Jump to content

Eric is Anxious

Top 10 Wins and Fails of 2017 (& 5 Disappointments) l LIST COMPLETE l #1 ON P. 7

Recommended Posts



41 minutes ago, KeepItU25071906 said:

When don't see Wonder Woman in WINS list.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBvXpyA4EOklxxoE97PQS

 

Honorable mention means not in the top 10 but a win nonetheless

 

So there's still a top 10 list

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAIL #10

THE LEGO NINJAGO MOVIE

"I'd say it's about seven...point...arm ripped off"

lego_ninjago_movie_ver2.jpg

 

Release Date: September 22

Directors: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan

Cast: James Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen, Abbi Jacobson, Olivia Munn, Kumail Nanjiani, Michael Pena, Zach Woods, Jackie Chan

B.O. Gross: $59.3M DOM, $123.1M WW

 

In 2014, Warner Bros. broke their feature animation curse with the release of The Lego Movie. At the time it was released, it was a mini-phenomenon, thanks to its clever writing, hilarious performances, and timeless messages and themes. Naturally, WB took that movie and planned to make a franchise out of it. But unlike other franchises that start out with a sequel, WB decided to start things out with spinoffs, both of which came out in the same calendar year, only a few months apart. The first was The Lego Batman Movie. It wasn’t as huge as The Lego Movie, but it still received great reviews and a decent gross at $175 million domestically and $311 million worldwide.

 

And then, there was Lego Ninjago. Based on the toy line and Cartoon Network series of the same name, Ninjago was never expected to be as big as the other movies, but it was still a LEGO film, in a September slot that worked well for other animated films in the past, most notably Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Hotel Transylvania. With zero competition to deal with, why wouldn’t it be a hit? But when it opened, its $20 million opening weekend was a serious disappointment. Its legs were also really bad for an animated family film, as the film ended up with less than $60 million domestically, and only $123 million worldwide.

 

The three main reasons as to why this film failed goes as follows: First, it was based on a toy line most adults have never heard of. The first two Lego movies were based on things adults recognized and could appreciate, making them appealing to more than just families. Unless you were a kid, had kids, or are just into Legos, why would you care about this movie or these characters? Second, it was following up from a Lego movie that came out only a few months ago. Overexposure of anything is never good, and considering this film had far weaker critical reception, why waste money seeing the same thing but worse, when you can just rent Lego Batman, the better movie, at home? Heck, considering Ninjago has a TV show, why not just watch it for free on Cartoon Network or Netflix instead of paying money to see the same thing in the theater, only feature length?

 

Third, the film flat-out wasn’t good. What made the fast pace and goofy tones work in the first two movies were the directors. Phil Lord, Chris Miller, and Chris McKay have all worked as animation directors before, and the stuff they have worked on fit with their sensibilities and comedy, so when they made these films, the films turned out great. Of Ninjago's three directors, only one of them has directed before, and that one person only directed episodes of that TRON cartoon that nobody remembers. Not a great fit for the material, and because of that, the film was annoying to adults and boring to kids, resulting in the biggest misfire from Warner Animation Group.

 

It also begs the question, why not just make Lego Movie 2 first? Lego Batman still did good, but it's not like people were instantly attached to the franchise after the first movie. If anything, having more time for people to get attached to the character would have helped made Lego Batman do even better, at least in my opinion. Lego Ninjago having little to do with the first movie only made things worse. Just make a hit sequel, then make your spinoffs.

 

Regardless, 2019 will finally see The Lego Movie Sequel, while The Billion Brick Race, another Lego spinoff, is also in the works. We’ll see if WB can turn things around or if the damage was already done, but at the very least, having experienced directors and writers like Mike Mitchell, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, and Jorge Gutierrez will be of great help quality-wise and could potentially help any of the sour tastes audiences felt from this ninja film.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



WIN #10

GIRLS TRIP

"You can't get an infection in your bootyhole...it's your bootyhole."

girls_trip_xlg.jpg

Release Date: July 21

Director: Malcolm D. Lee

Cast: Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith, Regina Hall, Tiffany Haddish, Larenz Tate, Mike Colter, Kate Walsh

B.O. Gross: $115.1M DOM, $139M WW

 

We’re going to get into the genre in a little bit, but comedy films this year suffered big time, with flop after flop, both with audiences and with critics. Girls Trip was an example to all of the other movies and studios this year how you’re supposed to make people laugh and look good while doing it. The most important element, like with any comedy, comes down to its cast, and while the acrtresses themselves played a big part, the film's diverse characters were a huge selling point and the reason the movie was made in the first place. Director Malcolm D. Lee, producer Will Packer, and writers Kenya Barris and Tracy Oliver made this film in an attempt to have black women be themselves and have fun, at a time when most of their roles are relegated to biopics and “important” features, something that’s still being done today. That helped a lot in making this both an event film for black women, but also stand out in a sea of forgettable white-led comedies.

