Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2013

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Mar 1, 2013.

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

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    About a month ago, I saw the 3D trailer to Jack the Giant Slayer, and I said, "no friggin' way will this movie make a dime." The reviews are just now coming out this week, and they're very negative: "Fee, Fi, Ho, Hum," was the lead for the review on TheWrap.com, which is predicting they'll be lucky to make $30M this weekend. That's very bad for a movie that reportedly cost over $185M (plus another $50M+ in advertising), since it would need to make twice that to be on the road to profitability.

    The film I'm actually looking for is Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful, which is a very ambitious, expensive, epic fantasy that I think is one of the biggest gambles in years. By every account, and judging by the trailers and a few insiders, I think this could be a very successful film. I'm not sure if it's a billion-dollar movie, but I bet it'll get halfway there, easy. I'd be very surprised if this turns into another John Carter -- another $200+ million-dollar Disney spectacle based on an early 1900's fantasy novel series.

    I'm not getting a good vibe on the new Steve Carell/Steve Buscemi/Jim Carrey comedy The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, but I think the idea of two Las Vegas magicians declaring war on each other is actually pretty funny, and I'm rooting for it to succeed. Still, the last few Jim Carrey movies have not done well, so I think it'll be an uphill battle.

    The new Dreamworks movie, The Croods, looks like a total dud to me. I don't know who wants to see this film, and I think it's gonna do even worse than Rise of the Guardians (which was such a bomb, Dreamworks' stock took a nosedive and they're now laying off people from their animation division).

    There are some movies that come out that I have zero interest in seeing, but I don't doubt there'll be a market for them. One is the new one from Stephanie Meyer (the author of the Twilight series), The Host, which I think is an interesting idea: an alien race takes over almost every human body on the planet, but one of the few people left finds his old girlfriend and tries to rekindle a romance... and her old self tries to emerge from the alien mind inside her head. I really hate the Twilight movies, but this is at least an original idea to me.

    The sequels to previous blockbusters usually bore the hell outta me. Who wants to see another installment of G.I. Joe? I'm clearly not that market. But I do look forward to the new Iron Man, which is essentially the same idea, done with a lot more style and panache, and Robert Downey, Jr. is always fun to watch.

    I'm already on record as saying that The Great Gatsby will be the bomb of the year. I just shake my head at the thought that you could take a classic American novel set in the roaring 20s, shoot it in digital 3D with fast-paced cutting, and use Jay-Z hip-hop music on the soundtrack. To me, this might go down as one of the biggest trainwrecks in film history... but I've been wrong before. It's not a movie I have any interest in seeing, and all I can say is, the audience I was with a few weeks ago got very, very quiet when this trailer was running. Boredom? Shock? Interest? Hard to say, but they weren't cheering.

    I think Hangover III and Star Trek: Into Darkness are slam-dunks. They'd have to be huge stinking goat t@rds in order to flop, and I think both directors can be counted on to deliver something reasonably satisfying for these audiences. Man of Steel, the Superman reboot, is a much bigger gamble, and I'm kind of on the fence about it. Are audiences burned out on the whole superhero thing yet? Maybe they'll see Superman as being too old fashioned now. I'm hoping it's great, but I dunno.

    World War Z, the Brad Pitt apocalyptic zombie movie, looks like another big gamble to me. The public has seen zombie movies a million times now, and Walking Dead is one of the most popular shows on TV. I dunno if they'll be willing to pay ten bucks to see essentially the same thing in theaters... but Brad needs a hit, and I don't doubt they'll be pushing this one pretty hard. I think it's iffy.

    The other movie of the year I think is a tremendous gamble is Lone Ranger, and if I were a betting man, I'd say no: modern-day audiences don't want to see a $200M Western. I think if this were a much more scaled-down movie, without tons of digital effects and explosions, it might eventually be profitable. What I see in the trailer just reminds me of Cowboys & Aliens, only without the aliens.

    I'm looking forward to Kickass 2 later on in the summer, though I know the first movie was very controversial around here (and hated by a few critics, particularly Roger Ebert). I dunno; the kids are getting a little older, and it's not quite as cute to see a 16-year-old girl shooting up bad guys than it is a 13-year-old girl. I'm rooting for it to win, and at least it's not a hugely expensive film.

    The last 2013 film I'm really looking forward to is Ender's Game, which is a movie they've been talking about making for more than 30 years. It's a weird story of a group of children being trained on a space station to fight a huge war with aliens -- kind of like Starship Troopers, only with 12-year-olds -- and I think it'll be a very tough movie to pull off. They did at least increase the age of the lead kid, who was initially an 8-year-old genius. I think this works much better as a film (similar to how they increased the age of the little girl vampire in Interview with a Vampire), but the grim nature of the material and the lack of blow-'em-up space battles may disappoint audiences.

