Gautske

This is totally for you... Courtesy of the LA Times... Oh it's coming... http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-ghostbusters-remake-reaction-20160716-snap-htmlstory.html (there's a poll to vote in too!)

Don't underestimate the sentiment/plethora of articles like this one: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/your-duty-to-see-ghostbusters-this-weekend.html

The short answer is because Chinese movies are even worse than our Hollywood flops. Many Chinese admit that they even think many of these films aren't good, but they're still better than a lot of the domestic crap that gets made there. I've heard/read that many Chinese filmmakers complain about creative freedom (adherence to strict guidelines) and how government censors still force them to make heavy edits that lead to incoherent plots among other problems. Basically, censors playing the role of heavily-interfering big studios except they have different motivations. I know there has been a lot of push-back in China over the last couple of years (and we're seeing Hollywood partner more with domestic Chinese companies), but their film industry (HK excluded) is still relatively young.

This sounds like the same thing Scott Mendelson at Forbes was trying to peddle like a month ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/22/why-is-mad-max-fury-road-a-hit-while-terminator-genisys-is-a-flop/ Except MMFR has made over 1.5M more domestically with another 4M+ international tallied since he declared MMFR done. The top comment on that article is also worthy of note (along with what a lot of people here have already said in response). For what it's worth, last August's WSJ article is worth checking out with all the subsequent discussion of Domestic/International receipts (might be behind a paywall [can be googled around]): http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925 "In the U.S., with its comparatively robust post-theatrical businesses, $1 of box office translates into about $1.75 of total revenue over a decade." There's a nice graphic like this attached also: As others have said, Mad Max is going in a completely different direction than the Terminator franchise. I imagine Fury Road will breathe life into the market for the previous movies in a much more significant way than what Terminator Genisys will do for its more well-known installments.

Saw this on the 7th, and I give it a B, maybe a B+ if I'm generous. I think it was decent and better than a lot of the stuff that's out there now (or comes out). It's very much a throwback to all the early 90s type of thrillers. (see Roeper's review where he lists a number of those movies that this made me think of while watching: http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/gift-thriller-keeps-giving-goosebumps/) I quoted ainsleyb above because I similarly figured out early on where I thought this was going. I was hoping the twist/subversion would go in a different direction, but my initial suspicion turned out to be correct. For me, I found this too predictable and very disappointing. There were a few things that strained credulity throughout the movie, but I'll echo that it's still fairly solid. Now there were elements/scenes, even while watching it, I'm not sure would make sense on a rewatch, but many are so minor that most people don't seem to have as much of a problem with them as I did. I also didn't see any trailer for this movie (I thought it was actually going to be more horror than suspense until my friend let me know right before it started) and didn't realize Joel Edgerton was so intimately involved in so many aspects of the film. I think this is a really fine effort on his part and am interested in seeing what he does going forward. The whole "gay" thing was also in the back of my head as well because the one thing I did hear about it beforehand (from a podcast) revolved around some kind of "gay fling" but I wasn't sure if they were being facetious or not. Bottomline, I'm not sure I really liked the ending (and/or execution of) as much as some other directions they could've gone. It probably takes my rating down a notch or two, but if you like suspense/thrillers, I still recommend checking it out. Oh, I do definitely like what they were going for with Bateman's character and that general theme as many have mentioned. Just felt this had a lot more potential.

I think there's a ton of JW trash-talking versus MMFR folks and then some kind of racial/urban argument that got deleted, so I think probably not worth reading mostly to answer your question.

Did anyone read the book for The Martian? I don't know if Ridley Scott being attached to this is a good thing or bad thing anymore. Watching the trailer, I do remember seeing this a while back. It looks like a serious movie, anyway. I might wait for the RT score and to read critic reviews when this comes out. Is there huge anticipation for the second trailer dropping?

