Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2019

This assessment is wrong on so many levels that it deserves its own Room 237-style documentary.

 

I have not seen or read "Doctor Sleep". I used to be a really big SK fan. I have a boatload of his books.
His best books/short stories that have been made into movies have been non-horror. Think "Green Mile", "Shawshank...", "Stand By Me", etc. Usually his stories don't translate into great movies though. Many are very good, some are just fun to watch. I will see "Doctor Sleep" when it comes out in 4k Digital.

 

I think The Shining has moments, but it was a reasonable hit when it first came out ($45 million+ back in 1980), and quite a few critics went back and re-assessed their initial reviews and rated it very highly. I have mixed feelings about it myself, but it is a well-made film.

Read the essays on the film on Wikipedia, and you'll see that Kubrick's The Shining is a much more complicated film than you might think:

The Shining (film) - Wikipedia

BTW, I thought it was funny that in the last couple of years, two different filmmakers have recreated the Overlook Hotel and the "elevator corridors of blood" sequence. Spielberg did it in Ready Player One, and now it's been done for Dr. Sleep. And note that this sequence is not in the novels!

 

I don't know why didn't they release it in the beginning of October to capitalize on Halloween a bit.

 

I was curious so watched the trailer and a review on Youtube. It does look awful. Perhaps awful enough to actually watch it.

 

Hey, you were warned! The only good thing in it was the lead actress.

 

Joker is about to cross the $1 Billion mark ! $$

Top 6 Countries
Domestic (US/Canada) $316.3 million
UK $68.3
Mexico $43.7
Japan $40.4
France $38.8
South Korea $38.6

 

And according to this Variety report, The Joker is set to hit $1 billion dollars this weekend:

Box Office: ‘Joker’ Becomes First R-Rated Movie to Hit $1 Billion

No other R-rated film has gone this far, so that puts a whole new spin on film content and box office.

 

and Joker hit the $1B mark without a Chinese release

2019 Movies ahead of Joker and their China gross
1- Avengers Endgame $614 million
2- Lion King $120 m
3- Spiderman FFH $199 m
4- Captain Marvel $154 m
5- Toy Story 4 $29 m
6- Aladdin $53 m

 

There have only been two Midway movies, curiously enough, out of the many WWII movies that have been made (and remade).

This is in itself odd, when you consider that it was the Battle of Midway that changed the entire course of WWII. Up to that point, the Japanese clearly had the upper hand, after their attack on Pearl Harbor.

"The 1942 victory the U.S. Navy won against a numerically superior Japanese force at Midway Atoll was fresher in memory to the audiences that made the Technicolor-Sensurround sensation Midway a hit in the bicentennial summer of 1976 than that hokey movie is to us now. The three-day battle by air and by sea was such a tide-turning triumph for the United States that it's surprising there have only been three movies named for it in 75 years. The first was an 18-minute documentary shot by Hollywood legend John Ford, who took some shrapnel in his arm while filming what historian Mark Harris called "the rawest battle footage American cameras had yet captured."

This Midway movie does happen to have "John Ford" in the movie, shooting during a live bombing raid, making his 18-minute documentary film.

Although the Battle of Midway is the point of the movie, it does start before Pearl Harbor and tells the backstory leading up to the Midway events.

Managed to see Midway yesterday and found it to be a surprisingly accurate historically and without having the love story / love triangle aspect of Pearl Harbor.

And, @Vidiot, you are certainly going to cringe your way through the earlier CGI effects shots in the movie. They are really bad. About the worst in memory for me. As you get through the movie, I kind of got used to them (but only to a point).

You really need to make it a point to see this movie in a theater where you can see its CGI shots in all of their glory.

Naturally, since much of history, as specially the scenes leading up to Midway have been done before, the film will have that redux quality to it, no getting away from that.

I think that the actors were more suitably cast for the part and were more realistic than Hollywood icons like Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, Glenn Ford, and Cliff Robertson, who stared in the 1976 movie (but were real WWII veterans).

And they also went into more detail, not trying to also be a romantic movie like Pearl Harbor. The focus was not on fictitious soldiers but on the real historical members of the military.

