...and not forgetting that BFG is a remake of a successful animated version from a few years back. The current trend for remaking old animated films as 'live action' CG animated movies is already going sour.

However, Disney is doing well with remaking the old animated films into live action movies, for the most part

The recent JUNGLE BOOK has been one of the biggest hits of the year, and in August they have PETE'S DRAGON coming, the remake of the 1977 cartoon

They also had hits with the live action ALICE IN WONDERLAND (at least the first one), the 101 DALMATIONS films in the 1990s, and MALEFICENT, which was the live action version of the 1959 Sleeping Beauty film

The Jungle Book is not truly live action. The boy is a live actor, but all the talking animals are CGI creations. Talking animals alone will attract young kids.

For something like Maleficent, how many fathers dragged their kids just to see Angelina Jolie in horns? I'll rest my case on that one.

Alice in Wonderland, well there have been so many versions, which ones are good? The original Disney? The first Tim Burton? I have stopped watching them, but the newer ones look like LSD acid dreams, so I don't know what audience they are seeking anymore.

Anything with talking dogs, fish, dragons, Disney or not has a good chance of success in the off school summer months. The irony of the comic book characters of DC and Marvel is that they are being made for older fan boys, rather than pre-teens or tweeners.

Since Hunger Games has wrapped up thank goodness and no other running story has taken hold yet, we are going to have to get a new film franchise going again for the tweener and young adult age group. I won't count Star Wars, not because young people are not going to see it, but because so many older people are going to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
However, Disney is doing well with remaking the old animated films into live action movies, for the most part

The recent JUNGLE BOOK has been one of the biggest hits of the year, and in August they have PETE'S DRAGON coming, the remake of the 1977 cartoon

They also had hits with the live action ALICE IN WONDERLAND (at least the first one), the 101 DALMATIONS films in the 1990s, and MALEFICENT, which was the live action version of the 1959 Sleeping Beauty film

Jungle Book, Alice in Wonderland and, to a great extent, Malificent are examples of what I described as 'live action' CG animated movies. The amount of actual live action is minimal with most of what you see on-screen being CG animation that looks photo-realistic.

Pete's Dragon was originally a live action movie with only Pete's Dragon being an animated cartoon character. The remake just uses more advanced animation techniques, i.e. CG animation.

From the clips I've seen of the Jungle Book remake, I cannot for the world of me understand why it has been so successful at the box office. But that's just me

Raven,

In Sept they have MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN coming, starring Eva Green of James Bond fame

Maybe that is the new teen franchise ! Isn't that based on a series of books ?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Raven,

In Sept they have MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN coming, starring Eva Green of James Bond fame

Maybe that is the new teen franchise ! Isn't that based on a series of books ?

I don't know about books, I did not hear that title before, but I did actually see the trailer some place awhile ago. Eva Green is some sort of witch that gathers, shall we say children with odd looks and abilities, for good reasons I guess. It was a strange ad for a strange movie I think.

Eva Green worries me. Apart from her Bond girl turn, she takes very peculiar roles in very peculiar projects. I like her for the most part as an actor, but like what happened with Penny Dreadful, her roles seem to spiral out of control in unconventional stories that are neither very commercial or very good in the end.

I have become pretty sure that what she choses, I should avoid.

Oh, I just checked, it's a Tim Burton movie. Green and Burton, that seals it, no way I'm touching it.

Raven,

There are at least 3 books in the series. I have seen them in Target in the Young Adult section. They seem to be popular

On a related note, I see that Finding Dory is only about 25 M away from knocking Captain America off as the # 1 movie of the year, in terms of money made in the U.S. I am sure that it will do so in a a week or so

Green and Burton also did DARK SHADOWS, which was not a big hit in this country

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Green and Burton also did DARK SHADOWS, which was not a big hit in this country

Yes, another Burton/Depp collaboration that started out promising and then devolved into an excessive mess.

I would not be surprised if Green has become Burton's new muse since his split from Helena Bonham Carter. Those two actresses have a lot in common as far as making unconventional choices and they even have somewhat similar looks. I am sensing a type there.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Alice in Wonderland . . . the newer ones look like LSD acid dreams

The original books were pretty much acid dreams, so that's okay.

The Secret Life of Pets set a new box office record for an animated film at 103.2M in its opening Friday - Sunday weekend.

The Legend of Tarzan did not do too badly hanging on to 20.6M in its second week and with only marginally positive reviews. It is supposed to look great, but cost 180M to make, so has awhile to go before worldwide may make it back.

Finding Dory hanging on to third at 20.3 in its 4th week.

Finding Dory is now the # 1 film of the year, in terms of box office receipts (423 M), now passing by Captain America (406 M)

Tarzan has grossed 81 M so far, not good considering that it cost 180 to make

The BFG was a really nice, sweet, visually stunning film. It spend it's time telling the story so of course it is tanking in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by barobehere:
The BFG was a really nice, sweet, visually stunning film. It spend it's time telling the story so of course it is tanking in the US.

It's also competing for the same age group as Finding Dory and Secret Life of Pets.

Parents of small children with limited time and funds are going to head for the sure things first. That is not The BFG.

The next couple of live-action movies should benefit from adults having grown animation-weary over the last month by the dominant runs of first "Dory" and now "Pets", and the various studios reluctance to open anything major against them, especially "Dory".

Even though "Tarzan" hasn't recouped its costs yet (it will once international grosses and home sales are factored in), it's done better than most thought it would for that very reason I think. It at least provides an alternative to the usual summer cartoon fare.

The new ICE AGE 5 didn't do so well this past weekend

STAR TREK 3 did OK, but less than the first two films

GHOSTBUSTERS is so-so. Even the total worldwide gross is less than the cost to make the film, so I guess this one won't make a profit

So far, if you consider the percentage of profit over film cost, this summer's winner may have already been decided.

Lights Out cost roughly 5M and has gone over 30M in total domestic and international box office in its first week. For a low budget horror movie that was on nobody's radar, that is not only impressive, cost to return from the blockbusters won't come near it percentage wise.

It sounds like a pretty standard creepy, kids in danger horror plot, but it does have a better than average cast and a brand new director/story teller. It also seems to have pretty good reviews and word of mouth. It tied for #3 with Ghostbusters, behind Star Trek and Pets. I don't know if it deserves it, but it seems to be the sleeper hit of this season.

The cost/gross ratio is the main reason why horror films are so prolific. They are usually pretty cheap to make and can easily turn a profit. Lights Out is a great example of that. Big spectacle movies cost a lot more to make and have to earn a ton of money just to break even where a horror flick can barely crack the top five on opening weekend and they are golden.

I read an article that said that Paramount is not happy that the new Star Trek has only made 100 M so far at the U.S. box office in the two weeks it has been out

They said that while a 4th film is coming, they are concerned that people are "losing interest" in Star Trek

Considering that only one of the first ten Trek films cracked $100M at the US box office, it would seem increasingly likely that the financial success of the Abrams 2009 reboot was an anomaly and not the start of some new mainstream breakthrough for the franchise.