GB16 vs. Lights Out

I noticed that the preliminary box office estimates for the weekend have these two films tied at $21.6 million each.

But curiously, RT and Box Office Mojo list GB16 as 3rd place.

The reason I find this odd is due to the fact that GB16 is playing on over a thousand more screens than Lights Out.

Taking this into account, Lights Out is doing significantly better than GB16, bringing in over $2000 more per screen.

Also worth noting that Lights Out was made with a budget of just under $5 million.

Both are female-led, both are rated PG-13 and they even overlap partially in terms of genre (horror).

They even have similar scores on RT…however with one glaring discrepancy, that being between the critic scores vs. audience scores.

Now before you chime in and cry “it’s because of misogyny!”, remember, Lights Out is also female-led. If this argument were actually viable, it would stand to reason that Lights Out would be suffering from a similar audience backlash.

But it isn’t. And why is that? The answer is extremely obvious. There was no attempt by the studio or film makers behind Lights Out to inject any political agendas into the film as a marketing ploy. They simply wanted to make an entertaining movie. Now, I’ll grant you that there is a key difference between the two in that Lights Out is not a reboot (at least as far as I know) of a film with an extremely devoted cult following, and thus does not carry any of the inherent controversy associated with that.

However, that being said, I think this comparison is quite interesting indeed. If I were a studio executive at Sony Pictures, I’d be looking at this and taking notes.

7 Responses

  1. BrexitNow says:

    We need more lower budget movies with original ideas and fewer big budget reboots, remakes and sequels.

  2. tenshinhan_san says:

    Think how many decent lower budget films could have been made with all this money wasted on this reboot cr@p!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Even middle budget films would seem to be a better investment. I mean, look at Deadpool. Regardless of whether you’re a fan of it or not (most people liked it, anyway), the box office return was staggering to say the least. Its worldwide take is actually right on the heels of Batman v Superman, and that’s in spite of not also being released in China, which is the same situation that GB16 now finds itself in.

    It is baffling to me how people continue to try spinning this narrative of “it’s a total success!`

    No. Deadpool is an example of a total success. And it seems to me that Lights Out is also going to fit that bill. Seriously, a budget of $4.9 million and already it has quadrupled that number. Deadpool was cost around $60 million and made nearly $800 million. That’s like thirteen times its budget.

    Then we have GB16, which hasn’t even made back its budget (never mind the marketing costs) after two weeks, and it has the same handicap as Deadpool, having been banned in China.

    Films of this nature (tentpole blockbusters) do not perform this poorly if they are genuinely good, or at the very least entertaining crowd-pleasers. GB16’s performance is in line with a mixed to negative reception with generally poor word-of-mouth.

    This is why you don’t inject absurd political agendas into big budget film projects. Save your pandering for documentaries. People generally don’t appreciate being preached to, even indirectly, when all they really want to do is go out and watch a dumb popcorn flick. Intentionally injecting mean-spirited controversy into your marketing campaigns is also poor form. Why polarize your audience so much? Sure, you’ll win over one side with that strategy, but in doing so you alienate the other.

    Lights Out had none of this nonsense surrounding it, and thus has been able to capitalize on a broad audience. Deadpool didn’t have any overt pandering politics either, though there was controversy regarding its `excessive” amount of violence, which is why it ended up getting banned in China. But in the end, it was a film made with nothing but good intentions with the fans in mind.

    Honestly, the film makers behind GB16 should be ashamed of themselves.

  4. patrick_bateman_77401 says:

    Or think of how many good low budget movies could have been supported this summer if people hadn’t spent the summer sitting on IMDb whining about `Ghostbusters` ruined their lives. I swear, the double standards of people on this board are astounding.

    Let’s see, off the top of my head, there was:

    “Absolutely Fabulous”
    “Cafe Society”
    “De Palma”
    “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”
    “The Lobster” (and I say this as someone with MAJOR issues with that film)
    “Love & Friendship”
    “Maggie’s Plan`
    `The Neon Demon`
    `Sing Street`
    `Swiss Army Man`

    `[Redmayne] is so thirsty for awards and not in a fun way but in a sad, desperate way” – Twitter

  5. SarahJConnor says:

    Or think of how many good low budget movies could have been supported this summer if people hadn’t spent the summer sitting on IMDb whining about `Ghostbusters` ruined their lives.



  6. Anonymous says:

    Yeah well, none of those films opened in even a thousand theaters. Some didn’t even crack 100. So how the actual f_ck do you expect droves of people to come out and support them?

    Besides that, it makes no sense to assume that taking time to do X-thing (in this case sh!tposting on a message board) somehow precludes doing Y-thing (going to see a movie).

    Unless the scenario plays out like this:

    `Oh boy I’m going to post an opinion about a movie online instead of going out and supporting all the random independent films I’ve never even heard of and none of which are even playing on any screens in a 200 mile radius because it’s also my mission to maintain a double-standard that I’m also inexplicably unaware of!`

    For f_ck’s sake.

  7. MrsRuran says:

    I work at a cinema and the horror films do the best, especially when it’s the only one out at the moment. The purge was rated R so we had to turn a lot of people away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *