Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance

[Biomechanoid]

I've read where studios conduct market research on audience trends - what genres are hot and not, during any given period. For example, sci-fi was riding high from 78 to 81. By 1982, their research showed audience desire for sci-fi had dropped by a whopping 70%  (source: John Carpenter interview discussing The Thing's box office failure). Unfortunate timing for Blade Runner and The Thing. ET scored big, but it's dominate family oriented theme carried it to blockbuster profit.

I haven't seen more recent research results, but I would be curious if it shows a sine wave-like pattern for sci-fi over the years since 82. Even without seeing the research, the pattern seems to indicate this is the pattern. Sci-fi was on a high in the early nineties with Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Total Recall, Twelve Monkeys, Back/Future trilogy continues, Star Trek films, etc.

If there is any substance to this theory, perhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.

[kwisatz]

According to this theory films like Jurassic Park/T2/Back-Future wouldve grossed significantly less if at the start of the 90s there wouldve been some kind of negative audience interest going on in terms of scifi? I highly doubt that.

I have a counter theory, totally pulled from my own a**: I think scifi movies are then heavily successful if their are linked to some kind of jump in the technological department.

This would apply to the 77-81 era as well as to the start of the 90s and to this otherwise more or less mediocre film:





This might even be true for something like 'Inception', though its hard to seperate this film from the Nolan-factor.

But i surely never heard anyone say: "You nedd to see Prometheus duuuuude, cause i never saw anything like it before!"

And the original Blade Runner just looked like Star Wars directed by R. Scott. It even had that Han dude--

[Biomechanoid]

Despite your less than favorable view of the original Blade Runner, both The Thing and Blade Runner place highly in many All time lists. So yes, this sine wave pattern does raise the question would Blade Runner and The Thing have performed better at the box office if it had not hit a 70% decline in audience desire for SF. I mean, how can anyone simply dismiss a 70% decline as a factor in analyzing a given film's box office performance.

[kwisatz]

Lol and here i thought that Han bit would definitely give away the irony.... oh well.

Well well i guess audience' interest was magically back up again for the first Terminator? Did it then stay up till the 90s or...?

[SM]

Twenty movies finished ahead of Terminator in 1984 in terms of box office and only 2 were strictly science fiction.

[Biomechanoid]

Well well i guess audience' interest was magically back up again for the first Terminator? Did it then stay up till the 90s or...?

Well well I'm not sure I would call it "magically back up again" in 84, Terminator wasn't even in the top 20 domestic gross in box office in 84.

Doah! SM, you beat me by one minute! 

[kwisatz]

I still fail to see any sort of pattern. What about Trek 2&3&4?

And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.

[Biomechanoid]

I still fail to see any sort of pattern.

Well, son, here's a tip: self discovery is a reward worthy of pursuit. Start here http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ , look at the top 20 of each year, count how many were sci-fi of each year, and decide for yourself if there is pattern.

That tip, my gift to you, no thanks is necessary. . . . 

[kwisatz]

What about Trek 2&3&4?

And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.

And another one: no significant drop in BO performance from ROTJ to ESB. Unlike the significant drop from ESB compared to ANHs performance.


good game; no rematch


Heres another one for your theory:

In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

Now let me ask you, was yesterday a good day for releasing sci fi movie? What about tomorrow... You could save Hollywood millions--

[Biomechanoid]

And again, does this low hold till the the early 90s or what, cause i sure didnt heard Cameron complain bout the BO performance of Aliens.

I get it. You want me to do the counting for you, don't you. Nope, I have faith in your skill at basic arithmetic.

Aliens? Go to that link I provided for your benefit, look at the the top 20 in 1986......no, better yet.....look at the TOP 50 and count how many were sci-fi. I counted the total.  I have full confidence you will deliver here the total out of 50 in 1986 that were sci-fi. The spotlight is on you.

[kwisatz]

The spotlight is clearly on you, pal (Trek, ROTJ etc etc  ). FYI one year doesnt make a pattern!

Heres another one for your theory:

In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

Oh ja and as you said:

perhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.

I know right? TFA and RO nearly bankrupted Disney thats why they refrain from going all space and starships with their other franchises...

I give up, the daily swing pattern argument i can not beat. 


So was yesterday a good day for scifi? Or no... or so-so?

