Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2016

Weird thing about the new "Ghostbusters" is that it was a huge, huge controversial story in the months/weeks leading up to its release as well as its first week or two of release. Then, it completely seemed to drop off the face of the Earth, both in terms of any negative or positive coverage. Perhaps that happened because it wasn't *as big* of a bomb as some predicted/hoped, but was still a dud despite Sony trying to wring some sort of positive headline out of it ("It was the #1 comedy for the first six hours of Friday evening!").

I guess my surprise is that people still aren't beating everyone over the head with how awful they think the film was and how poorly it did at the box office. I mean, I *guess* that's a good thing?

I've been meaning to rent it; I caught it once opening day in a pretty empty theater and it was firmly in the "bad, but not as bad as some would like me to think" category.

It appears that any ancillary stuff (other than home video/rentals) like toys also bombed with the new "Ghostbusters", so they couldn't even make some extra coin there. Obviously, merchandising relating to the original films (and I guess the "trademark" in general) still does pretty well.

I'm sure the franchise will be revisited again, and I think it might happen sooner (e.g. they may not wait a decade) than some might be thinking.

 

Maybe "Sully" is actually "Larry Crowne 3"

 

Follow-up on Passangers...

Now having seen the movie I can understand it's mixed reviews. That said, in spite of a couple of plot issues and an end scene that was ill conceived, I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would give it three and a half to four stars. My wife, OTOH, disliked the film and would probably give it two to two and a half stars.

The basic problem is one of subtle, but very real gender conflict. For men, this film is an accessible romanctic story ...without the primary focus being sexual lust... about survival and love between two characters brought together by fate built around a strong female lead who in many ways is equal or superior to her male counterpart. By pure accident her sleeping image becomes his dream and eventual obsession for survival, and because ...except through this extraordinary circumstance... she's beyond his reach, this film is very much a male driven fantasy.

For women, at it's core, this film may come across as a stalking film where the female lead has her life's future stolen from her by her romantic compatriot against her will. In the end, for many women, the fact that the male lead seems driven by circumstance to a life in seclusion aboard a ship in peril doesn't excuse his actions. In an odd twisted kind of way both conflicting visions are entirely accurate.

Indeed, the subtext of Passengers is at it's core a male fantasy, but it isn't a terrible movie by any means. The problem is that as well done and genuinely romantic as Passengers is, it may be the worst date movie ever.

So, that's why this film is both a hit and a miss. It may get elected, but not by a majority vote.


Cat

 

Thanks for the review.

 

My thoughts exactly. Going into the movie, I thought it was going to be something entirely different. Personally, I didn't like the movie, nor did the other 3 people who saw it with me last Friday. Though, I thought Jennifer Lawrence's performance was good, as was Michael Sheen's (the robot). As for Chris Pratt's, I really can't say. I think it had more to do with the part as it was his performance. His character did come across as a stalker and, under a selfish act, awoke J-Law's character so that he wouldn't have to live alone on the ship the rest of his life. As for Laurence Fishburne's and Andy Garcia's characters, they weren't needed, especially Andy Garcia's.


Today, I saw the worst movie of the year and can't believe I wasted my time and money on it. I saw Assassin's Creed. What a total piece of crap. I understand why it is a bomb and can't believe they spent over $125 Million on it to make. Also, can't believe Michael Fassbender, Jeremy Irons, Marion Cotillard and Brendan Gleeson agreed to do the movie. Even more, I can't believe Michael Fassbender agreed to produce the movie, as one of the producers. Don't waste your money on this piece of crap, even if you are a fan of the video game series (nothing resembles the game except for the Assassins jumping from rooftop to rooftop.)

 

I think some of these discussions of Passengers could use a spoiler tag or two.

I find it interesting the problem many have with the film is what elevates it for me. Not every film needs a perfect hero. Nobody did anything I suspect the average person wouldn't also do in the situation if convinced he or she could get away with it, and that honesty gives the film some disturbing teeth. It is the horrible final twenty or thirty minutes that blow the entire affair, to my eyes...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

That's pretty much my take.

There are basically three scenes that comprise the resolution of the film that didn't work well for me, ...and I can't discuss any of them in much detail nor how I'd fix them without providing spoilers. The first two problems have to do with the introduction of the flight officer and resolution to the ultimate crisis on board the ship; the last was the final scene in the film ('nuff said on that).


