doctoru2
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by doctoru2
-
-
Avatar/Alvin. Avatar made 700M+ and Alvin made 200M+ So with the Hobbit making appox 350M less, can't Minions make 200-250M?
Actually, it was Avatar/Sherlock Holmes/Alvin.
Avatar's second weekend was over Christmas and saw a miniscule 1.8% drop from the weekend prior. It made $75.6M. Sherlock Holmes opened to $62.3M and Alvin, which had technically opened the Wednesday prior, made $48.9M. This was a record weekend at the time.
All three films broke $200M, with Avatar clearly going on to far greater heights. But it shows that the marketplace can expand when the movies warrant it. Furthermore, those three films opened in 2009, arguably the height of the economic downturn. While one might argue that this was the holiday season, Minions and TH3 are also during the holidays. Therefore, I think both will do very well.
Also, Sandra Bullock is set to have a voice role. This suggests that there is dialogue. The premise is that the minions serve an "evil overlord". This is why they worked happily for Gru (of course, they also seem to have a soft side, but I digress). Bullock's character wants to be the first female super-villian. In a way, I guess it makes this more of a prequel.
-
Perhaps if it was based off of a wildly successful series of books.
Hmmm... feasible argument if Iron Man wasn't based off a pretty successful comic book and cartoon adaption runs.
-
Great for IM3. But does anyone fell sorry for Oblivion?
Ugh. I had the misfortune to see that disaster of a movie last weekend. One of the worst films I've seen in theaters.
As for IM3, not as good as IM, but better than IM2. As I'm not a comic book fan of this series, the "twist" as people call it, didn't bother me - it was a bit intriguing. And always great to see Guy Pearce in a movie.
-
1
-
-
My bad - I didn't see that. Still, I wasn't expecting anywhere near $90M, so hey, not bad. I never saw Quantum of Solace. Is this one good?Nope, the numbers are based on a small drop already for Sunday. QOS fell 43%, they are projecting SF to ease by about 30%.
-
It is possible for the Sunday numbers to be higher than expected. Sunday is Nov. 11th - Veteran's Day. Many schools and public institutions will have off Monday, Nov. 12th as a result. This may increase the Sunday numbers and inflate the Monday numbers as well. "Skyfall" may indeed break $90M as a result.
-
Barney Ross: This sums up why most of us loved Ledger's performance. Nicholson was fantastic in Burton's take on the story. Nicholson naturally hammed up his role, but was dark when he needed to be. As Nolan's film was far more serious overall, Ledger found that nice balance of still hamming it up (after all, that is what the Joker is), but also to be incredibly violent and malicious. Joker is so insane that per the story, he was amazed when neither normal citizens nor criminals were willing to blow each other up. Ledger convinced us of that - he truly became the Joker character. As great as Nicholson is, there were still times I felt like I was watching Jack in a lot of make-up. I never felt that way about Ledger.I just think Ledger delivered an absolutely monumental performance, creating an extremely convincing psychopaths and one of the greatest villains in movies. He really became the Joker, and there were no false notes in his version of the character.
-
I do.I live near San Fran. and I have seen TONS of ads for it on the TV stations I watch. I saw almost nothing for "Apparition" (and when I finally did, it was 2 days before it came out). Plus, the ads play up Raimi's name substantially - thus tranforming it from a "no name" to a "name". Lastly, the trailer has the "fun" aspect of a possession, demon, evil, supernatural, etc. - many of the same things that propelled "The Devil Inside" to almost $34M debut back in January. I don't expect "Possession" to get that high, but I certainly can see why it's tracking for #1.Apparently so. But I don't understand why this no name horror film will outgross the other no name horror film that just came out.
-
I think your dream has two of these at least somewhat close.I had a dream that Expendables 2 did 60M
, Sparkle did 40M 
, ParaNorman did 25M 
, and Timothy Green did 5M 
-
They are teasing you for being "old", but apparently you aren't old enough. It's The BeAtles.It's the Beetles all over again.
-
If TDKR has some late legs that just carry it, bravo! I'd love to see another $500M film this year! But I'm just not sensing the universal love for this film that TDK (and Avengers) have. Still, I can very well be wrong. I'm still stunned that "Hunger Games" made $400M! I do feel TDKR will surpass that film (unless there's an unexpectedly huge second weekend drop). That's three $400M grossing films in one year (and possibly four, if "The Hobbit" really shines). Incredible!I still think TDKR had a shot at 185m OW, and with that a chance at 500m. But I agree, it's way too grim a film to have had TDK legs. I enjoyed it, but moments of levity are few and far between.
