MORTAL KOMBAT II only made 38 M domestically this weekend, which is said to be a disappointment. It didn't do much overseas, either.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
"Michael" will pass 200 M domestically in the days ahead.

It's already grossed 425 M worldwide

It had another good weekend and is coming up on 600m, worldwide. I don't think it can catch the Super Mario movie for #1 so far this year, but it can definitely get to the #2 spot (held now by Project Hail Mary) before all the summer movies release. It's done even better internationally (339m) than in the USA (241m).

quote:

Originally posted by chesspieceface:
It had another good weekend and is coming up on 600m, worldwide. I don't think it can catch the Super Mario movie for #1 so far this year, but it can definitely get to the #2 spot (held now by Project Hail Mary) before all the summer movies release. It's done even better internationally (339m) than in the USA (241m).

"Michael" has a good shot for ending up as the highest grossing music biopic. It took the records from "Bohemian Rhapsody" for first week and then passed its US total after that at 240M. Now "Michael" is up to 577M globally and shooting at "Rhapsody's" 903.6M.

So I had a really good laugh this morning when I was reading an article about the upcoming Christopher Nolan film of Homer's "Odyssey". It seems that "people" are concerned that it isn't going to be accurate to the time.

Now I can't say for certain how many of the events in Homer's poem are based on actual events, but it is Greek mythology populated by Greek heroes doing rather incredible things. I can remember seeing an old B movie called "Jason and the Argonauts" that is still rather impressive because of the work of Ray Harryhausen. Turns out, Jason and his Golden Fleece is not a story in the Odyssey, but he's a Greek hero and who would know if he got thrown in too.

My point is, in a time when movie biographies of not so long-ago dead celebrities like Michael Jackson and Freddie Mercury are not held to accurate facts, who cares what knife is carried in a film based on a Greek poem? Who cares about the color of the Trojan Horse?

If anything sinks Nolan's film, it will be because no one cares about Greek heroes and we already had Brad Pitt in "Troy". Nolan has gathered together an all-star cast for his epic. There are so many A-listers in it, it's hard to see how much screen time most of them can get, even in one of his marathons. If a sanitized Michael Jackson doesn't bother anybody, no one will care why Helen of Troy is being played by Lupita Nyong'o. Check your history on Helen, if you don't understand that one.

Movies no longer require truth or accuracy to be hits, so why not put a disclaimer on all of them. "This film is based on possibly real people or events, but it is a work of fiction that is purely coincidental to any actual events, or to any living or dead person, or any person who may or may not have existed".

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I can remember seeing an old B movie called "Jason and the Argonauts" that is still rather impressive because of the work of Ray Harryhausen.

Given that it took nearly three years to make, had a $3 Million budget and was shown as the main feature, the 1963 version of 'Jason and the Argonauts' was definitely not a 'B' movie

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I can remember seeing an old B movie called "Jason and the Argonauts" that is still rather impressive because of the work of Ray Harryhausen.

Given that it took nearly three years to make, had a $3 Million budget and was shown as the main feature, the 1963 version of 'Jason and the Argonauts' was definitely not a 'B' movie

Well, I first saw it on a late night TV rerun many years after 1963. It starred Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack, Gary Raymond and Laurence Naismith. So, all that budget must have gone into the fighting skeletons. It was not a hit when it was released, but has achieved the cult classic label since, mainly due to Harryhausen's stop-motion effects. No one ever accused it of being historically inaccurate to my knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I can remember seeing an old B movie called "Jason and the Argonauts" that is still rather impressive because of the work of Ray Harryhausen.

Given that it took nearly three years to make, had a $3 Million budget and was shown as the main feature, the 1963 version of 'Jason and the Argonauts' was definitely not a 'B' movie

Well, I first saw it on a late night TV rerun many years after 1963. It starred Todd Armstrong, Nancy Kovack, Gary Raymond and Laurence Naismith. So, all that budget must have gone into the fighting skeletons. It was not a hit when it was released, but has achieved the cult classic label since, mainly due to Harryhausen's stop-motion effects. No one ever accused it of being historically inaccurate to my knowledge.

