Weekend Thread....Please read the staff announcement pg 104 (Solo 29.2...DP 23.3...Adrift 11.5)

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

How much do you guys think each IW costs? Those two films are going to cost close to a billion dollars once you get Robert Downey Junior's back-end deal handed out.

Huge rebates from Georgia and shooting them back to back kept the costs relatively down.   AIW  is reported as anywhere from $319-400m

 

Not sure if RDJ get a back end % on both or a flat fee with possible bonuses (like the others get) under a new extended contracts

[JohnnyGossamer]

21 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I had tons of 90’s Batman/Jurassic Park/The Lost World merch as a kid despite not being allowed to see them.  Not that I think this is remotely comparable since I can’t imagine what Solo toys would be that appealing to kids.

[Mekanos]

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

How much do you guys think each IW costs? Those two films are going to cost close to a billion dollars once you get Robert Downey Junior's back-end deal handed out.

idk how back-end factors into it for these movies, but I imagine A4 will be in the 350M range like Infinity War. Maybe slightly more. 800M total for both movies. 

26 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

Whew! I was wondering when the BOT role plays as Hollywood accountant phase of the weekend discussion was going to arrive. 

God forbid people speculate box office on a box office forum, right? Is every post of yours a condescending non-addition to the current conversation? 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Mekanos

[Cap]

5 minutes ago, aabattery said:

I know people are mixed on Solo (I really dig it tho) but Rogue One and TLJ are straight up beautiful.

 

I really liked Solo aside from the lighting issues.  (Someone made a joke to me that it will be great upon second rewatch -- in my home, with the brightness turned all the way up.)

 

Agreed.  TLJ is GORGEOUS.

 

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Yeah, I’ve heard complaints from friends who saw it about that. Thought that was odd since it’s not the type of thing I’d ever expect to hear about a modern blockbuster.

I was working a small press comic book festival yesterday.  It was a common complaint that I heard about the movie.  The man who runs the LCBS said he'd been hearing it all week, too.  I suspect THAT is as much to blame for Solo's failing as anything else.  I have ZERO interest in rewatching a film I can't see.  And I LIKED Solo.  

 

[dxmatrixdt]

has anyone dreamt for better Solo numbers?

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Huge rebates from Georgia and shooting them back to back kept the costs relatively down.

Apparently the track record trying to achieve saving money doing that is so-so and often done for scheduling ? Because unions make sure everyone make the same amount of money that if it was 2 movies.

 

Not sure how true it is, but Twilight breaking dawn was 247.3m for example, would they have cost much more than that made normally ?

[Blaze Heatnix]

15 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

The first 30 minutes of Solo were so dark it was almost unwatchable.  I was like, "Did you cut down your reshoot budget but NOT hiring back the DOP?"

 

I guess the 3D didn't help, either. I mean, 3D movies are usually darker than their 2D versions. Perhaps the 2D version isn't as dark and it's watchable in that regard.

[Mekanos]

Just now, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

I guess the 3D didn't help, either. I mean, 3D movies are usually darker than their 2D versions. Perhaps the 2D version isn't as dark and it's watchable in that regard.

I watched it in 2D and it was noticeably dark and ugly but not unwatchable IMO. 

[MrGlass2]

3 minutes ago, Mekanos said:

God forbid people speculate box office on a box office forum, right? Is every post of yours a condescending non-addition to the current conversation? 

While it is fun and what matters most for studios, in the end we have no idea about costs and profits. Especially not if you have to factor in toy sales and the likes for modern kid-friendly "franchises".

[Cap]

1 minute ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

I guess the 3D didn't help, either. I mean, 3D movies are usually darker than their 2D versions. Perhaps the 2D version isn't as dark and it's watchable in that regard.

 

I saw it in 2D.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Aside from Rogue One, I haven't been very impressed with the look of any of new SW stuff. 

[Ethan Hunt]

4 hours ago, GraceRandolph said:

She is probably right in saying that its an awful movie. Thats the case with nearly everything ”high-brow” - specially if @La Binoche endorses it. Thankfully we live in a FRANCHISE world where only good and high budget movies make an impact. 

whatamireading

[Blaze Heatnix]

2 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

I saw it in 2D.

 

Humm...I see. Any chance the projector had a problem or whatever? lol

 

I haven't watched this movie ( probably only on dvd ), but some friends watched it and had no complaints about being dark.

[Nova]

Yea I agree with @captainwondyfulin that the first 30 minutes of Solo were very dark. I'm not sure if it was the theater I was in or what but I could barely see a damn thing. 

 

Having said that, I think TLJ and Rogue One are some of the more beautifully shot films I've seen in theaters in a long long time. I don't know what happened with Solo but in comparison it's ugly to watch. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Nova

[Blaze Heatnix]

2 hours ago, Alli said:

ok maybe i was wrong about the public rejecting hereditary . i just checked letterboxd and people are raving. hmmm

 

Just 4 users. 1 of them said audiences and fans who only watch horror movies released by A24, will love it.

 

Way too early, I guess. 

[Ethan Hunt]

3 hours ago, nevermore said:

Sounds like another It Comes At Night situation.

So you mean like a good movie 

[TalismanRing]

16 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Apparently the track record trying to achieve saving money doing that is so-so and often done for scheduling ? Because unions make sure everyone make the same amount of money that if it was 2 movies.

 

Not sure how true it is, but Twilight breaking dawn was 247.3m for example, would they have cost much more than that made normally ?

It's not the cast and crew salary that's cut but the use and re-use of locations and sets without having to rebuild etc and with that kind of cast scheduling they were better able to accommodate schedules without having to extend the shoot.

 

The editors pointed out that as they edited Avengers 3 while filming 4 if they felt there were additional scenes or coverage they needed the Russos were able to film them while doing Avengers 4.  Which I guess is why Avengers 3 did not have the usual pick up re-shoots that Avengers 4 will have later this year.

Edited June 3, 2018 by TalismanRing

[That One Girl]

37 minutes ago, Hades said:

That awful Valerian film looks better than these new Star Wars...IMO

 

Awful is a strong word.

[TalismanRing]

12 minutes ago, Nova said:

Yea I agree with @captainwondyfulin that the first 30 minutes of Solo were very dark. I'm not sure if it was the theater I was in or what but I could barely see a damn thing. 

 

Having said that, I think TLJ and Rogue One are some of the more beautifully shot films I've seen in theaters in a long long time. I don't know what happened with Solo but in comparison it's ugly to watch. 

For me it wasn't dark so much as an ugly murky color.  I gathered it was to show how horrid Han's home planet and environment was but it went on too long.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by TalismanRing

[Ethan Hunt]

I see we spent pages upon pages talking about Grace Randolph