Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[jvcarroll]

Several things...

Not too dark? They put Gremlins in freaking microwaves in the first one. pretty dark already, if you ask me. There's no way they'd make this an R rated movie, nor would Nolan even be near something like this. Personally, I'd tend to think the worst thing they could do would make it too light. I like the second one and all, but it was just a meta parody of the first one. Could you imagine if this one was a parody of the second one?

But I agree with Slackbot. There's nothing wrong with CGI if they do it right. I'd prefer to see a mix of CGI and puppetry. That is, puppetry for the main Gremlins, CGI for crowd scenes and extras.

And lastly, this seems only slightly likely. For every remake/reboot/delayed sequel they threaten, only about half of them even get made.

Exactly. A Gremlins re-imagining should be dark, funny and PG-13. After all, the original helped create the rating in the first place.

I must admit to not being a fan of what they did with the initial follow-up. They took a creepy genre picture and turned it into a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Normally I would have liked that, but in this case I felt it cheapened the original. The first one was both funny and terrifying. I'd want a new one to have that too!

I don't understand why so many moviegoers have this all-or-nothing mentality when it comes to effects. I think a hybrid of practical puppets and CG effects would be the ideal approach. No matter how much technology advances, there will be circumstances that cannot replace the presence of an actual physical effect.

The thing that makes Gremlins ripe for another film is that it wouldn't need to be a follow-up or a reboot. It could just be a different story with a different mogwai in a different place.

 

[Drtooth]

The second one is a perfect example why it's so impossible to make something camp on purpose. Gremlins walked a fine line between a serious kid friendly horror flick (kid friendlyier than most, anyway) and nod to campy B-movies.

The second one was a Mad Magazine parody of the first film to the extent that the actual Mad Magazine parody of Gremlins 2 was actually less funny and madcapped than the actual film.

A third one in the style of the first one could work, but you know nostalgia freaks will find something to pick apart in it, while ignoring how much they hated the second one. happens all the time.

On a different note, looks like Disney is overreacting to Lone Ranger flopping. Disney knows full right that they don't have luck with big budget, live action franchise films. Except for the POTC franchise and the 2 National Treasure films. Disney is taking this like one of those incompetent cartoon villains that blames its underlings for their failure while praising anything their underlings do right as their own idea. AOSTH Dr. Robotinik for example. They had the right idea when they put the film on hiatus cancel after Cowboys and Aliens failed to catch an audience. The fault really should lie on the fact that no one cares about a concept that dates back to radio and that hasn't been relevant since the 60's.

 

[jvcarroll]

The second one is a perfect example why it's so impossible to make something camp on purpose. Gremlins walked a fine line between a serious kid friendly horror flick (kid friendlyier than most, anyway) and nod to campy B-movies.

The second one was a Mad Magazine parody of the first film to the extent that the actual Mad Magazine parody of Gremlins 2 was actually less funny and madcapped than the actual film.

A third one in the style of the first one could work, but you know nostalgia freaks will find something to pick apart in it, while ignoring how much they hated the second one. happens all the time.

On a different note, looks like Disney is overreacting to Lone Ranger flopping. Disney knows full right that they don't have luck with big budget, live action franchise films. Except for the POTC franchise and the 2 National Treasure films. Disney is taking this like one of those incompetent cartoon villains that blames its underlings for their failure while praising anything their underlings do right as their own idea. AOSTH Dr. Robotinik for example. They had the right idea when they put the film on hiatus cancel after Cowboys and Aliens failed to catch an audience. The fault really should lie on the fact that no one cares about a concept that dates back to radio and that hasn't been relevant since the 60's.

That is spot-on analysis of Gremlins 2. I did like it as a slapstick creature film, but I didn't like it for Gremlins.

I'm kind of glad Disney is allowing Bruckheimer's deal to lapse. They've got Pirates 5 in the works, but I guess they're not interested in another Lone Ranger, National Treasure, Sorcerer's Apprentice or Armageddon. It's time. Disney has enough on their horizon with yearly Star Wars pictures, bi-yearly Marvel films the Mad Hatter movie and whatever the heck is going on at Pixar. The Muppets too, of course. I guess dumping more energy and money into Bruckheimer and Pirates doesn't seem worth the gamble at this point.

 

[Drtooth]

Pirates was Both Trilogy Creep and Two Part Trilogy when it came to 2 and 3. A fourth one wasn't necessary, but it made its money. 5 and 6 would only be a good gamble because the first four made a crapload of money.

Lone Ranger was Disney's own fault. They greenlit a franchise that just doesn't resonate with anyone under the age of 50. And only pop culture nerds would bother watching the source material. Something black and white and older than 80's sitcoms (and even then, for the camp ironic value). They even tried getting kids involved (they're one of the lead sets for Disney Infinity), and yeah... they wouldn't get it either.

