straggler
-
Posts
694 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by straggler
-
-
49 minutes ago, Issac Newton said:
Anyone else find that the way critics treated this movie was odd? NHF has a higher audience and cinemascore than Joy Ride, yet the critics gushed over that film while NHF had to struggle mightily to get to "fresh" territory its opening weekend and going into its opening Friday was still in the green zone on RT. Not rooting against any film, but it was noticeable. It has clawed its way back nicely, but one would have hoped it would at least have gotten the critical treatment of Good Boys, a film with the same cinemascore, a slightly lower audience score and by the same director. Honestly not a fan of the social media/Rotten Tomatoes era where anyone with a film blog becomes a "critic" and is able to effect the overall "grade" of a film. Some of the traditional newspaper critics were rotten, but at least they had a stake in the game. And you did not have the sense that films were getting targeted or dogpiled. I get that a film like this is not making a $100 million anymore, but I still thought it was done a bit dirty.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, baumer said:
I think it's kind of sad when these days you consider an a-lister to be someone who can open a film to 15 million dollars. Back in the day that would seem pretty damn pathetic. If you're paying someone $25 million dollars to do your film you best be hoping that film opens to at least what you paid her. I like Jennifer lawrence, in fact I like her probably more than a lot of people do here. I absolutely loved Passengers and Silver linings playbook is one of my favorite movies of the last quarter century. But a 15 million dollar opening? That's pretty sad.
I think it is just the reality nowadays. The days when a movie like Bad Teacher can make a $100 million are likely gone. I think Covid and especially streaming changed people's behaviors. They know they can catch a film at home a few months down the line. There is a reason the market is now almost all established IPs and why certain types of films are now streaming films. And why the R-rated comedies disappeared. Expectations have to be judged against reality, not nostalgia. I think it did as well as could be reasonably expected. I have a feeling this film will be very popular on Netflix or Amazon. Have not figured out how that factors into a studio's calculations.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, titanic2187 said:
After multiple misfire from initial buzz, the supposed lesson for the studio is, don't make an forgettable movie that awfully received by the critics and audience alike.
But the lesson that studio continues to feed themselves is, don't release the movie in a competitive month.
I don't think anyone goes into it wanting to make a bad film.
-
Someone said the fake love for BP was like people at a Stalin rally not daring to stop clapping least they be sent to a gulag.
-
1
-
-
Disney has its target audience well trained, like trained seals.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Saw the Avengers: IW. Meh. You really have to fanboy/girl the whole series to find it anything more than mediocre entertainment. The Guardians characters seemed to work best. Thanos made no sense, but whatever.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:
The Rock and Tom Cruise are hardest working actors in Hollywood, they never sleep. Jumanji 3 will have very short post production assuming they don't start filming until January.
The Rock for some reason has been allowed to play the same character in the same type of films over and over and over again. He gets to sleep by sleepwalking through the same part again and again.
-
Skyscraper will be saved by China. That's is basically why it was made.
I think a draw is someone who can make a film profitable against the odds, a film that is not a commercial genre film that does not get the reviews. I like The Rock but with one exception he has been on autopilot the last few years. But he gets the biggest free pass in the business, maybe the biggest I have ever seen. It is like a conveyor belt. He can do 3-4 films a year, all the same type, all playing basically The Rock, even wearing the same cloths, and no one calls him out. Not even Arnold or Stallone or Cruise had it this easy. No one ever says he is overexposed. Or cruising. Or creatively lazy. If Taylor Swift does not speak about politics she gets called out. But not the Rock. If Jennifer Lawrence appears in 2 films a year we are told she is in everything, but not the Rock. If virtually any other actor plays the same character over and over and over sooner or later there is a backlash. But not the Rock.
You know what. The more I think about it I freaking hate the guy's guts.
-
2
-
-
The Incredibles was my favorite Pixar film. Well maybe Toy Story. And UP was really good.
-
Looks like this is getting the low expectation curve on its RT score.
-
The MCU comparisons don't really work. The Avengers films are superhero movies that bring together stand alone characters. The first Avengers film which was the first of its kind worked terrifically. The second not so much. But the third added Black Panther and Guardians and had the overarching Thanos storyline. One thing the MCU films have not done is completely screw up. Thy have a formula and stick to it.
-
1
-
-
Also this confirms that Donald Glover is box office poison.
-
Not sure what Disney expected Solo to do. The Force Awakens was a unique cultural event (continuation of the original trilogy, supernova levels of nostalgia and a hell of a trailer), but this is the fourth Star Wars universe film and the second one not tied to the main storyline. Was there really that much demand for a Solo film without Harrison Ford? Then you have some really sketchy advertising that made the a film seem like a spoof, and just plain bad scheduling. Plus outside of the US and UK these films do not have a huge global following.
-
The thing I did not understand was the advertising for Solo. It just seemed like a spoof.
-
Since Cameron came up, Aliens over everything.
