparent that Steven Spielberg
was not aiming necessarily at making a
a tremendous profit, financially, but in a
cinematic sense, historically. Daniel Day-
Lewis's performance was par for the course
for this incredibly gifted actor; a remarkable
blend of strength. civility, intelligence and,
as befits Lincoln, humor. The historical
inaccuracies are easily the beneficiaries
of the type of poetic license that is in-
offensive to an intelligent appraisal of
what Spielberg was attempting to say.
Must everything in our society be
Assessed in terms of financial profit?
I think it's a masterpiece, and particularly this week, with all the crap going on in Washington, I found it oddly comforting to watch it again. For probably the third or fourth time.
Kushner's script is beautiful. This is an intelligent, eloquent, beautifully rendered work of art.It isn't just the acting. It's the script, the cinematography, the music, everything. I was transported.
Lincoln went from being a President I've always admired, to some one who I can understand why he was beloved, too. I have developed affection and a deeper appreciation for him. And it was also a financial success.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...