Thegun

Bad Moms seems a shoe in for 100 million now.

I feel like Heart and Souls is going to end up on this list

I love Oscar, dam that is awful marketing.

Trailers have been ok Denzel is the most consistent 75-130 million draw October doesn't have a lot of appealing options (That adds nothing) Tarzan is struggling to 130 million I could go for a slice Mag 7 is probably the biggest open and shut book of the year 40/130. Nothing unfortunately screams 200.

28 is best case for ST at this point, most likely looking at 25-26

I know the movie was released three years later. Has there ever been any kind of confirmation of the actual timeline. Even if it is 3 years, the time jump is the most unimportant thing of ESB which is the point I was going for.

Why, it's near 80% on RT. It's not like Wild Hogs or something. The thing about SLOP is that it appeals to multiple demographics, and had some of the best marketing of a year that has consistently outdone itself.

No Trek film is really bad. A lot like Bond, but this is almost all the bad elements combined. I still love "Why does God need a Star ship?" line. The overall plot is actually the most interesting of the series, it's just handled poorly. It is unfortunately the worst of the series. They tried to do what Voyage Home did with the humor and it really doesn't work in an actual Trek mission type of film. C-

Again ESB maybe takes place half a year later. Han is incredibly nervous with Jaba and needs to get back (I doubt the bounty would be years on him)

It'll still be close enough to really care. 340 million for SLOP is still quite amazing.

Came down to money, I think. She hit big on CHEERS between ST movies. She didn't get Cheers for another 2 years. She didn't like the role and thought it was a step down from the first, and didn't want to be typecast in the Star Trek universe (Though she would make several in jokes in Look Who's Talking)

You can safely say, they won't make a Star Trek like this ever again. It's so un-Trek that is actually completely Trek. I wouldn't call it a good film by any means. The plot is downright ridiculous. But the great thing about Trek vs. Star Wars is that you can take your actors and do a film like this. This found the mainstream because it's everyone at the top of their game doing everything that is silly about Trek and it just worked. B/B+

I've performed in both plays. I did the John Ritter character in one, Michael Caine's in the second. In Glengarry I played Williamson (I would love to play Roma or the Machine in the future) Both plays have some of the best characters of all time that anyone you play is just a treat. I read that in Glengarry, actors would just show up to the sets and watch the others perform even if they weren't on camera.

Got it. Glad to see GGR. My two favorite plays of all time were both adapted in the same year. Both really well, and no one ever saw them. The other would be Noises Off. If you've never seen that, you have to right away! Stay Tuned too.

To each their own. IMO Kong holds up, but it looks as fake as it did back in 05. It was a choice, it's hard mapping an entire screen vs. one element.

The prequels are just one of those things. I know people will nag and nag and nag, but there is so much good there, I don't care who you are. It will always come down to 85% amazing, 15 are you out of your fucking mind. Star Wars will continue to have a standard that no other franchise will ever have. Would I want James Gunn Attack of the Clones, sure why not. I doubt it would be much different.

That's a little naive. Theres a lot to throw up about Trek 09, but we choose not to because its all new to the masses. TFA all the way, but Trek is beyond awesome.

I've seen all but one so far. I'm not sure how underrated a lot of these are. I think I'd put 5 Cage films before 8mm (I mean I agree its better than what it seemed, but not enough to call it a missed classic per say)

I like Ruffalo, would have loved to have seen Norton do it. You ever hear the story of Ruffalo at comic con when it was down to the wire and they said "And coming back as Hulk" for his announcement. And he was like "Uh do I go out?" Zwackwerm is a kid. Basically an idiot that claims to know more than anyone but is so horrendously wrong all the time. People say his name when someone says something stupid.

Agree, We're talking strictly CGI, Kong is actually almost a step down. Even a film like Jurassic Park III holds up better. Kong outside of the motion capture looks pretty meh. Kong is beautiful, the rest is pretty uneven. However to say something looks fake is subjective. Kong battling dinosaurs is fake no matter what. My list would be: Goblet of Fire Sin City Narnia War of the Worlds Sith (This is very dated in spots too, but its original so I'll take it over dinosaurs worst than 13 years earlier)

It's definitely been a while. I'm good man, branching out from the mundane that KJ has become. Still working in film and TV, still not quite there but consistent enough. KJ definitely is missing your flair. The trolling is almost manufactured now which is kind of annoying. How are things with you? I don't think we've talked since before the Avengers. Would love to hear your thoughts on Ruffalo's Hulk. Correction. The CGI is pretty standard. It's the motion capture that was fantastic. The CGI isn't even in the top 5 for 2005.

2006 saw two love letters in Kong and Superman Returns. Nothing wrong with them at all, just nothing to bring them to the next level.

My Rankings (Not including the Dr. No theme, cause come on) 1. A View to a Kill 2. Goldfinger 3. Casino Royale 4. The Spy Who Loved Me 5. Live and Let Die 6. Skyfall 7. Diamonds are Forever 8. You Only Live Twice 9. License to Kill 10. Octopussy 11. On her Majesty's Secret Service 12. For Your Eyes Only 13. Thunderball 14. The Living Daylights 15. The World is Not Enough 16. Never Say Never Again 17. From Russia With Love 18. Moonraker 19. Spectre 20. Die Another Day 21. Goldeneye 22. The Man With the Golden Gun 23. Quantum of Solace 24. Tomorrow Never Dies

Inflation really is the biggest factor here. I did a study on this a long time ago, and when you really compare budgets, Brosnan didn't really do that much better really outside of Goldeneye, which as everyone said had 6 year wait, during the the effects age, a sizable budget increase, and the beginning of much stronger US marketing: Title (Budget) WW Gross- Profit (Using the basic studio gets 55% of gross then subtracting the shooting budget) Live and Let Die (7) 161- 82 million The Man With the Golden Gun (7) 97- 46 million The Spy Who Loved Me (14) 185- 88 million Moonraker (34) 210- 82 million For Your Eyes Only (28) 195- 80 million Octopussy (27) 184- 75 million A View To a Kill (30) 152- 53 million The Living Daylights (40) 192- 67 million License to Kill (30) 156- 56 million Goldeneye (60) 352- 133.6 million Tomorrow Never Dies (110) 333- 73 million The World is Not Enough (135) 361- 64 million Die Another Day (145) 432- 92.6 million Now granted these don't include tax incentives, or sponsors or how much they spent on marketing (Which Brosnan's films obviously were higher) But you take away Goldeneye, there all about 10% apart. Connery and Craig are the ones that really lit the series on fire. But they all made money in the end.

Skip to 2:00 minutes in