FantasyMovieLeague.com

[Geezer]

Anyone willing to share their thoughts this week?

[Buscemi]

Aloha's a dud. Bad reviews (the embargo was lifted and things don't look good), limited marketing and a generic premise (Bradley Cooper is Bradley Cooper again but this time, he's preying on Emma Stone) spell doom. Also, word-of-mouth won't be good (based on the disastrous test screening in New York last year, though it tested slightly better in Huntington Beach, California). Looks like it's over for Cameron Crowe.

Poltergeist is dropping hard. Everyone went to see it on Friday and the Cinemascore was a C+.

I think Tomorrowland will hold a bit better than expected. The Cinemascore was only a B but there's nothing out right now for the families (in fact, it could hold well until Inside Out and Max both open).

Mad Max's going to hold well (probably a 35-40% drop) while Pitch Perfect 2 will continue dropping. San Andreas I think underperforms a bit while Far from the Madding Crowd I think has a minimal drop (Fox marketed this one pretty well).

[Geezer]

I'm rolling with San Andreas 2x and some cheap fill ins. You certainly can't leave anything blank, that 2 million hit will hurt when things are close. I think despite its high price, San Andreas is still going to offer the most bang for the buck.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

I've only got one San Andreas, I'm betting more on PP2 and Mad Max holding well, and a couple of Ex Machinas and that Indian movie to fill the last slot.

Skipping Aloha completely as I'm sure everyone is doing. Reviews are awful, as Busc mentioned. Wouldn't be surprised to see it open outside the Top 5.

[W]

At this point I'm thinking PP2 x4 then figure out what's best. I need to see how many theaters Madding is in and it may be my #5. If Max holds well, it could be better than PP2, but I don't know. I've got until noon local time to make my decision. I think San Andreas is low 40s for the weekend, so I think there's better choices. If it's closer to $50 M, it'll probably be the winner.

[Geezer]

My one big question is how much that stinkin' Indian movie is going to make. Could make a real difference if it turns out to be the best bang for your buck.

[Geezer]

W, Madding is in 902 this weekend. Up 37 from last week.

[transformers2]

I got San Andreas, PP2, Mad Max, Hot Pursuit, Far from the Madding Crowd, Furious 7 and two screens of that Indian movie.

[W]

W, Madding is in 902 this weekend. Up 37 from last week.

Yeah, I just saw. I think for this game theater counts will matter for the smaller films and ones that have been out a while. A film going from 1000 to 750 vs going to 500 means it's playing at maybe 200 more locations since it'll be more likely to be on single screens than a new wide release. Also if something like Madding is playing on 1000 and increasing theaters, it should mean a better hold, maybe even increase. Probably not increase with it only being up 37, but going from 500 to 1000 would be a good sign and the game-makers (I've been reading Catching Fire, lol) won't know the theater counts when they release prices.

Those are my thoughts at least. Think I've got something there?

[Buscemi]

I still think we should do it by per-theatre average. If we continue with total box office, most players will end up with the same few movies. Also, shouldn't players be rewarded by having movies that not many have?

It's going to get boring quickly if there's little variation in each weekly lineup.

[Geezer]

There will be plenty of variation if they keep the prices competitive. Just among our small group we all have different combinations this week. If they did it by PTA, no one would play. Most people don't have any idea what the smallest indie films are, let alone what they will make.

I'm fully with you on theater count, W. I've been waiting for those numbers all week when deciding on a combination for the smaller films. Seeing those big drops in theater count should give us an idea as to their drops in box office. However, haven't seen any information on the Indian film, which still leaves me at a loss for what to do with it. I'd be mad if I put it on 6 screens and it drops 50%, as the difference between it earning $500k and $600k this weekend should be the difference in whether it earns that 2 million extra per screen. Think I'm going to play it safe.

[Buscemi]

I think more people would play it if we did it by per-theatre average. There would be far more variations and strategies to utilize (especially if we have more than 15-20 options). With total box office, people are only going to pick movies that are playing a few miles from them. It's not fun because it's so predictable (and you are basically punished if you picked something a week before it went wide despite the fact that a theatre would make more if a movie is playing in fewer theatres). We know nearly every theatre in the game is going to pick Pitch Perfect 2 or Mad Max or San Andreas. There's no variation if you use box office (and the multiple screen thing is going to get spammed a lot more if this isn't fixed).

Also, players should be rewarded if they have a certain title few other players have. Much like an exclusive engagement in a real-life theatre, the theatre take is going to be higher than if they are playing it with 10 other theatres.

