Jonwo
-
Posts
16,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Jonwo
-
-
1 minute ago, grim22 said:
Its very early talks currently
I think he'd be better for Suicide Squad 2 if Mel doesn't direct it.
-
Vaughn would be excellent but would he do it?
-
Both Sing and The Lego Batman Movie has done incredibly well, only £2m between considering Sing had a higher OW and previews. With BATB coming, The Lego Batman Movie will miss £30m but still a solid run for both films.
Kong should hopefully match Godzilla's total but it depends on how it fares with BATB, Ghost in the Shell and to a lesser extent Power Rangers, Logan is also doing really well.
-
1 minute ago, Nova said:
I think in regards to star power, some folks also forget that the role matters. For example I can't imagine Melissa McCarthy starring in a heart wrenching drama and it doing well. Or Leonardo DiCaprio starring in a straight up comedy. I feel like today the actors who have this so called "star power" are the ones who have found their niche and are choosing the right roles. And their performances show. Some actors like to try different types of roles and it just doesn't click for them hence terrible reviews and a bad box office performance.
Tom Hanks has done well playing heroic people like Captain Phillips and Sully though he did have success playing against type in Road to Perdition, Cruise is mostly action but he has dabbled in non action roles in the last decade to varying degrees of success.
-
18 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:
BTW, those movies I listed, would never have been successful (even then) without the star-power they brought to the table. Back then, everyone was excited to see Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Julia Roberts, Jim Carrey etc etc in their latest movies. Now, we are all eagerly awaiting the next Star Wars, the next MCU, the next Batman, we argue about the Monsterverse and Potter. The star-vehicle, which once was almost all the rage, is now totally gone. Just put RDJ, or Ben Affleck or Chris Pratt in a random movie --> Nobody really cares...
IPs sells more than star power but I doubt an unknown would have sold films like The Martian or Gone Girl.
-
6 minutes ago, Barnack said:
Hugh Jackman can help a movie too, there was a windows were Liam Neeson was a draw in an action movie, Seth Rogan in a comedy, and I am probably forgetting some other non americans.
Jackman is a bit hit and miss as a draw, Prisoners was successful but it also had Jake Gyllenhaal, Les Mis sold itself and was pretty starry anyway. Pan was a failure but I don't think anyone could have saved that film.
-
The romcom is a genre that is all but dead domestically, it still does well internationally but there isn't writers or actors who want to do them in the same way we had Nora Ephron, Nancy Meyers and Richard Curtis.
Notting Hill and Runaway Bride came in 1999 both starred Julia Roberts at her peak but it's interesting that Runaway Bride was more successful domestically but not so much OS but vice versa for Notting Hill which was a huge OS hit and was more profitable as it cost a bit less.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Heretic said:Fantastic for Logan. It's down only 42% Fri-Sun, and its weekday business (£4m) was very strong. Should end up close to £25m, which would be the 2nd biggest of the franchise after Days of Future Past. X Men 2 is the only other film to top £20m, so this is a massive achievement for Logan.
Shouldn't Deadpool count or is that a seperate from the X-Men franchise?
I'm really curious to see how Power Rangers as I've seen posters but I have a feeling it's going to be another F4ntastic
-
2 hours ago, Heretic said:
$7.6m for Kong, which is over £6m. That's actually a great start, and more than expected especially considering the weak pre-sales. It must've done really well Sat+Sun, playing like a family film.
Logan being a 15 meant there is room for a 12A tent pole. Kong has to make the most of this week before BATB dominates the market
-
2 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:
For shame Tele. All those years on this planet and not seeing one of them.
To be fair, he's based in LA and I think he wouldn't get it... I think the best one to start is Carry On Camping
-
2 minutes ago, grim22 said:
Not enough though, judging by how even he had to go to Netflix after Silence.
I am guessing Paramount and STX got cold feet, I imagine it'll still get a limited theatrical release.
I imagine studios want another Shutter Island or The Departed which were hugely successful rather than passion projects like Silence. Zemeckis might have issues too since The Walk and Allied both lost money, Spielberg will be fine as The Post and Ready Player One will be successful
-
5 minutes ago, John Marston said:
going back to budgets. Many Martin Scorsese movies have huge budgets (Bringing out the Dead, Gangs of New York, Aviator, Hugo) to the point where the studio must know they won't make a profit theatrically but the must greenlight them still thanks to Scorsese's power
Marty has delivered enough hits and clout to have a flop once in a while, studios are willing to bet on him in the same way Clint Eastwood had three back to back flops but bounced back with American Sniper and Sully. Paramount can swallow a flop like Silence which they only distributed since it was independently funded if Marty gives them another hit like Shutter Island
-
7 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:
Possibly. There were a variety of reasons why non U.S. made films may or may not have found success stateside.
Four Weddings and a Funeral was really successful as was The Full Monty, Notting Hill and most recently The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and its sequel. The Crying Game was more successful in the US than in the U.K.!
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:
Silvers was in a later day film in the series called Follow That Camel. His inclusion was an attempt to get the film has some in the U.S., which didn't really end up happening.
