Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Telemachos

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword | Guy Ritchie | May 12, 2017 | Charlie Hunnam

1,614 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Sherlock Holmes mostly worked on the back of RDJ, he was even able to carry the sequel which was a mess.

 

RDJ got annoying fast, he was playing Sherlock as another snarky Iron Man since it is all he has done the last 10 years.

 

Sherlock Holmes was saved by Jude Law. And in which blockbuster does Jude Law appear this year?...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

RDJ got annoying fast, he was playing Sherlock as another snarky Iron Man since it is all he has done the last 10 years.

 

Sherlock Holmes was saved by Jude Law. And in which blockbuster does Jude Law appear this year?...

Approximately 10 people went to see the Sherlock Holmes movies for Jude Law.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Approximately 10 people went to see the Sherlock Holmes movies for Jude Law.

 

Approximately 5 people went to see The Judge.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

Approximately 5 people went to see The Judge.

 

The judge 47 million is not bad at all for what that movie was (a 47% on RT drama named the Judge).

 

It is not that far than what Tom Cruise make on a 96 million budget action movie sequel from a very popular book series that get bad reviews, Jack Reacher 2 made 58.7.

 

It is 10 million more than the DiCaprio last bad reviewed drama J.Edgard (37 million domestic) and that had Eastwood name and a well known figure biopic angle to help.

 

It is far to be some definite proof that he is not draw on a action blockbuster type of movie like Sherlock, selling a badly reviewed drama over 50 million without a particular high concept hook is just almost impossible, it was even for DiCaprio not so long ago (maybe now he could, but we don't know).

 

Fences was excellent and did really well, it only did 10 million more than the Judge domestic (and less worldwide) and that is freaking Denzel Washington in a best picture nominee from a popular play.

 

 

Edited by Barnack
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, can you fact check "Approximately 10 people went to see the Sherlock Holmes movies for Jude Law."?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

25 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

Now, can you fact check "Approximately 10 people went to see the Sherlock Holmes movies for Jude Law."?

 

Will be hard, but I doubt that it is that low but you almost never have someone that see a movie because of someone, it is always a reason not the reason.

 

But If I remember exit poll, even someone like Franco on Spider-man 2 had like 7% of the audience naming him as a reason they went to see it, there is a reason those establish face often make millions on supporting role on movies like that, I imagine they have some form on impact, that could go as high as 1% (i.e. like 600k people on a movie like that).

Edited by Barnack
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

Now, can you fact check "Approximately 10 people went to see the Sherlock Holmes movies for Jude Law."?

What is there to fact check? He's never been a draw despite being a respected actor throughout his entire career. Most of his actual leading man roles were in flops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

What is there to fact check? He's never been a draw despite being a respected actor throughout his entire career. Most of his actual leading man roles were in flops.

 

Law can't open a movie but the last few plays he starred in were hugely successful so he is a draw, just not for movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, filmlover said:

What is there to fact check? He's never been a draw despite being a respected actor throughout his entire career. Most of his actual leading man roles were in flops.

 

anigif_original-grid-image-1303-14211661

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

What is there to fact check? He's never been a draw despite being a respected actor throughout his entire career. Most of his actual leading man roles were in flops.

 

I'm not sure it is as simple as that, an actor can help a movie without being a leading men draw, the obvious example if he helped make the movie better, thus helped the reviews and word of mouth.

 

But also when you compare him with other leading men, the conclusion is just that he is not has big has a draw has the others are, not that he is not one at all, a bit like a "bad" starting pitcher in the MLB is not necessarily a bad one in absolute.

 

It would not surprise me if Micheal Pena helped Ant-Man significantly (i.e. 1% or more) not that it is possible to know, he saved the movie from being below mediocre to me, I think he is a loved supporting player by the audience, but Chips flopped hard and War on Everyone even more (made about 0$ in the US).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jude Law never really made it as a leading man*, but at one point was one of the very best supporting actors in Hollywood. And he will join the current franchise model (which will make his box office numbers more flattering) next year in Fantastic Beasts 2.

 

*Edit: Mind you, he did get an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in Cold Mountain.

Edited by MrGlass2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jude Law works best as a supporting role in films or co lead.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, filmlover said:

What is there to fact check? He's never been a draw despite being a respected actor throughout his entire career. Most of his actual leading man roles were in flops.

 

His time is coming.

 

00d7a4803ba41212bfced797e1d1049b.gif

Edited by Arlborn
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warner bros wouldn't have 200 test screenings if they thought the movie sucked.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stormagden said:

Warner bros wouldn't have 200 test screenings if they thought the movie sucked.

Didn,t power rangers have many screening too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stormagden said:

Warner bros wouldn't have 200 test screenings if they thought the movie sucked.

Hopefully...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 minute ago, Alli said:

Didn,t power rangers have many screening too?

I don't know about the screenings but most people who watched it actually seemed to enjoy it and WOM was positive. It's just that not all that many people actually bothered to go see a "silly Power Rangers" movie...

 

 

Edited by Arlborn
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alli said:

Didn,t power rangers have many screening too?

That was lionsgate. They're a bit special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U2E8MyU.jpg

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that this movie can go anywhere at the box office, from complete disaster to #1 of the year decent. So it will at least be interesting to follow its numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.