Weekend Estimates (pg14): Martian 11.4 | Goosebumps 10.21 | Spies 8.06 | Burnt 5.04 | Crisis 3.43 | Scouts 1.77

[grey ghost]

Del Toro has a lifetime pass from me for Pan's Labyrinth.

It's one of my all-time favorites.

 

[Webslinger]

8 minutes ago, moviesRus said:

Del Toro just hasn't caught on with audiences or critics with his recent output. I think Crimson Peak could've been pushed to a higher number just be having better critics reviews and getting that "must see" buzz. Instead it's at a middling 60-something on rotten tomatoes, which is okay but not anything special that might make people take notice. 

I don't think that stronger reviews would have helped all that much in this marketplace. The only audience that it was ever going to reach in any meaningful way was already too swept up in The Martian.

There's a bitter irony in the fact that the exact reason why I have loved this month so much - namely, the fact that so many name filmmakers have released solid movies aimed at an adult audience - is also why so many of the films have either performed in a middling fashion or outright bombed.

[John Marston]

20 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Which is why I'm saying there will be no more big budgets for GDT until he starts small and builds himself back up again. Which sucks because out of all the directors who can best use a big budget to their film's advantage, I'd say he would be near the top. PJ should've gotten over himself and let him do The Hobbit. Things almost surely would've turned out better from a success standpoint for both directors. 

Jackson didn't take Hobbit  from him. He quit due to the production delays.  Probably so he could work on one if his other projects that ended up never getting Made

Edited October 31, 2015 by John Marston

[Avatree]

37 minutes ago, Webslinger said:

Well, it is horror, but it's almost entirely psychological until the blood-soaked final half-hour.

I don't think it is horror in the slightest.

 

 

We all know GDT is a terrific filmmaker but unfortunately he has a very poor track record in terms of box office. His films are strange and messed up and very niche. As for Hobbit, Del Toro left of his own volition, nothing to do with Jackson.

[baumer]

2 hours ago, John Marston said:

Jackson didn't take Hobbit  from him. He quit due to the production delays.  Probably so he could work on one if his other projects that ended up never getting Made

Jackson most certainly did take Hobbit away from him but not for the reasons that have been made public.  There's a really interesting behind the scenes story to this one.

[MovieMan89]

25 minutes ago, baumer said:

Jackson most certainly did take Hobbit away from him but not for the reasons that have been made public.  There's a really interesting behind the scenes story to this one.

So are you implying that you know of this "behind the scenes" story not made public? 

[baumer]

7 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

So are you implying that you know of this "behind the scenes" story not made public? 

Yes, I do.  It was told to me from a buddy who had a friend who worked on the Hobbit.  So it's third hand information.  But I do believe it, and it has to do with ego.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, baumer said:

Yes, I do.  It was told to me from a buddy who had a friend who worked on the Hobbit.  So it's third hand information.  But I do believe it, and it has to do with ego.

Lol, but in all seriousness I always figured it had to do with PJ wanting the 3 film split, and GDT insisting on the original 2 movie plan. So GDT got the boot. 

[baumer]

Well, I won't get into it right now because it's really all heresay.  I have no proof of any of this except that I trust my friend.  But Jackson let his ego get in the way of things, and that doesn't surprise me.

[MovieMan89]

4 minutes ago, baumer said:

Well, I won't get into it right now because it's really all heresay.  I have no proof of any of this except that I trust my friend.  But Jackson let his ego get in the way of things, and that doesn't surprise me.

I know you hate PJ and all, but he did kind of have a right to do what he wanted with the films. LOTR was what it was because of him, and both sets of films were only made in the first place because of him. It's kind of a Lucas PT situation (except that Lucas wasn't nearly as essential to the OT's success as PJ to LOTR's). Better choices could've been made, but in the end it's their babies. 

Edited October 31, 2015 by MovieMan89

[baumer]

I don't hate PJ.  I love his work prior to LOTR and FOTR is one of my top 25 films of all time.  I don't care for a lot of his work post Fellowship, but I don't hate him.  

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

I don't hate PJ.  I love his work prior to LOTR and FOTR is one of my top 25 films of all time.  I don't care for a lot of his work post Fellowship, but I don't hate him.  

I meant more on a personal level, not filmmaker. Although I know you don't actually know him, but you get what I mean. We develop opinions on celebrities from a personal standpoint, whether they're justified or not. 

