MIB International | June 14 2019 | F Gary Gray directing | Hemsworth, Ferguson, Neeson, Thompson and Thompson

[TMP]

8 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Should have just gone with MiB23 at this point. Not gonna lie, I would have absolutely loved a Hemsworth/Thompson with Tatum/Hill combo. Would have LOVED it

Wouldn't it have been Big Willie/Tommy & Tatum/Hill?

[Eric Duncan]

9 minutes ago, TMP said:

Wouldn't it have been Big Willie/Tommy & Tatum/Hill?

No. There was supposed to be two new agents in MIB23. Part of the reason MIB3 costed so much money, IIRC, was because Smith, Sonnenfeld, and Jones had humongous paychecks that ate up a good chunk of the budget. Those checks, plus the film's box office being "good, not great" probably gave Sony cold feet about a fourth movie and hiring them back for another MIB installment. Also I think Smith and Jones had other projects at the time, which made trying to sign them on to the movie a challenge.

[Zakiyyah6]

MiB 23 would have flopped as well. 

[shayhiri]

6 hours ago, NoobSaibot said:

Not really sure what to say about this that people don't already know. The chemistry between Hemsworth and Thompson works well enough, but everything else falls flat. Really flat.

 

You're not missing out on anything by choosing to skip this movie. I like the MiB series, but this one will likely be forgotten by most people in less than a year. I enjoyed it slightly more than Dark Phoenix at least.

 

How about the visuals? They look really sleek in the trailer - and are the first and often only thing the Shay ever cares about.

[DAJK]

1 hour ago, TMP said:

Wouldn't it have been Big Willie/Tommy & Tatum/Hill?

Maybe, probably, I don’t remember. But even if this new MIB sucks, at least they had a killer combo of actors, who would have played great alongside another killer combo

[DeeCee]

The chemistry is good as expected but they don’t really have much to work with. As others have said it was just flat. 

 

My last IMAX experience was The Dark Knight with a special introduction from Nolan. Now this. 

[The Futurist]

I expected a reason why

 

Spoiler

Thor was acting like a douche the whole film

 

but it never came.

 

Thor s arc is basically 

 

Spoiler

 

memory loss by their memory loss thingie !!!!

 

 

Could have mirrored Tommy Lee Jones behaviour quite nicley.

[NoobSaibot]

4 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

How about the visuals? They look really sleek in the trailer - and are the first and often only thing the Shay ever cares about.

Some of the CGI was actually a bit rough in certain spots, but for the most part they were okay.

[shayhiri]

12 minutes ago, NoobSaibot said:

Some of the CGI was actually a bit rough in certain spots, but for the most part they were okay.

 

What about the settings? We get to see some nice exotic places, which ones?

[Mr Impossible]

So Hemsworth is pretty much toxic outside the MCU? How many box office flops has he been in? Seems like close to 10 imo. Even the ones that weren't big money losers were either critical flops like Vacation or just did meh like Rush or 12 Strong. Also safe to say the first Snow White and Huntsman movie was helped by Kristen Stewart who was big at the time hence the sequel flopped when she wasn't in it. 

[Barnack]

11 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

MiB 23 would have flopped as well. 

I doubt that.

 

15 minutes ago, Mr Impossible said:

So Hemsworth is pretty much toxic outside the MCU?

I doubt that, it is easy to mix correlation with causation, people said that about Reynolds for a while and were in hindsight quite quite wrong (I think I even saw Statham being talked like that before Meg).

 

16 minutes ago, Mr Impossible said:

How many box office flops has he been in?

How many good movie with an interesting commercial proposition, good review and good marketing he stared in flopped ? Those flop had 13%  to 45% on rotten tomatoes, it could be a mistake to over read into a movie like Black Hat or Heart of the sea flopping, even the less appealing entry without strong pre-awareness power on DiCaprio sheet didn't do that well. When very well received affair like Drive/Blade Runner/First Man do not take off, that a stronger signal.

 

He is not a Kevin Hart/Denzel/Dwayne Johnson type of draw or even Cruise or barely one at all, but I am not sure he is a strong toxic presence a la Sandler (Sandler do  come with a strong fanbase to compensate) one way or an other, I do not think he is signaling much to audience at all either way. 

[tawasal]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I doubt that.

 

I doubt that, it is easy to mix correlation with causation, people said that about Reynolds for a while and were in hindsight quite quite wrong (I think I even saw Statham being talked like that before Meg).

 

The difference is that RR didn't start off with a mega franchise like the MCU, before attempting at his own. 

[TMP]

4 minutes ago, tawasal said:

The difference is that RR didn't start off with a mega franchise like the MCU, before attempting at his own. 

If Hemsworth was in Hitman's Bodyguard it would have made half as much

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, tawasal said:

The difference is that RR didn't start off with a mega franchise like the MCU, before attempting at his own. 

 

I guess the fact he has proven many time wide audience enjoy him in a big franchise is a difference, but I am not sure how it apply.

[Jonwo]

What's the betting they do a Jason Bourne for MIB5 and bring back Smith and Jones plus Sonnenfield. 

[dudalb]

1 minute ago, Jonwo said:

What's the betting they do a Jason Bourne for MIB5 and bring back Smith and Jones plus Sonnenfield. 

At the moment, I think SONY might just be inclined to declare the franchise Dead.

[Jonwo]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

At the moment, I think SONY might just be inclined to declare the franchise Dead.

This is the same studio who's doing a new Ghostbusters film next year so anything's possible

[Alli]

I'm not that upset MIB is flopping (besides RF).   The writer of the first MIB slammed them on twitter.

 

 

[tawasal]

45 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I guess the fact he has proven many time wide audience enjoy him in a big franchise is a difference, but I am not sure how it apply.

I am just saying that Hemsworth has had an advantage in being introduced into a huge following through the MCU, so those movies didn't need his star power (if he had any), and so to prove his star power he needed his non MCU movies to do far more than they have accomplished. RR starred in a lot movies that weren't part of such a huge brand as the MCU, albeit he had some A-list stars co starring in those movies that have managed to pull of 100m+. In a sense he had a lot to do with their success and he continued to succeed in movies that didn't have nothing but his own prowess. 

[Barnack]

15 minutes ago, tawasal said:

and so to prove his star power he needed his non MCU movies to do far more than they have accomplished.

Well yes, no one is arguing he have star power, the conversation was about being toxic or not.

 

The parallel I was making with Reynolds is having a lot of flops, specially when the movie are green lantern/RIPD/Men In black international bad does not indicate much signal about being toxic and that it is easy to mix the correlation of someone being in a lot of flop and them being the cause of it.

 

If you will, to prove is toxicity/poison nature he needed his non MCU failure to be far better than they were.

 

Take Emma Watson commercial track record when leading movie outside the Potter series before Beauty and the Beast (or after Beast), how wrong would it have been to conclude any toxicity and that Disney made a mistake casting Belle ?

 

Like one cannot just look at someone box office full of big numbers and conclude they have to do with star power (specially when the MCU is involved), I think it is a mistake to see a bunch of failure and conclude poison/negative value must be involved.

 

Studios make a lot of exit poll and studies and it is not like in the past when they signed an actor for 12 movies and were obligated to use them even if they were a bad pick.