Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2015

I'm still going to give it a chance, but I don't know how receptive the public would be to another FF reboot if this one fails.

 

I have to disagree with you on the first two Harry Potters. I think they're the weakest of the series and quite a snooze to sit through. Though I think he does deserve much credit for the casting.

 

Meh. The first Potters are probably the weakest of the series, and I'm not sure Columbus ever directed a genuine "good movie". Some are better than others but all have too many flaws...

 

I want to see sold ticket numbers, not how much money they make. Totally irrelevant as the prices are jacked up every year and IMAX and 3D is more expensive etc

 

It's really a step down from what he has directed in past Gremilns and other movies
That we all remember. I enjoyed first Harry Potter movies.
Maybe it's time put away the director chair.
He's kinda of wearing out his welcome.
I just see him as director more concerned with a paycheck.
Than being creative anymore.

 

Columbus wrote "Gremlins" but didn't direct it - Joe Dante directed the movie.

"Adventures in Babysitting" was CC's first directorial effort...

 

However you can see every dollar of that $300 Million spent in Spectre! You really can't say that about most of those big budget films that have come out! And with what Daniel Craig and to greater extent Sam Mendes have done with the Bond franchise (Mendes with Skyfall) Audiences are getting pumped for more Bond because he is not a Comic book Character anymore. I think Worldwide it will easily hit at least $700 Million, U.S. $200 Million. (I'm being conservative with my estimates but those totals could go higher until Star Wars comes out.)

 

My mistake anyways I think he should call it a day.

 

The last Bond film made it to $1.1.08 billion, making it the biggest Bond of them all. I suspect with a $300M+ pricetag, Spectre will have to at least match that to meet expectations. Realistically, it'll have to make $800M just to break even, which is very scary.

It's true that they're pushing "Large Format Premium Theaters" at every opportunity. To me, those theaters represent what we already should be getting for free. I kind of resent them puking out all this Fake Imax stuff on us. But at the same time, I can't deny that some of the premium theaters do look and sound fantastic. In particular, the AMC Premiere theaters are fantastic -- the one in Burbank has electric seats, 20,000 watts of sound, great acoustics, and brilliant images.

"It has electric seats... and mohair suits... you know I read it in a maga-ziIIINNNE..."

Eh, Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire were OK. Columbus is one of the rare directors on earth to be in the multi-billion-dollar club in terms of commercial success. And he produced The Help, which was nominated for an Oscar. And Gremlins (which he co-wrote) is kind of a classic of sorts. The worst criticism you could say about Columbus is that he makes mass-market populist films designed to make a lot of money, which is not that big a deal.

 

$300M just for physical production -- no promo, no overages, no distribution. Spectre is a really expensive film. There were a lot of anguished Sony emails about it last year during the hacker attack, and the memos have yielded much interesting information (including an incomplete script). Christoph Waltz is a fantastic actor and it's hard to imagine somebody better as a Bond villain.

Ant-Man was always a gamble. From my perspective, he was kind of a D-list superhero character at best -- albeit an interesting one with a long history in comics.

The film "only" cost $130M, and it's made $237M so far. If they can squeeze out $300M worldwide, it'll do a little better than break even, but no way will it even get close to Spiderman, Iron Man, or Avengers territory. Still, the character is a part of the Avengers comic, so it figures they needed to introduce him in order to prepare audiences for the storyline.

 

Crazy! There is NO justification for spending that much on a character whose appeal is so strictly limited to the English-speaking world!

I'm guessing, though, that they got 20% of the budget back from the UK government for filming there?

 

Explained in this article about the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which (according to officially released figures) may have been the most expensive motion picture ever made, with negative costs of $410 million:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2...pensive-movie-ever-with-costs-of-410-million/

Depp alone was paid $55 million.

Note that Forbes's findings contradict the studio's own claims that the film cost less than half that much (and less than the previous Pirates movie, which has been reported to have cost in the neighborhood of $300 million).

 

I thought you were talking about Bond?

 

I was, I assumed you were questioning my question about the 20% tax rebate. If you're questioning my assertion that Bond is basically only popular in the English-speaking world, maybe I'm wrong about that, but the foreign grosses have never been stellar -- except for Skyfall which is kind of an outlier and had a brilliant marketing campaign. Anyway, there's little indication that the foreign audience is big enough to justify a $300 million Bond movie.

 

No, the worst criticism of CC is that he made some genuinely terrible movies like "Stepmom" and "Bicentennial Man".

"Gremlins" is easily the best film that CC had anything to do with...

 

"Skyfall" made $800 million outside of the US. Do you think it made all $800 million of that in English-speaking countries?

 

As I said, it's an outlier. No other Bond movie has ever made anywhere near that much. Even in America, Skyfall made almost twice as much as the next most successful Bond movie. It had the benefit of truly spectacular trailers.

Much of that audience will not be back for this one. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be a hit. But not of the size that they're expecting.

 

Let me fix that for you:

No, the worst criticism of CC is that he made some genuinely terrible movies like "Gremlins".
"Bicentennial Man" is easily the best film that CC had anything to do with...

 

Hey now, Gremlins is cool, I will send you cute cuddly creature.
I send it plently of food.
I have screenplay I wrote for possible wish movie.?
So if they buy, it. I will force many tickets on you through the mail
everyday........ Deesky.

 

I pour cold water on that idea.

 

"Bicentennial Man" is crap of the crappiest order...

 

Wow, genius reply. Your basically defending a silly, puerile, throwaway movie (Gremlins) to a sensitive, emotional movie exploring intellectual concepts and themes. Okaaay.

 

Because "let me fix that for you" was so brilliant?

No, I'm "defending" a fun and clever comedy-horror flick and criticizing a sentimental, mawkish piece of cheese.

Just because a movie "explores" intellectual concepts and themes doesn't mean it does it well. "Bicentennial Man" lacked any insight or depth - it was just pandering nonsense...

 

Well you have the US and then the rest of the world so I'd say it might make more then in the US, yes.