TServo2049

That is so weird. Sony has no reason to advertise a Universal movie, why would they do it today? Or is it just a coincidence?

Who says this will even have the beauty/beast plot line? It's been done three times already - yes, it's the heart of the story, but there's no rule that says every Kong movie has to do it. I don't care, I already have MY Kong movie, they can do whatever the fuck they want with this one.

THANK. YOU. I love the 1933 Kong, but I am not going to cry blasphemy if they make Kong the same size as Godzilla in this reboot.

IMO, the question is not whether it will be good or bad. The question is whether it will be enjoyably bad, or painfully bad, or just plain unremarkably bad.

Oh, don't forget Autobahn Collide!

And so what if these are "Hollywood"? I like seeing these movies for the first time, knowing nothing about how they will end. I avoided the book; even though I knew in the back of my mind that I still wasn't 100% sure. I was shaking and gripping my armrests, much like with Gravity. For some reason, astronauts-in-peril movies really put me on edge. I guess it's because they even if it's about stuff like Mars exploration or interstellar travel that's not/not yet possible, there is always a feeling to me, something like "something like this could happen to real astronauts, and they would probably have a much greater chance of death."

I didn't read the book, what was it like originally?

DAJK or anyone else who has worked at a theater: Has there ever been a movie that was playing at your theater that sold NO tickets for an entire weekend? (Or if not that, at least for a single day on a weekend?) Not really related to everything, but I am just curious.

So there ARE non-"must only play THIS movie on your IMAX screen during its engagement" IMAX contracts for first-run studio releases?

Yeah, but I mean when stuff happens like Genisys pushing out JW, or whatever is going to push out SW.

When will we start reading in the trades about theater managers getting upset that they have to pull successful IMAX movies for flops?

Pan now has the dubious honor of the worst weekend gross in over 3,500 theaters (i.e., including non-OWs). The previous "record" holder was weekend 3 of Just Like Heaven. In 2005. Also, the record for lowest attendance for a weekend in over 3,500 locations, previously held for over 5 years by weekend 2 of Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, has been broken twice in the past couple months. First by weekend 2 of Man From UNCLE, and now by weekend 2 of Pan. The estimated PTA for Pan also comes in under the average for Just Like Heaven weekend 3. And the record for lowest per-theater admissions in over 3,500 venues (also previously Cats & Dogs 2) has been broken three times since August: First by Fantastic Four weekend 2 (due to being in 4,004 theaters), then UNCLE weekend 2, and now Pan weekend 2. This year is really showing us how low saturated studio releases can sink.

Why didn't that guy become a meme like Left Shark?

Was Crimson Peak doing well a requirement to PR2 existing? (Maybe to Universal; I'm sure Thomas Tull would be desperate enough for franchises to make it no matter what...)

Maybe he could set it in Spain, some time between Pan's Labyrinth and the death of Franco. Then we could have a "trilogy."

The Winter Soldier trailer dropped in late October 2013, and most people first saw it in front of Thor: The Dark World. I am guessing Civil War's trailer comes out in time for either Spectre, MJ2, or Star Wars. (Disney should wait to debut it in front of SW, honestly. Advertising your next big tentpole before your current big tentpole is always smart. Or am I just stuck in a pre-Internet mentality?)

Spielberg, huh? War of the Worlds: The Martians dying (we all know the problems with the real ending) A.I.: David wishing to the Blue Fairy to make him a real boy (I know Kubrick intended the "happy ending", I know it's not actually "happy", that scene still felt tacked-on to me) Minority Report: Max Von Sydow's death (same, the actual ending felt too "happy" and "cliche Spielberg" for me and my family back in 2002) Crystal Skull: Indy isn't still alive inside that fridge, so we don't have to suffer through the rest of the movie Don't remember The Terminal's ending Haven't gotten around to anything else from Spielberg post-JP1. (Yes, that even means Schindler's List. Because I'm too lazy to find the time. Aren't I terrible?)

I guess I thought people hated him earlier because it seemed like every Internet critic I followed in 2008-11 absolutely loathed him. He was basically treated with the same scorn, ridicule and contempt as Hayden Christensen was for his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker. I guess geekdom turned against him much earlier than the GA.

The Jai Courtney thing was hypothetical, but I just remembered that Garrett Hedlund WAS mentioned as being considered for a role in JW - and I ASSUME it was for Owen Grady. ...yeah, that would have been a disaster.

Chris Pratt seems to be the right person in the right movies at the right time. Pratt benefits from being in the movies he's in, and they certainly benefit from having Pratt in them. He definitely adds value in being someone you like watching, even if it remains to be seen whether a movie can be sold on the virtues of Chris Pratt alone. Can you imagine Guardians of the Galaxy with Jai Courtney, or Jurassic World with Garrett Hedlund?

Yeah, that was my point. We have had several people who seemed like they had great potential, until they suddenly seemed less appealing, and the world decided they didn't like their style. Not a defense or a condemnation - I bring up Shyamalan again. The Village and Lady in the Water caused people to turn on Shyamalan, much as Indy 4 and Transformers 2 caused people to turn on Shia.

Spielberg, Bay, D.J. Caruso and the media DID compare Shia to Hanks in 2007 though. And there seemed to be a narrative that Spielberg was grooming him. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117460755257946182 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/08/labeouf200708 And 7 years later Shia said he didn't want to be that: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/10/shia-labeouf-tom-cruise-tom-hanks-careers We're talking about Tom Hanks now, but just wanted to clear up that there was a time when Shia was being compared to Hanks. I think people thought he had more talent and potential than he ended up having. Shyamalan was once the next Spielberg, remember...

My parents love that movie. That's one of those movies we saw, enjoyed, then found out most of the rest of the world hated it. (Except Roger Ebert.) Though we're probably in more of a minority about genuinely enjoying, say, Drop Dead Fred than we are Joe Versus the Volcano...

I remember people making that comparison before. Back in the 90s, Forrest Gump/Apollo 13 era? Did Spielberg compare him to Stewart? I just know I have heard that comparison in the past. (Complete and utter tangent - If the story is true of Spielberg seeing Shia LeBoeuf in Holes and thinking he looked like a Tom Hanks in the making, and that being the reason he was cast in Transformers and/or Crystal Skull...just no.)

Come on Marvel, you have the perfect get-out-of-part-numbering-free card right in front of you. Part 1 -> The Infinity Gauntlet Part 2 -> The Infinity War Boom. Solved. Talisman beat me to it. And "go back?" It was never announced with two separate titles. But that is the perfect solution.