Box Office : John Wick 2 double OW

Something nice this week, it shows that John Wick's cult fanbase had real growth, more than doubling its OW and showing some growth overseas, too.

I thought this would perform similarly to Underworld 2 or Resident Evil 2 (low-mid 20s OW/5-8 OS OW). Why did this improve as much as it did?

Skipping page long posts for over a year now.

One reason would be that the first massively under-performed imo, it got a giant release including an IMAX one, had excellent review, an very easy to sell high concept, a very comic book feel while the style was really popular, Keanu Reeve and didn't do 15 million. I thought it would do close to Deadpool at the time (lol)

Nothing did 20 million that weekend in 2014, while this weekend got really big.

A good part of the question, is why the previous entry didn't do 20-25 million ? I guess there is some randomness with this, and just no virtuous circle that started with that movie for some reason.

With the way the production became bigger for the sequels with how a low box office for the first one, I would imagine it the mix of well received in theater + a good success on Home video that explain it, the same as a terminator/matrix/pitch perfect but at a much smaller level.

Um, no. It actually over-performed. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Keanu-Reeves-Back-Indie-John-Wick-Over-Performs-Box-Office-67893.html

It had virtually no buzz, a has-been star fresh off a blockbuster disaster (that Ronin movie), and was the kind of film that could have easily been buried if audiences didn't take to it. It didn't do gangbuster business, but it did well considering its $14mil opening weekend, and became Lionsgate's third highest selling home video release of all time (behind Hunger Games).

After ten years or so, I've finally changed my signature!

---

Um, no. It actually over-performed.

---

14 million was overperforming for the opening weekend ?

It had 85% on Rotten tomatoes.

High concept genre movie:
Ex-hitman John Wick realizes one night he has to come out of retirement in order to seek revenge from gangsters who had ruined his life.

They made a special IMAX release and opened on a large 2,589 screen
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keanu-reeves-john-wick-get-737550

Imax is reuniting with The Matrix star Keanu Reeves to release a digitally supersized version of his assassin film John Wick domestically.

What would have been the expected opening for a movie like that if 14 is overperforming, 11 million ?

---

and became Lionsgate's third highest selling home video release of all time

---

I have no doubt it did really well on home video (that was part of my message)

---

And became Lionsgate's third highest selling home video release of all time (behind Hunger Games).

---

I would have imagined that the late Twilight sequels distributed by Liongates and some of the Saws movie would be ahead (they were made right in the peak of home video sales), maybe even the first Now You see me (it did 350 million worldwide after all the year before John Wick, that did only 80 million).

I remember a lot of us thinking it would perform like Dredd (2012), a R-rated action film that got good reviews but flopped at the box office.

While the concept was easy to sell, people at that point had tired of the "aging actor gets revenge" film that the likes of Liam Neeson, Denzel Washington (Equalizer), Kevin Costner (3 Days to Kill), and Sean Penn (The Gunman, which came out a few months alter) starred in.

The trailer for the first John Wick film only came out like a month before release, so I was thinking it was gonna go straight-to-VOD.

I already have enough weird friends as it is.

According to Variety, the movie was tracking for a measley $7-8 million on opening weekend, so it did indeed overperform. Most people had assumed the movie was going to be a flop, given that it had little to no buzz before reviews started coming in.

Hum I was being one of those weird fanboy overestimating a movie potential.

Well u weren't nearly as off as I was about the coming Emma Watson Beauty and the beast. Thought that would make maybe 70M in total domestic. Had no idea it would be a behemoth

Why did you think it would be anywhere near that low (Cinderella numbers would be a bare minimum I think). All the recent Disney studio animation to live action remakes have been big hits, and Beauty and the Beast is the most loved film of the group.

yup agreed xbs, I just had no clue - was simply ignorant.

I had just ignorantly assumed it was another mid-budget musical remake (from film or from stage musical) in the same vein as The Phantom of the Opera, Evita, Footloose, Fame, Rent that all made in the 20-50M range.

I knew Emma W hadn't ever led a movie to even 20M outside HP. And hadn't seen a single ad or article about it here in Sweden yet even though it's opening fairly soon.

