Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2018

According to my wife it was mostly Singer, the Fletcher doing pickups and supervising the editing and post-production.

 

Disney doesn't have the magic all the time I think they had two bombs
this year now.?

 

Well I tried. I went to the show at 3:00 PM this afternoon and saw a little over a hour and I received a page and had to leave.

Spoiler: Impressions of the first half of the movie.

The movie was a slow start and there was really no real draw to hold it together, no great script or plot. Despite the visuals, it only ambled along. There was a point where where was some ballet, thus far, but it was sort of just stuck in the movie and really did not blend in well.

At the point that I had to leave, it appeared that things were looking like they might be coming together. Maybe I will go back and try to catch the last half.

Even the visuals in the first half, did not really grab me, which visuals normally do.

 

I did like Tomorrowland, bomb or not.

 

I'm curious to see "The Frontrunner," but Hugh Jackman looks too scrawny to play Gary Hart.

 

Well, that makes sense actually. You aren’t a big fan, so of course you will likely be more unaware of facts that aren’t exactly true and therefore you can just enjoy the film. If you are a big fan and you are seeing a bunch of stuff that just doesn’t square with the facts, that would tend to drive one crazy, like gary191. I liked some of Michael Moore’s early films, especially Roger & Me. The danger is I believed everything he was conveying was more or less true (I was much younger then) and I think had I known the film was edited more to suit his points (which at my older age I know now is pretty common), I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed it much. I think when a film is being made about a person that is marketing itself as more or less a bio, one shouldn’t play loose with the facts. Especially these days, where so many people seem to believe everything they see or read about.

 

That’s a slippery slope as far as two bombs. Solo seems to be regarded as likely one of the films you are referring to. That’s a tough call. I think it was more a fact that there was simply no interest in it. I was on a cruise ship a few weeks ago and they showed it, so of course I watched the film all the way through. I don’t think I would watch it again, but as most have said, it was a decent film. I think a better term is that it didn’t perform well financially, which in some circles is the same thing as a bomb. I kinda feel bad for Disney with the whole Solo issue. It wasn’t like they just threw out something quick to make a quick buck. It was well made and an engaging story. It just wasn’t Star Wars. I bet it will perform much better than average in the streaming world. Maybe they’ll pick up a few extra bucks from that! When I see the word bomb, it just triggers the phrase “terrible film” in my head and I feel bad that’s the word being used for Solo.

 

I too enjoyed Moore's earlier films and even though I was a mature film watcher at the time, bought in to them more than I should have.

Today, I realize him to be the self righteous, pompous BOZO that he is. NEVER will I watch one of his movies again, never!

In your words, "as more or less a bio", are perhaps more accurate, it is not a bio nor is it marketed as a bio.

Movies like this are always as more or less, the movie is made first to be entertaining and as more or less follow Queen and Freddie Mercury.

I don't think that people are expecting much more than that. As it is, people are going to see it and perhaps learn more than they knew before.

I don't have any knowledge about the band or Freddie Mercury's background and don't really care about either.

I don't read bio's about the Beatles either.

The best that you can ever hope for is some sort of historical accuracy.

I know, that when I have seen some historically based "drama's", that are of interest to me, that I will often read up further on the subject to gain an additional and better accurate understanding.

The most "background" that I have ever been exposed to of a performing artist is from watching Coal Miner's Daughter, some years back.

How accurate was that? I don't know? I went to see it at the $1 theater, only because Sissy Spacek was in it.

Movies have to be edited for the sake of the continuity of the movie, above everything else. If you don't achieve that, you don't have an audience, which is the primary purpose for a commercial's movie existence.

 

I didn't mention Solo by name because I did not go see it and have no personal opinion one way or the other.

I have not seen not am I interested in seeing any but the core Star Wars movies.

IMO, Solo and all the other SW stuff is just milking a franchise to death.

As is always a priority of the big studio's.

 

Well, to end on a good note perhaps many will see a film like this and if they enjoy it, then they will do their own research. I have no real interest in Queen, though I have both volumes on vinyl of their compilations and like them. Just not that interested in their story, but I suspect if I enjoyed this film, perhaps I would read up on them for more balanced info. If I did that, then one would have to say the film maker did a great service to it’s subject. I know some other films in the past have done that for me. Enjoyed your thiughtful post!

