Teacher Finished; Lantern Dead
There’s reportedly a movie called Cars 2 (don’t care, won’t see it) that will make $67 million by late tonight. Take no notice of the projected $31 million that Bad Teacher will earn this weekend. The C-plus CinemaScore grade plus Boxoffice.com’s Phil Contrino declaring the word-of-mouth is “toxic” is a fate-sealer. And The Green Lantern dropped over 65% with an expected $18 million for the weekend. Justice is served.
Well, BAD TEACHER is already in the money – so they’re happy over there. Even worse, now Cameron Diaz has again “proven” that she can open a film.
What a God awful film.
yeah, even with 50% drops over the next few wkds, Bad Teacher, from a financial sense, has to be seen as a success. It’ll top out high $60′s/low $70′s.
So this Avengers film is comprised of the heroes from the following films:
Iron Man – first film was huge, the second one was a huge disappointment.
Black Widow – second-worst thing about Iron Man 2.
The Hulk – both films were financial disappointments.
Thor – made money, but was widely considered a failure.
Captain America – who knows, really? But almost every other comic book film set in this era failed (Rocketeer, Sky Captain).
Can you tell that I’m openly dreading THE AVENGERS film?
@Ray: The Avengers has, in Whedon, somebody that actually knows what they’re doing. It’ll be a smart, funny exciting ride.
PS. The Rocketeer was excellent.
Oh, and I left out a vital piece of information behind my last post:
Given the failure of The Green Lantern and some of these other films, what are the prospects for The Avengers film, which is the last comic book film still going forward?
major love for the rocketeer
Ray: you’re mixing financial and critical responses in your points, but OK –
Iron Man – first one did $585 worldwide. Sequel did $622. That’s a “huge disappointment”??!! (Only if you were making a DZ-like claim that it was supposed to make, like, A BILLION dollars…) So if you’re talking about the movie’s “quality” — eh. It was certainly busier. Not sure what more to expect from that franchise. (I didn’t rave about the first movie like other people did)
Hulk – since literally every Hulk has been different than the preceding version, I don’t know if “financial disappointment” means anything. The first Hulk was an Ang Lee arthouse take on the character starring Eric Bana; the second a pulpy version with Ed Norton. None of those things scream crossover appeal to all demographics. He’s for comic book nerds. Anyway, now you get Mark Ruffalo, the third actor to play him in three movies, in the action take. We’ll see if this one sticks, but of course… *he’s not carrying the movie*.
Thor – currently 77% on Rotten Tomatoes — that’s “widely considered a failure,” even when as you yourself say it “made money”? You can’t be talking about the grosses… it’s going to end up around *half a billion dollars* worldwide. So once again — how is it “widely considered a failure,” exactly? (I would give anything for the chance to take a hokey, B-level comic book character and make 500 million off him… but I guess your definition of success differs from mine.)
Captain America – let’s leave out Cap until the end of July. You say that the few other movies set in that era “failed”; you could have just as accurately said that reviews from test and trade screenings have been hugely positive, if not outright raves. But again: we’ll wait and see.
Don’t sell Joss Whedon short, either. He knows what he’s doing.
All I’m saying is: isn’t too early to be “dreading” an Avengers movie — unless you already hate comic book movies as a rule? Because if you don’t — it’s going to tie all of these franchises together in interesting ways, and that at least will be worth seeing. You’ve got good talent involved, a great writer/director, and what will be lots of money put into cool visual FX… what more do you want out of a movie about a bunch of comic book characters?
(But if you already hate comic book movies: yes, you can go ahead and dread an Avengers movie)
The Rocketeer should have been good but it’s actually boring as hell. This is attributable, of course, to Johnston’s “gets-the-job-done” rudimentary at best directorial technique. It certainly doesn’t raise confidence in his new one.
Sorry to disappoint you, Ray, but after Avengers you’ve got Batman, Superman and Iron Man 3 in the pipeline. Oh, and Pirates 4 just entered the top 10 worldwide, so you’ve got Pirates 5 to look forward to. I know, not a comic book flick, but while we’re lamenting all this “soulless trash,” we might as well throw that in too.
Ray,
I won’t repeat Mr F’s post (which ruled), but there are opinions and facts. There are simply no metrics that support stating “Thor is widely considered a failure”. All the metrics that we do have draw the exact opposite conclusion. A less than 50% drop on weekend 2 in this day and age is quite a feat.
And comparing Rocketeer and Sky Captain to Captain America is just silly. Don’t be a DZ.
It’s hip to be too cool for school and decry the end of comic book movies, but they are here to stay. Get Ready For X-Men first Class 2, New Daredevil, Wolverine 2, New Fantastic 4, The Flash, Iron Man 3, a Batman movie every three years until we die and at least one more Spiderman Trilogy.
As if there wasn’t 4 comic book movies this summer the new Mallik and Woody Allen pictures would have grossed 200M.
BTW, Pirates 4 became the #3 highest international grossing picture of all time this weekend, so get ready for at least two more.
Well you’re all in luck. According to online sources, WB is moving forward w/Green Lantern 2. Looks like we’ve turned a corner among studio executives. They will now fight for a franchise not just in the face of critical drubbings but also box office ones.
If there’s any movie that deserved to fail this year it was no doubt Green Lantern. Shoddily plotted. Poor acting. Crappy special efx. Its a Razzie frontrunner imo.
@Alboone: Haven’t seen Green Latern but what about Pirates of the Carribean? I hate how the critical community refuses to call these films, outside of the first, the stinking turds that they are.
Bad Teacher is a hit. Any comedy that opens with a female lead over $30m must be a hit. Kind of reminds me of The Village where everyone collectively agreed that the movie sucked, but the opening was large enough that even awful drops the next few weeks couldn’t bring it out of the “hit” region.
I wouldn’t call Green Lantern’s drop “justice”. Yes, justice for the film, but not for films in general. You can easily attribute the failure of the risky Scott Pilgrim to the cancelling of Del Toro’s equally risky At the Mountains of Madness. Universal couldn’t take another loss, especially on the millions they would spend on ATMM, when it would only appeal to a very small portion of the population (on the surface; Del Toro might have been able to expand the appeal, but who knows).
However, if the Hollywood Reporter is right in saying that WB will continue with a sequel, it defies all logic, but bodes well for other things. If they can take a loss that large and still stand behind the behind the project, they might want to take risks elsewhere.
As for The Avengers, nothing like this has ever been attempted in film before, so to say it’ll be good or bad at this point is idiotic. Tying in the continuities of 5 movies, along with setting up future movies for not only The Avengers 2, but things like Ant-Man (who will inevitably set up The Wasp), and future Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, and Captain America sequels, and, you know, actually being a movie on it’s own, is an awesome task. If it’s even half good, it’ll be an accomplishment.
“reminds me of The Village where everyone collectively agreed that the movie sucked”
Nope
@Gnome: It’s BS. I work for WB and the sequel is dead in the water.
The Rocketeer is awesome, and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Granted, the lead is kind of bland, but he’s kind of hilariously awkward at times, which works for the part. But Alan Arkin, and NAZI ERROL FLYNN TIMOTHY DALTON, and JENNIFER CONNELLY IN HER PRIME. And Paul Sorvino turning on Dalton when he realizes dude’s a Nazi because he may be a gangster, but goddammit he’s also an AMERICAN. If you don’t love The Rocketeer, you hate America. It is that simple.
Jennifer Connelly’s “prime” was once she got those ridiculous cartoon breasts down by losing weight. Not saying I didn’t enjoy her riding that mechanical horse in Career Opportunities when I was 20, but with age comes the wisdom that large breasts are pointless.
I only really, religiously read Poland and Wells– not to say I don’t check Kenny, Sasha, Tapley, Thompson, but Jeff and Dave are my two go-to movie sites throughout the day and week.
What’s funny is Jeff’s “box office” chatter versus David’s. On Poland, these numbers are parsed and debated to the point of absurdity, Poland LETTING YOU KNOW what this per-screen average really means and how Green Lantern leads the league in September doubles or whatnot versus what Tie That Binds made in 1994 in a 200-seater in Topeka…
Then you come here, and Jeff’s all, fuck it, this movie I hate made 60 mil, nobody cares, it’s dead in the water.
@Ray: The Avengers has, in Whedon, somebody that actually knows what they’re doing. It’ll be a smart, funny exciting ride.
PS. The Rocketeer was excellent.
To be put-off by the prospect of The Avengers is to ignore a big budget movie starring Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Chris Evans and Samuel L. Jackson. I dunno, superheroes or no, that’s an ensemble I would want to see.
“Losing weight”? I’m shocked that LexG does not know his hottie lore.
After the next glut of superhero movies, they will go away for at least a little while.
littlebigman + Actionman: It’s only a success if the budget didn’t go overboard with the stars’ salaries. They still haven’t revealed how much it cost. And Hornet and Knight and Day were already overpriced flops.
Ray: You mean disappointment content-wise, or financially? ‘Cus it did well enough in the latter area. As for The Hulk, yeah, they keep trying to bring him back for some weird reason. And Thor made money, but it lost ground to Fast Five. BTW, interesting BOM article about the lack of superhero blockbusters this year.
