Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alexdube

  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. Not just Avatar, but I think sci-fi in general could potentially overtake comic book movies this decade, I say potentially. We're off to a strong start with big productions such as Dune, Tenet and Avatar. Depending how successful they are, they could contribute to launch a different era. And people like to joke about superhero fatigue now, but it doesn't mean it will never happen (comic book movies will never outright disappear of course that's not what I'm saying) I don't really think BOP doing poorly is indicative of superhero fatigue, but perhaps a slight warning sign. WW84 and Black Widow will be much more indicative of things to come I believe. I do think they will be successful, I'm not underestimating Marvel / DC, but will they break the bank? As long as it makes enough so that Cameron gets to complete his vision, I'll be satisfied. He'll be #1 again anyway after Avatar re-releases 😉
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Why Ron Howard? Not exactly the hottest pick after Solo for a studio movie. They'll dig up some tv director yes man.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. I misread your comment as: "Jim is CINEMA itself" both statements are true tbh 😏
  18. So yeah, about even. See I mostly agree with that. It would invalidate the idea that only Nolan can draw a crowd on his name alone, which is what I disagreed with. I think it would be close, no doubt. And you can build a solid case for each one outdoing the other (if only slightly). Nolan has been very consistent and has been much more productive than Cameron these last few years. But Cameron's next movie after 2 worldwide phenomenon would also draw a lot of attention on its own.
  19. Lol yeah that's kind of a given isn't it? There's no question that most people didn't see Titanic because of his name, that's not the problem. The question that was raised was: which director is the bigger draw between Nolan and Cameron? The most important thing for any director is obviously that they deliver something that people want to see, no one can rely on their name alone. Then when you have the movie, what makes most of the money is the marketing, the WOM and the reviews. Also is it based on a known IP? In what genre is the movie etc. All things that generally matter more than the name of the director. I don't know based on what data you can make the assumption that Nolan has more pull than Cameron. Here's something interesting: The Martian (630.2M) directed by Ridley Scott made just about the same as Interstellar (677.5M) even though Scott's previous movie was a flop (Exodus: Gods and Kings 268.2M). So 2 well made sci-fi space exploration movies grossing about the same thing. Now The Martian was based on a best seller novel, which certainly has helped, but considering that Scott's name isn't a massive draw anymore with how uneven his career has been, I'd say it just about evens it out. Not the best example, but I think it's relevant to point out that both of those movies with a lot similarities, but different directors, made about the same thing. Here's an hypothetical question: take Interstellar (same exact movie, same actors, same trailers etc.) but instead of advertising it as a Christopher Nolan movie, advertise it as James Cameron's next big thing. Which movie grosses more money wordwide?
  20. Yeah Dunkirk is clearly not character driven, but other than that it's a pretty straightforward retelling of a war event. Not too destabilizing for an audience looking for a war movie. Besides, they made a huge deal with the format being used, it was something you had to see in a theater on IMAX. A good deal of that box office is due to that, not to his name. I hope I'm not teaching you anything, but people can go to a movie for different reasons. And when a movie makes 2.79 billion, you can be sure there was more than 1 reason. Let's say 10% of the people went to see Avatar because it's from James Cameron, that's still 279M on just his name. And let's say 50% of the people went to see Dunkirk because it's from Nolan (and I'm being way too generous on Nolan), that's a little more than 260M on his name, still less than Cameron. So you're still in your 20s. Yeah Nolan probably means more to people in their 20s than James Cameron. But guess what, there's not only people in their 20s who go see movies. There's people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... get it? For all those age groups Cameron is the bigger name. And I'm not talking about reddit here, or letterboxd or whatever that fuck, I'm talking about the world at large.
  21. There's a lot of recency bias when it comes to Nolan because he was much more active than Cameron in recent years. But when the marketing machine gets going for Avatar 2, and when you see everywhere from JAMES CAMERON director of THE TERMINATOR, ALIENS, TITANIC, AVATAR etc. it'll mean something to much more people than you might think. Saying only Nolan's name has that power is silly. I agree, a lot of people go to Cameron's movies without knowing who he is, but that's also true for Nolan. Nolan's movie do well because they look great, are well reviewed, good WOM etc. Inception his is highest non-batman movie, and part of that was because it looked like a fantastic visual experience which works well with the GA, and also it had Leo. Interstellar was less in-your-face about the visuals, looked more like a realistic space exploration movie, and thus made less. Dunkirk looked great, but it also looked like a dour war movie which isn't for everyone and made even less
  22. ah yes the old "Avatar only made 2.79 billion because it was in 3d". I'll give you some clues about what actually made Avatar successful. Hey speaking of Nolan, let's see what he had to say about Avatar: And besides that, do you really think that no one was aware that Avatar was made by the director who had made the biggest movie of all time?
  • 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.