[Biomechanoid]

The spotlight is clearly on you, pal

So......you couldn't deliver. You can't count how many films in the 1986 Top 50 are sci-fi. How disappointing. I really had high hopes you had a solid grasp on basic arithmetic.

(Trek, ROTJ etc etc  ).

What about Trek? It was in the top ten in 2009.
What about ROTJ? It was the only SF in the top 20 in 1983.
No offense, but I think you're struggling with keeping up with the conversation.

FYI one year doesnt make a pattern!

The only one suggesting a pattern is based on only one year, is you.

In the same year 'Avatar' is skyrocketing the BO a critically acclaimed movie like JJs first Trek is struggling to reach the 400mio mark. MONTHLY SWINGS PROB

Oh ja and as you said:

I don't even understand your point here. Trek 09 would be considered a box office success and launched two sequels. If you're going to compare it to the box office king, then that would include every other movie made since time began, that should be considered as "struggling" according to your strange logic.

I know right? TFA and RO nearly bankrupted Disney thats why they refrain from going all space and starships with their other franchises...

I give up, the daily swing pattern argument i can not beat. 


So was yesterday a good day for scifi? Or no... or so-so?

The only one suggesting and clinging onto a "daily" pattern, is you. . . . .

[kwisatz]

Too tired for a lenghty answer but i just wanted point out that you think

Sci-fi was on a high in the early nineties

and

perhaps we are currently riding the bottom end of the sine wave pattern on audience trend regarding sci-fi.

Now all i want you to do, is go to some BO site and check out the highest grossing film of all time worldwide, the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide and the 4th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. Then check out their release dates! Genre too!

Then come back here and present a new whack theory. 

Keep it up and have a good night!!!!!!!!!!1111111111------

[Highland]

I guess a simple question I would have is - Why would there be a pattern?

Also Sci Fi is like a genre inside a genre. It's most likely going to rule out kids, which rules out mums and dads. Unless you get something like Avatar....which is for kids.

[Biomechanoid]

Now all i want you to do, is go to some BO site and check out the highest grossing film of all time worldwide, the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide and the 4th highest grossing film of all time worldwide. Then check out their release dates! Genre too!

So.....I answered your questions. Yet you still fail to answer my question on Aliens.......a film that you brought up to make some kind of point. Instead of delivering, you bring up irrelevant deflections and run. Well.......you certainly showed me! . . . .

but i just wanted point out that you think Sci-fi was on a high in the early nineties

Then come back here and present a new whack theory.

I see. Whack theory, huh. .......

Penn State University research: "However, it is clear from the results presented here that, since the early 1990s, there has been an upwards trend in the number of fantasy/science fiction films..... From the breakdown by decade in Table 1, we see that the proportion of Genre trends at the US box office, 1991 to 2010 fantasy/science fiction films in the top 25 films has increased from 51% to 64% and with an increase from 26% to 50% for top 10 films; and in 2005 alone, fantasy/science fiction films occupied six of the top 7 rankings by total gross. "

Ooh...."upwards trend".....there's that nasty pattern talk again .....

Penn State continues: "This paper has presented an empirical analysis of genre trends at the US box office in the two decades since 1991. Overall, analysis of box office data indicates that the range of genres for the highest grossing films at the US box office has become narrower over the past twenty years. A limited range of special effects-based films from the action/adventure and fantasy/science fiction genres have come to dominate the US box office at the expense of character- and narrative-driven films (crime/thriller and drama films) that were previously identified as the most popular. "
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.393.8852&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Well, well, well, that statement is just oozing with audience trend patterns for SF .....

Fools! All Penn State University had to do was email kwisatz and you could have told them they wasted their time doing all that research since analyzing audience trends by genre is a "whack theory," according to you. I'm sure they would have held your word as credible because you said so in a movie forum...........



Meanwhile, still waiting on your answer on Aliens.........tick tock says the croc. 

I guess a simple question I would have is - Why would there be a pattern?

I have no answer "why" there is a pattern, but there is a pattern. For example, if you reference the Penn State link above they show SF in the decade 1991 to 2000 with 35 top 25 box office films, which increased to 56 top 25 box office films in the decade 2001 to 2010.

And this is not a case of all genres likely increased. That same chart shows the genres Comedy, Drama, and Crime/Thriller actually decreased during those two decades. A pattern is a pattern no matter how much someone wants to desperately dismiss it as a "whack theory."