It's not like it will perform well, but it won't be a flop. Huge flops like The Lone Ranger come from the enormous $250 million dollar budgets and the failure of such films to break even. Sea of Monsters has a relatively small budget, but even if it doesn't break even, it's hardly a large loss for Fox.
I'm going to see it, the trailer looks waaay better than the first movie. Thank god they finally dyed Annabeth's hair blonde.....and they added Clarisse, which they totally left out of the first film.
"The sun persists in rising so I make myself stand."
Trying to understand how everybody knows about the budget of the film if it wasn't published anywhere by Fox. So let's not make assumptions and stop pretending to know what we don't, shall we?
Like some hybrid beast out of Greek mythology, this young-adult sequel has the body of a "Harry Potter," the head of a "Twilight," the feet of a "Hunger Games" and the tail, oddly, of a "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
Percy is a lot like a certain bespectacled young wizard - sans the lightning-shaped scar. It's too bad his adventures don't have the same enchanting quality.
The action sequences are reasonably handled - although shelling out for the 3D unecessary - but there's nothing here most kids won't have seen before and it lacks the emotional bite of franchises such as Harry Potter.
"Sea of Monsters" is diverting enough - the director, Thor Freudenthal, is savvy with effects and keeps his young cast on point - but it doesn't begin to approach the biting adolescent tension of the Harry Potter movies
With the young wizards of "Harry Potter" fading from memory, the demigod teenagers of "Percy Jackson" are starting to seem like the next best thing.
The mythology-rooted "Percy Jackson & the Olympians" franchise is fairly engaging stuff, unabashed "Harry Potter" knockoff or no.
Did anyone see it in 3D? If so, is it good? Honestly, the only thing that will get me to watch this in theaters is if it looks good on 3D, otherwise I see no point in not waiting to see at home.
The Oracle of Delphi was an original robot with incandescent eyes whose narration of the legend of Kronos – the King of the Titans who ate his own children – was told in a spellbinding stained-glass animated sequence. It was an ingenious way to tell a brutal story without getting too graphic.
robert knepper @robert_knepper @FoxRiverGirls: IMDB says you play Kronos in Percy Jackson:Sea of Monsters, WTH?*go home,IMDB, u're drunk*...or not? What are u hiding?
Compared with the first movie, it's a improvement. We have characters that we're missing, plot points that we're cut, a better cast and crew that tried to be faithful to the story.
Anyway, I think that they're doing with Percy Jackson what they did with the Jason Bourne books. They're trying to do a story of their own, but they take plot and characters from the original book. Unfortunely, the fandom is not like the ones who enjoy the Bourne films and that's why they bash the films.
Oh yes, it is definitely an improvement. But not a big one. You would have thought they would have learned not to fuck it up even more, but then again....it probably was very hard NOT to.
1 N Elysium TriS $30,400,000 - 3,284 - $9,257 $30,400,000 $115 1 2 N We're the Millers WB $26,555,000 - 3,260 - $8,146 $38,044,000 $37 1 3 N Planes BV $22,525,000 - 3,702 - $6,085 $22,525,000 $50 1 4 N Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters Fox $14,600,000 - 3,031 - $4,817 $23,457,000 $90 1
And then people said that I was being negative. I was being realistic. And even opening on a Wednesday, the total gross of the movie was almost the same that Planes made in the weekend only.
Any doubts that this is already one of the biggest failures of the year?
I wouldn't call this one of the biggest failures of the year because its reported budget is $90 million which won't be hard to reach considering international numbers. Beautiful Creatures, The Host and The Lone Ranger failed way harder than this.
How Beautiful Creatures failed harder than this if the budget was $60 million? The Host was only $40 million. In term of proportions, the failure is the same. If Percy reaches $50 million in the US I'll be surprise. The only thing that will prevent it from a failure it's the WorldWide box office.
Just make the Math. The Host opened with $10 million with a budget of $40. Percy opened with $20 million and a budget of $90. How is The Host a failure and Percy not? Not to hard too make the calculus.