-
I see your point, but the trailers seem to suggest this is an alien movie, so I do not think the Florida situation will be a factor. "The Watch" will not be any competition for TDKR, but it may be a pleasant alternative and still perform reasonably (around $25-30M). The last comedy was "Ted" and that's starting to age a bit.I fully recognize that the shooting in Colorado is having a box office impact on all movies, especially TDKR. I do think the opening weekend probably would have been a bit higher had it not been for that.That said, after seeing TDKR, despite the glowing comments from some people here, I'm not sure the WOM is anywhere near as it was for TDK. In other words, I don't think TDKR would get to $500M, even if the tragedy in Colorado never occurred.But $400M is an incredible sum and one that should not be dismissed. With the international box office expanding, this film should still make $1B worldwide, just as TDK did.The Watch is going to get hurt because of the Trayvon story that's going on in Florida. The timing is wrong for a movie about a neighborhood watch.
-
Right - so why have that in there at all? it was a waste of time. Use those extra minutes to cover some of the other gaping plot holes.Ugh, we should probably take this to another thread but...
It's really like a couple minutes of conversation, but Gordon thought he could rally the people behind him. Blake felt that Bane was staging a farce and would never allow it to happen. Ultimately though, once Bane reveals that Gordon hid the truth about Harvey Dent, that killed that whole plan. No way would the general public rally around Gordon knowing that he was involved with a plot like that.
-
I agree. In fact, most movies have plot holes.However, we can forgive plot holes and stay in the world of the movie as long as the continuity is so bad that it breaks that wall. As Baumer wrote, we stay in the "movie zone". Once we start questioning too many things, we lose that zone, we can no longer suspend beliefs and the movie loses its enjoyment.This happened for me with TDKR, but not with TDK or BB or "Avengers". That's the difference. There were weaknesses in all of those films, but not enough to deter from the enjoyment of the movies. In contrast, TDKR had so many issues that it just detracted from the movie considerably. While it's easy to dismiss those of us who feel this way as saying we are too nitpicky, the fact is, a lot of us have these issues. This is why I don't think the WOM will be as good with TDKR as it was with TDK.Plenty of issues in all films. Certainly Rises is the least 'tight' out of the three. But people conveniently ignore how many issues his other films have. What matters is the enjoyment of the experience in the end.
-
2
-
-
Not only was this brilliant but I'll add a 16th comment.HA!!!!!Seems like I am not the only one to question the plot and story to TDKR. Here is a list of 15 things that bothered this guy and I discussed about 10 of these with Noctis. There are obviously massive spoilers in here so if you haven't seen it yet, do not click the link.http://www.slashfilm...k-knight-rises/
A good 5 to 10 minutes was devoted to conversation that ultimately revolved around Blake convincing Gordon to go on TV to give the people hope. Then it never happens. What was all that about and why?
While I respect those who adore TDKR, I am at a loss as to why they feel this way. Almost everything about TDK was better, barring a few exceptions, such as Batman's voice and best Bale performance. So while I enjoyed TDKR, I just can't see it being better than a 7/10 or B/B- type of movie for me.
-
2
-
-
Not to detract from your point, but how was Holmes miscast? I thought she was just right for the role. I liked her a lot more than Maggie Gyllenhall.BB: Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch (though that probably hurt WotW more than BB) and Katie Holmes' miscasting
-
1
-
-
So do I. :)But hey, do we need to have a "IMO" after every single post? You inexplicably like Keaton as Batman, while I couldn't think of a worse choice for the role (and still can't). Nothing either of us says will convince the other, so accept. And in the end, does it matter? Between Keaton and Bale, we both got the actors we felt could best portray the role.Edited punctuation.I wish this forum have a "I don't Like This" button.
-
I never liked Keaton in either role. His acting talents are strong and that's why he wasn't a bigger distraction than he already was. I could not accept him being debonair and able to sweep ladies off their feet and I never accepted his body being able to do what is required of Batman. Kilmer and especially Bale have the physique necessary for Batman and both are very handsome men able to play the Bruce Wayne character. But Keaton? Nah.And that's the overall difference. Keaton played the duel personalities better to me. And His Batman voice didn't need to be altered like Bale, he naturally switched the voices up better. Bale was the better Wayne, I will give him that. But Keaton was the better Wayne/Batman together which is the point of the character.
