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

[Lordmandeep]

After watching Dunkirk, quite surprised it was that big of a hit. 

[Brainbug]

4 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

After watching Dunkirk, quite surprised it was that big of a hit. 

 

Dunkirk is amazeballs.

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

After watching Dunkirk, quite surprised it was that big of a hit. 

[Lordmandeep]

16 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Dunkirk is amazeballs.

 

Compared to Interstellar and Inception, it did not leave me thinking much about it after.

 

It was like, okay that was an okay war film. 

 

While Inception left me thinking about the storyline and dreams and Interstellar about its science. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Lordmandeep

[That One Girl]

I hate to admit that I think Dunkirk is a better movie than Valerian.

 

I’m disgusted in myself.

[Eric Duncan]

16 hours ago, That One Guy said:

 

Please don't tell me you actually like King Arthur.

[That One Girl]

4 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

Please don't tell me you actually like King Arthur.

 

It’s...fun.

[Eric Duncan]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

It’s...fun.

[Eric Duncan]

FAIL #8

THE DARK TOWER

"I do not kill with my gun. He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart."

 

Release Date: August 4

Director: Nikolaj Arcel

Cast: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor, Claudia Kim, Fran Kranz, Abbey Lee, Katheryn Winnick, Jackie Earle Hayley

B.O. Gross: $50.7M DOM, $111.8M WW

 

While Stephen King has always had strong years, 2017 was perhaps one of his biggest ever. His novel Sleeping Beauties, which he co-wrote with his son Owen King, became a hit best-seller, while Netflix released two critically-acclaimed adaptations of Gerald’s Game and 1922. And there was also a clown movie that came out that was based off one of his books. I don’t remember what it was called, but I heard it did very well.

 

But even the best years have some bumps in the road, and for King, that was found in the film adaptation of The Dark Tower. For nearly 10 years, the film had been in development, hopping from studio to studio and director to director, including J. J. Abrams and Ron Howard. But due to the project being such a massive feat, with seven novels to adapt, as well as the previous visions from Abrams and Howard having gargantuan budgets for a film that could potentially flop, the plans fell through. But soon, the rights landed to Sony, who took this sprawling epic, and turned it into a cost-effective midbudget feature. Well, okay, even if it may not be as grandiose as one would expect, it’s still based on Stephen King’s most beloved series. And while Idris Elba isn’t some famous superstar, he still seemed to be inspired casting. This had easy potential to be a great new franchise for Sony, a company that’s pretty barren on that front.

 

And Sony seemed incredibly confident in the film, as they announced plans to continue the film with a sequel and a television series starring Idris Elba before the film even came out. It seemed everything was going well, until the first initial test screenings were unveiled in October 2016. Audiences responded very negatively to the footage, finding it confusing and messy. This forced Sony to delay the film to August, and create new scenes that better explained Roland Deschain’s backstory. In the end however, they couldn’t save this turkey, as the film opened to a paltry $19.1 million. Even August legs couldn’t save it, as it dropped more than 50% the rest of its run, leading to a $50.7 million domestic run and a $111.8 million worldwide gross, meaning the film couldn’t even break even on its $60 million budget.

 

There were many reasons for this film’s downfall, but the main one came to its poor attempt in pleasing all audiences, from fans to newcomers. The film is technically not an adaptation of The Gunslinger, but instead a continuation from where the last novel left off. From what I can gather, the filmmakers made this decision to avoid criticisms from fans from “ruining” the source material, as well as said novel being so complex and seemingly unfilmable, that starting from scratch with a new story would make things easier from a filmmaking perspective. That did not turn out well at all. Instead, it was incomprehensible to newcomers and disappointing to fans who wanted to see their favorite story on the big screen.

 

It also didn’t help that the movie itself was flat-out horrible. It’s probably the worst movie I’ve seen last year. The script was incoherent, the editing was atrocious, the world and character arcs were barely developed, the actors looked completely bored and unenthused, the production looked more like a TNT show than an actual movie, and the tone was all over the place, going from gritty Western in the second act to a Last Action Hero knockoff in the third act, but somehow even worse. It was just a complete mess and was a disastrous end result for a film nearly 10 years in the making. As of now, the television series’ fate is up in the air, but considering how awful the movie was and how it performed, Sony has likely already put the kibosh in the idea, as well as the franchise as a whole.

 

I’m sure in a few years Dark Tower fans will finally get the adaptation they deserved, but in the end, The Dark Tower was a massive blunt on Stephen King’s year, as well as Sony’s relatively decent year.

