Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2017

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Dec 3, 2016.

  1. Jrr

    Jrr Forum Resident

    Well, maybe it's me just getting older but I'm not a fan of most of the big budget films. I would like to see a lot more quality films with a good story instead of betting the ranch on one film. Most of those wouldn't need a lot of expensive special effects. I guess that's why my career at a movie studio would be very short if I were making those decisions. Didn't Paramount try that in the 90's (or was that Disney under Eisner) and it didn't work?. Clearly what they are doing is working for them, it just doesn't work for me. Anyway, what you say makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Which confirms that in many cases, art and business don't necessarily go well together.
     
  2. Anthology123

    Anthology123 Forum Resident

    My thought on the Lego Batman movie was a marketing move. With the Batman movie series and even the animated series taking a seriously darker tone, there is no Batman content for preteen that most parents would allow their kids to see (mostly ages 5-10). I have not seen this film yet, but my guess is this movie hopes to fill in that missing market, keeping it separate from the more serious versions of the franchise.
     
  3. Vidiot

    Vidiot See It in Dolby Vision! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    If it were me, I would go for a split: I'd make some low-budget films (like horror films and exploitation films), mid-budget "artsy" films, and big-budget blockbusters. The problem is when they start concentrating mainly on the latter and ignoring the former, and you wind up with a lop-sided release schedule that can be torpedoed with a few bombs. If they made 15 films a year -- 5 at about $10M-$15M or less, 7 at about $40 million, and 3 blockbusters at $100M-$150M -- I think that would be about the right balance for a major studio.

    I think it's a question of whether you look at percentages or at the total. Good or bad, there's no question that a movie that nets $300 million is a much bigger success than a movie that nets $80 million, even assuming that the first movie cost 10 times more than the second movie. And I think getting the money as quickly as possible is their goal -- they don't want to wait 2 years until a movie finally breaks even. (And don't forget the interest on the initial investment, which starts accumulating the moment the film is in development.)

    Another big factor is that the studios seem to be concentrating on making fewer movies, and making each of those big-budget films. I think the idea of spreading out the release schedule to all kinds of movies -- small dramas, wacky comedies, historical films, documentaries, romances, genre pictures, plus huge, sprawling action films -- is the best course. But they already got people in the executive suites making those decisions.
     
  4. mikeyt

    mikeyt Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ironically, isn't that more or less how it was a decade ago?
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  5. That's where production companies like Blumhouse come into play and sometimes they actually release good movies, too. The ROI on these projects can be great but, if it doesn't do well, the loss isn't as great because it's a modest investment.

    I agree that studios are always looking for home runs but all it takes is a few miscalculations to be the next MGM. Heck, even modestly budgeted genre films can be home runs with the right people behind them. "Arrival" demonstrated that a modestly budgeted film can do well, get critical praise and Oscar nominations without throwing as much money at the screen as possible. I really wish that the industry would rethink their approach as these mindless blockbusters get a bit fatiguing after enough time.
     
    Vidiot, projectcookie and Deesky like this.
  6. projectcookie

    projectcookie Member

    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I think this model looks increasingly more attractive in the future with the advent of streaming, the internet, and increasingly diverse groups with specialized taste. The one-size-fits-all model of filmmaking will exist, but perhaps in smaller capacity than before.
     
  7. beccabear67

    beccabear67 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Victoria, Canada
    I think my real disappointment in any movie is tied up in it having an individual voice or character to it. Most Clint Eastwood directed movies of recent times have this whereas a lot of other things simply seem like a factory made product. It actually sounds like that lego Batman thing is quite quirky and has attitude and I might actually like it myself. They say "when you assume you make an ass of u and me". I just assumed. I thought Blue Pacific (2009) was a good example of an effects sci-fi type film with a personality to it, same with Guardians Of the Galaxy. All the greats from the past had it; Alien and THX 1138 to Cat People and Carnival Of Souls.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  8. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, probably! Thanks!

    I know other movies have been "altered" to appeal to the Chinese audience. IIRC, "Iron Man 3" had some scenes added for that market...
     
  9. DPM

    DPM Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nevada, USA
    What was the total budget for Arrival? I assumed it was a very expensive flick.
     
  10. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident

    it's reported to be around $47 million
     
  11. Deuce66 is correct. The budget was less tha. $50. I don't know how much the advertising costs for the film were but it had a inch smaller budget than your average blockbuster which means it is in the black at this point.
     
  12. Vidiot

    Vidiot See It in Dolby Vision! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    The last picture I saw like that was Deadpool, which I thought was funny, distinctive, spectacular, and wasn't similar to any action film I've seen maybe ever.
     
  13. Bobby Boogaloo

    Bobby Boogaloo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mid Atlantic USA
    Went to the preview for The Great Wall last night. Not getting good reviews today and bad ratings on RT, so that means it will likely be a bomb. However, I enjoyed it. I went in with no expectations at all and came out thinking it was a decent CGI fantasy action movie. Nothing earth shattering, but compared to other bombs it's extremely watchable with very little drag time.