 

It’s a more interesting movie, in a sense, for how many avoided it! Hard to argue with your points. I have seen all the films, and enjoyed them, but had no interest in Solo. Had it not been shown on our trip for free, I doubt I would have.

 

Cool. A 70's rock expanded universe. Can't wait for the team-up!

 

Quite like reading a book that's made into a movie, you will have timeline issue's unless the movie is 8 hours long.
There is no way you can do that with a 2 hour movie, it's just not possible with any band that had longevity.

You have to go in with an open mind and take it for what it is

 

Is Bohemian Rhapsody now established as a 'hit'? Last I heard, it was 'into profit.'

 

Everyone's ignoring the second sentence, which is my main criticism!

"It was like a cross between a bad MTV biopic, an English soap opera and The League of Gentlemen ('John Deacon' even looked a bit like Mark Gattis!)"

 

That won't be until after the Rod Stewart biopic, when they all join up to save the world as "Nose, Teeth and Hair"

 

Surprised to hear NUTCRACKER faring poorly. I tried to buy tickets to a 3D showing as a birthday gift for a niece, but eveything but a 10:10 p.m. showing was sold out.

 

It cost little to make so if making a profit is a hit then it won't be hard. I think it was 50m before marketing.

 

Marketing can be 100m though (it was for Venom). 50m to make the film and 100m to promote it. Seems wrong.

 

I would say YES, it's at $145 million worldwide after week#1. Production budget at $52 million, it's going to make some decent $$$$ by the time its theatre run is over.

 

So as of now, it's probably has broken even?

 

Depends on the marketing budget.

 

Since I had to leave yesterday after a little over an hour into the movie, I was planning on going to catch the rest of the movie again today,

Then I happened to read your post just before 1:30 PM. When I attended the 3:00 PM showing, yesterday afternoon, it was just a regular 2D show. I had not given it a thought about it being in 3D.

I checked the movie times again today and saw that the show was in 3D today at 1:30. I decided to go. It didn't matter to me that the movie had already started as I had not planned to sit through the entire show again, but come after the first hour and see it until the end.

Because it was in 3D, I didn't mind missing the very beginning of the film and caught the film early on, about ten minutes into the film or so, still into the introduction.

One thing that I did have to say is, SEE IT IN 3D! It did make all the difference in the film visually speaking. When the visuals in the film hold up well, a film becomes a very watchable experience for me, even if other areas of the film may be lacking.

The 3D visuals do carry through and hold up the entire film.

While it is an old "story", there has never been a real on screen version of the Nutcracker, no real definitive version. It may not catch the attention of those in their later teens and twenties who have their preferences for comic book adaptations. But it is not lost on families with younger children. Most younger children have not seen the Nutcracker before and so it is new to most of them, The movie does have the required Disneyfied elements that it takes to hold together a family oriented film.

At yesterday's 2D afternoon showing, I think there were only a couple of people in the theater besides myself. Which I did not take as being all that odd, because it was a Monday afternoon and the opening weekend was very poor.

But, at today's 3D showing, I think there was a very strong family showing with a lot of children in the theater. From the comments that I heard from the children, while exiting, they all seemed to upbeat and enjoyed it.

It is very unfortunate that ticket prices are not what they should be. Movies have gone from a very inexpensive form of entertainment to a very expensive form of entertainment.

I don't get what is going on with the trailer's these days, they put you through 15-20 minutes of them, before the show begins and they are really LOUD, way too loud, offensively LOUD.

Now I do have an excellent HT with a 65" 4k curved screen. Not to unusual these days, but I have a sound system next to none.

What you see here on the right is a real small venue theater speaker. They are vintage Altec Lansing A7's, which are The Voice of the Theater speakers.

SFX is one thing, but screaming level dialog, like they play the trailer's at, is another. I have never played dialog as loud as they do in the trailer's in my home, ever! This crap is beyond annoying!