The best comic book films to date are 1) Dark Knight; 2) X:Men:DOFP; 3) Spiderman.
-
1
-
-
One of my favorite films this year. Gets much better the second viewing, at least for me, because then you have a sense of the pace and themes of the movie.
-
1
-
-
The Force Awakens opened during the Christmas holiday season, which tends to mute the OW. In the end IW will end up over $300 million behind TFA. But records are nice.
-
-
1 hour ago, edmkh said:
I love him, and i loved the trailer of rampage, i am actually really exited to go see the movie, loved jumanji.
I am a fan of him as a movie star and as a person, i even once downloaded a alarm clock of him, but for me a movie star is only a draw when we know a movie wouldn't make as much money as it did if that actor wasn't in it.
So Jlaw is the last draw.
-
Isn't there such a thing as fatigue? I saw the advertisements for Rampage and I was think "Jumanji is not even out of theaters yet." Lately the Rock he has been an assembly line. Then you add a "rotten" RT score.
-
1 hour ago, Marcus Cato said:
Exactly this.
If a studio gives you 20m $ and you can't make the movie profitable, your big salary days are over.
She helped make Passengers profitable despite nasty reviews. And RS will end up the same way as Fox did not go overboard with advertsing. But this is very oversimplistic. Was the studio overly optimistic about Red Sparrow's potential given how films like GWTDT had performed? Perhaps. But maybe they thought if the film had stronger reviews it could make enough money to build a market for a potential sequel. And from Jlaw's perspective it reflects a clear refusal to be pigeonholed. Female stars do not have the luxury of doing the same type of film and character over and over.
But by your logic she made Passengers profitable. So more big salaries.
.But nothing wrong with some back end deals.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:
not really. the original Spaihts blacklist script has a couple different story beats but the broad strokes/tone are pretty much the same as what we got.
In that case it would likely have been subjected to the same critical shellacking.
44 minutes ago, Jeriosnal said:Basically she was falsely claimed to be a huge box-office draw on the basis of Hunger Games, X-Men, and O. Russell films, when none of the grosses for those movies had much to do with her. Now that she's trying to sell movies on her own name and they're not doing so great despite massive marketing budgets, she's been exposed the way Lawrence detractors predicted she would be when her fans were comparing her to actual box-office stars who'd been making hits for 25 years. Bravo to the PR agencies, but it was a con game.
How does this work again? If she is in a big hit she did not contribute in any way. If she is in a film that does better than should be expected under the circumstances-Passengers or RS, which will make more OS than Atomic Blonde made WW despite being "rotten" and a two and a half hour non-action film-she gets no credit. And if she delivers great performances in successive interesting films, so what? OK.
-
2
-
-
40 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:
Passengers was budgeted at $30-40m when Reeves was attached. It also would have been a different film since it was going to lean on the dark thriller aspect and we would have seen the male lead more slowly descend into madness before he woke Aurora who would have been introduced later in the movie (not possible with Lawrence starring at $20m). With that tone they wouldn't have gone whole hog on the expensive sets.
My understanding is that Reeves was attached in 2009 very early in the project. A Solaris like approach would have been interesting, but I think the story changed before Lawrence and Pratt came on board.
-
5 hours ago, Firepower said:
Do you realize that RS won't be profitable and studio will lose money? That means she didn't earn that paycheck, it's as simple as that. Passengers would have made at least the same profit with the original cast and budget.
She gave a great performance, she is the main reason people are seeing the movie, she received excellent notices even from critics who did not like the movie and the film is doing quite well measured against other films in this genre and will continue to do well in the home market. I thought it was an exceptional film, but some things like the RT's scoring system and the way it tends to punish polarizing films are hard to control. But I guess my definition of earning a salary is broader than just the immediate box office receipts. You can argue that another lead actress would have been less expensive, but accounting for that, would the film do the same box office with the same reviews?
How do you know Passengers would not have cost almost as much with a different cast? Let's assume it would have cost $90 million instead of $110. Are you really certain that it would have been just as profitable against those toxic reviews without Lawrence and Pratt? It is hypothetical but I have my doubts.
-
1
-
.But nothing wrong with some back end deals.
C’MON BARBIE LET'S GO PARTY...AT LOS ALAMOS | BARBENHEIMER WEEKEND THREAD | We’re Thriving in our Plastic Fantastic Era | Mother Mothered with 162M | Daddy Exploded with 82.4M
in Numbers and Data
Posted
I think it was a combination of the movie being based on an extremely well known IP, the movie looking good and bright in trailers and getting good reviews, and the perfect marketing storm. But yes, Robbie was perfectly cast. Who would have thought that casting an actress that can actually pull off looking like the classic character would work? Hollywood might be onto something. . Then again, you cannot just discount the string of flops and disappointments that Robbie has been involved with, including Birds of Prey. What she has going for her is that she gets opportunity after opportunity without seemingly drawing a backlash and eventually something clicked at the box office.