Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Drtooth]

There's no doubt that's being homaged here. It seems like something with a darker reality as the subcontext. It looks pretty good, but I don't know if I'd see it.

I have to admit. While I would not go see Cinderella, I was initially disappointed that it was essentially, but not quite a live action version of the Disney version. Then again, you have to give them props for not going Maleficent and making it darker and edgier, or Alice in Wonderland and making it fangirlier. Unfortunately, no heals nor toes will be cut off this day. Betya they did the same with Into the Woods where that was actually an entire song. Okay, a short song, but a song none the less.

Only thing that annoys me is that two movies I'd love to check out come out the same day. Home and Get Hard. I'm loving how Home has an African American little girl as the main non-alien character. All this talk about ethnic princesses from Disney, we seem to forget that representation can come from other sources. From the clips I've seen, Rhianna isn't doing a bad job as that character.

EDIT:

WOW. You wanna know how bad the Mortdicai movie must've been? Here's the TVTropes entry for the page...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Mortdecai

It doesn't even have an entry. It's a link that takes you to the Trivia page that only says it's a Box Office Bomb. No one even bothered to drop 10 bucks to even salvage it on TVT... it's not even in the So Bad It's Horrible, yet. If it wasn't for the large billboards pasted outside the large Art of Shaving store at the Mall I go to, I would have forgotten about it.

 

[jvcarroll]

There's no doubt that's being homaged here. It seems like something with a darker reality as the subcontext. It looks pretty good, but I don't know if I'd see it.

I have to admit. While I would not go see Cinderella, I was initially disappointed that it was essentially, but not quite a live action version of the Disney version. Then again, you have to give them props for not going Maleficent and making it darker and edgier, or Alice in Wonderland and making it fangirlier. Unfortunately, no heals nor toes will be cut off this day. Betya they did the same with Into the Woods where that was actually an entire song. Okay, a short song, but a song none the less.

Only thing that annoys me is that two movies I'd love to check out come out the same day. Home and Get Hard. I'm loving how Home has an African American little girl as the main non-alien character. All this talk about ethnic princesses from Disney, we seem to forget that representation can come from other sources. From the clips I've seen, Rhianna isn't doing a bad job as that character.

I loved Maleficent. She's already a pretty dark and vicious character. The filmmakers didn't really go "darker" and "edgier" in the latest picture. If anything, they took a much more thoughtful and nuanced route. They transformed the story into one of empathy, forgiveness and redemption. I think some fans wanted dark and edgy and complained when they didn't get it.

Fans who wanted some sort of two-dimensional, mustache-twirling sort of villain should go see Charlize Theron's brilliant portrayal of the Evil Queen in Snow White and the Huntsman. She was one of the only good parts of that film. But they did something different, more thoughtful and far more beautiful with Maleficent. Not all of it worked, but enough did. The point of conflict was a metaphor for more mature subject matter. Edgy and dark? Really? Not so much. Why must everything nuanced be boxed into such simplistic categories?

 

[Drtooth]

My point is, Cinderella took a different route. While I'm not interested, I'd hate to see them make it darker for all the wrong reasons. Like that horrible Snow White movie and that horrible Little Red Riding Hood film which looked almost as bad as the horrid Israeli Little Red Riding Hood film that This TV used to show a lot. Man, those things were bad. Just horribly bad. While I still have no desire to see Maleficent at all, it should in no way be lumped in with the horrible films that tried to be gritty, edgy, and dark for the wrong reasons. Classic Fairy Tales are quite dark, and Disney cleaned them up a little with their animated versions. And quite honestly, they did that the right way to make sure the films were pleasing, and not alienating. Who would have wanted to see cute and quirky Ariel turn into lifeless sea foam at the end? Bambi's mom dying nothing. THAT would have been tragic.

However. Maleficent was darker and Edgier to an extent. Comparatively of the film it was based off of, which in turn was slightly darker than some of the other Disney movies made prior. That said, other than stylistically, it's one of my least favorite of the bunch. Then again, I prefer Disney's non-Princess films (Pinocchio, Jungle Book, the original animated good 101 Dalmatians). As for Maleficent I'd say that the consensus is that they at least did that right compared to those terrible other examples. Cinderella could have gone on a comparatively bleak note, but they didn't. At least it doesn't look like the cheesefest Live action 101 Dalmatians turned into (and not the good kinda cheesefest, though Glenn Close did a good job with the awful script) or the beyond horrible and overrated sequel that one spawned. I'd say Disney's getting better at these live action adaptions of their specific animated versions of fairy tales at least.

Personally, I find the whole Princess thing overrated anyway. Gimme more Big Hero 6, Wreck-it Ralph, and Lilo and Stitch any day.

