What will be the summer movie disappointments?
Ickyboy1
what about actual quality? What films that people are looking forward to will
turn out to be crapola?
I nominate SHAFT. Having read what happens at the end of the movie, and how the
character is generally presented, I think this is going to disappoint a lot of
people. IMHO the movie was all about the 70s, I don't think it can work in the
same way in the 00s.
And conversely, movies that people have already totally written off that might
actually be, y'know, decent. 2 definite candidates so far : Battlefield Earth
and X-men...?
Mo
Zadok Allen
>
>East is East is going to be a very big hit ..
>
Is this movie even slated to get off the art house circuit and into the plexes?
KalElFan
icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) writes:
>OK we had the poll asking what will be the unexpected financial
>hits/flops, so what about actual quality? What films that people
>are looking forward to will turn out to be crapola?
Right now I think X-Men would be my choice for a movie that
could be both huge at the box office, and suprisingly good
quality-wise. It's virtually guaranteed a big opening. I'm not
sure why I have this hunch it's better than you might think,
but I suspect it's Stewart as Professor X, and some of those
visuals I saw in the trailer. I say this as someone who's never
read an X-Men comic or had any particular interest in them.
It's just the idea of a movie where Stewart leads a bunch of
these misfits, all of them cool-looking, fighting Magneto or
whatever the big villain's name is, with big production values
and special effects... I have this feeling it's going to be huge
*and* good.
Battlefield Earth looks great visually based on the trailer, again
some great production values and special effects. I just don't
have a good enough handle on the tone as I've said elsewhere.
It doesn't come through too well in the trailer. If the movie
takes itself too seriously, I think it's in trouble. It needs to
be fun like Will Smith in ID4.
Anyway, X-Men is my pick for the big summer movie right now.
If it's very good, I think it could go top 10 all time and we may
have comic book movies up the wazoo for the next several years.
KBusby2256
>If it's very good, I think it could go top 10 all time and we may
>have comic book movies up the wazoo for the next several years.
I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance reviews
have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with Russel Crowe..one of the
best actors in the the business, I really hope this takes off.
"Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things. And no good thing ever
dies"
-- Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
rufie
kale...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
> In article <20000418125423...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) writes:
>
> >OK we had the poll asking what will be the unexpected financial
> >hits/flops, so what about actual quality? What films that people
> >are looking forward to will turn out to be crapola?
>
> Right now I think X-Men would be my choice for a movie that
> could be both huge at the box office, and suprisingly good
> quality-wise.
I certainly hope so. I loved those comics. And I love Patrick Stewart (
from whom we are all descended).
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>could be both huge at the box office, and suprisingly good
>sure why I have this hunch it's better than you might think,
>but I suspect it's Stewart as Professor X, and some of those
>visuals I saw in the trailer.
I'd like to point out that the presence of Patrick Stewart is absolutely not
the guarantee of quality that so many people seem to think it is...
A small sampling of Stewart's filmography...
"Dune"
"Robin Hood: Men in Tights"
"The Pagemaster" (voice)
"Conspiracy Theory"
"Masterminds"
Throw in "Star Trek: Generations" and "Star Trek: Insurrection" and you've got
yourself a hell of an actor who does not exactly have the most sterling record
in the cinema...
Gordon Stokes
Other notable Gordons include: Flash Gordon, Commissioner Gordon, Gordon Jump,
Gordon Lightfoot, Gordon "Gordie" Howe, G. Gordon Liddy, Artemus Gordon, Gale
Gordon, General "Chinese" Gordon and "Gordon" by Barenaked Ladies.
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <20000418125423...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) writes:
>
> >OK we had the poll asking what will be the unexpected financial
> >hits/flops, so what about actual quality? What films that people
> >are looking forward to will turn out to be crapola?
>
> Right now I think X-Men would be my choice for a movie that
> could be both huge at the box office, and suprisingly good
> quality-wise. It's virtually guaranteed a big opening. I'm not
> sure why I have this hunch it's better than you might think,
> but I suspect it's Stewart as Professor X,
ah, yes, the legendary kasshole five year old public perception
indicator-
he's very good at guessing how 5 year olds will see things.
apparently, 5 year olds willw ant to see a movie because patrick stewart
is in it.
certainly that will have little effect on anyone older.
and, certainly, the millions upon millions of xmen readers will
not affect gross significantly, according to kasshole.
> Anyway, X-Men is my pick for the big summer movie right now.
> If it's very good, I think it could go top 10 all time and we may
> have comic book movies up the wazoo for the next several years.
>
i will state right now with certainty that the movie, no matter how
good it is, will not reach top ten of all time.
--
"And keeping in mind that this economy is going to expand forever, we
want that money now to spend in on ourselves. And remember that no
Congress could ever really Pass such a huge tax cut, but George W.
says he just going to give it to us, so that's an impressive use of
presidential power." The Daily Feed.
KalElFan
(KBusby2256) writes:
>I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance
>reviews have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with
>Russel Crowe..one of the best actors in the the business, I really
>hope this takes off.
Even assuming it has a huge opening weekend, it's going to run
right into Battlefield Earth, then M:I 2 which will squash it. Those
are just the movies I know about (I haven't been following what's
being released very closely). The other big question I have is
the inherent appeal of this concept. That Titus Andronicus movie
(if I have the title right, from a work by Shakespeare) with Anthony
Hopkins couldn't draw flies where it was released (I'm not even
sure it got a major release).
The sandals and swords, as someone put it, just may not sell
these days. But I know a lot of people seem to be rooting for
this movie, and the advance buzz seems to be good.
Dawn Taylor
>In article <20000419101623...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, kbusb...@aol.com
>(KBusby2256) writes:
>
>>I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance
>>reviews have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with
>>Russel Crowe..one of the best actors in the the business, I really
>>hope this takes off.
>
>Even assuming it has a huge opening weekend, it's going to run
>right into Battlefield Earth,
Which will have a healthy, not spectacular, opening weekend and then
die on the vine because people will think it's a creepy Scientology
movie. (Which it's not, probably - it's just a movie by creepy
Scientologists).
>then M:I 2 which will squash it.
Or Gladiator will build on word of mouth and be the breakout hit of
summer while MI2 disappoints, receipts-wise.
And then there's the X-Men movie, which will in all likelihood be
horrible and will crash and burn with a big KA-BOOM!
Dawn
-------------------
It is absurd to divide people into good or bad. People are
either charming or tedious. -Oscar Wilde
Fawlty
news:20000419190907...@nso-cg.aol.com...
> In article <20000419101623...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
kbusb...@aol.com
> (KBusby2256) writes:
>
> >I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance
> >reviews have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with
> >Russel Crowe..one of the best actors in the the business, I really
> >hope this takes off.
>
> Even assuming it has a huge opening weekend, it's going to run
> are just the movies I know about (I haven't been following what's
> being released very closely). The other big question I have is
> the inherent appeal of this concept. That Titus Andronicus movie
> (if I have the title right, from a work by Shakespeare) with Anthony
> Hopkins couldn't draw flies where it was released (I'm not even
> sure it got a major release).
>
> The sandals and swords, as someone put it, just may not sell
> these days. But I know a lot of people seem to be rooting for
> this movie, and the advance buzz seems to be good.
Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus", you
predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
/Mike
JLD
icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) wrote:
> OK we had the poll asking what will be the unexpected financial
hits/flops, so
> what about actual quality? What films that people are looking forward
to will
> turn out to be crapola?
I've heard some good buzz about "The Patriot". They're paying Mel
Gibson some ungodly sum...25M I think. I like Mel and all, well we'll
see.
The "Gladiator" looks good, don't know about being another "Titanic"
Teenage girls seeing that movie 10 plus times swelled it's numbers. I
drew the line a 3 times for my kids.
George Clooney's movie "The Perfect Storm" Looks exciting...the book
was good. Don't know if George can draw em in but being released right
before July 4 should help, I would think.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pupil and Defender of Alex Crouvier
hey moron, summer movies all suck. remember last year? phantom
menace? matrix? you call that a great summer?
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
LONG LIVE ALEX CROUVIER III.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
KBusby2256
>limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus", you
>predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
>"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
no, but I think she meant that it being a historical epic like Titus, that it
wouldn't be a huge hit. Titus was excellent, and didn't earn any money.
Although I do think Gladiator has a really big chance to make it big..simply
because Battlefield Earth looks terrible, and MI2 looks good, but not
great..whereas Gladiator looks like the best film of the year.
KalElFan
drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) writes:
>I'd like to point out that the presence of Patrick Stewart is absolutely not
>the guarantee of quality that so many people seem to think it is...
Oh, it could suck. I'm just saying the concept here, and the
casting of Stewart, and the trailer, and the pre-release buzz
and anticipation all add up to a potentially huge blockbuster.
If they haven't executed it well and it sucks, then it'll die out
quickly. But if it's very good it'll get big bounces from positive
word of mouth and lots of repeat business, and the sustained
good box office itself will get publicity and feed on itself.
There's potentially a high want to see among the core male market.
If it were just X-Men fans it wouldn't be enough. But the presence
of Stewart has raised the profile of the picture enough that you
have maybe ten million Star Trek fans, and maybe another ten
million fans of the sf and comic book genres in movies (e.g.,
people who saw everything from Batman to The Matrix) who
may see this movie *IF* the advance buzz, reviews and word of
mouth are good. Get a good chunk of that big target market,
and the movie will be huge.
KalElFan
dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) writes:
>Which will have a healthy, not spectacular, opening weekend and
>then die on the vine because people will think it's a creepy Scientology
>movie.
If they think the movie is creepy (forget the Scientology part, just
creepy), I think it dies fast. A movie called Battlefield Earth with that
John Travolta visual cannot do creepy. The movie has to recognize
what it is and isn't. It has to be fun, love-to-hate the Travolta villain.
Of course it's in the can now so the proverbial die is cast. We just
don't know what the tone is, and the trailer doesn't help an awful lot.
>Or Gladiator will build on word of mouth and be the breakout hit of
>summer while MI2 disappoints, receipts-wise.
>
>And then there's the X-Men movie, which will in all likelihood be
>horrible and will crash and burn with a big KA-BOOM!
Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect, especially
beyond its opening week. There's also a high probability MI:2 will be
huge its opening week, leaving Gladiator in the dust even if it does
survive Battlefield Earth which I doubt it will (even though the BE trailer
does not "close the sale" so to speak).
I'm not sure what makes you think X-Men will in all likelihood be horrible,
crash and burn. The only reason I can think of is that comic book
movies have been known to suck badly, but the big budget ones to
start a movie franchise (Superman, Batman come to mind) have been
good or at least decent. Maybe you're right though.
KalElFan
<faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
>limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus",
>you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
>"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
It was just an example, Fawlty. Movies like this are out of the
50s. Titus Andronicus did have Anthony Hopkins in it, a guy
who can help some movies (I think he helps MI:2), but TA didn't
draw flies with him in it. The trailer for Gladiator actually makes
the story sound a bit similar, and that CGI lion effect at the end
looked a bit cheesy, i.e. obviously an effect. The voice over with
"The soldier... the emperor..." yadda yadda yadda just didn't say
"Wow, we gotta see this!" The whole thing is kind of a yawner,
and outside geek sites and movie newsgroups I don't sense huge
want to see.
So I'm skeptical about its box office prospects beyond the first
week when it seems to have little competition. My guess is it'll
be lucky to do $25M the first weekend, which will mean it has
its work cut out for it to get to $100M. If it had more competition,
it's the kind of movie that could fizzle, and it's possible it still may
because competition doesn't just mean movies. You have hockey
and basketball playoffs, baseball, May sweeps, other stuff going
on if the weather's good. There has to be want_to_see to get
people out into the theaters. With something like MI:2 you have
that, same with X-Men. Do that many people really want to get
out to see Gladiator? I'm skeptical, but it has picked a good
release date and people are saying it's good so it's possible. I
think the reviews will be important on a vulnerable movie like this.
Reagen Sulewski
-cg.aol.com>:
>In article <cmrL4.24701$WF.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"Fawlty"
><faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
>>limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus",
>>you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action
>>movie "Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
>
>It was just an example, Fawlty.
Remove that capital letter on that last word, and that's a truer statement.
>Movies like this are out of the
>50s. Titus Andronicus did have Anthony Hopkins in it, a guy
>who can help some movies (I think he helps MI:2), but TA didn't
>draw flies with him in it.
It was a Shakespeare movie, and not a well known one at that. Take a look at Ken Branagh's
history in regards to these things. Or even last year's Midsummer Night's Dream, a much more
well known play (and much more in the fluffy-bunny Shakes in Love mode-let's not forget that
Titus is basically Caligula without all the sex) which had a 'star-studded' cast and did 16M total.
Titus was also a Fox Searchlight release. Gladiator is a Dreamworks release.
>So I'm skeptical about its box office prospects beyond the first
>week when it seems to have little competition. My guess is it'll
>be lucky to do $25M the first weekend, which will mean it has
>its work cut out for it to get to $100M. If it had more competition,
>it's the kind of movie that could fizzle, and it's possible it still may
>because competition doesn't just mean movies.
Competition doesn't really mean that much. The movie industry was kind enough to run several
things by us last year to test competition. Star Wars -should- have been the ultimate killer of
movies (especially genre movies), and yet The Mummy had nearly identical dropoffs for the
week before and during Star Wars's release (43 and 45% respectively). Most other movies had
similar patterns (I haven't checked all of them). Later on, we had Sleepy Hollow and James
Bond going head to head with both hitting 30M (the later making almost 10M more than the
previous James Bond record holder, Goldeneye) (Incidentally, Sleepy Hollow seems like a good
analogue for Gladiator---mid level star, familar concept, well-liked-within-the-genre if not
universally famous director, kicking off a major box office season). Now there -may- have been
competition effects in both those cases, and there's no way to have a control, but if there was,
they couldn't have been too bad.
--
You've touched me deep within my cold, tin heart.
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <39063ce6...@news.pacifier.com>,
> dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) writes:
>
> >Which will have a healthy, not spectacular, opening weekend and
> >then die on the vine because people will think it's a creepy Scientology
> >movie.
>
> If they think the movie is creepy (forget the Scientology part, just
> creepy), I think it dies fast. A movie called Battlefield Earth with that
> John Travolta visual cannot do creepy.
betcha it isn't even a science fiction movie!
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <20000419164821...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) writes:
>
> >I'd like to point out that the presence of Patrick Stewart is absolutely not
> >the guarantee of quality that so many people seem to think it is...
>
> There's potentially a high want to see among the core male market.
> If it were just X-Men fans it wouldn't be enough.
maybe, but there are tens of millions of poeple who read xmen..
But the presence
> of Stewart has raised the profile of the picture enough that you
> have maybe ten million Star Trek fans,
this is the silly part.
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <cmrL4.24701$WF.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Fawlty"
> <faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
> >limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus",
> >you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
> >"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
>
> It was just an example, Fawlty. Movies like this are out of the
> 50s.
oh, youmean like independence day.
Cheryl Deering
KalElFan wrote:
> In article <20000419101623...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, kbusb...@aol.com
> (KBusby2256) writes:
>
> >I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance
> >reviews have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with
> >Russel Crowe..one of the best actors in the the business, I really
> >hope this takes off.
>
> Even assuming it has a huge opening weekend, it's going to run
> right into Battlefield Earth,
. . .which not only looks awful, but will most likely suffer a "Dammed if
I'm going to see a Scientology-funded movie" backlash as well. . .
> hen M:I 2 which will squash it.
GLADIATOR not only looks like it will be a lock on young audiences, it
will most certainly have cross-generational/BRAVEHEART appeal. At the
least, it will have serious legs.
> Those
> are just the movies I know about (I haven't been following what's
> being released very closely). The other big question I have is
> the inherent appeal of this concept. That Titus Andronicus movie
> (if I have the title right, from a work by Shakespeare) with Anthony
> Hopkins couldn't draw flies where it was released (I'm not even
> sure it got a major release).
>
Um, there is a big difference between a gruesome tragedy in which no
one is heroic and almost everyone dies--and a one-man-against-an-empire
tale--g!
C.
**
Cheryl Deering
KalElFan wrote:
> In article <20000419164821...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) writes:
>
> >I'd like to point out that the presence of Patrick Stewart is absolutely not
> >the guarantee of quality that so many people seem to think it is...
> There's potentially a high want to see among the core male market.
> If it were just X-Men fans it wouldn't be enough. But the presence
> of Stewart has raised the profile of the picture enough that you
> have maybe ten million Star Trek fans, and maybe another ten
> million fans of the sf and comic book genres in movies (e.g.,
> people who saw everything from Batman to The Matrix) who
> may see this movie *IF* the advance buzz, reviews and word of
> mouth are good.
And that "if" is the make-or-break--in fact, even if this is good, it's
probably going to have an uphill climb. Even the most hard-core
comic book fans have been burned so often by bad adaptations that
they don't automatically jump at the bait when Hollywood does a
comic book anymore. I can see this taking at least a couple of weeks
to convince people it's any good ("No, really, X-MEN rocks!" "S'yeah, right.")
and that may not draw audiences in fast enough. And the odds
are far better this will suck--the wrong creative team is doing material
right unsuited to their talents; it's a live-action adaptation that is facing
some
incredible FX difficulties--and it has never been the easiest comic series to
adapt, given the number of characters alone. It would have been
smarter to turn this over to the BATMAN: ANIMATED SERIES crew--
or Pixar.
C.
**
Ickyboy1
>> >then die on the vine because people will think it's a creepy Scientology
>> >movie.
But does Joe Public know or even care that its a scientology-related movie? I'm
not talking about Joe Internet or even his cousin Joe Newsgroup...I think the
"negativity" against this movie is smaller than this NG thinks it is
Fawlty
news:20000420154547...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
I agree. I think most people don't know that it's Scientology related
(unless the ad-campaign is plastering L Ron Hubbard's name all over, then I
think more people will know) and even if they know, they also know Travolta
is a Scientologist, and that hasn't seemed to damage his box-office status.
I doubt the "Scientology" factor will have much impact on the BO numbers.
/Mike
formely WaHooJoeVa
Movies that will make $50M+, forgive me if I forget anything.
1. Dinosaur $300,000,000
2. MI:2 $165,000,000
3. The Patriot $150,000,000
4. The Klumps $130,000,000
4. X-Men: The Movie $105,000,000
5. Me, Myself, and Irene $100,000,000
6. Gone in 60 Seconds $95,000,000
7. Battlefield Earth $89,000,000
8. The Perfect Storm $87,000,000
8. Pokemon 2 $85,000,000
9. Shanghai Noon $80,000,000
10.Gladiator $75,000,000
11. The Hollow Man $70,000,000
12. Titan AE $65,000,000
13. Rocky & Bulwinkle $51,000,000
14. Loser $50,000,000
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
It's opening at the same time as "The Mummy" did last year, which did something
like $150 million...and it ran right into Episode I.
Luis Carruthers
I expect the Scientology factor to come out sometime during the opening
week.
Professor Moriarty
> In article <20000419101623...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, kbusb...@aol.com
> (KBusby2256) writes:
>
> >I disagree. Gladiator has blockbuster written all over it. Advance
> >reviews have indicated a Titanic sized masterpiece, and with
> >Russel Crowe..one of the best actors in the the business, I really
> >hope this takes off.
>
> Even assuming it has a huge opening weekend, it's going to run
> right into Battlefield Earth, then M:I 2 which will squash it.
Except BATTLEFIELD EARTH will be a gigantic piece of shit even if it's only 1/3
as hideous as the script and M:I2 is in big trouble... it's a boring John Woo
film. As much as I was dying to see M:I2, after having read the final production
draft of the thing, I am almost ready to cry from frustration. It's just awful.
Neither of those movies will have legs, and after seeing GLADIATOR three times
with number four coming up on Wednesday, that film just keeps getting better.
It's no contest once people see the films.
> Those are just the movies I know about (I haven't been following what's
> being released very closely). The other big question I have is
> the inherent appeal of this concept. That Titus Andronicus movie
> (if I have the title right, from a work by Shakespeare) with Anthony
> Hopkins couldn't draw flies where it was released (I'm not even
> sure it got a major release).
