Near as I can figure, Serkis blew it. He is the director and it was his project to make a much darker retelling of Jungle Book from Mowgli's point of view as a caged wild child. Both Disney and Serkis wanted to get their movie out first. However Serkis seemed to run into production delays with the CGI, whether it was because Disney just does it better or because Serkis just wanted perfection, who knows?

Anyway he fell behind. Once Disney's Jungle Book opened big, Serkis had to push his movie back farther just to try to get some time to recoup an audience. Its not like anyone would want to see basically the same film back to back. Sure the tone is different, but that was also a problem. Mowgli is more adult aimed, its kind of a horror story for young kids. Even worse then the soft peddled tragedy Disney always throws in.

Now Netflix bailed Serkis out. Mowgli can get a big push in a smaller market and look like a grade A movie on their network. It doesn't have to generate anything near the numbers of Jungle Book to be considered a success and Netflix continues to shake up the studios by looking like it will be real competition to theatrical product in the future.

By the way, none of those major actors actually appear in Mowgli. They provide the voices for the various animals. Getting big actors to do voice work is another "in thing" and also makes these animated and CGI heavy films even more expensive beyond the technical aspects of production.

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

The new Mission Impossible film has moved into 9th place, in terms of the highest grossing films of the year, domestically. It continues to climb the charts.

Ocean's 8 and Ready Player One are no longer in the Top 10.

15 films (so far) this year have grossed 100 M or more, while 7 have made at least 200 M.

You should take a look at the Top 10 for worldwide grosses and you will see a pretty different line up. There are 2 movies in there, Asian market, that I never even heard of. Studios are not just looking for the domestic gross, but global money. That's what's keeping some American actors like Tom Cruise afloat in between hits and through long periods of bad movies. They are good for a strong foreign market base and that makes the films profitable while they may bomb domestically.

Yes, Tom Cruise is still a big star internationally. Last year, his "Mummy" did much better worldwide.

Looking at the international charts for the new Mission Impossible, it is almost up to # 12, and it should soon pass SOLO which is #11.

Sometimes, as you said, there is a big difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Way back in 1987, when Timothy Dalton's first James Bond film came out, I think it was the 4th highest grossing film worldwide that year, but it only hit around # 15 at the U.S. box office

The Meg is a smash hit, knocking off Mission Impossible for the top domestic spot this weekend, 44.5M to 20M. It also has taken in 97M internationally. So that's a total of 141.5 in the first 3 days. Not bad for a big rubber shark.

Actually I have been looking forward to it and will see it, but not in the first week. This is the kind of schlock movie that just has to look good delivering the schlock because its what the audience came for. It was not predicted to make a lot, but I don't know why not. Its no more brainless than Jurassic World.

Just a comparison of 2017 vs. 2018, the year so far, in terms of domestic releases


2017

Number of films which made 200 M or more: 13
Number of films which made 100 M or more: 33


2018

Number of films which made 200 M or more: 7
Number of films which made 100 M or more: 16


Does this mean that 2017 will turn out to be a more successful year ?

No, numbers are deceiving and its too early to start to tally up the year anyway.

This has been a record setting year for movies, so even if the number of films over 100M and 200M is less, the amount of money made over those benchmarks is way more. Also 4 1/2 months of new movies left on 2018 will close that gap nicely.

Personally I don't think 2018 movies so far were very good as a whole, but I know I am in a minority opinion there.

Billionaire Boys Club with Kevin Spacey has made $ 618.

That's kind of ridiculous. A guy on the street with a guitar can make more money in his hat.

They knew it would fail, why not go straight to DVD or just hold it and bury it later?

BTW, I don't think this was ever going to be a popular film just based on the subject matter and Spacey's part wasn't even the main character, just the prestige name. Or at least he used to be. It's a warmed over Wolf of Wall Street and who wants to see that, with or without a fallen idol?

I guess no one wanted to go see it for the performances of Judd Nelson, Rosanna Arquette, Emma Roberts, Cary Elwes, and Billie Lourd (the daughter of the late Carrie Fisher) ?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
That's kind of ridiculous. A guy on the street with a guitar can make more money in his hat.

They knew it would fail, why not go straight to DVD or just hold it and bury it later?

BTW, I don't think this was ever going to be a popular film just based on the subject matter and Spacey's part wasn't even the main character, just the prestige name. Or at least he used to be. It's a warmed over Wolf of Wall Street and who wants to see that, with or without a fallen idol?