This was never going to be a hit, though I'm not sure how this can be considered a failure three days after its release. After all, the worldwide numbers matter most.
With a budget of $95 million, the first opened at $31 million for the weekend, and went on to make $226 million at the worldwide box office, resulting in a profit. Hardly a failure on that, so three days on this isn't enough time to justify a thing.
How Beautiful Creatures failed harder than this if the budget was $60 million? The Host was only $40 million. In term of proportions, the failure is the same. If Percy reaches $50 million in the US I'll be surprise. The only thing that will prevent it from a failure it's the WorldWide box office.
Just make the Math. The Host opened with $10 million with a budget of $40. Percy opened with $20 million and a budget of $90. How is The Host a failure and Percy not? Not to hard too make the calculus.
Beautiful Creatures and The Host failed harder because both had to fully rely on the Domestic income, as their international distribution rights were sold. So, while in proportion, The Host's opening was stronger than Percy's, it didn't have the international numbers to back it up, something that Percy still has. It's opened to $23 million, but still can bring around $20-30 million from the international territories where Fox is in charge of distribution.
The opening weekend is always the best thermometer and can reflect the gross of a movie. If you were really aware about the industry, you would also know that those numbers are not for 3 days only, but 5 days since the movie was released on a Wednesday, so there's a lot to judge already.
And if people even paid attention in what I wrote, I said that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the international Box Office. Still, that won't save the movie from being a failure in America.
The first movie opened with $31 on it's first weekend? Brilliant. 3 days of showing. This one made $23 in 5 days of showing. A huge difference. BESIDES, the first movie opened in February, and not Holiday season. So if you are going to evaluate the Industry and numbers, make sure you get your facts right. STILL... Let's not forget inflation and that this one had a 3D release.
And, once again, let's to do some math, people. Because is important. So, if The Host was a failure... Let's see...
The Host - $40 million budget. Opened with $10 million. So, basically, the rate is 1/4. :') Percy Jackson - $90 million budget. Opened with 23 million. The rate will also be, approximately, 1/4. :') Proportions. Not that hard.
Movies usually drop around 40% to 50% on the following week, so let's say that Percy makes around 8 million in the best case scenario + the week gross. Let's add 13 million on this week. It will probably be around $36~40 million on the next week. If a miracle happens and the movie has a good word to mouth (what is obviously not going the happen), it will maybe not suffer a huge loss and reach $45 million. In the next week, more drops. I would say that the movie will finish around $60 million. Fox will be dependent of the worldwide box office to cover the movie and it is still not a failure? If WorldWide box office were what mattered the most, every film would have the same international release date. This are not predictions or it's "early". It's analytical. Market studies. Simple as that.
How Beautiful Creatures failed harder than this if the budget was $60 million? The Host was only $40 million. In term of proportions, the failure is the same. If Percy reaches $50 million in the US I'll be surprise. The only thing that will prevent it from a failure it's the WorldWide box office.
Just make the Math. The Host opened with $10 million with a budget of $40. Percy opened with $20 million and a budget of $90. How is The Host a failure and Percy not? Not to hard too make the calculus.
Beautiful Creatures and The Host failed harder because both had to fully rely on the Domestic income, as their international distribution rights were sold. So, while in proportion, The Host's opening was stronger than Percy's, it didn't have the international numbers to back it up, something that Percy still has. It's opened to $23 million, but still can bring around $20-30 million from the international territories where Fox is in charge of distribution.
So The Host and Beautiful Creatures are not failures. After all, the WorldWide box office helped covering the Production Budget. Even The Lone Ranger will soon cover it's budget (probably next week).John Carter can no longer be considered a failure also. After all, it had a profit of $30 million thankfully the World Wide box office.
You guys are basically saying that if the WorldWide Box Office is able to cover the budget, the movie is not a failure. What is totally wrong. You guys forget that Percy Jackson is a highly acclaimed book saga that is a bestseller and have a lot of fans around the world and already had a first movie. This is a sequel. Having some facts like these as background definitely counts. If all a movie needs to not be considered a failure is covering it's own budget, you should all stop considering The Host, Beautiful Creatures, John Carter, After Earth, Green Lantern and many others as failures.
