MovieMan89

Part A: 1. April 27-29 2. June 22-24 3. May 25-27 Part B: Abstain

1. C 2. A 3. Abstain 4. B 5. A 6. C

Pixar has had some underwhelming marketing campaigns, but Inside Out and Finding Dory both had great marketing and look at how much better they did than any other recent Pixar effort. Dory was for other factors too obviously, but IO definitely owed its OW to the great marketing. TGD and Coco had underwhelming marketing and both had underwhelming OWs. Same goes for Brave, MU, and the Cars sequels to lesser extents. Ratatouille back in the day is another example of when Pixar dropped the ball on marketing and it affected the OW. Pixar doesn't need to rely on effective marketing as much as most studios, especially with sequels, but they definitely still need it.

Looks like I shouldn’t have drank the kool aid and stuck to my initial gut on this one being too dumb looking to breakout. It’s a non starter on MT and now these reviews aren’t exactly promising. 100m looking pretty doubtful.

When is the Okoye & Okoye crossover movie happening?

^Good, it's definitely time for a proper and more effective trailer. I don't care what anyone says about the years of anticipation for this, marketing has been underwhelming so far.

In all seriousness though, the only thing I can come up with that would have a chance at 600+ for Paramount any time over like the next decade would be a sequel to Forrest Gump with all of the cast and that actually manages to live up to the quality of the first. And even then, it would be a very small chance.

Thank god it's a beefy action star. Otherwise that score should have been /4.

Saw it yesterday. Basically my thoughts exactly. Really surprised some people around here are underwhelmed by it (assuming they're Anderson fans). Though I will say this may be his most accessible film yet to those who maybe don't care for his prior films. Kind of a hard movie to outright dislike, imo. Dog lovers in particular should see this, they should enjoy it whether they normally hate his films or have never seen any others. Hope it can get to 50m, maybe inch past Tenenbaums.

Good for Sony. No studio's #1 unadjusted film should be stagnant for 16 years. Though at least not nearly as bad as the 33 year gap between E.T. and Jurassic World for Universal. And Paramount will probably be long dead before anything of theirs gets close to Titanic.

The first review on RT is 4/4.

Maybe it's typical video game movie quality after all?

He pretty much just does action with different subgenres.

I'd lol if that happens considering this was the one film I was too scared of to include in my club.

For the record, the club was never because I wanted a Disney monopoly. It was because the Jan-early April slate looked weak af. And aside from AQP's massive breakout, I really wasn't wrong about that, even if the club objective itself failed hard with 4 films hitting the mark.

@baumer Please don't accuse me of some kind of "narrative" when everything I had read prior had given $175-200m budget range, so naturally that's what I thought the budget was. That's great if you saw sources that said $150m, I just hadn't seen them. It's not more of a narrative than what you're saying. I didn't even say it wouldn't be profitable. All I said was with a budget in that range, it would be doing about 3x its budget WW and maybe something like .65-.7x DOM. Not terribly dissimilar from Tomb Raider. If that's not really the budget then clearly those stats would no longer be accurate.

Who said anything about it being comparable to WiT? And I've never once heard the $150m number. $175m was what was reported for a long time, but more recent reports were suggesting 200m.

Isn't the budget $200m?

On the talk of a sequel, everyone here that has pushed back so hard on Tomb Raider's sequel chances should realize this is in a virtually identical boat. Both movies will finish with around 3x their budgets WW, but only about 0.65x their budgets DOM. And this was a way bigger investment than TR, so there's more at stake.

Yeahhhh...this 100% looks like a typical mid budget Statham action vehicle. Except it cost $150m and is based on a popular novel long anticipated for film. And yeah, the tone seemed all over the place. Yikes.

It has nothing to do with the so called "quality" of Ritchie's work. It's the fact that he has an extremely distinct style that he seems incapable of detaching from and has yet to be diluted in any of his movies. And it's a bit of a niche style that makes 4 quad appeal fairly impossible even when he's working in a blockbuster franchise with an A list draw like the Sherlock movies. And the idea of his style for Aladdin is just jarring to say the least. Now maybe Disney neuters him and forces their vision on him, but if that's the case I can't imagine why he would have done it? One could argue maybe they threw a big paycheck his way, but then that begs the question of why Disney would have done that? He's not some huge director with huge grosses on his resume that they would have been desperate to nab or anything.

And to all this I say yet again... Guy Ritchie.

Lol, oops.

So 50 Shades closed with just 400k over 100m? Lol. So much for all that talk about how easily it would cross it.

BP may have made just enough with Sunday actuals to stay over 1m on Monday. Which of course would give it Tuesday as well.