You do have to give the movie credit, where credit is due, because it does not try to be a typical hollywood war action movie, but does strive for historical accuracy.

Apparently this approach is winning out at the box office over the pundits who are complaining about the lack of a well written story line and "Hollywood" screenplay.

That being said, I had originally been given to understand that the film had been budgeted for 100M, which would have make it difficult to reach the 300M worldwide to make a modest profit.

But I am now reading that it was independently produced on a budget of a very modest 59.5M.

Quite a bit of difference. To do a movie on this scale and length for 59.5M would be quite an accomplishment, questionable CGI and all.

While the critics were not fond of it at all, the audiences were overwhelming in favor of it.



If it was produce on a 59.5M actual budget, it might have a chance in being profitable.

I feel likewise about Last Christmas, which is not a steller hit at the box office, but is is a decent holiday movie, that has been well shot and with excellent production values. It is also a very colorful and festive holiday movie to watch and had a similar response from the critics and the audience.



I think that making a Christmas movie on a reasonable budget is important, because it won't usually have the worldwide appeal that many other movies might have. All in all, if this movie can hang in there for a few weeks, it may work out well at the box office.

I had intended on watching the latest Terminator movie installment this afternoon, but its last showing locally, was yesterday.

Saw the previews for Charley's Angles yesterday, looks bad. The last MIB was a better movie, from seeing it and comparing it to the Angle's preview.

Charley's Angles opened today, along with Ford v Ferrari.

 

That is pretty incredible!

 

I saw Midway today and I really liked the historical accuracy, both from the American and Japanese perspectives. I saw the 1976 version too when it was released but I was only 9 or 10 years old. So, I had no knowledge of history then. I only remember that the '76 version seemed more epic and overblown in the "old" Hollywood style. In this new one, I thought Woody Harrelson's portrayal of Admiral Nimitz was realistic. Dennis Quaid played Admiral Halsey (don't know how accurately he portrayed him since I really never heard any stories about Halsey's personality.) And the other "big" star was Aaron Eckhart who played Jimmy Doolittle. But the main stars of this movie were all the younger actors and they actually fit the right age categories depending on their ranks (unlike many of the '76 actors.) Luke Evans was really good in this movie as was Nick Jonas. Ed Skrein stole the show though as Lt. Dick Best. His character probably had the most screen time (his character was the war hero who is the only person to take out two aircraft carriers in the same battle.) Patrick Wilson's character was the intelligence officer who directly reported to Nimitz and whose group of codebreakers determined that Midway was going to be the target and when and how it was going to go down. Didn't realize Mandy Moore was in this movie until the credits rolled. I didn't even recognize her. She played the wife of Lt. Dick Best. Also, for accuracy purposes, I thought it was neat that Roland Emmerich included to show scenes depicting the making of John Ford's documentary and when Ford got hit by shrapnel. Before the credits rolled, they showed the real-life war heroes who were depicted in this movie, along with a paragraph describing what became of them and/or all their honors they received.

I haven't seen the '76 version probably in over 40 years. I would have to see that movie again to compare the two. The only thing I really remember from the '76 movie, besides the outcome of the battle, was Charlton Heston's character's death. (He sure liked to take the roles that had heroic deaths, especially in the '70s.)

On a side note, early in the film during the Pearl Harbor scenes, there was a young blond actor who looked familiar but I couldn't place him at the time. It was bugging me for the first half hour or so of the movie. He didn't have a very big role in the movie, but it was heroic nonetheless. Then it hit me who he was. He is one of the stars of the History Channel's Vikings TV series. It was the actor who played the oldest son of Ragnar. The actor's name is Alexander Ludwig.


I can understand why this movie isn't doing well at the box office. Face it, the generation of people who would most enjoy this movie are either dead or in old folks homes. Most of the younger generation of moviegoers have no interest in movies that seem to them like ancient history. A battle that took place over 77 years ago just wouldn't appeal to most young people. The movie 1917 that is coming out on Christmas will probably suffer the same fate for the same reasons.

 

Until reading some positive reactions, I would never have considered seeing it because it's got Roland Emmerich's signature on it -- ordinarily, a guarantee that a movie will be cinematic garbage. (1917, on the other hand, is directed by the more respectable Sam Mendes.) I assume many others would feel the same way.