[Lordmandeep]

3 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

FAIL #8

THE DARK TOWER

"I do not kill with my gun. He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart."

 

Release Date: August 4

Director: Nikolaj Arcel

Cast: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor, Claudia Kim, Fran Kranz, Abbey Lee, Katheryn Winnick, Jackie Earle Hayley

B.O. Gross: $50.7M DOM, $111.8M WW

 

While Stephen King has always had strong years, 2017 was perhaps one of his biggest ever. His novel Sleeping Beauties, which he co-wrote with his son Owen King, became a hit best-seller, while Netflix released two critically-acclaimed adaptations of Gerald’s Game and 1922. And there was also a clown movie that came out that was based off one of his books. I don’t remember what it was called, but I heard it did very well.

 

But even the best years have some bumps in the road, and for King, that was found in the film adaptation of The Dark Tower. For nearly 10 years, the film had been in development, hopping from studio to studio and director to director, including J. J. Abrams and Ron Howard. But due to the project being such a massive feat, with seven novels to adapt, as well as the previous visions from Abrams and Howard having gargantuan budgets for a film that could potentially flop, the plans fell through. But soon, the rights landed to Sony, who took this sprawling epic, and turned it into a cost-effective midbudget feature. Well, okay, even if it may not be as grandiose as one would expect, it’s still based on Stephen King’s most beloved series. And while Idris Elba isn’t some famous superstar, he still seemed to be inspired casting. This had easy potential to be a great new franchise for Sony, a company that’s pretty barren on that front.

 

And Sony seemed incredibly confident in the film, as they announced plans to continue the film with a sequel and a television series starring Idris Elba before the film even came out. It seemed everything was going well, until the first initial test screenings were unveiled in October 2016. Audiences responded very negatively to the footage, finding it confusing and messy. This forced Sony to delay the film to August, and create new scenes that better explained Roland Deschain’s backstory. In the end however, they couldn’t save this turkey, as the film opened to a paltry $19.1 million. Even August legs couldn’t save it, as it dropped more than 50% the rest of its run, leading to a $50.7 million domestic run and a $111.8 million worldwide gross, meaning the film couldn’t even break even on its $60 million budget.

 

There were many reasons for this film’s downfall, but the main one came to its poor attempt in pleasing all audiences, from fans to newcomers. The film is technically not an adaptation of The Gunslinger, but instead a continuation from where the last novel left off. From what I can gather, the filmmakers made this decision to avoid criticisms from fans from “ruining” the source material, as well as said novel being so complex and seemingly unfilmable, that starting from scratch with a new story would make things easier from a filmmaking perspective. That did not turn out well at all. Instead, it was incomprehensible to newcomers and disappointing to fans who wanted to see their favorite story on the big screen.

 

It also didn’t help that the movie itself was flat-out horrible. It’s probably the worst movie I’ve seen last year. The script was incoherent, the editing was atrocious, the world and character arcs were barely developed, the actors looked completely bored and unenthused, the production looked more like a TNT show than an actual movie, and the tone was all over the place, going from gritty Western in the second act to a Last Action Hero knockoff in the third act, but somehow even worse. It was just a complete mess and was a disastrous end result for a film nearly 10 years in the making. As of now, the television series’ fate is up in the air, but considering how awful the movie was and how it performed, Sony has likely already put the kibosh in the idea, as well as the franchise as a whole.

 

I’m sure in a few years Dark Tower fans will finally get the adaptation they deserved, but in the end, The Dark Tower was a massive blunt on Stephen King’s year, as well as Sony’s relatively decent year.

 

 

If it released on Netflix, it would been a smash hit lol 

 

 

[Eric Duncan]

WIN #8

SPLIT

"The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice."

 

Release Date: January 20

Director: M. Night Shymalan

Cast: James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Betty Buckley, Hayley Lu Richardson

B.O. Gross: $138.1M DOM, $278.3M WW

 

When M. Night Shyamalan first landed on the scene with The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs, he was hailed as the next Spielberg. Flash forward a few years, his name would become synonymous with garbage, ranging from disappointments like The Village, to “so bad it’s good” like Lady in the Water and The Happening, to dull messes like The Last Airbender and After Earth. By that point, Shyamalan became a punchline, a gag, a complete has-been. But in 2015, he partnered with Jason Blum and released The Visit. It received okay enough reviews, but was a great success, grossing over $98 million on a $5 million budget. At the very least, the film offered some goodwill to audiences that Shyamalan can still make good work, or at least work that's better than The Last Airbender.