 

Not only did the film stand out from a racial standpoint, it also stood out for being the most important element of a comedy: funny. Having Kenya Barris, the creator of the hit show Blackish, write the screenplay was an excellent choice, as similar to that show, Girls Trip had great dialogue and well-rounded characters, leading to sharp chemistry between its leading ladies, the most important part of an ensemble comedy. This of course led to extremely solid legs, thanks to good word of mouth and zero comedy competition, helping to make this movie gross over $115M domestically, one of only two comedies this year to reach the nine-digit mark (well, possibly three if Pitch Perfect 3 makes it which is unlikely, but not impossible).

 

While the film being one of only a handful of successful comedies played a big part in its inclusion on the list, another factor came to how it had potentially created a new Hollywood superstar. Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Regina Hall all played a part in the film’s success, but the biggest part of the cast that made the film a hit was an actress few had ever heard of, Tiffany Haddish. Originally just any other stand-up comedian who played bit parts in movies and TV shows, Haddish's role in this film was unanimously considered the highlight of the film. Just about every critic and audience member talked about her performance being the funniest part of the whole movie. So much so, she won the title of Best Supporting Actress at the New York Film Critics Circle Awards. She isn’t expected to be nominated at the Oscars, but that’s an impressive feat considering she won over frontrunners with more accolades and legacy behind them, like Laurie Metcalf and Allison Janney. This led to a banner year for Haddish, as she would later appear in Jay-Z’s “Moonlight” music video, release her autobiography, and become the first black comedienne to host Saturday Night Live, and it's easy to pin all of that success on Girls Trip. Next year looks to be even bigger for her, as she will be in the new TBS series The Last O.G. starring Tracy Morgan and created by Jordan Peele, as well as appear alongside Kevin Hart in this September’s Night School (I'm gonna be a little bold and say that film has some breakout potential, so watch out). She’s also expected to lead the female-driven comedy Limited Partners for Paramount.

 

The film’s success may not be anything to write about at first glance, but it was a breath of fresh air to the comedy genre, both critically and financially, and has potentially created a new superstar in the film industry, and sometimes that’s just all you need to be impressive and get into the #10 spot.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites



To the people confused at Despicable Me 3's exclusion, I kinda had a feeling this one would be debated, but here's my reasoning. Obviously, it was still a massive success. If anything, it's my #11. But the thing about this movie is that for franchise films, I often compare it to its predecessors, and this one had a bit of a drop-off from the last film, and while drop-offs aren't automatically bad, I feel as if it had grossed around $300M or so, it would have been included on the list, as going from $335M to $265M was a tad too steep. I also show favoritism towards originals when it comes to wins, because they have higher uphill battles to face due to a lack of recognition and familiarity with audiences. That's why I feel Girls Trip, as well as a couple of other films on this list were more impressive than DM3. Obviously, I still give it plenty of kudos (If I didn't, it wouldn't be an honorable mention), but I still am of the opinion originals doing big relative to expecations is more commendable than a sequel or adaptation doing big relative to expectations. I know people will disagree with that mindset, but...hey, it's my list. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

FAIL #10

THE LEGO NINJAGO MOVIE

"I'd say it's about seven...point...arm ripped off"

lego_ninjago_movie_ver2.jpg

 

Release Date: September 22

Directors: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan

Cast: James Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen, Abbi Jacobson, Olivia Munn, Kumail Nanjiani, Michael Pena, Zach Woods, Jackie Chan

B.O. Gross: $59.3M DOM, $123.1M WW

 

In 2014, Warner Bros. broke their feature animation curse with the release of The Lego Movie. At the time it was released, it was a mini-phenomenon, thanks to its clever writing, hilarious performances, and timeless messages and themes. Naturally, WB took that movie and planned to make a franchise out of it. But unlike other franchises that start out with a sequel, WB decided to start things out with spinoffs, both of which came out in the same calendar year, only a few months apart. The first was The Lego Batman Movie. It wasn’t as huge as The Lego Movie, but it still received great reviews and a decent gross at $175 million domestically and $311 million worldwide.

 

And then, there was Lego Ninjago. Based on the toy line and Cartoon Network series of the same name, Ninjago was never expected to be as big as the other movies, but it was still a LEGO film, in a September slot that worked well for other animated films in the past, most notably Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Hotel Transylvania. With zero competition to deal with, why wouldn’t it be a hit? But when it opened, its $20 million opening weekend was a serious disappointment. Its legs were also really bad for an animated family film, as the film ended up with less than $60 million domestically, and only $123 million worldwide.