You're not seriously comparing Julie Taymor's arthouse adaptation of what is
widely acknowledged as the worst of Shakespeare's historical plays with a
seriously kick-ass visceral thrill ride with a brain like GLADIATOR, are you? A
$10 million adaptation of a play versus a $140 million state of the art action
epic?
They're not even the same medium, man.
> The sandals and swords, as someone put it, just may not sell these days. But I
> know a lot of people seem to be rooting for this movie, and the advance buzz
> seems to be good.
It's great. Just wait and see.
"Moriarty" out.
--
"I believe that man will not merely endure, he will prevail. He is immortal not
because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a
soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.
"The poet's -- the writer's -- duty is to write about these things. It is his
privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the
courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which
have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record
of man; it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail."
--William Faulkner's Nobel Prize Speech; Stockholm, December 10, 1950
Professor Moriarty
> In article <cmrL4.24701$WF.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Fawlty"
> <faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
> >limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus",
> >you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
> >"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
>
> It was just an example, Fawlty. Movies like this are out of the
> 50s. Titus Andronicus did have Anthony Hopkins in it, a guy
> who can help some movies (I think he helps MI:2), but TA didn't
> draw flies with him in it. The trailer for Gladiator actually makes
> the story sound a bit similar, and that CGI lion effect at the end
> looked a bit cheesy, i.e. obviously an effect.
Except once again, the subject of you, DreamWorks, and what is or isn't CGI is all
confused. There are no CGI lions in the film. The animals were there, on set.
All that has been done is a slight telescoping of perspective for certain shots.
The only CG elements in the shot are overhead, part of the Colliseum itself.
And, yes, I've seen actual footage from the set. The animals are real.
Cheryl Deering
KalElFan wrote:
> Braveheart had Mel Gibson of course, and I think people perceived it
> as the Scots vs. the English with the huge battle scenes in particular
> being a draw. Does this "one-man-against-an-empire" come across
> as heroic, or a hopeless cause, i.e. tragic just like Titus Andronicus?
>
From the GLADIATOR trailers I've seen, it comes across as heroic.
As well, TA and GLADIATOR are two completely different types of
movies. TA is basically Grand Guiginol/John Webster action about a man
and an empire destroyed through revenge and blindheaded savagery. GLADIATOR
is about one man realizing the empire that made him is corrupt and
trying to confront it. The folks in TA don't learn that until it is way too
late.
>
> I have no idea how the movie ends, e.g. if the Crowe character leads
> his own army of slaves, and disaffected soldiers previously under his
> command (as a General), to overthrow the Emperor. So it's possible
> this is a thrilling story with an upbeat ending, which would certainly
> help. But I don't think that has come through at all in the trailer,
> publicity or buzz.
Not in the early trailer, but the recent one makes a point of this.
"Today I saw one man become
greater than the Emperor of Rome himself." action--g!
C.
**
Cheryl Deering
rufie wrote:
> In article <20000419164821...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) wrote:
>
> > >Right now I think X-Men would be my choice for a movie that
> > >could be both huge at the box office, and suprisingly good
> > >quality-wise. It's virtually guaranteed a big opening. I'm not
> > >sure why I have this hunch it's better than you might think,
> > >but I suspect it's Stewart as Professor X, and some of those
> > >visuals I saw in the trailer.
> >
> > I'd like to point out that the presence of Patrick Stewart is absolutely not
> > the guarantee of quality that so many people seem to think it is...
One of the harder lessons I've learned lo these many years of summer blockbuster
viewing is that even if a big-budget deal has actors perfectly cast, that does
not guarantee the movie itself will be any good.
C.
**
(After all, if the script isn't up to the real heavy lifting needed to make a
movie work,
they all might as well cool out in their trailers. . .)
damonland
Professor Moriarty wrote:
>
> KalElFan wrote:
>
> > In article <cmrL4.24701$WF.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Fawlty"
> > <faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > >Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
> > >limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus Andronicus",
> > >you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener action movie
> > >"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
> >
> > It was just an example, Fawlty. Movies like this are out of the
> > 50s. Titus Andronicus did have Anthony Hopkins in it, a guy
> > who can help some movies (I think he helps MI:2), but TA didn't
> > draw flies with him in it. The trailer for Gladiator actually makes
> > the story sound a bit similar, and that CGI lion effect at the end
> > looked a bit cheesy, i.e. obviously an effect.
>
> Except once again, the subject of you, DreamWorks, and what is or isn't CGI is all
> confused. There are no CGI lions in the film. The animals were there, on set.
> All that has been done is a slight telescoping of perspective for certain shots.
> The only CG elements in the shot are overhead, part of the Colliseum itself.
>
i hate to agree with kashole- so i won't.
but that LEOPARD [well *i* thought it was a leopard]
looked cgi'd to me in the 1/2 second it was on the commercial.
actually, it looked like the good cgi version,
which menat very relaistic, but still
sort oif fake.
your explanation that they messed witht he perspective explains it.
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <20000420154547...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) writes:
>
> >But does Joe Public know or even care that its a scientology-related
> >movie? I'm not talking about Joe Internet or even his cousin Joe
> >Newsgroup...I think the "negativity" against this movie is smaller
> >than this NG thinks it is
>
> I agree the negativity is much smaller for the reason you cite, i.e.
> most people probably don't even know much less care about it
> being based on a novel by the guy who founded Scientology. But
> I don't think the trailer is particular good in conveying "This looks
> good/great, I've got to see this." So I think the movie is somewhat
> vulnerable if it gets a lot of bad reviews as the second blow in a
> negative one-two punch.
>
> But this is all just wild guessing when we don't know anything about
> the quality of the movie.
like THAT ever stopped you before?
hell, if it had, you'd post Nothing.
damonland
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <38FF7D0B...@aintitcool.com>, Professor Moriarty
> <Mori...@aintitcool.com> writes about Gladiator
>
> >It's great. Just wait and see.
>
> Hey, maybe it is great but outside of a few web sites and newsgroups
> I don't think many know that. The trailer doesn't convey that. That
> lion effect at the end of the trailer (no matter what it was) didn't look
> particularly good. I'm trying to figure out where the $140M is. I
> didn't see that in the trailer either.
>
i did.
and it looked cheaper than www.
Fawlty
> In article <38FF7D0B...@aintitcool.com>, Professor Moriarty
> <Mori...@aintitcool.com> writes about Gladiator
>
> >It's great. Just wait and see.
>
> Hey, maybe it is great but outside of a few web sites and newsgroups
> I don't think many know that. The trailer doesn't convey that.
I just finished watching "The Iron Giant", and it was an amazing movie.
I remember reading raves about it on websites and newsgroups before it
opened, and it bombed totally. Websites and newsgroups don't seem to be
good indicators of BO success. Too bad it did so badly, it really was a
wonderful movie. I understand it's doing pretty good on home video
though.
/Mike
Geoff
>>Ickyboy1 <icky...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20000420154547...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
>>> >> >Which will have a healthy, not spectacular, opening weekend and
>>> >> >then die on the vine because people will think it's a creepy
>>Scientology
>>> >> >movie.
>>>
>>movie? I'm
>>> not talking about Joe Internet or even his cousin Joe Newsgroup...I think
>>the
>>> "negativity" against this movie is smaller than this NG thinks it is
>>
>>(unless the ad-campaign is plastering L Ron Hubbard's name all over, then I
>>think more people will know) and even if they know, they also know Travolta
>>is a Scientologist, and that hasn't seemed to damage his box-office status.
>>I doubt the "Scientology" factor will have much impact on the BO numbers.
>>
It might once the picketing starts. And according to what I've seen on
alt.religion.scientology, there will be plenty of picketing, at least in the
major markets.
Regards,
Geoff "BE's gonna tank anyway."
"Words, words. They're all we have to go on."
--Guildenstern, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"
Niraj Agarwalla
: East is east -over $100m
: In fact the DVD out this month will make even more..
What are you talking about? Is this the "pirate version"? This is an English movie, not a Bollywood one, so the
producers in England and its distributors here in the states, Miramax, will not look too kindly to bootleggers.
Unfortunately, its not playing around the Boston area, so I will have to wait for the DVD. Mirmax is the same company
that released MY SON THE FANATIC, which also starred OM PURI. Great transfer, only a 2.0 audio mix, though; and very
austere for extras.
: blingb...@aol.comgohoos (formely WaHooJoeVa) wrote:
: (May 5-July 28 releases)
--
Niraj Agarwalla -- ni...@shore.net
Bill Binkelman
JLD <j...@whoever.com> wrote:
> In article <20000418125423...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) wrote:
> > OK we had the poll asking what will be the unexpected financial
> hits/flops, so
> > what about actual quality? What films that people are looking
forward
> to will
> > turn out to be crapola?
>
> I've heard some good buzz about "The Patriot". They're paying Mel
> Gibson some ungodly sum...25M I think. I like Mel and all, well we'll
> see.
>
> The "Gladiator" looks good, don't know about being another "Titanic"
> Teenage girls seeing that movie 10 plus times swelled it's numbers. I
> drew the line a 3 times for my kids.
>
> George Clooney's movie "The Perfect Storm" Looks exciting...the book
> was good. Don't know if George can draw em in but being released
right
> before July 4 should help, I would think.
>
I think the summer's wild card is THE PERFECT STORM. It's got a very
good visual director in Wolfgang Petersen, a star whose bankability is
on the rise (Clooney who got a lot of good press from THREE KINGS), a
youth star in Wahlberg and a strong female lead character (played by
usually always excellent Mary Elizabeth Mostrantonio (damn, that's
not the right spelling but you know who I mean). The FX (by ILM) are
supposed to be awesome, the story is part action, part human drama,
and true. It crosses lots of demographics. It won't be the big winner
this summer but I think it'll do surprisingly well.
