General Movie Discussion

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

Oh and it's a WB movie...

I honestly like WB. So having them struggle like this is really sad. They must really be counting on Wonder Woman and Justice League now.

For a while, Warner Bros were my favourite studio. I used to like Disney and Universal more in my childhood years, but both of them suffered a step down in quality (with some exceptions) in the 2000s and I got more into WB. Now, Disney is on their A-game, Universal is kinda in the middle, but Warner Bros keep running into brick walls. I think Wonder Woman and Justice League will be profitable, but only insofar that their audience appeal still outweighs the critical reception. Despite their many, many flaws (especially those of Suicide Squad), these DC movies do make money.

Honestly, the idea of a King Arthur movie series (preferably a trilogy) is not inherently stupid if the right people and the right approach is provided. We often bring up Peter Jackson as the kind of director to make these kinds of adventure or fantasy movies come alive, but that's exactly what this proposed Arthur franchise lacked. Someone at the studio thought that nobody wanted to see an "old-fashioned" King Arthur but another revisionist take in the mythology. And the fact that they did not commit to a single vision, "old fashioned" or "revisionist", proves that their hearts were never in it.

While I love the movie Excalibur, that's also a polarizing movie, I tried to show it to my brother once and he asked me to stop the movie less than five minutes into it. It was really embarrassing because I thought he would get into a more faithful Arthur adaptation, and it forced me to conclude that there should be a new King Arthur film or films that spanned generations like LotR managed to do.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

Oh and it's a WB movie...

I honestly like WB. So having them struggle like this is really sad. They must really be counting on Wonder Woman and Justice League now.

For a while, Warner Bros were my favourite studio. I used to like Disney and Universal more in my childhood years, but both of them suffered a step down in quality (with some exceptions) in the 2000s and I got more into WB. Now, Disney is on their A-game, Universal is kinda in the middle, but Warner Bros keep running into brick walls. I think Wonder Woman and Justice League will be profitable, but only insofar that their audience appeal still outweighs the critical reception. Despite their many, many flaws (especially those of Suicide Squad), these DC movies do make money.

Honestly, the idea of a King Arthur movie series (preferably a trilogy) is not inherently stupid if the right people and the right approach is provided. We often bring up Peter Jackson as the kind of director to make these kinds of adventure or fantasy movies come alive, but that's exactly what this proposed Arthur franchise lacked. Someone at the studio thought that nobody wanted to see an "old-fashioned" King Arthur but another revisionist take in the mythology. And the fact that they did not commit to a single vision, "old fashioned" or "revisionist", proves that their hearts were never in it.

While I love the movie Excalibur, that's also a polarizing movie, I tried to show it to my brother once and he asked me to stop the movie less than five minutes into it. It was really embarrassing because I thought he would get into a more faithful Arthur adaptation, and it forced me to conclude that there should be a new King Arthur film or films that spanned generations like LotR managed to do.

So far, Disney is 1 for me. I'm only putting WB ahead of Universal because of how they still have some form of identity and how they are at least trying for the long term game. Universal, as I said before, doesn't have as much as people really think they really do. Fox, I have a lot of respect for since they have suffered a lot of punishment, much of which their own doing, at yet they still come out swinging hard and hit a lot of home runs and many grand slams.The fact that they were a very profitable company under Tom Rothman and managed to be a much better one after he left is proof of just how resilient Fox is. Lionsgate has continued it's status as a bomb factory via Power Rangers. Paramount, who knows. Sony...yeah...

Sometimes, you just have to embrace the source material in order to be successful. Not saying you can't be successful by not doing so-the Keaton/Burton Batman movies-but those are few and far between nowadays.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

The medieval genre in general is worn out, especially in America. Harry Potter, LotR, the Hobbit, the plethora of medieval video games (elder scrolls/skyrim, dark souls, witcher, dragon age) and the Game of Thrones TV show have over saturated the market. The medieval theme needs a break and it's why I think King Arthur is flopping; I seen the trailers and it just looked like a generic middle ages movie with nothing special or note worthy.

Zac Efron will play Ted Bundy in the upcoming psychological thriller, Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil And Vile.

Yeah im sure people will take him seriously in that.

From what I've seen, the negative responses to 'The Emoji Movie' far, far, far overnumber the positives.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

From what I've seen, the negative responses to 'The Emoji Movie' far, far, far overnumber the positives.

