rb02

Excalibur wasn't a good movie. It was a GREAT movie, a masterpiece; probably should have been nominated for Best Picture.

Wrong. Granted, King Arthur may not be the most popular thing with the hipster crowd, but this movie will do just fine at the box office.

Darabont would be great, but so would OConner. Warrior was a masterpiece; probably should have been nominated for Best Picture.

The budget for Excalibur was only 10M. Considering that the gross more than tripled the budget, it's safe to say that it was NOT a flop, especially when the known gross is domestic only (for whatever reason, foreign grosses for movies from that era are often undocumented). Far from doing badly, it was actually quite a hit. It was also generally well-received by critics.

Regardless of whether Stone is a better actress than Mia, or vice versa, I definitely think Mia is a better fit for what is likely to be a period movie set the UK or even 19th century America. Stone's perfect a modern rom-com, for this, not so much. As for Cumberbatch, he may or may not be helpful to the box office, but as far as movie quality goes, there are plenty of good actors who can fit the role without a decline at all.

Not directly related to Game of Thrones, but it looks like the next epic fantasy TV series is on the way- Kingkiller Chronicles by Pat Rothfuss is likely to go into production per www.deadline.com. It has some similarities with GoT, and some differences, the biggest of which is that the series is largely centered around one protagonist as opposed to an ensemble.

Of course! Since 1999, actually, when I started reading the books.

Be wary of the anti-period-movie trolls. They'll be all over the boards as this movie gets closer, as they always are. It never fails.

If they are going to do, they need to do it right. While there are plenty of examples of how to do this properly (GoT, Excalibur, LotR), there's even another idea which should be the first priority. And that's to use the first Dungeons and Dragons movie as a model. Anyone involved in this reboot should watch that movie a dozen times, minimum. Get to know that movie from the inside out; have it imprinted in ones' brain. And carefully analyze every decision that went into the making of that movie in every respect- and proceed to do the exact opposite. The 2000 D and D was an unmitigated disaster; a box office bomb, mitigated only by a relatively low budget, and a critical disaster, and generally despised even by fanboys. With many defects, the worst was that it winked at the audience throughout the movie, much like the equally detested Batman and Robin or Conan the Destroyer (but far worse than the latter). They should have done a Braveheart or Gladiator with dragons, and instead presented a crappier version of a Xena episode. Here's a chance where the studio has a chance to see what works for this (GoT) and what doesn't (the first D and D movie). And what option are they going to choose? Wouldn't be surprised to see the same bonehead blunder again. It seems like studios often fail to learn lessons.

First, TH was not exactly what I would call a "huge" drop from LOTR. It wasn't an inconsiderable drop, either, but in any event, the Hobbit still sold a whole lotta tickets. Second, and more importantly, Game of Thrones. The stunning success of that show puts paid to any notion that fantasy is in decline, a notion that it is generally only generally argued by people who don't like the genre in the first place and particularly by fans of rival genres such as comic and sci-fi and particularly on boards like AICN.

No, it's not a flop. Boxofficemojo reports a production budget of $215. Since the marketing costs will more or less be offset by the large amount of ancillary revenue that this movie is sure to bring in, it ultimately needs around 400 to 450M to break even. It's going to do that easily. What it won't do, is bring in Alice type profit. But it's certainly not a flop.

If it does manage 300M OS, and that's a very big if, it's in ok shape, because the domestic of 28M is better than what was expected a couple of days ago. I wish I could be talking about how much it's going to make, rather than how much it's going to avoid losing, but, with that 195M budget, and the crap marketing, and the release date which leaves it in the path of the Oz onslaught to come, this was pretty much inevitable.

We've had a grand total of five fairy tale adaptation movies prior to the release of JtGK since Ever After all the way back in the 90's. I may be forgetting one or two, but you get the point. How many comic book movies; how many dozens, in that time period? Along with the massive hits, there have been minor hits, and flops as well. If you want to take each movie of the respective genres and calculate which genre is more profitable and by how much, comic book movie probably come out ahead, but that's not even really the point, anyway. The point is that it's very odd that those who do the most complaining about the fairy tale adaptations being unimaginative and how more "original screenplays" are needed rarely apply that reasoning to the onslaught of the comic book movies.

Let me guess- you want more "original screenplays" based on comic books? By the way, Red Riding Hood did not bomb. It didn't make much money but had a low budget, and more than doubled it WW.

Barely profitable? It certainly wasn't the Avengers or the Hangover, but it was a solid hit. In fact, every single one of these fairytale adaptations has made money, except for Mirror Mirror which was utter crap anyway. I agree that AiW was the only true smash hit so far, but that's going to change in the very near future (not with JtGS though).

The majority of movies fail to break even at the box office, and many others fail to break even after ancillary revenue. SWatH and Hansel and Gretel both made profit, and, in the latter case, profit before the theater run was over. As for funnybook movies, there have been bombs a-plenty to go along with the blockbuster hits, and movies like SWatH and H and G are easily in the same ballpark as the "B level" superhero movies like XmenFC, Thor, and Captain America in terms of revenue to budget.

Despite the perception on this board, WotT was hardly some massive flop. It made over 300M and doubled the prod budget. Not what the studio hoped for, to be sure, but not a bomb, though it's constantly referred to as such.

I absolutely detest them. What's sad here is that with this outstanding cast and director and a classic story...ah, if only it wasn't a musical.

To be honesti, I rarely even posted on the predictions thread for this particular movie and have little recollection as to what I predicted, if anything, much less what other people were predicting or their reactions to them. It looks like you're in position to serve some crow to those were making high predictions that didn't come to pass, and who ridiculed your own predictions. Great, but that has nothing to do with the fact that this movie is still going to make a shit-ton of money at the box office, and thus is far from a "bomb" or a "disaster".

Not even close to terrible. Terrible would something like John Carter or Battleship sported on OW.

For the theater run, yes. When DVD and ancillaries are taken into account, 600M is the base that the movie would need at the box office to eventually make money.However, even if 800M was required to make profit, no problem, because this will do considerably more than 800M anyway.

If that's so...then, still, major profit.

I actually question whether people here really do understand the reality of the boxoffice. I mean, people are actually using words like "disaster" and "bomb" for a movie that is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, going to make a mint at the box office. Given that fact, how is it possibly a "disaster" or a "bomb"?

The shit-negativity continues.

I beg to differ. I submit to you that the WOM is nothing short of phenomenal, at least outside of the Internet message boards.