Mojoguy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Psssst I know Should have put a smiley to show that you were joking. Edited October 5, 2015 by Mojoguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Ah, PAN, where you can watch Garrett Hedlund utterly bomb his INDIANA JONES and YOUNG HAN SOLO auditions at the same time... — Scott Mendelson (@ScottMendelson) October 4, 2015 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 This seems to be Jupiter Ascending Redux, when Warner gives lots of money & freedom to an "auteur" and the end result puzzles a LOT of people. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire of Themyscira Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Ah, PAN, where you can watch Garrett Hedlund utterly bomb his INDIANA JONES and YOUNG HAN SOLO auditions at the same time... — Scott Mendelson (@ScottMendelson) October 4, 2015 <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> No, omg. I love him. Ugh, poor thang's gonna get clocked, dragged, and hanged. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I actually heard the 2003 movie was better than people say, and gets a bad rap. But I've also heard people say no, it really was awful. I only remember seeing the trailers with that Coldplay song that was effing everywhere in 2003, and I was too enthralled by ROTK to care. This could be the least divisive of the live-action Peter Pan movies, in that it may end up having the fewest defenders. But who knows? I really liked the 2003 version when I was 4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckasaurus Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Hedlund is a terrible, terrible actor, so this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I've noticed a few things in the tv ads. "From the studio that brought you Harry Potter" Should be "From the studio that spent 100's of millions to bring you Harry Potter." And "the story of how Peter got to Neverland" "We don't have a fucking clue how to market this." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 IMHO a Peter Pan "prequel" was a questionable idea from day one. Joe Wright seems to have been the wrong choice for a director. I like some of his films, but appranly he messed up badly here. Looks a though he tried to make the material more "adult",and "deep" which is a huge mistake . Yeah, Warners is going to take a bath on this one. And Rooney Mara is going to have to stop giving her sister a bad time about starring in a big flop film,now that Rooney has one of her own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Peter Pan isn't public domain, at least not everywhere. It's under copyright in the UK; in the U.S., the book is public domain (but not the play?) but most adaptations still get permission from Great Ormond Street Hospital and give them royalties. It's in a confusing limbo where it's public domain but not public domain. I have no idea if WB got official permission or not. The irony is that if this film tanks and people forget about it quickly, Disney can do their own live-action film and nobody will confuse it for this movie. Disney is the only studio who would ever have any success making a live-action Peter Pan movie. Both the book and the play are in public domain in the U.S..Peter Pan was originally a play;after the huge sucess of the play Barrie turned it into a novel in 1911,in a early example of a Novelization. But, yeah, the copyright is a confusing mess.Apprently in the UK, Because it's a Hospital known for it's charity work owns the copyright and gets royalties, Parliament tried to to give it a special "extension" of Copyright ,since by standard Copyright law it would have gone into Public Domain in the UK in the early 90's. Edited October 5, 2015 by dudalb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'm always interested in a good bomb and I still have a pair of 3D glasses from Guardians. Maybe after Steve Jobs on Friday, I'll sneak into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wormhole Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Everyone is trashing this already but reviews don't seem as bad as is being made out to be. I'm sure it'll bomb, but, who knows, it might be an enjoyable film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'm sure it suffices as a fall family film. Just probably not as anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'm sure it suffices as a fall family film. Just probably not as anything else. And you just don't spend 150 Million on a film that will just "suffice". Agreed it is not getting the kind of panning (no pun intended) that Fantastic 4 got,but still, I think it needed a good critical reception to spark some interest in a film that simply did not look that good,and not getting a good reception will hurt it, though it not being ripped to shreds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJG Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 When IGN give a movie 4.5... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Updated predicts: OW: 21M DOM: 66M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The more I hear of the details of the film, the more I wonder how the hell Warners green lighted it, let alone spend 150 Million on it. Seems like a total trashing of the Barrie charecters to turn it into just another CGI fantasy adventure. No wonder it seems destined to bomb. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingo Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The more I hear of the details of the film, the more I wonder how the hell Warners green lighted it, let alone spend 150 Million on it. Seems like a total trashing of the Barrie charecters to turn it into just another CGI fantasy adventure. No wonder it seems destined to bomb. Probably thought families will flock to it no matter what. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Probably thought families will flock to it no matter what. Ah,yes,the Fantastic Four strategy.... "Does'nt matter, they will still go see it" Did not work for F4, does not seem to be working for "Pan", Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Pixie dust mined by [kidnapped and occasionally murdered] child slave labor is just the kind of stuff that screams fun for the entire family! It worked for Indy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fancyarcher Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) It worked for Indy. At least Indy had the common sense to actually be fun Edited October 7, 2015 by FancyArcher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