    Any more predictions? I emphasize that I'm only talking about whether these movies are going to make money; we all know there's tons of great movies that initially bomb, and nowadays there's even more movies that make lots of dough despite totally sucking. I'm not necessarily gifted with a crystal ball, but I'd be very surprised if my crystal ball is far off on these predictions.
     
  2. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Nice write up!+++

    I agree with your thoughts here. The Lone Ranger might have worked as a $70 million dollar movie. But $200? That's seems like a stretch. The most successful Western I recall recently was True Grit, which pulled in some big numbers—but not big enough to save a movie that costs this much. On the other hand I like Gore Verbinsky, and enjoyed Rango. Maybe that one grossed more? And what were the final numbers for Cowboys and Aliens?


    True Grit

    Domestic Total Gross: $171,243,005
    Distributor:Paramount Release Date:December 22, 2010
    Genre: Western Runtime: 1 hrs. 50 min.
    MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $38 million

    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: $171,243,005 68.2%
    + Foreign: $79,880,786 31.8%
    = Worldwide: $251,123,791
     
  3. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

  4. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

  5. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    As you say, audiences have been very quiet for all of the trailers for Gatsby. You can almost feel them thinking ?????, which is what I'm thinking too. Maybe it'll work, but it seems like a real head scratcher, just like a $200m Jack in the Beanstalk.

    Fee-fie, ho-hum. lol!
     
  6. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Yeah, and I know there were many, many conversations at Disney before the film went into production. They even killed it at one point, only to revive it with a lower budget... which it quickly exceeded. I dunno: I think Lone Ranger would be a tough movie to make a profit even if it cost "only" $100 million. Note that something like Django: Unchained cost $100M and has now made a whopping $381M (and rising). I expect it'll crack $500M with home video, which is very successful by any measure. But Lone Ranger seems like a sure bomb to me.

    I run hot and cold with Johnny Depp, though I think he's a very fine actor. Dark Shadows was just awful to me -- I don't know what they were thinking.

    Cowboys & Aliens failed I think for similar reasons to John Carter: just a humorless film that was very bland for the most part, with a kind of grim central character and very little sense of fun. (I'm not saying every adventure movie has to be fun, but I think it has to have some moments like that, in between the suffering, explosions, and action.) And I also think both of these movies suffered from a dozen producers and lots and lots of tinkering with the script that made everything muddled and confused in the end. The casting and script were the biggest problems in both, and I think it showed in the trailers and in the final films.

    The recent book John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood goes into great detail as to several big theories on why the movie failed. I don't agree with the author's premise that it was basically a good film that died because of bad marketing, but I agree that the studio's indifference and management change hurt it quite a bit, as did its lack of social marketing. But I think both it and Cowboys & Aliens had the wrong tone, just a weird attitude that did not make them appealing to audiences.

    Jack the Giant Slayer certainly looks like a fun movie, but at some point, it just becomes stupid. I don't get movies like Clash of the Titans, especially when they wind up looking like generic cookie-cutter imitations of Lord of the Rings and The 300; I didn't like the latter film, but I knew the moment I saw the visuals that it was a very striking, very commercial action movie.
     
  7. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Jack and the Giant Slayer panned by the LA Times...

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-giant-slayer-review-20130301,0,6320761.story

    Nothing Magic About Jack

    By Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Film Critic
    February 28, 2013, 3:59 p.m.

    Pity poor Jack. There he was, minding his own business in some dusty fairy tale book when the powers that be dragooned him into active service as the front man for the would-be blockbuster "Jack the Giant Slayer."
    Of course, Jack's been through the Hollywood shuffle before. Research reveals that he appeared in an Edison film as far back as 1902 and that his story has been embraced by talents as diverse as Gene Kelly, Chuck Jones and the Three Stooges. But there may never have been a Jack tale that delivered so little pleasure for so many dollars as what we have here.
    With a budget estimated in the $190-million range, this "Jack" does have all things money can buy, including a hoard of computer-generated giants given to throwing burning trees around when they don't get what they want, which happens more than you might think.
    PHOTOS: Scenes from 'Jack the Giant Slayer'
    Aside from being very big, with feet the size of tables and bad teeth suitable for biting off human heads, these giants run to the uncouth and the grotesque: If there is a character name stranger than Gen. Fallon's Small Head, I want to know about it.
    It's not only Jack who deserves some pity but also directorBryan Singer, who somehow convinced himself that this benighted project was worth his time. Singer has come quite a ways since his 1993 Sundance Film Festival victory with "Public Access" and his double-Oscar winning "The Usual Suspects," and his big-budget X-Men movies have always been smartly entertaining. With some momentary exceptions, "Jack the Giant Slayer" simply isn't any fun.
    Any script with five writing credits (screenplay by Darren Lemke and Christopher McQuarrie and Dan Studney, story by Lemke and David Dobkin) has a lot of explaining to do, and "Jack" illustrates why more usually equals less in this department.
    The indifferent, unsurprising script that these men cobbled together has all the earmarks of being an assignment, an exercise in the arbitrary with no organic reason for being. If any human being (I can't speak for giants) had even a moment of personal passion about this project, the evidence is not on the screen.....It's not a good sign for a movie when a large beanstalk is more interesting than many of its characters.
     
