Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2014 (Part Two)

That's surprising to me, although I know effects films go over very well in Asia, and the effects in the second half of the movie are amazing. I did enjoy the movie, its massive pretensions notwithstanding, and (as with Inception) for some reason Nolan's inability to create plausible, or even compelling, human characters doesn't get in the way of his movies being able to reach me emotionally.

 

I want to know if Scarlett had points on Lucy cause if she did, she's very happy.. that thing printed money...

 

Very true: cost $40M, made $458M worldwide. Anytime you make 10:1 what the thing cost, it's into profit. As the Zucker Brothers from Airplane said, "normally Paramount movies never made a profit, but because ours cost so little and made so much, they actually had to cut checks for everybody." Airplane cost $3.5M and made $83 million in theaters, then I think made another $50M in home video. That's the kind of success story everybody in Hollywood loves... it made more than 20 times its cost.

 

And that's the perfect model to print money. All you have to do is make a honest film with a good story and little or no sfx, use relatively unknown actors, all to keep the costs way down and release it as widely as possible. It's bound to make money. The only wrinkle is, it probably wouldn't get a wide distribution as it isn't an over hyped tentpole extravaganza, but even so, it should be very profitable overall, if the production costs are low.

 

Ouija - 5 mil budget - 65 worldwide and counting.
Conjuring - 20 mil budget - 318 Worldwide
Annabelle - 6.5 mil budget - 244 Worldwide Yikes!! James Wan produced - he must have had points on that and is smiling all the way to the bank.

so the lesson is... horror!!! get a camcorder and go make a crappy horror film cause when they hit , they hit big...

 

All these type of movies will run there course.
I am getting bored with this comes from a horror junky.

 

The Hunger Games series continues to pull in some serious $$, 275 million worldwide in week 1.

 

must be the leaked naked photos!

 

and makes sure it's shaky! and one wonders why they keep making these style movies...

 

nice to a positive for a change...

 

no likely...

 

I agree 100%, but that would make too much sense...
Sadly the films that should be doing well aren't, and the ones that shouldn't be are.

 

How is the 'Dumb & Dumber To' box office? Went with The Wife last night & we laughed until we cried. Theater was packed & howling with laughter.

 

Too true. With respect to the latest The Hunger Games, it's making good coin despite lukewarm reviews. I actually did like the previous films quite a bit, mainly for Lawrence, who is charismatic and an a very good actor. However, the latest movie (Part 1) has been criticized for being too much of a filler, where noting much happens until the next installment (Part 2).

Clearly, this Part 1, Part 2 business is just that - business. A cynical ploy to extract more money. I wouldn't mind if both movies can stand alone as good movies, but from what I've read, this doesn't appear to be the case. Which is why I've decided not to see Part 1 now, but wait till Part 2 is out and then watch them back to back.

 

The Truman Show was nominated for many awards and was produced for around $60 million making $240. Million.

 

From Box Office Mojo:

"After opening in first place last weekend, Dumb and Dumber To fell victim to some poor word-of-mouth in its second outing. The comedy sequel plummeted 62 percent to an estimated $13.8 million, which brings its 10-day total to $57.5 million. With Horrible Bosses 2 on the horizon, it's very unlikely that Dumber To comes close to $100 million."

 

When studio exec Jeffrey Katzenberg was head of Disney's studio in the early 1990s, he issued a manifesto about how they had to stop hiring expensive actors and spending tons of money on films, make honest movies about real people with an eye towards economy, and their first production with that idea was The Rocketeer. And that was a well-intentioned but fairly-big bomb.

I think the reality is that there is no formula to success. You can always say "we just need a good story with good actors," but that's a very wide target that's hard to hit consistently. Several major corporations (like Panasonic and Coca-Cola) invested in the movie business thinking it was like manufacturing widgets, but quickly discovered that creativity is a moving target and that there are absolutely no guarantees.

What baffles me is when they make temp Previz versions of major films that are about 80% identical to the finished film, and it's clear that the core ideas of the movie really suck, but then they go out and make the movie anyway. John Carter is the biggest example of that, and the latest estimates are that it wasted $306M of the studio's money. The only reason Disney didn't take a torpedo on that is because of the Marvel movies that came out soon afterwards. I'm not sure John Carter would've made money even if it just cost half as much.

 

we liked it but, where did the 306 mil go? WOW!

 

another excellent movie...

 

Into The Wood will bomb bad.

 

crystal ball working?

 

I really enjoyed The Rocketeer, an underrated classic in my book. Sure it was cheesy and a throw-back, but it had heart and was a lot of fun.
As for John Carter, I thought it was a giant mess of a movie... which is too bad because it had potential to be a successful franchise.

 

that's the popular sentiment...I liked it, and found nothing wrong with it really...

 

Yep, agreed on both counts. There's a short list of failed movies out there where nobody can quite put their finger on why they bombed. The Rocketeer is one of them. I'd guess the stars didn't quite have the panache to pull it off, which is unfortunate because it's a good idea for a film and certain elements -- like the VFX and music -- were fantastic.

 

I agree.

However, "Into The Woods" will likely be a moderate sized hit.