I'm not sure if you're being semi-sarcastic or not, but I remember reading how we would have a manned mission to Mars by 2017 or 2018 in the 90s... Now it's like 2035 if everything goes to plan/wishes of the Mars dreamers and with private industry contribution. NASA's budget is always looking more dismal as well. Best bet is if the Chinese are serious about establishing a moon base to rekindle that Soviet space race dynamic. I had to quickly google this stuff because I haven't paid attention in a few years but launch/resupply windows are ~500 days (not factoring in how to leave Mars, radiation effects, etc..). Getting to Mars has always reminded me of fusion power... Always two or three decades away. I'll still watch the trailers to see if I can buy into this, but I think I'm still trying to get those... Depp and Kilmer movies out of my head? Forgettable anyway. I skipped Gravity when I kept getting people to tell me to see it. I responded that if it was anything like "Castaway in Space," I don't think I'll like it much, and people were just like, "nevermind then." I thought Apollo 13 was alright, but I haven't seen it since... the 90s? I guess I need to start hyping myself for this one if I'm going to indeed find hype for it.

I have yet to pay much of any attention to The Martian, but it sounds like one of those movies where I might have trouble getting into just based on the premise. As BKB says, a Mars mission is likely a one-way ticket for the very foreseeable future. No one is coming to rescue you... PERIOD. It's uneconomical and the planetary alignment makes the travel window very limited. NASA would most likely just try to keep you alive long enough to do whatever is you went there to do before letting you die. I don't know if that would make the most desirable movie (but I do like the idea of knowing you will die, but can you accomplish your mission before doing so? — diff movie though). I will have to checkout the trailers nonetheless. Answering the question though... No... I'm not adventurous/space obsessed.

Speaking of Batman '89, I remember how incredibly popular that was at the theater then (also GB 2 and IJ&TLC). HUGE lines for a comic book movie. I was either too young or not really paying attention to the Superman movies then, but Batman '89 wass really my first memory of the absolutely massive GA appeal of a comic book character movie. I ended up see The Gift this Friday cold, never saw a preview for it. Very much a throwback to all those early 90s stalker thrillers. The theater was quite diverse, mostly 30+, and fairly packed. I would say the movie was "okay," not sure if it really holds up on analysis or on another viewing. Waiting for that showing though, my friend and I were hanging out in front of one of the FF4 theaters (in a 24 screen multiplex) for about 15 min, and we decided to dip into a 1:00 something FF4 showing to see how many people were in there. The credits were just ending, and there was nobody in there. Neither one of us recalled anyone coming out of that theater the whole time we had been talking there either. We both thought, "Wow, this movie is going to totally bomb."

Yeah.. I noticed the same thing with the UK as Australia since I posted this. Bigger number in US$ from mid-July on BOM and a lower US$ from the The Numbers more recently updated. Sifting through public Rentrak data as we speak. This is driving me nuts now. There are a lot of discrepancies between the sites (I think EoT has a $5m difference in total takes between the two sites). I used the Australian figures earlier from Aussie sources, but who knows if those are good either. I guess IBO take is added weekly (daily?) using the conversion rate at the end of the weekend? I wonder if some of it is the sites using conversion rates on broad totals. I figure the Russian BO is really hard to calculate (broadly) with the ruble fluctuations. Any other good sources for accurate numbers that are easily available? I do know that 216m is wrong because you can just look up the Japanese take since that time..

Any updates on the foreign total? Is Japan the only market still open or is Mad Max still raking in couch change in any other territories like Australia*? Japan thread has MM:FR still open (posted early 8/4) with a 12.7m total take. From BOM: IBO: 216M DOM: 152.2M WW: 368.2 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=furyroad.htm (updated 7/16) From The Numbers: IBO: 219.5 DOM: 152.2M WW: 371.7 http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mad-Max-Fury-Road#tab=international (updated 8/4 — but I think it was updated to 219.5m around 7/30) Breaking 370m WW is a nice hurdle to get over. I'm still seeing industry/movie sites referring to MM's worldwide take not breaking 370m referencing those BOM numbers. I'm assuming the 219.5m is more accurate, but if anyone has anything more to add, please do. If not, this serves as a nice update anyway. *I've seen numbers for Australia in AUD for July 9-15th with a $21,558,971 and a figured posted on 7/31 with $21,606,347 (~ $15.87m US). The difference for those two weeks is $47,736 which converts to about $34,800 US. BOM has a total converted take of $16,071,753 US as of 7/12. The Numbers has the take as $15,777,646 as of 8/3. As it all depends on conversion rates, it's hard to pin a figure, but the BOM/Numbers figures are curious considering the updates.