Yep. I wonder if it'll be profitable or another Sony bomb? 

I really wish they'd fire everyone in charge of the film division tbh. I used to love everything Sony put out.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

From what I've seen, the negative responses to 'The Emoji Movie' far, far, far overnumber the positives.

Excellent...

I know I said this on FB earlier, but if there is to be any collective decision making made this year on behalf of all film goers (and humans) its NOT to give Sony a single cent for this dreck.

And to think, the MLP: Friendship is Magic movie was almost produced and distributed by these clowns before Lionsgate picked up the production.

‘Goosebumps’ Sequel Heading to ‘Horrorland’!

Writer Describes ‘Mortal Kombat’ Reboot as Ultra Violent Version of ‘The Avengers’

The James Bond franchise is in legal trouble again.

“Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!” the sequel to the original Mamma Mia! will come out on July 20, 2018.

Who asked for this?

Suicide Squad’s David Ayer to Direct the Scarface Remake
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/850527-suicide-squads-david-ayer-to-direct-the-scarface-remake#0Wh9ZltJ0D4W4Myx.99

Dead2009 wrote:

Suicide Squad’s David Ayer to Direct the Scarface Remake
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/850527-suicide-squads-david-ayer-to-direct-the-scarface-remake#0Wh9ZltJ0D4W4Myx.99

If they're trying to do something stylish, it might not be a bad choice for a modern take, but after Suicide Squad, I can't say I have much faith in it.

The summer movie season has just begun and the box office revenues are already down 10% from 2016 and 20% from 2015.

In other words, except for Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2., all other summer movies this month have either underperformed (Alien: Covenant) or just outright bombed.

And we haven't even ended May yet.

Personally I think it's fine for Tom Holland to play a young Nathan Drake. But they don't give any indication that they plan to switch actors if there is a sequel. And personally I don't see Tom growing into Nathan Drake. He seems like a great actor but he has too much of a baby face. 

And that's the other issue. I don't know how many fans really want to start this franchise with a whole movie about a young Drake to begin with. Personally I certainly don't. The thing I loved about Nathan Drake is that he was some guy in his 30's that was a little immature but still a serious adult  treasure hunter.  

Sully should be played by Tom Hanks, since he's already played the role once in the Film "Sully" and did an amazing job.

But then again this is Sony pictures, and this is a video game movie so it already has two huge strikes against it as far as turning into a franchise and being successful.

Hmmm, there is a theory that they could have Holland play Drake in other films as he gets older. Similar to how they did it with Harry Potter. Also, both Spider-Man and the Uncharted movie are at Columbia Pictures (aka Sony...) so it might not be too much of a hassle for the studio if they wanted to move Holland between properties.

Still, best take this theorizing with a pinch of salt. I like Tom, he looks to be a great Spidey, but he's not my No. 1 pick for Nate either. I hope they find someone who is definitely more experienced than Tom and fits the action role better. Plus I'm not sure he's likely to grow into the Drake fans know and love, so I'm sure other options are being discussed.

I still have no hope for this. Video game movies have a long, sad, sometimes comically bad, history. I love Super Mario Bros. as my favorite 'It's so bad, it's good' movie, but I can't deny that it's the dumbest movie ever made. Besides, a lot of the GA would simply consider it a Tomb Raider knock-off.

At the age of 87, Clint Eastwood is considering a return to acting.

Well, if Abe Vigoda can act into his 90's, I don't see why Clint Eastwood can't do the same thing.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Hmmm, there is a theory that they could have Holland play Drake in other films as he gets older. Similar to how they did it with Harry Potter. Also, both Spider-Man and the Uncharted movie are at Columbia Pictures (aka Sony...) so it might not be too much of a hassle for the studio if they wanted to move Holland between properties.

Still, best take this theorizing with a pinch of salt. I like Tom, he looks to be a great Spidey, but he's not my No. 1 pick for Nate either. I hope they find someone who is definitely more experienced than Tom and fits the action role better. Plus I'm not sure he's likely to grow into the Drake fans know and love, so I'm sure other options are being discussed.

Your last sentence is essentially my problem with him. No hate on the guy but he's got a young baby face and voice. Let's just imagine the movie was totally successful. I don't see him growing into that role in 2-3 years(even 5 years)  and becoming a full on adult Drake that is convincing.