 

But while The Visit was a gentle reminder Shyamalan was still going to be around, Split was a battle cry that Shyamalan was not only still going to be around, but a force to be reckoned with. Thanks to a creative premise, a PG-13 rating that helped bring in wider appeal, and a unique villainous performance from James McAvoy, Split grossed over $40M in its opening weekend, gaining the highest OW since The Conjuring 2 in 2016. Considering that Conjuring 2 was based off of an acclaimed sequel, and Split was an original film (kinda), that makes it even more impressive.

 

But what really sealed the deal were the film’s legs and staying power. While this year had plenty of strong legs for horror films, more often than not, this is a genre that’s notorious for being frontloaded, so when the film dropped 36%, 43%, 34%, 24%, and other stellar holds until weekend 9, it was downright shocking. In the end, the film managed to gross over $138 million domestically. Considering most people thought the film would, at best, cross $105 million, this was an amazing feat and outshined everyone’s wildest expectations. There are a lot of compelling reasons why this film held better than other horror flicks, but to me the biggest factor came to James McAvoy. Obviously he’s no Dwayne Johnson level superstar, but seeing him portray multiple characters with unique personalities, while still seeming chilling and frightening helped to make the character stand out as a horror villain, and seeing as how his perfomrance was the main selling point in the advertising, him able to pull it off successfully caused a huge boom in word of mouth, causing people to see how he pulled it off. Add on a twist ending where it’s revealed the whole film was a sequel to 2000’s Unbreakable, and it only helped drive word of mouth even further.

 

Speaking of which, due to this film’s great success, a sequel is already planned, with Universal and Disney joining forces to releasing it. The sequel, titled Glass, will feature McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy teaming up with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, alongside a new character played by the lovely and talented Sarah Paulson in what’s sure to be an epic Shyamalan event. Let’s hope it doesn’t disappoint when it releases in January 2019, because as a proud supporter of everything and anything Philadelphia, I love and will always support my Shyamalan, even when he ruined one of my favorite shows of all time, and I want him to continue earning praise and adulation for his future features.

[Eric Duncan]

FAIL #7

BLADE RUNNER 2049

"Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger."

 

Release Date: October 6

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto

B.O. Gross: $91.7M DOM, $258.7M WW

 

I'm sorry. I had to do it. I didn’t want to do it, really, but I had to. As much as we may all love this movie, it’s still in the end a flop.

 

When the first Blade Runner was released, it was not the critical darling it would later become. It underperformed at the box office and recieved a polarized response from critics and audiences alike. But as time had gone on, the film would garner more appreciation and soon became a cult smash and considered one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, being an inspiration for dozens of other sci-fi works.

 

35 years later, the film was given a brand new sequel, with a lot of clout behind it. For one, it had Denis Villenueve as director, fresh off of hit films like Sicario and Arrival. It also promised the return of Harrison Ford reprising his previous role as Deckard alongside the hot young rising star Ryan Gosling. It also had a massive marketing campaign behind it, with the first promotional materials arriving in December 2016, as well as three short films that served as prequels to 2049. And with a gargantuan budget ranging from $150 to $185 million, otherworldly visuals, as well as a runtime of 2.5 hours, it was marketed as an epic event that you had to see on the big screen, a tactic WB had already used for Dunkirk to great success. And of course, there was the critical reception, which was unbelievable, as many proclaimed the film was just as good, if not better than its 1982 predecessor. The tracking estimated the film would have a weekend somewhere in the $45 million range, and everything seemed to be going swimmingly and on track. Even if it wouldn’t be a massive success, it would still generate at least Mad Max: Fury Road levels of box office.

 

Well, when the opening day numbers were revealed to only be $12.6 million it was a serious disappointment, and the opening weekend was even worse, as it only earned $32.8 million in its opening weekend. It earned okay enough legs, but its domestic total was only $90 million, with a $258.7 million worldwide total. Experts say that the film was supposed to make more than $400 million to break even, and it’s rumored production studio Alcon will lose $80 million on the project.

 

How did this happen? How did a film that had everything going right turn out so very wrong? While there are a lot of reasons as to why, I think the main issue comes down to that general audiences don’t care about Blade Runner. Like or dislike it, the film is still just a cult classic. Sure, people might know the name of the movie, but how many people actually saw it? How many actually like it? How many actually like it enough they were willing to see the sequel? Simply put, it’s a film that was never that popular, with a sequel that was positioned as a tentpole release. Then you add on a gigantic runtime that limited the amount of shows it could play, as well as a lack of OS appeal, and it simply bombed.