 

[jvcarroll]

My point is, Cinderella took a different route. While I'm not interested, I'd hate to see them make it darker for all the wrong reasons. Like that horrible Snow White movie and that horrible Little Red Riding Hood film which looked almost as bad as the horrid Israeli Little Red Riding Hood film that This TV used to show a lot. Man, those things were bad. Just horribly bad. While I still have no desire to see Maleficent at all, it should in no way be lumped in with the horrible films that tried to be gritty, edgy, and dark for the wrong reasons. Classic Fairy Tales are quite dark, and Disney cleaned them up a little with their animated versions. And quite honestly, they did that the right way to make sure the films were pleasing, and not alienating. Who would have wanted to see cute and quirky Ariel turn into lifeless sea foam at the end? Bambi's mom dying nothing. THAT would have been tragic.

However. Maleficent was darker and Edgier to an extent. Comparatively of the film it was based off of, which in turn was slightly darker than some of the other Disney movies made prior. That said, other than stylistically, it's one of my least favorite of the bunch. Then again, I prefer Disney's non-Princess films (Pinocchio, Jungle Book, the original animated good 101 Dalmatians). As for Maleficent I'd say that the consensus is that they at least did that right compared to those terrible other examples. Cinderella could have gone on a comparatively bleak note, but they didn't. At least it doesn't look like the cheesefest Live action 101 Dalmatians turned into (and not the good kinda cheesefest, though Glenn Close did a good job with the awful script) or the beyond horrible and overrated sequel that one spawned. I'd say Disney's getting better at these live action adaptions of their specific animated versions of fairy tales at least.

Personally, I find the whole Princess thing overrated anyway. Gimme more Big Hero 6, Wreck-it Ralph, and Lilo and Stitch any day.

Actually, you can't claim anything about a movie you haven't seen. Well, I guess you can, but it has no merit.

 

[Drtooth]

I've seen enough of it to know it's slightly less colorful and cartoony than a colorful cartoon.

The word is "competitively." As in MTM is edgier and grittier comparatively to GMC.

Still, I have no desire for that sort of film. I keep hearing how not bad it really is and I can respect that. I just don't care to see the thing. Sleeping Beauty was never a favorite of mine, Maleficent was hardly my favorite villain.

Be cool if they made an Ursula movie though. THAT I'd see.

 

[jvcarroll]

I've seen enough of it to know it's slightly less colorful and cartoony than a colorful cartoon.

The word is "competitively." As in MTM is edgier and grittier comparatively to GMC.

Still, I have no desire for that sort of film. I keep hearing how not bad it really is and I can respect that. I just don't care to see the thing. Sleeping Beauty was never a favorite of mine, Maleficent was hardly my favorite villain.

Be cool if they made an Ursula movie though. THAT I'd see.

I don't respect the idea that a mere perception or the opinion of others is something that can shape a personal opinion with any legitimacy. Such commentary is completely meaningless. At least, it is to me. Such inane labels and sweeping assumptions are as ill-fitting as a Christmas sweater. One of those that lights up and blinks.

 

[Drtooth]

It's a crappy term, yeah. I can't think of a fitting one that won't get locked into a semantics battle. More adult? Slightly less happy? Emo/Goth fangirl looking?

That said, know what agrees with me on that? TVTropes To wit:

Darker and Edgier: Compared to the original 1959 animated film. The scene where Maleficent gets her wings cut off is very unsettling to say the least, along with her discovering what happened to them when she wakes up. Prior to that, the war scene between King Henry and Maleficent's tree/goblin army is quite ferocious.

Key Quote?

Compared to the original 1959 animated film.

The term is overused, I agree. But to always lump it in with something bad is ridiculous. Saying it's darker than a movie from the 1950's isn't by any means a condemnation nor a condensation of what the film was.

My point is, Cinderella is going its own way and not trying to ape what they did here (or the worse films where the term is used in the more negative connotation), or what Tim Burton did to Alice in Wonderland (making a steaming pile of fan girly junk that did nothing but further the lame gothiness now forever attached to Alice). And what's wrong with that? It makes both films unique. They know what they're doing with both of them (Alice much less so...much less so... I hope Bobin does a better job).

 

[jvcarroll]

It's a crappy term, yeah. I can't think of a fitting one that won't get locked into a semantics battle. More adult? Slightly less happy? Emo/Goth fangirl looking?

That said, know what agrees with me on that? TVTropes To wit:



Key Quote?



The term is overused, I agree. But to always lump it in with something bad is ridiculous. Saying it's darker than a movie from the 1950's isn't by any means a condemnation nor a condensation of what the film was.

My point is, Cinderella is going its own way and not trying to ape what they did here (or the worse films where the term is used in the more negative connotation), or what Tim Burton did to Alice in Wonderland (making a steaming pile of fan girly junk that did nothing but further the lame gothiness now forever attached to Alice). And what's wrong with that? It makes both films unique. They know what they're doing with both of them (Alice much less so...much less so... I hope Bobin does a better job).