-
Yeah - I hated what Nolan did to his voice. Bale, like Keaton, and even the cartoon series, has Batman speak more gruffly. Nothing wrong with that - it's a way to disguise his voice. But in TDK, Nolan and crew did more tricks to his voice to sound even more gruff - and it failed, IMO.My favorite spoof of this horrid voice is this video (still makes me laugh):http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFcWell this Youtube sums up the Keaton/Bale Battle, lolhttp-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5xGvkI2K8&feature=player_embedded
-
Maybe I need to see these movies again, but I was one who hated Keaton as Batman. Bale, to me, is the ideal Bruce Wayne. He is ridiculously handsome and debonair - the way I've always envisioned Bruce Wayne to appear. But Bale also is in great shape with the strength to pull off the acrobatics and fights performed by Batman. Keaton's scrawny frame and "Mr. Mom" vibe never convinced me. After Bale, I did like Val Kilmer (for the same reasons I liked Bale). However, will readily take Keaton over George Clooney. Clooney is great in many roles, but Batman wasn't one of them.True story and he turned out to awesome as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Michael Keaton is def under appreciated.
-
Being older than most of you, I can assure you, "Batman" was extraordinarily hyped back in 1989. The movie experience was different back then and this type of hype was rarely seen. The 60's TV show started playing on normal channels again for a bit, songs were made (including a Prince song that was a big hit, but due to some bizarre reasons, was not in the film), etc. Nicholson was definitely loved then (and is still loved now) and his Joker was arguably the big reason the film had such great legs. Ledger's hype was deserved. I was worried that no actor could do the role justice after Nicholson's great performance. But Ledger delivered big time. Then, add in his untimely death, and the role became almost iconic (even career-defining). Hence, it's tough to compare the two, but I assure you, "Batman" had TONS of hype.That was 20 years ago and Nicholson was not as hyped up as Ledger was.
-
4
-
-
I readily accept your comments about "Avengers" and other movies. And that too was my point - that RT is not really the best place to "judge" a movie. It gives a quick snapshot of the overall impression.A "great" movie on RT usually floats around 85-90% "fresh". And a truly rotten movie is usually below 40%. There are, of course, exceptions. If your goal is to say that overall TDKR has similar RT rating to TDK, I accept that. I will not accept the IMDb argument at this time (as I know this is biased high).now we go into semantics, Avengers and TASM have numerous, its fun but next! reviews...that happens in every movie. WOM for this for whoever is seen it is v good to great. This bodes well for those who think it can't match TDK and wanted to wait for dvd or something.
-
Thank you for looking that up. But how many of the other 200 reviews were more "this is good, but..." area? There are things I liked about TDKR. However, there's no way it was better than TDK or even BB. That gray area is what can skew a film. I've even seen RT consider a review "rotten" when I felt the review was rather positive overall. Hence, there's also a subjective nature to RT.there are 11 Positive reviews on RT which were scathing but still gave positive, out of 200+ . hardly many if any.
-
I have no idea what you wrote there. Nor did I say I "love it to but". I said I liked it overall and then went into why RT would count that as a positive review, even though I had criticisms.The old I love it too but routine..
If its 9.2 on IMDB it only means there are just 9 and 10 scores. If its On rotten tomatoes, there are more 5/5 and 10/10 than say avengers, similar on Metacritic where Avengers had 5 100 scores, TDKR has 10. just an example. And this for a movie which was to be HIGHLY critiqued because of the stupendously high bar TDK set.
And that leads to my point. I've read plenty of "positive" reviews on RT that were actually rather scathing of a movie. However, RT considered it an overall positive review. So that makes it yet another "fresh" review, even though there was plenty of criticism. RT has really just two categories - fresh or rotten. And unless the critic gives it a grade or stars, RT will judge whether the review is "fresh" or not. So even a 2.5 star movie could be considered "fresh" even though the critic attacks the film.
As for IMDb, I stand by my comments. The vast majority of those ratings were done BEFORE the movie came out. It's not unusual, I've seen this for every highly anticipated movie. Fans of the series rank the film a 9 or 10 even though they haven't seen it. Hence, early on the film is skewed very high. But once really people start seeing the film, the rating will drop.
-
1
-
-
There is? Sorry! I worked hard at not revealing any spoilers. In fact, one could look at other sites and find the exact names of all characters and such. I hid the one character name that could possibly considered a spoiler.There is a major spoiler from doctoru2 on page 312.
, Sparkle did 40M 
, ParaNorman did 25M 
, and Timothy Green did 5M 
Wkend #s: 82.5 DM2, 29.4 TFR, 25 Heat, 19.6 MU
in Numbers and Data
Posted
I hope I haven't missed this response, but is it possible WHD and WWZ are flipped? On Friday, WHD made $4.6M and WWZ made $6.3M. Switching the Sat. numbers above makes sense as both would see a slight increase from Friday. Otherwise, WHD saw a huge increase (almost 48%) while WWZ has an unexpectedly large Sat. drop (8%).