Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2016

Keeping his head above water.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

 

The trailer looks baffingly stupid.

 

c'mon, we have enough problems in NC without putting in the groaners. Shessh!

 

A while back I looked at the *Top 100* grossing films for the last few years, and an appallingly HUGE percentage of them were sequels, or remakes/reboots, or book or other adaptations, or even sort of "branded" adaptations (Ouija, etc.). Very few of the films on the list were truly 100% original (and that's not even getting into an "original" film still being derivative, etc.).

For instance, for 2015 in terms of domestic gross, only ONE out of the Top 10 grossing films were original ("Inside Out"). FOUR out of the Top 20 are original, but that's only if you include real-life adaptations like "Straight Outta Compton" as original.

 

It's doing very well in the UK. It opened with £8.1 million at the box office. It's also doing good business in Australia and other countries in Europe. I'm not surprised it's underperforming in the US. The first Bridget Jones film did well at the American box office (the second one did ok on a limited run), but audiences over there don't seem to love the character or the films as much as the Brits do. It's 12 years since the second film was released, I doubt many Americans were hoping and praying the third film would get made.

I like the BJ films. Renée Zellweger is incredibly likeable and watchable.

 

Half of Broadway's "new" shows for the 2016/17 season are also unoriginal: "A Bronx Tale", "Anastasia", "Holiday Inn", "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory", "Amelie", "Groundhog Day" (all from movies) and "The Spongebob Musical". In the works are stage adaptations of "King Kong", "Bull Durham", "Rear Window", "Frozen", "Moulin Rouge!", "Mean Girls", "Top Hat", and "Diner".

 

Just googled it, and $93.9 million came up. Is that good or bad?

Saw this movie yesterday. Theater about 1/4 full...must have been some fans here too, several were lol and reacting otherwise to it.

 

Oh. My. God. There is a level beyond haaaaaaarible, and this may be it:



$115M for this crap? I'd have a hard time justifying $25M. This is almost a Disney Channel movie.

 

^ Well, it's a paycheck for the actors.

jerol

 

Box Office Mojo has it at $101 million worldwide right now and claims a budget of $60 million.

Will it officially turn a profit? Dunno, but for a movie that opened mid-September, it's doing well. September isn't a month that boasts a lot of blockbusters - too late for summer tentpoles and too early for holiday/Oscar-bait releases...

 

Hard to flop with a Tom Hanks movie.

 

Plenty of Hanks movies have flopped!

"Hologram for the King" made less than $5 million earlier this year!

Hanks also had a bad 2011-13 run where three consecutive movies - "Cloud Atlas", "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" and "Larry Crowne" - all bombed.

You can go back farther than that and find plenty more Hanks bombs. I'd argue he's not been in a true live-action hit since "Da Vinci Code" 10 years ago...

 

Yet people will say Julia Roberts is money in the bank if she is in a movie. I'd still bank on a Hanks in my movie.

 

Hanks is a national treasure.

 

I think the thing with Tom Hanks is what I call the "Phil Jackson effect." Phil Jackson is always noted, and justifiably, as one of the great NBA coaches of all time. But a factor worth keeping in mind is that he never really took on a ragtag team of non-stars that were low in the rankings and built them into championship teams. His first gig was for a team that wasn't winning championships but had one of the best players of all-time (Michael Jordan), and he was an ingredient that helped push them into being a championship team. Then, after that, he usually took gigs with teams that were full of stars and just needed that extra push to get to championship level. A unique set of skills to be sure, but he was usually signing on to rather "turn-key" operation.

Tom Hanks these days is often like that. He signs on to movies with a lot of buzz, and often with big-name directors attached. I don't know his recent filmography that well, but I don't think he ends up in a bunch of indie productions and helps prop them up. He signs on to relatively big projects, and he's that extra ingredient that will often make the studio feel better having a bankable star.

 

Well first MJ wasn't one of the best players of all-time then! Not yet. It always takes two, a coach and great players. Bulls couldn't get it done until Phil got there and same for the Lakers so it's always a combo thing.

 

good point. I would say there might be another 5 or 6 actors who could have done credible performances on Forrest Gump, but that movie had 'hit' written all over it with all the cultural touchstones in it. Hanks just raised the movie up one level.

 

Boy, I don't think it had hit written all over it at all. Hanks made it a hit. I could see other actors in it and it would be there Ishtar. Guess we see it different.

 

was money in the bank....not anymore

 

I don't think anyone's said that about Julia Roberts for a good ten years!

Roberts hasn't been the clear lead in a hit movie since 2000!

 

the studio is already prepared for the worst - saw this post over at Box Office.com

'Monster Trucks' Leads Viacom to Take $115M Write-Down »

 

Phil did not become head coach of the Bulls until 1989. By then, Michael had been rookie of the year, led the league in scoring 3x, was the defensive player of the year, 5x all-star, 3x 1st team All-NBA (and 1x 2nd team).

Pippen did become great under Phil though.

 

That is 100% correct. She had been in the ensemble cast of Oceans 12 (2004), but she certainly wasn't the lead in the film.

It's a sad thing how actors' stars rise and fall on factors beyond how they look and how talented they are.

 

And how many rings had MJ won before Phil? Right! It's all about the rings, not league in scoring 3x, was the defensive player of the year, 5x all-star, 3x 1st team All-NBA (and 1x 2nd team) all of which is great, but.......
This isn't the NBA thread so we will just disagree.

 

Roberts' last $100m+ movie was 2010's "Valentine's Day", but that was as ensemble as ensemble gets.

She also was in "Ocean's 11", which is actually the highest-grossing movie in which she appeared if one doesn't adjust for inflation. "Pretty Woman" made a little less money but it came out 11 years earlier, so it was the bigger hit...