“Captain America – who knows, really? But almost every other comic book film set in this era failed (Rocketeer, Sky Captain). ”
True, but again, as I noted earlier, those films were based off niche concepts. Dick Tracy is set in a similar era, and it made money. And that’s after Beatty was still licking his wounds from Ishtar. But the only reason *I’m* dreading Avengers is ‘cus Whedon’s directing and writing, and I’m not in the mood for wise-cracking hipsters with special powers or female characters who karate chop muscled bad guys for half an hour *again*. Plus, let’s be honest here. Even if it’s a good movie, it could be threatened by people confusing the title with that shitty Thurman/Fiennes/Connery 90s remake of the classic 60s tv show. Of course, the real concern isn’t how The Avengers will do, but whether or not comic book movie fatigue will hurt Dark Knight Rises and possibly Man of Steel.
Mr. F: “Iron Man – first one did $585 worldwide. Sequel did $622. That’s a “huge disappointment”??!! (Only if you were making a DZ-like claim that it was supposed to make, like, A BILLION dollars…)”
The first one had a smaller budget, though. And the second one had a smaller return than Sherlock Holmes.
“We’ll see if this one sticks, but of course… *he’s not carrying the movie*.”
Well, it depends on how much screen-time he gets in the trailer alone.
“You can’t be talking about the grosses… it’s going to end up around *half a billion dollars* worldwide. ”
Yeah, but once again, it’s over-priced. Having a slightly higher return than Green Lantern isn’t exactly something to be bragging about.
“Captain America – let’s leave out Cap until the end of July.”
That’s actually part of why I think it could disappoint. I mean who was the fucking marketing idiot who decided to *not* release Captain America around the 4th of July.
JLC: Pirates 5 ain’t gonna be happening unless Lone Ranger flops so badly that Depp decides he needs to go back to the well for his career.
MDOC: “Get Ready For X-Men first Class 2, New Daredevil, Wolverine 2, New Fantastic 4, The Flash, Iron Man 3, a Batman movie every three years until we die and at least one more Spiderman Trilogy.”
No fucking way we’re gonna get a First Class sequel, soon. Look how long it’s taken to reboot this one and Wolverine. Not to mention that the damn thing’s got the lowest gross of all the films in the series, and *didn’t* benefit from a Batman Begins-esque WOM boost. Also, the studio’s indicated almost no interest in more Fantastic 4, which makes sense, given the budgets on those things are too damned high to get a reasonable return on the film’s investment. As for Iron Man 3, well, seriously depends on how Avengers does. If Downey can’t sell it, Marvel/Disney might consider rebooting it. And there’s no way we’ll get a Batman movie every three years when Bale and Nolan will have moved on to greener pastures after DKR.
Boulderkid: Yeah, but The Village only had a slightly higher return than Airbender.
The Thing: That’s bullshit. Uni’s willing to blow the same money it didn’t want to pay Del Toro for Madness and Rodriguez for Barbarella on a damned bloated Twilight take on Das Boot. If the studio didn’t have Apatow and those car porn films, it’d be a non-entity in the game. Scott Pilgrim was probably the smallest risk it ever made, when you compare it to King Kong ’05, Riddick, and Evan Almighty, the latter of which Aronofsky wants to remake, for some reason.
“As for The Avengers, nothing like this has ever been attempted in film before,”
Well, that’s not exactly true. See Watchmen and Mystery Men.
Gabe: If SLJ’s character was more developed and not comic book-ey, I might agree with you there.
“I mean who was the fucking marketing idiot who decided to *not* release Captain America around the 4th of July.”
The same one who would have had to tell Michael Bay that his gigantic F-ing summer tentpole was going to be pushed to the end of the month — you do know Transformers 3 and Captain America are from Paramount, yes?
“As for The Avengers, nothing like this has ever been attempted in film before”
“Well, that’s not exactly true. See Watchmen and Mystery Men.”
It never fails, Dizzy — in the effort to make a completely stupid and irrelevant point, you omit the rest of someone’s point. So why don’t we include the rest of The Thing’s point:
“Tying in the continuities of 5 movies, along with setting up future movies for not only The Avengers 2, but things like Ant-Man (who will inevitably set up The Wasp), and future Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, and Captain America sequels, and, you know, actually being a movie on it’s own, is an awesome task. If it’s even half good, it’ll be an accomplishment.”
So in light of that: do you really think Avengers is just like Watchmen and Mystery Men? (I guess I must not have gone to any movies that summer when BLUE RAJA 2 did such *huge* business…)
What do you have on Wells, anyway?
There will NOT be a sequel to “Green Lantern.” Another turn at bat with an entirely new cast/crew in 5-6 years, maybe – but not a sequel. Warners HAS to say “oh yeah, we’re doing a sequel” right now because people signed franchise-contracts and they can’t just say “done” with merch still on the shelves, but the franchise is DOA and they knew this months before it came out.
