|
Not having seen it, there wasn't much in the trailer material to really get me excited. The teaser stuff was actually quite nice because it didn't actually feature any super powers at all. You could kind of get lost in the idea that it was some space tragedy instead. But as soon as my brain kicked in and said this was a movie about a guy who can stretch I realized I never wanted to see this movie. He's inherently goofy and the whole thing is inherently goofy. But the whole teaser was ominous and serious so it never felt like it could work. I'm probably the only person kind of warm to the previous Fantastic Four movies. I'd never recommend them to someone but they were an honest effort for the goofy premise. The first one is almost even good because of Johnny and Thing. But Jessica Alba is the prettiest worst actress working today and there's just a few too many segments that are awful in script and execution. But I never thought those movies would be better if they were more serious. Just like Green Lantern wouldn't have been better if it was more serious. If your guy has Stretch Armstrong limbs you can't make it Batman in tone.
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Even before this tanked, he already got himself fired from directing the Boba Fett movie, not sure how many big studios are going to be willing to work with him after that combination. Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical that the studio destroyed a "good" film. If Disney stops by and cancels their deal with Trank based on what was going on I think it signals a truth to things not working out. Makes me wonder if there has ever been a director's cut that actually made a bad film legitimately good. I know power have said Highlander 2 Renegade but that movie is still terrible, just tons less awful than the theatrical version. The Exorcist prequel thing was interesting and the original is better than Harlin's version, but it's still not very good and most of it feels like an Omen movie. The core idea is strong and it has a few really good scenes but the exorcism itself isn't very disturbing in execution or dialogue and the mass panic concept doesn't gel with the previous movies. Are there really any game changing director's cuts? Edit: it's a fun mental exercise thinking of the journey where Harlin gets brought in to fix select scenes of The Exorcist and it just spirals out of control until you have two uniquely shot movies. Maybe it all starts with "what if it was a woman instead of a boy?". Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:See, I think the opposite question is just as valid: Can anybody think of an example where a studio took a film away from the director and made a successful go of it? Because the failure rate would seem to be so high that the studios would be better off just going with the original work and making the best of it in marketing. Most of the examples are studio-forced casting choices which in retrospect turn out to be far better than the director's choice. But that's a crapshoot because plenty of times the person forced in can be terrible. And there's more than a few examples of director's cuts being bloated and including really bad storylines with the caveat that many (most?) DCs are just non-director-driven padding to make home releases more attractive. But studios often push for new endings which sometimes work out far better in the end. Army of Darkness and Final Destination spring to mind. It's a crapshoot for when they hurt and when they help but filmmaking is a collaborative process and they sometimes, sometimes bring something to the table other than money and connections.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:Fair points, but I'm specifically talking about instances where a studio takes the film away from the director and re-edits/reshoots the film without their cooperation or consent. It seems like that almost always raises more problems with the film itself than it solves, at a higher cost and at a risk of extremely bad buzz. I think most times it's that they feel they'll make zero dollars and just want to boost it to disappointing dollars. That said, I know WarGames was interfered into success and I think Dredd was taken away from the director and most people like the results.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Has a major tentpole movie ever actually done what Fox was claiming Fantastic 4 would do? Bomb opening weekend, but then redouble with a 200+% increase the second week and go on to be a success? I literally can't think of it ever happening. That big an increase? Probably not a tentpole but there are some movies which did big increases without adding theaters. But they've been at most mid level movies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_weekend_in_box_office_performance Edit: it should be mentioned that the common factor is usually a Christmas release, which behaves strangely for obvious reasons. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:The only thing that's completely unexplainable on there is the $211 million "distribution fee" paid by ??? to ??? for ??? I think that's the line item for the studio itelf. It's all the infrastructure (vps, secretaries, studio-ish clout) that they're supposed to bring to the game that lets Harry Potter come out in November on thousands of screens and in the public awareness. It's also unattributed and seems to be variable so it's a black hole to soak up potential profits before they're shared. From what I understand, when an indie production company makes a movie and shops it around, the Miramax or Weistein that picks it up fills in that line item. Which is separate from all the prints and advertising and such, just their costs to be able to get poo poo done as the middleman between the people who make the movie and the theaters who show it. Some notes comparing things to Box Office Mojo: Seems like there's a 54% split with domestic theaters and 45% split with foreign back to the distributor which seems high but the series had a lot of clout back then so they likely were able to strongarm theaters a lot with that. The "30%" note in the document doesn't make a lot of sense because I can't find any way to interpret $162M domestic theatrical as 30% of anything. It made $292 Domestic, $647 foreign, and $939 worldwide so it seems like they split 54% and 45%. It's my understanding that typical non Avengers scale movies do much worse than that. Other notes, BOM has the production budget as $150m but this has the negative costs as $315m so either a bunch of kids and British actors had incredible up front deals or the production company has their own black hole. I had understood that Box Office Mojo's production budget included star salaries so who knows? Seems like it would be a system that one guild or another would have sued into transparency long ago but I'm guessing that given their product is generically "movies" their stars and directors are fundamentally interchangeable so they trample anyone with bad agents until they become irreplaceably huge names and then make them producers so they then become part of the system. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 21:55
|
|