^

And this is why there are sequels and series.

Big movies are now very expensive and thus incredibly risky. If something does do well at the box office, an entire year can be ruined for a studio.

Sequels can almost always bring in at least 75% of the predecessor's box office, so they are far less speculative.

Bonus points if the sequel is equal or better than the original.

^

There is absolutely no way to predict that when the funds are committed, which is the whole point.

Even if the sequel stinks, the 75% rule still pretty much applies. So, you budget accordingly and if that percentage is surpassed, you're golden. Almost no chance it will fall under that 75% mark.

Just look at all those horrible Star Wars movies (after the first 3) that still grossed incredible amounts. Or the 2nd and 3rd Back to the Future movies, or Raiders of the Lost Ark...

Just came back from watching the movie at Regal Warren in Moore with the wife. I would say the theater we were in was about 40% capacity, which I thought was pretty good for a Monday night. As far as the movie goes, it was ok. The storyline really wasn't unique, and no twists. A lot of similarities to the first one. The special affects were good, and the acting was good. But it was just missing something, I can't put my finger on it. I will give a B-. With the technology and gadgets we have today, seem pretty out there that barrels of sodium polyacrylate could stop an EF-5. I think they could of came up with better idea.

Saw it yesterday. It was a fun ride. I had a good time.

Effects were pretty good. When the wind turbine fell, that looked a bit cartoony. And I know everyone says it's a movie, don't expect realism or you need to have a willing suspension of disbelief. It also needs to follow its own rules it sets up in the beginning and make sense in its own universe. I had trouble buying that these two people that had a sixth sense about tornados and storms were caught by surprise at the rodeo. Everything set up by the movie to that point said these two should've seen that storm coming.

Other stuff like driving through fields as if there aren't fences there or as if it's not someone's property, I can get past that.

Just came back from watching the movie at Regal Warren in Moore with the wife. I would say the theater we were in was about 40% capacity, which I thought was pretty good for a Monday night. As far as the movie goes, it was ok. The storyline really wasn't unique, and no twists. A lot of similarities to the first one. The special affects were good, and the acting was good. But it was just missing something, I can't put my finger on it. I will give a B-. With the technology and gadgets we have today, seem pretty out there that barrels of sodium polyacrylate could stop an EF-5. I think they could of came up with better idea.

They shoulda bombed it! :)

The storyline really wasn't unique, and no twists.

No twists?

I'd ask for my money back. The name of the movie is twisters...plural. And for it to have none? Unacceptable.

When they drove by the YNB, weren't they supposed to be in a different city? I can't remember, but I do know the friend with me at the theatre nudged me and said, that's Yukon, but they said they were in _________" and I can't remember where they were supposed to be. El Reno, maybe?

I told her nobody was going to notice or care except Okies :) I didn't even notice it.

They were supposed to be in Stillwater

Thought the movie wasn’t great. Too much breaking of immersion. Sometimes the tornadoes had strong winds sometimes they didn’t. Whatever fit the plot best. It was dumb and I didn’t want to see it but I was dragged to it.

She was going home to Sapulpa. But Yukon was on the way, so she drove right on through. She was by herself and had taken Havi's truck.

She was in Stillwater when she took his truck. So apparently she drove from Stillwater to Yukon to get to Supulpa. Plus they said Supulpa was a few hours away from Stillwater and the lie detector proved that was a lie.

Just look at all those horrible Star Wars movies (after the first 3) that still grossed incredible amounts. Or the 2nd and 3rd Back to the Future movies, or Raiders of the Lost Ark...

Indiana Jones slander not related to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Watch your mouth!

^

There is absolutely no way to predict that when the funds are committed, which is the whole point.

Even if the sequel stinks, the 75% rule still pretty much applies. So, you budget accordingly and if that percentage is surpassed, you're golden. Almost no chance it will fall under that 75% mark.

Just look at all those horrible Star Wars movies (after the first 3) that still grossed incredible amounts. Or the 2nd and 3rd Back to the Future movies, or Raiders of the Lost Ark...

Yeah, people complain about the crap that comes out of Hollywood but they keep paying to see it. It's similar to the people who complain about the Kardashians but still watch their stuff/buy their products. Stop making stupid people famous. I'm doing my part by not watching that dreck. Why isn't everyone else doing their part?

I didn't think Killers of the Flower Moon was a particularly good film but I appreciate the effort. I appreciate them trying to do something different (although it's sourced from a book) not based on IP or super heroes or a sequel.