  8. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Forgot about Django! That was maybe the most successful Western of all time at this point? Maybe Dances with Wolves adjusted for inflation beats it? Don't know....
     
  9. benjaminhuf

    benjaminhuf Forum Resident

    Surprisingly negative review of Oz from The Hollywood Reporter. Ouch:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/oz-great-powerful/review/425417

    Oz the Great and Powerful: Film Review
    9:00 PM PST 2/28/2013 by Todd McCarthy
    The Bottom Line

    Oz ain't what it used to be.
    A miscast James Franco and a lack of charm and humor doom Sam Raimi's prequel to the 1939 Hollywood classic.

    Oz the Wimpy and Weak would be more like it.
    A sadly unimaginative prequel to the 1939 perennial that remains one of the few Old Hollywood films that many modern kids continue to see, this long-in-the-works effects extravaganza feels stillborn from its opening minutes and never springs to life, even with the arrival of the witches and the flying monkeys. Fatally miscast as the con man wizard, James Franco possesses none of the charm and humor necessary to carry Oz the Great and Powerful. All the same, eager children undoubtedly will go along for the ride and probably be fine with it, meaning that Disney -- with the help of a relentless promotional campaign, built-ininterest and general anticipation -- might attract a big enough portion of its billion-dollar Alice in Wonderland audience from the same release date three years ago to succeed in spite of the deficiencies of what's onscreen.
    “I'm just not the man you wanted me to be,” Franco's Kansas conjurer confesses well into his attempt to transform himself into a wizard come to rescue Oz from the torments of the witch, and this is certainly not the film many longtime L. Frank Baum fans will have wanted to see. Just as dispiriting as Walter Murch's 1985 revisitation, Return to Oz, SamRaimi's oddly stilted production is, both in structure and some specifics, a vague rehash of Victor Fleming's beloved classic, only with the wizard character, rather than Dorothy, being introduced to the wonders and terrors of Oz.
    Instead of soaring off into some exciting, unexplored territory, the script by Mitchell Kapner (The Whole Nine Yards) and David Lindsay-Abaire (Rabbit Hole, Robots) ties itself too closely to its progenitor, mirroring some scenes in action (a tornado blowing the title character from Kansas to Oz, the wizard bestowing parting gifts on minions) and even dialogue (the wizard's repeated use of the phrase, “Where I come from,” among others) without ever coming up with anything sparklingly original of its own. This is a rehash and a hodgepodge of the original, minus the ruby slippers and glorious songs....
     
  10. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I am going to disappointed if Jack stinks. I've been waiting for months for a new family picture. I so bloody sick of dreamworks animation clones with a wiseacre yet socially concious teen as its protagonist that I could scream. I was hoping jack might have some real thrills, but this latest trailer seems loaded with the same old jokes( how many times do I have to see the sword/spear landing between the legs, almost hitting someones' you know what's, joke? Does every movie have to use that joke? if Jack comes out generic story wise, you can't point the finger at anyone but Hollywood itself. All the plots and characters are just run together anymore in one great big cookie cutter style. No wonder were left here at the forum reliving the greatest movies of the 70s!

    Edit: oh, and now the Oz I've been waiting for has been given the same generic treatment? Great!
     
  11. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Doh, that's a scary/bad review of Oz! I'll be disappointed if that happens, and I have to admit, Todd McCarthy is generally one of my favorite critics. I just told a friend of mine on the phone today, "my biggest worry is that James Franco isn't a big enough actor to pull this off." And apparently McCarthy thinks that's the case. I had heard that Robert Downey was Raimi's first choice, followed by Johnny Depp, but each passed, leaving the role to Franco. Downey would've been close to my idea of a whimsical, sarcastic fake wizard thrown into this world. The review goes on to say about Franco and the cast:

    The actors seem like an understudy filling in for a big star in a role that demanded one. There's no delight in Oz's deceptions, no sense that this guy could sell anything to anybody. His vocal readings have a sameness to them that is lulling.

    I'm going to hope maybe it's still got some positive things to show for it, and plan to see it anyway when it opens.
     
  12. lugnut2099

    lugnut2099 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Missouri
    Well, I haven't seen trailers for a lot of these films and don't really know enough about a few others, so I'll trust your judgment, but I think I'm gonna disagree with you on Oz and Hangover III - to an extent.

    Oz is definitely a gamble, but one I don't think will pay off (and that was before I read the review posted up there). It just doesn't seem like anyone is capable of doing this type of movie with any of that "fairy-tale charm" that these movies need to work anymore without goth-ing it all up or somehow sucking all the fun out of it even when it's aggressively trying to be fun. The trailers for this gave me a bit of a Return to Oz vibe, and we know how well that one did (and how many nightmares it still gives kids of the '80s, heh).

    As for Hangover III, I'm sure it will do okay and not be a bomb or anything, but I think a serious backlash has set in against the series. The second one did well, sure, but it seems like most people didn't really like it that much and thought it was too much "more of the same," which this one surely will be too. Add in to that all the crappy imitators that have came along since the first film and I think people just might be burned out on it at this point.
     
  13. kwadguy

    kwadguy Senior Member

    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    I saw the preview...same reaction in the theater that you experienced...But I will say that as the preview played, all I could think of was the Robert Redford turkey and that the stench of that one remained nearly 40 years later...But of course, the people they hope will pay to see this new version with Jay Z music weren't even born then.
     
  14. brew ziggins

    brew ziggins Forum Prisoner

    Location:
    The Village
    Astute analysis Vidiot. I quite liked The Lone Ranger trailer, and think the movie could do well, but didn't know they sank $200MM into it. That's a big matzoh ball to have hanging out there.

    You're probably right about Gatsby, but I'm rooting for it. Baz puts it all on the screen.
     
  15. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
    Hasn't Jack The Giant Killer been sitting on the shelves for two years or something? I thought they made that film quite a while ago? The giants just look like rip-offs from Troll Hunter.

    A lot of the movies for 2013 have been held back for re-shoots such as World War Z (I think they have totally changed the movie) and the next GI Joe.

    I think the Lone Ranger will be the stinker this year. I think anyone that can justify throwing $200 million at a western (always known as one of the cheapest genres to do) deserves a good kicking for their bare faced cheek. If it does fail then Depp needs to take a lot of the blame ($50 million worth) and seriously re-evaluate his career.

    I think we are going to see a lot of bafflement this year.
     
  16. Oatsdad

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

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    The head-scratcher to me with "Gatsby": I saw the trailer the other week and it said the movie was coming out at Christmas. I thought it was due in May? Was it originally supposed to come out LAST Christmas and no one bothered to update the trailer? :confused:
     
  17. Oatsdad

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

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    The CG creatures in that movie look AWFUL. Not sure who approved that work - they look like clay creatures without a semblance of realism to them. (Yeah, I know giants aren't real, but they could at least have an organic look, which they seem to lack.)

    I agree that "Jack" will probably not fare well. Not sure what audience it serves, and the trailers don't make it look very interesting...
     
  18. xdawg

    xdawg in labyrinths of coral caves

    Location:
    Roswell, GA, USA
    This is what I fear about this movie. I like Franco in some roles, but, for the most part, he comes across with a wooden disposition. I think a more dynamic personality would have been better. Regardless, I'll be seeing this one at the theater.
     
  19. dhoffa85

    dhoffa85 Well-Known Member

    no predictions, but I pretty much agree with you. will be interesting to see what happens with some of these. I will be pulling for Raimi.
     
  20. Synthfreek

    Synthfreek I’m a ray of sunshine & bastion of positivity

    Trollhunter had a budget of barely 3 million dollars. Cut it some slack. I thought it was very well done considering.
     
  21. Oatsdad

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

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Sorry for the confusion - my comment was aimed at "Jack", not "Trollhunter". "Jack" had a much bigger budget and was the target of my derision! :)
     
  22. Roland Stone

    Roland Stone Offending Member

    What's with all the fairy tale stuff these past few years? Is it the appeal of public domain properties? Hoping for a little looks-like-LOTR word-of-mouth? The ready availability of CGI? It seems like we've been deluged with the Brothers Grimm stuff.
     
  23. I agree about "The Lone Ranger". I think it's going to be this year's "John Carter".

    Ron,

    The fairytale thing was a trend that started a couple of years back (actually, I think it began with "The Brothers Grimm" that Terry Gilliam made--once again ahead of the curve).

    As I recall it was delayed about 8 months. Warner wanted to figure out a marketing strategy for the film and how to target it as they were uncertain how to sell the film and I'm sure there were probably some reshoots/adjustments to the visual effects as well.
     
  24. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK

    That could be it then. I know it sat in development hell for quite some time.
     
  25. daglesj

    daglesj Forum Resident

    Location:
    Norfolk, UK
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine