Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[jvcarroll]

After Earth failed because it was an ego piece. Will Smith turned down Django Unchained because the role wasn't big enough to do a film where his son and him were essentially the only people in the film. Throw in the pretty obvious Scientology themes, and you pretty much made a film that could damage your career. Ender's will get some sort of passive aggressive audience of "victims," but I doubt many film goers are going to pass up Thor to see that one. Especially since large portion of the Iron Man 3 audience flocked to see how Tony Stark was going to cope with the aftermath of The Avengers. I'm sure they'll do the same for Thor... or more likely, Loki.

After Earth failed because it wasn't a very good movie and had some laughably awful previews. It was also a vanity piece filled with religious propaganda, but the previews are what killed it.

That's exactly why I felt that The Lone Ranger's box office failure is bad for us.

With the failure of John Carter and The Lone Ranger, as well as a poor result for Frankenweenie will make Disney look the other way on brand-new original ideas, and keeping sticking talking vehicles with googly-eyes in front of us.

Disney is very tight with money. Like most movie companies, they'll usually only make something when there is a large guarantee in money. Disney might decide that brand-new fresh ideas are bad risks, since they have a guarantee that they'll make more money when people go see Toy Story 4.

I wouldn't call the Lone Ranger a fresh idea. It was a very expensive remake that audiences didn't really want. John Carter suffered from an ambitious animation director that couldn't transition into live action. It was also a victim of poor marketing. It's a good film. It just doesn't have enough of a gripping or cohesive story. Frankenweenie was boilerplate Burton. He offered very few new ideas to warrant his own remake. The black and white probably scared some kids off, but it was sluggish pace that caused the bad word of mouth from audiences.

I understand the need for expensive tentpole films. They need to be wisely selected. We're getting too many pictures based on the same formulas and audiences have grown tired of them. That's what gives the Muppets such a unique opportunity. These are efficiently budgeted special effects films (the Muppets being the special effect) with built-in marketing elements. If the movies catch on, Disney can build one heck of a Muppets marketing arm of soundtracks, clothing, toys and home videos for years to come at a discount! Disney needs more Muppets-level films. $40 million pictures that aren't boasting about being the next big thing. They just want to entertain us and offer products that people want. Just my thoughts.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I wouldn't call the Lone Ranger a fresh idea. It was a very expensive remake that audiences didn't really want.

I feel bad saying this being such a big nostalgia fan but yeah, when I heard about a Lone Ranger movie my first thought was, "Who was asking for this?" Lol.

And I laughed out loud when they said "From the people who brought you Pirates of the Caribbean" and you see Johnny Depp looking pretty much like Jack Sparrow with a slightly different hair piece, lol. Can you say desperate?

 

[mr3urious]

After Earth failed because it wasn't a very good movie and had some laughably awful previews. It was also a vanity piece filled with religious propaganda, but the previews are what killed it

Also doesn't help that M. Night Sha Na Na automatically spells box office poison nowadays. His name is buried deep in the credits of the movie poster for crying out loud!

 

[jvcarroll]

I feel bad saying this being such a big nostalgia fan but yeah, when I heard about a Lone Ranger movie my first thought was, "Who was asking for this?" Lol.

And I laughed out loud when they said "From the people who brought you Pirates of the Caribbean" and you see Johnny Depp looking pretty much like Jack Sparrow with a slightly different hair piece, lol. Can you say desperate?

I have respect for Depp, but it seems he openly decided to cash-in since the success of the first Pirates movie and I don't blame him. Reportedly, he's going to retire soon. Then the movie studios will search for the "next Johnny Depp."

I don't blame Hollywood for this. The blame must be placed with audiences. The absolute best film this summer is Pacific Rim. Who knew? It has monsters, it has robots, it has a wonderful director, it cost $190 million dollars and it's actually good! I mean that. You'd think they had checked off all the boxes, but one remains. It has no bankable, A-list, American movie stars. That's not to say it doesn't have talent. Everyone does a great job. Overseas markets account for over 71% of the ticket sales. They loved this film. Americans have only contributed $100 million of the $345 million gross. That's because there's no action star or Twilight heartthrob and that's shameful. The sequel will likely remedy that "missing" component. The American market wants recognizable brands. That translates into remakes and/or celebrities. In other words, the state of movies is our fault.

