Jump to content

Neo

Robin Hood | Nov 21 2018 | Lionsgate | Taron Egerton is Robin Hood, Jamie Foxx is Little John

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

(I don't remember if anything similar was a hit in this decade or the aughts, LOTR notwithstanding - Arthur Hunnam, Ruussell Hood, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven all bombed).

Hard genre for sure. And Lord of the rings is fantasy-magic world like GoT, much easier than actual period movie.

 

Black death made 265k WW.

Nick Cage Season of the witch did ok, 91m on a 40m budget.

 

Medieval Times movies (according to box office mojo) after Robin Hood in 1991:

 

Robin Hood 105.27
Braveheart 75.61
Ever After: A Cinderella Story 65.71
A Knight's Tale 56.57
King Arthur 51.88
Dragonheart 51.37
Kingdom of Heaven 47.40
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword 39.18
First Knight 37.60
Robin Hood: Men in Tights 35.74
Black Knight 33.43
The 13th Warrior 32.70
Season of the Witch 24.83
Quest for Camelot 22.51
Your Highness 21.60
Timeline 19.48
Tristan and Isolde 14.73
Joan of Arc 14.28
A Kid in King Arthur's Court 13.41
Army of Darkness 11.50
The Last Legion 5.93
Just Visiting 4.78
Othello 2.84
The Reckoning 0.26
Black Death 0.02
Average 31.54

 

Even adjusted Robin Hood in 2010 was still one of the biggest after Braveheart and Cinderella story, considering they tend to be costly.... Not many hit since Braveheart (and that one was a giant VHS hit/good intl, but not a domestic theatrical one).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites







Just stay home and rent the 1938 Errol Flynn version. You will have a much better time and save money.

And the 1938 version is still one of the most visually beautiful movies ever made. Still one of the most stunning use of color in film  history.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Just stay home and rent the 1938 Errol Flynn version. You will have a much better time and save money.

And the 1938 version is still one of the most visually beautiful movies ever made. Still one of the most stunning use of color in film  history.

latest?cb=20131203000806

Link to comment
Share on other sites



@Barnack You are real Moviepedia! :bravo: 

 

Dead genre. Medieval fantasy (LOTR, Hobbit, GoT) thrives but straight up Medieval times flop. Just like pirate genre. Add some fantasy and you get POTC-level of success. Without fantasy, it's Flopville. Why Hollywood can't understand that some genres are just too passe for modern audiences (unless fused with other genres)?

 

@filmlover

 

We probably don't even need a crystal ball to tell us that this is another Pan/King Arthur waiting to happen.

 

We don't but overpaid studio CEOs do. LOL, I can't believe that Pan and Arthur were supposed to be 7 picture deals each. :rofl:WTF was WB thinking, that they had Harry Potter 2.0 and 3.0 on their hands? :rofl:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 hour ago, DlAMONDZ said:

If Lionsgate wanted to throw away money they could've thrown some my way

Post of the day! :bravo:

 

@BOOYAH SUCKAS

 

Can we all just admit that the Costner version was the best? Cant accost the Costner

 

You mean Alan Rickman version. ;) Otherwise, it was Robin Who-d and the Forgettables. LOL that sappy song that MTV used to play over and over in their 90s special. That and Armaggedon power ballad. :rofl:

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This movie could be just fun. But box office could go anywhere. While he isn't 007, Taron could face the fate of British stars not playing badass spies/agents. But he did fine in Sing, and I need to see Baby Driver to give a judgement on Jaimie Foxx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think this is a good move but it will still flop tremendously, this feels like another 'King Arthur' and I liked that movie. Honestly I don't understand why they keep producing these remakes/Live Action films, I mean only the Disney ones really break out. The last non Disney remake/live action that didn't bomb hard was 'The Legend of Tarzan' with 386M ant that was still considered a bad result because of the budget. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



15 hours ago, dudalb said:

Just stay home and rent the 1938 Errol Flynn version. You will have a much better time and save money.

And the 1938 version is still one of the most visually beautiful movies ever made. Still one of the most stunning use of color in film  history.

The one and only and yes, look at all that beautiful rich color.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, AN9815 said:

The last non Disney remake/live action that didn't bomb hard was 'The Legend of Tarzan' with 386M ant that was still considered a bad result because of the budget. 

King Kong this summer did 566m maybe for an other example ?

 

1 hour ago, AN9815 said:

Honestly I don't understand why they keep producing these remakes

I imagine that they want franchise to reduce fear, that studio without them will turn toward those public domain one (Arthurian, Robin Hood, religious classics, etc...), they are free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



49 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

The one and only and yes, look at all that beautiful rich color.

 

Does it not felt to people a little bit over the top, hey people we have color now versus the previous Hood movie and other release, look how much we have colors show off, more than good production design ?  A bit like a 3D movie content to have 3D for 3D ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I imagine that they want franchise to reduce fear, that studio without them will turn toward those public domain one (Arthurian, Robin Hood, religious classics, etc...), they are free.

yeah, this. They are basically making these franchise non-starters to keep rights. Even though the properties proved not to be commercial in any incarnation (King Arthur banished magic and tried to be "realistic", lol, other movies from your list were either equally poo-faced or too campy/B movie to take seriously). 

 

BOMB! Can we get a BOMB emoji? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

yeah, this. They are basically making these franchise non-starters to keep rights. Even though the properties proved not to be commercial in any incarnation (King Arthur banished magic and tried to be "realistic", lol, other movies from your list were either equally poo-faced or too campy/B movie to take seriously). 

 

BOMB! Can we get a BOMB emoji? :)

 :qotd:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Does it not felt to people a little bit over the top, hey people we have color now versus the previous Hood movie and other release, look how much we have colors show off, more than good production design ?  A bit like a 3D movie content to have 3D for 3D ?

It's not a gimmick when everything about the film is top notch - directing, acting, dialogue, story, production design, costumes and score with yes the highest quality expensive glorious technicolor possible (which was alas too expensive to last and films was the poorer for it)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.