Jump to content

TServo2049

Premium Account
  • Content Count

    3,006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,351 Likes

About TServo2049

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,824 profile views
  1. That Thing You Do! On several occasions, I have come across it while channel surfing, and every time I find it I watch it all the way through. And I am notorious for not being able to finish a movie in one sitting if I’m not in a theater.
  2. Except that HTTYD3 was made entirely at their main Glendale studio, judging by the names I saw in the credits...
  3. It seems like year there has to be one awful animated feature trailer that is absolutely inescapable. Free Birds and Sherlock Gnomes immediately come to mind (though this movie doesn’t look like it’s going to be as legendarily bad as those two. Phooey.) (And for those who are wondering why I didn’t mention The Emoji Movie, it’s because somehow I never saw that trailer in front of any movies I saw that year, so I was able to escape it.)
  4. While I will admit that the film was very flawed and uneven, I will say that oh my god, that World's Fair prologue was amazing. I was certain that this was going to be everything I hoped it would be...
  5. I believe that WB is the studio that actually owns the film rights to 1906. It was supposed to be a co- production with Disney and Pixar, but they pulled out when the project fell apart. If Brad Bird isn't the person who makes it, then my wish is for someone at WB to somehow convince Christopher Nolan to want to make it. I want the 1906 SF earthquake in IMAX 70mm, with lots of practical. Dunkirk convinced me even more that if Bird isn't the person who makes it, it needs to be Nolan.
  6. I assume these are all jokes. Reshoots happen all the time, it is not instant cause for alarm. Several good scenes in stuff like Lord of the Rings came out of reshoots, for example. Actually, I actually have a hunch that the final fight was changed in IW during reshoots; a leak last year that was very accurate about certain parts (but in other points was totally wrong) last year said Banner was supposed to Hulk out while inside the Hulkbuster suit, burst out and smash Cull Obsidian instead of staying as Banner and sending him to his death on a rocket fist; there is even a Hulk toy matching the description in the leak. Either this was all an elaborate fake scene created to throw off leakers (which would explain why some stuff in the leak was totally wrong, if they got hold of a script with some fake scenes in it), or they changed Banner's arc in pickups.
  7. Actually, I was split on whether to suggest Keith David or James Earl Jones. Keith David was the first name that popped into my head, but I chose to say James Earl Jones for whatever reason. Maybe because he's closer to Freeman's age? Regardless, either of them would work.
  8. Maybe they could recast him with James Earl Jones or something.
  9. Early 2017 leaks that mostly matched the film we got said that Banner was to Hulk out, burst out of the armor and defeat Cull Obsidian (or was it Corvus Glaive? I forget which is which). There is a Hulk-bursting-out-of-Hulkbuster toy, so I am betting that Banner's status in the climax was changed during pickups.
  10. I get what you're saying, actually. My thought was that when the world finds out Cap sacrificed himself to save all sentient life in the universe, they'd be forced to see the error of their ways and absolve him of his "crimes", like how Gotham forgave Batman in TDKR because (as far as they know) he gave his life to save the city from getting nuked. But now that I read your analysis, I do think that's kind of hokey and cliche. You've won me over, I don't particularly *want* them to die in the next film. But I do worry that if either of them don't, the "no stakes" arguments will just kick up again in full force.
  11. I finally got someone saying "What the f**k" when the credits started rolling on my third showing. (My Thursday preview may have had those too but I just remember lots of indistinguishable loud chatter.) Thankfully no crying kids. First was a Thursday preview, second was a work event, this was a Saturday morning so there were kids but even they were quiet. (Though the best reaction I saw was at the 7pm Thurs when two college-age ladies were weeping over Spidey's death and sobbing over the credits how "Tom" died - could have been referring to Holland *or* Hiddleston.) I was afraid this was going to be one of those films where kids would be absolutely wrecked in a bad way, as in angry parents outraged about how it upset their kids and refusing to see any Marvel movie or buy any merchandise ever again and urging other parents to do the same. But it looks like this will mostly just be a case of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" like when my generation saw Optimus Prime and/or Atreyu's horse Artax die. Also, Steve has got to be marked for death. Besides Evans wanting to move on, it would complete his arc to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the world/universe, and be exonerated by his government, a la Dark Knight Rises except dying for real. They have the opportunity to improve upon Cap's death the way they improved upon CW, and actually keep him dead. I'm 50/50 about Tony, it would be perfect to see him finally make the sacrifice play and not come out alive, but I don't know if I want to see Pepper emotionally destroyed over that... Either way, if any Avengers die permanently it needs to be in a blaze of glory saving the universe. I'm glad they didn't kill Steve or Tony just to show Thanos is serious business, better they go out like Spock than like Kirk (referring to Generations, not Into Darkness). Though the fake-out we got was perfect, Tony getting stabbed got a huge gasp from everyone at my first showing, I haven't heard a reaction of that nature since Han bit it in TFA...
  12. Hello,

