PAN: Bomb of the Year?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Oct 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I had a bad feeling about this. They started showing the trailers for the upcoming kid's movie Pan, a prequel to the classic "Peter Pan" starring Hugh Jackman as pirate Blackbeard, back in April, but then inexplicably yanked it from a summer slot and pushed it back to October. This is never a good sign.

    Rumors started flying that they were frantically reshooting and re-editing the film for a later release. It's coming out this week (more than 4 months later than originally scheduled), and the reviews are not good:

    ‘Pan’ Shaping Up to Be a Painful Flop
    From Disney animated confections to NBC live musical events, Peter Pan has inspired several big and small screen productions over the years.

    Some have been magical, others misbegotten. The latest trip to Neverland seems destined to fall into the latter category. “Pan,” an $150 million origin story about the boy who refused to grow up, is shaping up to be a painful flop. It is on track to follow the second star to the right and head straight on to a woeful $21 million this Columbus Day weekend across 3,515 locations. That means Warner Bros., the studio that greenlit the film with ambitions of turning it into a fantasy franchise, should brace itself for steep writedowns. In order for the studio to make a profit, a film like “Pan” will need to do at least $350 million to $400 million globally. A domestic debut on this level makes that figure unlikely.


    http://variety.com/2015/film/news/pan-box-office-flop-1201612622/

    'Pan' doesn't fly
    The trouble with "Pan" is that even though the characters are already well known, most of them aren't created convincingly enough here to get us emotionally involved with what they are doing. ...A little more story and less noise would also have helped "Pan." Then again, it's tough to lay out a great story when the characters are flat. ...someone needs to reassess the formula. This wasn't a movie that needed making.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_28930685/review-pan-doesnt-fly


    In possession of a title that, for many critics, will undoubtedly seem like a self-fulfilling prophecy, Pan hatches an entirely unnecessary origin story for a wonderful tale that has already been held up to the light from many different angles. Oddly repositioning Peter Pan's emergence to the World War II era and employing a barrage of sophisticated special effects to produce no magic nearly as enchanting as Tinkerbell flickering back to life in the musical stage version, this strenuous undertaking was obviously made in the hope that the global audience has an unending appetite for anything set in Neverland. But just as P.J. Hogan's similarly grandiose and ambitious Peter Pan surprisingly flopped in 2003, this one may also be headed for a low-altitude flight.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/pan-film-review-824864

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What's interesting to me is that this is the third big-budget adaptation of Peter Pan that's been attempted in the last 25 years (four, if you include the terrible NBC TV musical from a couple of years ago). Steven Spielberg's Hook, plus the 2003 Peter Pan reboot, were both disasters, critically and financially. This one has absolutely brilliant visuals, but I kept having the nagging thought that it reminded me of the 2007 bomb Golden Compass (which was a strange film, albeit an acclaimed book). I'm not enthusiastic about the 2015 version "updating" the setting to WWII London and adding in 1990s hits like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (and I'm not making that up).

    I suspect it's gonna be a weird mish-mash, but I'm inclined to go see it just for the cinematography and the effects. But only if I can't get into the limited showings of Steve Jobs.

    Trailer here:

     
    MLutthans likes this.
  2. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I think Spielberg's "Hook" is a pretty lousy movie, but it wasn't a financial "disaster": with a budget of $70 million, it made $300 million worldwide.

    It didn't do the numbers people expected, but it made a profit...
     
    Andrew likes this.
  3. redmetalmoose

    redmetalmoose Forum Resident

    Location:
    New England
    Definitely a strange movie but I wish they made a sequel when the original movie was shot a la 'Lord of the Rings'. I really believe a sequel with a cohesive script by a good screenwriter and it would have found its audience.With plenty of great source material it had the potential to be a classic fantasy franchise for years,maybe even earn enough to make their money back. Obviously,that's never gonna happen and that's too bad.It was weird,dark and different and even dared to talk of politics and religion in a kids movie.
    Didn't even need a vampire or a Marvel character.
    On second thought,maybe it did...
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
    Dubmart and Rufus McDufus like this.
  4. John54

    John54 Senior Member

    Location:
    Burlington, ON
    I love it when a movie title reviews itself.

    How long will it play in theatres before it gets the hook?

    (snicker)
     
  5. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    The book Hit and Run: How Peter Guber and Jon Peters Took Sony for a Ride in Hollywood went into quite a bit of detail on the production of Hook and what a huge problem it was for Sony. The book claimed that the stated budget of $70M was low, and because the film had been expected to make Batman-type money (the 1989 film had made $400M in theaters and another $100M in home video), $300M was a crushing blow to Akio Morita and the other Sony executives who had gambled billions investing in Columbia Pictures. From Wikipedia:

    While Hook ended up making a profit of $50 million for the studio, it was still declared a financial disappointment,having been overshadowed by the release of Disney's Beauty and the Beast and a decline in box-office receipts compared to the previous years.

