Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2018

Only going to be successful because of recent superhero movies doing so well.

 

I don't know that they "fired" everybody with Nutcracker, but anytime there is a second director brought in during the middle of production, there is usually something really wrong.

The resulting movie really has no continuity and it usually shows!

Lucas knows that there will always be scenes that will require re-shooting for better continuity, so that is always written into the contract's.

No big deal here.

But with Nutcracker, spending over one month on re-shoots, that was a very bad sign.

The movie didn't really have much of a story line. There was not much "glue" to hold it together.

Visually, as specially in 3D, it was stunning. This visual aspects were exceptional, costumes and all.

While all of this is well and good. It can't save a movie that is not put together well in the first place.

Anytime, they do a major rewrite of the script after production, for whatever the reason is, the movie generally ends up not working.

I can understand changes made to the shooting script while shooting to make something fir in better or to eliminate some things in favor of others that seem to be working better.

But, if they don't have a solid script that is ready to shoot, at the time the movie has been given to final OK to start shooting, it is usually not something that is something that can be fixed.

 

Bombs Away - little to no promotion, awful reviews never a good sign.

 

Plus it is "yet another Robin Hood" movie. Another not a good sign.

 

That is exactly what's happening. There's a built-in audience for comic book superhero movies and as long as they meet some bare minimum level of quality and appeal, they are successful.

Comic book movies don't need to be Shakespeare to make money in 2018. Eighty percent of the battle is casting. Marvel's casting has always been excellent over the past decade. That is why the script often feels like an afterthought - because often it is in the creative process.

 

Excellent point. Marvel's movies' have a low floor, for the reasons you say. They are all "good". The ones that actually land a great script and director then become great.

 

The nearest comparison - a modern re-telling of a classic story like this - is the King Arthur Legend Of The Sword film from last year. That film bombed in a big way, they estimate it lost $153million taking into account all expenses. That included over $100m on marketing.

This new film has had hardly any promotion. Most were surprised it was being released. I think the execs saw the what happened to King Arthur, realised they didn't have a very good film on their hands, and decided not to throw good money after bad and so slashed the promotion budget to a minimum. That way they could limit their losses.

By all accounts the reviews are dreadful for this film, no-one is in the least bit interested, it sounds and looks awful (the soundtrack is modern hip-hop music, and that rarely works in films like this).

 

I never care about a critic's review of a movie. More times than not, the movies they love I loathe, & the movies they hate are awesome.

From the trailers, it looks like a modern take on the Robin Hood myth which isn't a bad thing because most of the other films about the character weren't up to steam.

But I agree, it probably won't rake in 50 million on opening weekend but I think it has a good cast and I'm sure as hell am never going to see "The Nutcracker" like EVER!

 

I agree with you on the "critic's".

The "Nutcracker" is not a terribly bad movie, once you get past the part about it not really following the Nutcracker story, the Nutcracker ballet, or about it not really being a Christmas story, other than taking place over the Christmas holiday's.

In 2D, is is rather bland and "flat" in 3D, the visuals are stunning and I find that I can watch most movies as long as they are visually captivating.

Mackenzie Foy, does a excellent job, in her part. I see her very much like Emma Watson. Most movies with either of them, I have found to be generally worth a watch.

Anyway, for these reasons, I would watch the Nutcracker, had I not seen it.

However, the general public would probably watch for the other reasons that I have mentioned and have shunned the movie at the box office, as you have, for good reason.

 

BTW, here's a very good chart showing how a lot of modern films are structured and put together. It's funny, but it's also not too far off from the truth.

 

Uke Cure cover, LOL

 

The runtimes made me laugh -- that is too, too accurate.

 

Art House genre left out "Meaningful Stares" sequence, which depending on the director and script could also be 'Meaningful Stairs'.

 

I have one of those QLED Samsung 65" curved TV screen's. I don't watch TV at all, but I do watch movies on media that I own (only).

Once I learned to changed the settings from the terrible, garish, soap opera look that was how it was set when I bought it and changed the setting to "MOVIE", everything about the set changed.

I didn't even like the set, but my old set had its last rite's already administered, so I had no choice but to buy another set.

After the "movie" setting changed, the who look of the TV changed, the colors were nice and natural looking.

I have owned this set for a little over a year now, and I have to agree with you, Samsung has some winner technology with this one.

I think that they offer a lot picture quality for very reasonable prices. Not everyone has to spend a lot of money for OLED TV's (which have come down remarkably in price this holiday season).

 

The Samsung cinema display I was referring to in the post you quoted, isn't at all related to consumer TVs. Your QLED is still an LCD TV - the 'Q' refers to so-called quantum dots which provide a more colorful/saturated palette than standard filters; the 'LED' part of the name refers to the backlightimg, but it's still an LCD display. But yes, they are very good TVs.

The new Samsung (real) LED cinema display technology is for movie theaters to replace projection systems. Here's a link:
Samsung Debuts World’s First Cinema LED Display

 

I finally saw Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, yesterday at an early afternoon 3D showing.

I definitely think the 3D does add a lot of visual dimension and up's the appreciation of the movie.