Not forgetting Honor Blackman and Patrick Troughton in the cast. As you say, the Ray Harryhausen creations were the main stars though.

My Ray Harryhausen collection includes a limited edition bronze statuette of one of the skeletons along with a unique bronze statuette of the Hydra.

I always enjoy watching his films and can do so any time I like as I have them all on blu-ray

Mortal Kombat 2 made only 13 M in its second week, a domestic total of 62 M which is not very good.

Star Wars Mandalorian is out this weekend and there is some concern that it may not be a big hit, as so far it's been soft overseas. Warner Bros is also worried about Supergirl coming June 26.

I thought Mandalorian was awesome - super fun movie from start to finish that I think a Star Wars novice could easily jump into. My showing last night garnered cheers at the end, so hopefully it has a bright future.

I personally don't care about Supergirl. I'm really tired of miserable superheroes.

She showed up at the end of last summer's Superman movie drunk and cursing. Who wants to see that ? That is now considered to be cool ? Not for me.

Mandalorian may reach almost 100 M domestically this weekend. Devil Wears Prada 2 up to 198 M and Michael up to about 320 M

They are now saying that Mandalorian may reach 103 M by tomorrow which means that it will be # 7 on the charts of the Top 10 domestic grosses of the year to date. Super Mario is still # 1 at 425 M.

The money predictions for Mandalorian & Grogu were lowered before release. Some said it would be the worst Star Wars associated film yet.

They were wrong. They don't understand that kids like puppets, fights, bad guys and good guys, and just to know that the good guys will win. Some adults like that too.

Here's the top 10 domestic for 2026 so far in millions, minus Zootopia 2 and Avatar 3, which made most of their money in 2025.

The Super Mario Galaxy Movie $424
Project Hail Mary $340
Michael $321
The Devil Wears Prada 2 $200
Hoppers $165
Scream 7 $121
GOAT $103
Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu $100
Wuthering Heights $84
Mortal Kombat II $74

I wonder what it will look like at the end of the year.

I am guessing that the upcoming Spider Man and Avengers films will be the Top 2 films of 2026. Toy Story 5 will be big. I don't think Supergirl will be a hit and I am not sure about Masters of the Universe

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Some said it would be the worst Star Wars associated film yet.

They were wrong.

Just curious, what do you think the worst SW movie (theatrical release) is?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Some said it would be the worst Star Wars associated film yet.

They were wrong.

Just curious, what do you think the worst SW movie (theatrical release) is?

I think that is a pretty easy to call, both in terms of audience approval and actual box office numbers. "Solo: A Star Wars Story" made $393M, which sounds pretty good for a normal movie, but it's almost the bottom in the Star Wars universe. The opposite was "Rogue One", which did the best for a Star Wars film not part of any trilogy.

The big problem with "Solo" was simply that no one wanted it and the studio should have figured that out before they went and made it. That young Harrison Ford was still being watched in repeats and what actor could be expected to take on that part?

Well his name was and is Alden Ehrenreich and he's still acting in minor roles, but I couldn't tell you where. It's a shame because that part probably buried his career. Emilia Clarke was equally miscast, but she will still get by on her GoT reputation no matter how little she does in the future.

The whole Solo production was a mess from start to finish with multiple people in charge at different times shooting film. Finally, they brought in Ron Howard to reshoot many scenes and get some kind of a movie put together. I don't think he was ever the right director for this sort of franchise, but he was handicapped with what he had too.

I did see "Solo" much later when nothing else was on TV and I could fast forward through the parts I didn't like. It wasn't horrible, I've seen worse. It wasn't good enough to be interesting or bad enough to be funny. It was a lot of nothing. The idea was just stale.

I saw Solo on DVD and enjoyed it. However, I didn't think that the lead actor looked much like Harrison Ford. Seems like after Solo, he mostly went on to do TV work. Not many big films after Star Wars