Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2019

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    Ya know, with Alita: Battle Angel (cost $170M, made $405M, which is not enough for a break even) and now Terminator: Dark Fate, I bet even Jim Cameron is wondering whether his two-decade winning streak is running out of steam...
  2. Holerbot6000

    Holerbot6000 Forum Resident

    I'm sure the Avatar sequels are costing a fortune. If those tank, Cameron could be in trouble. These movies are getting obscenely expensive to make though. No wonder Hollywood has become so risk averse. Something has got to give eventually.
    Stormrider77 and Matthew Tate like this.
  3. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Forum Resident

    In terms of non-documentary movies that he's directed, The Abyss is the only one that disappointed at the box office and even that one did ok. I think Avatar 2 will either explode at the box office or bomb miserably, I don't think there will be any middle ground with this one.
    Matthew Tate and SandAndGlass like this.
  4. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    We are just getting used to billion dollar box office movies. 405M is not an unsuccessful box office. It takes a lot of viewings to bring in $405M. The problem is not with the box office, the problem with Alita was that it simply cost too much to make. This seems to the case with so many of today's movies.

    I do believe that Cameron used Alita to try out and perfect many new techniques that he is using in the Avatar sequels. I think this was a very knowledgeable and deliberate move. Alita was always a crapshoot, an unknown quantity. Better to sacrifice Alita, to shore up his bankable Avatar sequels.

    In regard to another Terminator movie, we need another Terminator movie about as much as we needed another Rambo movie, but we got both.

    They make T3, T4 and T5, which were definitely not up to T1 and T2, and now the want to pretend that T3, T4, and T5 don't exist?

    Sorry, but I view this as being kind of stupid.

    Can we say worn out franchise?

    T3 and T4 were made on an average of $200M and averaged $400M at the box office, which was not even as good as Alita did.

    Oddly enough, Terminator Genisys, was the least liked movies from both the critics and the public, yet is was more successful than T3 and T4, having been made of $155M and bringing in over 440M (worldwide) at the box office.

    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019
    Matthew Tate and budwhite like this.
  5. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    The whole point of this thread is "Hits and Bombs of the Box Office." Alita did not break even, indeed it did lose money, so it falls more in the second half of that equation. My opinion is that it's not a very good film, but I concede that's totally subjective... though I can cite a dozen reviews on my side.

    ‘Alita: Battle Angel’ Tracking to Be $200 Million Box Office Flop for 20th Century Fox

    I think it's not quite a bomb, but again, it would've had to make over $500M to break even, and maybe $600M to be considered profitable. I think if they could've made it for $100M back in 2005-2010, it could have been something. Timing is one of those very tough aspects of filmmaking (and distribution) that's often unpredictable.

    BTW, as history has shown us, note that Cleopatra was the #1 biggest film of 1963, when it was initially released, making $57 million dollars. Normally, that'd be a huge accomplishment, but because it cost (a then-unheard of) $44 million to make, it wound up as the biggest flop made up to that point. So the issue of whether it's a bomb or not hinges on initial cost... although there is such a thing as a critical bomb vs. a box-office bomb.

    Only one movie in history has been both an unmitigated disaster and a runaway smash
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019
  6. AirJordanFan93

    AirJordanFan93 Forum Resident

    The franchise was worn out when we got to Salvation in 2009 that was 10 years ago and we have gotten 2 other movies since then.
  7. swandown

    swandown Under Assistant West Coast Forum Resident

    Portland, OR
    Someone decided to greenlight a movie about Atlanta Olympics bombing hero (and former bombing suspect) Richard Jewell.

    Titled, imaginatively enough, "Richard Jewell."

    And it's directed by Clint Eastwood.

    Hey offense....but you're about 20 years too late on this.

    (I must admit to chuckling at the tagline, "The world will know his name". I mean, duh!! The world already knows the guy's name.)
    Matthew Tate and sunspot42 like this.
  8. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Alexandria VA
    Cameron's winning streak doesn't end until a movie he directed bombs.

    Cameron's already been involved with commercial flops, but not as director...
  9. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    My point, in the recent context of this thread, dealing with the well established Terminator franchise is that T3 and T4 failed to outperform Alita, and after #3, the made another unprofitable #4. Film #5 received some really bad reviews by both the critics and the public.

    I will add, that I thought #5 was an interesting film and I was alright with it. When movies degenerate into multiple sequels, I don't set the bar that high.

    But with a "critics" approval rating of only 27%, which is pretty awful for any film and preceded by two unprofitable films, you would have thought that someone would have mercifully pulled the plug before doing yet another Terminator film.

    "though I can cite a dozen reviews on my side"

    I'm sure that you can but the even the critics gave it 61% and the audience gave it a 93%, so someone liked it.

    As I said, the problems with Alita and many other modern films were not due to box office performance, they were proving just too costly to produce.

    Terminator: Dark Fate has garnered decent reviews by both the critics and the audience, yet is is really tanking big time.


