The animated "Ferdinand" grossed 13 M so far, and cost 111 M to make.

What kid wants to see a movie about a bull ?

Who comes up with these ideas ?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
What kid wants to see a movie about a bull ?

Barnyard animals have their fans, just look at Babe.

More like all the kids wanted to see Star Wars, so what other movie stood a chance?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:

What kid wants to see a movie about a bull ?

Kids don't know what they want to see until you tell them. If you get your advertising right all the kids will want to see the bull.

I saw it last Sunday. I thought it was a good movie but a Star Wars movie is supposed to be great. The Force Awakens was a good, fun movie close to being great. This movie didn't know what to do with one of the best-known movie characters in the last forty years and then went in a wrong direction with him. What is it with some directors not wanting to give the audience what it wants? I think Ron Howard should have directed this one.

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
Just saw STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI in IMAX today. To me, it's a miss. The ONLY Star Wars movie I did not immediately really like. I kept asking myself, is this over yet?

Justice League will end up being the 9th highest grossing film in the U.S. for the year, when it makes just 2 M more, which it surely will.

However, it will probably end up making around 230 M domestically, and 650 M total, worldwide

That is less than MAN OF STEEL did in 2013, when it made 291 M in the U.S. and 668 overall

WONDER WOMAN made 412 M in the U.S., 822 worldwide. Much more than Justice League !

While we are talking about the box office receipts for 2017, its amusing to compare them to the list of Golden Globe nominees, which are always the preview to the Oscar nominees.

As has been the habit for many years, the highest money making movies are hardly even represented come award season. This year there seems to be even more nominees from films that have been barely released and some that I never even heard were released.

Yes, its not only directors that don't want to give the audience what it wants, its practically the whole film industry. They want movies to make a lot of money and then they turn around and say that if it makes money its just junk. So here are the awards for the great movies and great performances that the public is too ignorant to appreciate and never saw.

OK, I feel better now.

You're certainly right about that. My favorite movie of just about every year gets zero nominations for anything whatever. The only two times I can remember being correct were BRAVEHEART and TITANIC, both of which I'd predicted would win Best Picture. I'm so disgusted with the Academy Awards I may not even watch them next year.

Oh I haven't watched the Academy Awards in its entirety for at least the last 5 years. It used to be a big deal at my house, but that was back when it was entertaining. Now it is just an occasion to posture about the cause of the moment and have actors heap praise on each other.

The gowns are nice to look at and I still enjoy the red carpet show before the ceremony. I generally stick around now for the host's monologue and then turn it off.

This year the "me too" movement may take away from the gowns. There is talk that all women may wear black dresses only at the Golden Globes to show solidarity against sexual harassment and that it may continue on to the Oscars.

Empty gestures are big in Hollywood, like every one didn't know what was going on before it became a public embarrassment.

Everything I read about movies these days seems more than ever to boil down to money, and the onslaught of tent-pole films seems endless, tedious, and safe. Can anyone say superhero fatigue?

As someone who LOVES films, I have totally lost my passion for going to the movies and seem far more content revisiting old favourites.

The only films I saw at the cinema in 2017 were Alien Covenant, which was disappointing to say the least, and the original ALIEN, which I had always wanted to see on the big screen.

Beyond that, I can't be arsed with overpriced ticket prices, extortionate food/drinks and the ever worsening epidemic of idiots who can't keep their phones in their pockets, or remain seated because of poor bladder control! It makes my blood boil when some div walks in front of the screen, at a usually pivotal moment, and really takes me out of the film.

Besides, I'm still a traditionalist and like a hard-copy of my films, so why not wait the 5 minutes it takes for films to come out on Blu-Ray/DVD these days, and I have a copy forever for less than the price of one cinema ticket?

I know that's all a bit ranty but I reckon I can't be the only one like this and surely not what the movie studios want.

I haven't seen a non-kids' film in a theater in 10 years

Over the last 3 years, we've taken our kids to 1 film a year, usually something from Disney. That is it. Every time the four of us go it turns out to be a $ 75 film, with the tickets and snacks. It's just not worth it

I saw 123 movies at the theater in 2017. I totally agree about the idiots with cell phone brainwashing, that, to me, is the biggest irritation while trying to watch a movie. Also the kicking of the back of my seat, which is why I won't even go in if the parking lot is over half full (and this is at a theater with 30 screens). However, to me, the big screen experience can not be fully duplicated on the home TV screen, even though I have a very large TV. And movies like THOR RAGNAROK and GHOSTBUSTERS in 3D IMAX make it worthwhile for me to go to the movies. MOST of the time it is an enjoyable experience. Sometimes I have to change seats to move away from irritating people (four times during GET OUT!), but I still go.

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
I saw 123 movies at the theater in 2017. I totally agree about the idiots with cell phone brainwashing, that, to me, is the biggest irritation while trying to watch a movie. Also the kicking of the back of my seat, which is why I won't even go in if the parking lot is over half full (and this is at a theater with 30 screens). However, to me, the big screen experience can not be fully duplicated on the home TV screen, even though I have a very large TV. And movies like THOR RAGNAROK and GHOSTBUSTERS in 3D IMAX make it worthwhile for me to go to the movies. MOST of the time it is an enjoyable experience. Sometimes I have to change seats to move away from irritating people (four times during GET OUT!), but I still go.

