Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Drtooth]

The real problem is this...

You know why Transformers, G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, and Littlest Pet Shop are the companies 4 main go-to franchises? Because they're Evergreen and always in production. Well, almost always. There are short lulls, sure. They did revamp lines to varying degrees of success, but they were more or less always around. Problem is, Jem is so essentially 1980's there's no way it could exist in it's original form and not be some sort of parody. I'm not sure that would be that much better, as it'll just be like Scooby-Doo and rehash obvious jokes and "drunken college kid" headcanon. I'm sure they'd get Kriistin Wiig to play Jem in that case. Eew... I'm almost glad that wasn't made. Not only that, but... well... the cartoon was much more successful than the toy line. Which isn't exactly terrible, but when you have a cartoon produced by a toy company, you know where the priorities lie. So yeah. While Transformers and G.I. Joe managed to survive small lulls in sales, Jem just was left in the 1980's where it technically belongs.

Not saying that it's a reason to throw the concept out. I could easily see a late 1990's that was some bad allegory for the Spice Girls (but who would want to see that?!) or some early 00's Britney Spears deal (also... bleeeccch). I'm almost wondering why we didn't see those awful concepts. To be honest, the Movie's like about 50/50 what I'd expect to see a '10's update would be. Just not something devoid of Synergy and the Misfits. They certainly could have worked those in and kept the Magic Girl-ish concepts without making them too cartoonish. I'd rather see that as a TV show than a movie... then there's the whole loss of The Hub thing that's going to prevent Hasbro from having control over their own cartoons, so I guess film was the reach around.

So...

Cliche and contrived. Their new personalities liberated them in the cartoon. Nowadays, everyone has to mope and whine about how miserable their First World life is. Ugh, you know, now I'm definitely not seeing this movie, lol.

I'd agree with you there, had it not be a real thing that really happens in the recording industry. Sad fact is, that sort of marketing that looks "cliche" in a band flick is rooted in horrible, horrible truth. Like Lady Gaga. She is a natural for doing great, classic jazz standards. Do we know her for doing that? Of course not. We know her for the spectacle and the pop numbers that every radio station has to play now. Many Hip Hop artists are carefully created by old white guys to sell generic factory made personalities and factory written "Shake your [idiotic euphemism for butt], Garl" pieces. This was probably done better in Josie and the Pussycats, though. Surprised they managed to get an allegory of "new artists are essentially slaves" in the first Chipmunks movie.

Not saying they had to put it here, though.

You know, I think I'm over thinking it. I'm starting to think that, while the 9-13 year old girls they're going for may not imaginative or sophisticated or open to anything fantastic or unrealistic (and this was the driving factor in that from 2005 to when Adventure Time was created era when horrible tweencoms were being produced over animation that I've been angry about), I'd say the huge thing behind removing fantasy elements? Budget. No doubt Hasbro wants a cheaper, throwaway movie they know isn't going to make much money that will do well on the merits of a low as heck budget. Look at their "why did this need to be made" Ouijia movie. They made the film for 5 Million. That's like 3 seconds worth of rendering CGI Optimus Prime's arms. The Ouijia film made over 70 million on that investment, so... yeah... low budget can make decent amounts of money and be more successful than a high budget project with a so-so yield.

And yes, I'm aware that this is all very cynical... but we are talking about a toy company in the entertainment industry. That's essentially the most cynic you can get. Doesn't matter how good their cartoons are. Eh, of course, those cartoons were (for the most part) good. It's not like any of their movies have been well received, no matter how close to the source material they are.

 

[mr3urious]

I'd say the huge thing behind removing fantasy elements? Budget. No doubt Hasbro wants a cheaper, throwaway movie they know isn't going to make much money that will do well on the merits of a low as heck budget. Look at their "why did this need to be made" Ouijia movie. They made the film for 5 Million. That's like 3 seconds worth of rendering CGI Optimus Prime's arms. The Ouijia film made over 70 million on that investment, so... yeah... low budget can make decent amounts of money and be more successful than a high budget project with a so-so yield.

But the Transformers and G.I. Joe movies made a ton of money either way.

 

[Drtooth]

Yeah, but Transformers and G.I. Joe have broader appeal. They're free to be big budget blockbusters because they're successful. Had the first TF movie bombed, things would be different. They'd probably try again with a different team. Probably just move back to just television animation if it really was bad. As long as the toys still sell, the lines are safe. Oddly enough Battleship did well outside of the US due to lack of international brand recognition. Maybe because it just translates into "generic alien action movie" and not "completely stupid concept of a generic alien action movie slapped onto a board game that doesn't feature aliens."

Now, think about a movie based on a 30 year old dormant property that wasn't really as successful as nostalgia suggests. I don't think they're going to give it that big budget blitz that G.I. Joe and Transformers essentially couldn't exist without. Something tells me the gamble of this movie is only as strong as their desire to have a non-Pony based girl's toy line. Which does bring up the question, exactly who is this movie for? Definitely not for the nostalgic fanbase who would rather a straight up adaption. All they're good for is buying DVD's and if a collector's line comes out of this. The older edge of the 9-14 crowd won't be caught dead buying dolls. It's intended for 9 and 10 year olds that are the special kind of too "grown up" for fantasy yet somehow still manage to buy toys meant for little girls. A thin as heck and fleeting demo, that's for sure. So to me, the budget is a Mia Culpa of realizing there's not even a huge market for the toyline that would be worth the gamble of a movie made for tweens and teens that are too good for fantasy sequences, so they have to make the film low budget to be successful. In otherwords, make a movie to sell a toyline that won't produce toys to the intended audience because they're not fanciful because the intended audience doesn't like fantasy, so the fantasy elements have to be removed to make the film low budget because the audience that would buy the toys is too small." Or, a snake eating its own tail.

