Hunch
-
Posts
532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Hunch
-
-
This has flop written all over it. The public is not here for these fairy tale sequels.
-
3 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
Except of course, the inhabitants of those countries are a) usually have a lower general level of education and so do not know the level of impact they are having on the planet, and b) are actually having less of an impact on the planet than those in the richest countries - as we have known for some time [source]. To make it easy for you to understand - a person in NA having 1 child is of a greater environmental impact than the equivalent person on the Indochinese Peninsula for example.
Very nice try though, if somewhat inept. I do give you credit for admitting when you're wrong.
What are your opinions on immigration to first world countries?
-
22 hours ago, Barnack said:
Not sure about that (what is your source ?)
1) Negative Effect of climate change started earlier in many non first world countries and are usually bigger.
2) Outside first world countries a giant % of the population are farmer or have other form of making a living directly from nature and know/follow/directly feel climate related news quite more than the average first worlder, if they are not farmer they often have one in the family or know some.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
% of people very concerned that climate change will harm me personally:
Latin America: 63%
Africa: 61%
Asia-Pacific: 37%
Europe: 27%
Middle east" 27%
US: 30%
Climate change is a serious problem
Africa: 61%
Latin America: 74%
US: 45%
Europe: 54%
Percentage of each country polled who agree with : Climate change is a serious problem
Brazil 86% Burkina Faso 79% Chile 77% India 76% Uganda 76% Peru 75% .....
Russia 33% Ukraine 29% Pakistan 29% Israel 24% Poland 19% China 18% I stand corrected!
Unfortunately for @JamesCameronScholar, this means he's effectively calling Kenyans, Peruvians, Indians, Ugandas, et. al. morally repugnant for choosing to have children, which is not a good look in 2019.
-
Pissney's prolefeed wins once again. At least they will get their karma next year with a slate full of flops while Warner Bros (the only real movie studio left) puts out quality like Tenet and Dune.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Christmas has become a gold mine for musicals. In the past few years we've had Les Miserables, Into the Woods, The Greatest Showman, Mary Poppins Returns, and La La Land all make $100m+. This will follow suit. Yes people are complaining that it looks weird. So what, they'll get used to it and it will work in its favour; it makes the film stand out so much. It looks like an event.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
It honestly looks spectacular. Like true Hollywood movie magic. Yes some of the face effects look a bit goofy (especially poor JHud) but they still have 5 months to fine-tune the effects.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
So that's how you sleep at night. You choose to be blind to what climate science is telling us. As I said previously, I wasn't talking about population changes, I was talking about an individuals' moral choice when having children. I merely pointed out that I could not bring a child into the world knowing full well that in the next 20-30 years they're in for a very rough time, to put it mildly. My generation has done so much damage to this planet, I really couldn't see something I love hurtling towards what I know will be a very bleak future given current trends.
It's all theoretical anyway, I didn't realize it at the time but being gay ended up being more of a blessing than I could have ever hoped for, saved me those hard choices.
The only people who are really aware or care about the long-term effects of climate change are educated people in first world countries. Those people are already basically not having kids with really low birthrates. Your wish is going to come true! In 100 years there will be very few descendants of people who really really care about climate change right now.
-
5 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
I hope Jim addresses natalism in some form in the sequels. I know he has a large family, but he also owns hundreds of acres of land and thousands of liters of fresh water in NZ so he gets a small pass on that front. How others can justify having children that will have to live through possibly the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced is beyond me. To inflict that level of suffering on another person is just unconscionable.
I'm confused...do you want people to stop having children?
-
The nightmare fuel uncanny valley CGI mess we are about to subjected to...
-
On 7/4/2019 at 8:59 AM, CoolEric258 said:
He should be playing a European terrorist instead. There are plenty of cases in real life to draw inspiration from in the past 2-3 years!
-
1
-
-
It's JAMES CAMERON.
JAMES. CAMERON.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if this grosses more than the first Avatar. It's JAMES CAMERON.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, TLK said:
The audience for Hollywood movies back in the day was 90%+ white when all of these Disney movies came out. It is now mostly non-white thanks to International box office. The studios are making their decisions based on the changing movie economics.
Well, Disney is coming off A Wrinkle in Time, which was the worst-performing major-studio fantasy film at the international box office in like the last 20 years, so I doubt this was a decision made for finances. Plus, if your argument is that people want to watch people of their same ethnicity, most of that expanded global audience comes from Asia and Latin America, not Africa. I think this was a casting decision made on who was best for the role. She probably knocked her audition out of the park, and she's beautiful and talented.
-
1
-
-
$70m/$220m DOM $180m intl
I think people will start getting tired of these "reimaginings". After that they will probably start making live-action versions of Pixar movies, God forbid...
