Monday (27 Nov) - JL $2.1m - Down 76%, Coco 2.3M - Down 84%

[RichWS]

1 minute ago, somebody85 said:

And I wouldn't call every remake a cash grab.

 

The only reason they do remakes is to make money off of the brand name. 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, somebody85 said:

But the creative process was not the same for Jungle Book, etc. as it was for Beauty And The Beast. 

And I wouldn't call every remake a cash grab. A lot of film makers set out to make a completely different film but still stay true to the original. Beauty And The Beast just copied the script and added a few extra tweaks. I wouldn't call the Evil Dead remake a cash grab.

Yeah it's trying to make money but the film makers have a love for the franchise and they didn't just watch the original and say "let's do all of that over again but replace it with new actors"! That would be different.

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, RichWS said:

 

The only reason they do remakes is to make money off of the brand name. 

 

No you're wrong.  The reason most studios do remakes is so everyone loses money, no one sees the film and everyone loses their jobs.  

[LonePirate]

55 minutes ago, a2knet said:

BAD MOMS2 did 0.43m but the-numbers.com have a typo, or someone there is a stan:

 

2017/11/26	9	$1,047,723	-48%	2,306	$454	$59,645,610	26
2017/11/27	-	$4,328,532	+313%	2,306	$1,877	$63,974,142	27

 

People are focusing on the disappointment of JL but Bad Moms 2 will finish at least 35% below the original which is a substantial decline. The film is funny - not Girls Trip funny but it does contain several laughs. R rated Christmas comedies are a tough sell. BM2 needed to go hard R instead of the light R that it is. If a couple of F bombs and one skimpy Santa suit scene had been cut, the film would have been PG-13 and it might have come close to matching the original’s gross.

[somebody85]

3 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

I kind of see where you’re coming from here in them not doing anything new. 

 

Yet they hardly phoned it in. Beauty and the Beast was a clear labour of love for everyone involved in the production, and that shone through. 

Besides, trying to recreate beloved scenes that people worship was arguably playing with fire. Man if those scenes hadn’t worked then audiences would have rejected the movie. 

 

Agree that Jungle Book was the better movie though. 

But that's my problem. If you can't improve it and you know you're playing with fire then why remake it? The animated film was nominated for an Oscar. If you're not going to take it in a different direction, then from a creative aspect what's the point? How are you going to improve it if you're just going to repeat everything that worked before down to copying the same lines?

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way about it. A lot of critics even commented on this. And a lot of people have started to reject it after the initial glow faded. 

I get it. Yeah it's Hollywood. Yeah movies are made to make money. But something more should have gone into this then what they did. 

If The Lion King does what BATB did, I'll have the same issues with it. I don't want to pay to watch a live action recreation of the same beloved movie with a few edits. 

I agree that everyone involved probably loved the original. It's the script (and some of the casting) that I have a problem with. It is the laziest big budgeted movie I've seen in a long time.
 

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

But the creative process was not the same for Jungle Book, etc. as it was for Beauty And The Beast. 
 

 

The creative process was more or less the same. You're making the same mistake that a lot of fans do, of equating your reaction to the final product with the filmmakers' effort or creative investment. But there's simply no equivalence. The people making BATB put their creative all into it, working with choices made by their director (and likely the studio, at some level). Choosing to remain faithful to what the fans loved about the animated movie isn't a lesser choice than not doing so.

 

I care nothing about Disney's BATB on any level, so I'm making no apologies for it through sentiment. But making a movie isn't the same as running a script through a movie generator and pressing a few buttons.

[RichWS]

1 minute ago, LonePirate said:

R rated Christmas comedies are a tough sell. BM2 needed to go hard R instead of the light R that it is. If a couple of F bombs and one skimpy Santa suit scene had been cut, the film would have been PG-13 and it might have come close to matching the original’s gross.

 

Are you saying it should've gone hard R or PG-13?

[Barnack]

20 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

So what movies aren't made to make money?

 

I'll hang up and listen.  

Recently The Promise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Promise_(2016_American_film)

 

If you look at that list:

http://www.filmsquebec.com/annees/2016/

 

Many were not made with the primary goal of making money by many of the force involved in the movie getting made.

[RichWS]

1 minute ago, somebody85 said:

But that's my problem. If you can't improve it and you know you're playing with fire then why remake it? The animated film was nominated for an Oscar. If you're not going to take it in a different direction, then from a creative aspect what's the point? How are you going to improve it if you're just going to repeat everything that worked before down to copying the same lines?

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way about it. A lot of critics even commented on this. And a lot of people have started to reject it after the initial glow faded. 

I get it. Yeah it's Hollywood. Yeah movies are made to make money. But something more should have gone into this then what they did. 

