BOX OFFICE BEAT DOWN: 'Oz: The Great and Powerful' Wins with $80.2 Million

'Jack the Giant Slayer' drops to second place with $10 million, while 'Dead Man Down' debuts in fourth place with $5.3 million.

WEEKEND BOX OFFICE:







Sources: Box Office Mojo

Do you like this story?


RELATED STORIES

BEST OF THE WEB

Comments (50)

  1. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    @bawnian-dexeus appreciated mate. cant be the only one who thought it about this film though.

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  2. Sean

    @bawnian-dexeus Nah, don't worry about it. I was just giving my own opinion, which is what @thomasclarke was doing as well.

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  3. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @thomasclarke I'm just saving you from going around in circles on a loosing battle

    1 year agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  4. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    @bawnian-dexeus it is a kind of loosing battle lol, I was not trying to cause an argument just wanted to express my opinion lol, guess you can't do that around this film .

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  5. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @thomasclarke Quit while you're ahead

    1 year agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  6. Sean

    @thomasclarke I didn't see any problems with the way the cgi and the practical sets and blue screen/green screen appeared together on screen. They looked perfectly fine together in the movie. It all looked perfectly fine to me when i saw the movie in 3D honestly. If anything, the Alice in Wonderland movie from 2010 was the movie with the green screen/blue screen cgi flaws, not Oz: The Great and Powerful.

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  7. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    Sorry man course I can :D

    @themoviefanatic I know where the green screen / blue screen is used mate lol. What I am saying is for some reason it has not been blended in with the other bits amazingly well in this film, it seemed rather obvious. It's for things like this that people- including myself- liked the film but though the cgi was a little overused. Other films have obviously used more. I mean "life of pi" pretty much is one giant cgi film, but with films like that, it has been blended in a bit more. I liked this film i really did, I gave it four stars in my review, all I am saying is that the magic of cinema is to be transported to another place. Not expressly shown through the unmerging of production factors how the film was made. Tbh it's no different in some levels to actors appearing on screen with there screenplay showing- it would spoil it, much like it has with this unblended cgi issues for a lot of these people who have commented as such about the cgi issues. There is others but I think that's the main.

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  8. Sean

    @thomasclarke Sorry for the inconvenience :( .

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  9. Sean

    @thomasclarke Can you please copy and paste and re-post your reply with all corrections in it, so that i can then re-read your post and reply to you?

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  10. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    Instead of they goes its meant to say actors. Stupid autocorrect.

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  11. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    @themoviefanatic I know where the green screen / blue screen is used mate lol. What I am saying is for some reason it has not been blended in with the other bits amazingly well in this film, it seemed rather obvious. It's for things like this that people- including myself- liked the film but though the cgi was a little overused. Other films have obviously used more. I mean life of pi pretty much is one giant cgi film, but with films like that it has been blended in a bi more. I liked this film I gave it four stars in my review, all I am saying is that the magic of cinema is to be transported to another place. No expressly shown through the unmerging of production factors hiw the film was made. Tbh it's no different in some levels to they toes appearing on screen with there screenplay showing- it would spoil it, much like it has for a lot of these people who have commented as such.

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  12. Sean

    @thomasclarke The green screen or blue screen that you're referring to would be in the back ground on the set of the Land of Oz. Did you see the video in the link that i posted below? There are bits and parts in it that show that there is more practicle set of the land of oz then there is of CGI used in Oz: The Great and Powerful.

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  13. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    @themoviefanatic as much as i agree in someways to your statement, I must also disagree in the amount of CGI that was used in this film being just right, the film comprised mainly of CGI - and i Know that the the practical set was used for some of it but the majority was greenscreen. You can see its greenscreen and that spoilt the magic for me. In Disneys most similar movie franchise to this - that being the narnia films- the amount of CGI was hidden and masked as it felt completely organic in the production of the film. It didnt stand out but you knew it was there. With Oz however I am sorry but it did stand out completely. Just my opinion of course.

    1 year agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  14. Sean

    @mka47 I honestly feel the opposite way that you do about Oz: The Great and Powerful. I thought the acting was great, the cgi was very good, the story was well written, etc. As for the cgi and sets, they did use a big practical set for the land of Oz in Oz: The Great and Powerful and the cgi was used just right in my opinion. They did not over use the cgi for the movie, like what was done for the planet pandora in Avatar (which is from another movie studio of course). Here is a video that shows that a practicle set was used for the land of Oz in Oz: The Great and Powerful > http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/oz-the-great-powerful/featurette-costume-makeup .

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  15. Mka47

    @themoviefanatic well the thing that stood out to me the most while watching was the acting. I didn't think it was very good at all, which was surprising because all those people have done really good work in the past. I also thought the story was a little boring. Lastly i thought there was too much CGI. obviously there has to be some because the world was so vast and intricate, but i thought it was a bit overused. Back when they made the original Wizard of Oz there was no computer graphics and i thought that made the move so much richer because everything was real sans some of the backdrops of course. i think they definitely could have done a better mix of the old school practical sets/effects and CGI

    1 year agoby @mka47Flag

  16. Sean

    @mka47 What did you think was very bad about it?

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  17. Mka47

    @themoviefanatic that's interesting. I saw it and it was very bad!

    1 year agoby @mka47Flag

  18. JonSpidey07

    great results
    so happy the box office numbers went higher this time, it's been a dismal season

    1 year agoby @jonspidey07Flag

  19. Sean

    @mka47 I beg to differ. I saw it and it was very good!

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  20. Mka47

    OZ was crap

    1 year agoby @mka47Flag

  21. Brizzy

    @ejk1 Sweet mother of holy waffles, you must be getting straight a's, huh?

    1 year agoby @BrizzyFlag

  22. Brizzy

    @ghostman I meant the audience rating aswell, dude.

    1 year agoby @BrizzyFlag

  23. LuxoIII

    Well it is still March, so go figure why the movies showing are so terrible.

    1 year agoby @brady1138Flag

  24. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @ejk1 MW without arbitration would be quite chaotic

    1 year agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  25. ejk1

    @bawnian-dexeus@dan1 It could have been even deeper if I had actually seen SLP yet :P

    I find the RT to be useful, but I see some people not using or understanding it to its fullest extent. I am not saying that @Brizzy and/or @ghostman used it wrong, just not fully. Each used RT to support their point, but they both also left half of the info off the table. I think having the whole picture available leads to a better understanding of what's being discussed.

    1 year agoby @ejk1Flag

  26. Dan

    @ejk1 Analyzed the f*ck outta that, did ya?

    1 year agoby @dan1Flag

  27. Sean

    @2movieguys Really? After i saw it on friday, i would give it an A+.

    1 year agoby @themoviefanaticFlag

  28. ejk1

    @Brizzy@ghostman So i was curious about this whole SLP v The Avengers thing on RT, so I went there, and found the following info:

    In terms of audiences, @Brizzy is right; The Avengers has a higher rating, 96% to 88%. The average rating from individual raters breaks it down to The Avengers receiving a 4.6/5 (from approximately 450,000 raters) while SLP getting 4.2/5 (from about 140,000 raters). While this may seem like a clear win for The Avengers, keep in mind that SLP has not been seen by as many people (the ratings suggest less than a third, at the least). In terms of critics compiled on RT, @ghostman is correct in saying they both have a 92%, but he could have further supported his argument by adding that SLP has a higher individual average than The Avengers. SLP comes in at 8.2/10 from 221 reviews, while The Avengers received a straight up 8/10 from 293 critic reviews. While it could be said that if SLP received 70 more reviews, there ratings could go down, it could also be the reverse.

    The only thing that should actually be taken from this is that people are able to enjoy both films at around the same level. They each excelled at what it was they set out to do. I have yet to see SLP (something I may rectify this week), but I completely agree with the critics on The Avengers. They found the film to be an enjoyable ride, filled with action and humor. Some may say that the film did not bring much character development with it, and to a certain low degree they would have a point. Most, however, are able to recognize that The Avengers should not be watched before the individual films that came before it, as there was where the character development came into play. For example, if you saw Thor then you knew exactly why Loki was doing what he was doing in The Avengers. If not, then you may have been left at a loss. But this is no different from Harry Potter or LOTR, where you must see the previous installments so the final one makes complete sense (assuming you haven't read the books, of course). All in all, the critics and fans got it right on The Avengers, and I'm sure I'll say the same thing after seeing SLP.

    1 year agoby @ejk1Flag