Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2014

I think there's an assumption Monuments Men is supposed to be a "prestige movie" because a) it's set during World War II b) Cate Blanchett is in it and b) George Clooney directed it -- but Clooney has directed lightweight fare before, like his already-forgotten football comedy "Leatherheads" or the oddball "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind." The presence of Bill Murray and John Goodman suggests that it is probably a lighter movie than it may appear at first glance.

 

Detuned: Join Date: April 2011 Posts: 3,368
MekkaGodzilla: Join Date: April 2011 Posts: 3,124

 

Except that domestic box office isn't the be all and end all anymore. "Hansel" did $55 million in the U.S. (their budget) and doubled that amount overseas. Paramount greenlit a sequel so even if "I, Frankenstein" it won't have a lot of competition and could do well enough.

So the January time frame doesn't mean they are necessarily dumping it just that they don't have the faith to make it a tentpole style movie or go head-to-head with major studio releases.

I don't think it will be a huge moneymaker but it might do OK.

 

'Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones' will make an obscene amount of money. [I understand the budget was $5 million.]

 

Get a room, you two

 

I'll agree with you there. Some industry pundits are already saying Paranormal may out-gross The Hobbit, which will be a big deal. The studios love it when a little $5 million film can gross $20M in one weekend. I don't happen to like them, because I think they look too cheap and shoddy, but I get why audiences like them. I'd personally rather see a well-crafted horror movie shot conventionally, not something with cheap home video cameras.

 

I understand that notion, but the trailer doesn't make it look like they'll be in comedic mode to me. The ad hints at a little levity but I get the impression Murray and Goodman will be playing straight dramatic roles in it...

 

Beat me to it! As you note, "Hansel" wasn't a smash, but it only cost $50 million - relatively cheap for an effects-heavy action film - and it actually TRIPLED the US gross overseas. Mojo says it made $225 million worldwide, which is a nice return on that investment.

I won't argue that Hollywood now sees January as "prime release time", but it's also clear to me that they don't view it as the old dumping ground for crap they want off the books.

IMO, "direct to video" movies have become the "new January" except year-round. It's always astonishing how many big names appear in these direct-to-video stinkers - I gotta assume many of these projects were intended for theatrical release but were deemed to be such losers that they were dumped onto DVD to be done with them...

 

Hey, I won't defend "Blart" as a film - I'd need to re-read my review, but I don't think I liked it.

But no matter what you or I thought of it, the thing made a boatload of money, and that opened the eyes of the execs in Hollywood...

 

I think you might be missing part of the equation here. There are many fine independent productions produced every year but few of them get any kind of nationwide distribution, when there are no independent theaters left except in major markets it significantly reduces where these films can play. We're hogging up all the multi-plex screens with both 2-D and 3-D versions of the same film so unless you live in a major city you'll probably only have access to a small handful of these films. Now, there are also films that get dumped unceremoniously for the reasons you describe, but that's not the only case. I get to see many fine films theatrically here in L.A. that may not play anywhere else in country (except possibly NY & SF), but that's not a reflection of the quality of the film itself.

 

I didn't mean it would be a zany comedy -- just that it won't be a heavy, humourless movie. It seems like a mix of tones in the trailer.

 

I know there are a variety of reasons movies go direct to video, but it's simply odd to see movies with A-list stars that never appeared on a big screen in any kind of real release. Some went straight to video with no theatrical at all, while others got a token screening.

And some of them have fairly decent budgets, too.

I'm not picking on films made on a shoestring by new artists - I'm talking films with famous names involved and real budgets. I might be wrong, but I believe those go straight to video as a kind of "quality dump" - the studios have too little faith in their commercial prospects to bother putting them in any kind of true theatrical run...

 

Okay - I agree with you there. I think it'll lean dramatic - and runs the possibility of going "weepy dramatic" - but I don't think it'll be super-dark/humorless.

Or "humourless", if you prefer!

 

Am I the only one who thinks they've completely changed gears on this flick? When the first trailer came out, it looked like Ocean's 14 or something; with "witty" banter from Damon while being caught atop a landmine. When I saw the latest trailer (Xmas day), it was all serious. Seems like they've totally changed how they wanna market/promote this thing to me (and if they can't decide if their movie is a comedy or a drama, I'm guessing that might be a bad sign)...

 

So haw many direct to DVD smashes will Nic Cage have this year?

 

Curious about "Interstellar". Remember seeing it on the list of Spielbergs upcoming projects list on IMDB years ago without any updates. Cool to see that Nolan took over.

 

I would like to see another "National Treasure" flick!

 

There were two trailers. The first one (seen much more frequently in Canada and promising a Christmas 2013 release) made it look like a zany comedy. The second one made it look a lot more serious. Kind of like American Hustle -- the first trailer did not give the slightest impression that it was a comedy.

 

Lone Survivor will bomb due to the record-breaking unpopularity of the Afghanistan war.

 

"Record-breaking"? I suspect the Vietnam War was much less "popular" in the US...

 

The Jack Ryan trailer looked great to me. No idea about its budget or potential audience, but unless they spent a zillion dollars on it, it should do ok.

Also liked the Wachowski trailer, but I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.

 

I couldn't find clear budget info, but one website claims $60 million, which seems about right for a movie without big stars.

I agree it'll do fine overall - I doubt it'll be a smash, but I think it'll be reasonably successful...

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...fghanistan-war-most-unpopular-in-u-s-history/

Just 17% of those questioned say they support the 12-year-long war, down from 52% in December 2008. Opposition to the conflict now stands at 82%, up from 46% five years ago.

"Those numbers show the war in Afghanistan with far less support than other conflicts," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "Opposition to the Iraq war never got higher than 69% in CNN polling while U.S. troops were in that country, and while the Vietnam War was in progress, no more than six in 10 ever told Gallup's interviewers that war was a mistake."
​

Back to movies, now, please.

 

Clooneys been around long enough to know to lie to the press.