Blankments Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 First predicts: OW: 19M DOM: 40M 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antovolk Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 This will be getting IMAX: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lionsgates-visual-effects-driven-event-180300101.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, antovolk said: This will be getting IMAX: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lionsgates-visual-effects-driven-event-180300101.html As I predicted On 1/15/2016 at 11:09 AM, grim22 said: There is a 4 week gap in the IMAX release schedule between Deadpool and 10 Cloverfield. I would wager Lionsgate will look to release this in IMAX for sure as it is 2 weeks after Deadpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfHan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Calling it now: If this does less than 10M on OW Disney will snatch IMAX up for Zootopia before Cloverfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 On 1/15/2016 at 10:24 AM, antovolk said: From Lionsgate's POV, just 40-50m in the US to recoup the marketing budget. They don't give a shit about OS. Actually,they might a small shit about OS;since most release rights deals include a small percentage of the box office for the producing studio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said: Calling it now: If this does less than 10M on OW Disney will snatch IMAX up for Zootopia before Cloverfield. Zootopia would make no sense in IMAX. It is not a fan driven movie, and most animated movies don't get IMAX because there are just no IMAX prints created (as most of them don't release in IMAX in any WW market). A better bet would be "London has Fallen" since it will already have an IMAX version ready for WW release. If this movie outright flops, we could see 5 movies in IMAX in 4 weeks - this, London has fallen, 10 Cloverfield, Allegiant and then BvS for 3 weeks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 15 minutes ago, grim22 said: Zootopia would make no sense in IMAX. It is not a fan driven movie, and most animated movies don't get IMAX because there are just no IMAX prints created (as most of them don't release in IMAX in any WW market). A better bet would be "London has Fallen" since it will already have an IMAX version ready for WW release. If this movie outright flops, we could see 5 movies in IMAX in 4 weeks - this, London has fallen, 10 Cloverfield, Allegiant and then BvS for 3 weeks. Wait what? I didn't knew this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, WrathOfHan said: Calling it now: If this does less than 10M on OW Disney will snatch IMAX up for Zootopia before Cloverfield. Honestly I expect a near exact replication of Jupiter Ascending's run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said: Honestly I expect a near exact replication of Jupiter Ascending's run I would honestly consider that a success tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermia Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 The problem is they report a lot of money as budget of this, and i can't see where they went. If it had smaller budget, i would be more positive... but people especially in USA consider it culturally offensive, while people were positive about Jupiter Ascending before it was on cinemas . Something called racist is a really big deal, even if it's fun people will not watch it in order to not support a racist movie, as it widely reported as in most of the media. I would honestly consider a success if it doesn't enter this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) To be fair the casting problem is the least of this film's worries. Edited January 22, 2016 by cookie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 23 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said: Honestly I expect a near exact replication of Jupiter Ascending's run Except this should be a much better movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyneOh1040 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 This entire film is legit mind boggling to me. Coming from someone who enjoys the mindless fun of films like Underworld and Resident Evil this looks like an absolute shit show. The marketing is god awful, the CGI is laughable and even things like wigs are so, so terrible. Lionsgate in general makes no sense to me, they carved out a niche with Twilight/Hunger Games, made a shit ton of money and have no idea how to market/be a viable studio. I will never forgive them for the floundering of The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, but this shit is bonkers. I can honestly see something as low as 12 million, to has a 'high' as 18 million OW, but have a very strong feeling this doesn't make 40 million domestic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 1 hour ago, CaptainJackSparrow said: Except this should be a much better movie. maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antovolk Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Proyas on the whole casting issue: A FEW POINTS REGARDING CASTING GODS OF EGYPT 1 My movie is not intended to be “history”. It is inspired by myth, a fantasy film - a work of the imagination. Therefore under the rules of creative license and artistic freedom of expression, I cast the actors I considered right for the roles. It is also of course every one’s right to disagree with me. That’s art. 2. It is common for actors to play a character of a different nationality to their own. Sean Connery a Scot played a Russian. Omar Sharif an Egyptian also played a Russian. Meryl Streep played an Australian. Anthony Quinn a Mexican played almost anybody “ethnic”! And every Australian actor puts on an American accent now and then and pretends to be a yank. There was an outcry when Chinese actors played Japanese characters in a fairly recent film but generally this isn’t a focus of concern. Of course there is a justified concern if casting against race is an example of “white-washing” i.e. casting a white actor to represent a person of colour for the specific reason to appeal to a perceived predominantly white audience — though ironically I doubt there really is such an audience any more in most parts of the world. 3. There is much debate as to the the skin colour of Ancient Egyptians, though no one knows the facts with any certainty. Of course it is unlikely they were entirely caucasian, though their art shows a mixture of skin colour during most dynasties. Is this recording of actuality, or symbolic or artistic representation therefore not meant literally? Perhaps modern Egypt’s mix of peoples is an indication of the ancients' racial mix? Or perhaps not. I will not attempt to make any such argument either way - I just do not believe we know all the answers, and therefore erroneous to make generalised statements. 4. As a modern day Egyptian (of Greek ancestry which goes back to the time of Alexander the Great) I was born into a colour blind culture - and Egypt, like the countries immediately surrounding it, has been for at least the last two thousand years, a mixing pot of peoples - Middle Eastern, Mediterranean and African, a true cross-roads of civilisation, culturally and racially. Was this the case during the time of the pyramids? Who knows? Though it seems possible, and of course it depends on which era you are discussing. Ancient Egypt spanned thousands of years — and was ruled by many different peoples. 5. I cast the best actors for the roles. I stand by these decisions. The casting is an attempt to include ALL peoples - partly suggestive of the Egypt I know based on my own cultural heritage, but clearly and most importantly a work of the “imagination” — to exclude any one race in service of a hypothetical theory of historical accuracy, particularly in a film that is not attempting to be “history”, rather a fantasy film, would have been foolish and am certain would have received criticism of some other kind. 6. What are my critics saying exactly? That I should have cast Egyptians in every role? Or are they saying something else? Of course I wish there had been a great pool of english speaking Egyptian actors to draw upon for this movie, but the practicalities of production, the “names” which are required by studios to finance a movie of this scale, the fact the movie was entirely made in Australia with specific guidelines about how many “imported” actors we could include (due to financing Australian content “quota” requirements), all these aspects had a part to play in the casting of the movie. 7. Finally, I do believe this movie is not the best one to soap-box issues of diversity with. Yes, in the wider argument, I do believe we need more people of colour and a greater cultural diversity in movies — after all Hollywood has spent a century or more making 95% of it’s content based in American culture, it is time for a change. And, as one example, I do agree that often great performances by black actors in Hollywood movies are over-looked by the Academy. But in the instance of this movie, and based on my own cultural heritage, I attempted to show racial diversity, black, white, asian, as far as I was allowed, as far as I could, given the limitations I was given. It is obviously clear that for things to change, for casting in movies to become more diverse many forces must align. Not just the creative. To those who are offended by the decisions which were made I have already apologised. I respect their opinion, but I hope the context of the decisions is a little clearer based on my statements here. Thanks for reading. - Alex Proyas[/quote] https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=176691769364290&id=100010704046009 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marveldcfox Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Whatever he said is true. If they had cast Egyptian actors they wouldnt have gotten any tax breaks. The director isn't the only one who decides the cast. It is a combination of director+studio+external factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DlAMONDZ Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Couple peeps I know really wanna watch this shit Having a fever sounds like a good enough excuse to not go, right? lmao Edited January 28, 2016 by DlAMONDZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Does the studio really think this is franchise material? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 This looks sssoooooo bad. Like, who thought this was a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Still looks like good fun to me *shrug * 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