Cat

 

Thought-provoking, yes. For me what made the film are the book ends. It begins with a vacation in Yosemite and ends with it as well. This may be rudimentary in storytelling, but stands out in my recollection of the film.

 

And continue my negative commentary, here's a Variety piece today on the biggest movie disappointments of 2016:

The BFG
Zoolander 2
X-Men: Apocalypse
Batman vs. Superman and Suicide Squad
The Huntsman: Winter's War
The Legend of Tarzan
Independence Day: Resurgence
Alice Through the Looking Glass
Money Monster
Mother's Day
Keanu
The Neon Demon

The 13 Most Disappointing Movies of 2016 »

I disliked Suicide Squad to the point that I made it about half an hour through the Blu-ray before dozing off. Not my kinda movie. Tarzan wasn't horrible but was just sort of "not horrible," neither good nor bad, and Independence Day was total dreck. X-Men Apocalypse had about half an hour of good stuff, and the rest was just all over the place. Batman vs. Superman was better than that, but not by much. The rest, I didn't give a crap about.

 

Yep. Independence Day: Resurgence was the worst movie of the year for me until yesterday. That title now goes to Assassin's Creed.

I actually liked Batman vs. Superman, The Legend of Tarzan and X-Men: Apocalypse. Though the X-Men movie wasn't one of the better ones, but was still good enough to enjoy.

Didn't see Suicide Squad or any of the others on that list.

 

I have rarely seen published reviews as bad as those for Assassin's Creed. It gives me hope that maybe studios will realize that when you make a movie out of a video game, you better damn well have a great script and great actors to pull it off.

 

They had the actors to pull it off but not the script. Michael Fassbender, Jeremy Irons, Marion Cotillard and Brendan Gleeson are all top-notch actors.

 

God yes, Independence Day was really bad.

 

I was pretty shocked it was as lame as it was. I think both the movie and Will Smith were hurt by not working out a compromise so that he could appear in the film. Reportedly, he held out for a $50 million paycheck, and Sony balked. Smith's last few films were very unsuccessful, and I think Independence Day 2 was a big disappointment for everybody involved.

 

Somebody's ego needs a realitycheck...

 

Smith is very busy ding more bad boy movies. At least 2 more and I'm sure counting.

 

Is that just a list of movies the author didn't like? It doesn't fit as a list of purely critical or purely financial bombs.

And the author makes mistakes:

"Fans griped about Ben Affleck’s stiff interpretation as the Dark Knight and director Zack Snyder’s cheap video game cinematography. Meanwhile, if you blinked, you could miss Jared Leto as the Joker, in the superhero heavy “Suicide Squad.”"

Fans actually largely liked Affleck in "BvS" - his performance got a lot of praise - and Leto was in "SS" quite a lot. Too much, IMO!

 

Boy, I would hope Sony refused to pay Will Smith $50 million for "Independence Day: Resurgence"... since it's a Fox film!

 

LOL Well crap, you never know.

 

Now that's some Hollywood accounting!

 

Was it Fox? My bad. I saw Will Smith twice in the same day on the Sony lot (right by Stage 6, where I was working), and he's stuck in my head as being there and never leaving.

 

Also: as I recall it the $50 million was for two sequels, which is still insane but more in line with what overpaid celebrity actors can get.

 

And for what one hopes are my final comments on 2016, here's Variety's rundown on the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2016. To be positive for a change, here's their list of hits:

Deadpool ($782 million)
Rogue One ($325M+)
The Secret Life of Pets ($875M)
Sully ($228M)
Don't Breathe ($153M)

I couldn't picked most of these as being successful, but no way did I see Secret Life of Pets doing north of $700M. And I think many people in the industry were blown away that a little $9 million indie horror film like Don't Breathe could pull in $150M+.

The Biggest Bombs and Blockbusters at the 2016 Box Office »

I think that was an upfront minimum guarantee plus points. Sony Pictures (and then-chief Amy Pascal balked at the precedent of paying an actor this kind of ungodly amount of money. I think they much prefer the way Tom Cruise works: he works for scale (which I think is like $50,000 a week) and then gets 10% of the unadjusted gross from day one. Basically, Cruise gets a dime out of every dollar the theater takes in. If it bombs, he gets very little.

 

Will Smith has done a lot at Sony in recent years, but the "Independence Day" flicks were always Fox...

 

Yup. $50m for one movie would've been insane - $25/movie less so!

No idea if it would've helped the box office for "Resurgence". Probably not, but who knows?