This isn’t like Fox and Sony NEEDING to keep making X-Men and Spider-Man movies to prevent Marvel from taking their licenses back – Warner Bros. owns DC and thus owns 100% of Green Lantern, so there’s no impetus to keep him “active” after this big of a flop. If they’re smart, maybe they’ll double-down on getting these properties “together” once Nolan’s bat-movies and the lawsuit-obligated Superman one-off are done and pull the trigger on a “Justice League” biggie if “Avengers” is a hit.
From a business standpoint, it’s a safer bet – Batman and Superman just “being there” garauntees a certain amount of B.O. cushion, and then you use audience-response to determine who gets their ‘own’ movie. “The people really liked runs-fast-guy, give runs-fast-guy his own picture.”
with age comes the wisdom that large breasts are pointless.
… says a man who whines about how little he gets laid.
Have you ever touched large breasts? There’s nothing less pointless on God’s green Earth than large breasts.
But hey, enjoy your asexual little girls.
but with age comes the wisdom that large breasts are pointless
Yet feet aren’t pointless? At least breast can’t stink.
It’s always hilarious how these threads always go off in some different direction. The post was about Bad Teacher’s bad word of mouth, and then it turns into a debate about the fucking upcoming AVENGERS film.
@DZ
“Uni’s willing to blow the same money… on a damned bloated Twilight take on Das Boot.”
So, the studio isn’t willing to spend money on risky projects, but it’s willing to spend money in the hope to ride the vampire craze? Yeah, real risky. True Blood is considered genius, when it’s just hot people who can’t act fuck and kill people. Vampires sell, no matter the material (and don’t give me “Let Me In”. No one heard of it, that’s why it didn’t make money). You only proved my point; they saw the risk of Scot Pilgrim, took it, lost, and couldn’t afford to do that again.
“If the studio didn’t have Apatow and those car porn films, it’d be a non-entity in the game.”
So, they don’t like to spend money on risky, auteur films, and would rather play it safe with Fast 5? My god, you’re right! The reason they don’t like to spend money on risky pictures isn’t because they lose money on risky pictures, but because they make money of safe pictures. So they’re not going to go with a risky picture (like Del Toro’s), and instead make another The Fast and The Furious.
“Scott Pilgrim was probably the smallest risk it ever made, when you compare it to King Kong ’05, Riddick, and Evan Almighty, the latter of which Aronofsky wants to remake, for some reason”
King Kong was riding on the coattails of “Peter Jackson, the guy who made billions on that Lord of the Rings trilogy”. King Kong is also an established character in the minds of movie goers, referenced and parodied often. People were going to see it. Riiddick was risky (and guess what, they lost on that), but Pitch Black was relatively well received critically, and made a fair amount of money. Vin Diesel was also blowing up around then too, and they wanted to try to ride that (they also spent way too much to make it, but that’s another story). Evan Almighty was hoping make money by being the sequel to Bruce Almighty (which made ridiculous money), and ride the on the good name of Steve Carell. Everything you gave was a relatively safe bet, given the time period it was released or the history of the franchise/characters.
Scott Pilgrim was a huge risk. It’s a graphic novel that was pretty successful, but not Marvel or DC superhero popular, or even Watchmen popular (I’m a young internet nerd, and I didn’t hear about the books until the movie was announced). And who does it star? An actor widely described as “one-note” and hated by a large portion of the movie going audience, if they’ve even heard of him. And the material – a 20 year old hipster video game nerd tried to fight past a girl’s baggage to date her. Not exactly the kind of mass-market appeal that the 3 movies you listed had (a classic monster, a sci-fi adventure, and a family comedy). And it’s set in Canada; that’s the last nail in the coffin. They also didn’t need to spend $80-90 million to make it, even if it only cost $60 million after rebates.
“”As for The Avengers, nothing like this has ever been attempted in film before,”
Well, that’s not exactly true. See Watchmen and Mystery Men.”
Mr. F said it pretty well. I was going to mention Watchmen, but it’s not an adequate description (I haven’t seen Mystery Men, so I won’t comment on it, and anything I say excludes it). You could have also cited League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to the list of “kinda like The Avengers, but not really”.
Both of those movies are self-contained. They take either archetypes or old characters from books and movies (in the case of League) and put them in a movie. They’re not trying to tie into any other movie these characters starred in; all of their characterization and enemies are developed in the movie, rather than just references to previous movies. Essentially, The Avengers will be able to skip 90% of Act 1, which is (in my opinion) what kills the first superhero movie in any franchise. Setting up a superhero and it’s universe is so tedious and boring. That’s why Spiderman 2 and Dark Knight were so much better than the previous movie.