 

2nd movie about same subject isn't a "remake"!

 

All the sites I generally check say $100 million for the budget, and I would guess P&A of at least $25M-$30M on top of that. I'd estimate they'll need to make at least $350M-$400M to break even on a film this costly.


Wikipedia says:
On May 23, 2017, it was reported that Roland Emmerich would be directing the World War II film Midway. Due to its potential lofty budget (with estimates putting its needed cost at $125 million), Emmerich had trouble getting the film greenlit. When no major studio would bankroll the project, he cut down on potential battle sequences and turned to individuals for the funds, resulting in $76 million; he then got an additional $24 million in equity, mostly from Chinese investors, resulting in the film's $100 million budget. It is one of the most costly independent films ever made.

Lionsgate did get a lot out of the budget, and shot all the exteriors in Hawaii but a lot of the interiors in Canada, so I have no doubt it was a "thrifty" production where Emmerich pushed the $100M as far as he could.

Actually, I think Midway is doing better than expected, so it's not failing by any means. I agree with you that historical costume dramas are a really hard sell... but then there's something like Titanic (which made a fortune), or King's Speech, or even a smaller film like Downton Abbey (which cost $20M and made $180M) which did surprisingly well. I think it takes some extra effort to make and market films like this, but they can work in extraordinary situations.

And then there are directors like Martin Scorsese who make a risky film like The Irishman, which sweeps from the 1960s to the 1970s through the 1980s and then the present, with period costumes and sets and makeup and effects, plus it's over 3 hours long and cost $150 million dollars. Could this have worked in theaters? That'd be a very, very tough sell. Wikipedia reports that the film has made just under a million bucks after 2 weeks of release, which is paltry... but it's a Netflix film intended mainly for internet subscribers. This kind of changes the rules.

 

According to Box Office Mojo, worldwide Midway has made over $47 million so far.

Midway - Box Office Mojo

 

Since movies are weighted toward younger audiences for theatrical releases, I'm not sure a long WWII movie would work to produce the necessary income to be considered profitable.

The first hour and twenty minutes of the movie are devoted to the events that lead up to the Midway invasion. That is a good chunk of the movie that people are already familiar with (although the additional detail is well executed).

Titanic had this aura about the ships sinking, with the 1958 movie, A Night To Remember being the definitive version for almost fifty years until Cameron's version in 1997.

But prior to Ballard's actual discovery of the ship and the disclosure that the ship had broken in half before it had sunk, it had been accepted that it had sunk intact. I think this did a lot to reawaken the general public's awareness of the Titanic's sinking and generate a lot of interest.

I think that the movie got a lot of press exposure during production, mostly due to the large cost overruns.

The main thing that kept the movie afloat was the love story aspect. Without that Jack & Rose love story, I don't think that Titanic would had been half as successful.

George C. Scott was in the mini-series that was shot only a year before and was a well make docu-drama that was produced on a 13M. Though not many remember this version.

Unless you get into the historical aspects of Midway, it is mostly just another movie with old navy ships and airplanes. It does come across of more of a made-for-TV movie, than a theatrical motion picture like Pearl Harbor, production quality wise. Plus Pearl Harbor had the romance of popular Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler along with the movie "love triangle" aspect, like Titanic.

Although Midway is loaded with star power, with the exception of 27-year old Nick Jonas, they are all older actors that would not have any screen appeal to the younger set. No real female lead screen time.

These are those all important boxes to check at the box office, that Midway falls short on, along with positive critical reviews.

The new Terminator movie has already departed the theater where I am at yesterday, a lot of buzz and then a big fizzle, accompanied by a very short run. And, this was supposed to be a major movie.

Last Christmas is bound to garner some of the Christmas holiday crowd, Ford v Ferrari just opened and (I think) promises to very successful. Charlie's Angels is bound to sell a few seats. Nostalgia will bring out some to see Mr. Roger's, A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood.

Frozen 2 will be the big end of the year movie, other than the final Star Wars pre-Christmas opening.

Then we sill have Knives Out and The Irishman, before the end of November.