-
1
-
3
-
-
Too soon after the Drew/Cameron/Lucy version. People still remember that trio and frankly this new one doesn't look nearly as dynamic. I think itz a bomb.
-
1
-
-
On 6/18/2019 at 2:24 PM, Alli said:
"Tenet"'s overall budget is a reported €200 million about 250M dollars
https://news.err.ee/953516/government-meeting-thursday-to-mull-5-million-loan-in-nolan-movie-support
It's the Inception sequel. I knew it.
-
6 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:
This needs a minuscule budget for a tentpole in order to not be a guaranteed money loser for WB. Like it literally can’t be going much above 100 before marketing costs.
They can't make it for less than $150m probably, audiences expect big visual effects from these films. Even the third Narnia movie cost $150m.
-
They should try to wrap up the story in the next film, but I suspect that will be hard because they really did think there was enough interest for five and she has a ridiculous story mapped out, and even if she tried, the central gist of it would have to be Credence and at this point no1curr about him, so it would make the film flop.
-
The footage from the actual film looks completely different from The Shining, which is probably why they felt the need to insert a bunch of shots from the original film. This might result in a big OW as audiences expect a similar setting/tone, but it could lead to really bad WOM once they realize it's really a film about a weird cult and has nothing to do with a creepy hotel.
-
On 6/15/2019 at 5:02 PM, YourMother the Edgelord said:
Reshoots happen for like every superhero movie nowadays. It’d be weird if it didn’t happen honestly.
Really? I guess I'm still living in 2005 when they were a rarity and spelled trouble lol.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:
George Lucas on this exact topic (The Revenge of the Sith director)
"If you do what a lot of people do, it just becomes generic. It’s just the same old thing. One person I can point to who is great at world building is Jim Cameron. Avatar was brilliant. It’s hard to design worlds and come up with stories and have them operate around it. You have to know the rules on everything. If you don’t play by the rules, then it becomes just a mishmash. If you come up with something new, you have to say what all the rules are about it."
You may see youself out now HunchI kind of object to the notion of Avatar being something new when the plot is Dances with Pocahontas in space.
-
4 hours ago, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:
Already Very Good reactions this far out is fucking terrific.Obviously some reshoots are going to happen and Queen Patty obviously will deliver.
Oh there are reshoots? Delayed a year AND reshoots does not bode well for it. Patty Jenkins is very mediocre as a director, maybe this time people will realize it because they won't be blinded by novelty.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:
"I've hired the best artists and technicians in the world to design these films," explains Cameron. "There will be such a richness of imagery that I think people just won't be able to imagine it in advance, but it will just seem right when they finally see it."
Can we please stop pretending that the first Avatar's world was anything but basic af? A jungle with some fluorescent lights and floating rocks, big deal. Literally any of the random planets they showed in Revenge of the Sith were cooler and had more creativity.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, BoxOfficeZ said:
The suggestions here that they should sell it to Netflix is ridiculous. It is definitely not how contracts and licensing works (Unless Netflix was to somehow offer a mind boggling amount of money to cover everything). Makes me wonder if anyone else here even follows the movie industry.
First off, GvK has already been worked on and finished filming in April. Secondly, money doesn't magically vanish like that into something else. It has already been spent on sets, cgi costs, salaries, etc. More pickup shots will happen but it is fairly common in the movie industry. "Reshoots" are done literally all the time but people assume its evil. If they want to add more monster fights that’s will be all done in post-production but it's up to Legendary if they want to change it up.
I have more faith in Rossio's script than Wingard tbh. If the delay happens 2020 December does seem way more reasonable than March in terms of competitors.
I've followed the film industry for 13 years and know countless people who work in it. There is recent precedent for a major studio selling a film off to streaming to cut losses: that's what Paramount did with Annihilation. There were also contracts and licensing rights (it was a book adaptation) and such involved there as there are in any production. Guess what, studios have armies of lawyers and if Warners decides that it's the best course of action to avoid a $100m loss flop, then they will do what they have to go down that route. It might also help both franchises long-term by avoiding the stink of a mega bomb released in theatres.
I only think they would consider this if the film is AWFUL though. If the Warner Bros execs look at it and they realize they're looking at a sub 30% RT disaster that will not only bomb but disappoint fans massively, then it might make sense to do that. If the film is solid like Skull Island was then I doubt they'd ever think about putting it on streaming.
Weekend Thread: SW 26.2/25.3/21 72.5M | Jumanji 11.7/12.4/11 35.1M | Frozen 6/5.85/5.3 17.15M
in Numbers and Data
Posted
Battle of the Five Armies grossed virtually the same as Smaug WW. WB made a big profit and everyone knew it was going to drop domestically anyway. Not a big disappointment.
This is going to struggle to reach 1B lol.