“It’s always hilarious how these threads always go off in some different direction. The post was about Bad Teacher’s bad word of mouth, and then it turns into a debate about the fucking upcoming AVENGERS film.”
Hence Wells’ headline: “Teacher finished; Lantern dead” — just in case you weren’t aware, Lantern refers to “Green Lantern”… a movie based on a comic book. Like Avengers. So it shouldn’t be all that difficult to see how a story that’s partially about a comic book movie failing at the box office leads to talk of… an upcoming comic book movie and how it might perform at the box office.
Did you not read Wells’ headline and post, or do you not know what Green Lantern is? Sorry, but hard not to be snarky…
“X-Men first Class 2″
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. I think it’s insane that that guy called ‘Thor’ a failure based on nothing, but XFC drastically under-performed, especially for the budget. It’s barely doing the same business the first one did a decade ago when the property was “unknown”, and it cost a shit-ton more. The only reason there might be a next one is that Sony needs to do a movie every X number of years or they’ll lose the rights (which might be the case, I’m not sure of their deal). I expect they’ll go with ‘Wolverine 2′, but if they do another X-Men, it will be like that Wolverine 2 where they call it something “fresh” instead of just #2, and go a completely different direction than the previous one.
Just saw BAD TEACHER.
The first hour is consistently hilarious. If anything, the notorious “first 44 minutes” that cause JW’s walkout are much funnier than the uneven second half. Still liked it. A solid B with a great turn by Diaz, who’s still got it.
Mr. F: “The same one who would have had to tell Michael Bay that his gigantic F-ing summer tentpole was going to be pushed to the end of the month — you do know Transformers 3 and Captain America are from Paramount, yes?”
Like TF3′s gong to lose money, just because it gets delayed a couple weeks. Captain America for 4th of July would’ve been the perfect marketing gimmick, however. After all, remember ID4?
“you omit the rest of someone’s point. ”
He said nothing like it, and yet there *were* superhero team movies before Avengers. Just because the details are a little different doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Also, tying in continuities with other movies was already done with Iron Man.
The Thing: “So, the studio isn’t willing to spend money on risky projects, but it’s willing to spend money in the hope to ride the vampire craze? Yeah, real risky.”
How the fuck is a $200 million sub movie with Taylor Lautner and Rihanna *not* risky?
“True Blood is considered genius, when it’s just hot people who can’t act fuck and kill people. Vampires sell, no matter the material”
Someone forgot about Vampire in Brooklyn and Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
“(and don’t give me “Let Me In”. No one heard of it, that’s why it didn’t make money). ”
Yeah, but they heard of the original film, and the remake didn’t get bad WOM.
“You only proved my point; they saw the risk of Scot Pilgrim, took it, lost, and couldn’t afford to do that again.”
Scott Pilgrim was chump change, compared to the money they blew on Green Zone. But the company hasn’t decided to stop making Bourne cash-ins yet, even though the next one will be with an unproven draw in Renner.
“The reason they don’t like to spend money on risky pictures isn’t because they lose money on risky pictures, but because they make money of safe pictures. So they’re not going to go with a risky picture (like Del Toro’s), and instead make another The Fast and The Furious.”
Yeah, Mountains of Madness is “risky”, but they’re still willing to reboot Riddick and take a chance on Wolfman, even though Van Helsing was pretty much a wash.
” People were going to see it. ”
Except they didn’t, and it was considered a disappointment..
“Evan Almighty was hoping make money by being the sequel to Bruce Almighty (which made ridiculous money), and ride the on the good name of Steve Carell. Everything you gave was a relatively safe bet,”
I’m not sure how Evan was a safe bet when it had neither Carrey nor Carrell as a proven draw and was a totally different movie only loosely connected to the original. Plus, even with Carrey, Bruce was cheaper than Evan. And if King Kong was such a safe bet, then Jackson would be doing HALO and Evangelion movies by now. As for Riddick, it cost three times as much as Serenity, and was even geekier, so I’m not sure how that can be considered “safe”.
“Not exactly the kind of mass-market appeal that the 3 movies you listed had (a classic monster, a sci-fi adventure, and a family comedy).”
Well, by your logic, Green Lantern had more “mass market” appeal. But at the end of the day, Scott Pilgrim will be in the black from home video sales. Also, the monster’s classic because we’ve seen him in movies which were not over three hours. And last time I checked, Adrien Brody has never opened a movie over $50 million, which is what Kong needed to be called a hit. Meanwhile, the sci-fi adventure wasn’t Star Wars or Matrix-related and Vin Diesel was not a draw outside of films where he played generic action hero alpha males. And the family comedy would only appeal to people who were still talking about the Passion a year later.
“And it’s set in Canada; that’s the last nail in the coffin.”
Um, the X-Men are set in Canada, too.