I went in to the show, with not too high expectations, due to the ratings that I have looked at giving it an approval rating of roughly half the first film.

In a nutshell, I enjoyed the film. I believe that it did effectively carry the franchise forward and set up for the next film.

It was good to see the character's from the first film reunited. Plus, the new character's are excellent in their rolls.

Being that this film is set in Europe, I think that it is more "Potter" like, than the first film.

I had no issues with the film.

 

You took my comment out of context. I was specifically referring to the Universal bomb The Wolfman, which had a rocky history of multiple editors and two directors, and I think three people doing the score. That was a particularly messy production, and ultimately it was an enormous failure.

I don't know the inside scoop on Nutcracker, but no one can deny it was a bomb.

I have worked on films before where the director was fired and the movie was substantially altered. One I've talked about was Highlander 3, where the theatrical version was the producer's cut. Dimension/Miramax ultimately decided to go back and also release the director's cut for the home video version, so I wound up working on both. My opinion was that each had good moments, and cutting them together might have made a better compromise.

 

No, I did understand your context.

I was commenting that the Nutcracker, had a similar situation with two director's, over a month of reshoot's.

It never really flowed and you never really know which direction it was going in.

I thought the entire beginning was good and was well shot and had continuity. Once she went into Nutcrackerville, the entire rest of the picture was a mess, continuity wise.

And, as you say, "ultimately it was an enormous failure".

 

I think "Aquaman" will be successful because it looks like it might actually be fun. The other DC flicks ("Wonder Woman" aside), not so much.

I'm reminded of this song when thinking of most of the DC flicks.

 

DC should let the animation division take over the DCEU. LEGO Batman is awesome.

Or convince Christopher Nolan to be Kevin Fiege for DC.

 

I don't think Christopher Nolan knows the first thing about superheroes - he got lucky that Batman is the easiest superhero to convert to more realistic storytelling. By his third Batman movie, Nolan's decisions became more and more suspect adapting the source material. I think it's why he turned down Warner's offer to run the DCEU after Green Lantern flopped and Batman was in the rearview mirror.

I do agree that WB desperately needs a central executive with ultimate authority making decisions for its superhero films. If people didn't know, all of Warner's DC movies are put through an 18-person supervisory committee (this number may actually be higher now, I'm not sure) that has DC Comics executives, Warner movie executives, even toy company people. It's no way to make an entertaining movie.

 

What brand is top of the TV food chain now.
Best seller that is!!!
Is it still Sony ?

 

Almost always, whenever another director has to step in to take over or finish a film, there are huge underlying problems there that are going to be tough to fix. Batman vs. Superman is a good example.

On the other hand, there have been several Pixar films where they fired the director, scrapped the film, hired a different person and basically started over from scratch. Ratatouille is a good example, and Brad Bird managed to turn that around and make it a huge hit. On the other hand, they tried the same thing with Good Dinosaur, and even after firing the voice cast, throwing out the story, and hiring a new director, it still bombed (relatively speaking for Pixar).

I've heard good advance word on Aquaman (whose trailer looked like a piece of crap to me), but some are saying "this is the best Marvel movie that Warner Bros. ever made," which I think is hilarious. I'm looking forward to the reviews and I hope it's good and is a big success.

 

I think that "reshooting" an animated movie would be easier to accomplish than a live action movie.

Aquaman looks like it might be a good movie.

Before Fantastic Beasts, they played some trailer's.

Two to put on your list for next year:

From Wikipedia:

"Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (also known as Detective Pikachu) is an upcoming action-adventure family film directed by Rob Letterman and written by Nicole Perlman and Letterman, based on the 2016 video game of the same name. The film is an American and Japanese joint venture produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures, and The Pokémon Company. It is the first live-action film based on the Pokémon franchise. The film stars Ryan Reynolds as the voice and facial motion capture of DetectivePikachu, with Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton and Ken Watanabe in live-action roles.

It is scheduled to be released in RealD 3D on May 10, 2019,[4] making it the first Pokémon film to receive a wide theatrical release in the United States, and the first to be distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures since Pokémon 3: The Movie in 2001."

The movie looked well done and the trailer was entertaining (I know little to nothing about the Pikachu culture).

It should do well as a family movie.

The second, which looks killer good, is Alita, Battle Engine, from Lames Cameron and Jon Landau. This looks like it is going to be a mega hit. The trailer was fantastic!

From Wikipedia:

"Alita: Battle Angel is an upcoming American cyberpunk action film based on Yukito Kishiro's manga Battle Angel Alita. Produced by James Cameron and Jon Landau, the film is directed by Robert Rodriguez from a screenplay by Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis. Production and release were repeatedly delayed due to Cameron's work on Avatar and its sequels. The film stars Rosa Salazar in the title role, with supporting roles portrayed by Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Connelly, Mahershala Ali, Ed Skrein, Jackie Earle Haley and Keean Johnson. It is scheduled to be released on February 14, 2019 by 20th Century Fox in Real D 3D, Dolby Cinema and IMAX 3D."

But, we save these for next year's list. Just my initial impressions.

 

Easier, but also hella expensive. Animation don't come cheap.