Basically I had no idea it was a superduper marketed Disney remake. So now ye i believe all the hype :)

---

All the recent Disney studio animation to live action remakes have been big hits, and Beauty and the Beast is the most loved film of the group.

---

I really don't get that idea behind that mantra at all. Of all the Disney animated films to get a live action makeover so far, Beauty is the one that sold the fewest tickets (yes, less than Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, let alone the Jungle Book) and far from the bestselling on home video (it wasn't even the most successful title of the Disney renaissance era). It's simply the most recent of them, which means that a certain age group tends to project their feelings for it onto the rest of the world. To me it sounds like people saying Furious 7 has the most revered and beloved car chase of all time because it was made more recently than Bullitt or The French Connection. It's bound to be a huge success, but it's no slamdunk for a billion by any means.


"Security - release the badgers."

At the very least, beauty and the beast should be close to a billion. The fanbase for jungle book and beauty and the beast, despite the long gap in release dates between each other, are nearly the same size with maybe lion king besting them both.

I hate to use twilight as an example but it did nearly 900 million despite being terrible. A movie based on a romantic fairy tale classic that is actually good can do at least that much.

My only concern is the foreign currencies falling against the US dollar.

Beauty is also the only Disney studio animated feature (and sole animated movie in a five film field) to score a best picture nomination, which has to count for something. Plus, Beauty released in the era of home video unlike those others, which probably lessened tickets sold in the theatrical run.

---

I would have imagined that the late Twilight sequels distributed by Liongates and some of the Saws movie would be ahead (they were made right in the peak of home video sales), maybe even the first Now You see me (it did 350 million worldwide after all the year before John Wick, that did only 80 million).

---

Well, here you go: http://deadline.com/2017/02/fifty-shades-darker-lego-batman-john-wick-chapter-2-box-office-1201907911/

---

In talking about the sequel on an investors call two years ago, Lionsgate CEO Jon Feltheimer noted that the first John Wick was then the third biggest selling electronic sell-through title in Lionsgate history behind Divergent and The Hunger Games: Catching. In total, John Wick over-indexed with an estimated total home entertainment revenue haul of $53M (packaged media & digital combined), which is a rare 122% conversion rate to pics domestic box of $43M.

---

I saw the film today. My personal outcast? It's going to make a lot of money.

After ten years or so, I've finally changed my signature!

---

selling electronic sell-through title in Lionsgate history

---

Oh that I can imagine, EST were probably not that big in 2012 and didn't exist in the SAW era.

That is different than saying third biggest home entertainment title (I mean for sure the first hunger games was bigger than John Wick, same for the last Twilight or Now you see me, it did only 53 million, that is good for a movie that made 80 million dollar at the box office, but it is not much vs the average studio movie)


EST has probably the biggest profit margin in movies history for studio thought, so really good for them.

I'd say that the first one performed like a typical action flick these days, failing to pull in that big an audience in theaters despite the warm reception (though still pulling in better than average numbers for a Lionsgate release) because of an ageing audience that these days tend to watch films on the small screen, but this time the film's success on home video spurred its new found fans to see this one opening weekend. Of course it could turn out to be massively frontloaded, but this may be a similar scenario to Austin Powers where the home video market (which is still surprisingly strong for action movies that don't do well in theaters) created big screen demand for a sequel to an only modestly successful original.


"Security - release the badgers."

---

One reason would be that the first massively under-performed imo

---

That's a bit harsh ain't it?

2,589 theaters, 20M budget. R-rated and not horror or sequel.

If my stats are right only one movie opened higher this decade: About Last Night, and that was a sequel.

So I'd say Wick opened at the high end of what could be expected. Of course it had more hype than most and some were talking about it actually breaking out pre-release.

---

2,589 theaters, 20M budget. R-rated and not horror or sequel.

---

They spent 29 million in the state of New-York alone, I think that the real budget was significantly higher than 20.

Maybe I liked it (and it's concept) more than is potential commercial appeal, but I thought it had a 20+ first weekend potential, it would probably did it if it was a studio movie.

Kingsman made 36 OW for example, Lucy 43, London Has fallen 21.6, Accountant 24.7.

I imagine some humor and studio release are necessary.

well those all opened on 3,100+ theaters and had reported budgets at least twice as high. Kingsman 81M.