 

The three main reasons as to why this film failed goes as follows: First, it was based on a toy line most adults have never heard of. The first two Lego movies were based on things adults recognized and could appreciate, making them appealing to more than just families. Unless you were a kid, had kids, or are just into Legos, why would you care about this movie or these characters? Second, it was following up from a Lego movie that came out only a few months ago. Overexposure of anything is never good, and considering this film had far weaker critical reception, why waste money seeing the same thing but worse, when you can just rent Lego Batman, the better movie, at home? Heck, considering Ninjago has a TV show, why not just watch it for free on Cartoon Network or Netflix instead of paying money to see the same thing in the theater, only feature length?

 

Third, the film flat-out wasn’t good. What made the fast pace and goofy tones work in the first two movies were the directors. Phil Lord, Chris Miller, and Chris McKay have all worked as animation directors before, and the stuff they have worked on fit with their sensibilities and comedy, so when they made these films, the films turned out great. Of Ninjago's three directors, only one of them has directed before, and that one person only directed episodes of that TRON cartoon that nobody remembers. Not a great fit for the material, and because of that, the film was annoying to adults and boring to kids, resulting in the biggest misfire from Warner Animation Group.

 

It also begs the question, why not just make Lego Movie 2 first? Lego Batman still did good, but it's not like people were instantly attached to the franchise after the first movie. If anything, having more time for people to get attached to the character would have helped made Lego Batman do even better, at least in my opinion. Lego Ninjago having little to do with the first movie only made things worse. Just make a hit sequel, then make your spinoffs.

 

Regardless, 2019 will finally see The Lego Movie Sequel, while The Billion Brick Race, another Lego spinoff, is also in the works. We’ll see if WB can turn things around or if the damage was already done, but at the very least, having experienced directors and writers like Mike Mitchell, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, and Jorge Gutierrez will be of great help quality-wise and could potentially help any of the sour tastes audiences felt from this ninja film.

:whosad:

@That One Guy at least the movie you stanned for didn’t make the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites







It would be funny if The Last Jedi is both the #8 Fail because of some poor WOM, pissing off some long time fans, possibly damaging the future of the franchise, and coming in well short of general expectations... and yet also be listed as the #8 Win because it will still make over 600m dom / 1.3b ww.

Edited by AndyChrono
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AndyChrono said:

It would be funny if The Last Jedi is both the #8 Fail because of some poor WOM, pissing off some long time fans, possibly damaging the future of the franchise, and coming in well short of general expectations... and yet also be listed as the #8 Win because it will still make over 600m dom / 1.3b ww.

I literally just said in the first post TLJ wasn't going to be on here, because I was going to create a massive flame war.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







2 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

I literally just said in the first post TLJ wasn't going to be on here, because I was going to create a massive flame war.

Guess I skimmed over that part. Regardless, I think you should include it anyway just to be complete (unless you honestly feel it doesn't qualify for any of the lists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



FAIL #9

KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD

"You're quickly becoming a legend."

king_arthur_legend_of_the_sword_ver9_xlg

 

Release Date: May 12

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Djimon Honsou, Aidan Gillen, Eric Bana

B.O. Gross: $39.2M DOM, $148.7M WW

 

Even though the 2004 King Arthur film with Clive Owen and Keira Knightley tanked at the box office, and sword-and-sandal films were losing interest with moviegoers, Warner Bros. still saw potential in the timeless stories of King Arthur. After first attempting to remake Excalibur with Bryan Singer and later trying to make “Arthur & Lancelot” with Kit Harrington and Joel Kinnaman (Yes, that was a thing), the plans fell through. That was until WB had the brilliant idea...and by brilliant, I mean...not...to have a King Arthur cinematic universe...k. Legend of the Sword was planned as the film to kickstart this franchise, with the plan being a six-film series...k...depicting the other Arthurian legends, with the last movie being a giant team-up action film. Once the studio got Guy Ritchie on board, Legend of the Sword went into production and was planned for a July 2016 release. But then it got delayed to February 2017...then to March...and then finally to May, the weekend after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

 

WB was trying their hardest to make sure they got the most out of their $175 million baby, so not only was the film delayed multiple times, but they poured millions upon millions in its marketing budget, rumored to be around $135 million. They even had preview screenings a month before the movie came out at AMC shows in order to get word of mouth going, but it didn’t help at all. It opened the weekend after Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 with only $15.4 million, and made a paltry $39.2 million domestic total, and only $148.7 million worldwide, below its gargantuan budget. The film is expected to lose over $150 million due to the film’s bombing.