Don't even get me started on feet/shoes on the back of other people's chairs...

I completely agree about not being able to replicate the big screen experience at home. For a great many films I don't think much gets lost in translation to the home video, but for certain films something is lost.

It's been over 7 years but I still remember Inception at the BFI IMAX as the most visceral film experience I've ever had, what with the floor rumbling from the Zimmer soundtrack!

I saw Dunkirk at the same venue this year (actually the world premiere with the cast - don't know how I forgot that one!) and despite not loving the film, I think I felt more of what it was trying to achieve by the manner in which it was presented.

That said, I don't have the energy and enthusiasm you must have cardaddict. I went to to a digital showing of From Russia With Love, sat down in the best seats in the screen, then what happens? Some obese clod sat down right in front of me, tall enough that his melon head was in line of sight, loud enough to hear him chomp loudly on his food, and delightfully B.O. ridden enough I had to move half-way across the theatre to clear my nostrils of his stench. I can't be arsed with people I'd frankly rather avoid these days.

Such a self-inflicted shame though... I remember seeing Goldfinger a year previously with every seat sold out, with patrons young and old, thoroughly enjoying every minute. Or Jurassic Park in 3D a couple years back, and despite having seen it countless times before, and hating the the usually gimmicky 3D, it was done so well it was almost like watching it for the first time.

While I disagree with you (respectfully of course) on likes and dislikes (I hated all the Jurassic Park Spielberg movies, and I am a BIG Spielberg fan), I do agree with the heart of your message.

While sitting in a crowded theater watching UNBROKEN, some idiot behind and to the left of me put his foot, no shoe, between the seats two to the left of me. I could smell his stinky sock! There were just too many people there to say anything, I would have disrupted the movie for the nice people, so I endured it. That's why I won't go see movies during the Christmas/New Years holiday season any more.

Well cardaddict, you're a bigger man than me!

123 movies in a year ? Wow ! Isn't that alot of money ? How do you do it ?

Back in college, I saw about 20-25 a year, and I thought that was alot !

I drive to the theater, I puts my money down and I walk into the auditorium. I only see matinees, I buy nothing to eat or drink (unless my rewards program lets me get a free pop), and I usually go alone (sad, but true). Today I saw JUMANJI WELCOME TO THE THE JUNGLE in 3D and I was the only one there. YES!

Part of the problem is that 95% of all advertising and TV Commercials seem to be for the big budget Super Hero Movies. There are lots of smaller movies that are really enjoyable but get lost in the shuffel

I saw a few movies in the theater this year - Including E.T - The Extra Terrestrial which was shown for 1 day through Atom Films

As the Super Hero phase plays it self out (Cant see a big audience for a 4th or 5th remake of Spider Man), maybe Studios and Filmmakers will realize there are plenty of people looking for a night out at the movies, but want to be challenge and entertained

I think there was some discussion of this before, in one of the prior posts.

With some exceptions, you had a period of time in the mid to late 1960s through the mid-1970s when movie attendance was so poor (as people seemingly turned to TV) that there were no "blockbusters" to make the studios money.

Studios like 20th Century Fox had no hits during the time, aside from the Planet of the Apes series, and even Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) closed down film production in 1972 for a few years.

Then JAWS and STAR WARS came along, and it's been pretty much been the same Big Budget mentality for the past 40 years. If a film doesn't bring in the bucks, the studios don't finance it !

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Then JAWS and STAR WARS came along, and it's been pretty much been the same Big Budget mentality for the past 40 years. If a film doesn't bring in the bucks, the studios don't finance it !

I agree with you about the blockbuster mentality. That's why we have so many sequels and prequels and multi-universe offshoots of concurrently running titles that leave little room for anything new. Even though the films themselves may be disappointing, just the name recognition alone guarantees that a certain percentage of people will buy a ticket and that is enough to make money usually. The only issue now is that some of the lackluster blockbusters are becoming seriously wasteful and the budget is just too high. Its not that they don't make a lot of money, just not enough money.

However studios do, or at least did, finance movies they knew won't make much money all the time. What made Weinstein and Miramax such darlings? All the arty films and vanity projects that he green lighted because they collected awards when no one but critics and industry insiders ever wanted to see them. How many mainstream studios put out small boring films so that the star will make a big film for them? How many studios put out a politically correct movie of little interest just to show that they are socially responsible despite all the other violent and questionably graphic material they produce? A lot of them do and you always see the films nominated for Oscars when no one you know saw them.

So the audience gets caught between mindless repetitive blockbuster titles and holier-than-thou films that put you to sleep, mainly starring the likes of a Streep or Hanks or Clooney. None of whom knew a thing about Weinstein by the way, although they sure took enough photos with the guy. Laughing face isn't working, so LOL.

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

Looks like "Justice League" will do no better than being the 10th highest grossing film of the year in the U.S., as "Jumanji" surpassed it this weekend.

I know they have "Aquaman" coming this year, but what does this mean for a JLA sequel ? It wasn't the huge hit that they expected. Still, it didn't do badly.