“You could have also cited League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to the list of “kinda like The Avengers, but not really”.”
Forgot about that one. Thanks.
*significantly over $50 million*
I really don’t want to keep arguing about this, so I’ll post my response, and you can choose to respond. I’ll read it, but I won’t say anything. You can have the last word.
“Also, tying in continuities with other movies was already done with Iron Man.”
So, you’re going to use a film the Avengers is tying in as 1/5 of its continuity to explain how other movies tie in continuity from other movies. By that logic, every sequel that references the original has done it before. I’m talking scale and complexity. The entire movie is based on the continuity of 5 different films, and has to set up sequels to those films, along with starting new franchises, all while being a film in its own right. That’s like saying that the jet turbine has been done before because the Wright Brothers built a plane that flew for 30 seconds.
“How the fuck is a $200 million sub movie with Taylor Lautner and Rihanna *not* risky?”
While the idea isn’t worth sinking $200 million, you’re taking the hottest subject (vampires), taking one of the hottest (both physically and with the demographics vampires appeal to) young actors, and taking one of the hottest (both physically and musically) young singers, and making a movie. It’s not going to see Avatar numbers, but it’s sure as hell going to at least make production costs back. I could shit out a script and have my 6 year old cousin direct that movie; it’ll make money.
“Yeah, but they heard of the original film, and the remake didn’t get bad WOM.”
Maybe in film critics circles, but anyone outside of that didn’t hear shit. Same goes for LMI. It may have gotten word of mouth, but if 10 people saying it’s good isn’t going to sell tickets.
“Scott Pilgrim was chump change, compared to the money they blew on Green Zone.”
Technically, no, since Pilgrim would have cost $90 million if there was no rebate, compared to Green Zone’s $100 million. Zone should cost that much, Pilgrim should have cost $20-30 million, even before the rebate. And Green Zone was a completely different property; Bourne is a name viewers know and trust.
And Legacy is relying on Bourne’s good will, not Renner’s name. Even then, it shouldn’t cost more than $100 million to make. $70-80 should be their goal.
You know, if this thread has taught me anything, it’s that Universal likes to overspend. Every film we’re talking about has had a larger budget than it should have (usually). I think that’s their problem. They’d make a lot more on riskier pictures if they just spent less on them.
“Yeah, Mountains of Madness is “risky”, but they’re still willing to reboot Riddick and take a chance on Wolfman, even though Van Helsing was pretty much a wash.”
Riddick is a decent franchise for those looking for some summer distractions and some cool, sci-fi action. It’s not a tentpole, which is the kind of money Universal spent on it. And Wolfman is, like King Kong, a character ingrained in the minds of the general public. However, they took what should have been a straight forward thriller and made it a dark, moody, arthouse film (that sucked). King Kong, on the other hand, was a light, fun, action-adventure movie.
“I’m not sure how Evan was a safe bet when it had neither Carrey nor Carrell as a proven draw and was a totally different movie only loosely connected to the original”
Name is what matters. You say it’s a sequel to a movie everyone saw and loved, you’ll get a lot of people coming back. Just look the Pirates franchise. And Carell was in Little Miss Sunshine, 40-Year-Old-Virgin, Over the Hedge, and Anchorman before Evan Almighty, along with a role in Bruce Almighty. He had draw.
“And if King Kong was such a safe bet, then Jackson would be doing HALO and Evangelion movies by now.”
No. King Kong is an icon to the general public. Master Chief is an icon to gamers, and Satan to girlfriends. It’s also a shitty story. And Evangelion should be given to Michael Bay if they want to sell it to Joe Popcorn. He’ll strip out the complex, confusing, and metaphorical storyline, and take out all the very weird, very Japanese shit it has. I can see the reaction if he does – “Why is that robot bleeding? And why is the guy piloting it in pain? Why are those 2 people….sharing a body in….. that red blob?”. Also, very limited appeal, mostly to the ComicCon crowd.
“As for Riddick, it cost three times as much as Serenity, and was even geekier”
You can’t look at cost. I’m looking at the viability of the idea. As I said, Universal throws money at a film like it’s a stripper and their a rapper. Riddick should have been made for half it’s budget. And while it’s geekier than Serenity, it’s got enough badass action in it to satisfy Eloi.
“” People were going to see it. ”
Except they didn’t, and it was considered a disappointment..”
If you’re referring to King Kong, like I was, then you’re wrong. $50 million may not have been what they’re looking for, but it’s certainly not bad, especially considering it opened with Brokeback Mountain, The Chronicles of Narnia, Memoirs of a Geisha, The Producers, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2, all in the same month.
However, I’m talking about the ideas of the movies, how the Universal executives were thinking when they got the pitch. Before there was a script, before directors and actors signed on, before the special effects came in.
