Wknd Est: DM2 - 44.7M ; GU2 - 42.5M; PR - 38.3M; Heat - 14M; TLR - 11.1M; MU - 10.6M (PG 100)

[baumer]

He already had an oscar nomination by the time League rolled around though. Some big comedy hits w/ Big and Splash and the like in the 80s too.

 

Big and Splash yes, but his career was in the toilet after that.  Reynolds has had big hits too.  My point is you just don't know.

[bballman24]

Nooooooooo wrong thread for talking about politics!!!!!Me no like. Me no like this lots

[Blankments]

Ugh at the PR numbers. They should've really got a name celebrity for the movie. As I said in the PR thread, I could've seen Tatum in the lead, and Jackman and L. Hemsworth as the Aussies. It may have added 30M to the budget, but the return would've been greater both in quality of acting and in gross IMO.

[Noctis]

The next global economic collapse is near. And it'll make the one in 2008 look like a walk in the park.

[TMP]

I I think something Michael Bay does better than most is that he is able to blend his action with some very memorable characters. I know he does not write his scripts but somehow he manages to find people to write scripts that have funny characters and identifiable characters or just plain quirky enough characters that we identify with them. Armageddon Transformers and so on...all had people we could relate to in some way.

 

 

Michael Bay films have terrible characters. Most of them are like frat boys, even though they're grown men. Sam Witwicky from Transformers was annoying, Armageddon had no relatable characters, and featured some terrible performances from Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck. I don't know how anyone could identify with ANYONE from The Island/Revenge of the fallen. Pearl Harbor turned a tragedy into an action film. I haven't seen Pain & Gain, but I heard that the humor was in poor taste. And humor in Bay films tend to be terrible. The humor in the transformers sequels feels so awkward. And the women are all just objectified. The only Bay film which had good characters was The Rock. That film was awesome. But besides that, Michael Bay films should be the last films used as an example for good characters.

[baumer]

Ugh at the PR numbers. They should've really got a name celebrity for the movie. As I said in the PR thread, I could've seen Tatum in the lead, and Jackman and L. Hemsworth as the Aussies. It may have added 30M to the budget, but the return would've been greater both in quality of acting and in gross IMO.

 

Hell yea.  A name, some name, any name would have helped.  Ron Perlman is too niche and Elba is a cool actor with a very cool voice and a cool persona, but he is a nobody.  A film like this needed someone to sell it.  

[baumer]

Michael Bay films have terrible characters. Most of them are like frat boys, even though they're grown men. Sam Witwicky from Transformers was annoying, Armageddon had no relatable characters, and featured some terrible performances from Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck. I don't know how anyone could identify with ANYONE from The Island/Revenge of the fallen. Pearl Harbor turned a tragedy into an action film. I haven't seen Pain & Gain, but I heard that the humor was in poor taste. And humor in Bay films tend to be terrible. The humor in the transformers sequels feels so awkward. And the women are all just objectified. The only Bay film which had good characters was The Rock. That film was awesome. But besides that, Michael Bay films should be the last films used as an example for good characters.

 

 

Michael Bay has some of the best characters and people, maybe not you, but people in general do identify with them.  It's not even up for debate.  There's a reason why his movies are successful.  

[mahnamahna]

Yeah the idea that right-wingers have historically opposed worker rights, women's rights, civil rights, the poor, environmentalism, to empower the rich white male is completely fabricated by Hollywood. Let's ignore the last 100 years of history.

 

Nobody will ever know what happened exactly to Trayvon Martin (though I doubt he was looking to rob someone) so it's useless debating it.

 

and I like how you grouped in environmentalist and progressives with Muslim Jihadist. lma

Worker's rights: that was corrupt neo-con carpetbaggers abusing the poor - not true conservatives. Many businessmen with conservative principles treated their employees with respect.

 

Women's rights: Feminism was fabricated by men so it'd be easier for them to get laid (no reason to get married, and abortion would take care of any unwanted kids) - it's all about putting men down rather than making the sexes equal. They've made it so that being a gentleman is sexism at its worst while calling a girl a "ho" is perfectly acceptable - as long as a white male doesn't say it that is. And the progressive media's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and countless other conservative women makes your argument here kinda null and void - if the same things had been said about Helen Thomas or Janet Reno, people would be up in arms.

 

Civil rights: Liberal Democrats are the reason why black families are falling apart - look at LBJ's extremely progressive Great Society program. Rape, murder, abortion, drug usage, robbery, and poverty all went through the roof in the black community shortly after this program. Conservative Republicans want black people to stop living in victimhood and work hard and get some of that American Dream available for every American. They want more Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr rather than Nicki Minaj and Kayne West or Jay-Z or really any of the misogynistic rappers of today. Progressives only care enough about blacks to keep them voting Democrat.

 

The Poor: Have food stamps and welfare actually helped anyone? All they do is make poor people lazy - why work hard to make your dreams come true when the government's giving you a free cell phone, free housing, reduced prices for food and clothing, free TV, and you can get yourself a brand new Cadillac too using taxpayer money! My dad grew up under welfare and food stamps and he tells me they were pretty bad years - especially because my grandmother just sat around watching TV, mooching off the government paycheck. Don't tell me liberals care about the poor - they only care enough to keep em voting Democrat.

 

Enviromentalism: Progressives only see enviromentalism as a way to control people by taxing air and water usage... and since when are trees more valued than a human fetus? Abortion is okay with progressives while if you chop down one tree, that's an act of treason. Not to mention PETA demonizes anyone who decides to hunt - how terrible!

 

The media tricked you into thinking conservatives and Republicans are against all of those things - they just feel that people should try to succeed without government help or aid. They want people to GASP... think for themselves

 

And when I said enviromentalists and progressives - I meant eco-terrorists and globalist NWO kingpins: both equally as evil as Muslim jihadists.

 

BTW... I'm a libertarian - not liberal or conservative

[baumer]

Maybe you guys should take the politics into the politics thread.  

 

[mahnamahna]

Maybe you guys should take the politics into the politics thread.  

 

The politics do have to do with Hollywood though - about their obvious bias and trite stereotypes.

[baumer]

The politics do have to do with Hollywood though - about their obvious bias and trite stereotypes.

 

I know.  But it would be a good topic in the politics thread.  I'm not saying you have to move it, it's no big deal.  But the politics forum is good too.

[Dragon]

Ugh at the PR numbers. They should've really got a name celebrity for the movie. As I said in the PR thread, I could've seen Tatum in the lead, and Jackman and L. Hemsworth as the Aussies. It may have added 30M to the budget, but the return would've been greater both in quality of acting and in gross IMO.

Chris Hemesworth would have been good

Edited July 13, 2013 by Dragon

[kowhite]

Nooooooooo wrong thread for talking about politics!!!!!Me no like. Me no like this lots

Seriously. Lets talk about movies and box office, not a laundry list of right wing talking points.

[#ED]

Too lazy to read the last 15 pages.

[FilmBuff]

Man, people go see PR! Totally worth it!

Edited July 13, 2013 by FilmBuff

[Blankments]

Might be a little early for this, but some multipliers from OD and other films' legs for PR:

 

 

The Matrix: 521.9M (lol)

Inception: 196.4M

Now You See Me (up to this point): 162.7M

Super 8: 141.3M

Transformers 1: 127.3M

District 9: 119.4M

Battleship: 108.9M

John Carter: 108.9M

The Matrix Reloaded: 96.8M

The Matrix Revolutions: 83.8M

Prometheus: 83.7M

Edited July 13, 2013 by Pacific Blank

[CoolioD1]

A District 9 or Super 8 like run seems like a good bet to me.

[bballman24]

Might be a little early for this, but some multipliers from OD and other films' legs for PR:

 

Inception: 196.4M

Now You See Me (up to this point): 162.7M

Transformers 1: 127.3M

District 9: 119.4M

Battleship: 108.9M

John Carter: 108.9M

I would be happy with anywhere near 130m.

[TMP]

Michael Bay has some of the best characters and people, maybe not you, but people in general do identify with them.  It's not even up for debate.  There's a reason why his movies are successful.  

 

Like, ever? Because I doubt that Michael Bay films have the most identifiable characters in film history. Are Bay's characters more identifiable than, say, characters from most John Hughes films like Ferris Bueller? Characters from Tarintino or Coen Bros. films? John Mcclane from the first Die Hard? 

[bballman24]

 

plus men, kids, animals, ghosts and anything in between... yes you do Mr. Elba