GLADIATOR, no matter how good it is, really faces an uphill battle. It
does not have any "built-in" audience. Comparing it to BRAVEHEART is
wrong, IMO. BRAVEHEART had the success it did, at least partly, because
it was Mel Gibson (look at the comparative disastrous response for ROB
ROY for some validation of that). Russell Crowe may be a better actor
than Gibson (IMO he is) but he's not a star yet (how much money did THE
INSIDER do?). And while it is a big budget action film, where's the
appeal? I don't think the under-16 male audience will flock to this
film because are they that interested in that period of history? And I
guess it'll be pretty violent. Not a lot of character development for
the literate/touchy feely set (which I am part of usually).
XMEN has too big of a "built-in" audience to not do well for at least
several weeks. There is the SF crowd, the FX crowd, and the fans of the
comic book itself (not a small number). Bad early buzz may diminish (but
not kill) the box office (if that was the case, PHANTOM MENACE would
never have done what it did because lots of people dissed it immediately
after it opened) but I still think it'll do well.
MI2 will draw from Cruise's fans, but as a sequel, it has to garner good
early reaction to combat the "been there, done that" nature of sequels.
The trailer looks confusing to me (even more then the first movie). Of
course, OTOH, look at the Bond films. I suppose they could take the
Cruise character and more or less franchise him.
BATTLEFIELD EARTH will not, IMO, suffer that much of a Scientology
backlash because the best audience for the film will not give a rat's
ass about whether the Church bankrolled it or not. As for any
philsophical tie-in, well, this is not PHENOMENON (a film I personally
liked a lot). That film had obvious connotations to the religion. But,
after seeing the trailer for this, unless there is some overt subtext,
this just looks like a SF shoot 'em up (and they don't exactly do
poorly). Travolta can carry a film singlehandedly, perhaps (THE
GENERAL'S DAUGHTER notwithstanding). Seeing him as a baddy might
intrigue some people.
I just think that THE PERFECT STORM has the best chance of breaking out
past what people expect it to do. The book is moving, exciting, and
suspenseful. Since it is being done with the cooperation of the people
of Gloucester (and after reading the book, they don't seem like the kind
of people to be easily persuaded to trash their own history or image),
it should be a well-told story of tragedy and heroism that young/old and
men/women can all relate to. In addition, with its FX, it will be a
helluva thrill ride as well.
Bill
--
Bill Binkelman
Wind & Wire
New Instrumental Music Reviews
http://www2.bitstream.net/~billb/wandw_home.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alan Daniels
>But does Joe Public know or even care that its a scientology-related
>movie? I'm not talking about Joe Internet or even his cousin Joe
>Newsgroup...I think the "negativity" against this movie is smaller
This would be true for most movies, but in the case of a sci-fi movie,
the target audience *isn't* Joe Public, it's the sort of geek that
goes to see sci-fi that doesn't already have "Star (Wars|Trek)" in the
title. And for more typical movie-goers that might be interested,
they'll likely ask their friendly neighborhood computer nerd their
opinion of the movie before they put out the money for it. And among
the group of people (your's truly included) that would ideally be such
"early adopters" of the movie, they definitely *are* aware of the
Scientology connection, and will steer people away because of it.
Battlefield Earth is gonna tank, guaranteed.
--
============================================================
Alan Daniels
dan...@mindspring.com
Mo
Type "east is east" in yahhoo.com and then your postcode for
your nearest cinema
If you type "kaho na pyar hai " - dont forget the quote
marks you will get Bollywood reviews too ..
Eric F.
> I just finished watching "The Iron Giant", and it was an amazing movie...I understand it's doing pretty good > on home video though.
I liked it. It was far better than I thought it would be (I usually
don't have high hopes for animated movies).
Videos are the great equalizer.
Both crappy & awesome movies end up on video, where box office doesn't
mean shit (not that it does, anyway), & you can discover hidden
treasures at your leisure...
Later,
Eric F., Film Freak
KalElFan
<dee...@primenet.com> writes:
>>[KalElFan wrote]:
>> I have no idea how the movie ends, e.g. if the Crowe character leads
>> his own army of slaves, and disaffected soldiers previously under his
>> command (as a General), to overthrow the Emperor. So it's possible
>> this is a thrilling story with an upbeat ending, which would certainly
>> help. But I don't think that has come through at all in the trailer,
>> publicity or buzz.
>
>Not in the early trailer, but the recent one makes a point of this.
>"Today I saw one man become greater than the Emperor of Rome
>himself."
I haven't seen the new trailer, just the one with the lion effect right
at the end. I just took a wild guess about what an upbeat, box office
winner might have as its plot. That new trailer quote might mean
a story like that, but it's still pretty cryptic. If indeed Gladiator is
not just about the Crowe character, but the Emperor against some
credible Crowe "army", Gladiators Unite or whatever, and there's
thrilling action and Crowe's forces win, then I'll revise my opinion
of the first trailer and say it's one of the most unnecessarily ineffective
I've seen. They failed miserably in conveying something very good
that the movie had, and needed to sell because its appeal is
otherwise suspect.
This is really the way you have to judge trailers, right? It's what
they make out of what they have to work with. The Shaft trailer
is very good because it focuses almost entirely on the two big
selling points: Samuel Jackson, and the song that so many will
recognize. Frankly, even if the story is good, nothing could get
people's attention as well as those two selling points. What is
that first Gladiator trailer selling? Crowe's a good actor, but The
Insider did not do particularly well at the box office and he's no
Samuel Jackson yet, let alone Mel Gibson in terms of people
thinking "I've really got to go see this movie because of him."
It's unfair to expect Crowe to carry the picture. The trailer needed
a better sales pitch for the movie, in particular the skepticism
some will have about the sandals and swords. This is Ben Hur
and Spartacus stuff, and inherently I don't think it sells these
days. If this were opening a week or two later, I think it would
get buried, so the early release is one thing it has going for it.
If it's really as good as some say, Dreamworks might even be
well advised to sneak it next week, and then put everything they
have into ads that trumpet how good the movie is according to
critics. Maybe have some TV spots showing the couple coming
out of the movie raving about it. If this is a Cinemascore A movie,
they need to get that message out sooner rather than later
because that first weekend will be critical.
KalElFan
<faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I just finished watching "The Iron Giant", and it was an amazing movie.
>I remember reading raves about it on websites and newsgroups before it
>opened, and it bombed totally. Websites and newsgroups don't seem to be
>good indicators of BO success. Too bad it did so badly, it really was a
>wonderful movie. I understand it's doing pretty good on home video
>though.
You're right, The Iron Giant is a good example of a movie critics and the
net raved about that flopped. The title was a problem, and Warner Bros.
not being as good as Disney at selling movies like this was a problem.
There should have been a hit song tie-in, more focus on who was
doing the voices (maybe bigger names there, which could have been
mentioned in a better trailer), more advertising and bigger merchandising
deals with Burger King and the like. Disney is just much better at
selling movies like this, and that feeds on itself making the Disney
brand name a better signal to audiences.
Ickyboy1
spot last night which ended with Crowe kissing a woman. I can just imagine the
studio marketing department now..."If we put a kiss into the tv ads, it will
increase the female appeal by 39.8%!"
sultrysiren
on phonics pussy.thank god for aids!
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
locknload
and drivelling in newsgroups fag!
Thomas Andrews
sultrysiren <l...@you.com> wrote:
>boy damonhomo-a little faggot who can't spell-what a loser!get hooked
>on phonics pussy.thank god for aids!
>Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
>Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
>
Hmmm, three posters (sultrysiren, locknload, and Public Defender of
Alex Crouvier) all posting loudly here for the first time, all using
the same anonomizer, talkway.com .
Anybody wanna guess who these trolls are? The third name above
gives me a firm guess.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
"You have no idea what a poor opinion I have of myself,
and how little I deserve it." - W.S.Gilbert
Dawn Taylor
Yeah, and it helps fight that yucky homo "gladiator movie" stigma.
Hee hee.
I am Spartacus!
Dawn
("Do you like gladiator movies, Joey?")
-------------
But stirring up the complacent with a bit of rabble-rousing and
lighthearted bomb-throwing is always good for a lark. -- Paul Turley
Derek Janssen
>
> In article <0e%L4.4957$0n5....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>,
> sultrysiren <l...@you.com> wrote:
> >boy damonhomo-a little faggot who can't spell-what a loser!get hooked
> >on phonics pussy.thank god for aids!
> >--
> >Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
> >Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
> >
>
> Hmmm, three posters (sultrysiren, locknload, and Public Defender of
> Alex Crouvier) all posting loudly here for the first time, all using
> the same anonomizer, talkway.com .
>
> Anybody wanna guess who these trolls are? The third name above
> gives me a firm guess.
Probably the same Gaza who got so troll-outed every time he opened his
mouth (repeating the same material endlessly probably had something to
do with it) he couldn't get a halfway decent response anymore and
stomped away in disgust...
I quote:
------
Subject: i boycott this ng, the hell with you all.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:25:50 GMT
From: "jfievomeojvojenrnenf" <vjoi...@hotmail.com>
Organization: Talkway, Inc.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime.misc
Followup-To: rec.arts.anime.misc
whether i am eaglebear, mao zedong, ernest smith, or kimberly arnold
you guys don't cut me no slack and don't even have the decency to at
least pretend that you don't know it's me, gaza.
what's the fun of hide-n-seek is i'm found out so easily?
this is getting to be absolutely no fun. so i'm boycotting you uncool
guys who believe in taking the candy from a child.
not that i'm a child but you get what i mean!
so adios you brutish louts.
you won't have a gaza to kick around anymore!!!
vnoenrov-0-0jjjvjpmnnniv9-04jlvmaopj
cojvodjopjopi
----
...Now, of course, it'll take a few more endlessly recycled "why sixth
sense is still worth arguing about a month after it went to video" posts
to bore THIS group into apathy like all the others, but for now, he's
still convinced RAMC-F is his private drown-his-sorrows watering hole
whenever he gets his repetitive hinder kicked somewhere else--
What can we say?--Just bad strategy:
Trolls and "trademarks" don't mix... ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Matt
Maybe so, Derek, but Gaza seemed more inclined to use phrases like
'brutish louts' rather than sultrysiren's 'cumdrinking assfaggot.' I
hope ol' Gaza didn't lose his class.
--
-Matt
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>Hey!! My favorite Patrick Stewart movie is "Jeffery" .
