Weekend Estimates (Page 92): Pets 103.2M (biggest OW ever for an original movie) | Tarzan 20.6M | Dory 20.3M | M&D 16.6M

[MrPink]

14 minutes ago, The Pandaren said:

 

Under Interstellar DOM 

 

Probable, I honestly expect 130m right now. 

[Dementeleus]

10 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Oh please.  This latest round started with you complaining about the BFG not doing better.  The BFG!

 

I don't think I even mentioned it today until someone else brought it up. And it's hardly a movie I'm in love with (though I did like it quite a bit). 

 

7 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

It wasn't budgeted as a "little" movie though and it should have been.

 

It'll just hurt the people they fire to pay for it, most likely those who had nothing to do with the movie and actually need a paycheck.

 

We're consumers. How a studio chooses to spend its money shouldn't affect how we watch something. I liked MARS ATTACKS quite a bit too. I'm glad it was made. It wouldn't be today, and that's a shame.

 

If this forum existed in the summer of 1982, everyone here would be ragging on the idiocy of WB spending $30m to make BLADE RUNNER and how pathetic it was for Universal to try and release THE THING in June. But is the cinema universe better or worse because of those two "fuck-ups"?

[cannastop]

2 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

Probable, I honestly expect 130m right now. 

Really? I think that $200m for Dunkirk is totally possibly, considering its prime release date.

[MrPink]

2 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Really? I think that $200m for Dunkirk is totally possibly, considering its prime release date.

 

Its possible but I don't think probable. This isn't going to appeal to young folk no matter how much we joke about 1D and Dunkirk doesn't have much historical significance in the US despite its enormous consequences for the war. 200m seems like the upper ceiling and 100m is what I'll go with as the floor unless the movie sucks, then it could do worse

Edited July 10, 2016 by MrPink

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, cannastop said:

Really? I think that $200m for Dunkirk is totally possibly, considering its prime release date.

 

It's a WWII movie where the Americans aren't even the heroes starring the kid from One Direction.

 

If Nolan wasn't directing this it would be a Netflix original.  Maybe.

 

 

 

[cannastop]

3 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I don't think I even mentioned it today until someone else brought it up. And it's hardly a movie I'm in love with (though I did like it quite a bit). 

 

 

We're consumers. How a studio chooses to spend its money shouldn't affect how we watch something. I liked MARS ATTACKS quite a bit too. I'm glad it was made. It wouldn't be today, and that's a shame.

 

If this forum existed in the summer of 1982, everyone here would be ragging on the idiocy of WB spending $30m to make BLADE RUNNER and how pathetic it was for Universal to try and release THE THING in June. But is the cinema universe better or worse because of those two "fuck-ups"?

Ah, yes. But would Blade Runner and The Thing be instantly canonized by Rotten Tomatoes? That's the real question.

[filmlover]

War movies typically only do well when they have big stars headlining them (as prominent as Tom Hardy has been in successful movies, he's still not a proven draw on his own) or are Oscar players so Dunkirk will be something of a test in that regard.

[Dementeleus]

Just now, cannastop said:

Ah, yes. But would Blade Runner and The Thing be instantly canonized by Rotten Tomatoes? That's the real question.

 

They wouldn't. They would've been Rotten. We all rush to judgement way too quickly on all this stuff.

[Outrageous!]

14 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

To switch side and join the Tele tirade for a moment, there will come a point where this formula of the next 5 years of countless CBMs/Disney live action fairytales/Star Wars/franchise spin offs will cause the floor to fall out. They can't just give people that for blockbusters from here out and expect it to not come crashing down at some point. 

 

I know that this was more than a lifetime ago for some here, but the scenario you describe here reminds me a lot of the video game crash of 1983.  E.T. may have been one of Spielberg's most famous movies ever, but it is also noteworthy in history for being the game that helped sink Atari.  People stopped video games then, probably due to all the poor quality releases.  Back to current times, for the North American movie market, if the same things get offered over and over again with almost no change, people could turn to other outlets for entertainment: television, console games, mobile games, VR, AR (that Pokemon Go app is really popular), and simply stop going to the movies.

[MrPink]

6 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

It's a WWII movie where the Americans aren't even the heroes starring the kid from One Direction.

 

If Nolan wasn't directing this it would be a Netflix original.  Maybe.