    Oh, and it was in 3D, which is proving to be a colossal waste as modern 3D is more like shadowbox style. It adds nothing to the movie - nor did it when I saw the Point Break and Ghostbusters remakes. Unless this current tech improves, it has no added appeal to me to either make me want to see a movie or pay more for the effect.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
    Vidiot likes this.
  14. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    At least "Cars 4" will presumably have a new story. I have no doubt the new B&TB will be a TON of money. I predict Disney is already hoping for headlines touting the "Surprise" epic success of it, even though everybody can see it coming from a mile away. But in the "why does a remake need to exist?" department, Disney has done themselves no favor by putting together trailers made almost *exclusively* of nearly shot-for-shot identical moments from the animated film. I watched a video on YouTube where they were able to match every shot in the "new" trailer with something from the original film, in many cases almost shot-for-shot.

    Now, what I think is interesting is that I'm pretty sure it's *on purpose* that this is the case. Disney doesn't care if a bunch of cranky people point out the total *useless* nature of this remake, even if the criticism comes from some of the its "long time" fans. They just care about the nostalgia factor for people who do like the original and want "more of the same" to the point where we're not even getting a needless sequel, we're getting a precise remake.

    It's pretty sad how much all of the facets of Disney are about sequels, reboots, remakes, etc. "Star Wars" is all sequels and spinoffs, the Marvel stuff is all sequels and spinoffs and adaptations, and most of the animated stuff is sequels, and now we have live action remakes of those animated films. It's sad when "Zootopia", which I found to be "okay" but not great and not mind-blowingly original, is one of the best recent examples of Disney doing something "original."

    Not all sequels are bad; I liked "Finding Dory" more than "Zooptopia." But I'm curious if the bubble will *ever* burst on this remake/reboot/sequel thing. It's getting worse, and the Top 10 and Top 100 films of each year are starting to top out as mostly sequels/reboots/remakes, etc. I was bummed by something like the film "Passengers" not so much because it was a rather flawed film, but because it reinforced the idea that people don't want new, original stories/films.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  15. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    I'm not one of those snobs that points out who did something first (and every time someone points it out, there's always *someone else* that actually did it first), but it's funny if this "Ghost in the Shell" film is being framed as a take-off on "The Matrix", because "The Matrix" pretty heavily borrows (admittedly on the part of the directors) from the original animated "Ghost in the Shell" film from the mid 90s.
     
    beccabear67 and kevywevy like this.
  16. balzac

    balzac Forum Resident

    This "The Great Wall" has smelled like a potential relative bomb for months and months. Nobody seemed interested in a Matt Damon action piece like this, there was some bad press months ago about "whitewashing" despite how heavily seemingly everything about the production *other* than Matt Damon was made to cater to the Chinese movie market, the film was released way earlier in China, and the whole concept doesn't sound like something that is going to burn up the box office in the US.
     
  17. Just wondering what movie you were referring to with "Blue Pacific"? I went on IMDB to check it out and couldn't find it...

    Thanks!


     
  18. beccabear67

    beccabear67 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Victoria, Canada
    Oops! Pacific Rim. Weird I misremembered the title somehow. I shoulda googled first... :oops:

    ...and I got the date wrong. :disgust:
     
  19. Thanks, thought you might have meant that, but the 2009 date threw me!



     
  20. neo123

    neo123 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Northern Kentucky
    I'm going tomorrow and I read many bad reviews today. So, I am setting expectations low and hopefully come out somewhat pleased.
     
    Vidiot and Bobby Boogaloo like this.
  21. WhoseLineFan

    WhoseLineFan Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    How is the new 50 Shades movie doing?
     
  22. Deesky

    Deesky Forum Resident

    Probably not. The cycle is perpetuated by each new generation of movie goers who don't have a long memory and don't know what's a reboot or a remake, or even if they do, they likely wouldn't have seen the 'original' or even care to see a moldy-oldie. In many years to come, this generation will complain about reboots of the movies they saw in their youth (which of course were remakes themselves). The cycle continues.
     
    beccabear67 likes this.
  23. beccabear67

    beccabear67 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Victoria, Canada
    Re: remakes... a lot of silent films were remade when talkies came along. Ben Hur, Cleopatra, Hunchback Of Notre Dame. There was also a silent Wizard Of Oz. Then it was b&w to color (King Kong 1977 compared to 1933), so when they invent 4-D smell-o-vision they can remake everything again for that format. I think that's a more justified reason for a remake. Some of the worst remakes have been old tv series taken to movie theater... and oddly enough the one I would think most likely to justify that, Dr. Who, still hasn't been done since the Peter Cushing Daleks affairs shortly after the tv series began in the '60s (maybe we're lucky for that though, hoo nose/Who knows).
     
    Deesky likes this.
  24. Vidiot

    Vidiot See It in Dolby Vision! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    50 Shades Darker cost $55M and has made $163M so far, so that ain't bad for a film that's been out six days. 50 Shades of Gray cost $40M and made an astonishing $571M, which is a monster, blockbuster hit by any definition. Even if the sequel only makes half what the original made ($280M or so), it'll still be very profitable.
     
    WhoseLineFan likes this.
  25. Mirrorblade.1

    Mirrorblade.1 Forum Resident

    50 shades will run it's course till it sinks..50 shades of leather..
     
    WhoseLineFan likes this.

Share This Page