Well, you would think that if people realized within a week's time that the film was lousy, that word of mouth would spread, and people wouldn't go much shortly after the release, and the box office numbers would reflect that.

I think the consensus seems to be that most of the summer 2017 films were tired sequels which did not excite many people. Aside from Wonder Woman, we've seen it all before.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Which brings me back to the topic of this thread. There are many movie misses that go on the books as hits because these days lousy movies still make money. Lousy movies get sequels, sometimes even lousier sequels. The only standard we can use is box office numbers, but that doesn't really mean a movie didn't miss. It just means people saw it anyway.

Eh, that's the subjective part of it though. Was Kong a lousy movie? You say yes and I say no. The idea is to get enough people to say no and go see it and recommend it.

Now days you also have to take in the ride factor with IMAX and 3D. Even if I didn't like Kong it was totally worth the IMAX ride it took me on. I have watched Kong on the small screen since and still like it but for something like Transformers I cant watch it post IMAX.

I didn't care for the Sam Jackson character either, his whole deal was too disjointed. Like it was written in as an afterthought.

I believe I read somewhere that the upgrade in Kong's size was to eventually match him up with Godzilla.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I believe I read somewhere that the upgrade in Kong's size was to eventually match him up with Godzilla.

Yes, that sounds right. They want to bring back all the Tokyo monsters of the 50s and 60s. Same thing with the Universal monsters. This is the state of original ideas in the film industry. Let's resurrect all the old monsters with better special effects and it will be great.

So far it has not been great. It hasn't even been good. That second to last Godzilla was awful. The last Godzilla was only decent because of the battles. Godzilla didn't even show up until about 40 minutes into the picture. The story itself was awful. It still made enough money for more Godzilla productions.

The Mummy with Tom Cruise was panned all over and its ending was just a jumping off point for another lousy sequel, maybe with other Universal monsters. It probably made money.

These new movies are all better produced and technically better looking than any of the original films, many of which are quite old. They do look great in IMAX and 3D. Yet they seem devoid of any plot, character development or even life. The actors sleepwalk through the parts, knowing only the special effects matter. The monsters are already familiar to us, so there is little surprise there, just better gore.

Sorry to go on so long in a thread about 2017 movies, but this looks like the horror/monster movie trend for this year and probably next year. I normally love monster movies, but I have not seen one I could recommend since Dark of the Night and that was a very small independent film. The other big ones have had some good sequences that I liked visually, but the overall films have let me down. As you said, it's all subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I normally love monster movies, but I have not seen one I could recommend since Dark of the Night and that was a very small independent film. The other big ones have had some good sequences that I liked visually, but the overall films have let me down. As you said, it's all subjective.

Oh absolutely! In fact I just dug up some obscure titles to check out this weekend. As far as original and truly scary content I think low budget independent films is where the gold is. I hope that IT will fix what was wrong with the TV movie but in general, the book was just ok for me.

So many times I have felt that having a big budget ultimately destroyed the film. I thought that if the Lone Ranger could have taken a darker path from its pearly white Dudley Do Right history and give us a hero with some real internal struggles that it might of worked much better. And not having Jack Sparrow play Tonto would have helped out a bit too. :-P

Looks like the Emoji Movie didn't do that well. Opening weekend of a mere 25 M.

Although the budget was only 50 M, so it won't lose much money.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I hope that IT will fix what was wrong with the TV movie but in general, the book was just ok for me.

It is my understanding that the new IT movie breaks the book into it's two halves in real time. The film is the first of two, separating the time zones. In the book you got alternating chapters, which was actually a better read.

So this first IT movie is the story of the children. The sequel or continuation will be the same characters as adults. The mini-series kind of worked that way also, although there was an overlap of the adult actors.

The problem with IT as a book is the same problem that will, I think, prevent a better movie anytime its redone. The ending stinks. King wrote a great story up to the last 100 pages. Than he couldn't figure out how to make any sense of it, so he came up with some mystic universe stuff and a really stupid monster/thing/IT for a climax. Not to mention a ridiculous method of getting rid of this immortal being.

That's when IT falls apart and ruins the story. Unless the screenplay diverts from King's original narrative and dumps that ending for something that centers more on Pennywise, the new movie or movies are just going to be as hokey as the TV movie.

Wonder Woman should hit 400 M at the U.S. box office this weekend

Even the new Planet of the Apes film did not do that great. Cost 150 M to make, has grossed only 120 M in the U.S. to date. Even when you factor in the worldwide gross, it has only made 225 M total, which is not good if it cost 150 M

Wind River is getting excellent reviews for a thriller set on an Indian reservation.

I never heard of it until now, but I'm going to check it out.

On the other hand, The Dark Tower may by a worthy entry into 2017 movie misses. Its getting horrible reviews, in spite of having a good cast and numerous Stephen King books in The Gunslinger series.

Not too surprised by this. Press has been really low key for a well known title. Just comes down to another King storyline that either can't be translated to film because it is too complex for the run time or just seems silly when it is not in the imagination from the printed words.

Does not help that it involves another kid either. I'm tired of watching these kids that save the world, or whatever.

As was mentioned in the other post, the chain of AMC Theaters announced the other day that it is cutting a bunch of employees, as business is significantly down from 2016 (so they claim)

They say that the movies released this year are not exciting people, that folks are not interested

Other films coming this weekend-- "Kidnap" with Halle Berry (someone who hasn't had a hit in a long time, if ever) and "Detroit", neither of which seem to be generating alot of interest, at least in terms of box office receipts.

