Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Dec 17, 2018.
Got to disagree as,the original trilogy resonated even with younger folks.
I actually don’t. I think he’s pretty talented and the film looks fun and weird.
Well, I wasn't aware of it before, but now that I've watched the trailer I'm curious. Might be worth it just for Daniel Craig's Colonel Sanders impersonation.
So thanks for letting us know.
Even the stills from this new take look terrible, though - three fembots from Generica posing around a CGIverse.
Many years back, I was having a conversation with a Hollywood person during a film festival. And he told me that many of these movies that fail are smaller productions of several million dollars each, in the production cost range. They knew that many of these films were never going to make money before production even started.
They have people who round up investors who are willing to put up money to get a film made. The arrange cocktail parties and dinners with the stars to help secure financing. Basically these movies are being made to keep the industry people working.
I think that the franchise has forever "jumped the shark".
"Angels" should have long hair and a feminine look, not a feminist look.
Why latch on to an original concept, keep the same name, then change it all up?
It's not so much that. It's because the people investing want to pursue a dream. There is a major case where a huge, huge billionaire -- Paul Allen (formerly of Microsoft) -- invested more than $500 million in DreamWorks Pictures at the very beginning in 1994, but was chagrined when the fledgling studio had a series of bombs, plus the studio execs made it clear they didn't want his advice on any aspect of movie development or production. He eventually got his money back, but he was not happy about it, and wrote about it at length in his autobiography. Allen did admit that he got to hobnob with the Hollywood elite for awhile, but that kind of faded once he realized that Spielberg, Katzenberg, and the others had no interest in any ideas Allen had beyond his money.
I think there are quite a few people who have an idea to make a small indie film and they believe in the beginning they'll break even or maybe make a small profit someday. They don't set out to lose all their money, but that's often the inevitable result. This often happens with bad films, but it sometimes happens with good films, too.
Because they hope name recognition will bring in older fans and the new look with fresher faces will bring in newer folks. It’s an attempt try and appeal to everyone.
Well, maybe, but I don't think that it is gonna work out as planned.
I agree. Pretty much all films need production money and that requires investors.
It is completely natural to lobby investors to promote your product.
Cocktail parties (with ample amounts of spirits) have been useful as a platform to accomplish this since time out of mind.
Not only limited to the movie business.
If he was truly interested in the film business, he should have financed smaller films first on his own, in conjunction with a sympathetic producer. They might have been more interested in his advice if he'd had any successes under his belt. As it was, he was just an ATM on legs as far as Spielberg was concerned.
And the surprise for this weekend is that Dr. Sleep (based on the best-selling Stephen King novel) is tanking, while the historical action drama Midway managed to silence critics and become the #1 film of the weekend:
How ‘Doctor Sleep’ Went Into A Coma At The B.O. With Dreary $12M+ Opening, Following Surprise $18M+ Attack By ‘Midway’
I'm very surprised Dr. Sleep didn't do well -- the reviews on it were very positive, though the 2-1/2 hour runtime did not help its chances for commercial success.
I expect Doctor Sleep to do better on home video. Its director Mike Flanagan was also the filmmaker behind that Netflix show, The Haunting of Hill House.
The Haunting of Hill House Blu-ray Review with HD images
IT-Chapter 2 was about that same length and did well during it's(no pun intended) Opening Weekend. It did well enough to stay in the Theater at least 5 weeks for me to catch it when another person who wanted to see it with me had the time eventually. I did think 'IT-Chapter 2' dragged on too long though(especially the final battle at the end).
Would a better film title have helped at the box office ala The Shining 2 ?
The film borrows from the Shining film clips ..JN lookalike, Shelly Duvall..
It Chapter 2 wound up making over $459 million, and since it's still in some theaters, this number will go up slightly over time. The good news for Dr. Sleep is that it cost a little less, but they're still going to have to gross north of $100M to cover the movie's $50M budget and the $50M+ they spent on marketing. If it only did half of what It Chapter 2 did, I'm sure the studio would be happy... but I'm doubtful that will happen.
Midway...... horrible movie!
But they didn't "change it all up". There are still 3 Angels. They still play different characters as part of their investigations. They still take orders from some weirdo on a conference call. They still interact with a supervisor named Bosley. They still get into fights and deal with bad guys.
I guess you're hung up on how the women look. It's 2019, not 1976. Styles change.
Only the Kristen Stewart character has short hair anyway...
CGI in search of a film ?
What did you not like about it?
Stephen King has become the literary equivalent of a big 70s band on an endless farewell tour. You might stand in line and pay the big bucks to hear “Rhiannon” or “Pinball Wizard” but you’d probably rather wait for Spotify than pay to hear all new material.
Not really psyched to see this but because I am A List, might as well fritter away a rainy day.
People remember the Pearl Harbor movie. People like well executed war movies. Does not come as a surprise to me.
I plan on seeing it.
Kind of the point of going to the cinema, glamor and all that.
As Hank Hill once said about short hair on women, it just doesn't make sense.
In general I don't go to the movies to look at overweight, unattractive women that I can see at the mall for free.
You don't think that people were watching the original Charlies Angles on TV because of the acting?
No, "glamor and all that" isn't the point of going to the movies.
And if a movie is about an overweight, unattractive woman, I guess she should still be played by Scarlett Johansson?
Don't recall saying they did. Doesn't mean that every subsequent version of those characters needs to remain beholden to the fashions of the 70s!
Separate names with a comma.