Moviesareawesomegirl

When Pratt makes a non-MCU, non-established franchise film with his sole name above the title become a big hit (like Tom H, Tom C, Julia, Angelina, and Harrison before him have done), then I will believe that his presence made GOTG and JW the smash hits they were.

GOTG was released smack in the middle of MCU-mania. You cannot tell me that the potent, white-hot MCU brand had nothing to do with GOTG's success.

Pratt still has not made a film that became an actual hit (not an underperformer or a barely-there, almost, possibly, might-do-a-profit after DVD and TV rights so-so performer like Passengers) based off his name alone above the title. He has coasted on two big properties that would have been huge regardless of who starred in them and one film that had Denzel as its selling point.

BvS was tough for Affleck? It was a gigantic box office hit, regardless of its multiplier and in spite of its reviews, and it made a substantial profit, not to mention that his portrayal was well received, and he got the Batman movie directing gig out of it.

J.K. Simmons deserves better.

Is a global 300 million gross on a 110 million budget good as far as the studio and the investors go? I am sure that the studio does not get 100 % of those 300 million (plus the marketing expenses need to be factored in). Seem to me like this movie won't be remembered as a gigantic commercial flop, but the profit margin will not be anything to write home about; let's just say this: no investors will be ponying up 100 million dollars for a sci-fi film starring Pratt and Lawrence again (unless that film had "Star Wars" in its title or were directed by James Cameron).

Although I am absolutely looking forward to the Avatar sequels, I wish that Jim had found it in him to direct Battle Angel Alita.

If Passengers crosses 100 million barely, will it be considered a "hit"? I am curious because it managed to snag two of the allegedly biggest stars in the world, was released in the lucrative and legs-friendly Holiday season, and it will still struggle to make more than 100 million on a 110 million dillars before marketing expenses. So, basically...it is Ghostbusters all over again (minus the online hatred and the solid reviews).

The La La Land extended universe could be a thing.

What Julie Taymor did with the LK stage musical was stunningly gorgeous and totally separated it from the garden-variety Broadway adaptation of a film. She created a whole new beast (no pun intended) that spoke its own beautifully theatrical language but retained the heart and soul of its source material.

The whole movie was a divine experience. That scene made me cry...particularly seeing as Neytiri smiled when witnessing Jake's utter joy in his newfound freedom...

I cannot think of a less unappealing cast. This is a pass for me.

So maybe that's how Deadpool was such a big hit. You know how Marvel Studios always takes the blueprint of a particular movie genre and surrounds it with superhero tropes? Well, Deadpool was a romantic comedy (with explosions, superhero-versus-supervillain fights, and tons of raunchy humor).

So basically, because it "has no substance" and "[it] provides nothing of value." The same subjective arguments that tons of people still use against comic books and comic book films. Got it.

I'd love to see Jennifer Lawrence and Michael B. Jordan in an old-fashioned rom com: he seems like the dapper, charming, hunky-yet-approachable leading man, and she certainly fits the archetype of the awkward beauty with the razor-sharp tongue and a heart of gold.