 

 

 

 

A little demeaning to call it maybe a Netflix original. Sure, the movie wouldn't exist in the state it's ultimately going to, but I'm sure a studio would be tempted to release a film about Dunkirk with the right talent both in front and behind the camera for Oscar purposes. And let us not ignore the current talent that IS in front of the camera right now excluding Styles. There's a movie worth creating in that story.

Edited July 10, 2016 by MrPink

[Dementeleus]

Just now, MrPink said:

 

A little mean to call it maybe a Netflix original. Sure, the movie wouldn't exist in the state it's ultimately going to, but I'm sure a studio would be tempted to release a film about Dunkirk with the right talent both in front and behind the camera for Oscar purposes. There's a movie worth creating in that story.

 

Maybe a UK or French production with financing along similar lines. There are plenty of these small-scale WWII productions made overseas, by English or French or German or Scandinavian companies. Most only get a minimal release here, at best.

[MrPink]

1 minute ago, Telemachos said:

 

Maybe a UK or French production with financing along similar lines. There are plenty of these small-scale WWII productions made overseas, by English or French or German or Scandinavian companies. Most only get a minimal release here, at best.

 

Sure. The point is, if the Imitation Game or Atonement (which already features it for a bit) for example can get made, who's to say that a movie fully about Dunkirk couldn't exist in the theatrical format?

Edited July 10, 2016 by MrPink

[Dementeleus]

Aaaaand, it's my bedtime. It's been fun, guys. Sorry I wasn't drunk enough to really start flipping tables.  

[filmlover]

Let's be honest: the casting of Harry Styles in Dunkirk was done specifically for publicity purposes, regardless of whether he can actually act or not.

[cannastop]

6 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

They wouldn't. They would've been Rotten. We all rush to judgement way too quickly on all this stuff.

Is it even possible for a movie to undo its original score?

Maybe if the Sight and Sound poll comes up.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Telemachos said:

Aaaaand, it's my bedtime. It's been fun, guys. Sorry I wasn't drunk enough to really start flipping tables.  

Mine too. Well past it. Night, y'all.

[La Binoche]

Movies manufactured to please everyone have no personality. 

[Johnny Tran]

I can't sleep so Philip Banks is a Slumlord is what's going down on my side of town.

[MovieMan89]

It's the Disney Renaissance and my generation that have really lead us to this point where animation is so universally appealing today. We grew up with some downright fantastic animated films in the 90's, the scope and attention to quality of which the medium had never seen before. It is still my firm belief that the early 90's Disney efforts are the reason I became so infautated with film and a movie buff in the first place, and I think it's the reason for many others in my age range. 

 

Then something kind of amazing happened around the time when most of us were entering adolescence: the medium grew up with us. As the renaissance faded, Pixar took over and Shrek happened. And guess what? All of a sudden the coolest movie to like in middle school was still an animated one, right at the age when prior generations had shunned the medium for perceived "kiddiness." As we entered our teens in the early to mid '00's Pixar went from more kid centric stuff like Toy Story and Monsters Inc, to some genuine mature takes on the medium mainstream American animation had yet to really see, such as The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Wall-E. These movies often had more depth than the live action hits of the year. Meanwhile, DWA was churning out the rather irreverent teen appealing comedies like Shrek 2 and Kung Fu Panda, that offered more adult humor than most animation of the past. So no way were we as teens going to abandon animation at this interesting new phase. 

 

As the next decade started and we entered our twenties, Pixar wrote a love letter to our gen with the superb Toy Story 3, arguably made with us specifically in mind. Monsters University also hit while many of us were still in college.  And just as Pixar entered a bit of a rough patch in quality after TS3, Disney swooped into really strum our nostalgia chords with a neo-renaissance of high quality animation hearkening directly back to the 90's flicks that started it all for us. Again, we weren't about to abandon animation.

 

Likewise, the younger gen was likely influenced by us to carry their love of animation past childhood too. After all, they had a lot to choose from as kids for quality animated films, and how can your little 14 year old brother think he's "too cool" for Zootopia if his 25 year old brother is the first in line to see it? Not to mention the people from my age group that now have toddlers of their own to share in their love of the medium. Add in the parents of our gen who took us to these films as kids, and watched the medium really shatter their notions about who animation was intended for, a notion influenced by the sorry state of the medium in the 70's and 80's when they grew up. Thanks to our gen, now they're on board with the medium too. So it really is a universally appealing genre today, and if you analyze my gen's relationship with the medium, you can understand why. 

[Dementeleus]

^^ I appreciate you writing up your appreciation for them, but please realize you're speaking for those in your age group, not beyond it.