I know people are going to have their different opinions but I think Collider put it best when they said a lot of fans didn't exactly envision a movie about a teenage Drake to kick things off. 

I can't help but feel that in the pit of my stomach The conversation at Dony went like this. 

 "How can we make an uncharted movie successful??? Ohhh! Tom Holland as Spider-Man looks successful! Let's try and bank on his popularity and make him a young drake!"

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I still have no hope for this. Video game movies have a long, sad, sometimes comically bad, history. I love Super Mario Bros. as my favorite 'It's so bad, it's good' movie, but I can't deny that it's the dumbest movie ever made. Besides, a lot of the GA would simply consider it a Tomb Raider knock-off.

At the age of 87, Clint Eastwood is considering a return to acting.

Well, if Abe Vigoda can act into his 90's, I don't see why Clint Eastwood can't do the same thing.

Well he's still directing them so I don't see why not.

I imagine Rhedo would like this; Universal could well be jumping the gun as far as their proposed Monsters Cinematic Universe is concerned, as well as a clear look at how studios growing too ambitious ultimately fail. And Sony... well nothing new here. But it IS interesting how Universal could potentially hurt themselves if The Mummy falls short.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I imagine Rhedo would like this; Universal could well be jumping the gun as far as their proposed Monsters Cinematic Universe is concerned, as well as a clear look at how studios growing too ambitious ultimately fail. And Sony... well nothing new here. But it IS interesting how Universal could potentially hurt themselves if The Mummy falls short.

Thank you. I do like this.

I never had much faith in Universal's Monsterverse. I just think that The Mummy was a product of the times and has been overexposed via the Tomb Raider games. As for Black Lagoon, that too is also a product of the times. With Dracula, Wolfman, Invisible Man, those could work, but only if you know what you're doing. I love Dracula 1992 since it makes a perfect balance of history and legend together. Dracula: Untold botched that. And I have little faith in The Mummy. I can't help but wonder how many people at Universal thinks the same way I do about that company but don't as much power to change anything.

With Sony, given how they've always had the best interest of Spider-Man at heart, they actually have a better chance to succeed. Spider-Man and his foes (most of them anyway) are not as constrained by the time periods that they were made in.

Megaspino2 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

The medieval genre in general is worn out, especially in America. Harry Potter, LotR, the Hobbit, the plethora of medieval video games (elder scrolls/skyrim, dark souls, witcher, dragon age) and the Game of Thrones TV show have over saturated the market. The medieval theme needs a break and it's why I think King Arthur is flopping; I seen the trailers and it just looked like a generic middle ages movie with nothing special or note worthy.

None of those are medieval though, but strict fantasy. It's the generic fantasy genre that's worn out, not only in films but in books as well. Add into it the fairy tale adaptations aimed for adults, you know Grimm Tales etc, and it all blends together.

As for actual middle ages films, there have been some original and fresh this decade. Black Death starring Sean Bean was quite good for example, I should watch it again some day. Again it took quite few liberties but in contrast to non-accuracy of most other films, they at least attempted to try.

Mistral wrote:

Megaspino2 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

The medieval genre in general is worn out, especially in America. Harry Potter, LotR, the Hobbit, the plethora of medieval video games (elder scrolls/skyrim, dark souls, witcher, dragon age) and the Game of Thrones TV show have over saturated the market. The medieval theme needs a break and it's why I think King Arthur is flopping; I seen the trailers and it just looked like a generic middle ages movie with nothing special or note worthy.

None of those are medieval though, but strict fantasy. It's the generic fantasy genre that's worn out, not only in films but in books as well. Add into it the fairy tale adaptations aimed for adults, you know Grimm Tales etc, and it all blends together.

As for actual middle ages films, there have been some original and fresh this decade. Black Death starring Sean Bean was quite good for example, I should watch it again some day. Again it took quite few liberties but in contrast to non-accuracy of most other films, they at least attempted to try.

Aside from Harry Potter, though, they do all have a medieval setting, using medieval technology and battle tactics. That's what I think he was getting at.

CT-1138 wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Megaspino2 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It's official. The King Arthur movie is going to lose uo to $150 million dollars.

