Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2015

There's a big difference between a farce that doesn't have an explosion and a bad movie. Depp's done four bombs in a row: Dark Shadows, Lone Ranger, Transcendence, and The Rum Diary. If Mortdecai tanks, it'll be five in a row.

 

Nope and nope. But it might be so bad that it will become a cult favorite in a few years.

 

The director is great with action, always taking the unexpected path. If married with a good story I think it will do better than Elysium, but maybe not by much. Then again Hugh Jackman may be enough of a draw, but the bad-guy role may turn otherwise Jackman fans off.

John K.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. But I should also add that when I watch a movie I don't really care how much money it's going to make, I only care whether I enjoy it or not.

 

Unfortunately...they don't make movies just for you.

That's the problem for Depp and the studio.

 

That elicited a few smirks from me, so it could be fun. I'll check it out. How much it makes is irrelevant to me. It also looks like it might be chock-full of invisible CGI vfx.

 

Really? They don't make movies JUST FOR ME!? I had no idea!

 

Oh, I'm the same way. There's plenty of outright bombs I'll go out of my way to see because I like the filmmaker or I like the idea for the movie. I don't go to see films based on how much money they're going to make; in fact, I stayed away from a lot of huge 2014 hits including Transformers and Hunger Games because they're just not my thing. I saw the first couple, kinda went "eh" and stayed home.

But the title of the thread is Predicting Movie Hits and Bombs, so it's kind of the point of the thread: which movies will make big money, and which will flop? It's not that much different from handicapping sports teams or figuring out which artist will have a big album this year. It's all part of pop culture, and it's a separate issue from artistic success or even subjective enjoyment. There's all kinds of movies for all kinds of people out there, and not all movies will appeal to all audiences, make money, and/or get critical success.

 

Oh yeah, I know the purpose of the thread. My take on Mortdecai is it probably won't make any money (I'm not sure if the R Rating will help or hinder) but based on the trailer it looks like something I might personally find amusing. So, whether it flops or breaks even or whatever I'll probably still watch it at some point.

 

they make movies for all of us my friend!

 

flop? I'll watch it when it comes out on home video...I don't follow the reviews.

 

my sentiments exactly, but I like those big blockbusters...they are entertaining!

 

I did in the 1970s and 1980s, but sometime in the 1990s I began to realize that we really need all kinds of movies in theaters: small films, little comedies, indie dramas, documentaries, horror movies, historical films, all kinds of stuff. Having nothing but blockbuster action films and tentpole franchises out there is like a steady diet of cheeseburgers: they're great a few times a month, but awful 7 days a week. I think it's bad for the movie business, and it's just a matter of time before we run into a Heaven's Gate scenario where one or two films tank so badly, they bankrupt another studio.

 

at the prices they charge for admission they IMO have to make it a shock and awe experience ...if I want to see an artsy, etc. movie I'll get it on DVD as I want to be able to enjoy it in peace not be subjected to a modern theater audience...it's not like the old days when an usher used to walk up and down the aisles with a flashlight keeping things in check...hey! put your feet down! Quiet! what a different world today, eh?

 

Spielberg, Lucas, and some of the other now-old-school filmmakers have said that they wished that studios would have "multiple-tiered" ticket pricing, so that if you went to see a $200M movie like The Hobbit, the ticket would be $15, but if it were a more-modest $50M comedy, it'd be $10, and then if it were a small $5M indie film, it'd be $5-$6. Maybe this is a fairer way to charge, based on how much the movie actually cost. But old traditions die hard, and one ticket price (other than Imax/large format theaters/3D) has been the norm for a long time.

 

I just read that "Taken 3" is projected to pull in about $40 million this weekend. Given the reviews I have seen, I am very surprised. Still, good for Liam Neeson.

Btw, found this chart on some recent films of Liam Neeson....none of them has a production budget over $50 million....

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=liamneeson.htm

 

I don't mind the shock and awe, I just wish they'd combine with real story and characters like they used to. I lose a lot of hours in a day that the Indiana Jones or Back to the Future trilogies come on TV. That's one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Christopher Nolan; I think he's one of the few filmmakers still trying to balance it all out. About artsy movies in the theater, I feel very fortunate that in LA we have excellent theaters around where the audience is mindful most of the time so even the indie films are a great experience on the big screen.

 

yes, a rarity these days...

 

good for Liam! love the guy!

 

LOL! that's the funniest thing I've read all day! thanks.
can we up the GREED?!

 

American Sniper off to a huge first week of $80 million.

 

Neeson was asked in a public forum why he made 'Taken 3' and he rubbed his thumb against his index and middle fingers!

 

I want another Darkman.

 

How quickly we forget the majesty that is Tusk.

 

Fifty Shades Of Grey is the fastest selling R-Rated film in Fandango history.

"Fifty Shades” is having the biggest first week of ticket sales on Fandango for a non-sequel film since the first “Hunger Games” movie debuted in 2012. The demand is causing theater owners in all fifty states to offer new showtimes."