The Dark Tower is a prime example of how Hollywood can screw up what should have been a sure thing. The Dark Tower books series comprises eight books and is amongst Kings most popular works and somehow they turned the saga into a 95 minute movie that managed to completely miss the mark and left out most of the things that fans liked about the stories. No wonder it's getting a poor reception.

With the summer coming to an end, I think we can safely say what the big hits and misses were for sci-fi films that came out between late May and early August:


BIG HITS

Wonder Woman
Spider-Man Homecoming
Despicable Me 3


DID BETTER OVERSEAS--NOT SO GREAT IN THE U.S.

Pirates of the Caribbean 5
Transformers 5
War for the Planet of the Apes
Cars 3
The Mummy
Alien: Covenant


BIG FLOPS

The Emoji Movie
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Atomic Blonde
The Dark Tower

Atomic Blonde isn't a big flop because production was just 30M budget. It has earned 49M worldwide so far, most of it domestically. So not a big money maker, but it should be in the black.

It's hard for Theron to carry a movie, few actresses have that kind of clout, but I heard the action sequences are very good. Will see it eventually.

You need to make more than 19 M to be a hit ! It probably cost them close to that to advertise the movie.

Last year's Ghostbusters cost about 150 M to make (from what I recall) and the studio said that they needed to gross 300-400 M to break even---which they did not.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
You need to make more than 19 M to be a hit ! It probably cost them close to that to advertise the movie.

I did not say it was a hit, I said it wasn't a big flop.

quote:

Originally posted by David R:
As was mentioned in the other post, the chain of AMC Theaters announced the other day that it is cutting a bunch of employees, as business is significantly down from 2016 (so they claim)

They say that the movies released this year are not exciting people, that folks are not interested

Just reported that movie ticket sales are down 15% from last year. I would think that its a conservative review, its probably worse than that.

But its not only because the movies are not that interesting and are mainly sequels of sequels, its because the norms of society are also changing. Going to the movies as part of the dating process isn't that important anymore. Everybody's clued to their apps and their phones and their streaming devices. It used to be dinner and a movie on Friday and Saturday night. Younger people are not into that now, they have gotten into other habits and they have only so much time and only so much money.

As other forms of entertainment become popular, the old forms have to lose the attendance. Family friendly movies are probably holding up the best because parents still want to take their kids to see something in the summer and on holidays. The onslaught of Marvel and DC characters will continue, as will Star Wars.

I think the rest of the winners will be cheap horror films like Annabelle, which is leading this week. They cost only a few million to make and bring back ten times as much because there is always enough horror fans.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
With the summer coming to an end, I think we can safely say what the big hits and misses were for sci-fi films that came out between late May and early August:


BIG HITS

Wonder Woman
Spider-Man Homecoming
Despicable Me 3


DID BETTER OVERSEAS--NOT SO GREAT IN THE U.S.

Pirates of the Caribbean 5
Transformers 5
War for the Planet of the Apes
Cars 3
The Mummy
Alien: Covenant


BIG FLOPS

The Emoji Movie
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Atomic Blonde
The Dark Tower

Of course you have to keep in mind that for films like Pirates, Transformers, Alien and Apes the studios go into the deal knowing that there is a high chance of needing to rely on foreign markets.

Although I personally was not impressed by it, Dunkirk seems to be holding its own. The Boss Baby did very well with overseas help.

A few low budget films did pretty good, which is something I always like to see.

Girls Trip
Baby Driver
47 Meters Down
The Big Sick

After a couple of bad years, Warner Brothers seems to be back on track this year. Which is great because they are going to release MEG next year and I have been waiting for that to be made since I read the book 10 years ago.

In terms of what studios have had the most success so far, this year, this the breakdown by the Top 10 films.

Assuming that Star Wars Episode 8 will give Disney another hit in December, and will be the # 1 film of the year (in 2016 and 17, the Star Wars films were each # 1), and that Justice League and Thor 3 will each make more than 175 M, we have


Disney: 4

Warner Bros: 2

Sony: 1

Universal: 2

Fox: 1


In 2016, the Top 10 were 5 for Disney, 2 for Warner Bros, 2 for Universal, 1 for Fox

Looks like Paramount Pictures has been struggling. They have not had a Top 10 hit since 2014, and that was only 1 film, the fourth Transformers. This year, they have had only 1 film in the Top 30.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:

In 2016, the Top 10 were 5 for Disney, 2 for Warner Bros, 2 for Universal, 1 for Fox

Looks like Paramount Pictures has been struggling.

Yeah, as long as Disney holds the monopoly on Star Wars, Marvel and their own product it will be a long time before they sink from the top one or two spots.

I tend to look at a studios success as a balance between the earnings and the losses based on production budget. You can have two or three number one films but if everything else you made tanked hard, then you could still be in trouble.

For example in 2015 Warner Bros did great with American Sniper, Mad Max, Creed and San Andreas but had to suck it up for Jupiter Ascending, Pan, In the Heart of the Sea and Point Break. Plus that was the end of their Hobbit franchise.

Whereas in 2016 they only had a couple of true bombs that couldn't be made up with the foreign market and the DC franchise along with Fantastic Beasts served them very well. Looks pretty much the same for em this year.

Yes, I know. I like to think about this way too much and box office mojo is my friend.