|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 17, 2017 20:18:44 GMT
I feel that Tomorrowland should've been a hit what with George Clooney starring in it. So Batman and Robin should have been a hit. Same with that "Killer Tomatoes" movie from early in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 17, 2017 21:09:16 GMT
most recently Blade Runner 2049. A very smart sequel that expanded on the world of Blade Runner that didn't mesh with most movie goers. Yes, it was challenging at times but thats what made it so good. I guess audiences prefer "dumb fun" stuff like Fast & Furious or Thor . smh oh well. and to a lesser extent, TRON: Legacy (wasn't technically a flop for Disney but they were expecting it to make much more money than it did). I freaking love this film. Great cast, booming soundtrack by Daft Punk , great visuals etc. The original was a box office dud and they waited 35 years to make a sequel. Not much of a mystery, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by _ on Nov 17, 2017 21:14:12 GMT
Battleship (2012) = better than all of the Transformers movies combined
Megamind (2010) = better than just about any live action superhero film
Godzilla (1998) = better than just about any "modern day" blockbuster
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 17, 2017 21:15:53 GMT
Hard to judge without really looking into the marketing and release dates at that time. That's a bigger factor imo than if the movie is actually good. Like, the 13th Warrior is one of my favorite movies but I didn't see it until it was already on hbo back in 99-2000...so I don't recall the marketing for it and if it was poorly done or not. So while I think it's should be critically higher...I'm sure there's a reason it bombed. Love that movie as well. If I remember correctly the marketing was a bit strange. Banderas isn't who people expected to lead a sword and sandals type of flick. When you think about it, how do you market that flick without giving too much away? It's a cerebral swashbuckler if that makes sense in the least. And dare I say the American public, even pre-9/11, wasn't lining up for films featuring a Muslim central character. It also turns out there were serious problems in production but I don't remember hearing about that until after I had seen the film. It's still the best cinematic interpretation of the Beowulf saga to date. Just found the trailer. Honestly I now remember why I avoided it in theaters. That trailer is an absolute train wreck. Take my word for it, folks. The actual movie is much, much better than whatever the hell is being presented here.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 17, 2017 21:18:38 GMT
Wizard of oz which stumbled out of the very inception as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 17, 2017 21:21:56 GMT
I dont think John Carter's failure is surprising given the lack of marketing (Disney also had an embargo on reviews which likely did it no favors). Not a great movie but definitely not a trainwreck as some reviews described it to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 17, 2017 21:22:04 GMT
I want to say John Carter but I think I understand the problem. It was marketed poorly, sure, but also almost every sci fi or fantasy story written since the original book series has ripped off its ideas. So ironically it seemed derivative despite being the inspiration for most of the films it reminded people of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 17, 2017 21:40:39 GMT
The guy playing the Viking chief in the 13th Warrior would have made a decent King Conan. I think a problem with the movie is that the Vikings should have been the focus, not the outsider Banderas. The 1970 film the Last Valley is sort of a dry run for the 13th Warrior--it has Omar Shariff in the Banderas role. It is not about Vikings or arabs but there are similarities.
|
|
|
|
Post by egon1982 on Nov 17, 2017 22:07:28 GMT
Agree Spooner! it deserved to flop as it just wasn't necessary and unwanted as sometimes you can't strike lightning in a bottle twice. Ghostbusters never needed to be continued in film. They couldn't get a cast reunion together outside the video game and after Harold Ramis died any idea about a third film should have been put to rest. They had plenty of material to work with the franchise in other mediums. It didn't need saving as a film franchise. It left enough of a legacy as a pop culture icon of the 80s to stay as a two film series. The problem is film studios are too greedy for their own good and think that established franchise films coming back hold some kind of guaranteed profit margins based on brand name alone. Nobody is smart enough to look at a brand like Ghostbusters and properly and efficiently determine the best ways to utilize it based on the fanbase and the legacy it holds. Look at Back to the future as an example of utilizing the brand in ways that don't mess with the legacy it left. They show enormous respect to their fanbase coming out with different merchandise and apparel and media over the years. They know you can't recreate the magic they had so they let the franchise live on through the fans love of the trilogy. Ghostbusters did so well with the video game. They gave their fans something so authentic and respectful to the films that it's such a shame they had to go the route they did for GB2016 in order to bank off its name. I am very thankful the new film flopped at the box-office and how it killed the franchise and sometimes it's better to kill something then let it suffer. This franchise is now like a wounded half-dead animal since the Real GBs ended and nothing else good has came out in the last 25 years with the exception of the 2009 video game and the merchandise and comics by IDW, no movies since then and other games during the years have sucked and Extreme GBs was ok show and this remake flopped at the box-office. You just can't recapture the same lightning in a bottle like the original as the original focused on a brilliant mature intelligent script and reminded how well crafted it is a supernatural fantasy comedy adventure with horror trimmings, a solid cast of talented comedy actors who are given just enough space to subtly give wit around without undermining the world of the story. Has an edge to it in the original as the original is what i call great filmmaking. The new version hits some viewers in the face with painfully forced juvenile Sandler (modern Sandler mind you)-esque humor, a poorly written unfunny script, poor pacing and plus no passion but money grab is. Plus none of the edge of the original movie and a lame villain who lacks the menace of Gozer and Viggo. This shows what 80's and 90's comedy did right, and what some modern comedy is doing wrong. Not to mention shooting the logo in the dick as a bad guy which is an insult to the franchise and there is no