excel1
-
Posts
6,448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by excel1
-
-
Super bowl spots are great for mass appeal concepts. They're not going to move the needle much for something without much inherent demand.
This movie is doing solid for what it is, not sure why people are acting as if Gosling is suddenly prime Leo and Blunt is prime Julia Roberts.
-
5 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:
X-Men: Days of Future Past had Patrick Stewart & James McAvoy both playing Professor Xavier along with Ian McKellen & Michael Fassbender both playing Magneto. X:DOFP had a crazy multiverse type of plot. This type of multiverse stuff was all done in the comic books through the decades, so there is nothing original about what happened with Spidey: No Way Home. It's just aping on what had already been done in comics and other movies like X:DOFP or Avengers: Endgame and whatever else.
No, bad comparison. Average audience saw McAvoy playing young Xavier and Stewart playing old Xavier. It's very straight forward.
There continues to be no precedent of 3 different versions of the same character showing up on the screen at the same time. Any normal movie goer is going to go "wtf?".
31 minutes ago, KGPatt2 said:You are blowing my comment way out of proportion. The only and obvious point was to say it's an easy money maker, and not a risk at all to studio decision makers. It was a comment about the discussion over the "risk" of Spider-Man: No Way Home, which obviously wasn't a risk at all, just like a legacy Harry Potter sequel with those 3 actors involved wouldn't be a risk.
You have turned this into something it wasn't in any way, shape, or form.
lol he clearly missed the sarcasm of your posts. That said, the Potter 9 or TDK4 comparisons are apples to oranges. You bring up 2 examples off continuing a story, which is very straight forward and understandable to a movie goer.
Spider-man NWH took 3 completely different, unrelated versions of the same character and put them on the screen at the same time. It isn't continuing an existing story, it was merging 3 completely unrelated ones. There was a giant risk that the general public would go ".....wtf?". It was noted repeatedly in threads both here and over at world of kj.
-
2 minutes ago, Napoleon said:
House of Wax is my favorite slasher film, it deserves more appreciation.
I remember seeing this trailer in theaters and people openly laughing when it showed Paris Hilton's name as she screamed.
-
1 minute ago, JustLurking said:
Yeah ok. Next you'll tell me Deadpool and Wolverine is super creative and super risky.
Not in 2024 ofc -
3 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:
I'm not sure about that. It's a mixed bag in some ways.
On the negative side: The last time Hollywood put out a movie with Oppenheimer as a main character, it bombed hard in 1989 with a $30 million budget and less than $4 million of total box office. That $30 million budget in 1989 was pretty damn big. Burton's 1989 Batman film had a $40 million production budget for perspective. The 1989 Oppy film had Paul Newman in the Matt Damon role of General Leslie Groves. Paul Newman won Best Actor at the Oscars for The Color of Money in March of 1987. So his name brand in the late 1980's was about as hot as you can get, and the Oppy film still bombed really bad. Knowing these facts about what happened with the 1989 movie, it seems like a pretty big risk by Universal to spend $100 million on production & another $100 million on marketing the new Oppy film.
On the positive side: Nolan obviously gained a lot of credibility and brand power with his earlier films in the 2 decades leading up to the release of his Oppy film last year. The film accidentally ended up with a perfect release date, thanks to all of the Barbie hype on the same opening weekend. Oppy did not have the full screen count Nolan probably hoped to have, but a pretty decent chunk of the Barbie audience decided to also check out the Oppy film. That's a pretty unexpected boost for Oppy's box office from the Barbie fans. Another accidental element that helped Oppy's box office is Vlad Putin constantly threatening to launch nukes at Western countries. This could have created a negative effect in the sense that people would rather bury their heads in the sand instead of watching a movie about such a serious subject matter. But maybe this type of nuclear fear-mongering in real life actually gave the movie some kind of extra boost at the box office.
Oppenheimer success formula is pretty clear in hindsight.
Nolan-directed film on Oppenheimer = $30m base opening weekend
Decide to cast tons of big names = +15% = $34.5m
Make it Josh Hartnett comeback film = +25% = $43m
Make it Best Picture quality film = +15% = $50m
Open against a film of dolls coming to life and make their audience want to feel smart afterward = + 60% = $80m opening
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, JustLurking said:
nearly all of these were fucking DEAD franchises to begin with that were ATTEMPTED to being brought back to life through nostalgia, no fucking shit
you're talking about a spiderman film at pretty much the height of MCU popularity bringing in more spidermen, including some from one of the absolute most popular trilogies of all time
and you're trying to come at me saying this is a risky project
please. just don't. it wasn't.
a 2 second google search will show tons of material around the premise
-
18 minutes ago, excel1 said:
True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? Fans of course are still elated at Palpatines iconic return in Star Wars 9.
Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, Bayformerswatch etc.
Bumping this post for its epic truths. 😎
-
2
-
-
Just now, cannastop said:
It's a freaking Spider-Man movie. I'd be shocked if anything suggested that it was at risk of not making a profit.
There was a metric ton of commentary around the risk of confusing the audience and overstuffing the film affecting quality. Nobody said it wouldn't make profit but long term damage certainly was possible.
-
8 minutes ago, Firepower said:
Not sure what mid-2000 TV movies you refer to, guys, do you have a link to compare? Because it looks more like early 2000 big budget movies with piss filter like Swordfish, which actually makes sense here because Megalopolis had references to 9/11.
I think this was actually filmed simultaneously to this scene:
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Firepower said:
No Way Home was as risky as The Force Awakens or Avengers: Endgame.
revisionist history, go read the threads on this very board around the time it was being filmed
-
1
-
-
If the premise for BOND 26 was Pierce Brosnan's retired 'James Bond' training and grooming a younger, new 'James Bond', it would be awesome.
-
PIXAR was the IP for their original content, they're obviously unique.
-
22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:
You'd referenced Gen Z earlier.
Joker was the 5 years ago. It was absolutely aimed at Millennials and older.
ItSV was 6 years ago. Aimed at Gen Z and Millennials.
Young millennials and older GEN Zers.
22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:Wonka was easily the least original, most risk averse Wonka movie yet. Super, super safe.
Nobody was out there asking for a Wonka origin film.
22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:I don't know what NWH is... No Way Home? I mean, X Men did the same thing before ot, no? Regardless, that movie is aimed at everyone Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X. Not a Gen Z thing.
XMen had 3 different famous people playing the same character on the screen at the same time?
22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:Oppenheimer is less of a risk than older Nolan summer tentacles.
Disagree entirely and feel free to revisit the Oppenheimer thread to read the pre-Barbenheimer mania consensus on the projects commercial potential.
22 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:Summer of 2015? You mean when Fury Road and Inside Out were hits? Wouldn't they fit your criteria of original?
Fury Road was not exactly a summer smash, and IO is Pixar, the king of originality at the time.
-
33 minutes ago, JustLurking said:
Yeah in the era of movies that are trying to slip in cameos and references literally everywhere a plot that is literally a half-baked excuse to fit the film with as many nostalgia characters as possible seems like a very hard pitch
even harder a pitch if it's using a plot device already successfully utilised by another film a few years prior
truly a super risky move right here
True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? Fans of course are still elated at Palpatines iconic return in Star Wars 9.
Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, etc.
See things through the eyes of a normal fan. New major tentpole film had ever done anything like what occurred in NWH. It is inherently risky to take that approach.
-
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Throwing nostalgia at the audience is not original. It’s not creative. It’s simply a cash grab. See The Force Awakens in 2015 as a perfect example of this.No way, DA FORCE AWAKENS is a very straight forward, easily understood. NWH is totally different level.
Imagine saying "Bond 26 will feature Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, and AI Sean Connery all teaming up". Everybody would look at it like 🤨
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, AniNate said:
The definition of "original" here is so subjective and broad as to be almost meaningless. I think successful movies need to have some kind of unique hook, sure, but that's not much different from any other modern generation, and the ones before still didn't have to rely so much on established IP.
Unique or novel may be better words than original, some are sticking to that word far too heavily.
-
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Really? Inside Out is an expensive, original movie that came out in summer 2015. It was far riskier than the movies you are listing here, other than Oppenheimer.Bro what? It wasn't risky at all, it was Pixar still in its prime, and they were a studio known for originality. Find a better example for real.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:
What makes The Batman any more original than Burton's, Nolan's or even Snyder's take on Batman?
Batman, Maverick, Guardians, Avatar were mores about quality being rewarded.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What's makes King's take on Wonka any more original than Burton's or Stuart's take? I'd say King's is actually the least original and most risk averse take... Super safe. I liked it though.
It's a new story on the character.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What makes Oppenheimer remotely close to as original as things like his own Inception, Interstellar or Tenet?
