TServo2049

As far as the potential replacements for the Big 3 down the line if Marvel decides to replace them in-universe and not just recast, Portman as Jane Foster as the new Thor is the one I just can't envision. And this is not a sexism thing, either. I just can't envision NATALIE PORTMAN as female Thor. Maybe if they had her regenerate into Ronda Rousey?

Lots of great ones on those lists, quite a bit of overlap with what I'd put on my list. (Though I don't know if I could narrow it down to just 25.) Some of my possibilities which aren't on any of the previous lists: Ghostbusters Terminator 2 Who Framed Roger Rabbit John Carpenter's The Thing Galaxy Quest

And they use the SAME stock poses AGAIN?! They just didn't care. ...wait, is that poster even real?

Oh, thank goodness. When I saw the title in the topic, I feared we were in for an unnecessary, inferior, overextended CGI remake of this classic:

Like Caesar, I was only semi-joking about introducing more HK/Chinese action stars into the mix. Jackie Chan, yes, but also Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Andy Lau, Donnie Yen...any of them.

Yay, Steve Zahn! I miss when he was a supporting character actor in big movies. I've liked him since I saw him in That Thing You Do.

I WISH. At least, bad origin movies that take the entire film to do the origin.

This is like a reverse of people not knowing Titanic was based on historical events.

Key word is TRYING. Many unhatched chickens being counted in Hollywood.

Also, BOM doesn't keep this list, but Pan's estimate just squeaks into the 10 worst openings in over 3,500 locations. For the actual to be in the bottom 10, it just has to not increase any more than $26k with actuals (which is how much it is under the Footloose remake). In terms of attendance, Pan's estimate is either the 6th or 7th worst OW admissions in over 3,500 theaters (BOM's adjuster decreases the $15.5m to $15.1m, putting it under the adjusted OW for Nim's Island; since the Q3 average is not in yet, their adjuster is dividing the Q2 '15 average by the Q1+Q2 '15 average. BOM's quarter vs. year adjustments are strange...) Either way, it sucks.

Also, BOM doesn't keep this list, but Pan's estimate just squeaks into the 10 worst openings in over 3,500 locations. For the actual to be in the bottom 10, it just has to not increase any more than $26k with actuals (which is how much it is under the Footloose remake).

Lot of mo-cap work to do, I would bet. Andy Serkis is directing, after all.

It's funny to go back, and see that he did it as early as Back to the Future Part II (which actually shows the very last shot of the movie!) The trailer for the first Back to the Future (and I mean the actual trailer, not the teaser) doesn't give away the whole movie, but I have a very strong feeling that Zemeckis didn't have any input on it; on the commentary, he talks about how he wasn't involved in the marketing, he didn't agree with the marketing, he wanted to show more action and special effects in the trailers. Said theatrical trailer is conspicuously missing from every DVD/Blu-Ray (they only ever have the teaser), leading me to believe Zemeckis is keeping it hidden on purpose because he doesn't like it. (You can at least watch it online.)

And my original point is that Jason Fuchs having written Pan doesn't automatically mean Wonder Woman, or anything else he writes, will turn out badly.

Maybe. I should have just left it at JP/TLW. That made my point enough, that someone can write good scripts/scripts that become good movies, and bad scripts/scripts that become bad movies.

Also, I am looking over past Black List nominees and winners. Here are some stinkers (either quality-wise or BO-wise) that came from Black List screenplays: All About Steve The Beaver Broken City 47 Ronin The Arthur remake The Last Stand The Watch Gangster Squad Bad Words Self/Less Run All Night Transcendence If these scripts were liked within the industry, does it mean the drafts on the Black List would have made better movies? Or that a good script doesn't necessarily make a great movie? Or that the people nominating these films for the Black List don't actually know quality? (It can't be that, plenty of good movies have come from Black List scripts too.) Just weird.

I was going to put in a joke about how it was debatable that A Beautiful Mind was actually a better script than Batman & Robin, but decided against it. Now that I know someone agrees with me, I will confirm that said comparison was kind of meant to be a joke. And Coolio, are you saying the script for Pirates 1 was bad, or the script for Lone Ranger was good?

Which one is a small quality gap? Pirates and Lone Ranger, or A Beautiful Mind and Batman & Robin?

David Koepp wrote both Jurassic Park, and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio wrote both Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, and The Lone Ranger. Akiva Goldsman won Best Adapted Screenplay for A Beautiful Mind, and also wrote Batman & Robin.

There are stories of great movies being taken away from their directors and ruined by the studio. I doubt Pan is one of them. Like with F4, my theory is that whatever the director's original vision, if that was what was put up on screen it wouldn't have done much better. Maybe it might have gotten better reviews (but a lot of the insane stuff must have been there during principal photography too, so I am actually not sure), but it still wouldn't have turned it from a $15m OW into a $50m OW.

As I said, ABC Family #FREEFORM

Yeah, that time was so different. There really does feel like a "now-now-now" mentality (and I don't mean among the studios, I mean among audiences) particularly as the Internet has gotten faster and VOD has become more prevalent. Broadband has essentially killed the very concept of waiting for anything. (If the studios went back to the old longer release windows tomorrow, I'm sure a good amount of people would just pirate to get home copies in the interim, rather than patiently bide their time until the actual studio home release.) Listen to me, I'm not even 28 yet and already I feel "old."

If people aren't continuing to see them in the theaters, why wait? (Or is it a chicken/egg thing? In today's short-attention-span world, would people continue to see a movie if it were kept in theaters for 9 months? Frozen is the only movie of late whose theatrical run was actually crippled by its home release, and which I think would have truly benefited from being kept off home video for as long as possible.) Or do you just mean they should still take them out of theaters, and just wait another 6 months without it being available in any form?

I had never heard of Britt Robertson before, so I bought that she was a teenager. Knowing it now, I feel like I should have realized she was 25, but I seriously didn't. Hollywood Teenagers fooled me again.

As I said, TDKR and Interstellar (and Gravity) are movies I wouldn't actively endeavor to watch on the small screen, but if they were playing in (real) IMAX again, I would most likely go see them again.