Even if it had been released in the US, I doubt it would have been successful although Monty Python was successful in the States and I think Benny Hill was shown in syndication so maybe it could have succeeded had they got American distribution for the films
@Telemachos, have you ever seen a Carry On or is it before your time ?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Fancyarcher said:
Probably helps that they were actually using Hollywood made props.
True, I've watched the Carry On films and the cheapness adds to the charm even if they are of varying degrees of quality. Cleo is very good but Carry On Camping and Carry On Up the Khyber are the best of the series. It's a film series of its era which really can't be replicated today.
I know Phil Silvers did a Carry On but I wonder if it was ever shown in other countries?
-
6 minutes ago, Barnack said:
I imagine that when big stars assemble for a movie now, they cut on what they usually get because they want to work together, Concussion was giving around 50% of the profit to is cast like American Hustle, the difference is that on Concussion 50% of the profit went to Will Smith alone, while the cast and director of Hustle had to split it among themselves.
I assume Hanks took a pay cut for Bridge of Spies and Sully as those were mid range budgets with big name directors.
-
4 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:
Makes sense! They set actually don't look bad, they were obviously very primitive, though, and look a bit unfinished.
For a Carry On film which were shot on shoestring budgets, they look like they spent some actual money!
-
1
-
-
Just now, Fancyarcher said:
Cleopatra was very much a behind the scenes fiasco, particularly with shooting locations, that's why its budget ballooned.
The original sets and costumes in London which were abandoned when they moved to Rome were reused either for free or on a very low cost for Carry On Cleo.
-
1
-
-
I would guess huge salaries is why big actors are rarely paired together. You'd never see Jolie and Cruise in a film together or Hanks and Cruise because that would be $35-40m in salaries alone not including points and percentage of gross.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Barnack said:
Wahlberg cost a reasonable cost, not cheap, but reasonable:
Salary $15M for Transformers 4, he has options in place for 2 sequels, at $19M and $20M respectively.
On the first he had points starting at 4% after 200 million at the world BO ramping up to 7.25%
Paramount give already a lot to Hasbro, Bay and Spielberg, so they cannot give much point to the cast, they try to limit first dollar gross going away to 25%, on a movie making 1 billion worldwide, that is a giant amount that goes away.
Spielberg must make a tidy sum being exec producer of Transformers, Jurassic World etc I imagine he's on a hefty salary for Ready Player One, more so than The BFG.
-
5 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:
Cleopatra was the highest-grossing film of its year (1963), though. It's a rare film that was simultaneously the highest-grossing film of its year while also being a huge flop.
Yup, the second one had a lot of reshoots done, though, since Donner got fired midway through production.
Cleopatra was a huge behind the scenes fiasco, I think had they decided to split the film in two, they would have made a decent profit. The film almost bankrupted Fox but they were saved by The Sound of Music two years later.
Superman was $55m but thankfully was a huge hit grossing $300m WW. Marlon Brando was a good chunk of that budget.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Barnack said:
I does seem to have went overbudget, it was greenlight for 210 million net, 35 million less than the end result, Sony also expected getting 58-59% of the domestic box office at one point....
Angels&Demons was a total surprise, Davinci code was such a giant success (the studio revenue on that movie were of 833 million) that they spent way to loosely on the sequel, Angels&Demon net production budget was of 193.56 million and people obviously big first dollar gross deal, they gave 62.25 million in bonus, turning it effectively in a movie costing over 250 million with a giant 170 million world P&A release. Having a budget + bonus + p&A of 425 million was not updated to the new reality of the dvd market that just started to decline, the movie declined of just 35% at the box office, but declined by 50% on home video, 2006 when Da Vinci Code was release was maybe the all-time peak of Hollywood profitability.
That probably why they cancelled the sequel and did skip one book (the sequel had a release date planned and all), the cast/director/producer accepted to open their contract, remove first dollar gross and divide their salary by 2 to make Inferno happen.
The Lost Symbol was very American centric being about Freemasons which likely concerned Sony since the Langdon series is more of a OS seller and Inferno was better received.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Barnack said:
If only, the net budget was of 245.908 million
Depends for who, for the cast, director and Spielberg it certainly was, with a very nice 88.43 million participation bonus, but a 245.9 million movie + a 88.43 million from gross participation turned it into a massive 334.33 million dollar movie, it's box office should have been enough to break even but the movie flopped on home media.
Third party investor lost 19.93 million on the movie, Sony studio lost 28.112 million.
Men in Black 3 and Angels&Demon loosing a lot of money are 2 of the most extreme example that we just don't know, except for extreme example, if a movie was profitable or not.
Didn't MIB3 go majorly over budget due to shutting down mid production to rework the script?
Angels and Demons I'm surprised lost money, probably explained why Inferno had a smaller budget.
-
I wonder if the marketing hurt Kong's OD? There were posters I saw on tubes and buses which had the 10th March as its release date but a handful with the 9th March.
Spider-Man: Into The Spider-verse | 12.14.2018 | Sony | Phil Lord and Chris Miller
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
SPA seem to bringing out more animated and hybrid films with four next year alone!