I consider "Barbie" to be an existing franchise -- they had to license the rights from Mattel.

Godzilla Minus One is building anticipation nicely. First 7 RT reviews (early) at 100%.

I will certainly see this one on the big screen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvSrHIX5a-0

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
I consider "Barbie" to be an existing franchise -- they had to license the rights from Mattel.

You could also say that 'Taylor Swift' is an existing franchise

You could, I suppose, but only if you stretch the definition of "franchise" past the breaking point. (are you suggesting that Taylor Swift had to pay someone a licensing fee to use her own image in the movie?)

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
You could, I suppose, but only if you stretch the definition of "franchise" past the breaking point. (are you suggesting that Taylor Swift had to pay someone a licensing fee to use her own image in the movie?)

Note use of big smiley

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
I consider "Barbie" to be an existing franchise -- they had to license the rights from Mattel.

I think it would need to be further defined as a FILM franchise.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Godzilla Minus One is building anticipation nicely. First 7 RT reviews (early) at 100%.

I will certainly see this one on the big screen.

Yeah I was thinking of going, but the only thing that may stop me is if its sub-titled, which is all I've seen. I would rather have a bad dubbing in this case, since the plot is probably beside the point, and I would rather concentrate on the visuals than be distracted by writing. Have to wait and see if I make it.

Anyway, I also wanted to catch the re-mastered 4K "The Abyss". I always liked that film, even though it really doesn't hold together in the end and Cameron let the story wander off. Then I found out its in theatres for one day only, which makes no sense to me. At least get it out for a couple of weeks if you are going to do it or why bother? I really don't get the purpose to it. I can't make just one day in theatres, and I really don't need another home version with a few more scenes that just add to an already too long film.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Anyway, I also wanted to catch the re-mastered 4K "The Abyss". I always liked that film, even though it really doesn't hold together in the end and Cameron let the story wander off. Then I found out its in theatres for one day only, which makes no sense to me. ...

It will be that the studio has done a special deal with the theatres for one night only, the main aim is to promote the digital release of the 4K remasters of films 'The Abyss', 'Aliens' and 'True Lies'.

quote:

Originally posted by WOMBLE:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Anyway, I also wanted to catch the re-mastered 4K "The Abyss". I always liked that film, even though it really doesn't hold together in the end and Cameron let the story wander off. Then I found out its in theatres for one day only, which makes no sense to me. ...

It will be that the studio has done a special deal with the theatres for one night only, the main aim is to promote the digital release of the 4K remasters of films 'The Abyss', 'Aliens' and 'True Lies'.

Yeah, I get that a new home version is coming, but the Director's Cut is already out on those films. How many versions really add that much? That's especially true when you're own viewing equipment is not state of the art home theatre.

Besides the 4K look that you may not notice too much, and maybe a few extra minutes of scenes that were deemed to be unworthy in the final cut, and in the last two final cuts , the biggest difference would be to see it on an actual big screen again. So do the promotion for a week or two, instead of a day. Give fans the opportunity to get there to see it.

It's not like these theatres are sold out. Where I go the multiplex looks like a ghost town during the day, any day.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
scenes that were deemed to be unworthy in the final cut,

I think a lot of scenes are cut not because they are "unworthy", but because distributors want shorter movies that will turn over more times a day. Generally I enjoy seeing deleted scenes.

I still have my "Abyss" special edition VHS video with all the extra stuff including the tidal wave and such, and wow, it's a much better version that way. It just makes a lot more sense. If there are still more scenes added, I'd like to see them. Incredibly, this movie hasn't been released on home media (VHS/DVD) since way back when, so it'll probably sell a lot of copies to the small, but thriving band of 4k BluRay collectors out there.

That special screening is December 6th, but now that Disney owns Fox, it'll likely show up on Disney+ or Hulu, so I'll probably just catch it there.