The sub-woofer next to it is powered by a 1,600-Watt amp and can sustain SPL's of 133 dB, continuous program material.

All in all, my sound system easily best's the ones in the theater.

I rarely use the theater speakers for HT, as they sit at aright angle to where the TV sits and the regular tower HT speakers sit.



This is the regular HT arrangement. The front mains are powered by a 250-Watt SS amp. There are tower speakers in the rear also.



Buy for me, it is not just about the expense, there are so damned few movies that I actually want to see. I picked up on the offer last summer, when MoviePass was being offered for $10/mo. Every time I had the time to see a movie, there was nothing playing that I had the slightest desire to sit through. I cancelled the MoviePass subscription before the end of the year, not having used it once.

They remodeled the AMC theater close to where I live and work a few years back. At the time, there were only a hand full of these remodeled dine-in theaters in the country and the one by me was only one of two in the State of Florida, the other being in the Disney World area.

At least I can have lunch while I sit through the movie, in an uncrowded theater with large leather seats.

If there is a movie that I want to watch, I don't stream movies, I just purchase the Blu-ray or DVD. The 4k TV does an excellent job of up-scaling regular old DVD's. I don't have any issues with that.

While I don't know that I would go so far as to use the phrase "damming" but the local critic is quite correct. The Disney version of the Nutcracker is neither a ballet, nor is it in any way faithful to the original story.

While I don't like to give the story away and I won't. I do think that is more than fair to explain what potential attendee's will and will not be seeing.

Yes, there is ballet in the movie, but it lasts only for ten minutes or so. The movie character's are watching the ballet performance in the movie. So much for the Nutcracker ballet.

Watching it, did not evoke memories of the ballet's that I have seen before.

The movie does take place during the Christmas holiday season and there are Christmas tree's and Christmas presents, but there really is not much else Christmassy about it, save for some snow.

Where the Nutcracker is all about Christmas.

The movie does have a nutcracker soldier (who is very good), tin soldier's, a Sugarplum Fairy, and mice. That is about all I could find in common with the original story.

Really, if the opening credits and the lobby poster's did not say "Nutcracker" on them, had I know seen them, I might have never guessed that it was about the Nutcracker! It really isn't even a family "Christmas" movie.

Having said all of that. I have to say that it really isn't a bad movie. As a movie it does hold it's own and it seemed that the audience and myself found it enjoyable overall.

I liked it immensely more in 3D. Compared to the 3D version the 2D version was lifeless and the visuals simply do not come through enough to captivate the audience.

Overall, even with the usual Disney cute things here and there, it was not an overall "Warm and Fuzzy" kind of movie. Not really what I think of when I think of a holiday movie.

It was an OK Disney family movie, but no where par with Disney's live plus animated version of Beauty and the Beast, which I did see at this theater last year.

With that movie, I did have another adult and two elementary school aged children with me.

I did also want to see Emma Watson, who I think has become an excellent actress on the own, outside of the Harry Potter franchise. Emma was excellent as Belle.

With Nutcracker, I did want to see the performance of MacKenzie Foy, who I also have respect for a an actress after her role in the Twilight Saga and Interstellar. I do think that she did an excellent job on holding up her roll and definitely carried the movie.

I see MacKenzie's part sort of a parallel to Emma's part as Belle, but Belle is better known and has a more defined part.

 

"Tomorrowland" came out in 2015...

 

I am perfectly aware of that.

My quote:

Since is was somewhat obvious that Tomorrowland is a three year old movie, It did not occur to me to post its release date as being from 2015.

My Bad.

My comment, was just to acknowledge that I enjoyed the movie, even though it was a major Disney bomb at the box office.

My enjoyment of any movie is not connected to either it's reviews nor its box office receipts.

I thought the movie was visually stunning as I do with Valerian (released in 2017) and consider both to be worth watching for the stunning visuals alone. I don't think the Tomorrowland "plot" was perfect but I thought the script was overall interesting and I liked all the characters in the movie.

I had had others over for movie nights and have shown both of these movies and my guests indicated that they have enjoyed them.

I only which that I had learned about them while they were still in the theaters, rather than afterward in video.

I would have really appreciated seeing them in 3D!