passion in this remake and just a cash-grab made by Sony. I have a few female friends who thought this remake was poorly written, sexist towards men as one of my lady friends said it's an unfunny insult to women with such man hating agenda and well i enjoyed a few of Feig's movies, i felt he was the wrong guy for this project and even he didn't want to do it at first but he had to for the paycheck and he felt out of his comfort zone as R-rated films is what he is good at and not big budget PG-13 films as after this flopped, he should go back to original stuff. Hollywood needs to focus on making good films and focus on the new franchises like Jack Reacher, Bourne, John Wick etc. not digging up some old favorite franchises and desperately sucking the dried up blood of the corpses into some focus-group approved poorly written piece of junk. Ghostbusters is best left alone. They should had made Ghostbusters 3 like years ago like in the 90's, and now that Harold Ramis is dead so has Ghostbusters. Studios need to rediscover the spirit that made great series/movies, not keep recyling past glories. I hope some people here will understand what i am saying as the world has moved on and some franchises need to be dead and left alone only for the memory of the original to be seen/loved/watched by everyone for years to come on what quality filmmaking is all about and that i am right with my truth about why some series should be left alone as some would and not to recycle some past glories as we moved on and need some fresh new things for current film. Sometimes dead is better like Jud Crandall in Pet Sematary would say and the franchise died with Harold Ramis and any GB movie not made by him is a shitty cash grab. Even one of my favorite youtube reviewers Ocpcommunications is right and how i feel about the movie, i even rate it zero stars. Deserves to be thrown in a containment unit of other terrible remakes that came over the years like Elm Street, Poltergeist and some more and be forgotten where the original will be remembered for years to come and the remake or reboot (whatever it is) will be forgotten just like that miserably Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles spin-off show "The Next Mutation" which starred Venus and thankfully that was forgotten and number one on my worst films of 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by HumanFundRecipient on Nov 17, 2017 23:03:23 GMT
The Nice Guys
A movie that received a fair amount of promotion, was one of the "not a sequel/reboot/remake" movies that some audiences say they wanted. And with a "Certified Fresh" rating through Rotten Tomatoes, where were they? Apparently there weren't enough of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Nov 17, 2017 23:47:51 GMT
Whether it's a favorite movie of yours, or if you think it has commercial appeal (stars, formulaic story, etc)... Cutthroat Island(1995) great Pirate movie Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets(2017) just saw this today--one great scene after another, highly imaginative, good acting and plot---only drawback was Rhianna
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Nov 17, 2017 23:49:25 GMT
I feel that Tomorrowland should've been a hit what with George Clooney starring in it. Agree--Tomorrowland was a nice surprise, and that little girl was priceless
|
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Nov 17, 2017 23:50:14 GMT
I loved The Great Wall(2017) bombed here in the US but a big hit in China
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 18, 2017 0:10:44 GMT
I feel that Tomorrowland should've been a hit what with George Clooney starring in it. I'm glad Tomorrowland flopped. George's politics are terrible. Just another Hollywood liberal who I won't support.
|
|
|
|
Post by egon1982 on Nov 18, 2017 9:55:53 GMT
I feel that Tomorrowland should've been a hit what with George Clooney starring in it. I'm glad Tomorrowland flopped. George's politics are terrible. Just another Hollywood liberal who I won't support. Indeed and Spooner you agree with everything i said even how the Ghostbusters franchise died with Harold Ramis and Ocpcommunication's review?
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Nov 18, 2017 11:59:45 GMT
I'm glad Tomorrowland flopped. George's politics are terrible. Just another Hollywood liberal who I won't support. Indeed and Spooner you agree with everything i said even how the Ghostbusters franchise died with Harold Ramis and Ocpcommunication's review? Yes and no about Ghostbusters. I was always open to another Ghostbusters movie with or without Ramis. I do also think though that with Ramis gone without his input on any new movies they won't have any charm.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 18, 2017 16:59:36 GMT
Fail Safe 1964, a critical success, but did poorly at the box office. Dr Strangelove 1963, also released by Columbia won the box office race.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Nov 18, 2017 17:16:43 GMT
Fail Safe 1964, a critical success, but did poorly at the box office. Dr Strangelove 1963, also released by Columbia won the box office race. I've read that Dr Strangelove hurt Fail Safe's box office not only by coming out first and making FS seem redundant, and by making the idea of nuclear war amusing to many movie-goers. Supposedly, there was chuckling in the theater, even though FS is one of the grimmer movies ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 18, 2017 18:14:28 GMT
Fail Safe 1964, a critical success, but did poorly at the box office. Dr Strangelove 1963, also released by Columbia won the box office race. I've read that Dr Strangelove hurt Fail Safe's box office not only by coming out first and making FS seem redundant, and by making the idea of nuclear war amusing to many movie-goers. Supposedly, there was chuckling in the theater, even though FS is one of the grimmer movies ever made. There also was a legal battle delaying the release of Fail Safe. Though in retrospect it seems strange (no pun intended) that they release the parody before the serious version of the same subject. It's as if they released Airplane before Airport, or Zero Hour. I know it would be impossible though.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 18, 2017 19:18:02 GMT
The Nice Guys A movie that received a fair amount of promotion, was one of the "not a sequel/reboot/remake" movies that some audiences say they wanted. And with a "Certified Fresh" rating through Rotten Tomatoes, where were they? Apparently there weren't enough of them. I semi-blind bought that one. I'd read up on it & put off seeing in theatres & purchased on blu cold. Admittedly took me a couple viewings to nicely appreciate it. Going in my first time, I was expecting a sillier time. Now it's probably one of my top 10 of the decade. It's nuanced like The Big Lebowski.
|
|