I didn't see this last week, but I've (probably) seen it here and have else where. If I remember correctly, there was an article from one of the trade pubs back from like 2010 or 2011 (several years ago anyway) where the Chinese censors didn't permit/condone movies with time travel/speculative future type stuff. I've also seen others follow-up saying that the Chinese government has basically abandoned that policy over the years (like the ban of home console video games now being lifted). That's why movies like DOFP, and I think stuff like Looper got China releases. In fact, I remember seeing several movies that were released in China over recent years that had time travel/future elements. It just goes to show that these things get so entrenched when trying to speculate on why foreign movies get delayed or unreleased in the Chinese market.

http://movieweb.com/goonies-2-gremlins-3-reboot-still-happening/ (not sure how credible the site is but just the same) Studios really are trying to plunder the 80s bare. I sympathize with Robert Zemeckis (when did I miss all this conspiracy theories/hate surrounding Forrest Gump anyway?) on BTTF. Would anyone be surprised if Chris Columbus (or Disney) angles for An Adventures in Babysitting remake with Chris Hemsworth crossing over as Thor this time around?

Oh, wow... If it does open sub-30, I hope that means Chris Columbus won't be allowed to wreck havoc on The Goonies and the adult Harry Potter characters. Thanks. I wish they would all track as long as possible.

WB and FOX usually keep tracking until nearly the end or is that just coincidental from my samples? I've noticed Disney/Universal stop tracking, and I can't recall what all the others do off the top of my head.

I'm not rooting for it (or against it), but AOU had a lower drop of theaters last week I'm assuming because of Ant-Man... When the weekend went up by 3% for AOU, I wanted to look at the dailies and per location averages.. I know sounds really nerdy, but you can make some interesting correlations even looking at very late numbers on movies.

Ugh... It's easier to pretend there's not a sequel/remake when there's not a sequel/remake. Doesn't he also want to continue on with the Harry Potter series? So Disney has stopped daily tracking of AOU as of last Friday? Speaking of tracking, is it just a coincidence that Divergent: Insurgent, Kingsman, Night at the Museum, Get Hard, Age of Adeline, McFarland USA, and The Longest Ride (throw in Escobar and the Ark of Mr. Chow if you like) all closed their theatrical runs on July 9th? Were all these movies kept around just for the July 4th holiday? I'm just curious if I should factor in all kinds of summer stuff lingering around through the summer to all close close after labor day weekend? Anyone also know how Universal releases their periodic numbers? Like when will they update numbers on FF7 and 50 Shades of Grey?

But in baseball, winning by 8 runs might be considered "demolishing." It is summer after all.

I care about good movies too... The problem is that a lot of sequels/remakes rest on their brand recognition/nostalgia and not the being good part, and it works more often than it should. This nostalgia (and sequel) dependent model I referred to, means relying just on brand recognition to get them in the theater and the nostalgia to keep enough of the audience semi-complacent even if pretty much everything about the film is not good. If you can insert director X, written by X, starring X, and still make several hundred millions, that's much better than going after big name directors, stars, and other talent if it's meaningless to the actual business they bring in — and you don't have to deal with any egos. So my complaint isn't necessarily the originality argument but the dearth of quality movies (like the death of mid-budgets and migration to TV), and one of the reasons, along with the crazy prices, I don't see that many movies anymore. I didn't see the last Die Hard because it looked terrible, and I unfortunately, did see the last Indiana Jones (but I wouldn't see another so willfully). I just don't subscribe to the theory that big budget means crappy story, spectacle-driven, and not much else. Many people happily give studios their money anyway. My point is that It's possible to do both, but why should studios make such an effort if people are happily paying out the nose for mediocre movies with plug-and-play pieces? I know it's probably just another cycle that will require a bunch of big franchises to bite them in the arse—like big star salaries and back-end deals did, but it's not going to be enjoyable while we watch the quality bar lowered even further in the meantime. This is supposed to be how it works... Make a crappy sequel, and no one will pay you money to see the next installment. I'm more encouraged when mediocre movies get punished. Disheartened when good ones bomb. If studios stumble upon concepts like dinosaurs or other brands that churn out people (and merch opportunities!) to amazing profits no matter the quality/pandering, why would they ever stop? (Not directed at you Gopher, but just using your quote to make my point). Anyhow, I'm sympathizing with Dustin Hoffman.

