The Dark Tower | August 4, 2017 | McConaughey, Elba | Reviews coming in, it's a bomb etc. etc. - we know this drill by now

[Jonwo]

Just now, YourMother said:

That too. What's more concerning is the fact that if Emoji and Smurfs do $200M each WW and The Star does $100M WW, it'll barely be more than HT2 WW.

And on a higher combined budget as well! 

[MCKillswitch123]

Safe to say that this movie has a pretty dark tower to climb over at the box office to guarantee a profit even w/its short budget now.

[YM!]

7 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

And on a higher combined budget as well! 

I wonder how much damage it'll cause for Sony Animation in the long run. I can see a solid rebound in 2018, and from the looks of it one of their 2020 projects has the potential to be their DM.

Edited August 3, 2017 by YourMother

[Morieris]

Ah yes, the typical First Weekend in August Dumpster Fire. I was almost concerned we wouldn't get one this year! 

 

At least this one didn't cost ^{150$mbefore marketing...}

[Jonwo]

Just now, YourMother said:

I wonder how much damage it'll cause for Sony Animation in the long run. I can see a solid rebound in 2018, and from the looks of it one of their 2020 projects has the potential to be their DM.

They need to stop looking for a potential franchise and just make a good film. HT3 and Spider-Man should do well but the hybrids like Peter Rabbit and Goosebumps 2 I don't see being big.

[YM!]

Jumanji should be a good hit for Sony though.

[JohnnyGossamer]

1 hour ago, YourMother said:

I think Animated Miles Morales Spider-Man will outgross Venom.

Eh... It's another Spider-man. Different flavor but, really, it's the 7th theatrically wide release for Spidey in 16 or 17 years, right? I don't expect it to do well.

[MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie]

So, given that it's likely Sony knew they had a critical turkey on their hands, what was the point of dropping the review embargo even one day early?

 

Hope against hope that enough critics would like it to give it a non-disastrous RT score?

 

 

[DAR]

2 hours ago, Nova said:

Lol at Sony having to stop making movies. Every weekend a studio has a bad movie being released. It happens. 

 

But there's a reason why Sony is one of the top studios. They clearly know what they're doing a lot better than most studios. Even the critically panned Emoji Movie is going to be a financial success and in the end money is what matters.

 

I do think releasing bad film after bad film can have negative consequences though especially  in the long run but Sony is no where near that point. 

It's like people suddenly forget in the long history of these studios there are peaks and valleys

[DAR]

27 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Eh... It's another Spider-man. Different flavor but, really, it's the 7th theatrically wide release for Spidey in 16 or 17 years, right? I don't expect it to do well.

I'd say less than Lego Batman

[Zakiyyah6]

People are not forgetting that Studios have bad and good moments. Some people just hate that people are talking about Sony's horrible moment. It's having a bad go of it and it's losing money. It's fair to talk about that.

[filmlover]

Matthew McConaughey passed on the Kurt Russell role in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 for this. Not such an alright alright alright choice there, Matthew.

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, thelich343 said:

Do people really love excessive hyperbole, especially when it's effectively dog-piling at this  point? Is this what people are looking for in reviews these days?
 

"Oh, Sony stop making movies cause you had two panned movies follow your two acclaimed movies, that's fifty-fifty and not really that bad, but oh well."

"Oh, Sony, you're a distribution studio that hired a production studio to make a movie, like every movie in the universe. But this time, the production studio is going to have to take all the credit cause it's good now and the production studio's name is marvel"

"Sony, you are literally Satan."

"Sony you killed the world."

 

 

Yep, it's pretty silly how they just ignore two very recent success stories from the studio just to keep the narrative going.

[Jonwo]

15 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Matthew McConaughey passed on the Kurt Russell role in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 for this. Not such an alright alright alright choice there, Matthew.

Wouldn't he have a bit too young to play that role? Russell makes sense but McConaughey is only nine years older than Pratt

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Wouldn't he have a bit too young to play that role? Russell makes sense but McConaughey is only nine years older than Pratt

Eh, there's been more egregious parent-child castings just this year (looking at you, Keira Knightley and Brenton Thwaites).

[DAR]

18 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Matthew McConaughey passed on the Kurt Russell role in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 for this. Not such an alright alright alright choice there, Matthew.

Actor's pass on roles all the time.  Not really much of a story

[Zakiyyah6]

15 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Yep, it's pretty silly how they just ignore two very recent success stories from the studio just to keep the narrative going.

Spider-Man was good and made money because they let Marvel make it and add in Iron Man. Call me when Sony itself can make another well received Spider-Man movie that makes over 800mil. Baby Driver was "their" success though, I'll grant you that.

[thelich343]

6 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Spider-Man was good and made money because they let Marvel make it and add in Iron Man. Call me when Sony itself can make another well received Spider-Man movie that makes over 800mil. Baby Driver was "their" success though, I'll grant you that.

Sony is a distribution studio, they don't "make any movies themselves" by your definition. Working Title did Baby Driv

[Blaze Heatnix]

Whoa!!! Critics are really hating this movie, which means I'll probably love it!

 

Can't wait to see it. 

[babz06]

2 hours ago, YourMother said:

Jumanji should be a good hit for Sony though.

That's a wildcard, could easily flop.