Edited October 31, 2015 by MovieMan89

[baumer]

What really turned me off PJ creatively was Little Bones.  I honestly think he dropped acid every day before shooting and that's why the movie is so fucking ridiculous.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, baumer said:

What really turned me off PJ creatively was Little Bones.  I honestly think he dropped acid every day before shooting and that's why the movie is so fucking ridiculous.

Isn't the book kinda out there too though? Haven't read it, but I didn't think it was exactly conventional...

[Webslinger]

32 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Isn't the book kinda out there too though? Haven't read it, but I didn't think it was exactly conventional...

The book is awesome and I do believe that it could have been a great movie, but the fact the Jackson and the studio both approached inherently disturbing R-rated material with the intention of making a softer PG-13 film should have been a red flag from the start. Alas, there were plenty of us who loved Lord of the Rings and King Kong who were willing to give Jackson and DreamWorks the benefit of the doubt prior to the release of the weak reviews of The Lovely Bones.

[filmlover]

Baumer, it's The Lovely Bones.

The book is one of my favorites but was always going to be difficult to adapt into a film. However, Peter Jackson's movie was a disaster on every level, from the casting (in particular, Mark Wahlberg as the world's least convincing grieving father) to the storytelling.

[MovieMan89]

13 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Baumer, it's The Lovely Bones.

The book is one of my favorites but was always going to be difficult to adapt into a film. However, Peter Jackson's movie was a disaster on every level, from the casting (in particular, Mark Wahlberg as the world's least convincing grieving father) to the storytelling.

Yeah, thanks for bringing Wahlberg up. His acting in that film is ridiculously bad and out of proper context. Probably what I remember most about the movie. 

[Claire of Themyscira]

The Lovely Bones is one of my fucking favorite books.

I was so excited, and then I saw the film, I was hella disappointed.

So much wasted potential, and I'm disgusted Ronan was wasted.

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Yeah, thanks for bringing Wahlberg up. His acting in that film is ridiculously bad and out of proper context. Probably what I remember most about the movie. 

It felt like he could not connect with the character whatsoever. Which was almost inexcusable considering he is a father of 4 in real life.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

7 hours ago, RyneOh1040 said:

1000% yes to this.  If anyone has legit star power right now, it's her.  But this just appealed to no quadrant and completely alienated most people who see films because she's in them.  I mean think of how terrible All About Steve looked (and was) but still, it was in her wheelhouse and got over a 10 million OW.  This movie was for absolutely no one other than Clooney and Bullock and appears to be a huge mistake.

Good lord, yes. I borrowed it from the library and still want a refund! Nothing about her character in that movie made sense and the plot is utterly insane. It's like the whole thing only ever got filmed because they knew that someday, the "How Did This Get Made?" podcast would exist and need good material. And BCoop plays the love interest, heh.

 

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

I have no idea why they thought marketing it as straight up horror was a good idea though. I can just imagine the confounded reactions from the teens, out for their cheap thrill Halloween horror flick, when they were presented with a full blown period piece romance film in that first act.  

If anything, they should've taken more of The Others approach to marketing. Present it as a much more adult and dramatic psychological thriller. Instead they seemed bent on marketing it to compete with the like of Paranormal 5, and of course that audience would hate it. Terrible decision on their part. 

Duh, if you market it to the wimmins, teen boys would think it's for old people and the GDT fanboys wouldn't show up because girls have cooties! Even if some of the biggest Gothic romance novels ever that are decades, over a hundred years old (Rebecca, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, heck, even Flowers in the Attic) hugely appeal to teen girls and women,  it's not like they'd want to see a movie along those lines or anything...

 

4 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

A look at the entire cast list and that it was scheduled for late Oct by Weinstein (who is not adverse to serious dumping and shelving) indicates that feeling lasted longer than that.

The awards forums had high hopes for OBIC and Bullock's Oscar chances for several months, ditto with Cooper and Burnt, though the latter's buzz died considerably with the numerous test screenings and title/release date changes. The best case scenario for busted awards bait is that it's strong enough to get moved to like, February, and still make decent money, i.e. Monuments Men or Shutter Island. Is it worse to bomb in wide release or be demoted to VOD: Burnt or Serena? 

 

26 minutes ago, baumer said:

What really turned me off PJ creatively was Little Bones.  I honestly think he dropped acid every day before shooting and that's why the movie is so fucking ridiculous.

 

The Lovely Bones is a pretty surrealistic book, I loved it but I'm not sure how well it was ever going to translate to film.