The medieval genre in general is worn out, especially in America. Harry Potter, LotR, the Hobbit, the plethora of medieval video games (elder scrolls/skyrim, dark souls, witcher, dragon age) and the Game of Thrones TV show have over saturated the market. The medieval theme needs a break and it's why I think King Arthur is flopping; I seen the trailers and it just looked like a generic middle ages movie with nothing special or note worthy.

None of those are medieval though, but strict fantasy. It's the generic fantasy genre that's worn out, not only in films but in books as well. Add into it the fairy tale adaptations aimed for adults, you know Grimm Tales etc, and it all blends together.

As for actual middle ages films, there have been some original and fresh this decade. Black Death starring Sean Bean was quite good for example, I should watch it again some day. Again it took quite few liberties but in contrast to non-accuracy of most other films, they at least attempted to try.

Aside from Harry Potter, though, they do all have a medieval setting, using medieval technology and battle tactics. That's what I think he was getting at.

Medieval oriented/influenced fantasy, yes, but not actual middle ages.

These should be made into films, they're fresh from the old rehashed fantasy cliches:
http://bookriot.com/2014/07/11/4-fantasy-novels-set-medieval-europe/

Boss Baby Sequel in the Works for 2021
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/852609-boss-baby-sequel-in-the-works-for-2021#QZFSbgKE7dMCcAsd.99

Dead2009 wrote:

Boss Baby Sequel in the Works for 2021
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/852609-boss-baby-sequel-in-the-works-for-2021#QZFSbgKE7dMCcAsd.99

Dreamworks made Prince Of Egypt and yet THIS is the best they can do?!

And once again, my anti-Universal mindset is even more entrenched, even more justified, and even larger then before.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Boss Baby Sequel in the Works for 2021
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/852609-boss-baby-sequel-in-the-works-for-2021#QZFSbgKE7dMCcAsd.99

Dreamworks made Prince Of Egypt and yet THIS is the best they can do?!

And once again, my anti-Universal mindset is even more entrenched, even more justified, and even larger then before.  

I'm starting to feel the same way. Back when DreamWorks had autonomy, and were a young studio, this kind of junk would have been considered unthinkable. It makes me wonder just what kind of management Universal has to become entrenched in this mindset, because it's a far cry from their 90s success years.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Boss Baby Sequel in the Works for 2021
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/852609-boss-baby-sequel-in-the-works-for-2021#QZFSbgKE7dMCcAsd.99

Dreamworks made Prince Of Egypt and yet THIS is the best they can do?!

And once again, my anti-Universal mindset is even more entrenched, even more justified, and even larger then before.  

I'm starting to feel the same way. Back when DreamWorks had autonomy, and were a young studio, this kind of junk would have been considered unthinkable. It makes me wonder just what kind of management Universal has to become entrenched in this mindset, because it's a far cry from their 90s success years.

This is in many ways worse then Rothman at Fox. Say what you want, but at least he managed to make Fox profitable on a constant basis when he ruled. After the JP rights go back to the Crichton estate, if Universal doesn't get them back, then they are looking at major trouble. I have no faith in their Monsterverse and the F&F franchise is going to end eventually. What else to they have? The only thing I can think of is the new Grinch movie, which may be the start of a rebooted Dr. Seuss movie franchise. And given how bad they botched it the last time...yeah...

Dead2009 wrote:

Boss Baby Sequel in the Works for 2021
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/852609-boss-baby-sequel-in-the-works-for-2021#QZFSbgKE7dMCcAsd.99

oh for f*ck's sake...

I literally have no idea what Boss Baby is. I'm probably blessed

The only CGI-animations I've seen from this decade are Frozen and Toy Story 3. And I'm also half way through Gnomeo & Juliet, which sucks ass, but I have to finish it some day because it's one of the last Emily Blunt films on my list. I think there's also a sequel coming out, which is dreadful. Those kind of films are just the kind of lazy unimaginative garbage I despise when it comes to modern animation and family films.

I also still want to see Tangled and the subsequent short films, before I check if the new series on Disney Channel is worth watching

Doubt I'll see Frozen 2. But Toy Story 4, of course. As I've said before, somehow they haven't missed a beat yet, and every film has been great. Really hope the new one doesn't break the chain and become Kingdom of the Crystal Whatever of the series. Will be sad without Potato Head, but what can you do...