    i only wanted to salute you and thank you for the amazing post about Star wars you wrote ot.

    I´ve been searching for years about releases and first run and with your article, i think everything is clear.

    Brilliant, really brilliant, thanks a lot,

    Telémaco.

     

     

     

     

    All the claims that Star Wars (it wasn't called A New Hope I'm 1977 so I will never use that to refer to its original run) made $307m in original release are wrong. That includes the 1978, 1979 and 1981 re-releases.

     

    It actually made $221.3m in its true first run, and $43.8m from the summer 1978 re-release. The first run adjusts to $827.6m or $854.4m, depending on whether I calculate based on BOM's 2015 adjuster or their 2016 adjuster. I have no idea what the yearly average will come out to be - averaging those two values comes out to $841m, and using BOM's current Q4 2015 guesstimate of $8.61 to get a rough 2015 guesstimate of $8.41 gives us $834.6m.

     

    That does seem low for how huge SW was, though the U.S. population was lower then. But there's a twist: I know people who do not consider the 1978 re-release a true re-release, but an extension of the first run, since the film was never out of theaters completely (at least one theater's engagement ran continuously through both releases). If you add the $43.8m of the 1978 "re-release" adjusted for inflation, you either get $1.016 billion at $8.61, or $983.7m at $8.34. Those two numbers average out to almost exactly $1 billion.

     

    Either way, I wonder if the 2009-present NATO yearly averages don't produce accurate adjustments/estimated admissions for heavy 3D/IMAX/PLF releases whose true average paid price would be higher than the official NATO average for the entire theatrical market. No matter how well TFA does, I just cannot bring myself to believe it will end with more tickets sold than the original, either including or excluding the 1978 reissue (especially not including), even with 38 years of population growth. Not from all I know about how ridiculously huge the movie was.

     

    Even though I just said $307m wasn't the actual first-run gross, from the prices I've been paying I do still wonder if it would still be best to compare against a ballpark of $1.2 billion for SW's original run. If you take the $221.3m divided by the official 1977 average of $2.23, that's 99.24 million tickets. If you take the $43.8m and divide it by the 1978 average of $2.34, you get another 18.72 million tickets. The total of both runs would be 117.96 million admissions. If you assume the entire $265.1m up to the end of the 1978 reissue would be equivalent to TFA making $1.2b, then the theoretical average ticket price it would be adjusted to would be $10.17. But if you assume just the $221.3m of the original run would be the same as TFA making $1.2b, then the theoretical average paid price for TFA would be $12.09.

     

    So let's say TFA does in fact hit $1b. That would mean it would need to sell 98.3m tickets at an average of $10.17, or 82.7m tickets at an average of $12.09. Either way, if it gets to $1b I am convinced it will be doing it off of fewer admissions than we would assume off of whatever the 2015 national average turns out to be.

     

    redfirebird2008, are you still around? Can you weigh in?

  13. At least not for a first-time director. I wonder if they'd still be OK letting Pete Docter have one for his next project (which is also original). IO went over-budget, Lasseter insisted on the luminescence effects and so on, but it made a mint. As of now, Docter is the only Pixar director to have a truly flawless track record (yes, I am counting John Carter and Tomorrowland because Disney put up the money and Lasseter/Pixar helped out to some degree or at least vouched for Stanton/Bird, and no, I am not counting Lee Unkrich because he only had one solo film and it was a sequel).
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.