It is a unique experience for these times. I can't think of a remotely recent film of that approach that is comparable to it.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:What makes AtsV any more original than ItSV?
The series is original.
2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:Barbie for sure stands out.
I guess my confusion is similarly original takes were already highly successful in the recent and distant past for just about every property you named. I don't think its any different now. It's not like Super Mario wasn't huge last year.
Did Gen X crave originality? But just crave it way, way more? Raimi, Sonnenfeld, Burton, Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Cameron, Gilliam, Miller, Coens, Tarantino, etc. were known names the late 80s, through late 90s. I'd argue they craved it more actually.
Of those ones listed, Cameron is the only one who achieved true uber-blockbuster success off of his original ideas.
-
2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:
wtf is supposed to be "insane" about nwh. or even original for that matter. even theatrically the concept was ALREADY done (much better) by spiderverse.
nwh was huge because it unabashedly went for the nostalgia mines. "originality" lol give me a break.
Is this is a serious question....?
Teaming up McGOAT, Garfield, and Holland in 1 film is absolutely, 100000% creative and yes, insane. The Spiderverse comp is ridiculous. That wasn't animated film. Bringing together 3 well-known actors playing the same character in a film? When was that ever done before? I would have loved to listened in on the pitch meeting for that one bc I am sure the initial reaction near every executive would be ".....how? and went this confuse people?".
-
2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:
I’m sorry but you can’t just change the definition of a word like that. Original means “not based on an existing IP or a sequel.” That’s how everyone uses the word.
Ok then go with the word "unique" instead, done.
2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:The Beekeeper is original. Barbie is not. GOTG Vol 3 is definitely not.
Just because people haven’t seen a live-action Barbie film or a super cool animated Spider-Man film doesn’t mean they’re original. If Greta Gerwig made a film about a doll called Jessica who lived in Jessica Land with all the other Jessicas and Matts, that would be original. But she didn’t, she made a film based on the incredibly well-known Barbie brand.
Guardians, Maverick, Avatar, The Batman are more about audiences rewarding quality films.
1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:
It’s still just IP with large built-in audiences. The brand is a requirement to have success. I find that pretty sad when looking back to earlier decades.Seeing it as sad feels 'glass half empty'. It is the next stage in the evolution of consumer demand, that's always interesting.
-
9 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:
Shouldn't speak for them but I can only assume they mean a creative, unexpected take on a big IP? That only really applies to Barbie and, I guess AtSV from the titles they listed. But, AtSV is a sequel. I don't think it's necessarily why either was a huge hit either. Otherwise, I'm with you. I don't understand it.
Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1) The lighting screws mid 2000s Fox tv show, can't believe how cheap it looks.
2) 100% believe all of this "WHAT IS THIS?! ITS TOO DIFFERENT" crap is just a PR grab to assist with appears will be a challenging marketing campaign.
-
4 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:
You listed zero original movies.see my post above. Original, outside the box takes on existing IP is still original.
-
1 hour ago, PenguinHyphy said:
The box office numbers disprove that, so why are people still trying to push that inane notion? They put out originals throughout the entire month of April, and they are not even going to outgross the Mean Girls musical that came out in January. Audiences today support IP way more than audiences in any other time throughout history. Excuses about not having the opportunity to support original stories because of studios not putting out original content are null and void
'Original takes on existing IP' is still original.
Everyone should go back to the first days were Todd Phillips Joker film was announced. Everyone thought the concept was absurd and it would be a giant mess, especially if zero-box-office-pull nut job Joaquin Phoenix was cast as Joker. Think of ludicrous it would sound to say, at that time, that it's sequel would be a musical costarring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. Let's go a step further. Imagine the insanity of saying "we're going to do a Spider-man film where all 3 main interactions of the character show up together". The entire concept of Barbie film is utterly absurd on paper.
We're living in a time where outside the box takes on existing characters are not only welcomed, they feel borderline required for something to really explode. It's also translating into a lot of exciting new franchise tentpoles.
Cookier cutter assembly line film-by-focus-group takes ala Marvel or obvious nostalgic cash grabs need more today than they did in 2015, which in my view is a very good thing.
-
1
-
Weekend Numbers | Friday | 10.48M THE FALL GUY | 2.55M TAROT | 2.52M CHALLENGERS | 2.43M SW: EP I - TPM
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Should have just rereleased the pod race scene and Darth maul scene for $5 ticket. place would fill up