New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire opened to $158.1 million, the sixth-largest opening of all-time. Its overall global revenue is $307.7 million. What are your thoughts on its opening weekend performance?

Bruce Hall: I totally called it. And since this is the only thing that's gone right for me this week, I'm going to savor it.

I think you could feel the anticipation leading up to this release. There is a LOT of goodwill toward this franchise thanks to the books, and then to the hugely successful first movie. The film didn't do much for me, but I am clearly in the minority. The Hunger Games is officially the new Harry Potter.

Matthew Huntley: This figure is more or less in line with my expectations, or maybe just slightly below. I thought the success of the original would have boosted the sequel's first weekend to over $170 million and closer to Iron Man 3's numbers from earlier this year, but then again, IM3 had the advantage of opening the summer movie season and attracting young males, who make up the majority of the movie-going audience (whereas Hunger Games seems more female-targeted). In any event, this is a fantastic start and just adds to the pile of surplus money the first Hunger Games already gave to Lionsgate. I'm not convinced Catching Fire will show the same legs as its predecessor, but $300 million is pretty much a guarantee, and with international figures, the movie is already, after just three days, a certifiable blockbuster. Even though we all knew this was going to happen, it's still nice to see the movie living up to its promise of being huge.

Edwin Davies: This is about what I was expecting, perhaps even a touch higher since, as I said last week, I didn't think that the sequel would have expanded the audience much compared to the first film, and that the decision not to add 3D for Catching Fire meant that the film did not have an easy way of gouging audiences for more money. Compare that to Iron Man 3, which had both the boost of being a sequel to The Avengers and the 3D surcharge, and you can see why there might not have been a huge bump up from the first Hunger Games to the second.

Jason Barney: I'm shocked that anyone would consider labeling this disappointing. My fellow box office contributors have hit the nail on the head. The film did well, and that is it. I have seen a couple of headlines that stated it disappointed or underwhelmed...and I can't believe any editor would run with that headline for a story about Catching Fire's performance. Can we step back a bit please? This is the sixth largest opening weekend of all time. The numbers are huge. It is mind boggling that a $158 million opening would be labeled as disappointing. This is almost double Thor's opening weekend take of a few weeks ago. This opening is enormous, better than the original. Catching Fire's performance is very strong.

Continued:       1       2