Weekend Box Office: Actuals (Page 55): BP $26.6M TR $23.7M ICOI $17.1M AWIT $16.3M LS $11.8M, PR crosses $100M, Jumanji crosses $400M

[MCKillswitch123]

1 hour ago, Goffe said:

Pacific Rim is pretty fun, actually. 

 

I guess some folks just wanted monsters to go smash without any sense of artistry whatsoever.

The only artistry in Pacific Rim is during the monsters go smash bits. Mostly good cast too, apart from atrocious Charlie Hunnam. But the movie around the monsters go smash is kinda boring.

 

Still better than Bayformers 2-5 though. Around on par w/Godzilla '14, and hundreds of times better than Godzilla '98.

 

Spoiler

OBLIGATORY RANKINGS :

 

1. Transformers '07
2. Pacific Rim
3. Godzilla '14
4. Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
5. Transformers: The Last Knight
6. Transformers: Age Of Extinction
7. Godzilla '98
8. Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[CoolioD1]

4 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

Philidelphia and The Birdcage benefited from huge star power, which basically no LGBT movie has today oddly enough.

 

4 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

DiCaprio you hear that? You know what you have to do after the Tarantino movie. 

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

That movie’s finally come out over here????? I’ve not heard a thing about it. It’s strange too, a couple years ago a movie like that would’ve received a ton of advertising.

A comedy like that 8 year's ago would have probably got a 65-80M budget and a big world release yes.

[raniE]

1 hour ago, Goffe said:

Is Jessie really bragging about stealing? Yikes.

Look, I pay for films. I go to the theater often enough (comapred to my peers anyway, not so much compared to some people on here), I buy some films on disc, I have Netflix and HBO subscriptions and a TV service that lets me rent films directly through the STB. And for new films I get it. Even going back ten, twenty, maybe thirty years.

 

But who am I screwing over if I should decide to watch the 1968 Planet of the Apes, a fifty year old film, without paying for it? The director? He's dead. The writers? Dead, both of the film and the original novel. The producer? Dead. The actors? Most of them are dead and the ones who are still alive are almost certainly not getting a cut of the home media sales. Anyone who could be considered an author of the work is dead.

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, raniE said:

But who am I screwing over if I should decide to watch the 1968 Planet of the Apes, a fifty year old film, without paying for it? The director? He's dead. The writers? Dead, both of the film and the original novel. The producer? Dead. The actors? Most of them are dead and the ones who are still alive are almost certainly not getting a cut of the home media sales. Anyone who could be considered an author of the work is dead.

It is a bit indirect, but movies having legacy values when they work help the people you are talking about getting financed today and the studio's a little bit.

 

That destruction of libraries values is a big challenge that studio are actively trying to fix.

[Belle]

20 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Pretty rare to see a mid to late March weekend with nothing over $30m. The potential for nothing over 20m next weekend.

This years March feels more like January or August. I'm surprised Disney hasn't released a live action remake or animation of some sort by now and no other superhero movie has come out yet.   

[LaughingEvans]

I pirate everything and give the money I would spend to charities.

[raniE]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It is a bit indirect, but movies having legacy values when they work help the people you are talking about getting financed today and the studio's a little bit.

 

That destruction of libraries values is a big challenge that studio are actively trying to fix.

Then they should maybe make an effort to make it easier to see their older stuff. I was at my dad's over Christmas and decided to watch Romancing the Stone, which he's got on disc, while waiting for the train back home. So the next day I feel like watching the sequel Jewel of the Nile (those were two of my favorite films growing up). Not available for rent on my platform, not on Netflix Sweden, not on HBO, looked at a few other streaming sites but couldn't find it. That would have been a rental right there, if it had been available to me. Instead we get bullshit region restrictions, five million different streaming services that all have an extremely limited back catalog etc.

 

Nobody talks about pirating music anymore, not since Spotify made legally listening to the music you want simple and hassle-free. Convenience is king. Yet film studios seem intent on destroying the simplicity of streaming with everyone wanting to set up their own services that you need separate accounts for, lots of regional restrictions etc. The studios are their own worst enemies in this fight.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, raniE said:

Nobody talks about pirating music anymore, not since Spotify made legally listening to the music you want simple and hassle-free. Convenience is king.

That because they accepted to have lost the battle and for that industry revenues to have gone down by more than 50%, spotify never made a cent. Is loss are growing and growing, with everything being free to listen to on youtube and spotify, piracy become a stranger concept yes:

 

But yes, making it easier to access the library without destroying is value completely is what they are trying to solve. Movies need an artificial rarity created about them to maintain there values (if you think about it, make little sense to pay more for a new movie than an old one, it is all made up), offering 1000 old better than new one movies could hurt the artificial values giving to newer title, a bit of an hard act to balance (as well I would imagine all the different player's involved with each title with there own set of rules).

[Barnack]

14 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

I pirate everything and give the money I would spend to charities.

You did find a way to make watching movies & playing game tax deductible.

 

[Goffe]

13 minutes ago, raniE said:

Look, I pay for films. I go to the theater often enough (comapred to my peers anyway, not so much compared to some people on here), I buy some films on disc, I have Netflix and HBO subscriptions and a TV service that lets me rent films directly through the STB. And for new films I get it. Even going back ten, twenty, maybe thirty years.

 

But who am I screwing over if I should decide to watch the 1968 Planet of the Apes, a fifty year old film, without paying for it? The director? He's dead. The writers? Dead, both of the film and the original novel. The producer? Dead. The actors? Most of them are dead and the ones who are still alive are almost certainly not getting a cut of the home media sales. Anyone who could be considered an author of the work is dead.

Maybe the studio who paid for it and constinues investing money on it with restorations, hv rereleases, etc? plus you know the studio who also still continue to fund new movies and employing people through, in part, the profit of their back catalog.

 

I understand why people do it and I don’t hold the act of pirating against them, but coming here and bragging about how smart you are for stealing? That’s deplorable.

[raniE]

7 minutes ago, Goffe said:

Maybe the studio who paid for it and constinues investing money on it with restorations, hv rereleases, etc? plus you know the studio who also still continue to fund new movies and employing people through, in part, the profit of their back catalog.

 

I understand why people do it and I don’t hold the act of pirating against them, but coming here and bragging about how smart you are for stealing? That’s deplorable.

Copyright is an important concept, but it was never meant to last forever. It is supposed to last for a reasonable amount of time so that creators can see a profit from their works, and then the work is supposed to go into the public domain so that the public can benefit. Personally, I think that copyright lasts way too long currently. You may disagree with this, but even if you do, unless you think that copyright should be perpetual, all we're doing is disagreeing on how far back we can go before it is alright to reproduce something once created by someone and usually published by a company.

[Barnack]

Just now, raniE said:

unless you think that copyright should be perpetual, all we're doing is disagreeing on how far back we can go before it is alright to reproduce something once created by someone and usually published by a company

That a good point, movie should be legally watchable for free (except for newly made restoration) after 100, 75 or 50 year's is a bit of a semantic difference and there is clearly a difference between watching the already fully moneytized Casablanca for free vs a new movie.

[raniE]

Just now, Barnack said:

That a good point, movie should be legally watchable for free (except for newly made restoration) after 100, 75 or 50 year's is a bit of a semantic difference and there is clearly a difference between watching the already fully moneytized Casablanca for free vs a new movie.

Yes, this was my point, that there's a huge difference between infringing the copyright of something that came out a few months ago and infringing the copyright of say Steamboat Willie. Personally I think 50 years would be a decent compromise (my own stance is more like 25 years being reasonable), usually covering all or most of the lives of the principals involved. Which would mean that Planet of the Apes would become public domain this year.

[TwoMisfits]

6 minutes ago, raniE said:

Copyright is an important concept, but it was never meant to last forever. It is supposed to last for a reasonable amount of time so that creators can see a profit from their works, and then the work is supposed to go into the public domain so that the public can benefit. Personally, I think that copyright lasts way too long currently. You may disagree with this, but even if you do, unless you think that copyright should be perpetual, all we're doing is disagreeing on how far back we can go before it is alright to reproduce something once created by someone and usually published by a company.

I'd give this 1000 likes b/c this is both an incredibly smart post and an incredibly correct one IMHO:).  Copyrights should be 1/2 as long as they are now (and they'd probably still be too long, but then reasonable minds could disagree on that point:)...

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, raniE said:

Personally I think 50 years would be a decent compromise (my own stance is more like 25 years being reasonable),

25 year's after the author death, or like everyone should be able to do sequel or sell dvd of the star wars movie since 2002 ?

[Krissykins]

5 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:

It's going to barely miss a 3x. Given Paramount was expecting a flat out bomb, they must be happy.

Considering it probably cost them close to $30m in P&A just to release in the US, I doubt it. 

[raniE]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

25 year's after the author death, or like everyone should be able to do sequel or sell dvd of the star wars movie since 2002 ?

The latter. Which is why I think 50 years (just 50 years, no waiting for the author to die) is a more sellable compromise. Waiting for the author's death seems like it has the potential to extend copyright enormously if we figure out a way to stop the whole dying of old age thing.

[Harley]

1 hour ago, LaughingEvans said:

I pirate everything and give the money I would spend to charities.

It's still stealing. It no different than walking out of a grocery store without paying for groceries and then donating to a soup kitchen/food bank. You still stole from the store which causes hardship for them thus loss of jobs.

[Lordmandeep]

Movie piracy has gone down with Netflix though.

 

No need to download the last Jedi if it's coming out on Netflix.

 

 

The iptv make it so easy that I did not even realize yesterday lol.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Lordmandeep