While it is great that Internet movies are being given more than generous budgets (and now, often more than movies that are made for theatrical release), it still makes no sense to me to spend this kind of money on a movie that is intended primarily for Internet release.

Movies that are primarily made for theatrical release make their way to the Internet and home media for additional income anyway.

Once Frozen 2 hits, most of the theaters will be occupied with it to accommodate all of the multiple showings, like they did for the live action Lion King. And it hits the theaters, in just another week.

There are just too many movies and not enough audience to go around nor theater space to allow Midway to make it work.

 

You gotta wonder what it is that Netflix, Apple+, Amazon, Disney+, and Hulu knows that you don't know. Consider this: if it didn't make economic sense, they wouldn't all be doing it. (It's a good question as to how long Netflix can go before they run out of money, but Amazon and Apple have nearly-unlimited cash, and Disney+ and Hulu are owned by Disney. As long as they have money to burn, they can keep this fire going for decades.

I wasn't the only guy to say back in 1997, "there's no way that Titanic can make any money. It's a historical costume drama, we already know how it's going to end, and everybody dies!"

One great wrinkle Cameron did was he structured it as a "doughnut", where it started out in the present as a treasure hunt -- the search for the "Heart of the Ocean" 56-carat diamond necklace -- and the old lady who relates to them the story of what happened the night the ship sank. And then we see the story through her eyes and it becomes a tale of two starcrossed lovers. Then we jump back to the present for a little while, then it goes back and we learn the mystery of what happened to her and her lover, and what happened to the necklace. I think Cameron's twist on the story helped make it a hit and also added a much more-modern style to it, the state-of-the-art VFX gave him ways to tell the story nobody had ever seen before, and it all came together to make it a lot greater than just the expected historical outing. It was a very smart choice on his part.

 

The movie had a 2 week domestic run in 4,086 theatres, it's now down to 2,477 and will continue to drop rapidly. Quite frankly I'm shocked at how poorly this movie has done, by my estimate it will be lucky to hit $65 million domestic which is a disaster for all involved.

 

I get the part about having money to burn, I just don't get the point?

Why not invest it on first run theatrical release movies and at least attempt for a profit?

Then show it on streaming and home media.

I have no idea what the numbers are for streaming movies, but I would wonder how many bring in at least 10M or more? Even most poorly attended theatrical movies will at least do that, plus there is still the options open for streaming and home media.

And, more importantly, no potential for sequels.

 

I never had that much interest in the movie when it was first announced.

And this is coming from someone who has seen all of the previous movies, with the exception of Terminator Salvation.

And, I didn't mind seeing any of them. But, I was never anticipating them as "high art", only just another popcorn sequel.

If I (or anyone) could watch the three Star Wars prequels, then I would be hard finding fault with the Terminator sequels. They were entertaining and each had there own twists and action sequences.

Even though I didn't have any special interest in Dark Fate, I might have gone to see it, just to see it, no big deal.

But, with all the buzz about returning to the original story line, I did expect it to do way better than it has done, given how the franchise has endured and having both Arnie and Linda back again.

So, with that in mind, I too am surprised at how much of a disaster it has turned out to be.

With all the complaining about Alita, at least it made over 400M, which is not bad at all for an entirely unknown quantity.

Still, I think that someone was crazy in greenlighting this movie.

 

And as expected (and predicted), Charlie's Angels is bombing and doing badly, grossing about $8 million at more than 3400 theaters in North America. This article analyzes the many reasons why:

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Bombs At Box Office With $8M: Here’s Why – Deadline

Interestingly, the film got surprisingly good reviews from several mainstream critics, but I think you can make a good case this was just a film nobody wanted to see, no matter how good or bad it was.

 

My thoughts exactly. Roland Emmerich's name caused me to completely discount this Midway movie. And I still don't think I'll go see it. But I am really looking forward to 1917, both because I have some faith in Sam Mendes and because I'm always interested in a new WWI movie.

 

Because the animated children's film isn't so much a movie in itself as much as a preview for a new toy line. The money is (or can be) made in the ensuing merchandising across all manner of children's consumer items. Arctic Dogs may not itself be a success as a film or toy line, but if mediocre box office performance inexplicably translates to a popular toy line, there can be quite the return on the initial investment.