Then there are the easily offended types that got super ultra upset about Johnny Depp playing a Native American in an "insensitive" way when the original concept was barely fair for it's day insensitive. A nitpick that's just as idiotic as the whining about the sequence of the blonde doctor chick in Star Trek... a series based on the main character seducing anything that moved. Oh my Glob. Imagine if they made an I Dream of Jeannie movie and people would whine about how sexually exploitative it was?

Anyway, I do agree this is the right move. Disney need not bother with live action franchises other than Marvel and Star Wars. I mean, even if the Star Wars movies are freaking unimaginably horrible, Star Wars fans will still see each fifty times just to pick it apart. Still... I look at the concept of Maleficent and just have to roll my eyes. It could be good, but I just see either overly dramatic (read Narmtastic) "Once Upon A Time" or some gooey self parody piece.

Plus, I'm annoyed that The Good Dinosaur is on hiatus for a year, making it the first since 2005 without a Pixar film. To top it off, it was going to have a Monsters University short.

 

[Drtooth]

Three things...

First off, I finally got the chance to see The World's End this weekend, and I have to briefly state that if I had three favorite movies this year, they'd be Iron Man 3, Despicable Me 2, and The World's End.

Secondly- Looks like they're actually going to try for the Arrested Developement movie again, this time stating they want it out before the next Netflix season.

Thirdly... and this is going to get a huge really!?!? from me: Disney's live action Cinderella movie.

Now it becomes clear with Maleficent. Hot on the heals of success with Once Upon a Time, Disney's planning live action remakes/reboots/alternate tellings of their old princess movies.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Three things...

First off, I finally got the chance to see The World's End this weekend, and I have to briefly state that if I had three favorite movies this year, they'd be Iron Man 3, Despicable Me 2, and The World's End.

Secondly- Looks like they're actually going to try for the Arrested Developement movie again, this time stating they want it out before the next Netflix season.

Of course they're trying the A.D. movie. That's what the whole 'fourth season' was all about. If you've seen the Netflix episodes, it's obvious something more is coming, I think a movie would be great.
It probably wouldn't be a theatrical anyway. Probably another direct-to-Netflix film.

 

[Drtooth]

There's no reason why it shouldn't be theatrical. It doesn't seem like whatever they could do with it would be too high of a budget that it would lose that much money anyway. If they were just doing a direct to Netflix type thing, they might as well just make it a couple hour long episodes or something. It really should be released to a wider audience than Netflix subscribers.

But it's nice to know that build up or not, they're actually doing something rather than saying they will.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'm annoyed that The Good Dinosaur is on hiatus for a year, making it the first since 2005 without a Pixar film. To top it off, it was going to have a Monsters University short.

This is one of the few good decisions Pixar has made in recent years. They've lost their shine with too many sequels and I also think Brave would have been a much better film if they'd given the second director more time to rework it. This gives Pixar and The Good Dinosaur time to get things right and set the company back on track. It also gives us a chance to miss them. Audiences will have a steady diet of the same-old CG fare next year. This will give Pixar the opportunity to show everybody how it's done.

 

[mr3urious]

This is one of the few good decisions Pixar has made in recent years. They've lost their shine with too many sequels and I also think Brave would have been a much better film if they'd given the second director more time to rework it.

Too many sequels? They've made four with a fifth in the works, and were released several years apart from each other. That's hardly what I'd consider sequel crazy.

 

[jvcarroll]

Too many sequels? They've made four with a fifth in the works, and were released several years apart from each other. That's hardly what I'd consider sequel crazy.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. Five is a heck of a lot of sequels. Three of their last four films were sequels. I'd count that as sequel crazy!

Pixar used to be known for innovation, quality animation and original storytelling. They were the company that others looked up to - and for good reason. Toy Story used to be their only franchise and that's understandable. It was their first feature film and much nostalgia surrounded it.

Then they brought in Cars 2, Monsters University and now Finding Dory. That's A LOT of sequels from a company that only produces one film a year. Cars 2 and Monsters U fall far beneath the quality storytelling Pixar is known for. Aside from the quality of the animation itself, there was absolutely nothing to set the films apart from other company's cheap and cynical attempts to cash in on an idea (cough...cough...Shrek). In other words, there's no real need for these to be Pixar films. Any studio could make stuff like that and that's what disappoints me.

Funny enough, the only sequel fans seem to want is the one that Pixar isn't making. I love the Incredibles and there's much potential to explore more in that world, but Brad Bird is waiting for the right idea. He's waiting for a reason to continue the story beyond the idea of building a popular franchise. That's responsible movie making. Not only do I commend him for it, I think he should helm Pixar.

The wheels have fallen off Pixar's wagon. Going dark for a year will provide them the opportunity to regroup and make an excellent picture. I'm actually excited about this new delay. It's important that their reasons for making a film reach beyond making money. If that was their only concern they would have sold out a long time ago. But they didn't. Pixar stands for something more. Well, they did. They've lost their way in recent years.

I think they'll find it again.