I dig "Jeffrey" an awful lot (although it does work better on stage than on
film), and therefore it wasn't included in the list of awful movies that
Patrick Stewart has been in.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>several weeks. There is the SF crowd, the FX crowd, and the fans of the
>comic book itself (not a small number). Bad early buzz may diminish (but
>not kill) the box office (if that was the case, PHANTOM MENACE would
>never have done what it did because lots of people dissed it immediately
>after it opened) but I still think it'll do well.
>
The fans of the comic book itself is a *tiny* number - even the most popular
comics like "X-Men" sell maybe 100,000 copies a month, tops. If we're looking
at an average ticket price of $7.00, let's say, and every one of those 100,000
people who buy X-Men each month manage to bring a friend with them to the
movie...we're looking at $1.4 million. Throw in the fact that these people are
mostly the same people who make up the "SF crowd" and "FX crowd" that people
keep mentioning, and you don't have much of a built-in audience at all...
Speaking of which, if there is this huge "sci-fi crowd" and this huge "FX
crowd" that will flock to any sci-fi movie or any movie with special effects,
why did "Supernova" flop in its opening weekend? Didn't it have the apparently
huge built-in audience of the SF crowd and the FX crowd?
David T.
>You're right, The Iron Giant is a good example of a movie critics and the
>net raved about that flopped. The title was a problem, and Warner Bros.
>not being as good as Disney at selling movies like this was a problem.
>There should have been a hit song tie-in, more focus on who was
>doing the voices (maybe bigger names there, which could have been
>mentioned in a better trailer), more advertising and bigger merchandising
>deals with Burger King and the like. Disney is just much better at
>selling movies like this, and that feeds on itself making the Disney
>brand name a better signal to audiences.
Gosh, you're evil.
David
(It explains why you're pro-Battlefield Earth.)
Ki-Adi-Mundi
> On 21 Apr 2000 14:59:25 GMT, icky...@aol.com (Ickyboy1) wrote:
>
> >It's not about a Crowe army...its just Crowe kicking ass. Anyway I saw a new tv
> >spot last night which ended with Crowe kissing a woman. I can just imagine the
> >studio marketing department now..."If we put a kiss into the tv ads, it will
> >increase the female appeal by 39.8%!"
>
> Yeah, and it helps fight that yucky homo "gladiator movie" stigma.
>
> Hee hee.
>
> I am Spartacus!
I don't know what this means. I finally saw SPARTACUS, and the only
`homo' bit was when the evil Roman leader Crassus tries to seduce
a slave with a monologue about liking snails and oysters. And when
he turns his back, the slave runs away, to join the macho slave
revolt led by Spartacus, the hetero, Liz Taylor clone impregnating
tough guy!
Cheryl Deering
Ickyboy1 wrote:
> It's not about a Crowe army...its just Crowe kicking ass. Anyway I saw a new tv
> spot last night which ended with Crowe kissing a woman. I can just imagine the
> studio marketing department now..."If we put a kiss into the tv ads, it will
> increase the female appeal by 39.8%!"
More fools, they. All they need to do is show Crowe showing pecs.
C.
**
(slurp! g!)
Cheryl Deering
Bill Binkelman wrote:
> I think the summer's wild card is THE PERFECT STORM. It's got a very
> good visual director in Wolfgang Petersen, a star whose bankability is
> on the rise (Clooney who got a lot of good press from THREE KINGS), a
> youth star in Wahlberg and a strong female lead character (played by
> usually always excellent Mary Elizabeth Mostrantonio (damn, that's
> not the right spelling but you know who I mean). The FX (by ILM) are
> supposed to be awesome, the story is part action, part human drama,
> and true. It crosses lots of demographics. It won't be the big winner
> this summer but I think it'll do surprisingly well.
>
Tough call on this one--I think it was a mistake opening it across from
THE PATRIOT (which shares some of the same audience.) That might
handicap it from the start in terms of enough people seeing it/getting
the word out, and the grim ending won't help. However, if it is
a really good movie (and THE PATRIOT
turns out not to be), it will have plenty of legs to overcome that.
>
> GLADIATOR, no matter how good it is, really faces an uphill battle. It
> does not have any "built-in" audience. Comparing it to BRAVEHEART is
> wrong, IMO. BRAVEHEART had the success it did, at least partly, because
> it was Mel Gibson (look at the comparative disastrous response for ROB
> ROY for some validation of that). Russell Crowe may be a better actor
> than Gibson (IMO he is) but he's not a star yet (how much money did THE
> INSIDER do?). And while it is a big budget action film, where's the
> appeal? I don't think the under-16 male audience will flock to this
> film because are they that interested in that period of history? And I
> guess it'll be pretty violent. Not a lot of character development for
> the literate/touchy feely set (which I am part of usually).
>
It's a smart big-budget actioner, and not only are there not a lot of
big-budget
deals this summer, there are precious few intelligent/potentially
well-written
ones. People are really underestimating how much audiences want to see
smart/well-done entertainment as much as they want to be entertained.
One of the reasons THE SKULLS did so badly,
(a recent example, but this holds true for much of the stuff that
died last summer) was because those behind it didn't put enough thought into
the
script. You get the feeling they figured that "THE FIRM crossed
with 90's teen action" was enough to
lure that target audience in--and it wasn't. Compare that to FINAL
DESTINATION,
which has not only a good premise but a sharper script--and is doing quite
well.
>
> XMEN has too big of a "built-in" audience to not do well for at least
> several weeks. There is the SF crowd, the FX crowd, and the fans of the
> comic book itself (not a small number). Bad early buzz may diminish (but
> not kill) the box office (if that was the case, PHANTOM MENACE would
> never have done what it did because lots of people dissed it immediately
> after it opened) but I still think it'll do well.
>
Hmm, from the trailer the creators look to have kept XMEN fairly concise and
on-point--no Schumacher set-design-run-amok here, thank God--g! However,
there is enough cheesiness there to be troubling, especially given that one
of the
big selling points about this was that it was a serious, well-done movie in
addition to
being a good rendition of XMEN on-screen. If the movie doesn't live up to
that,
looks like trouble.
>
> MI2 will draw from Cruise's fans, but as a sequel, it has to garner good
> early reaction to combat the "been there, done that" nature of sequels.
> The trailer looks confusing to me (even more then the first movie). Of
> course, OTOH, look at the Bond films. I suppose they could take the
> Cruise character and more or less franchise him.
>
I get the feeling people are more interested in seeing what Woo does
with this as much/more than they care about seeing Cruise--or this
franchise in general.
>
> BATTLEFIELD EARTH will not, IMO, suffer that much of a Scientology
> backlash because the best audience for the film will not give a rat's
> ass about whether the Church bankrolled it or not.
I sorely doubt that--who backs a movie eventually tells on the box office
after the first weekend or so. Look at what happened with INCHON, or, more
recently, that Caspar Von Dien/Michael York thriller that opened huge, but
fell off bigtime after the first week.
> As for any
> philsophical tie-in, well, this is not PHENOMENON (a film I personally
> liked a lot). That film had obvious connotations to the religion. But,
> after seeing the trailer for this, unless there is some overt subtext,
> this just looks like a SF shoot 'em up (and they don't exactly do
> poorly).
Yes, they do--unless they are STAR WARS. Again, you are talking about
an audience that knows all the genre/big-budget tricks and expects more
out of movies than just that.
> Travolta can carry a film singlehandedly, perhaps (THE
> GENERAL'S DAUGHTER notwithstanding). Seeing him as a baddy might
> intrigue some people.
>
There is that--g!
>
> I just think that THE PERFECT STORM has the best chance of breaking out
> past what people expect it to do. The book is moving, exciting, and
> suspenseful. Since it is being done with the cooperation of the people
> of Gloucester (and after reading the book, they don't seem like the kind
> of people to be easily persuaded to trash their own history or image),
> it should be a well-told story of tragedy and heroism that young/old and
> men/women can all relate to. In addition, with its FX, it will be a
> helluva thrill ride as well.
It's got PRIVATE RYAN appeal--and by that I mean it seems to be an
extremely well-executed genre movie that expands the genre--or is just
plain excellent.
C.
**
Derek Janssen
>
> << It's not about a Crowe army...its just Crowe kicking ass. Anyway I saw a new
> tv
> spot last night which ended with Crowe kissing a woman. I can just imagine the
> studio marketing department now..."If we put a kiss into the tv ads, it will
> increase the female appeal by 39.8%!" >>
>
> ticket.
Uh, sorry--
I've only seen him in "The Insider", and now every time I see the name
Russell Crowe, I just keep picturing a paunchy middle-aged guy with gray
hair... >_<
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Michele317
SimeonSite
>Uh, sorry--
>I've only seen him in "The Insider", and now every time I see the name
>Russell Crowe, I just keep picturing a paunchy middle-aged guy with
>gray hair... >_<
If you watch "The Sum of Us" and "Romper Stomper", you
won't know what to think of him any more.
Stacey
(remove "eth" to e-mail)
My Paul Giamatti Fan Site
http://members.tripod.com/SimeonSite
Douglas Bailey
> Michele317 wrote:
> > not really... but when they showed [Crowe] half-naked and in chains,
> > they sold me a ticket.
>
> Uh, sorry--
> I've only seen him in "The Insider", and now every time I see the name
> Russell Crowe, I just keep picturing a paunchy middle-aged guy with gray
> hair... >_<
Derek,
Stop whatever you're doing. Back away from the computer... slowly... and
go rent yourself the DVD of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. Watch it (not just for
Crowe, either: it's a fabulous film end-to-end). Then you'll have a
better idea of what Michele is on about. :)
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
rufie
Bailey <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
> dja...@ultranet.com wrote:
> > Michele317 wrote:
>
> > > not really... but when they showed [Crowe] half-naked and in chains,
> > > they sold me a ticket.
> >
> > Uh, sorry--
> > I've only seen him in "The Insider", and now every time I see the name
> > Russell Crowe, I just keep picturing a paunchy middle-aged guy with gray
> > hair... >_<
>
> Derek,
>
> Stop whatever you're doing. Back away from the computer... slowly... and
> go rent yourself the DVD of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL. Watch it (not just for
> Crowe, either: it's a fabulous film end-to-end). Then you'll have a
> better idea of what Michele is on about. :)
>
> doug
yup.
yum.