If The Lion King does what BATB did, I'll have the same issues with it. I don't want to pay to watch a live action recreation of the same beloved movie with a few edits. 

I agree that everyone involved probably loved the original. It's the script (and some of the casting) that I have a problem with. It is the laziest big budgeted movie I've seen in a long time.
 

 

You're acting like audiences rejected it when it made $500m.

[Rebeccas]

Cash grabs can be good or bad. On the flip side, tons of indies debut at Sundance every year to pans or muted response too.

[John Marston]

Beauty and the Beast was horrible. Felt like a parody

 

 

 

it's a licence to print money though. 

[cookie]

5 minutes ago, RichWS said:

 

You're acting like audiences rejected it when it made $500m.

And held fairly well after opening (and apparently sold a lot of DVDs).

Edited November 28, 2017 by cookie

[FantasticBeasts]

I think that the term "cash grab" is making the confusion.

You can just say that there are movies that put a bit more effort on artistic value than others.

[somebody85]

5 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

"Beauty And The Beast just copied the script and added a few extra tweaks. "

That's not bullshit. 

And you want to compare remakes? Fine let's use The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003). Lets use Dawn Of The Dead. Lets use War Of The Worlds. Lets use Let Me In.

And reboots? Let's use Star Trek. Let's use Batman Begins. Lets use Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. The list goes on and on.

As much as I hate Zombies Halloween, I can at least credit it for doing something different. I would have thought it was unnecessary either way but since it's something that doesn't just repeat what came before (for the most part) at least it can be viewed as it's own thing.

I can't say that for Beauty And The Beast.
 

 

[Barnack]

Has for the cash grab thing, because of how much movies in Hollywood have making cash as a goal, it need more than that to distinguish a cash grab than an not cash grab.

 

What percentage of the driving motivator by the main actors involved was simply making moneys, how much everything made was seen under that filter only.

 

Bad Moms 2, San Andreas, if you go read the leaked development world market study that gave us The Angry Bird movies, those are over the gray muddy cash grab line I would think. When the studio was developed by a audience taste expert optimizing what the biggest number of audience ticket buyer want to see.

 

Were the new Apes trilogy movie cash grabs ?  Because it fit all those sequels/franchise/money being the main objective, arguably no, someone in the process seem like tried to say something inside that context, enough to not feel purely like a cash grab (even thought the cut of the budget on the last one made it dangerously close imo).

 

Force Awaken was much more than a cash grab, you felt hundreds of people passionate about making lot of money yes, but that would have made much of what they did for free felt almost like, fanboys and fangirls that dreamed to do it.

 

The line is subjective and what matter anyway if does it feel like a cash grab or not, trying to read mind is a dangerous enterprise, so what is a cash grab will change from audience member to audience member.

[RichWS]

Beauty and the Beast is the one bad remake Hollywood's ever made.

[KeepItU25071906]

37 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

We were being kind enough to give the Zack Snyder haters 10 days to be in denial, but now it's time to move on to the next mourning stage to finally accept that they were wrong by saying DC movies should be fun and colorful.

DCEU with 4 movies earned 3,1 billion despite any haters. SS catched 700+ mln without China, WW success, BvS had decent result despite any haters.

 

JL flop- this is ONLY studio's wrong dicisions (Snyder out/Whedon in, short runtime, joking style, etc.). Haters nothing to do this.

[Harpospoke]

23 minutes ago, Squadron Leader Tele said:

 

Uh... those all were cash grabs. Like every single franchise movie or reboot/remake ever. You might think some of them were made better than others, but their sole reason for existence is Disney (or any studio) mining their IP libraries for content to generate a buttload of cash.

I mostly agree but I also think there are differences in certain movies.

 

I just happen to be reading the autobiography of Dick Van Dyke (yes..weird) and he talks about the differences in making Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.    The former was a labor of love for him, the cast, the songwriters, and Walt Disney himself.   (I think Walt was chasing the property for 20 years)

 

They then tried to duplicate that with CCBB after Walt was dead and it wasn't the same for them.   They tried to get Julie Andrews back and she wouldn't do it.   Dick Van Dyke turned it down a couple of times but finally agreed...because they kept increasing the money until he couldn't say no.

 

I think CCBB is a fun movie but doesn't quite have nearly the magic of Mary Poppins.   After reading his account, I see why.

[grey ghost]

I consider a lazy production that nobody asked for a cash grab.

 

Bumblebee, if done half-assed, will be a perfect example.

 

Something like Beauty and the Beast might be lazy but they would have to be complete idiots to ignore the built up demand for that movie. 

[Chewy]

It's interesting how movies like Beauty and the Beast, Ghostbusters, Twilight, etc become the targets of sustained online ire

 

I wonder if we could pinpoint a connective tissue