“Well, by your logic, Green Lantern had more “mass market” appeal”
Superheroes are iffy. Most want a familiar name (there goes the whole franchises are a safe bet argument). Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Wonderwoman; they’re all names the general public knows. Green Lantern, Thor, Green Hornet, Hawkeye, Ant-man, etc., are all things most people haven’t heard of. They’re risky. And Lantern doesn’t have a large cast of human-esque heroes and villians. Look at the popular villains and heroes from the good superhero movies – they’re all look like humans, or very, very close to humans. We like to look at ourselves; we’re a vain species. So I would give the Green Lantern guys no more than $125 million to make a summer blockbuster. Not mass market appeal on the surface, but could be developed to have mass market appeal.
“Scott Pilgrim will be in the black from home video sales.”
Can the people who care about DVD sales raise their hands? Nobody? Okay, thanks.
“we’ve seen him in movies which were not over three hours. And last time I checked, Adrien Brody has never opened a movie significantly over $50 million, which is what Kong needed to be called a hit”
So, it was long, and Adrien Brody isn’t a pull. I’m not looking at that. I’m looking at ideas. But, if you want to play numbers, it made it’s money back in the US over it’s run. Not bad for a movie that cost over $200 million to make, relied heavily on CGI, had no powerhouse leads, and was 3 hours long. It’s no Avatar, but it’s sure as hell not “not a hit”.
“Meanwhile, the sci-fi adventure wasn’t Star Wars or Matrix-related and Vin Diesel was not a draw outside of films where he played generic action hero alpha males.”
Action is action, whether it’s on Mars with lasers, or on Earth with guns. It wasn’t so out there as to turn away common viewers, but out there enough to give it a distinctive look and relatively original concept. And Riddick isn’t a generic action hero alpha male? I think you need to watch the movie before you say anything, or at least have the courtesy to say you haven’t seen the movie.
“And the family comedy would only appeal to people who were still talking about the Passion a year later.”
So I’m guessing there were a lot of people who were excited for The Passion of the Christ to come out, seeing as Bruce Almighty made $85 million opening weekend. Yeah, making a sequel to that is a stupid idea.
Look, I don’t care about what the movie actually became. That’s not what I’m arguing here. I’m arguing that the idea of making whatever film is a good idea, and, if done responsibly in terms of budgets, would be profitable. Scott Pilgrim is a good idea for 20-30 million. Riddick is a good idea for 50-70 million. Peter Jackson’s King Kong in 2005 is a fucking fantastic idea for a blank check. Evan Almighty is a great idea for $100 million. The finished products and their budgets, however, weren’t good. That’s why Universal lost money on them. If Universal didn’t piss money away on these projects, all of these films would be in the black. They’re great ideas from an economic standpoint, if the right amount of money is spent, and the final product isn’t a horrific pile of shit. And even if it is, it’s not that big a deal that Evan Almighty only made $100 million, if it cost $100 million to make, not $200 million.
The Thing: “So, you’re going to use a film the Avengers is tying in as 1/5 of its continuity to explain how other movies tie in continuity from other movies.”
The Iron Man films tied in characters expected to appear in the Avengers and Thor.
“The entire movie is based on the continuity of 5 different films, and has to set up sequels to those films, along with starting new franchises, all while being a film in its own right.”
So it’s basically A New Hope.
Anyway…
“you’re taking the hottest subject (vampires), taking one of the hottest (both physically and with the demographics vampires appeal to) young actors, and taking one of the hottest (both physically and musically) young singers, and making a movie. It’s not going to see Avatar numbers, but it’s sure as hell going to at least make production costs back.”
How so? I don’t even see people excited for that Lautner-as-Seagal movie. And if Rihanna has to make out with Spears for attention, her 15 minutes are clearly winding down.
“Maybe in film critics circles, but anyone outside of that didn’t hear shit.”
Well, they certainly heard of Kick-Ass.
“Technically, no, since Pilgrim would have cost $90 million if there was no rebate, compared to Green Zone’s $100 million.”
Yeah, but Green Zone was yet another Iraq War movie, except with Matt Damon. And even the one which won an Oscar, Hurt Locker, is still a dud.
“Even then, it shouldn’t cost more than $100 million to make. $70-80 should be their goal.”
It shouldn’t, but if they get cocky on the Bourne name, it will.
“Name is what matters. You say it’s a sequel to a movie everyone saw and loved, you’ll get a lot of people coming back. Just look the Pirates franchise.”
Pirates makes money because Depp’s still in it. If he jumped ship and they replaced him with Chaning Tatum, it’d bomb in a second. Hell, the last one that just came out almost *did* bomb, if not for international sales.