 

Despite its gigantic money loss, I put it pretty low on the list for one simple fact: no one expected this to do good. No one. The second we heard “Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur” and saw the endless delays and gargantuan budget, we knew this was going to be a flop. However, unlike other movies that we all knew would tank, not only is there a huge amount of money lost, but it also taught an important lesson to Hollywood. Trying to force out a cinematic universe doesn’t work, especially if you’re focusing on your sixth film first, then your first film last. Focus on making one movie, and if it's successful, then try and make it into a franchise. By trying to make a universe happen instead of just making a good movie, you end up with Legend of the Sword, a cluttered mess that lost millions for Warner Bros. and once again destroyed any chance for another King Arthur film until the next reboot. Thankfully, Ritchie is currently filming Disney’s live-action remake of Aladdin, due in 2019, and while the film’s quality could be debatable, it’s sure to make far more money than King Arthur ever did.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



WIN #9

DUNKIRK

"You can practically see it from here...home."

dunkirk_xlg.jpg

 

Date: July 21

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D'Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy

B.O. Gross: $188.4M DOM, $525.6M WW

 

There’s always a few things you can trust in life: The sun will rise, ice cream will taste wonderful, and Christopher Nolan will make a great, highly successful movie. Dunkirk is further proof of that. Currenlty, the film 2017's second-highest grossing original film worldwide, behind Pixar’s Coco, and looking back, it seems easy to see why, thanks to many factors playing a part in the film’s massive success. Of course there’s Christopher Nolan. Ever since The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan has become one of the few name directors to get general audiences excited and put their butts into seats, similar to Spielberg and Cameron. So having his name attached to a movie is already a great sign to success.

 

It also helps that WB’s marketing department was extremely on point throughout their campaign. Instead of treating it like an average war movie, Warner Bros. turned it into an event. Their marketing campaign began in earnest 11 months before the movie came out with a one-minute teaser playing in front of Suicide Squad. Following that, the first full trailer was released to play in front of Rogue One. It was expected, but what really made things interesting was a five-minute theater-exclusive prologue that played at select IMAX showings of the Star Wars flick. Said prologue also played during select Kong: Skull Island and Wonder Woman showings. Being theater-exclusive, it forced people not to wait for it to appear on YouTube, but to actually watch it in the theater and see it to believe it, and helped generate strong buzz. That kind of persuasion would be very important in this film's campaign later on.

 

With the public trailers and TV spots, what was unveiled depicted gritty violence, intense imagery, and wild spectacle, making it far more appealing than any average war film, and with a giant push on social media, including 360 Degree experiences and social media infographics explaining the war, it managed to gain appeal from younger viewers who would more than likely be turned away from other war movies, making this into a four-quad piece of entertainment.

 

But what really turned this movie into an event came down to the marketing team’s insistence on seeing the movie in theaters. Every review cited the film was jaw-dropping in IMAX and 70mm film, while TV spots kept things shrouded in mystery to ensure people see the movie in the biggest screen possible in the highest quality possible. Obviously, the tactic worked, and while it may not have been as high as Nolan’s other films, it still narrowly beat out Interstellar, which is an impressive feat for a film with zero starpower and none of the jaw-dropping visual effects of Interstellar, and only relied on the Christopher Nolan name, gritty war spectacle, and IMAX/70mm buzz.

 

Oh, and being critically acclaimed, being considered one of, if not the best Nolan film ever made, and awards buzz helped a lot too. Currently, rumors are spreading that Christopher Nolan’s next film will be Bond 25 in 2019, and whether or not it will actually happen, as Dunkirk shows, as long as Nolan’s name is slapped on all the trailers, and the marketing pushes it being a big screen spectacle, Nolan's next film will be another gigantic moneymaker.

Edited by CoolEric258
  • Like 9
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





On 1/1/2018 at 4:08 PM, ThePhasmid said:

I will cringe a bit when I see Blade Runner 2049 show up. It's one of the best sci-fi sequels ever made, and the best film I've seen all year. Damn shame it didn't do so well at the BO.

*sigh* Yup. I’m all Star Wars always but BR2049 would likely make my all time top 50 anyway if not higher. It was masterful. 

 

I know this isn’t news, and I didn’t just crawl out of a cave, but I still marvel at how when I was younger The Fast and the Furious was just some fun car racing movie that didn’t mean anything. It was destined to inspire a mediocre sequel or two (check, both 2 and 3 were pretty bad movies but I somehow still enjoy 2 despite it being not really good), then die. And yet somehow not only did it NOT die, in my opinion the movies continued to improve in quality and fun factor and dominate worldwide box offices. I would have never imagined back then that of all the hopeful franchises, FF would end up not just being one of the most successful but also longest running. It’s still impressive to me.

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.