reddevil19
-
Posts
2,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by reddevil19
-
-
5 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:
Could you simply be disappointed by the movie on your own without wishing everybody else was deprived of it?
I'm not. I'm just saying that when people question the viability of the theatrical model, this must also be part of the conversation. You're discussing a belated big budget follow-up to a critically successful movie with mediocre box office but an aura of excellence around it. What do you put out? As an artistic endeavour I very much appreciate the decision. But then don't cry about the death of the theatrical experience and question how this could have been such a low opener. There's a multitude of reasons this is falling flat and most of them have nothing to do with the overall decline of cinemas...
-
10 minutes ago, Firepower said:
People should be careful what they wish for since Miller considered to make Furiosa an evil tyrant like Immortan Joe in a potential follow up to Fury Road because it makes sense in his perception, but I don't think that's something people would want to see. Fury Road clearly ended on a note where there's no reason to come back to the character, her arc is finished, all Miller had to do is make another Mad Max with Hardy, but it's not happening after this.
Ya, of course that was always an option. Clearly when I say a movie with Theron I mean the desire would have been to see her continue a hero's journey.
I just think nothing about Furiosa works in the way it did for Fury Road. But the absolute worst part is you walk out of Fury Road on a high, even if it's a "what the fuck did I just watch?" reaction. With Fury Road not only do you not have any question about where you end up at the end of the journey, the trip itself is meandering. As I said, it's a good movie but it's hitting none of the highs of Fury Road while shackled to its legacy. This should never have been greenlit, I'm sorry
-
My two cents. Or more than two I guess...
Firstly, I have said it before and I'll say it again. Miller and the studio got high smelling their own farts with Fury Road when they went in on Furiosa. The fact that the idea was there from the get-go and it was always meant as a companion piece does NOT mean it's a good idea to actually make the damn thing. Truth if the matter is Fury Road itself wasn't a huge success and this completely misses what made that one work. It is simply dull. It's an anticlimactic ending, and the action throughout is nowhere near as good. It's not a kinetic, frenetic experience like Fury Road, the editing is so-so in comparison, the CG is frankly terrible in places, and a large part of the action is jarring with the very obvious sped up shots and so on.
The second point is actually a combination of factors. I don't think prequels as a whole are a viable option post-covid. Casual moviegoing is clearly no longer a thing. And a movie which had a clearly defined end point is not a sufficiently attractive proposition. Not when the rest of the movie fails to offer anything to compensate for a pre-established narrative - all respect and love to Hemsworth and ATJ, but they're not enough. So prequels not viable and ESPECIALLY this prequel, where Theron post Fury Road is what people wanted, not a prequel, releasing a decade after Fury Road.
I appreciate that Furiosa is not Fury Road but it's still too connected to get out of its shadow. As much as the story and pacing want it to be its own thing, everything else is not letting it be so the movie will always suffer by comparison.
Simply put, while it may be a good film, it's a bad, belated follow up which should not have been made... Flop unsurprising.
Next.
-
50 minutes ago, Noctis said:
This was more engaging than War. Kingdom, and Dawn are the standouts to me.
I still don't know which one is which and I fucking love that trilogy.
Some really terrible names all around.
Whichever the second one was, that's the best.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Firepower said:
Until Captain America 4 bombs hard.
Ya, this very much feels like a GOTG3 - its own thing, in its own corner, a blip rather than a return to form.
And that's assuming it actually DOES hit high. I'm still very doubtful of its quality and thereby don't see great staying power for it.
-
2
-
-
Hmm. I'm conflicted.
The trailer was well edited enough, and hyped me up, but I'm not quite convinced by the action glimpses we've seen. Might be down to not having a final polish, but it sort of seems...cheap?
And yes, the multiverse stuff is definitely blah at this point, yet I feel like Deadpool is one property that could make it work.
I have huge doubts about the quality, but I still think it does 130+ OW domestic. It could very well collapse after that and not hit 300...
I am curious how the Olympics will affect its opening weekend in Europe.
-
This looks REALLY bad. Forget about anything regarding the plot, tone, whatever - it just looks incredibly cheap. Netflix CG animated show, NOT a theatrical release. Skip.
-
2
-
-
So Swift with 50 dollar tickets doesn't hit 200 million domestic, but she's gonna somehow add 500+ million to the box office of an r rated superhero comedy by virtue of her cameo?
What a take...
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Menor the Destroyer said:
First movie had huge trailer views though, I think it did worse domestically than you would expect with the kind of buzz it had. The franchise skews very heavily OS whereas Deadpool is relatively Dom heavy.
Jesus Christ. You're rewriting history to somehow suggest it underperformed domestically???
-
1
-
-
I mean, whether it's good or bad, whether people love it or hate it, whether the musical elements are only in support of the movie or the whole thing, whether it collapsed after its OW... Those are all valid questions. But undoubtedly the buzz is there. This is gonna open much higher than the first.
-
Oh, God...we're on the runtime discussion, huh?
Personally, I only ever get worried about runtimes if they seem excessively short and there's also some barely disguised issues with the production. Like, 90-100 minute movies that are meant to have wide-ranging consequences and cover huge canvases are going to be red flags. But just over 2 hours is obviously not inherently an issue. I felt the second Deadpool had some major pacing issues. It just didn't flow well. Runtime had nothing to do with that.
-
2 hours ago, AniNate said:
As far as movies hitting or exceeding expectations this year hasn't been too bad, but I'm not so concerned right now about individual movies making money as I am exhibitors staying afloat, especially with AMC seeming to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Honestly, looking ahead to the summer now I'm not sure there is any collective weekend that looks like a net positive compared to last year until Despicable Me 4 in July. This stretch could be brutal for vibes and discourse even if every movie meets their "expectations".
I was holding onto hope that we could at least stay ahead of 2022/2023 on a rolling year basis but it looks like we're gonna be falling way behind in the next couple months. So it is starting to sink in for me that maybe $8 billion - $9 billion really is the best we can hope for in this new post-pandemic climate and huge 2002 or 2018 kind of years are a distant memory.
To be fair, in line with my thinking that cinemas are being reserved for event, proper PLF experience movies, this year is sorely lacking in that respect, especially in the April-Sep period. March had a few, May has three potentials, but one of them is a veeeeeeery old franchise, with the newest iteration ending on a low note box office wise, one is very much dependent on last push marketing and word of mouth building. and the final one is also a very old franchise that - despite being very beloved and the last one being hailed as a MASTERPIECE, it never was a huge box office sensation (and it being a prequel won't help).
Bad Boys 4 and Inside Out 2 should help in June. I'm on the fence regarding Bad Boys 4. Obviously the third was quite unexpectedly big, so the lack of buzz right now for it isn't really telling me much. It could just be one of those quiet breakouts, where the fans simply didn't shout about it online and simply went to see it. Inside Out 2 still has to battle the mindset instilled by Disney in its core audience that the movie will be on D+ soon. Elemental showed signs that it's possible and this being a sequel to a beloved movie should help. As much as I hate the idea that Pixar is now basically a sequel machine, you have to admit it's the only way they ca retrain their audience to going back to theatrical exhibition. Pump out sequels to their biggest hits and have a huge theatrical window.
Obviously DM4 is gonna be huge, but that mid-July window seems weak AF. Twisters really should open a week earlier than it is (and even then I'm not quite optimistic about its domestic prospects). August and September seem like a disaster to me. If Deadpool and Wolverine doesn't hit well and it's dead by its third weekend, then that's gonna be painful. Alien seems like it might be good, but even then I think the ceiling for the franchise is now Prometheus, and with this being a seemingly smaller production and far less buzz around it, I'd think somewhere between Covenant and Prometheus is more likely.
Kraven...I mean, I guess it should be better than Madame Web and do better than that?! Maybe it surprises and becomes a new Venom, but...ugh. Really not feeling it. Beetlejuice 2 is the big question mark. If that does an Alice in Wonderland it could very much keep the entire month afloat. I've got my fingers crossed for it.
Transformers One...no idea what that's about right now, so based on the diminishing returns, I'll just go with flop for now. Being animated should help, so once we start seeing more of it, maybe I'll think better of its prospects.
Oct-Dec I'm not that worried about. Oct has two good anchors at each end, November has a strong backend leading into December. The one big asterisk for Christmas is Mufasa being the big dog (cat). I mean, it's Lion King related, but that was so badly received despite the box office. I have serious doubts it's going to be an Aquaman 1 level performer, let alone Star Wars or Avatar. I'd be happy with a Wonka-style result for it, but I would like another big movie in that period... Damn, how I'd love a third RDJ Sherlock movie at Christmas. Sigh...
I dunno, obviously it's not ideal... I still think that we're probably heading back to an age where distributors again start taking up exhibition, now that the legal aspect isn't a problem anymore.
-
10 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:
Civil War seems to be getting tripped up by people reading way too much into the alliances of the movie and trying to map it to 2024 instead of getting what seems to be the actual point of the movie. Discourse is very, very annoying already, and I work in politics for a living. Just watch the fucking movie for what it is! It's not a documentary about contemporary political alliances from everything I read - it has a different message.
I'll be honest... I'm one of the people tripped up by this, though not quite necessarily in the way you say. I think that, yes, in the context of real world politics of 2024, it's difficult not to read more into it. It's also difficult for a lot of people to get past the whole "both sides" take that Garland's been throwing out.
HOWEVER, that aside, my actual issue is in general with alternate history/parallel universe stuff, I NEED an explanation for why things are why they are if the movie is otherwise trying to be realistic, hard-hitting, gritty, etc. ESPECIALLY when it resembles the real world. So I need an explanation of why things are the way they are in the film and the filmmakers have said "Just because..". That simply isn't good enough for me. Not due to any political issues, but simply the way my brain refuses to engage with the premise.
Once the movie is out, if feedback I hear is different, meaning I can get over that, then I'll watch it.
I don't know if there's anyone else out there that feels like that, but that's how my brain works.
-
5 hours ago, grim22 said:
I was at WrestleMania last year. It's a fun event to attend for sure but in person the smaller indie events are way more fun during this weekend. But obviously attending WrestleMania was a thing to tick off the bucket list, attended a cricket World Cup match this year, now have the Football World Cup and the Olympics which should hopefully be ticked off the list in 2026 and 2028.
Rugby World Cup
-
3 minutes ago, grim22 said:
We tend to forget this now after 4 movies and an entire extended universe, but the first John Wick was not exactly a box office phenomenon. It was supposed to be a direct to DVD movie rushed to theaters with a lead time of 1 month because the studio felt they had something special. John Wick and Monkey Man have that in common.
The box office was considered "meh" at the time and not enough to even get into most OS territories, but it kept building an audience through word of mouth on home video and became the box office juggernaut it is now.
Sure, 100% - but audiences back then (Jeez, sounds like an age ago) were also far more willing to give that kind of a movie a go and streaming wasn't a threat (or a promise, depending on your point of view) within 30 days...
I am a proponent for theatrical runs even for smaller movies because it gives them the chance to build a bit of buzz before hitting streaming and developing from there (as with John Wick). But the window of opportunity in theatrical for such releases is smaller and smaller imo.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Arlborn said:
Well put. Allow me a counter-argument:
Fair enough, haha. I still can't believe that movie is real - theatrical or streaming, the fact that it starts with phone scammers and goes to the places it goes is insane. But I suppose that in a way goes to my point as well: the insanity of the plot, coupled with decently-shot and edited action scenes, with Statham in the lead, do present enough of a hook for it to do well in January.
Mind you, I only saw it on streaming a few weeks back. Think it was on NOW TV here in the UK in like late Feb or something?
-
2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:
Why would the trades project $12m from $725k lol, a 16.6x from previews?
2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:Any particular reason they think Omen is going to do a 16.5+ multi?
Something tells me that "projection" is just the prediction form before the previews came out...
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:
While I think April will underperform, if I had to throw my marker down on "what movie breaks $20M OW", it would be the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. Seems like a movie that the movie subscriber base will see even if they really aren't that interested or invested...and that helps give a movie a certain floor.
Oh, I want that to BE good and DO well, but I am having such Man From UNCLE flashbacks. That was also a movie I loved, but Jeez what a flop. And this has every chance of doing even worse (internationally, at least).
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:
Again, totally fair enough. But I think we all want some mid-sized adult hits. Which ones am I allowed to be down on if they flop, then? Civil War? Horizon? The ScarJo/Channing space movie? Wolfs? I just want to know whether everything is going to have an excuse or we are just gonna admit these movies don't have it anymore.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that for me the verdict has long been in. Just looking at a movie like Challengers as a potential benchmark is not fair towards it, is all I'm saying...
As I stated before in the thread - I totally think post-COVID movies need a hook for people to watch them in cinemas: it could be brand, it could be a huge director, right star in the right vehicle with the right marketing, just the visual spectacle for a PLF experience or any combination of that. I think cinemas will continue to exist, but more geared towards the experience that can't be replicated at home. That means proper PLF, with huge screen size, quality projection and sound. And yes, occasionally that will be the "movies are now theme park rides" line that RLM have used in the past, but theme park rides are fucking fun and we all need some fun once in a while. As much as you put "see it in IMAX" across Challengers posters, it won't change the fact that there is no hook for it to be seen in IMAX. There's no insane visuals like Dune, no dumb spectacle of giant monsters like GxK, no proper zeitgeist-breaking, cultural phenom like Barbie, no insane Nolan fanbase (along with him being synonymous with IMAX and so on).
In my mind, as I said, the verdict has bene reached - we will still have occasional surprise hits, but by and large the cinema experience seems reserved for movies that NEED TO BE SEEN IN CINEMAS. Either as part of a group experience to not miss out or because the visuals and sound can't be matched at home. It doesn't mean all of them will be 200 million budget movies (hell, look at the budgets for Barbie, Oppenheimer and Mario), but the small-mid budget movies that turn into hits just because people go out and watch movies as part of their usual social life are pretty much dead, since that consumer behaviour is dead... A movie like Challengers doing 80 million is plausible in a world where people go to the movies a couple times a week, with friends, their other half, followed by or preceded by dinner, or maybe they're out in a mall and decide they have a couple of hours and catch whatever's on. That world doesn't exist anymore - going to the cinema has become far more of an actual planned, special activity. You need something to make you make that effort.
I have an Unlimited Card. My closest cinema is 5 minutes away. In theory I should be the kind of person that sees and helps these movies out. But I sure as shit ain't going to see Challengers in cinemas and by the time I can go see Monkey Man (due to the screening times), it will be off screen altogether. But I will damn well watch Dune twice, or GxK twice, or Maverick, or Avatar 2 or any number of movies that will feel like the aforementioned thrill rides, with a bucket of popcorn.
That's my two cents, at least.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:
Fair enough! For what it's worth, I totally agree with this. I just want the folks who critique people like me for being "negative" to give me a red line of when it is reasonable for me to be so. Civil War and Challengers a good benchmark in my opinion too, but I'm sure if they fail the usual crowd will just tell me they would have failed no matter what as usual.
I don't think Challengers is AT ALL a good benchmark. Tennis is one of - if not THE - least successful sports for movie adaptations, the director has never had a genuine big hit and the people that will see it probably will not be getting what they expect out of it either. If that opens to double digits it will be a HUGE success. Let's not go to the opposite end of the spectrum and just claiming potential for movies that does not and never did exist.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, AMC Theaters Enjoyer said:
as for Monkey Man, having seen the film last night, it’s good but it’s very much not your typical action revenge film. There’s a lot of swings taken by Patel thematically and stylistically, some of which work and some don’t. Since it’s low budget enough it won’t flop and probably will be set as a decent success, but not much beyond that.
This is why I don't have much hope for its legs. It very much seems to be the critics' ideal of a revenge flick, with audiences potentially not quite getting what they were expecting. But we'll see. As always, I want my pessimism to be proven wrong, as I want cinemas to thrive.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, stripe said:
It's still early, especially for Monkey Man. I see that as a test of possible breakout thanks to legs more than big OW.
Anyways, if Monkey Man opens to around 12-13M, it could reach 40-50M DOM, and that's quite solid for an actioner that was scheduled not long ago and without a star in front of it.
I really don't see how it reaches 50 million off a 12 million opening even in a barren April. If there was a chance of a break out, it would have been OW. The reception doesn't seem to be that enthusiastic - to put it another way, it would need to play like the first John Wick. I don't see that happening. Dev is not Keanu and with consumer behaviour being what it is, audiences are less likely to give this kind a movie a try in cinemas.
This is the very definition of a streaming movie in a post-pandemic world. There just isn't a hook, a "must-see in cinemas" angle with it. And post-COVID, movies need that hook to succeed theatrically. I still think theatrical is 100% the way to go, as any box office is better than nothing, with streaming just adding to it rather than being the end goal, but we have to accept that in 2023/2024, the first John Wick would also have been a streaming movie...
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, cannastop said:
OK and how would that happen? How would a movie that's 3 years old at the time take that much space from current movies?
We have no idea what the timeline even is for his next movie. You're talking about obstacles that are impossible to imagine right now. Maybe his next movie will be a Uni-WB coproduction releasing end of Oct, and they'll lay claim to a date in the next 6 months to the slot, and discussions with IMAX will ensure a free runway leading up to it as well. Or maybe it will be another July release and no other movie will want to go through the Dead Reckoning issue of a short window in PLF, so they won't have any other big movies for a good 2+ weeks before, allowing IMAX to throw screens at Oppenheimer for a couple of screenings a day in every location.
You make it sound like it's impossible, when the likelihood is IMAX will bend over backwards for Nolan and will find a solution if something along those lines is required. The big question will be whether Nolan or Uni (depending on whether Nolan stays with them or not) will actually want to push for a big re-release at that point.
In short - stop being contrarian for the sake of it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Yeah, it made way too much money in the original run in PLFs for re-releases to then bring in those numbers anytime soon. If they do a major re-release every couple years, it can eventually get there, but they can't do anymore anytime soon - certainly not before his next film is ready to go.
A proper 2 week worldwide PLF run immediately leading up to his next movie COULD get it there...
Weekend Numbers [05.24 - 05.27, 2024] | 4-day actuals | 32.3M FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA | 31.3M THE GARFIELD MOVIE | 22.3M IF | 17.6M KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
in Numbers and Data
Posted
Oscar re-release