|
|
Post by darkpast on Jan 20, 2019 6:10:47 GMT
Disney not always golden, i expected twice or three times of the 300m boxoffice it got
|
|
|
|
Post by bd74 on Jan 20, 2019 23:11:20 GMT
There are many variables involved. One of them being that it's not opening in China which is a lucrative market, as it's not considered appealing for that market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 20, 2019 23:20:02 GMT
Box office doesn't mean the mark of good or bad movie.
I haven't had a chance to see yet, but am looking forward to it. It's setting wouldn't appeal much to the millennial generation as it is old school looks\style, but to my mind, it looks like a classy production. It may be a stayer, whereas those films that have been more culturally popular, could easily be forgotten soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by poes on Jan 21, 2019 13:42:09 GMT
It did underperform. Pro Boxoffice predicted 350 million domestic. Now it may not even reach 200 million. in fact I think it WILL fall short of 200 million domestic by at least 15 million dollars.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerthat on Jan 29, 2019 22:50:39 GMT
I don't think it will beat The Greatest Showman at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Feb 3, 2019 1:53:49 GMT
Disney not always golden, i expected twice or three times of the 300m boxoffice it got I didn't watch it because they translated the songs into the local language what is a no-go for me. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 3, 2019 4:03:23 GMT
ah man as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 3, 2019 17:09:24 GMT
She got creamed by Aquaman and Bumblebee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 3, 2019 22:04:48 GMT
It did underperform. Pro Boxoffice predicted 350 million domestic. Now it may not even reach 200 million. in fact I think it WILL fall short of 200 million domestic by at least 15 million dollars. According to IMDB source, ww it has grossed around 320mill. Budget was 130mill. They may have over-estimated its appeal for the domestic market, but it is by no means a flop. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 3, 2019 22:10:57 GMT
She got creamed by Aquaman and Bumblebee. 3 movies with anticipated numbers pretty much all opened together and had to compete with each other.
They perhaps should have left Mary Poppins Returns until New Year.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 5, 2019 11:26:47 GMT
My most major criticism of the film is that it is too long. I think a 130 minute movie is not a good idea if your main audience is kids. But even as an adult I found it dragged in parts, mainly the beginning that essentially lacks songs. I think 20-30 mins. could have easily been edited out without losing much in terms of the plot. It would have flowed better. A shorter movie would have allowed at least one more showing a day which would have helped the box office.
Other than that it was pretty good, with generally inspired casting.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Grand Inquisitor on Feb 21, 2019 11:06:36 GMT
Was anyone really clamoring for a Mary Poppins sequel?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 21, 2019 14:06:49 GMT
My most major criticism of the film is that it is too long. I think a 130 minute movie is not a good idea if your main audience is kids. But even as an adult I found it dragged in parts, mainly the beginning that essentially lacks songs. I think 20-30 mins. could have easily been edited out without losing much in terms of the plot. It would have flowed better. A shorter movie would have allowed at least one more showing a day which would have helped the box office. Other than that it was pretty good, with generally inspired casting. That is a good point, but the intent was on keeping it as much in line with the originals presentation. I would have to see again, and a tighter edit may have worked wonders for the film, but what exactly could they have taken out without disrupting the flow?
I even feel the first MP is perhaps a bit too long and the dance of the chimney sweeps perhaps could have been shortened. The same with the lamplighters in this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 21, 2019 14:09:45 GMT
The main criticism I have with the film, is that I found it perhaps a bit too tightly wound in terms of delivery, like it was a tad too controlled. The first one had a more breezy and lighter feel to it and appeared more spontaneous in presentation. It didn't quite weave the same magic or sense of wonder and charm.
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 21, 2019 16:37:57 GMT
My most major criticism of the film is that it is too long. I think a 130 minute movie is not a good idea if your main audience is kids. But even as an adult I found it dragged in parts, mainly the beginning that essentially lacks songs. I think 20-30 mins. could have easily been edited out without losing much in terms of the plot. It would have flowed better. A shorter movie would have allowed at least one more showing a day which would have helped the box office. Other than that it was pretty good, with generally inspired casting. That is a good point, but the intent was on keeping it as much in line with the originals presentation. I would have to see again, and a tighter edit may have worked wonders for the film, but what exactly could they have taken out without disrupting the flow?
I even feel the first MP is perhaps a bit too long and the dance of the chimney sweeps perhaps could have been shortened. The same with the lamplighters in this one.
I don't think much of anything needed to be taken out in terms of full scenes, the establishing scenes could have all been trimmed a bit, these being the scenes before MP shows up. I would have to watch it again to see if I still feel this way, but the fact I did in a first viewing ....and at the beginning of the movie makes me feel the pacing was too slow. Too much about financial woes, etc. The lamplighters was a contrived idea to begin with. Most of London street lamps had been electrified by then, and the parts that were not were mainly on timers and self igniting. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 21, 2019 21:59:19 GMT
That is a good point, but the intent was on keeping it as much in line with the originals presentation. I would have to see again, and a tighter edit may have worked wonders for the film, but what exactly could they have taken out without disrupting the flow?
I even feel the first MP is perhaps a bit too long and the dance of the chimney sweeps perhaps could have been shortened. The same with the lamplighters in this one.
I don't think much of anything needed to be taken out in terms of full scenes, the establishing scenes could have all been trimmed a bit, these being the scenes before MP shows up. I would have to watch it again to see if I still feel this way, but the fact I did in a first viewing ....and at the beginning of the movie makes me feel the pacing was too slow. Too much about financial woes, etc. The lamplighters was a contrived idea to begin with. Most of London street lamps had been electrified by then, and the parts that were not were mainly on timers and self igniting. I guess they had to have a set up for why Poppins was coming back and for the audience to connect with the Banks scenario.
They couldn't do the chimney sweeps again, so the lamp lighters were a compromise I guess, with a bit of artistic license thrown in. The other main issue, while well performed, I cannot recollect the melody of the songs in my head.
|
|
