My Studios

I thought/still think my BO HY slate is pretty competitive, but this is definitely geezer's to win.

However, I still think I can pass Kompressr for presumably 2nd place. It would mean my combo of The Dark Knight, Get Smart, and Sex and the City would have to earn more than his Iron Man, Made of Honor, and Wanted. Entirely possible I think.

Shryke42 wrote:

Well, I obviously went with either Hancock or Dark Knight on every June and July roster. I imagine most people did. However, and especially in the half-year leagues where the bottom 20% will be cut, I have to figure that there weren't many who didn't pick either. Does that mean they are doomed? Well... not yet. However, anyone who ignored both and picked Tropic Thunder for $44 is in for one nasty hangover.

Don't forget about the little robot that could... but yeah, if you're waiting on TT to make your slate, may God have mercy on your soul.

Having Wall-E hasn't turned out to be a good decision. For any format really. Hancock will end up being a better choice, as will TDK obviously. But I agree that TT is overpriced, even if it can win its first two weekends.

geezer9687 wrote:

Having Wall-E hasn't turned out to be a good decision. For any format really. Hancock will end up being a better choice, as will TDK obviously. But I agree that TT is overpriced, even if it can win its first two weekends.

How so? Maybe not in comparison to TDK but it looks to be pretty equivalent to Hancock. Hancock is at 8/9/6.9 right now and it probably only has 1 PTA / 2-3 Top 5 out of this weekend before it gets knocked off that train entirely by Step Brothers/X-Files. Wall-E is at 7/11/8.9, and could pick up one more Top 5 this weekend with a very similar overall BO to Hancock overall. They're pretty much tied now and while Hancock has a little more of its initial burst left, Wall-E has better legs.

If I'm looking at June/July picks, TDK is the clear champ but Wall-E is right on par with Hancock at the second tier, which isn't a bad thing at all. What did Wall-E ever do to you to make you hate him so?

Hancock was cheaper, it will end up with 2 more PTA, I think 2 more top 5, and will have a higher gross. I don't know where everyone gets these great legs from, it is having pretty standard drops, maybe even more dramatic than most animated films week to week. Of course it has that higher imdb, but that can be made up easier than other categories.

Basically, my biggest beef, is with the fact that so many people are so quick to call Hancock a dissapointment, when it is performing better in 3 out of 4 categories compared to WALL-E and it cost less. I have not heard one person call WALL-E a disappointment. I think its the "Pixar immunity" and everyone considering it such a masterpiece that gives people this brainwashed effect. In reality, I feel that as far as this game goes, you'd have been better off taking Hancock. It already has more money made in 5 days less time.

At best I think Hancock is going to beat Wall-E by 1-2 PTA points, tie or lose by 1 Top 5, maybe gross a tiny bit more and lose 2 points in UR. To me that's equivalent. I'll give you that people are calling Hancock a big disappointment but to me, it did fine for what I expected. I don't think Wall-E is a disappointment either though, I just think people's hopes were too high for Wall-E and too low for Hancock so even when they even out, there's still incorrect perceptions about each.

I need some thoughts from everyone regarding Henry Poole is Here:

I know that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Henry Poole will not be opening in theaters on the final Friday of July.

However, a lot of people who have it on the May-July leagues are now stuck with it, and for the most part the blame can be laid at the door of Box Office Mojo, who even now STILL maintains that Henry will still be released next Friday.

However, if that turns out not to be the case, do you think that it is fair that I give those people who are stuck with it the User Rating that it has already amassed (7.5)? There will be no Top 5, no PTA, and no Box Office, but would anyone have objections if those people who ended up stuck with it at least got credit for that?

If BOM, and, by extension, FM, had not dragged their feet in having Henry's release date changed in a more timely manner, I'm sure that all or most people who have it would have found another option. (Regrettably, for the last month of the season, the only other $2 option was Space Chimps, who some of those people, including myself, already had.) So my question to you guys, in the interest of fairness, is: should those who have no option but to keep Henry at least get credit for its User Rating?

sounds fair to me

Yeah, its not like they will benefit in any other category by having it on their slate.

And it seems worth it just so that they can avoid the indignity of seeing Space Chimps on their slate.

They will likely score the iMDb anyway, but your plan can not be allowed to happen Shryke if they don't. The boards have been talking about 'Henry Poole' moving for weeks. $2 films are notorious risks for date change, under-performance -- you name it. 'Henry Poole' is no different and the penalties and risks should be no different for it than they would for anything else that doesn't perform. The film has moved and that has happened with other films in other leagues where players haven't noticed. They have never benefitted and it shouldn't happen now. I strongly object on the principle being put forth here. There is always a significant risk in filling your slate with a couple of big releases and $2 fillers. If we make an exception here, then why don't we make exceptions all the time? What stops any player in the future from picking films that will have date changes if they know they'll get an iMDb supplement to compensate them?

And what do you do for all the players who picked up crap like 'Space Chimps' because they did pay attention and dump 'Henry Poole'? Do you give them the choice of the 'Henry Poole' stats? What will you do for players who get cut because their iMDb score would have beaten a zero but not a 7.5?

C'est la guerre. I'm sorry for those who got screwed. Life's a bitch, real mean and sometimes it sucks. Too damn bad.

I agree with A_Roode completely. It's going to make it easier for you in the long run, Shryke, just to say "them's the breaks" and you're s.o.l. if you picked Henry Poole. It's just like any kind of game or sport, there is a chance of some kind of glitch, act of nature or what have you, it's part of the game you can't control or predict.

Okay then, I'll respect your decision. If FM doesn't count Henry Poole's User Rating as of next weekend, I won't either.

Thanks for your (brutally) honest opinions, guys.

Shryke, you have my full respect for what has been an awesome and difficult job. Your integrity and the integrity of your leagues are the most important thing and I will do whatever I can to help protect that. I hope you took nothing personal from my previous post -- none was intended, but I believed (and believe) that the argument against needed to be emphatically made. I have the greatest respect for you my friend and if playing the role of bad cop helps you, then bad cop I will be.

Roodey I also completely back you up on that.

Yes, Roodey, you won me over with your argument, I think the suckers should just sit and stew over their poor mistakes while the six headed juggernaut slips through and conquers all. Mwahahaha.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: