google-site-verification=EzRt-ZmNlc4J5RNLXiuJpAEGjNviG678nNB1w49cgZg Jump to content

Alexdube

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

402 Likes

About Alexdube

  • Rank
    Indie Sensation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What a time for Nolan to be releasing his most expensive movie yet PS: Framing the Mulan boycott as racism is just plain wrong
  2. I think it absolutely can. What you need is a movie that becomes an event and that everyone has to see (like Avatar, Titanic, Jurassic Park, Star Wars etc.). There just hasn't been a movie like that since. I didn't mention Endgame because I think it's a different animal. Endgame never had that element of next level spectacle everyone had to see, it was massively successful because of a loyal fanbase it gathered over a decade of pumping out Marvel movies. Hence why you had the massive opening but the legs weren't impressive as much because it didn't reach strongly across every demographic (or every country). Some people seem to think that just because Endgame didn't have great legs, no movie can, I think that's bs. Make something that is truly unique and offers a next level experience and you'll get phenomenal legs.
  3. Fair enough but Titanic 3d is still over even without China isn't it? Jesus in Czech Republic Lion King 3d made $68,401 while Titanic 3d made $3,524,061, not sure what happened there https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr1276465669/ https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr4211823109/
  4. No one can refute that Titanic could be an absolute monster if released today. Those 2 words are important, what I mean is that I can't prove Titanic would make 3b+, but no one can deny the potential is there.
  5. around 1.6 times more to be exact, but then Titanic almost made twice as much worldwide? So what's the point? Besides, a Lion King 3d re-release seems like a much more obvious fit than for a movie like Titanic. And look, we could nitpick endlessly about small details that don't make both Lion King runs comparable, but at the end of the day it is still essentially the same movie, reaching the same demographics, just with different graphics. Besides as @Barnack demonstrated, the logic still holds for other franchises who had new but similar movies in recent years. Bottom line is, market growth and inflation is absolutely much more significant than theater runs being generally shorter. No one can refute that Titanic could be an absolute monster if released today.
  6. Titanic did 1.8b in freakin' 97, there's no way it doesn't crush past that today. Let's look at Lion King for instance, made $763,455,561 in 94 (around the same time as Titanic). Today the same movie (but arguably worst and with bad reviews) made $1,656,943,394 effortlessly. That's more than 2x more despite theater life being shorter as you say. Apply that multiplier to Titanic and you get 4 billion. I'm not saying it would make that, but it could still easily be the highest grossing movie ever by a long shot.
  7. it doesn't answer any question so far. The real question is how much leeway Marvel is willing to give him, and how much Raimi is willing to adapt his style to the Marvel template.
  8. It definitely got its fair share of praise, being one of the top 3 movies with the most Oscars ever, but ironically also probably one of the most snubbed movie ever. A lot of people, I think, can't get passed the love story they view as overly sappy and they let it overshadow anything the movie does spectacularly well. I also admittedly have issues with some of the dialogue, but it's mostly insignificant when I look at the whole
  9. I remember Cameron saying in an interview he didn't want Titanic to be labeled as a disaster movie. That can be debated, but to your point he did feel like he was doing something different from the typical disaster film.
  10. So much contempt... Is it? For one thing Titanic (1997) crushes ANTR in every technical department: much more faithful recreation of the ship and the sinking of it (the collision scene is downright laughable in the 58 movie), actual footage of the wreckage and used smartly in the movie, it's an overall much more immersive experience. Should we put that aside because the movie was made 4 decades earlier and the tech just wasn't there? I think that's no excuse, unless what you're saying is "it was better for the time", which is a different thing. Maybe you think it makes up for it with other things like the script acting or other, I would like to know. Maybe it's better in a way if you're looking for a more dry documentary style approach without the love story in the way, but you're still missing out massively on the technical achievements of the 97 movie. But I find that even some of the smaller stuff in ANTR just doesn't compete with Titanic. One of the key scene where they realize the ship will sink is so underwhelming in the 58 movie. There's no tension, no sense of impending doom, the ship architect sounds more like he's doing a casual school lesson to the captain rather than him being in a life or death situation: Everything is better in Cameron's version, I think he's a little underrated when it comes to the smaller non-action scenes. The blocking, the acting, the camera movements, the long pauses before they say their line, it all makes for a much more tense scene.
  11. got smoked the same year by another sci-fi movie with one sixth of the budget directed by some unknown. It' s called The Terminator, I heard it's good.
  12. It may make sense from a technical point of view, but you already got people worried and now to salvage the situation you bring in the director of Solo? I just don't see it happening. I think they will go for someone with a lower profile
  13. Why Ron Howard? Not exactly the hottest pick after Solo for a studio movie. They'll dig up some tv director yes man.
  14. I'm more curious to see if he can pass Spielberg as the top grossing movie director of all time. He's currently 4.3 billion away with 4 Avatar movies coming up. So that means at a minimum 1.075 billion per movie to equate him. It's more than doable especially if China really gets into it. Of course Spielberg isn't done just yet, so he'll need more than that to keep the crown. But then again Spielberg has slowed down a lot and his days of dominance at the box office are long gone
  15. It will be obvious to the general audience because Avatar 2 will look nothing like Aquaman. Cameron knows a thing or two about water and special effects, plus he's shooting with real water. Everything will look more grounded and real, it'll make Aquaman look like Finding Nemo.
×
×
  • 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.