KalElFan
drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) writes:
>The fans of the comic book itself is a *tiny* number - even the
>most popular comics like "X-Men" sell maybe 100,000 copies
>a month, tops.
Currently, yes, but they've sold more in the past and there
was an animated series. I agree completely with your point
and have made it myself in the past, but in fairness the 100,000
is low. There *may* be a million serious X-Men fans who see this
the opening weekend, bringing some in with them and giving the
movie a $10M-$15M base on which to build.
Beyond that, you may have another 20 million core pool from
which to draw. Star Trek fans, former comic book readers, fans
of big budget sf/fantasy and special effects, and so on. Get
even half of these out that first weekend, again bringing others
with them in some cases, and you could have a monster at
the box office.
KalElFan
:-) You have a beef with capitalism, or Disney?
>David
>(It explains why you're pro-Battlefield Earth.)
I always hope a movie is good, but I have no idea on BE after seeing
the trailer. Travolta as the villain here is a good concept though. I
was reading today that his character is 10 feet tall in the movie.
They should play that up. A 10-foot-tall Travolta villain will sell.
It's something you don't see every day! It'll be a deal-closer for
many, and interesting to see how they do it.
damonland
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
>
> >XMEN has too big of a "built-in" audience to not do well for at least
> >several weeks. There is the SF crowd, the FX crowd, and the fans of the
> >comic book itself (not a small number). Bad early buzz may diminish (but
> >not kill) the box office (if that was the case, PHANTOM MENACE would
> >never have done what it did because lots of people dissed it immediately
> >after it opened) but I still think it'll do well.
> >
>
> The fans of the comic book itself is a *tiny* number - even the most popular
> comics like "X-Men" sell maybe 100,000 copies a month, tops. If we're looking
> at an average ticket price of $7.00, let's say, and every one of those 100,000
> people who buy X-Men each month manage to bring a friend with them to the
> movie...we're looking at $1.4 million.
and the number of people who rent shaft every day?
xmen was selling 1 million comics a month
15 years ago.
it HAS fans.
--
"And keeping in mind that this economy is going to expand forever, we
want that money now to spend in on ourselves. And remember that no
Congress could ever really Pass such a huge tax cut, but George W.
says he just going to give it to us, so that's an impressive use of
presidential power." The Daily Feed.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
Irrelevant.
>xmen was selling 1 million comics a month
>15 years ago.
Nothing was selling 1 million copies a month 15 years ago, not even X-Men. Ten
years ago, Spider-Man, X-Force and X-Men all had record setting sales for new
#1 issues - Spider-Man sold something like 1 million, X-Force sold 2 million
and X-Men hit something like 4 million copies, IIRC, and those inflated figures
were in part due to speculators buying multiple copies. But these days,
average monthly sales on X-Men books are around 100,000 to 150,000 at best.
When the comic book market was huge around ten years ago, I'll give a generous
estimate of 500,000 copies a month. But just because all those people bought
X-Men books ten years ago doesn't mean that they'll go see the movie. For
example, when I was 14 (in 1991), I dug X-Men quite a lot, bought and read it
every month -- and I have no plans to see the movie. I know a guy who bought
X-Men #1 off the newsstand back in 1963 - it was his favorite comic when he was
a kid, and he has no plans to see the movie. Former fandom does not equal
current interest in the movie.
>it HAS fans.
It sure does. Just enough to make the movie a giant flop.
damonland
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
>
> >and the number of people who rent shaft every day?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >xmen was selling 1 million comics a month
> >15 years ago.
>
> Nothing was selling 1 million copies a month 15 years ago, not even X-Men.
i'm not sure i agree.
Ten
> years ago, Spider-Man, X-Force and X-Men all had record setting sales for new
> #1 issues - Spider-Man sold something like 1 million, X-Force sold 2 million
> and X-Men hit something like 4 million copies, IIRC, and those inflated figures
> were in part due to speculators buying multiple copies. But these days,
> average monthly sales on X-Men books are around 100,000 to 150,000 at best.
they're down toi about 100k.
backt hen they were at least 300k, and i'm fairly sure more like
1million.
they were down to 300k ten years ago,
but higher 15.
that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
at least until i get motivated enough to find the circulation
statements in the old issues.
> When the comic book market was huge around ten years ago, I'll give a generous
> estimate of 500,000 copies a month. But just because all those people bought
> X-Men books ten years ago doesn't mean that they'll go see the movie. For
> example, when I was 14 (in 1991), I dug X-Men quite a lot, bought and read it
> every month -- and I have no plans to see the movie. I know a guy who bought
> X-Men #1 off the newsstand back in 1963 - it was his favorite comic when he was
> a kid, and he has no plans to see the movie. Former fandom does not equal
> current interest in the movie.
neither does current fandom.
but i think one must include those numbers
in one's analysis, for the same reason one
includes people who used to watch the brady bunch when they
were kids in projected figures for that movie.
> >it HAS fans.
>
> It sure does. Just enough to make the movie a giant flop.
>
superman never had more fans.
didn't stop that movie.
neither did batman.
KalElFan
drzai...@aol.comWAFFLES (Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia) writes:
> I know a guy who bought
>X-Men #1 off the newsstand back in 1963
Wow, have X-Men been around that long? That's almost the
beginning of Marvel isn't it, around the same time as Spider-Man?
You're right not everyone will go who read the comics a long time
ago. But it does suggest the pool to draw from is well into the
seven figures just in terms of people who know what the X-Men
are.
cluele...@my-deja.com
dja...@ultranet.com wrote:
Hello Derek,
> Uh, sorry--
> I've only seen him in "The Insider", and now every time I see the name
> Russell Crowe, I just keep picturing a paunchy middle-aged guy with
gray
> hair... >_<
>
> Derek Janssen
> dja...@ultranet.com
And a good looking one too!
Clueless8204
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CAB
formely WaHooJoeVa wrote:
> (May 5-July 28 releases)
>
> Movies that will make $50M+, forgive me if I forget anything.
>
> 1. Dinosaur $300,000,000
> 2. MI:2 $165,000,000
> 3. The Patriot $150,000,000
> 4. The Klumps $130,000,000
> 4. X-Men: The Movie $105,000,000
> 5. Me, Myself, and Irene $100,000,000
> 6. Gone in 60 Seconds $95,000,000
> 7. Battlefield Earth $89,000,000
> 8. The Perfect Storm $87,000,000
> 8. Pokemon 2 $85,000,000
> 9. Shanghai Noon $80,000,000
> 10.Gladiator $75,000,000
> 11. The Hollow Man $70,000,000
> 12. Titan AE $65,000,000
> 13. Rocky & Bulwinkle $51,000,000
> 14. Loser $50,000,000
Just a note about your list. You may be low balling too many movies. The
past 5 years or so there is always at least 8 to 10 movies that go over
the 100mill mark. Just a thought. But I think this year is pretty wide
open and really depend on the quality of the movies.
Chad B.
damonland
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
>
> >> >it HAS fans.
> >>
> >> It sure does. Just enough to make the movie a giant flop.
> >>
> >
> >superman never had more fans.
> >
> >didn't stop that movie.
> >neither did batman.
>
> Superman and Batman are much more highly recognized properties than the X-Men.
>
more highly recognized, but with a smaller comic fan base.
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>>
>> It sure does. Just enough to make the movie a giant flop.
>>
>
>superman never had more fans.
>
>didn't stop that movie.
>neither did batman.
Superman and Batman are much more highly recognized properties than the X-Men.
Gordon Stokes
Mike D'Angelo
: Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
: is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
: especially beyond its opening week.
I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
mother. fucking. *huge*.
Mike "pardon mon francais" D'Angelo
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo
wild damonials
Mike D'Angelo wrote:
>
> Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
> : is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
> : especially beyond its opening week.
>
> I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
> mother. fucking. *huge*.
>
> Mike "pardon mon francais" D'Angelo
i've seen both commercials.
capser doesn't know what a lion is.
no big surprise there.
it does look like it will be huge.
McNeeley
wrote:
>
>
>Mike D'Angelo wrote:
>>
>> Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> : Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
>> : is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
>> : especially beyond its opening week.
>>
>> I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
>> mother. fucking. *huge*.
>>
>> Mike "pardon mon francais" D'Angelo
>
>i've seen both commercials.
>
>capser doesn't know what a lion is.
>no big surprise there.
>
>it does look like it will be huge.
I know what a lion is! I know what a lion is!
Cheers,
Todd "It's a Roman tool of societal cleansing" McNeeley
email: mcneeley at 21stcentury dot net
KalElFan
<dan...@panix.com> writes:
>Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>: Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
>: is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
>: especially beyond its opening week.
>
>I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
>mother. fucking. *huge*.
Why?
You may think it's very good, but why do you think it'll be huge,
that first week for starters and then beyond? I mean history is
littered with movies many raved over that were never huge, Fight
Club comes to mind since IIRC you loved it. Or Iron Giant which
most people loved.
Maybe you're right of course, I haven't seen the movie but
probably will depending on reviews. I did see a comment that
it's violent. Depending what that means I think it could hurt the
movie. Violence in a sci-fi context (The Matrix) or a war
context (Saving Private Ryan) is one thing. But say one
of the Gladiators has an arm or head chopped off here, that
will just keep a lot of people away right there if they think
that's what violent means. Some of the Titus Andronicus
publicity, in fact a lot of it I saw, harped on the violence. It
was kind of Caligula but with more violence, less sex. And
that just won't sell beyond the limited market that wants to
see stuff like that.
This movie's premise is a throwback to some epic movies of
the 50s. Clint Eastwood managed to make Unforgiven a hit,
so I'll concede it's possible to resurrect a dead genre and
make it a $100M+ domestic blockbuster. If *ALL* the praise
Gladiator's been getting is deserved, and Dreamworks gets
that message out and assures itself a big opening weekend,
maybe it will do $100M. But I think the movie has its work
cut out for it, and I think it's already handicapped itself more
than it needed to. If the movie is so hot, they should have been
able to convey that in a better trailer. Now they have to rely
on hype and buzz from reviewers, and then word of mouth.