Wick was more in the Jason Statham type rollout and budget from the figures I've seen.

As for Wick's reported budgets being wrong (or net with a huge rebate) - sure, but so are a lot of others - seen tons of interesting info from you and others about that the last year :)

would be interesting to know how much they spent on marketing JW. I sure heard more about it than about most other tiny/small budget actioners

---

would be interesting to know how much they spent on marketing JW. I sure heard more about it than about most other tiny/small budget actioners

---

Sadly, Ispottv do not seem to show much info for free now.

Jason Statham are very harshly reviewed movie in comparison to John Wick thought:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jason_statham/

But yeah looking at Crank, and other well received Statham actionner, 14 million for Wick start to look really good.

The first film actually overperformed at the box office, thanks to work of mouth and excellent reviews. It was also coming out after Keanu Reeves had been in some terrible films and financial flops. If anything, these films probably saved his career.

Last Films seen:
La La Land(2016)- 8/10
Split(2017)- 8/10

the word of mouth for this should be great. I saw it in a packed theater and people were clapping and seemed to be loving it. I know I did! Great sequel . Bring on John Wick Chapter 3!

The first was great. There is an entire audience of people who discovered the first film on Blu Ray.

I saw the trailer, and it seemed like what could be a decent but ultimately run of the mill type of action movie. Didn't catch it in theaters but I found the very positive reviews to be eyebrow raising.

My buddy never saw it, but "knew about the reviews and thought the cover was cool" so decided to blind-buy the Blu Ray. He texted me a few hours later demanding that I come over and watch it.

I borrowed it and watched it two more times over the course of a weekend.

It was simply a big breath of fresh air in a lot of ways. For years you heard people complain that "Truly great, R rated, pure action movies" were not the "in" thing any more. Everything skewing towards genres(superhero, sci-fi, blockbusters) and the PG-1 rating.

There was also a trend that people seemed to dislike in the way some action films were shot.the Bourne films sort of ushered in an era of quick-cutting, shaky-cam, almost disorienting filming techniques for hand to hand combat scenes.

John Wick had the scenes filmed at a range where you could truly appreciate all of the choreography and movement that went into the fights and action sequenceswhich really upped the 'cool' factor.

Plus, there is an element of unintentional comedy in the whole thing. "It was John Wick", ".Oh.".sort of overplaying the insanity of the situation, that this guy is SO renowned and feared for his abilities that it inspires moments of hilarity in how much fear he strikes into the hearts of his enemies, and how he just so casually is able to wipe them out and one-up them.

That is a factor that they continued to play up in the sequel, as well.

"Winners focus on winning. Losers focus on winners."

---

I thought this would perform similarly to Underworld 2 or Resident Evil 2 (low-mid 20s OW/5-8 OS OW). Why did this improve as much as it did?

---

The earning trajectory of John Wick 2014 and John Wick 2017 reminds me of the earning trajectory of the Taken 2009 and Taken 2012 which made more not less.

Both Taken and John Wick are well made, crowd pleasing, take no prisoners action movies about a retired character that the audience feels a great deal of sympathy. The first movie seeded the market with good word of mouth and the second movie increased the revenue over the first.

"This is a mission, not a fancy dress ball !!"

Taken 2 actually made less domestic than the first film though, despite basically doubling its opening. Which I'm pretty sure won't be the case at all with Wick 2 (Taken had a very leggy run, plus the sequel was viewed as way worse, whereas if anything Wick 2 is seen as better than the first).

Even in spite of the possibility of a mixed reception to a third film, I think it will end up being the highest grossing of the bunch. The universe can still be expanded upon, and there might end up being talks of a TV show (most likely on a prime channel). I do believe the film series will finish with the 3rd film, though. No one can carry the mantle from Keanu, and we've all see what happens when they find a new leading actor for an original film series (sans Bond due to book adaptations).

Perfect Intro:

Liongates can be thirsty for anything establish thought (even considering a tv entry instead of a movie for Divergent) and example like that.

Netflix/cable channel type of series could make sense, the first feel very comic booky and seem to make it easy to have multiple character storyline in it, tv producer love that.