And just to keep up with the analysis. If you haven't notice, from all of the releases this weekend, Percy Jackson failed to reach an average of $5,000 per theater. It basically had half of the average of We're The Millers, an R rated comedy, highly criticized in the specialized press. I don't even know how you guys think that this is not a failure. It had terrible numbers (and probably below the expectations). I'm not talking internationally now. But in the America, it is definitely had one of the worst numbers of the year... Especially having in mind that it is a PG FRANCHISE!
So The Host and Beautiful Creatures are not failures. After all, the WorldWide box office helped covering the Production Budget. Even The Lone Ranger will soon cover it's budget (probably next week).John Carter can no longer be considered a failure also. After all, it had a profit of $30 million thankfully the World Wide box office.
You guys are basically saying that if the WorldWide Box Office is able to cover the budget, the movie is not a failure. What is totally wrong. You guys forget that Percy Jackson is a highly acclaimed book saga that is a bestseller and have a lot of fans around the world and already had a first movie. This is a sequel. Having some facts like these as background definitely counts. If all a movie needs to not be considered a failure is covering it's own budget, you should all stop considering The Host, Beautiful Creatures, John Carter, After Earth, Green Lantern and many others as failures.
The Host and Beautiful Creatures are failures, because the worldwide box office did not help covering the production budget. When international distribution rights are sold, all of the international profit goes to each distributor from each country. The Host, for example, gathered in total $45 million worldwide, technically surpassing its $40 million budget. But 45% of these numbers come from international markets, to which Open Road sold the distribution rights as it doesn't have any offices in other countries. So the only profit that can be accountable to the movie is the domestic intake, as this is where the original producers will take their profit from (usually they use the money from the distribution rights transactions to ramp up the movie's budget). The same goes to Beautiful Creatures, which was a co-production between Warner and Alcon: the former was put in charge of the domestic distribution and the latter was supposed to distribute it worldwide. As Alcon isn't active in the worldwide markets, they sold the distribution rights (this is a case where the distribution was sold lates, so Alcon turned in a profit).
It's way different when you consider the opening weekends of John Carter, Green Lantern, After Earth and The Lone Ranger. All of them opened extremely poorly in the US but there weren't any international numbers out yet, so they couldn't be considered complete failures yet. With these movies, distributed by Disney, Sony, Warner, you can consider the international numbers because all of these studios work on an almost completely worldwide basis. They take their profit from pretty much every single country where their movies play on.
So, why Percy Jackson can't be considered an absolute failure yet? Because it can still rely on international numbers, which happened with the first one after all. It failed to reach its original reported budget on the domestic market but grossed $137 million more outside the US, turning in a profit for Fox. That's why the sequel was made after all. The Golden Compass, for example, cost $180 million to produce and opened to only $25 milion in the US. That was an automatic failure because New Line wasn't attached to Warner yet and they sold the international distribution rights to help with the movie's budget. It managed to gross $372 million worldwide, but only $70 million of those were from the US, the only market where the studio could rely on to turn in a profit. The Percy Jackson sequel grossed $23 million in 5 days, against a $90 million budget. As of now, there's no way to call it a complete failure because it can rely on profit from all around the world.
Just to clarify that I'm not defending this movie, I honestly hope it fails so they don't go ahead with Titan's Curse. I was just defending my point that I wouldn't call it one of the year's biggest failures because we can't say that until the international numbers come out.
If you haven't notice, since my first post I have been saying that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the International BO. But I'm not talking about the WW Bo as I said above, for the second time.
Your argument fails miserably when you talk about The Host and Beatiful Creatures. If the international numbers didn't help covering the Box Office that only means that the domestic numbers. So if Percy has awful numbers domestically and good numbers internationally is not a failure? I think you are totally msunderstanding what leads the movie of being a failure. It doesnt matter from the money comes from. If The Host and Beautiful Creatures were able to cover its budget how can they be a failure and Percy not? So it's fine for Percy to have its budget covered from the International BO but if The Host had better income domestically it is a failure?