It has a pretty clear field May 5 so that helps.
Mike D'Angelo
: You may think [GLADIATOR is] very good, but why do you think it'll be
: huge, that first week for starters and then beyond?
A couple of reasons:
(1) It *is* terrific -- easily the best big summer event movie in years,
far as I'm concerned. More importantly, it's not terrific in a way
that'll only appeal to film critics with rarefied tastes (though all
indications are that it's going to get orgasmically good reviews; I have
yet to hear of a critic who didn't love it, and _Variety_'s review was
glowing). It's a crowd-pleaser with an irresistible three-act structure,
no moral complexity whatsoever, at least half a dozen thrilling set
pieces (including battle scenes that look like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
minus the elegiac tone), and an ending that [very slight spoiler]
is almost a carbon copy of the one that you claim made TITANIC such a
smash. I don't know how big the opening weekend is gonna be -- maybe
you're right, maybe the trailer isn't selling it well -- but word of
mouth is gonna be phenomenal. If it doesn't open huge, I predict a
negligible drop over the following several weeks, even in the face of the
competition.
(2) As far as teens and young adults are concerned, this is a brand-new
genre. Nobody's made a movie like this in something like 35 years, all
told. BEN-HUR, adjusted for inflation, grossed in the neighborhood
of $420 million (source: _Variety__); GLADIATOR could be this
generation's equivalent. I think it's turning up at exactly the right
time. People are ready for it. And Russell Crowe is about to become the
next Harrison Ford.
Basically, I'm prepared to stake all my prognosticative acumen on my
conviction that the people of planet Earth are gonna love love love this
movie. I could be wrong, but I'll be very, very, very surprised.
Mike "the critic who became a publicist" D'Angelo
Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia
>of the Gladiators has an arm or head chopped off here, that
>will just keep a lot of people away right there if they think
>that's what violent means. Some of the Titus Andronicus
>publicity, in fact a lot of it I saw, harped on the violence. It
>was kind of Caligula but with more violence, less sex. And
>that just won't sell beyond the limited market that wants to
>see stuff like that.
For reasons unknown, you continue to compare "Gladiator", a Ridley
Scott-directed summertime crowd-pleaser event picture, to "Titus Andronicus," a
Shakespeare adaptation directed by a theatre director - why? On what planet is
there anything more than the most superficial similarity between the two?
Derek Janssen
>
> Scott-directed summertime crowd-pleaser event picture, to "Titus Andronicus," a
> Shakespeare adaptation directed by a theatre director - why? On what planet is
> there anything more than the most superficial similarity between the two?
Hey, if we have other hype-machines comparing "Battlefield:Earth" to
"Pulp Fiction", anything's possible... ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
wild damonials
McNeeley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:11:40 -0400, wild damonials <dcru...@mdo.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mike D'Angelo wrote:
> >>
> >> Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
> >> : is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
> >> : especially beyond its opening week.
> >>
> >> I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
> >> mother. fucking. *huge*.
> >>
> >> Mike "pardon mon francais" D'Angelo
> >
> >i've seen both commercials.
> >
> >capser doesn't know what a lion is.
> >no big surprise there.
> >
> >it does look like it will be huge.
>
> I know what a lion is! I know what a lion is!
what is it, horshack?
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "It's a Roman tool of societal cleansing" McNeeley
>
20 points.
wild damonials
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <8e2r5r$k8$1...@news.panix.com>, Mike D'Angelo
> <dan...@panix.com> writes:
>
> >Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Not having seen Gladiator, MI:2, or X-Men I of course concede anything
> >: is possible. But I think Gladiator's inherent appeal is suspect,
> >: especially beyond its opening week.
> >
> >I have now seen GLADIATOR, and I can assure you that it is going to be
> >mother. fucking. *huge*.
>
> Why?
>
> You may think it's very good, but why do you think it'll be huge,
> that first week for starters and then beyond? I mean history is
> littered with movies many raved over that were never huge, Fight
> Club comes to mind since IIRC you loved it. Or Iron Giant which
> most people loved.
or wild wild west.
or end of days.
the commercials will draw people in.
> Maybe you're right of course, I haven't seen the movie but
> probably will depending on reviews. I did see a comment that
> it's violent. Depending what that means I think it could hurt the
> movie. Violence in a sci-fi context (The Matrix) or a war
> context (Saving Private Ryan) is one thing. But say one
> of the Gladiators has an arm or head chopped off here, that
> will just keep a lot of people away right there if they think
> that's what violent means.
it sure kept people away from final destination!
and scream!!!!!!!!!!
Some of the Titus Andronicus
> publicity, in fact a lot of it I saw, harped on the violence. It
> was kind of Caligula but with more violence, less sex. And
> that just won't sell beyond the limited market that wants to
> see stuff like that.
you are very stupid and don't have a clue of what anyone over the age
of 5 years old wants.
you probably thought rugrats was going to be huge.
> This movie's premise is a throwback to some epic movies of
> the 50s. Clint Eastwood managed to make Unforgiven a hit,
> so I'll concede it's possible to resurrect a dead genre and
> make it a $100M+ domestic blockbuster.
like independence day.
or godzilla.
If *ALL* the praise
> Gladiator's been getting is deserved, and Dreamworks gets
> that message out and assures itself a big opening weekend,
> maybe it will do $100M.
i bet it will do at least 80.
i think it will do 120 or more.
wild damonials
"Gordon Stokes. King of Gordonia" wrote:
>
> >But say one
> >of the Gladiators has an arm or head chopped off here, that
> >will just keep a lot of people away right there if they think
> >that's what violent means. Some of the Titus Andronicus
> >publicity, in fact a lot of it I saw, harped on the violence. It
> >was kind of Caligula but with more violence, less sex. And
> >that just won't sell beyond the limited market that wants to
> >see stuff like that.
>
> For reasons unknown, you continue to compare "Gladiator", a Ridley
> Scott-directed summertime crowd-pleaser event picture, to "Titus Andronicus," a
> Shakespeare adaptation directed by a theatre director - why? On what planet is
> there anything more than the most superficial similarity between the two?
>
that's answer's OBVIOUS, dummy-
krypton!
that's obviously where this idiot thinks he's from.
Professor Moriarty
> Verily, KalElFan <kale...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : You may think [GLADIATOR is] very good, but why do you think it'll be
> : huge, that first week for starters and then beyond?
>
Mike!
Delighted to see this note on GLADIATOR from you. I have been preaching this
film's virtues for months, inevitably to be given disbelieving stares from
people. It's hard to tell them exactly why it rules the earth without giving
too much away.
Remember... May 7... Russell Crowe... biggest fucking movie star alive.
"Moriarty" out.
smgfish
damonland <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
>
> Professor Moriarty wrote:
> >
> > KalElFan wrote:
> >
> > > In article <cmrL4.24701$WF.934202@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Fawlty"
> > > <faw...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >Let me get this straight: based on the box-office numbers for the
> > > >limited-release low-budget Shakespeare-based movie "Titus
Andronicus",
> > > >you predict that the big-budget, major-relase summer-opener
action movie
> > > >"Gladiator" will not appeal to people? Is that right?
> > >
> > > It was just an example, Fawlty. Movies like this are out of the
> > > 50s. Titus Andronicus did have Anthony Hopkins in it, a guy
> > > who can help some movies (I think he helps MI:2), but TA didn't
> > > draw flies with him in it. The trailer for Gladiator actually
makes
> > > the story sound a bit similar, and that CGI lion effect at the end
> > > looked a bit cheesy, i.e. obviously an effect.
> >
> > Except once again, the subject of you, DreamWorks, and what is or
isn't CGI is all
> > confused. There are no CGI lions in the film. The animals were
there, on set.
> > All that has been done is a slight telescoping of perspective for
certain shots.
> > The only CG elements in the shot are overhead, part of the
Colliseum itself.
> >
>
> i hate to agree with kashole- so i won't.
>
> but that LEOPARD [well *i* thought it was a leopard]
> looked cgi'd to me in the 1/2 second it was on the commercial.
>
> actually, it looked like the good cgi version,
> which menat very relaistic, but still
> sort oif fake.
>
> your explanation that they messed witht he perspective explains it.
>
Actually, the tigers in the film are real but a bit repositioned by
computer FX, to make them look a bit more threatening. Visual effects
supervisor John Nelson (along with production designer Arthur Max) came
to USC's film symposium class to discuss Gladiator, and brought along
with them some of the pre-effects shots on video. One shot had Crowe
fighting in the coliseum with a tiger lazily standing in the
background, eventually touched up so that the tiger looked like it was
attacking him.
Personally, I thought it looked kind of hokey, since nobody seemed to
react to the tigers' presence when they were "attacking." The fx in
general look amazing, especially that "blimp shot."
Awesome movie, but a bit weak on plot...
~S
--
-----------------------------------------
We like the boys in the bulletproof vests
Don Brinn
Professor Moriarty wrote:
I am indeed counting down the days 'til this movie comes out! I am doing my part
to spread the word - telling everyone how great it will almost certainly be.
Here's a possible problem though: I didn't find the trailer particularly
impressive. If it wasn't for all the great reviews and hype at AICN, I would not
be psyched for this movie at all. However, most of the movie-going public does
not read AICN, or other movie websites, or whatever. They just go based on how
good the TV commercials for a movie look. So the movie might very well not have
as big an opening as all the hype at websites like AICN and on newsgroups like
this one would suggest.
Of course, if it is a truly great film, then even if it doesn't open as big as it
deserved to, word of mouth will help it to do great after it is released.
But, then again, look at Fight Club. It had a huge (and deserved) hype built up
among people "in the know," yet its box office gross was very mediocre, in spite
of the fact that everyone I know who saw it loved it and told all there friends
about it.
--
_________________________________________________
Don
Waterloo, Ontario
_________________________________________________
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Aaron Hurley
way, but I disagree with nearly every word you just said.
About the only thing I agree with is that PERFECT STORM is a wild card. It
could go either way. At this point, I am far from sold. The parts of
movies I ALWAYS hate most are guys on boats in bad storms. Now, they're
doing a whole movie about it? I like the actors but I'm FAR from sold.
It's still VERY under the radar to call this early.
As for the others...