 

But at the end, does it matter if the movie was a hit or not? We still got one of the best movies of the year, we got something that is sure to influence dozens of future filmmakers. And in the end, isn’t having a great movie all that matters?

[That One Girl]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Brainbug]

Reading nearly all that^^:

 

 

2 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

 

But at the end, does it matter if the movie was a hit or not? We still got one of the best movies of the year, we got something that is sure to influence dozens of future filmmakers. And in the end, isn’t having a great movie all that matters?

 

 

 

[Eric Duncan]

WIN #7

HIDDEN FIGURES

"Here at NASA, we all pee the same color."

 

Release Date: December 25, 2016 Limited, January 6 Wide

Director: Theodore Melfi

Cast: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae, Kevin Costner, Kirsten Dunst, Jim Parsons

B.O. Gross: $169.4M DOM, $235.7M WW

 

When the film was first announced, it was originally only slated for a January 2017 release. But after the first test screenings and initial trailer hit, Fox saw massive potential in the feature, and went all out on its marketing campaign, with a Pharell Williams concert at TIFF, and the film moving up to a limited release on Christmas Day, making the film eligible for the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards. Its limited run was impressive, with a PTA at $20.6K and $34.3K on its first two weekends, but what really made the film soar was its wide release. Once the film opened on the first weekend of January, the film managed to beat Rogue One and gross $22.8 million in its first three days in wide release.

 

It’s a solid gross for sure, but what made it so impressive were its holds. On MLK weekend, the film dropped only 8.5% on the three-day weekend, and gained 21% on the four-day weekend. But that’s just a holiday weekend. The following weekends were when things got crazy. Drops went to 25%, then 11%, followed by 27%, 21%, 10%, 20%, 34%, 27%, and it only dropped to 47% afterwards, because of a theater drop and Beauty and the Beast’s opening weekend hogging up all of the money. Afterwards, the drops were still relatively impressive, and showed no signs of the film slowing down or losing interest among audiences.

 

There are a lot of reasons as to why these holds were so strong, but the main reason comes down to how much of an appealing crowdpleaser the film truly was. Its inspirational, feel-good story of black women facing the odds and saving the day is empowering and inspiring, and having such powerful representation struck a chord with millions of people from all races and backgrounds. At the time, and throughout its run, as American started to completely fall apart, quality escapist works that empowered the oppressed was just what the doctor ordered, and this film succeeded in making well-rounded and easily rootable minority characters at a time when they were needed the most. Add in some dynamic performances, powerful sequences, and a Best Picture nominee, and word of mouth spread like wildfire, and with a PG rating, it allowed even more demographics, specifically kids and families, to see the feature, only further making it into a four-quad event piece.

 

Being one of the leggiest hits of the year, as well as offering an inspirational piece of filmmaking, Hidden Figures was the biggest highlight of the winter and one of the best box office stories of the year.

[DAJK]

Watched it again a few days ago and Hidden Figures is fucking amazing. 2x better than 2049 IMO 

[ThePhasmid]

2 hours ago, CoolEric258 said:

FAIL #7

BLADE RUNNER 2049

"Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger."

 

Release Date: October 6

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto

B.O. Gross: $91.7M DOM, $258.7M WW

 

I'm sorry. I had to do it. I didn’t want to do it, really, but I had to. As much as we may all love this movie, it’s still in the end a flop.

 

When the first Blade Runner was released, it was not the critical darling it would later become. It underperformed at the box office and recieved a polarized response from critics and audiences alike. But as time had gone on, the film would garner more appreciation and soon became a cult smash and considered one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, being an inspiration for dozens of other sci-fi works.

 

35 years later, the film was given a brand new sequel, with a lot of clout behind it. For one, it had Denis Villenueve as director, fresh off of hit films like Sicario and Arrival. It also promised the return of Harrison Ford reprising his previous role as Deckard alongside the hot young rising star Ryan Gosling. It also had a massive marketing campaign behind it, with the first promotional materials arriving in December 2016, as well as three short films that served as prequels to 2049. And with a gargantuan budget ranging from $150 to $185 million, otherworldly visuals, as well as a runtime of 2.5 hours, it was marketed as an epic event that you had to see on the big screen, a tactic WB had already used for Dunkirk to great success. And of course, there was the critical reception, which was unbelievable, as many proclaimed the film was just as good, if not better than its 1982 predecessor. The tracking estimated the film would have a weekend somewhere in the $45 million range, and everything seemed to be going swimmingly and on track. Even if it wouldn’t be a massive success, it would still generate at least Mad Max: Fury Road levels of box office.