So basically no blockbuster this year can be considered a failure as the budgets were at least covered. And once again, its all a matter of analysis and market. Once again, just look at the average per theater. One of the worst numbers of this summer. Even worst than the Lone Ranger. Still, you are also forgetting the fact that Percy had a 3D release.
If you haven't notice, since my first post I have been saying that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the International BO. But I'm not talking about the WW Bo as I said above, for the second time.
Your argument fails miserably when you talk about The Host and Beatiful Creatures. If the international numbers didn't help covering the Box Office that only means that the domestic numbers. So if Percy has awful numbers domestically and good numbers internationally is not a failure? I think you are totally msunderstanding what leads the movie of being a failure. It doesnt matter from the money comes from. If The Host and Beautiful Creatures were able to cover its budget how can they be a failure and Percy not? So it's fine for Percy to have its budget covered from the International BO but if The Host had better income domestically it is a failure?
So basically no blockbuster this year can be considered a failure as the budgets were at least covered. And once again, its all a matter of analysis and market. Once again, just look at the average per theater. One of the worst numbers of this summer. Even worst than the Lone Ranger. Still, you are also forgetting the fact that Percy had a 3D release.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm basing my argument on the money that would justify another sequel. If Percy has awful numbers domestically but does incredibly well internationally it is not a failure, as the studio turned in a profit after all, which is different with The Host and Beautiful Creatures. Let's say Percy does the exact total of $90 million worldwide: it covers its production budget, but it's not a success. But with Beautiful Creatures, which cost $60 million and grossed $60 million worldwide, it didn't cover its budget because the only actual profit was the domestic gross, which as $19 million, so it's an even bigger failure.
I'm not denying any of your market analysis statements because you're not wrong. I'm just saying there's a difference between movies from worldwide studios and US-only studios regarding box office.
Anyway, the worldwide projections are out and it's brought only $9 million so far outside the US (I don't know in how many markets it's opened).
If you haven't notice, since my first post I have been saying that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the International BO. But I'm not talking about the WW Bo as I said above, for the second time.
Your argument fails miserably when you talk about The Host and Beatiful Creatures. If the international numbers didn't help covering the Box Office that only means that the domestic numbers. So if Percy has awful numbers domestically and good numbers internationally is not a failure? I think you are totally msunderstanding what leads the movie of being a failure. It doesnt matter from the money comes from. If The Host and Beautiful Creatures were able to cover its budget how can they be a failure and Percy not? So it's fine for Percy to have its budget covered from the International BO but if The Host had better income domestically it is a failure?
So basically no blockbuster this year can be considered a failure as the budgets were at least covered. And once again, its all a matter of analysis and market. Once again, just look at the average per theater. One of the worst numbers of this summer. Even worst than the Lone Ranger. Still, you are also forgetting the fact that Percy had a 3D release.
Is this seriously something to keep dragging out? Swallow your pride and move on already lol
Maybe I care because I spent 4 years of my life studying this and I'm currently trying to make a career? Can we please stop the personal attacks and stay on topic?
If you haven't notice, since my first post I have been saying that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the International BO. But I'm not talking about the WW Bo as I said above, for the second time.
Your argument fails miserably when you talk about The Host and Beatiful Creatures. If the international numbers didn't help covering the Box Office that only means that the domestic numbers. So if Percy has awful numbers domestically and good numbers internationally is not a failure? I think you are totally msunderstanding what leads the movie of being a failure. It doesnt matter from the money comes from. If The Host and Beautiful Creatures were able to cover its budget how can they be a failure and Percy not? So it's fine for Percy to have its budget covered from the International BO but if The Host had better income domestically it is a failure?
So basically no blockbuster this year can be considered a failure as the budgets were at least covered. And once again, its all a matter of analysis and market. Once again, just look at the average per theater. One of the worst numbers of this summer. Even worst than the Lone Ranger. Still, you are also forgetting the fact that Percy had a 3D release.
