Disney's A Wrinkle in Time | 9th March, 2018 | Frozen's Jennifer Lee writing, Ava DuVernay directing. 45% on RT

[KeepItU25071906]

1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

I’ll still never forget when you said that about Wonder Woman 

 

every man to his taste

[narniadis]

In time @EmpireCity will be vindicated on Wonder Woman....

[EmpireCity]

1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

I’ll still never forget when you said that about Wonder Woman 

 

 

If you are going to post this, then at least be fair and post the whole story.  

 

I said that Wonder Woman had a terrible third act that was a borderline mess but that I loved Gadot and Pine and in the same post I was one of the only people (and for months before) that said it was a lock to open $100m+ and $300m+ domenstic overall.  

[narniadis]

Also @BoxOfficeZ that is disheartening. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

@Porthos I never bothered beyond the 2nd book either but LOVED, Wrinkle growing up, probably read it close to a dozen times between ages 10 and 15.

[MovieMan89]

6 hours ago, BoxOfficeZ said:

Yeah...that was bad. 

 

The main problem is the movie goes ALL over the place, which is almost understandable considering the book, but in the film itself there's no explanation why and when they go from place to place. The pacing is all over the place. Also the writing was subpar at best. I felt no connection with the characters at all.

 

Movie looks pretty at least.

 

Of course, just saying if you're a critic, you'd be tiptoeing carefully around Disney since bad reviews might cost you a nice premiere seat in the future. 

Usually agree with your movie taste, so this is the first truly disheartening thing for me about this movie. 

[Goffe]

Suffice to say Z giving it a unenthusiastic review is a bad sign to say the least. Dude have always been pretty easy on his blockbusters (no offense @BoxOfficeZ, I appreciate your reaction reports)

[Barnack]

4 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

 

If you are going to post this, then at least be fair and post the whole story.  

 

I said that Wonder Woman had a terrible third act that was a borderline mess but that I loved Gadot and Pine and in the same post I was one of the only people (and for months before) that said it was a lock to open $100m+ and $300m+ domenstic overall.  

This I remember clearly you saying you didn't like it (not that relevant on the box office message board) but that audience will ate that up (relevant).

 

Third act is a bit of a mess, but the movie built up energy and good will (and the crowd energy around you) make you go through it imo (that the kind of third act that will not have passed for a movie less strong before it, like what happened to Tomorrowland)

[Jonwo]

I don't think A Wrinkle in Time not being great is going to hurt Ava in the long term or even Disney, they're bound to have an unsuccessful film once in a while. 

[MovieMan89]

I've never understood where this "third act is a mess" argument for WW came from? Is it because the Greek mythology aspect turned out to be real and people were hoping for something more "realistic"? Because it should have been obvious from the beginning of the movie the Greek mythology aspect was real and a part of the film. 

[AniNate]

I've yet to see BoxOfficeZ come out of a movie hating it before this so that's definitely not a good sign.

 

Perhaps it really isn't a book that can be condensed into a cohesive 2 hour film. Would be fair to say I remember it more for its parts than the sum. As the marketing campaign has gone on this felt more and more like an "awesome on paper" kind of project.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by tribefan695

[AniNate]

I don't know what the issue is, whether it's the material being greenlit, exec meddling or director hubris, but Disney needs to reevaluate their strategy with these sci fi spectacles they devote all their "risk" money to. I want them to take risks, but once in awhile they need to actually pay off.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by tribefan695

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I don't know what the issue is, whether it's the material being greenlit, exec meddling or director hubris, but Disney needs to reevaluate their strategy with these sci fi spectacles they devote all their "risk" money to. I want them to take risks, but once in awhile they need to actually pay off.

 

 

I'd still argue this is one of their fantasy outings, not one of their sci-fi ones though. Sure, there are sci-fi elements, but you can say that for a lot of fantasy films. 