 

[Drtooth]

I feel bad saying this being such a big nostalgia fan but yeah, when I heard about a Lone Ranger movie my first thought was, "Who was asking for this?" Lol.

And I laughed out loud when they said "From the people who brought you Pirates of the Caribbean" and you see Johnny Depp looking pretty much like Jack Sparrow with a slightly different hair piece, lol. Can you say desperate?

I'll give it this. As far as the two directors who use Johnny the most, at least Johnny has fun in the Virbinsky films where as in Tim Burton films, he's a depressed zombie in both meanings of the word. And like I said, I don't see this as being the star derailing role. it wasn't the first TV show adaption he starred in that didn't do well. And it seems that people that actually saw Lone Ranger actually liked it. I guess Green Hornet left a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

But man... Disney was SO trying to make this a stand up franchise. So much so that they even had Lone Ranger and Tonto in the first line up of collectible figures in the Disney Infinity video game toy thingy. Not even the more OBVIOUS choice of Ralph and Vanellope (they're coming later). They even had a commercial where an animated Jack Sparrow and Tonto traded dirty looks at each other.

I don't blame Hollywood for this. The blame must be placed with audiences. The absolute best film this summer is Pacific Rim. Who knew? It has monsters, it has robots, it has a wonderful director, it cost $190 million dollars and it's actually good! I mean that. You'd think they had checked off all the boxes, but one remains. It has no bankable, A-list, American movie stars. That's not to say it doesn't have talent. Everyone does a great job. Overseas markets account for over 71% of the ticket sales. They loved this film. Americans have only contributed $100 million of the $345 million gross. That's because there's no action star or Twilight heartthrob and that's shameful. The sequel will likely remedy that "missing" component. The American market wants recognizable brands. That translates into remakes and/or celebrities. In other words, the state of movies is our fault.

Like I said. Pacific Rim was a niche picture that, as awesome as it was, just didn't reach a mainstream audience. It had a loyal base of anime and tokusatsu fans, but not a solid mainstream audience. It didn't do well because it came out opposite the banal Grown Ups 2. International audiences are liking this film because they see the magical Japanese monster movie/animated series/sentai Rangers influence. Kinda helps internationally that they get a lot more of that stuff than we do. Heck... the director took a picture holding Madoka Magica DVD's. The film deserves a lot more respect than it got. it's going to be a cult hit. But like Scott Pilgrim before it (which was purposely made niche and the marketing was underground), it doesn't matter because the first run's the important one.

 

[charlietheowl]

I saw Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine today. Good movie, and I'm calling it now: Cate Blanchett is going to get an Oscar nomination for Best Actress for her role as Jasmine.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'll give it this. As far as the two directors who use Johnny the most, at least Johnny has fun in the Virbinsky films where as in Tim Burton films, he's a depressed zombie in both meanings of the word. And like I said, I don't see this as being the star derailing role. it wasn't the first TV show adaption he starred in that didn't do well. And it seems that people that actually saw Lone Ranger actually liked it. I guess Green Hornet left a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

But man... Disney was SO trying to make this a stand up franchise. So much so that they even had Lone Ranger and Tonto in the first line up of collectible figures in the Disney Infinity video game toy thingy. Not even the more OBVIOUS choice of Ralph and Vanellope (they're coming later). They even had a commercial where an animated Jack Sparrow and Tonto traded dirty looks at each other.



Like I said. Pacific Rim was a niche picture that, as awesome as it was, just didn't reach a mainstream audience. It had a loyal base of anime and tokusatsu fans, but not a solid mainstream audience. It didn't do well because it came out opposite the banal Grown Ups 2. International audiences are liking this film because they see the magical Japanese monster movie/animated series/sentai Rangers influence. Kinda helps internationally that they get a lot more of that stuff than we do. Heck... the director took a picture holding Madoka Magica DVD's. The film deserves a lot more respect than it got. it's going to be a cult hit. But like Scott Pilgrim before it (which was purposely made niche and the marketing was underground), it doesn't matter because the first run's the important one.

I disagree that Pacific Rim's tepid (certainly not niche) box office had anything to do with an Adam Sandler film. I also disagree that it didn't do well. It's doing extremely well overseas.

I stand by the fact that it had no bankable American star or top 40's pop song tie-in. That's why it didn't soar at the top of the US box office. Those are two things that will likely be remedied in an inevitable follow-up. I'd roll my eyes at that, but Guillermo del Toro could make that tastefully work.

The point I'm making is that we're no longer the real benchmark for film success. We are now merely one component in it.

 

[Drtooth]

I liked that it wasn't trying to be the greatest superhero movie of all time. I consider this the third good X-Men movie along side the first two.

I just saw Wolverine today, and I agree completely. The fact it was low key and felt like a normal comic arc made the film a refreshing surprise and a nice change of pace from MOS and Iron Man. Liked those two a little better, but it didn't feel the need to blow everything away and make a huge scene of (frankly, necessary to translating the comic world to the big screen) special effects. Though, I will say this... the amount of violence in the film was inconsistent. They had discretion shots at the beginning of the soldiers committing seppuku (or however that's Romanized), followed by Wolverine's burning flesh.

But overall, a surprisingly strong film. I didn't bother with the first Wolverine movie, hearing how bad it was... not to mention the executive meddling that brought Deadpool down (long story short, they wanted him to upstage Wolverine, and then they didn't). But this has to be a full on improvement. Definitely another very good summer film.

Funny thing. When I came home from the theater, I was greeted by X-2 playing on local television. Unfortunately, I tuned halfway in and didn't bother. I HATE watching half a movie on TV.

It's a common mistake in Hollywood to think audiences only loved one character when really what audiences loved was how all the characters related to each other.

Hollywood nothing. Marvel was doing this with Wolverine for some time before the films were even a twinkle in anyone's eye. Especially during the 90's.

What? You never heard of Wolverine Publicity?

But then again, the first Wolverine movie didn't exactly have him on his own... they had a watered down Deadpool (that Ryan Reynolds was unhappy with and he's desperately trying to get a Deadpool stand alone film) and Gambit. THIS was a stand alone picture.

 

[jvcarroll]

I just saw Wolverine today, and I agree completely. The fact it was low key and felt like a normal comic arc made the film a refreshing surprise and a nice change of pace from MOS and Iron Man. Liked those two a little better, but it didn't feel the need to blow everything away and make a huge scene of (frankly, necessary to translating the comic world to the big screen) special effects. Though, I will say this... the amount of violence in the film was inconsistent. They had discretion shots at the beginning of the soldiers committing seppuku (or however that's Romanized), followed by Wolverine's burning flesh.

But overall, a surprisingly strong film. I didn't bother with the first Wolverine movie, hearing how bad it was... not to mention the executive meddling that brought Deadpool down (long story short, they wanted him to upstage Wolverine, and then they didn't). But this has to be a full on improvement. Definitely another very good summer film.

Funny thing. When I came home from the theater, I was greeted by X-2 playing on local television. Unfortunately, I tuned halfway in and didn't bother. I HATE watching half a movie on TV.



Hollywood nothing. Marvel was doing this with Wolverine for some time before the films were even a twinkle in anyone's eye. Especially during the 90's.

What? You never heard of Wolverine Publicity?

But then again, the first Wolverine movie didn't exactly have him on his own... they had a watered down Deadpool (that Ryan Reynolds was unhappy with and he's desperately trying to get a Deadpool stand alone film) and Gambit. THIS was a stand alone picture.

I wish more comic book films would be like The Wolverine. I still don't know why it was budgeted at $120 million. It could have been made for less. It's a solid, noble entry that the character deserved.

 

[Drtooth]

I don't buy that he can't hold down a movie by himself. He sure can hold down a good movie by himself. Besides, he held his own comic book by himself for quite some time.

BTW, not to bring this back to the Orson Scott Card discussion... but seeing the trailer again, it looks dull and forgettable. And that's not a passive aggressive stab at the author... it just looks like the same Human Instruments/Twilight/Percy Jackson low budget crap. The effects shown in the movie aren't even all that impressive. Just the prerequisite spaceships, lasers, and planets. But that blue filter they forced the whole film through makes it look even cheaper. Even if the guy who wrote this wasn't the things we already said about him, that movie just looks forgettable all over. Again... not passive aggressive.