I can see where you're coming from, but I'm basing my argument on the money that would justify another sequel. If Percy has awful numbers domestically but does incredibly well internationally it is not a failure, as the studio turned in a profit after all, which is different with The Host and Beautiful Creatures. Let's say Percy does the exact total of $90 million worldwide: it covers its production budget, but it's not a success. But with Beautiful Creatures, which cost $60 million and grossed $60 million worldwide, it didn't cover its budget because the only actual profit was the domestic gross, which as $19 million, so it's an even bigger failure.
I'm not denying any of your market analysis statements because you're not wrong. I'm just saying there's a difference between movies from worldwide studios and US-only studios regarding box office.
Anyway, the worldwide projections are out and it's brought only $9 million so far outside the US (I don't know in how many markets it's opened).
I also understand your points, Matt. And honestly? That what makes me think that Fox lost their minds. For an American Production Company to rely on International Box Office... It is something so risky that I still can't understand why they decided to shoot this sequel. For example, even Eragon had a better BO than Percy internationally and we all know that they kind of gave up on the series for now. The same with your example of The Golden Compass. New Line/ Warner wouldn't be crazy of trying to release a sequel.
OK....I saw the movie last night. I don't think i can even explain how angry that made me. First of all, you can change the plot, characters, setting, anything from the books...but you should NOT be allowed to change Greek mythology. They completely changed the story of kronos and the gods, i was like WTF YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT! Second, when did Clarisse become the superstar of camp? Third, the plot was entirely different from the book. I know they're consolidating 5 books into 3 movies, but they kept almost nothing from the book. One of the only things i enjoyed was how they showed Annabeth and Percy's friendship. They at least seemed like they were in the books.
"The sun persists in rising so I make myself stand."
Comments
"The sun persists in rising so I make myself stand."
Lord Stafford.
It will really be worst than the first one? How did the managed to achieve that? 15%? Wow
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/percy_jackson_sea_of_monsters/
OMG hahahaha.DAMN. Still watching it with my sisters tho xD
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
I mean...it's nothing like the book at all............
well...
ok, yeah they fucked it up even worse............
WTF WAS THIS?
I would have thought they would have learned after this...
Yeah, I guess not.
If there is a third movie, I'll be skipping it.
Honestly, the only thing that will get me to watch this in theaters is if it looks good on 3D, otherwise I see no point in not waiting to see at home.
Is it a good movie, even if it doesn't follow the book at all?
"The sun persists in rising so I make myself stand."
If you do compare, it's fucking terrible.
Anyway, I think that they're doing with Percy Jackson what they did with the Jason Bourne books. They're trying to do a story of their own, but they take plot and characters from the original book. Unfortunely, the fandom is not like the ones who enjoy the Bourne films and that's why they bash the films.
This explains a lot.
Lord Stafford.
2 N We're the Millers WB $26,555,000 - 3,260 - $8,146 $38,044,000 $37 1
3 N Planes BV $22,525,000 - 3,702 - $6,085 $22,525,000 $50 1
4 N Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters Fox $14,600,000 - 3,031 - $4,817 $23,457,000 $90 1
And then people said that I was being negative. I was being realistic. And even opening on a Wednesday, the total gross of the movie was almost the same that Planes made in the weekend only.
Any doubts that this is already one of the biggest failures of the year?
Just make the Math. The Host opened with $10 million with a budget of $40. Percy opened with $20 million and a budget of $90. How is The Host a failure and Percy not? Not to hard too make the calculus.
With a budget of $95 million, the first opened at $31 million for the weekend, and went on to make $226 million at the worldwide box office, resulting in a profit. Hardly a failure on that, so three days on this isn't enough time to justify a thing.
Lord Stafford.
And if people even paid attention in what I wrote, I said that the only thing that can prevent the movie being a failure is the international Box Office. Still, that won't save the movie from being a failure in America.