 

It's also still very premature to say this won't pay off in terms of being profitable. The budget is pretty modest. Still don't see it missing 100+ DOM. Though I suppose OS is a big question mark and it could do bad there.

 

At any rate, Artemis Fowl looks to be their next big gamble in 2019. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by MovieMan89

[AniNate]

I meant artistically more than commercially. While a great and commercially successful risk would be ideal, a great film that bombs would be preferable to a lousy one that breaks even.

[meriodejaneiro]

Disney seems to "need" a bomb per year. Sounds like a constant they need to keep their spiritual balance or something. 

 

2010: Prince or Persia (336M ww on 200M budget)

         The Sorcerer's Apprentice (215M ww on 150M budget)

2011: Mars Needs Moms (39M ww on 150M budget)

2012: John Carter (284M ww on 250M budget)

2013: Lone Ranger (260M ww on 215M budget)

2014: surprisingly, the only year with no underperformers

2015: Tomorrowland (209M ww on a 190M budget)

2016: The BFG (183M ww on a 140M budget)

         Alice Through The Looking Glass (299M ww on a 170M budget)

2017: Alice Through The Looking Glass (299M ww on a 170M budget)  (another no-bomb year)

2018: ¿A Wrinkle in Time?

Edited March 4, 2018 by meriodejaneiro

[John Marston]

1 minute ago, meriodejaneiro said:

Disney seems to "need" a bomb per year. Sounds like a constant they need to keep their spiritual balance or something. 

 

2010: Prince or Persia (336M ww on 200M budget)

         The Sorcerer's Apprentice (215M ww on 150M budget)

2011: Mars Needs Moms (39M ww on 150M budget)

2012: John Carter (284M ww on 250M budget)

2013: Lone Ranger (260M ww on 215M budget)

2014: surprisingly, the only year with no underperformers

2015: Tomorrowland (209M ww on a 190M budget)

2016: The BFG (183M ww on a 140M budget)

2017: Alice Through The Looking Glass (299M ww on a 170M budget)

2018: ¿A Wrinkle in Time?

 

 

Alice was also 2016

[Jonwo]

Pirates technically unperformed but it still made money thanks to OS. 

 

Christopher Robin probably won't make big bucks but it's probably got a mid sized budget so it can do well even if it only does say $200-250m WW

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, meriodejaneiro said:

2011: Mars Needs Moms (39M ww on 150M budget)

 

Those were the days with reals bombs....

 

When was the last studio movie with a 100m budget doing Mars Needs Moms/The Adventures of Pluto Nash/The Alamo type of WW performance ?

[MovieMan89]

17 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Those were the days with reals bombs....

 

When was the last studio movie with a 100m budget doing Mars Needs Moms/The Adventures of Pluto Nash/The Alamo type of WW performance ?

You’d probably be seeing it with Pac Rim 2 in a few weeks if not for China. Wouldnt surprise me if it does 75ish minus China. 

[MovieMan89]

37 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I meant artistically more than commercially. While a great and commercially successful risk would be ideal, a great film that bombs would be preferable to a lousy one that breaks even.

I think Artemis Fowl has a lot of potential to be good. Certainly shouldn’t be anywhere near as challenging as a book to adapt as WiT

[Porthos]

On 2/27/2018 at 9:27 PM, Porthos said:

That's... quite the range.  Gonna declare victory if it is 67 or 68 since you get to round up?

 

FWIW, I'm thinking around [ed: RT score] 70-75 with around a 6.8-7.5/10 range, myself.

Reupping simply because I have seen some glowing reactions among the 'YIKES' reactions.

 

Though I have to admit I'm starting to waver on that 70 bit.

 

==

 

This does seem to be the type of movie where if it doesn't click with someone, it just doesn't work.  Now that can be said for a lot of films, yes.  But some films seem to suffer this worse than others.  It appears, APPEARS, that this might be the case for AWiT.

 

Sure hope I'm in the 'click' camp...