“And Carell was in Little Miss Sunshine, 40-Year-Old-Virgin, Over the Hedge, and Anchorman before Evan Almighty, along with a role in Bruce Almighty. He had draw.”
Over the Hedge is a CG cartoon which would more than likely do well with anyone in it. And Bruce Almighty’s success had nothing to do with him, hence why the sequel bombed. Nor was he the draw in Anchorman or even Little Miss Sunshine. 40-Year Old Virgin made money because of the gimmick. So I’d say the one film which proved Carrell can be a draw was the Get Smart remake.
“Also, very limited appeal, mostly to the ComicCon crowd..”
Well, you could say the same about the original LOTR.
“So I’m guessing there were a lot of people who were excited for The Passion of the Christ to come out, seeing as Bruce Almighty made $85 million opening weekend.”
Probably.
“Yeah, making a sequel to that is a stupid idea.”
It’s stupid if you don’t have Carrey. Just like those Mask and Dumb and Dumber sequels.
“Evan Almighty is a great idea for $100 million. ”
Even Bruce didn’t cost that much. Evan should’ve been $50 million, tops.
While I love Whedon as much as the next guy, let’s not pretend that, as of now, his highest gross is $39 million and whose biggest creative hits to date are (a) a show that got cancelled by a 5th pace network 13 years ago and (b) a 30 minute YouTube clip.
Oh, and while I get that Jeff hates all things animated, I would have thought that Cars 2′s plot (“Big Oil BAAAD!”) would have at least garned some kudos.
Let’s check in on today’s edition of D.Z.’s imaginary world of “what-if” filmmaking:
“If he jumped ship and they replaced him with Chaning Tatum, it’d bomb in a second.”
Yup, you’re still one awfully strange fucker…;)
Farris – your point seems largely based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of producing a television show. Putting it simply, the network is not the primary beneficiary of the financial success of a television show, the production company is. And the company that owns and produced ‘Buffy’ has made a shit-ton of money off of that show, and a further shit-ton off of DVDs, and a further shit-ton off of licensing. If you’re going to talk about his “creative” hits from a financial standpoint, those are kind of important points to bring up.
“Jennifer Connelly’s “prime” was once she got those ridiculous cartoon breasts down by losing weight.”
I will never listen to another word he says.
“Jennifer Connelly’s “prime” was once she got those ridiculous cartoon breasts down by losing weight.”
I will never listen to another word he says.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money ; it lies in the joy of achievement , in the thrill of creative effort.nike shox r4
Thank you! I like your information so much.
hermes bags
hermes handbags
hermes shop
hermes outlet
hermes sale
hermes birkin
birkin bag
hermes birkin bag
birkin hermes
hermes birkin price
I love this, thanks for sharing it. I think you will like these :
beats headphones sale
monster headphones
dr.dre headphones
monster beats headphones
beats by dr dre
monster lady gaga
beats studio review
red studio
Thank you for sharing it! Now I am sharing this:
mulberry bags
mulberry handbags
mulberry bags sale
mulberry bags uk
mulberry bags outlet
designer bags
mulberry alexa
mulberry alexa bag
Thanks! I love your information very much.
mulberry bags
mulberry outlet
mulberry handbags
mulberry alexa
mulberry sale
mulberry uk
alexa bags
mulberry bayswater
Thank you for sharing it! Now I am sharing this:
beats by dre review
beats by dr dre
monster headphones
monster beats sale
beats headphones
dr dre headphones
monster beats outlet
monster beats by dr. dre
monster beats by dre
monster beats studio
beats by dre studio
beats studio red
More often than not, this is often ideal. When writing content, you should choose great titles. This will ensure that you get loads of attention with the yahoo and google. It is a simple step which you can decide on build your blog a lot better. gripiswha This helps to visually split up the information. Lots of individuals respond well to the current form of visual stimulation. Many amateur bloggers increase the risk for mistake for being so concerned with revenue they can load their internet site with lots of ads. Do not be a blogger who offers no completely unique content for your blog. Give your readers to be able to enroll in your blog site as well as your Rss. fussoftgran Post often and you may keep readers wanting more. When you post without commenting, eventually your readers will begin mastering greener pastures. Although it is important to opt for a topic that interests you, you can not simply use that because some topics aren’t very marketable. Attempt to moderate most of the comments that you will get from the readers. nasaco Be conscientious in your make use of keywords in your blog. Readers’ will usually scan the page for key concepts before associated with look into the entire blog. This may cause your audience feel far better you, that will make them would like to keep coming back and focus more of your stuff.
Avert such situations. Many of the good suppliers also have a live chat tool which is very helpful to the customers in finding out the appropriate spare part for their lift trucks. What does “certified” mean? The best thing to do if you drive a lift machine at your job is to know the right kinds of forklift safety. Lego Excavator Volvo