|
Shageletic posted:Lol Sexy lady with guns kill people.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:Another reschedule to 2025 Lost me at Len Wiseman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I like them tbh. i'm brave enough to say they wrote many good songs. i'll say it out loud. muscles like this! posted:It is kind of weird out of all the characters in Borderlands they decided to have Krieg be one of the main characters of the movie. Also his actor (Florian Munteanu) doesn't get credited even though everyone else does. his name was on the poster that has the characters all sitting on boxes
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:They made the alien do the Dreamworks smile?? Marketing departments have no originality, no imagination and probably no souls. Movie's actually pretty good though. muscles like this! posted:It is kind of weird out of all the characters in Borderlands they decided to have Krieg be one of the main characters of the movie. Also his actor (Florian Munteanu) doesn't get credited even though everyone else does. Wait, really? Though kinda makes sense, the oh-so-wacky masked Psychos are outright the series mascots and Krieg's whole deal is that he's a playable one. Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Feb 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 07:14
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1760455935237980445?t=-pUiNMCJFQS0iuObnjGixw&s=19 There's the meme of Sean Bean always dying in his movies but Bill Skarsgard has a really high fatality rate in his films too. At least he comes back to life in The Crow?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 08:30
|
|
|
Bill skar is playing against type by wearing white makeup and not scaring children
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 08:56
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Bill skar is playing against type by wearing white makeup and not scaring children Psyche, the gang that killed Eric Draven is portrayed by the Loser kids from It 1. They'd probably be old enough by now, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 10:34
|
|
|
I would put all of the money in the world on the post-credits for Borderlands being a Handsome Jack reveal
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Really going hard on making people think of Guardians of thr Galaxy. Not the first time I've seen someone make that comparison. And one I definitely won't disagree with it. Considering how long it has been in development it makes sense. FlamingLiberal posted:I would put all of the money in the world on the post-credits for Borderlands being a Handsome Jack reveal I honestly thought the guy with the coat was him, but I'm most definitely wrong. The plot appears to be mostly BL1. But half the characters are from BL2 so are they going to borrow bits from that too? v  v
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Makes sense that Borderlands is similar to Guardians though. Mad Max -> Farscape - > Guardians Of The Galaxy Mad Max -> Borderlands
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
I assume the movie will follow the basics of BL1’s plot but clearly they are taking liberties with the characters When I think ‘who should play Roland’, the last person would be Kevin Hart. From what i remember that character was pretty much the definition of the ‘straight man’.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
Should have been Terry Crews or Michael Jai White
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Always should be Michael jai white Man needs another big role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Always should be Michael jai white And he has incredible comedy chops! Black Dynamite!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Sexy lady with guns kill people. I've seen Wiseman's efforts there. It's only his forte in the sense that he's done it a fair bit. He isn't good at it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I hate The Beatles Whoa whoa settle down there Allen Sherman, people aren’t ready for truth bombs like this
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
Well, if you want to see Bill Skarsgård kill people... Boy Kills World trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWQorTluFs
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
The budget for Joker: Folie a Deux is $200 million, the first one's budget was $60 million https://variety.com/2024/film/news/warner-bros-spending-joker-2-budget-tom-cruise-deal-1235917640/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
Gotta spend money to make money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:Movie should end with the SNL reunion concert actually happening, ushering in a new golden age ala the ending of Gladiator. God, that reminded me of the existence of that VH1 movie about John and Paul hanging out and hashing out their issues on the same night when Lorne made that offer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:Gotta spend money to
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:The budget for Joker: Folie a Deux is $200 million, the first one's budget was $60 million Jesus, I hope Phoenix and Gaga got $75 million each, otherwise that's just insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. I'm curious when that started to change where now the original is supposed to be like the launch point for a sequel to explode at the box office and make much bigger money, therefore we can justify a much bigger budget. Someone with a better knowledge of film history would have to go over that whole dynamic and how it morphed into what it is now. Maybe Aliens and Terminator 2 were a turning point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:John Wick is basically urban fantasy with the werewolves, vampires and fairies swapped out for gangsters, assassins and aristocrats. It’s probably about time for John Wick to start hunting werewolves, isn’t it? Or space, he’s overdue to go to outer space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. I think horror movies were the origin of this. Friday the 13th had its budget doubled. Nightmare on Elm Street had it tripled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
I mean they clearly had a rough cut of the film and Stahelski saw it and was like "uhhhh nope, no way this weak action is gonna be attached to my name, we're reshooting it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:30
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. It's been a gradual thing, I think. The James Bond films are the first time I can really pin down where they'd really work to outdo each previous one in terms of scale. Jumping ahead I think Rocky III and IV were both clearly meant to be "the last one" but they made so much drat money that there had to be another. At this point home video starts to become a factor, people who missed the first in theaters might catch it at home and be interested in a sequel that way. Streaming makes the gap even smaller and that's around the time "cinematic universes" become a thing every studio is trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. Star Wars was the seismic change. The Empire Strikes Back had double the budget of ANH because with the first film everyone thought it would flop and it was given a smaller budget than Lucas's ambitions required, but with ESB it was a surefire hit and Lucas secured the funding himself and paid out of pocket when the bank cut them off. Lucas consciously avoided just repeating the first movie's formula and opened the world up to feel like there was more to explore than just a desert planet and a space station and a jungle planet. The scale was on a totally different level than Bond because it was fantasy worldbuilding where anything was possible. Bond was also a hit, but a very modest one in comparison to the industry-breaking sensation that was Star Wars. Before that, the best you had for sequels which didn't just repeat the formula was the Planet of the Apes movies which continued to be beloved by fans as they got weirder and weirder while their budgets dwindled. They got richer in thematic scope, but smaller in production scope. But they were increasingly ignored by audiences. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. Maybe T2, but Aliens only made about $4M more than Alien. Basically underperformed the original when you factor in inflation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:The budget for Joker: Folie a Deux is $200 million, the first one's budget was $60 million They've name dropped One from the Heart as an inspiration. At least they're committing to the spend a potentially studio crippling amount of money part. High Warlord Zog fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I know at some point in past eras of movie history the general perception of a sequel was that it would make as much or less than the original, but typically not more. So you were milking a success and trying to get every last drop out of it, but with the understanding that there would naturally be diminishing returns. Those are the first two big examples I can think of but even after them I don't think the general trend changed. I think it's really only with comic book movies, in particular the Raimi Spider Man movies, that it started to turn more generally Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Maybe T2, but Aliens only made about $4M more than Alien. Basically underperformed the original when you factor in inflation. go figure, it's so much more of a crowd pleaser I just assumed he was right. but i think there are two different questions here - when did sequel budgets get bigger, which yeah I think clearly started with Star Wars even if it wasn't consistent for a long time, and when did they start regularly outgrossing the first movie, which was WAY later. DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:04
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Well, if you want to see Bill Skarsgård kill people... Lmao is that h jon Benjamin voicing
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:05
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:They've name dropped One from the Heart as a inspiration. At least they're committing to the spend a potentially studio crippling amount of money part. Just watched the remaster of this in the theatre. It looked interesting but the story absolutely sucks rear end. Also, I love Tom Waits but that was slightly too much Tom Waits
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 00:13
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Lmao is that h jon Benjamin voicing It is and it is awesome
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Well, if you want to see Bill Skarsgård kill people... Might be fun
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Star Wars was the seismic change. The Empire Strikes Back had double the budget of ANH because with the first film everyone thought it would flop and it was given a smaller budget than Lucas's ambitions required, but with ESB it was a surefire hit and Lucas secured the funding himself and paid out of pocket when the bank cut them off. Lucas consciously avoided just repeating the first movie's formula and opened the world up to feel like there was more to explore than just a desert planet and a space station and a jungle planet. The scale was on a totally different level than Bond because it was fantasy worldbuilding where anything was possible. Bond was also a hit, but a very modest one in comparison to the industry-breaking sensation that was Star Wars. That would explain it. The first thing that came to mind for me was Lord of the Rings, which is a bit of a special case given it's an adaptation, but then again notable as previous adaptations of the trilogy usually had a very obvious lowering of budget as they went on if they even got that far, while Peter Jackson's Return of the King both was a box office splash and an Academy sweep, something still unheard of in fantasy genre movies let alone adaptations I'm pretty sure. I suppose there's a couple of different schools of thought with sequels; with an original that's a smash hit, you go with a 'safe' sequel while you already have all the ingredients there and keep milking it til diminishing returns hit, but then with the more serialised ones I think it's often a more unexpected success, going 'Hey, I think we've really got something here' and the sequels are a refinement and expansion of the formula rather than just a rehash, Mad Max coming to mind here where the original is actually seen as the oddball in the series and the sequels are what everyone thinks of with the signature aesthetics and tone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Jesus, I hope Phoenix and Gaga got $75 million each, otherwise that's just insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 03:35
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:That would explain it. The first thing that came to mind for me was Lord of the Rings, which is a bit of a special case given it's an adaptation, but then again notable as previous adaptations of the trilogy usually had a very obvious lowering of budget as they went on if they even got that far, while Peter Jackson's Return of the King both was a box office splash and an Academy sweep, something still unheard of in fantasy genre movies let alone adaptations I'm pretty sure. Lord of the Rings is also a special case, because originally the books were written as a single volume and Tolkien was required by the publisher to split it into three books. So while it's technically a trilogy and more or less the originator of our modern conception of the trilogy, it was really just intended and written to be three acts of a single story. So when Jackson adapted it, he more or less pushed for the same thing—there's no real sequel involved in the entire concept, just telling a full story. Star Wars solidified the idea of a "trilogy" before Indiana Jones turned it into a thing, but only because Lucas had wanted to make 9 (or sometimes 12) movies in a series, and stopped after making 3 of them because he was burnt out after a devastating divorce. Sequels had a bad reputation from the start. There were plenty of sequels before it, but Son of Kong really typified and solidified the problem of the sequel from early on. Son of Kong wanted to cash in on the success of the original and rushed a half-baked mediocre film into production in order to chase audience recency bias. A million similar cash-grabs followed suit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Star Wars solidified the idea of a "trilogy" before Indiana Jones turned it into a thing, but only because Lucas had wanted to make 9 (or sometimes 12) movies in a series, and stopped after making 3 of them because he was burnt out after a devastating divorce. I imagine he (and so many others after him) also underestimated how difficult and exhausting it would be to make that many movies. Has there ever been a franchise planned out like this that actually managed to pull it off and didn't end things after part 4 or fizzling out? And please don't say Marvel!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I imagine he (and so many others after him) also underestimated how difficult and exhausting it would be to make that many movies. Has there ever been a franchise planned out like this that actually managed to pull it off and didn't end things after part 4 or fizzling out? It's pretty common with non-movie media. If anything it's funny how Hollywood in particular is so bad at long-term planning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 06:28
|
|