1. Mad Max: Fury Road (A or A-) — had tempered expectations and was surprised (despite good reviews) 2. Inside Out (B+) — had high expectations and was slightly disappointed 3. It Follows (B-) — no idea what this was when I saw it (friend brought me) 4. Jurassic World (C+) — expected it to be slightly worse after mixed reviews 5. Pitch Perfect 2 ( C ) — pretty much met expectations, but was slightly worse/juvenile than I had anticipated (did not see first movie) 6. Spy (C-) — tempered expectations, but still worse than I expected

That's basically the point I was trying to make as well when talking about the script. There's an easy assumption to make that a film — with trouble/changes brewing about the script for some time — with a lot of problems in the finished product has a lot to do with the script/writing. Articles like these don't help: http://deadline.com/2015/04/jurassic-world-script-credits-resolved-colin-trevorrow-speaks-on-arbitration-process-1201406086/ Anyway you want to view it, it's probably a team effort for all the things that went wrong with this movie — if you're one willing to admit this movie has these problems. My biggest concern isn't JW breaking/snatching records, but a green-light for Hollywood to put out more rehashes and other garbage as mass appeal money makers without much regard to the actual quality of the film and story. I can't help but think JW was so meta because it realized it couldn't just ignore all these inherent problems. We've also seen the opposite side of the coin with Terminator Genisys relying so heavily on nostalgia and revisiting/rewriting the past (and ignoring previous sequels) as well, so maybe there's hope of this as a cautionary tale. Hollywood just isn't very good at learning the right lessons a lot of the time, and personally speaking, I didn't enjoy JW and probably wouldn't like Terminator Genisys (I didn't see it), I still do not want this nostalgia dependent model becoming an even more dominant trend.

Cameron debates aside , but, no I don't think so. I've probably last been there in the 90s, but I don't even remember that for certain. I know they were building a lot of the bigger theaters around that time, so if it's a newer theater built after 1999, then definitely not. I've always been kind of underwhelmed by the AMC theaters. The one near me built in like 1996 was really huge (two-story) and nice at the time, but like I said it's gone to total hell now. The AMCs around Chicago that I remember weren't that well-matained either. Seeing how AMC now owns one of the nicer indie theaters I frequented in Wisconsin makes me kind of shudder thinking that it's probably going to fall into understaffed/undertrained disrepair as well, but oh well. Thanks for the heads up on Gulf Point 30. If I ever get the urge to hit that theater up, I'll just remember what you said and that it's AMC. I would honestly be surprised if it wasn't a dump now if it was already a dump eight years ago.

I believe Cameron really believes in the 3D thing. It's six years after Avatar, and he's taking forever making the sequels. If he let the suits and $$$ dictate his vision, we would be waiting for Avatar 4 at this point. Not saying I love Avatar or really have rewatched since it left the theaters. I think it's just completely different. If Fox was like Marvel/Disney, they would've had those sequels out already. Just look how upset Cameron is over what they did to the Terminator franchise. I've never been a huge Whedon fan, and I don't want to say he didn't try with the Avengers, but it's a franchise controlled by Marvel with the whole idea being that this is the big payoff for the studio. I don't remember Disney/Marvel planning to abandon the Avengers without Whedon completely guiding the project.

Brilliant artistically or brilliant for raking in money from the GA? We might need to distinguish this.