 

Well, when the opening day numbers were revealed to only be $12.6 million it was a serious disappointment, and the opening weekend was even worse, as it only earned $32.8 million in its opening weekend. It earned okay enough legs, but its domestic total was only $90 million, with a $258.7 million worldwide total. Experts say that the film was supposed to make more than $400 million to break even, and it’s rumored production studio Alcon will lose $80 million on the project.

 

How did this happen? How did a film that had everything going right turn out so very wrong? While there are a lot of reasons as to why, I think the main issue comes down to that general audiences don’t care about Blade Runner. Like or dislike it, the film is still just a cult classic. Sure, people might know the name of the movie, but how many people actually saw it? How many actually like it? How many actually like it enough they were willing to see the sequel? Simply put, it’s a film that was never that popular, with a sequel that was positioned as a tentpole release. Then you add on a gigantic runtime that limited the amount of shows it could play, as well as a lack of OS appeal, and it simply bombed.

 

But at the end, does it matter if the movie was a hit or not? We still got one of the best movies of the year, we got something that is sure to influence dozens of future filmmakers. And in the end, isn’t having a great movie all that matters?

I knew this was going to make it, but it still hurts.

[YM!]

4 hours ago, CoolEric258 said:

FAIL #7

BLADE RUNNER 2049

"Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger."

 

Release Date: October 6

Director: Denis Villeneuve

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista, Jared Leto

B.O. Gross: $91.7M DOM, $258.7M WW

 

I'm sorry. I had to do it. I didn’t want to do it, really, but I had to. As much as we may all love this movie, it’s still in the end a flop.

 

When the first Blade Runner was released, it was not the critical darling it would later become. It underperformed at the box office and recieved a polarized response from critics and audiences alike. But as time had gone on, the film would garner more appreciation and soon became a cult smash and considered one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time, being an inspiration for dozens of other sci-fi works.

 

35 years later, the film was given a brand new sequel, with a lot of clout behind it. For one, it had Denis Villenueve as director, fresh off of hit films like Sicario and Arrival. It also promised the return of Harrison Ford reprising his previous role as Deckard alongside the hot young rising star Ryan Gosling. It also had a massive marketing campaign behind it, with the first promotional materials arriving in December 2016, as well as three short films that served as prequels to 2049. And with a gargantuan budget ranging from $150 to $185 million, otherworldly visuals, as well as a runtime of 2.5 hours, it was marketed as an epic event that you had to see on the big screen, a tactic WB had already used for Dunkirk to great success. And of course, there was the critical reception, which was unbelievable, as many proclaimed the film was just as good, if not better than its 1982 predecessor. The tracking estimated the film would have a weekend somewhere in the $45 million range, and everything seemed to be going swimmingly and on track. Even if it wouldn’t be a massive success, it would still generate at least Mad Max: Fury Road levels of box office.

 

Well, when the opening day numbers were revealed to only be $12.6 million it was a serious disappointment, and the opening weekend was even worse, as it only earned $32.8 million in its opening weekend. It earned okay enough legs, but its domestic total was only $90 million, with a $258.7 million worldwide total. Experts say that the film was supposed to make more than $400 million to break even, and it’s rumored production studio Alcon will lose $80 million on the project.

 

How did this happen? How did a film that had everything going right turn out so very wrong? While there are a lot of reasons as to why, I think the main issue comes down to that general audiences don’t care about Blade Runner. Like or dislike it, the film is still just a cult classic. Sure, people might know the name of the movie, but how many people actually saw it? How many actually like it? How many actually like it enough they were willing to see the sequel? Simply put, it’s a film that was never that popular, with a sequel that was positioned as a tentpole release. Then you add on a gigantic runtime that limited the amount of shows it could play, as well as a lack of OS appeal, and it simply bombed.

 

But at the end, does it matter if the movie was a hit or not? We still got one of the best movies of the year, we got something that is sure to influence dozens of future filmmakers. And in the end, isn’t having a great movie all that matters?

This movie deserved way more money.

[Jay Beezy]

I think I know of one movie that’s coming.

 

I just wanna say @CoolEric258 that you better not label a certain Bollywood star as a highlight of it.  

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Jay Beezy said:

I think I know of one movie that’s coming.

 

I just wanna say @CoolEric258 that you better not label a certain Bollywood star as a highlight of it.  

Priyanka was definitely the only thing about Baywatch that didn't suck so calling her the highlight seems fair.