Can't imagine why, Disney as a monopoly is far more horrific.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Disney was worried about that "Winnie the Pooh" horror film, but I see that it's grossed less than 2 M so far, thus it is likely to be forgotten

It got more PR from the initial shock value of its premise.

Was Disney actually worried?

Disney is worried about losing the copyright on Mickey Mouse, which I think expires in 2026 or 2028

Then anyone can make their own Mickey films, including horror movies

Cocaine Bear is amazing!! Better be up for an Oscar next year!

Creed III knocked out Ant Man and Cocaine Bear without a Rocky in sight.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Creed III knocked out Ant Man and Cocaine Bear without a Rocky in sight.

With movie studios being more and more too anxious to get their films out of theaters and into streaming, I can't see any film holding the #1 spot for more than a month.

Actually had a significantly better 3 day opening than the previous two films which hit the $30 - 35M range. Problem will most likely be the reported budget of $90M as the end domestic result of the last two creeds are similar but on much smaller production costs.

Of course it opened with no real competition starting the same weekend and there is a ton of traffic up ahead. Scream VI and 65 next at bat.

People are commenting on the fact that ANT MAN 3 has only made 187 M domestically so far, but the first film only made 180 M and the second 216 M.

I think the concern is the world box office where the second film did much better than the first. The release numbers in China for the third movie are not good. I am assuming due to covid lockdown.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
People are commenting on the fact that ANT MAN 3 has only made 187 M domestically so far, but the first film only made 180 M and the second 216 M.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
People are commenting on the fact that ANT MAN 3 has only made 187 M domestically so far, but the first film only made 180 M and the second 216 M.

There are lots of people bashing the current Marvel films, but mostly they have been a huge success with the general audience as well as being hugely profitable. However, Ant-man 3 hit or miss?, it looks somewhere bang in the middle despite poor reviews.

Shazam 2 opened with a weak 30 M. The sci fi film 65 with Adam Driver has grossed only 22 M.

A few HITS to list.

Scream VI $116M on a $35M Budget. $76M Domestic
Creed III $224 M on a $75M Budget. $127M Domestic
Jesus Revolution $45M on a $15M Budget.

Minor hits investors should be getting their money back.
Both with plenty of life left for streaming and premium pay services.

Ant-Man Quantumania $462M on a $200M Budget. $207m Domestic
Cocaine Bear $75M on a $35M budget. $58M Domestic

Normally I would call Cocaine Bear a hit but when the advertising budget
includes a commercial on the Super Bowl it makes me wonder if promotion dollars
were a bit out of control?

65 is claiming a budget of $45M (Still a bomb) but wiki states the real cost was $91M and then was reduced by half after tax rebates.
Still not entirely sure how that magic happens.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
65 is claiming a budget of $45M (Still a bomb) but wiki states the real cost was $91M and then was reduced by half after tax rebates.
Still not entirely sure how that magic happens.

Adam Driver is another one of those A-list names who are always making films that are always losing money. Except of course for his 3 Star Wars turns as Kylo Ren, Driver is more likely to be in box office poison like "Silence", "The Last Duel", or "The House of Gucci".

"65" is an attempt to cross pollinate spacemen, dinosaurs and a two-character drama play. It could be the best of both worlds. or not enough of either one. Either way, you'll have to like watching Adam Driver to enjoy it.

There doesn't seem to be much of a range to him, that's for sure.

Think the only other thing I have seen him in that I liked was Logan Lucky.

Adam will likely turn out to be one of those actors who years from now will probably be primarily known for the Star Wars films. A few of the ones from Episodes I to III turned out like that. I know that Natalie Portman had a few other big films but she aside from the Thor movies she doesn't seem to have done much after 2010.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tommy C,

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
I know that Natalie Portman had a few other big films but she aside from the Thor movies she doesn't seem to have done much after 2010.

That's if you're not counting her Oscar . . . .

Yes but wasn't that for Black Swan which was 2010 ?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Yes but wasn't that for Black Swan which was 2010 ?

Yes it was. However, I seem to remember reports of her becoming a bit of a diva after getting the oscar. She complained about not having her choice of director in the second Thor movie, or something similar. That's why she wasn't in the third Thor movie. That would not have made her a go to actor. I think something similar happened to Halle Berry after she won her oscar.

Judging by her IMDB entry, Natalie Portman has been keeping busy over the past few years she just hasn't been in anything that good

Portman is a good actor, but she suffers from the same affliction as most of her peer group, her choice of roles. Nobody in the Master Class wants to make just a good popular movie, it must be a meaningful movie.

So they moonlight in Marvel for the dough and then do these independent arthouse pictures, usually with a director who only works every 10 years, for the prestige. As long as they continue to be highly respected and collect endorsements from perfume companies, car manufacturers, brokerages, jewelry, watch and clothing makers, it really doesn't matter that they don't actually appear in anything you or I might call good.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Portman is a good actor, but she suffers from the same affliction as most of her peer group, her choice of roles. Nobody in the Master Class wants to make just a good popular movie, it must be a meaningful movie.

So they moonlight in Marvel for the dough and then do these independent arthouse pictures, usually with a director who only works every 10 years, for the prestige. As long as they continue to be highly respected and collect endorsements from perfume companies, car manufacturers, brokerages, jewelry, watch and clothing makers, it really doesn't matter that they don't actually appear in anything you or I might call good.

Sounds about right