Jump to content

John Rambo

Free Account+
  • Posts

    1,057
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by John Rambo

  1. Boring, Bland and Tasteless. Smith has reached peaks in terms of script selection! Gave me Seven Pounds vibes in several scenes, smith should understand that hes no longer the biggest draw he used to be. Please get back to action (apart from SS), comedy no more drama!

    No choice apart from giving this one D.

  2. Released during summer of 1985 and Stallone was on the verge of being the no 1 star a few months later after this with Rocky 4 due for release!

    Pretty sure the first one was very well received which led to huge increase in its domestic gross more than 3 times of 47M grossed by First Blood. Whereas OS had comparatively lesser than 2x increase with 78M for the first and 150 for the 2nd one! 

    Discuss! :) 

  3. 2 hours ago, newbie BO buff said:

     

    Spot on Sir, Cruise has always been a solid box office draw in Indonesia.

    However, I still don't think The Mummy will get anywhere near the latest entries in the FF series. The just seem to operate on an entirely different level.

    A new MI movie, however, might be in the 8-10m range.

     

    Tom Cruise Indonesian grosses:

    The Mummy - 4.4m (1.67m adm) 

    Jack Reacher 2 - 3.04m (1.17m adm)

    MI Rogue Nation - 8m (3.25m adm)

    Edge of Tomorrow - 5.3m (1.88m adm)

    Oblivion - 3.27m (1.13m adm)

    Jack Reacher - 2.39m (773k adm)

    MI Ghost Protocol - 6.14m (2.51m adm)

    Knight and Day - 1.62m (666k adm)

    Valkyrie - 494k

    MI 3 - 2.32m

    War of the Worlds - 1.22m

    Collateral - 353k

    MI 2 - 1.4m

    MI - 1.99m

     

    Fast and Furious:

    8 - 19.33m

    7 - 16.76m

    6 - 9.13m

    5 - 3.16m

    4 - 2.29m

    3 - 958k

    2 - 656k

    3 - 

     

    Hmm your right :) but i felt that if this flick had great promotions, holiday advantage coupled with Positive WoM then it might have grossed close to FF7 OW atleast on its OW!

  4. Decent Grosses in Latin America which is traditionally Cruises weakest territory! 

    Kinda disappointed from Europe....UK was jus 1.3m USD higher than EoT (Oblivion opened to 7.5m+. Germany was bad 2.2m for tentpole franchisee movie! 

    Netherlands failed to touch 1mln OW. 

    France may follow the same trajectory. Japan may well fall in same category if not for cruise and MUmmy's popularity in Japan.

     

    In India the movie did very well in Southern part which is traditionally English movies Forte! 

    Rest of the country was Avg. It was dubbed in 3 Indian Languages namely Tamil, Telugu and Hindi. Not sure of Hindi but Tamil and Telugu have performed well. 

    Overall disappointing considering TC factor and The Mummy popularity!

    OW is similar to Spectre which is good.

    Taiwan opened bigger and better than Mi5 but MI5 had 3x legs which is great! Pretty sure this one will have tough time to reach MI5 gross.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  5. On 5/30/2017 at 8:50 PM, Barnack said:

    I'm not fully sure what you are asking there. (It had much more than just 60m to recoup, that movie total cost was over 250m

     

    Every revenue stream in that picture is put into other revenues and by seeing the presence of round number I would imagine it is deadline with studio people of the time estimating them by using the rule of thumb formula for a movie of that genre that had that type of life on TV.

     

    37% of your revenue from theatrical was probably about the average for big release of that era.

    Production budget is 175M. So i said it recouped 115m through theatrical run and remaining 60 how did it recoup? Im confused regarding amounts mentioned in that pic is it in 000s? 

    • Like 1
  6. 20 hours ago, aabattery said:

    Was looking up some other stuff and came across the fact that this had a 23.5% market share in it's year of release in Australia. If something did that in the US today it would make like $2.5 billion.

     

    Pretty insane box office run from whatever way you look at it.

    So you mean in AUS majority of the population watched crocodile dundee? Considering its low population and 40M+ in the 80s is Mindblowinggg

  7. Acting

    TA - 7

    TDKR - 8

    TDKR fares better. Thanks to Tom Hardy extra marks for him!

     

    Action

    TA - 9

    TDKR - 7

    TA way better than TDKR in terms of action and set pieces.

     

    Ambition

    TA - 10

    TDKR - 6

    TDKR wasnt as ambitious as TA. Pointless to compare it with TA but overall TA was much better.

     

    Cinematography

    TA - 9

    TDKR - 9

    Both are equally good.

     

    Dialogue

    TA - 9

    TDKR - 5

    Not a fan of dialogues but thanks to Iron Mans witty one liners!

     

    Emotion

    TA - 6

    TDKR - 9

    TDKR was high on emotion during the final scene before he reappears.

     

    Humor

    TA - 10

    TDKR - 3

    TA witty and humour at its best. TDKR was as bland as possible.

     

    Score

    TA - 8

    TDKR - 8

    Equally good.

     

    Script

    TA - 10

    TDKR - 7

    Generic for TA but thanks to screenplay. I liked the story alot compared to TDKR.

     

    Villains

    TA - 7

    TDKR - 8

    Bayne rules!

    TOTAL

    Avengers 85/100

    TDKR 62/100

    Winner TA

  8. 12 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

     

    No I haven't, but I've seen all of his films before his governator days and 2 after that, and IMO Conan The Barbarian is still his best work as an actor to this day. His acting hasn't really been any better since that lol

     

     

     

    Haha :D Try watching those if possible. Recently released Aftermath is another drama starring Arnold. Trailer itself looks interesting with respect to arnie in dramatic role. 

    Btw your post reminds me of Emma Thompsons comment on The GRaham Norton Show, when norton asks her if he can act? She replies No he cant :D (Instantly)

    • Like 1
  9. On 3/24/2017 at 3:28 AM, Barnack said:

     

    Rumors is that it didn't do any loss for the studio and was not a big money looser overall, like cited in one of the article in this thread:

    Despite the inevitable bad reviews, the cast’s tireless counterpoint appeared to work. In the end, while not a blockbuster, Waterworld exceeded its reported $175 million production budget by $89 million, once international ticket sales were tabulated, and the film ultimately turned a profit after video and cable sales.

     

     

    waterworld_08_02_13_v2_-_sent__130807230

     

     

    It could still have made a good ROI, it just needed to perform better on the domestic side. Marketing cost were not has high back then and some big movies in the 90's paid their production budget completely just with the TV first run, a different era.

     

    Apparently according to the MPAA, in 1994:

    Advertising, marketing and print costs increased to an average of $16.1 million per film (26.46 million in 2017 dollar)

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-08/business/fi-40252_1_average-cost

     

    Today the average cost of marketing without print for a studio movie is probably around 40 million for the domestic release alone, it was of 36 million in 2007 the last time the MPAA tracked that data.

    So it collected a share of 115M from DOM+OS. Fair Enough, but how did it recoup remaining 60M considering no break up is given for TV rights and other stuff?

     

    • Like 1
  10. 12 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

     

    I'm a huge Arnold fan, but let's face it, his on-screen charisma comes mostly from his physical appearance. His acting has always been bad since day one and so there was no such thing as wasted dramatic skills in the first place.

     

    I'd say Dwyane Johnson would most likely have to face the same problem at the age of losing physical appearance.

     

     

    Have you seen Maggie movie starring arnie he was promising as a dotting father! Never knew he could act so nicely by breaking his conventional image. I want arnie to explore the unknown side of his acting skills!

    Arnold was never an actor in most of the movies his physique overshadowed his acting skills! But somehow Terminator series was apt for him (1 & 2). Suited him very much in all aspects and he gave commendable performance! 

    He was good in Junior and True Lies (Comedy). 

    Dwayne yes but somehow i cannot picture him as an actor never been impressed by him! Hes always THE ROCK for me no matter what :D Like u said its most likely that he will surely face problem when he loses his physique!

  11. On 5/22/2017 at 0:27 PM, vc2002 said:

     

    Because he's been in flops after flops after returning to movies. T5 is his Creed and it flopped. Sly had ups and downs but his movie career is so much better than Arnold over the last 6 years. Arnold is not choosing to do low budgets. He's lucky to get what he's being offered at this point of his movie career.

    T5 was so bad i felt T3 was much better. Both have the had own share of ups and downs but arnie was smart enough in 90s to sustain himself whereas sly faltered badly in latter half of 90s. 

    Like you said hes lucky to get what hes offered but, why not with established studio or director, cast etc. His dramatic skills are being wasted!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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