I also saw that Baz Luhrman's 2008 "Australia" movie with Hugh Jackmam & Nicole Kidman is being transformed into a 6 part (4 hour) streaming series using the huge amount of material shot for, but not used in, the original film (which was not a big hit in that form). It will now be called "Faraway Downs" and is likewise set to appear on Disney+ and/or Hulu.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
scenes that were deemed to be unworthy in the final cut,

I think a lot of scenes are cut not because they are "unworthy", but because distributors want shorter movies that will turn over more times a day. Generally I enjoy seeing deleted scenes.

That used to be true, but now certain film makers can barely restrict themselves to 180 minutes and theatres just accept it. When was the last time a major motion picture came in at brisk 88 minutes?

The other big reason Directors always give is that the deleted scenes slowed down the action, but sometimes whole performances might be left on the cutting room floor.

If I were a Producer, I would see lots of unused filming as a sign of creative excess, poor management and a disrespect for my money.

Apart from mistakes and mishaps, you really shouldn't have all that many deleted scenes if the filming is properly planned. You need editing and maybe multiple takes sometimes, but if you're spending to hire actors that hardly get to appear on screen or have whole scenes that you just choose to drop later on because it makes no difference to the story, then that's how 200M becomes an average budget.

The new Hunger Games opened to a mere 44 M while The Marvels grossed only 10 M more this weekend- an abysmal 65 M in two weeks

There is a trailer out for a movie I didn't know was made, "Madam Web", starring Dakota Johnson. It is coming out in February and looks pretty good as far as action goes. Of course this is some off shoot of Spider-Man, but I mention it because I think it shows why "The Marvels" tanked.

Like "The Marvels", Madam Web's hero team is all female, but the trailer shows both the team and the villain in conflict. This is therefore what the audience will expect to see. By contrast, what we got from "The Marvels" trailer, as well as the film apparently, is all touchy-feely girl power comradery. That isn't what fan boys want to see in superhero movies. It isn't even what I want to see in superhero movies.

Female action stars and female superheroes are great, but they have to look like they can really kick it too. The problem with "The Marvels" is that Brie Larson and company look and act like they are in Halloween costumes, which they are, but we are supposed to believe in them as real characters, which isn't possible for a second.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The problem with "The Marvels" is that Brie Larson and company look and act like they are in Halloween costumes, which they are, but we are supposed to believe in them as real characters, which isn't possible for a second.

You just described every superhero, male and female.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The problem with "The Marvels" is that Brie Larson and company look and act like they are in Halloween costumes, which they are, but we are supposed to believe in them as real characters, which isn't possible for a second.

You just described every superhero, male and female.

Nah, just the ones who can't act the part. RDJ is Iron Man.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
....while The Marvels grossed only 10 M more this weekend- an abysmal 65 M in two weeks

Yes, in the USA it's box office dropped 78%, which is very bad.

It makes me wonder how much the affect of streaming has on the cinema audience. If a film is getting bad reviews, are the target audience just going to wait and watch it on TV later, rather than spending money on premium theatre tickets?

The TV commercial for Aquaman 2 looks pretty good. DC could use a hit after Shazam 2, Flash, and Blue Beetle.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
The TV commercial for Aquaman 2 looks pretty good. DC could use a hit after Shazam 2, Flash, and Blue Beetle.

Funny, I came away with the opposite impression. The effects in Aquaman 2 made it look almost like animated characters instead of live action to me. Aquaman was always seen as a weaker link in DC's main lineup. I have a feeling this will not do that well either.

Womble made a very good point about more people waiting for streaming instead of going to the movies for films of marginal interest. You could say that it was always true that you could wait to buy or rent the DVD, but streaming is different. You still had to pay for the DVD somehow, but most people already subscribe to one or more streaming platforms now, so waiting means no extra cost at all.

Unless you really need to see the big screen and big sound, I do believe more people are staying home to have new content to feed those subscriptions.

Looks like Hunger Games might be #1 for a second week in a row. It will have inched itself up to close to 100 M by the end of Sunday. Meanwhile the new Disney film Wish has underwhelmed. Marvels hasn't even hit 80 M yet domestically.