Add to the list of late summer flops, "The Happytime Murders", 40 M to make, 9 M gross

the Mark Wahlberg film "Mile 22" (50 M to make, has grossed 25 M)

and the 2 dog movies, "Alpha" and "A.X.L."


Who thinks of these silly ideas for movies, and why would a studio invest millions to make this junk ?

I kind of hope that The Happytime Murders puts an end to Melissa MaCarthy's movie career as an unfiltered leading star, producer, writer, whatever. It probably won't, but it might slow her down. She makes these movies with her husband and its like no one can tell the difference between comedy and pure raunchiness. Even when they start out well, they just go too far, which is fine if it were funny, but its not.

I think Happyland was sold to the studio along the lines of Roger Rabbit, which still is a brilliant bit of film. Instead of mixing in characters from a cartoon world, let's use puppets. I mean it could be amusing if you had a smart script that adults could find funny while still bringing their children. But not as a R rated movie with all sorts of bad taste scenes included.

From the look of the reviews Happyland is going down as at least the worst movie of the decade. Now that alone will probably increase the audience because a movie that awful has to be seen, right? No, not really, not if McCarthy's in it.

When we took our kids to see "Incredibles 2" back in July, they had the preview for "A.X.L.", about the robot dog and people trying to capture it. I remember thinking at the time, how ridiculous it looked, and wondering WHO would pay money to see this ?

So far it has grossed a mere 2 million, and the studio is going bankrupt

Ant Man and the Wasp is about 1 M away from surpassing SOLO and becoming the # 6 film of the year, domestically. What does that tell you about this Star Wars film ?

And INCREDIBLES 2 is being expanded, which will allow it to pass 600 M this weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Ant Man and the Wasp is about 1 M away from surpassing SOLO and becoming the # 6 film of the year, domestically. What does that tell you about this Star Wars film ?

'Make Mine Marvel?'

It tells you that Ant Man 2 is a surprise hit--made about 40 M more than the original-- and that SOLO was a financial disappointment. The first Star Wars film that was not a blockbuster

The new "Mission Impossible" is about 7 M away from surpassing SOLO, which will be knocked down to # 8 for the year.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
The new "Mission Impossible" is about 7 M away from surpassing SOLO, which will be knocked down to # 8 for the year.

We all agree that Solo was a disappointing film and, if they hadn't been so greedy about pulling every dime they can out of Star Wars, it really wasn't a great idea to begin with. But just know that it still is #8 for the year, which will probably come down a few notches by the end, and it did well in foreign markets. So in terms of box office numbers, it should have been successful even if it was an unnecessary and not terribly good film.

The only reason why Solo is not a success, and the studio may hesitant before churning out any more prequels on Star Wars characters, is because it cost too much to make. The production fell apart due to creative differences, Ron Howard had to come in and reshoot nearly all the footage they had, and it went way over budget. Were it not for that, you could make the argument that there is still enough fans that want anything Star Wars related despite the complete overkill.

What can you say, if they make it they will come. I certainly don't know why.

The latest Predator film opened this weekend, and did poorly, grossing a mere 24 M

I read that it topped last year's "The Mummy" as the film with the widest opening, in terms of number of theaters showing it, with the lowest amount of money made

No wonder 20th Century Fox sold their studio to Disney !

Well the studio knew it had junk on its hands with Predator, they barely advertised it. They also scheduled release after the peak summer period and still couldn't get more than 24M from 4000 odd screens.

To be honest I think 24M is way too high for a story with no plot and no reason to watch it again. There are zero stars in this film. I don't mean actors, I mean any good action stars, and the whole set up has been done already. All you have is the gore and that even gets redundant. How many times can you see the invisible Predator revealed and it cuts someone in half?

As cheesy as the AvP movies were, at least they had the monster bash effects. They both had card sets with autographs and costumes and AvP Requium in particular had a very decent set for a pretty bad movie. Neither AvP or Predator alone should have been brought back.

On a happier note, looking forward to seeing The House With A Clock In Its Walls this weekend. The reviews are positive and Jack Black is usually fun. Because there is so little good competition in the next two weeks and its a family friendly film, I think House may get better numbers than you would expect. There is also numerous books on this title, so it could be the birth of another franchise if it does well.