Let it go. It's alright. I'm just not a fan of the dismissive terminology and putting things in ill-fitting boxes - particularly when one HASN'T SEEN a film. Pointing to another source to compensate for ignorance on a particular topic is weak and virtually useless. The point is that many auds and critics wanted something they could easily categorize and Maleficent delivered something more nuanced. Comments like yours just highlight why we can't have nice things. LOL!

 

[mimitchi33]

Spongebob has been owning that 3rd spot for a while. Glad to see it not slipping off the top 3 this late in the game, as low as this week was. It would be great if Fifty Shades fell off the map, though. But the damage is already done. I'm loving the fact that movie goers that were suckered into seeing it actually say it's worse than the book. Okay, not as good as the book. But what do you expect with an R rating?

I'm surprised SpongeBob is this successful. Why? According to reviews I've read,
(SPOILER: don't read ahead if you haven't seen Sponge Out Of Water)
Only the last 20 minutes of the film are CGI. Maybe we will see a re-birth in successful traditionally animated films after this, and it may cause Disney to retool Moana from Paperman-style to traditional animation, the opposite of what happened to Tangled and Frozen (they wrre going to be traditionally animated but changed to CGI). Other studios may also want to cash in and try to make 2D films again after SpongeBob's success. There's also an upcoming Japanese import franchise, Yo-Kai Watch, that like most anime, isn't in CGI (save for the first two ending dances, the current idol song ending is in 2D), and it has a movie which may come to the US. Does anyone else agree with me?
(Spoilers for Sponge Out Of Water end here).
I believe that Cinderella will not be as violent as Maleficent, and will top the box office, what not with the 7-minute Frozen Fever short played before it. On a recent visit to Toys R Us, they only had three Frozen Fever dolls left, and hoardes of Snow Glow Elsas. The Disney Store dolls have also sold out and are now $49.99 via resellers such as eBay.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm surprised SpongeBob is this successful. Why? According to reviews I've read,
(SPOILER: don't read ahead if you haven't seen Sponge Out Of Water)
Only the last 20 minutes of the film are CGI. Maybe we will see a re-birth in successful traditionally animated films after this, and it may cause Disney to retool Moana from Paperman-style to traditional animation, the opposite of what happened to Tangled and Frozen (they wrre going to be traditionally animated but changed to CGI). Other studios may also want to cash in and try to make 2D films again after SpongeBob's success.

Spongebob was not a surprising success, as it's been the most popular cartoon series of the past decade and a half. Somehow, you'd think that being on Nick enough times a day to not have to sink a family's worth of movie tickets would have hampered it, but happily it didn't. Timing was also key for the film to really get successful, as a summer release would bury it under Age of Ultron, Inside Out, and those big budget movies. This was the only family movie released since Paddington (which was all but disappearing from theaters at that point), and it was just before a regional break. Didn't quite make what Lego made last year, but it was still a not too surprising win for the franchise. What also shouldn't be surprising is how Spongebob movie merchandise is flying off of shelves, but the surprising thing is that regular Spongebob stuff, while it's not exactly peg warming, isn't selling quite as fast.

As far as the film itself goes, while the trailers do indeed insinuate that the CGI/Live action segments make up more movie than they really do, Not only do I not see that as a problem, I see it as a plus. 2-D animation looks beautiful in 3-D. It's a shame that the only other times that's been tapped were Disney's rereleases of Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. But I love how as much as the trailers kinda spoil the end of the film, they still hide the fact it's a nice character piece about Spongebob and Plankton. I caught the original movie on Nick a week after I saw the new one, and it's a brilliant, yet unintentional companion piece to the original film. Why? (spoilers)
.
.
.
.
.
..


The first film was all about horrible things Plankton did to try and get the Krabby Patty formula, while this movie was all about Plankton's redemption. But not too redeemed because everything has to go back to normal, right?
.
.
.
.
..


I don't think if the film was all super hero parody it could have achieved any of that. They kept that part as a small section of the movie, letting the relationship between Spongebob and Plankton to be explored.

It would be great if this could be seen as reinvigorating traditional animation as film, or it can be seen as Spongebob being that popular that he can carry two movies.

Just kinda wish there was a Sanjay and Craig short before the film.

As for Frozen Fever, that's the way to do it. Keep the characters through a series of shorts and specials without having to do a second film. That's what they were doing with Toy Story before they said "yeah, we'll blow it and make a fourth one." And I think that was a better venue. And it's not like they can't still sell toys based on the characters. Only time there wasn't merchandise of a Toy Story Short was Small Fry... which sucks because I totally want "Eagle in a car made out of the Declaration of Independence." But yeah. Even Combat Carl and Pez Cat got toys... too bad they're just TRU exclusives. Need to get that Pez Cat though.

I hope that this leads the way to Big Hero shorts as well. There's an intention to want to make a sequel, but the film makers want to have a compelling story to do so.