IF debuted at a mere 35 M. Apes has passed 100 M domestically. Fall Guy only up to 63 M and it cost at least 140 M to make

They should've given Lee Majors and Heather Thomas more screen time. They could have discussed the mistake the producers were making by not letting Majors sing the theme song again.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
IF debuted at a mere 35 M. Apes has passed 100 M domestically. Fall Guy only up to 63 M and it cost at least 140 M to make

The hits of 2024, as of May 20 (domestic returns)

DUNE 2 (282 M)
GODZILLA vs. KONG (194 M)
KUNG FU PANDA 4 (192 M)
GHOSTBUSTERS (112 M)
PLANET OF THE APES (101 M)

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
They should've given Lee Majors and Heather Thomas more screen time. They could have discussed the mistake the producers were making by not letting Majors sing the theme song again.

I'm sure the movie is ok but I just see it as a remake that nobody was asking for. Kind of like when Elizabeth Banks did Charlies Angels.

Remakes no one is asking for:

The Jeff Foxworthy Show
Hangin with Mr. Cooper
Ned and Stacey
Matt Houston
AfterMASH
Silver Spoons
Chico and the Man
Sanford Arms
CPO Sharkey

Man, I hope no one at the networks sees this list. It could start something really bad.

Read yesterday they are also trying to restart the Pirates of the Caribbean series with 2 new films. Why ?

Not sure I see a market for another PotC. TRON 3 is also on its way.

Welcome to Disney....where originality goes to die.

With regard to the accusation that modern studios are simply recycling and rehashing franchises, I suppose that they would argue that from the 1920/30s through the 1960s/70s you had dozens of Tarzan, Dracula, Frankenstein, Our Gang (Little Rascals), and Three Stooges films, among many others.

Sure, who doesn't want a formula that pays off? Of course most of those were cost effective and are still generating revenue today.

I think it's a bit different when you have find $200M to make a movie. Personally I think originality would probably be a lot cheaper.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
With regard to the accusation that modern studios are simply recycling and rehashing franchises, I suppose that they would argue that from the 1920/30s through the 1960s/70s you had dozens of Tarzan, Dracula, Frankenstein, Our Gang (Little Rascals), and Three Stooges films, among many others.

True, but those weren't the primary products of the big studios. Look at 1940. One one of those top 10 movies is part of a series (the Andy Hardy one) -- the rest are original films. 1945 and 1950 have no sequels/series movies in the top 10. Compare to 2023: Only "Oppenheimer" and "Barbie" aren't sequels/remakes/series movies.

Ouch! Early reports say Furiosa on track to be lowest Memorial Day Weekend #1 in 29 years.

Looks like both Mad Max and Garfield grossed around 30 M. Seems like 2024 is turning out to be a year in which films underwhelm at the box office. Where are the massive hits ? The Fall Guy flopped and it is available to stream after only about 3 weeks !

I guess that is what happens when you make a Mad Max Saga without Mad Max.

Yeah, "AfterMASH" was a clever title but the audience was pretty much MASHed-out especially after that great send-off episode.

I didn't watch most of those other shows. I did watch "Chico and the Man" and a few episodes of "The Sanford Arms." The only thing I remember about "CPO Sharkey" was the time Johnny Carson took his Tonight Show cameras into the filming of a "CPO Sharkey" episode to complain to Don Rickles' about his breaking of his (Carson's) cigarette box when he guest-hosted.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
Remakes no one is asking for:

The Jeff Foxworthy Show
Hangin with Mr. Cooper
Ned and Stacey
Matt Houston
AfterMASH
Silver Spoons
Chico and the Man
Sanford Arms
CPO Sharkey

Man, I hope no one at the networks sees this list. It could start something really bad.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I guess that is what happens when you make a Mad Max Saga without Mad Max.

Yes, I believe that's part of it. Another part is that George Miller really miscast this origin story. Charlize Theron could carry Furiosa. Mad Max was there too. But Anya Taylor-Joy just looks ridiculous in the role. Equally ridiculous looking is Chris Hemsworth trying to shed his hero image for a really scruffy villain. His makeover reminds me of Lou Albano.

It's a funny thing about action movies. The action could be good, but you still need likeable characters and at least the framework of a plot for the audience to invest in it. Otherwise by the third set piece sequence, people just get bored.

The other thing is that maybe people aren't so entertained by apocalyptic landscapes anymore. End of the world movies and shows have been all over the place in theatres and streaming in the last couple of years. Probably the natural result of the pandemic, but let's face it, these make for miserable stories that prove survival is hell, if anyone does survive.

Whether it's an alien attack, a giant meteor, a civil war, a world war, an AI revolution, a zombie army, a disease, climate change, the return of the old ones, you name it, they have blamed it. And it's depressing. It's dragging through fictional misery when people are trying to get away from real misery. That's what's wrong with Furiosa, it's been done better before, and no one needs to see it again.

I was a little skeptical when the reviews were talking about Hemsworth's surprising performance when I have not seen any good performance outside of Thor so far.

Last year we had 8 films gross more than 200 M domestically, this year we've had just 1.

In 2023, 25 films made 100 M. So far this year, we have had just 5.

And the year is almost half over.

Comparing box office statistics is kind of like comparing sports statistics. Yes, there is ton of data and records and time periods and salaries and expenses that are well documented, but all the underlying elements have changed so drastically that the comparison is meaningless. To add to it all, the pandemic years just put existing trends on steroids.

There are still a few 2024 movies slated for release that could break those 100M and 200M, but if they don't it's not necessarily because they are stinkers. It's streaming and the abundance of alternate viewing channels that are cutting into traditional movie going and it will only get worse. People are willing to stream anything. It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be on and not yet seen. There are only so many leisure hours and watching new movies and shows in your home is making it unnecessary to go to the movies. The theatre costs more and there are more chances for weird problems out in public.

On July 3rd "Beverly Hills Cop Axel F" premieres on Netflix. It has all the familiar stars, including Eddie Murphy's return, and the trailer looks like all the other ones. Enough time has passed for everyone to forget about how bad "Beverly Hills Cop 3" turned out. Normally this would be a big summer movie in theatres, but here it is on Netflix. I know I'm going to watch it, I have the subscription.

The film industry can't have it both ways. Streaming doesn't double the audience; it halves the audience. They are competing against themselves and crying about it. Meanwhile somebody's making money or Amazon and Netflix and others couldn't afford their content.

"The Fall Guy" disappoints at the box office and within a matter of weeks it will be streamed. How does that help when it just tells people that you really don't have to go to see anything that isn't an event, that doesn't need that big screen. People are streaming on their 8-inch phone screens, their 10-inch tablets, they don't care. The only thing that counts is the bottom line of earnings and half the time that is so muddled its only when someone declares bankruptcy or is bought up that we know how badly they screwed up.

I haven't been to the cinema to see a movie since the last Harry Potter one, years ago. Mostly it's a personal situation thing. The nearest cinema/movie theatre is 25 miles away, I can no longer drive and my health isn't always up for public transport. Nor do I fancy sitting in a cinema these days, with a lack of leg room(I'm tall with very long legs) and the wealth of inconsiderate so-and-sos likely to be there doesn't fill me with joy. I'm not wasting my money on that 'experience'. So for me, streaming or waiting for the DVD/BR is the only way. But I know a lot of able-bodied people with cars, that can't be bothered travelling for it either. We've all grown soft to the comfort, ease and cheapness of home entertainment.
There will always be those that have to see a movie in the cinema, but there are more than before that won't be enticed back for various reasons.

I still like movie theater popcorn so I still go to the movies sometimes (went to see Indiana Jones last year)...but I bring my own candy.