The first movie opened with $31 on it's first weekend? Brilliant. 3 days of showing. This one made $23 in 5 days of showing. A huge difference. BESIDES, the first movie opened in February, and not Holiday season. So if you are going to evaluate the Industry and numbers, make sure you get your facts right. STILL... Let's not forget inflation and that this one had a 3D release.
And, once again, let's to do some math, people. Because is important. So, if The Host was a failure... Let's see...
The Host - $40 million budget. Opened with $10 million. So, basically, the rate is 1/4. :')
Percy Jackson - $90 million budget. Opened with 23 million. The rate will also be, approximately, 1/4. :') Proportions. Not that hard.
Movies usually drop around 40% to 50% on the following week, so let's say that Percy makes around 8 million in the best case scenario + the week gross. Let's add 13 million on this week. It will probably be around $36~40 million on the next week. If a miracle happens and the movie has a good word to mouth (what is obviously not going the happen), it will maybe not suffer a huge loss and reach $45 million. In the next week, more drops. I would say that the movie will finish around $60 million. Fox will be dependent of the worldwide box office to cover the movie and it is still not a failure? If WorldWide box office were what mattered the most, every film would have the same international release date. This are not predictions or it's "early". It's analytical. Market studies. Simple as that.
You guys are basically saying that if the WorldWide Box Office is able to cover the budget, the movie is not a failure. What is totally wrong. You guys forget that Percy Jackson is a highly acclaimed book saga that is a bestseller and have a lot of fans around the world and already had a first movie. This is a sequel. Having some facts like these as background definitely counts. If all a movie needs to not be considered a failure is covering it's own budget, you should all stop considering The Host, Beautiful Creatures, John Carter, After Earth, Green Lantern and many others as failures.
It's way different when you consider the opening weekends of John Carter, Green Lantern, After Earth and The Lone Ranger. All of them opened extremely poorly in the US but there weren't any international numbers out yet, so they couldn't be considered complete failures yet. With these movies, distributed by Disney, Sony, Warner, you can consider the international numbers because all of these studios work on an almost completely worldwide basis. They take their profit from pretty much every single country where their movies play on.
So, why Percy Jackson can't be considered an absolute failure yet? Because it can still rely on international numbers, which happened with the first one after all. It failed to reach its original reported budget on the domestic market but grossed $137 million more outside the US, turning in a profit for Fox. That's why the sequel was made after all. The Golden Compass, for example, cost $180 million to produce and opened to only $25 milion in the US. That was an automatic failure because New Line wasn't attached to Warner yet and they sold the international distribution rights to help with the movie's budget. It managed to gross $372 million worldwide, but only $70 million of those were from the US, the only market where the studio could rely on to turn in a profit. The Percy Jackson sequel grossed $23 million in 5 days, against a $90 million budget. As of now, there's no way to call it a complete failure because it can rely on profit from all around the world.
Your argument fails miserably when you talk about The Host and Beatiful Creatures. If the international numbers didn't help covering the Box Office that only means that the domestic numbers. So if Percy has awful numbers domestically and good numbers internationally is not a failure? I think you are totally msunderstanding what leads the movie of being a failure. It doesnt matter from the money comes from. If The Host and Beautiful Creatures were able to cover its budget how can they be a failure and Percy not? So it's fine for Percy to have its budget covered from the International BO but if The Host had better income domestically it is a failure?
So basically no blockbuster this year can be considered a failure as the budgets were at least covered. And once again, its all a matter of analysis and market. Once again, just look at the average per theater. One of the worst numbers of this summer. Even worst than the Lone Ranger. Still, you are also forgetting the fact that Percy had a 3D release.
I'm not denying any of your market analysis statements because you're not wrong. I'm just saying there's a difference between movies from worldwide studios and US-only studios regarding box office.
Anyway, the worldwide projections are out and it's brought only $9 million so far outside the US (I don't know in how many markets it's opened).
One of the only things i enjoyed was how they showed Annabeth and Percy's friendship. They at least seemed like they were in the books.
"The sun persists in rising so I make myself stand."