But the take home I get from this is:

A) This movie is made by a toy company, but more importantly

B) this movie is made by a toy company that once gave us...THIS!!!

Yeah... suddenly turning Jem into Hanna Montana looks a whole lot less embarrassing.

 

[mr3urious]

Anyone else find it a bit unfair that some mission pack sequel of a musical comedy that didn't do very well before beat out a well-meaning new entry in a beloved post-apocalyptic action series?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2015&wknd=20&p=.htm

 

[Drtooth]

The fact that Ultron went that far down the line as a result is even moreso. Even though Avengers 2 has made over a Billion bucks by now, and is probably going to make around as much as the original did internationally, it seems a bit unfair for that to be that far behind a low budget musical comedy sequel who's original was cult at best.

Really seems that Mad Max might be an unfair victim of poor marketing and being thought as a remake instead of the sequel it really is. The film is supposedly quite good, and I'm seriously considering seeing that instead of checking out Tomorrowland. Hey, I can't afford to see every movie ever.

 

[Drtooth]

Seems Ultron isn't too far from the original's grand total. It's about at 1.3 billion right now. It doesn't have much further to go. It may just wind up tying or falling just short of the original in terms of overall international box office.

In other news, "actor" Mathew McConaughey says he's open to appearing in a Super Hero based movie. Open letter to Disney/Marvel... DON'T YOU DARE DO IT!!!! Put him in Fantastic 4 2... put him in Sinister Six,. Just PLEASE don't ruin the MCU with that hack.

 

[Drtooth]

Just saw Mad Max yesterday. Now, not seeing the original films and knowing them only through parody and reference, I still managed to quite enjoy the movie on it's own. Shame that even though the reviews are glowing, film goers would rather see Pitch Perfect 2. But luckily, Mad Max does have a sequel anyway planned as well as (get this) an anime series. Of course, I just can't help but think that a post Apocalyptic story like that was already a beloved series in Japan...

(and yes, don't think for a second that song wasn't going through my mind the entire film).

Of course, having to sit through that awful trailer to San Andreas, I have to admit one thing. I'm looking at this film and wondering where the heck Godzilla, Megatron, a Jaeger or even a Titan was. Never liked those cliche ridden disaster films, even when they were good. Well... Jaws, maybe. Airplane doesn't count. But yeah... when you see cities destroyed by Superman, Ultron, Decepticons, the Hulk, Kaiju... all with better stories and plotlines (yes... even Transformers), an unnatural natural disaster just seems anti-climactic and goofy. I kid you not, I saw the Golden Gate Bridge get destroyed in this trailer and the following Terminator Genysysysysys trailer, and felt the Terminator one more realistic and serious. Now, I'm wondering if part of the reason Mad Max isn't finding it's audience is because water rationing California doesn't want to sit through a movie essentially about water rationing (which just comes off as spooky). I seriously doubt a movie about a world destroying Earthquake the likes only seen in a Super Sayian battle would come off as anything but frighteningly prophetical.

 

[mr3urious]

Mad Max: Fury Road seems to be both a sequel and a reboot at the same time, following the story of the first three with a new actor in place. In this case, it's a better compromise than a hard reboot.

Of course, having to sit through that awful trailer to San Andreas, I have to admit one thing. I'm looking at this film and wondering where the heck Godzilla, Megatron, a Jaeger or even a Titan was. Never liked those cliche ridden disaster films, even when they were good. Well... Jaws, maybe. Airplane doesn't count. But yeah... when you see cities destroyed by Superman, Ultron, Decepticons, the Hulk, Kaiju... all with better stories and plotlines (yes... even Transformers), an unnatural natural disaster just seems anti-climactic and goofy.

I'm surprised Roland Emmerich wasn't behind that meh-fest, but rather the guy who directed the DTV sequel to guilty pleasure Cats & Dogs. That's a good sign right there.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm surprised Roland Emmerich wasn't behind that meh-fest, but rather the guy who directed the DTV sequel to guilty pleasure Cats & Dogs. That's a good sign right there.

I honestly could make all the jokes about Megatron or Galvatron or Unicron not being in that film, but honestly? The trailer plays almost exactly like Age of Extinction's first trailer, right down to the faux-heartwarming bit with the family before things go to heck. Supposedly The Rock was almost Mark Walberg's role in that film, so that kinda hammers it home.

But I know how this is going to go. If I say "Gawd, I hope this thing bombs" it will be a success.

 

[Drtooth]

So Disney's not going to do Tron 3 because Tomorrowland didn't hit audiences as hard as they wanted it to. Never mind the fact that while Age of Ultron got a nice berth of weak comedy movies it's first 2 weeks while Tomorrowland had fierce competition from several big films being around in theaters (Ultron being one of them). Or the fact that it seems to be a very alienating premise and the script is supposedly not as good as the effects. Or the fact that the only time they made a movie out of a ride that was successful they had something much broader in concept and appeal (and no, it wasn't The Country Bears or Haunted House). I had a feeling the kid's show would be more popular. Still, killing off a sequel of a remake that actually made money of a 30 year old flop famous for being a flop as a result? Not fair to the Tron fans, especially after their cartoon was pulled for being on a channel half of no one gets that didn't generate merchandising.