    I think Spielberg was also stung by the bad reviews and the lack of award wins. As he later said: "I want to see Hook again because I so don't like that movie, and I'm hoping someday I'll see it again and perhaps like some of it."

    I know a couple of awful stories from the set of Hook, one about how difficult Julia Roberts was when she was strung up on wires as "Tinkerbell," and another about a camera assistant who got fired on the set for a focus problem. Let's just say that nobody had a good time working on that film.
     
  6. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Senior Member

    I admit I'm not very familiar with the project, but I got a vibe of someone trying to be Tim Burton. Only Tim Burton can be Tim Burton.
     
  7. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I wanna see that whale movie.
     
  8. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Peter Pan, yawn.
    Been done to death.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  9. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    It really does look beautiful judging by the trailer, but the reviews are even knocking some of the VFX, which is not good. Again, this was a $150 million movie... :sigh:
     
  10. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden MichiGort Staff

    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    I heard Max Landis on a podcast give an impromptu pitch (impromptu pitching is his "default mode") for a never-to be made Peter Pan prequel that I wanted to buy a ticket for immediately. Every trailer I see for this movie makes me want to see it less.
     
  11. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    Wow. So far, I enjoyed every movie directed by Joe Wright. From a strictly technical point of view, the guy is a master and knows how to shoot (check "Anna Karenina", please). Also, "Hanna" is a recent favourite of mine. Despite the negative reviews, I'll go to see it anyway. Heck, the fabulous Amanda Seyfried is in it, so no questions asked. Pan, take my money! :D

    Btw, I didn't see neither the trailer nor a single scene but I believe this movie is going to receive a bad press and be boycotted also because of its casting controversies..and I'll stop here. Cheers.
     
    SBurke likes this.
  12. thegage

    thegage Forum Currency Nerd

    The trailer(s) seems to be playing pretty regularly, but having seen it often I still can't tell what the movie is about other than a lot of CGI. I didn't even realize it was Hugh Jackman until about the 20th time I'd seen it. They keep saying "Pan", but the idea of Peter Pan is iconic in most people's minds for looking a certain way, and that's not what this movie is pushing. I think that disconnect alone is a signal for a flop, as I doubt the general public is hungry for a Peter Pan re-imagining.

    John K.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  13. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Great - "Hook" still wasn't a financial "disaster". Being a disappointment is far from "disaster". I don't see how a movie that turned a profit can be called a financial "disaster"...
     
    Grand_Ennui likes this.
  14. PlushFieldHarpy

    PlushFieldHarpy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Indiana
    I saw this coming after the success of the musical special on TV. Want people to register their inborn dissatisfaction with CGI movies? Put it up for a direct comparison against an old-fashioned version of the same thing.
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  15. PlushFieldHarpy

    PlushFieldHarpy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Indiana
    It certainly was an artistic disaster. That was a movie where even the people, who are much easier to please than critics, came away disappointed. And Spielberg had been hailed as Hollywood's resident genius up until that point. So yes, disaster? maybe not. But disappointment? absolutely.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  16. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I didn't debate that. I agree it's a bad movie - I said so in my first post.

    But Vidiot asserted it was a financial "disaster", though it wasn't. That was the only point I made...
     
  17. johnnyyen

    johnnyyen Senior Member

    Location:
    Scotland
    I think that's the problem. Where else can you go with this well worn subject?
     
  18. MekkaGodzilla

    MekkaGodzilla Forum Resident

    Location:
    Westerville, Ohio
    Make Peter a girl and set it in a near dystopic future.

    And add mazes. LOTS of mazes.
     
  19. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    In 3D :)
     
  20. jupiter8

    jupiter8 Forum Resident

    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Too many "manchilds" in Hollywood running things- why else would this keep getting rebooted? Even when I was a kid I didn't like the story or any version of it I ever saw.
     
  21. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Dated rubbish.
     
    mattdm11 likes this.
  22. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    The only good version of Peter Pan is the musical stage version which has great songs and fun bits like clapping your hands to bring Tinkerbell back to life. That play has a certain charm. Blowing it all out of proportion just shows the absurdity of the story.
     
  23. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden MichiGort Staff

    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    Calling it the bomb of the year before it even opens is unfair and does a great disservice to Fantastic 4 and Jupiter Ascending :laugh:
     
    ralphk, alexpop and lbangs like this.
  24. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    It's a classic story - it has nothing to do with "manchilds" in Hollywood. "Peter Pan" is an evergreen - it plays on stage constantly and remains beloved by millions.

    Which is why it gets remake/reworked: it's a proven popular property...
     
  25. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Senior Member

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    The trailer looks great to me...

    I plan to see it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine