|
I predicted a while ago they would remake Falling Down with Shia Laboeuf and also they would hype up some OWS angle like the guy who was Not Economically Viable from the first one but I think the ship as sailed on that one
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
How's the Unforgiven remake?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
the True Grit remake was kinda awesome
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:It's interesting to me that the director of the new Ghostbusters is a big fan of Holy God how do you write this when you just made a movie containing a walking minstrel show and at least one ghost goop in the oval office joke? I enjoy the articles about GB's projected box office where they play up the "$40m would be Feig/McCarthy's biggest opening weekend ever, just slightly over The Heat! Suck it brobabiez lol male tears!!" I enjoy them because they completely, willfully ignore that The Heat had a $43m budget/$229m global take, while Ghostbusters cost $140m and is completely skipping the second largest film market because nobody gives a gently caress. The clickbait mills went to war for this thing and dutifully fluffed the review average, but Feig's meltdown isn't the work of a man confident in his film's ability to overcome. He knows he is hosed, the "lovely cash in as referendum on sexism" tactic ultimately failed. bloodysabbath fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:41
|
|
.
|
Nanomashoes posted:The new Star Trek movie from the director of Furious 7 Star Trek 13 from the director of Furious 7, truly the future we were promised
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I predicted a while ago they would remake Falling Down with Shia Laboeuf and also they would hype up some OWS angle like the guy who was Not Economically Viable from the first one but I think the ship as sailed on that one The Purge
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
darth_pizza posted:I will gladly watch that over Star Trek : The Motion Picture, which is the only film I've ever seen that should have come with an amphetamine suppository, so you can stay awake during it. I can't watch that film anymore as Stephen Collins is the first officer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
so what are the problems with the new star trek
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
bloodysabbath posted:Holy God how do you write this when you just made a movie containing a walking minstrel show and at least one ghost goop in the oval office joke? Well I mean he's a man so clearly anything he makes isn't funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
paul feig is a pompous rear end in a top hat who doesn't know the first thing about public relations. he should learn to shut his mouth next time he thinks about having an argument with people from the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html As opening day approaches, Feig can’t help but think about the stakes of making a $150 million movie. “A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low,” he says. “But the thing I care about most is the industry looking for an excuse to say, ‘See, a tentpole can’t be carried by female leads’ ” — three of whom are over 40. “I cashed in all my chips,” he says. “I had to use every chip to make this happen. And if this doesn’t work, I will probably have to go back to movie jail.” This fuckin dandy bet his career and the future of women in comedy on a movie that has to make half a billion fuckin dollars (now without China!) just to be considered not a bomb. What a putz.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Pack it in women, you had a good run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
I take it back, hes not another adam sandled, hes anoth M Night Shamalayan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:paul feig is a pompous rear end in a top hat who doesn't know the first thing about public relations. he should learn to shut his mouth next time he thinks about having an argument with people from the internet. "If you wanna talk to me, then shut your fuckin mouth" - a funny man
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
I'm expecting Ghostbusters 2016 to break even at 150 million or 200 million worldwide by the time it actually leaves theaters. I mean I think it'll do decently enough, but it's absolutely not gonna pull in amazing numbers just because of the controversy polarizing so many potential viewers so long before the movie was even released. full disclosure I have absolutely no idea how the movie industry or money work
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:It's interesting to me that the director of the new Ghostbusters is a big fan of The man that made the poo poo-in-a-sink scene in Bridesmaid is complaining about low brow humor. That's just funny. Also, I enjoyed the Robocop reboot. It was decent enough popcorn fun and I don't get why nerds were so upset by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
 Archer666 posted:Also, I enjoyed the Robocop reboot. It was decent enough popcorn fun and I don't get why nerds were so upset by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:The man that made the poo poo-in-a-sink scene in Bridesmaid is complaining about low brow humor. That's just funny. After the completely forgetable Total Recall movie alot of it was "why are they doing this?" At least the the newer robocop tried to explore some themes about drones (and the reveal on just how much of a machine Murphy was pretty good) but the producers where afraid to go all the way and made a generic feeling action movie. Honestly I want more original sci-fi movies like the ones Tom Cruise was pumping out for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
The movie "The Fourth Kind" with Milla Jovovich was probably one of my favorite movies of the last decade. People hated on it too much because of the expectation that everyone should think it's a documentary. It's genuinely scary, especially when she listens to herself getting abducted on tape. If you haven't ever seen it and like creepy movies you should at least give it a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:Apparently the new Star Trek is a mediocre sack of trash too. But Sulu is gay now, so 6/10 Movie of the Summer. "I hoped instead that [Star Trek creator] Gene Roddenberry’s original characters and their backgrounds would be respected. How exciting it would be instead if a new hero might be created, whose story could be fleshed out from scratch, rather than reinvented. To me, this would have been even more impactful." -George Takei lmaaaaoooo and a thousand trekkies who groused about the original reboot go bananas
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
BexGu posted:Honestly I want more original sci-fi movies like the ones Tom Cruise was pumping out for a bit. Edge of Tomorrow: Live Die Repeat (I think that was the name?) was really loving good. Tom Cruise is a loving weirdo but he can help make some pretty good movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:I'm expecting Ghostbusters 2016 to break even at 150 million or 200 million worldwide by the time it actually leaves theaters. I mean I think it'll do decently enough, but it's absolutely not gonna pull in amazing numbers just because of the controversy polarizing so many potential viewers so long before the movie was even released. Castor Poe posted:How's the Unforgiven remake? Good and original, though not great as the original. It clearly needed to be a remake though, because while the film is about the same themes, it's also responding to them and taking a slightly different stance about the nature of viloence and what it does to the humans who commit it. NutritiousSnack fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:To be honest, at this point that's the best case scernario for Sony, because it doesn't look like it. It's not looking like Box Office poison or anything, just a typical flop. Not even a bomb Genuine bombs are almost unheard of now. That's what's so depressing about all this. The formula works. What was the last bomb? John Carter I guess? lol thats just gonna teach everybody never to do new IP ever
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Yeah, there was, umm... John Carter and the Lone Ranger. They were really drat surprised over Lone Ranger, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:Yeah, there was, umm... John Carter and the Lone Ranger. They were really drat surprised over Lone Ranger, too. Theyre not really gonna be in the red in the long term for Lone Ranger though I mean even goddamn Waterworld was a profitable movie Pluto Nash, now that's the kind of bomb i wanna see happen again
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:so what are the problems with the new star trek Star trek is a anachronism in 2016. It is based around a hopeful vision of the future. This is why star trek doesn't really work after the 90's because no one believes in a star trek like future anymore so you end up with a generic action movie in space. E: I bet the main character doesn't even launch into a heavy handed 5 minute speech about the unwavering ideals and hopes of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Genuine bombs are almost unheard of now. That's what's so depressing about all this. The formula works. What was the last bomb? John Carter I guess? Studios these days only get 20% or less of their income via box office sales, stuff like home media and TV/rental licencing deals which used to be minor are now their main revenue streams, not to mention merchandising, cross promotion, product placement, etc etc. Production costs can be shifted around on the books, if they get wind that a certain movie is going to tank they can throw it under the bus and offload production costs from one of their other movie onto it to make that other movie look more profitable. The Hollywood media loves reporting on the box office numbers because that's pretty much the only indicator they have on whether a film is successful or not even though those numbers haven't actually been relevant to whether a film is successful for decades now, but reports on the DVD/Blu-Ray sales for a movie that left cinemas three months ago isn't sexy enough to be headline news. The important factor now is whether a film appears to be successful. It's all bragging rights and appearances and reputations. If the film's projected to open at $43 to $48 million and it only brings in $35 million that first weekend every Hollywood media outlet will be screaming about how the film has flopped and the director has failed and the stars aren't bankable even though it's pretty much guaranteed to make it's money back some way eventually, or it'll just get written off on tax if it doesn't, or the studio will make up the difference on another project anyway. The film was actually financed a year or more ago so it's already been paid for, the executive producers did their job and will have already moved on to new projects by the time this film hits the cinemas. If the film does 'okay' at the very minimum then they'll have nothing to worry about, their only concern will be if it gets a reputation as a terrible failure and even then their main concern will be how that affects the studio's reputation at the financial institutions which insure their movies because if you don't get insurance you can't get backing and the film won't get made. The banks which insure movies will often put in crazy stipulations and have staff members on site to make sure the stars of the movie don't risk themselves doing their own stunts and poo poo like that. Tl;dr: the box office numbers aren't really that relevant to a film's success these days, it's mostly about appearances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:The man that made the poo poo-in-a-sink scene in Bridesmaid is complaining about low brow humor. That's just funny. I sort of figured he was making some kind of parody with that essay. Is it parody? Is there a sike post right after? I don't care enough to check..
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Tl;dr: the box office numbers aren't really that relevant to a film's success these days, it's mostly about appearances. "profits don't matter to studios, only PR" - CineD thought leader
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Mumpy Puffinz posted:Remake The Big Lebowski with Seth Rogan as the Dude We fully cast a genderswapped Lebowski in the last thread as a joke and now I'm really invested in it it's the only potential Lebowski reboot I'm into at all
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Gender swapped Saving Private Ryan. Play it completely straight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
gender swapped Caddyshack with a cgi gopher hollywood give me all of your money
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Magic mike with gender neutral characters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
The longest yard with gender swapped characters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Little Women with transwomen
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:"profits don't matter to studios, only PR" Box office numbers =/= profits
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I sort of get it. Because of scummy studio accounting even a poo poo movie will often make a profit, but every movie that makes a little profit is a lost opportunity to make a lot of profit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
darth_pizza posted:I will gladly watch that over Star Trek : The Motion Picture, which is the only film I've ever seen that should have come with an amphetamine suppository, so you can stay awake during it. I think you're onto something here. TMP Is my favorite but I've been taking amphetamines for years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Germstore posted:scummy studio accounting There's a ton of hilari-bad stories of Hollywood people taking points on a film (getting paid on the 'profits' of a film rather than on the gross) and getting hosed over when the film makes a ton of money at the box office but because of lovely Hollywood accounting the film officially lost money so they never get paid out. Peter Michael Goetz famously got a royalties cheque for 3c for the 1986 film King Kong Lives. Return of the Jedi reportedly had production costs of $32.5 million and had a domestic box office of $309 million and a worldwide gross of $572 million (not to mention untold millions in home video and merchandise sales) but for decades afterwards they kept sending letters to Darth Vader actor David Prowse saying "Sorry, the film still hasn't come into profit so we can't pay you any residuals yet."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
lmao if you want a good laugh go look at the ghostbuster thread in CineD and see how all the autists are arguing that it is a good movie and everyone else on earth are just plebs who can't understand
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 16:50
|
|