> GLADIATOR, no matter how good it is, really faces an uphill battle. It
> does not have any "built-in" audience.
They've been pushing the adds for WEEKS during sporting events. I've seen
the trailers attached to lots of movies. Everyone I know, from my nearly 60
dad to the 15 year old skate punk next door, wants to see it. My wife is
ready to line up as are the people I see on a daily basis. These are not
NET SAVVY people, this NOT internet buzz, this is real life anticipation.
Lets also add in the fact that it is the summer opener. People are ready to
go to see some good movies. The fact that my friend for nearly 15 years,
Moriarty, swears by it, is good enough proof that it is ALSO good, which
will keep it alive. It opens the same weekend as The Mummy did last year
and is holding down that early kick-off actioner spot started a few years
ago by Twister.
The quality of the film will ultimately determine its final box office but
it will open huge. America is ready for a gladiator picture. Look for
$32mil.
> XMEN has too big of a "built-in" audience to not do well for at least
> several weeks.
This is gonna' tank. Trailer looks horrible and has inspired giggling in
ALL the wrong places whenever I've seen it in the theaters. Even with their
fan-boy popularity, I'd be SHOCKED if they sold a million copies of each
comic book episode. If all those people see the movie, that's about
$5million bucks (avg. US ticket price is about $4.85). If they all see it 4
times, that $20 mil.
> Bad early buzz may diminish (but
> not kill) the box office (if that was the case, PHANTOM MENACE would
> never have done what it did because lots of people dissed it immediately
> after it opened) but I still think it'll do well.
TPM had a built in audience for the most successful franchise in film
history. That is FAR different from XMen. TPM actually appealed to kids.
I didn't like and neither did most people I know, but my 5 year old son
LOVED it.
As with anything, if its a great movie it could do anything, but I just
don't see it happening. I call it opens at $23 mil.
> MI2 will draw from Cruise's fans, but as a sequel, it has to garner good
> early reaction to combat the "been there, done that" nature of sequels.
I disagree. The action sequences in the trailer make people remember the
"Langley Heist" from the first one and forget the "Chunnel Chopper"
sequence. For fan boys, Woo is a name that can put butts in the seat. The
audience in general hasn't seen a Cruise movie in years (Eyes Wide Shut and
Magnolia are not main stream fare). They are ready.
If it sucks, it will go down. If it's good, it will be respectable. I see
it doing about $30mil to open.
> BATTLEFIELD EARTH will not, IMO, suffer that much of a Scientology
> backlash because the best audience for the film will not give a rat's
> ass about whether the Church bankrolled it or not.
OK. I agree with this. I don't think it will be that big of a deal, though
it will be a factor. It could grow if the press decides it wants to focus
on it as the day draws near.
The reason this will tank is three fold.
1. It looks terrible.
2. It looks like those dirty/grimy future movies that tend to do poorly
these days. BTW, don't throw the Matrix up as an example of one that did
well because it was not sold that way and the parts people think of were the
"computer" parts, not the grimy future parts.
3. John Travolta can't open a movie these days. Seriously, General's
Daughter, Civil Action, Primary Colors, Mad City, She's So Lovely. Only
Face/Off has done well in the last few years.
A total disappointment and waste of money for the Scientologists. Opens
flat at $12 mil and DIES.
> I just think that THE PERFECT STORM has the best chance of breaking out
> past what people expect it to do.
I kind of agree with this in that it COULD surpass the weaknesses I've seen,
but it seems like a long shot. It's biggest hurdle will be the movie that
opens the same weekend you failed to mention...
The Patriot. This will be huge. It will come down to a Gladiator and a
Patriot for the summer BO champ. The edge goes to Mel due to his appeal as
a known quantity (over Crowe), the more female friendly story and the
release date.
I'm calling the Patriot to be on par with Men In Black and Independence Day
for 4th of July weekend. HUGE.
Aaron "I feel smart now, just don't call me with the grosses"
Sven
> "computer" parts, not the grimy future parts.
> 3. John Travolta can't open a movie these days. Seriously, General's
> Daughter, Civil Action, Primary Colors, Mad City, She's So Lovely. Only
> Face/Off has done well in the last few years.
>
I wouldn't put "The Generals'Daughter" in that list, the movie grossed
over 100 million dollar despite extremely bad words from every critic in
the world..."Civil Action" also made about 50 million despite it being
too long & boring..."Battlefield" will open with AT LEAST 20 million
dollars....
Sven
UnclePete
>3. John Travolta can't open a movie these days. Seriously, General's
>Daughter, Civil Action, Primary Colors, Mad City, She's So Lovely. Only
>Face/Off has done well in the last few years.
Excuse me???
GD collected almost a 100 million bucks, altough it might not opened huge.
Civil action finished with about 60 million. Primary colors got an applause at
the end when I saw it. In She is so lovely Travolta had 5 minutes.
The only thing you were right is Mad city, as not being a big BO success.
but, hey, it had Dustin too!
Ickyboy1
> GD collected almost a 100 million bucks, altough it might not opened huge.
Actually it did open decently. $22 million. I daresay it could have been about
$30mil if it wasn't for Austin Powers 2 opening the same weekend(at $60
mil!!!). And 22 mil is pretty great for a summer movie that isn't FX or action
driven.
>Civil action finished with about 60 million. Primary colors got an applause
>at
>the end when I saw it. In She is so lovely Travolta had 5 minutes.
>
> The only thing you were right is Mad city, as not being a big BO success.
>but, hey, it had Dustin too!
Yup. Audiences like Travolta! I'm sure his 20-city promotional tour will help
BE no end too.
prd...@my-deja.com
The battle sequence at the beginning of the film and all the gladiator
fights in the arena are photographed so tightly and edited so quickly
that you have no idea what the hell is going on. Spielberg got it right
in Private Ryan. Kubrick got it right in Spartacus and so did Gibson in
Braveheart. This film doesn't rock or kick ass. I would just say
it's.........fine.
KalElFan
>...I don't know how big the opening weekend is gonna be -- maybe
>you're right, maybe the trailer isn't selling it well -- but word of
>mouth is gonna be phenomenal...
Months before I saw Titanic, I didn't see any way it could be that big
a hit. You had to see the movie, and maybe Gladiator is like that
but I doubt it. It has to get a huge opening, which I'm not 100%
convinced it will even though that ad I saw will help. Beyond the
first weekend you have huge icebergs not clear sailing. Titanic
had virtually no competition for four months.
You also have the violence I keep reading about, which outside a
sci-fi (and maybe war) context is I think a negative for a wannabe
blockbuster. If it has the R rating, that alone will limit the market.
Then you have the inevitability, I think, that average moviegoers
aren't going to find the movie as wonderful as some reviewers have,
certainly here in cyberspace.
So the movie has an uphill battle I think, but presumably it can do
$100M domestic or close to it if it gets the big weekend and is really
as good as some say.
Cheryl Deering
KalElFan wrote:
> You also have the violence I keep reading about, which outside a
> sci-fi (and maybe war) context is I think a negative for a wannabe
> blockbuster. If it has the R rating, that alone will limit the market.
Didn't hurt SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. In fact, I would go so
far as to say there is no way you can make a reasonably authentic-seeming
movie about a violence-torn historical period and _not_ have a fair amount
of realistic blood-and-guts--it would come off as fake and avoiding the
issue.
The lure of seeing old genres refashioned is to
see the "realism" movies like BEN-HUR or SPARTICUS couldn't show.
C.
**
wild damonials
KalElFan wrote:
>
> In article <8e4nvt$hji$1...@news.panix.com>, Mike D'Angelo
> <dan...@panix.com> writes:
>
> >...I don't know how big the opening weekend is gonna be -- maybe
> >you're right, maybe the trailer isn't selling it well -- but word of
> >mouth is gonna be phenomenal...
>
> Months before I saw Titanic, I didn't see any way it could be that big
> a hit. You had to see the movie, and maybe Gladiator is like that
> but I doubt it. It has to get a huge opening, which I'm not 100%
> convinced it will even though that ad I saw will help. Beyond the
> first weekend you have huge icebergs not clear sailing. Titanic
> had virtually no competition for four months.
so much for it making 2 BILLION DOLLARS then!
> You also have the violence I keep reading about, which outside a
> sci-fi (and maybe war) context is I think a negative for a wannabe
> blockbuster.
you think that because you are a complete buffoon.
really.
i'm sure it'll keep 5 year olds and
people like you who think on their level away though.
If it has the R rating, that alone will limit the market.
> Then you have the inevitability, I think, that average moviegoers
> aren't going to find the movie as wonderful as some reviewers have,
> certainly here in cyberspace.
>
> So the movie has an uphill battle I think, but presumably it can do
> $100M domestic or close to it if it gets the big weekend and is really
> as good as some say.
i'm still betting that it will do 100 plus.
--
"I bruise the air,
with little sharp words as grey as stones."
Area, "Our Corner Drowning"
KBusby2256
>> but I doubt it. It has to get a huge opening, which I'm not 100%
>> convinced it will even though that ad I saw will help. Beyond the
>> first weekend you have huge icebergs not clear sailing. Titanic
>> had virtually no competition for four months.
uh..the next big release is Battlefield Earth. I hardly think a film like
Gladiator needs to worry about that crap. Then its Dinosaur by Disney. People
might be burnt out after that far better Discovery channel film..and then MI2.
Thats going to be the only real competition for Gladiator. And thats only
because we haven't heard how good/bad it is yet.
"Hope is a good thing. Probably the best of things. And no good thing ever
dies"
-- Andy (The Shawshank Redemption)
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
: Videos are the great equalizer.
: Both crappy & awesome movies end up on video, where box office doesn't
: mean shit (not that it does, anyway), & you can discover hidden
: treasures at your leisure...
In vastly inferior incarnations.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"The viewer who thinks of _Ride with the Devil_ and _A Map of the World_ as
'art films', for instance, is seriously deluded (or seriously uninformed)..."
-- Duncan Shepherd
Avoid normal situations.
Avoid normal situations.
: grow up faggot!what a pussy!and get a life instead of watching cartoons
: and drivelling in newsgroups fag!
*plonk*
--
alt.flame "the term was invented for such people" Special Forces