[Geezer]

No variation? Are you insane? Yes, they will most likely pick one of those 3 films..... but will they take 2 of the 3? On multiple screens? Will they take two of the most expensive and try to fill out the rest with cheap films? Will they quadruple up on Pitch Perfect? On Mad Max? Do they think Tomorrowland will have a great family-boosted hold in an open market? Can Poltergeist earn over 10 million? And what should you do with the leftover money once they decide what direction to go with the bigger films? Is Madding Crowd the best option, with its added theaters this week? How well will Hot Pursuit and Furious 7 hold with their theater counts dipping? That's a hell of a lot of questions that each player will have a different answer to. I think the game is quite fun now that they've actually given us logical prices. And of COURSE the game is targeted at players who are going to pick the films they can see down the street. That's why they will keep their players involved. I know we around here are hardcore players that care about just about every film that is released. However, We are the 1% of movie geeks in this scenario. They are trying to play to the masses, and so far succeeding. They have thousands of users. We have about 30.

And it is also incredibly difficult and luck based to predict per theater average. With much less information available on indie films released in less than ten theaters, it can be a crap shoot. At least in choosing between accurately priced larger films, we can feel a level of comfort and familiarity in making educated guesses about what they will make.

I'm definitely truning into a fan of the game. Get on board, or don't play. No one's forcing your hand.

[Buscemi]

But it should be a crap shoot, where millions of strategies can be put into play. With only a few movies and almost all of them being wide releases, it does not reflect a real life situation and lineups are going to look too similar (how are you going to do tiebreakers if the top lineups had the same movies?). You like it the way it is now because you know you can win with a broken system (which you exploited the first week). You are going to vote down any alteration because you don't want your odds of winning to decrease.

Also, I have a problem with how scores are tallied. If this is going to be like a movie theatre, total grosses are not the way to go. A theatre could not possibly make $250 million in a single weekend. Either use per-theatre average or take the total number of filled spots and divide the weekend gross from that number. (Example: we have 3,858 players so let's pretend 2,560 had Mad Max, each person putting it on one screen. Mad Max made $24.6 million this week so each screen would make $9,625.)

[Geezer]

But it should be a crap shoot

I should have stopped reading right here, because anyone arguing for ANY game that values luck over skill is, in my opinion, looking at the game ass-backwards.

With only a few movies and almost all of them being wide releases, it does not reflect a real life situation and lineups are going to look too similar (how are you going to do tiebreakers if the top lineups had the same movies?).

But I didn't stop reading..... I can absolutely see your argument if they DIDN''T fix the prices. But they DID!!! If all of the films are, based on projections, going to make approximately the same amount of box office dollars per fantasy movie dollars you have to spend to acquire them, then the game will have numerous possible combinations, all with a chance to win. The games variety thrives in the accuracy of its pricing, and they have made incredible strides to fix that in just one week, which I find impressive and encouraging. How are you going to do tiebreakers? Are you seriously saying that players will have the same slate for 15 consecutive weeks? The odds of that are astronomical. It is a 15-week season, not a one week season!

You like it the way it is now because you know you can win with a broken system (which you exploited the first week). You are going to vote down any alteration because you don't want your odds of winning to decrease.

You are so wrong it is hilarious. I hated the first week. It is documented here how much I thought I would get bored with it quickly. It was too easy and offered only one logical way to win. Exactly what I DON'T want. For literally years I've been challenging our pricing committee to build a more challenging pricing scheme. To make our players force themselves to make tough decisions on films. I love competition. I want the same at this game. If I win, I want to have earned it. That is not what you are advocating for. You are advocating to take the skill out of the game and turn it into a roll of the dice, guess which small film no one has ever heard of is going to out-produce the big films on its one or two screens. That appeals to, like I was trying to explain, about 1% of the population and would torpedo the site. I like it as an added element to our Ultimate game, but not as the entirety of a game. You can't win our game with just high PTA earners, and you shouldn't. The less info available, the less you can learn, the less skill involved, the more it becomes a slot machine vs a game of skill.

Also, I have a problem with how scores are tallied. If this is going to be like a movie theatre, total grosses are not the way to go. A theatre could not possibly make $250 million in a single weekend. Either use per-theatre average or take the total number of filled spots and divide the weekend gross from that number. (Example: we have 3,858 players so let's pretend 2,560 had Mad Max, each person putting it on one screen. Mad Max made $24.6 million this week so each screen would make $9,625.)

You're really trying to make this into a complete guessing game, huh? So now instead of trying to predict the box office, which was the entire intention of the game in the first place, we'd have to predict what other players are going to pick, so we can be rewarded for picking differently, even if it is not the best option in terms of box office? How does one balance that other than with a complete guess? A shot in the dark? A crap shoot? Terrible. Just awful.