    With a budget of 185M and two weeks under its belt and so far a worldwide box office gross of 23.2M this is looking to be destined to be a bigger bomb then last years, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, that had a budget of 120M and ended up just short of 174M.

    Speaking of overall franchise performance, I question the logic of greenlighting Terminator: Dark Fate, in the first place.
    mattdm11 likes this.
  10. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    Ehhhh... 61% is not great. You get into the 80s, it's harder to argue with it.

    Surprisingly, Joker also has a 69 rating on Rotten Tomatoes (only 59 on Metacritic), but I think at this point, as it gets closer to a billion dollars, WB doesn't care at all about critics. I actually think it's a pretty good film, but I never in my life would've expected it would make north of $900M...

    Box Office Bonanza: 'Joker' Crosses $900M Worldwide
    SandAndGlass and Matthew Tate like this.
  11. radickeyfan

    radickeyfan Forum Resident

    the difference is , that the Joker's good reviews , are really good , some going as far , as calling it , film of the year , etc
    Chip Z, SandAndGlass and Matthew Tate like this.
  12. j_rocker

    j_rocker Forum Resident

    I’m interested in seeing it. It might turn out to be an interesting critique on media rushing to judgement, which certainly has only increased since then, or on pre 9/11 law enforcement. Enough time has passed where I don’t remember all of the particular details, or maybe never did, and many people don’t remember his name anymore.

    As for it being 20 years too late, “I, Tonya” came out in 2017, which was 23 years after that incident.
    Matthew Tate and Tokyo Ghost like this.
  13. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    Yeah, Joker is going to be on many, many "Ten Best" lists for the year.
  14. marmalade166

    marmalade166 Grokkin' 'n' Groovin'

    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Vidiot likes this.
  15. PhilBorder

    PhilBorder Forum Resident

    Sheboygan, WI
    It's about the FBI's corruption as much as Mr. Jewell. In which case it's quite relevant today.
    PhantomStranger and j_rocker like this.
  16. swandown

    swandown Under Assistant West Coast Forum Resident

    Portland, OR
    That's not really the tact that Clint is taking, though. He seems to be portraying the FBI as being more overzealous than corrupt, with the bulk of the blame being placed on the media.

    At any rate, Jewell's story was already told in a good 30-for-30 mini documentary, plus Michael Moore's "The Big One" in 1997, plus this YouTube video.
    sunspot42 likes this.
  17. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    I hadn't really given that aspect much thought, but it seems that you do have a point.

    Cameron "lets" someone else direct projects that are not really all that near and dear to his heart and his reputation as a director.

    If they turn out not to be big hit movies, well he didn't direct them.

    It they hit big, then they will advertise "A James Cameron Production".

    Smart thinking...
    marmalade166 and Vidiot like this.
  18. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  19. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Its interesting that the Variety article mentions...

    "The most recent “Terminator” films — 2009’s “Terminator Salvation” and 2015’s “Terminator Genisys” — were both panned by critics and failed to recoup their pricey budgets."

    "Box office experts say the film needs to earn around $450 million to break even but predict that “Terminator: Dark Fate” will end its box office run with an uninspiring $180 million to $200 million globally."

    And this is with it being released in over 4,000 theaters. Not looking good. :sigh:
  20. Spaghettiows

    Spaghettiows Forum Resident

    Silver Creek, NY
    I wonder if the lack of interest in Terminator: Dark Fate is due to the stench of the last three Terminator sequels sticking to this one. The average movie consumer has no idea that this version skips over the last 3 entries in the series. They probably think "There have been how many mediocre Terminator sequels now? Why would this one be different?"

    It looks like this franchise won't "be back".
    SandAndGlass, Vidiot and sunspot42 like this.
  21. In other news on the lower end of the Top 10, Motherless Brooklyn beat Arctic Dogs even though it played at half as many theatres.
    Vidiot likes this.
  22. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    Yeah, Arctic Dogs looked like one of those generic CG cartoons that's kind of shoved in just to have something to appeal to the under-10 crowd. Execs forget that kids really know the difference between a good movie and a crap movie.
    SandAndGlass, Spaghettiows and Jrr like this.
  23. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits and Abbie: Best Dogs Ever

    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, "Dogs" has that "Norm of the North" look: circa 1998 CG animation and a generic plot.

    It stinks of direct to video...
    PhantomStranger likes this.
  24. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Hollywood, USA
    And as an update: I keep seeing the trailer for Charlie's Angels, and... oh, my god. Is there any possible way this thing can make any money?

    It does look very nice, but jesus, it's as empty and vapid as the day is long. Maybe the movie is a lot better than the trailer, I dunno.
  25. Jrr

    Jrr Forum Resident

    How in the world is money spent on stuff like this? I’m with you...who is going to see this? And when are the movies better than the trailers? Why bother throwing more money away with marketing? I didn’t even know Charlie’s Angel’s was a thing that anyone was still interested in.
    goodiesguy and sunspot42 like this.

Share This Page