reddwarf666222

5 minutes ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

You had me until Kate.  Granted, I love her on SNL and Ghostbusters.

I'm thinking Rooney Mara (check out her work in 'Carol') or Felicity Jones.

12-15 years ago, the perfect choice would have been Essie Davis.

It's a comedic role which is why I say Kate. Unfortunately Rooney's shelf life has expired as a leading star.

20 minutes ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

Totally agree with this.

I personally won't see The Bride with Angelina Jolie in the titular role myself. I have to admit, every movie I saw her in, I kept seeing Jolie the actor not a character.

Although, it's going to be argued Tom Cruise's marquee name saved the international grosses.

I think these movies were ran into the ground by the late 40's anyway, before they went into parody. Universal strived in horror in the 60's with Psycho and the 70's with Jaws, while they ignored these kinds of films. Why did dig them all up now, thinking they are all going to work like 1999's The Mummy or 1992's Dracula (Sony.)

Hate to say it, but these films don't have to be the biggest budget films. I know Whale wanted to top the original with a bigger budget "She's Alive!: The Making of the Bride of Frankenstein." Despite their faded brands, people have a general idea what they should expect when they choose to see one. Definitely bring in unknowns, so we see them as the characters, not actors out to pay the mortgage payment.

Who was Elsa Lanchester back then, other than a stage actress and the wife in the sham wedding of Charles Laughton. Valerie Hobson, a total newbie (had a crush on her since Meet Me Tonight.) Colin Clive was on his unfortunate way out. That just left Karloff who is under make-up anyway. Hire a skillful no-name actor who can do make-up, ala Ron Perlman (ironically a millionaire, if not billionaire through Revlon.)

Totally different time period than now. The actors back then were studio actors signed to contracts, studios owned the the theaters, and actors had limited shelf life.

If a studio is going to spend a lot of money then they want a name actor to play the part with appeal. Problem is most actresses now have a 3 to 5 year shelf life to where they can be on top after that they become indie and television actresses.

As far as casting the bride I would go with a comedian. I would probably cast Kate McKinnen

On 8/4/2017 at 8:18 AM, 1Cool said:

I'd give it a 2 out of 5.  new Spiderman was a 3.5 and Wonder Woman was a 4.5 for comparison.

I gave the film a solid 2.5 out of 5. There are solid moments in the film that are good, but just not enough to make you go wow I want to see that film again. While in the same token there are bad moments in the film again not enough to say you wasted your money or time watching this film. I just left the film  with a feeling didnt hate or loved it. It's essentially a film that jumps too fast around all over the place missing alot of story, I am curious how many minutes were cut out to get a PG 13 rating, and some sequences that were filmed so bad dark upon dark upon dark to where you can't see what is going like they were trying to hide something.  Elba and McCounaghey were both boring. Jake is good in the film and the last few minutes looked fantastic, but that does not make up for mediocre to bad for the rest of the film.

3 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

They need to go with someone younger. They are going with stars from the past who are on the decline agewise like Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe. 

They would have been perfect 10 years ago,but the modern mainstream audience is fickle and considers Jolie, Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe all long in tooth now.

They need to go get more no-name up and coming actors/actresses and not established actors who are doing these movies for a good paycheck. The audence can see this.

Other than The Bride of Frankenstein things are not looking good for this universe and I am not going to expect much going forward with it.

 

 

Problem is we don't have the next generation of stars like we did 15 years back that says we are going to this film just because of this star. 

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

I'm not sure about 'drastic drop' compared to last week. It seems like normal weekly drop-off. Friday-to-Friday drop was -32.2% compared to the previous Friday's drop was -22.6 which was aggressively low. You know what I mean?

So when it starts experiencing normal drop-off, it's hard to call that drastic.

 

 

I said weekday not weekend

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Only $2.2MM from $400MM domestic. Not sure it is going to break that barrier this weekend. But very close!

The film had a pretty drastic drop compared to the previous week during the weekdays. The one thing that is clear is that this film will finish around 399.4 million this weekend. Comparing this film to Spidey at this point is hard to say if it will beAt that film. Spidey did suffer a major drop this upcoming weekdays in a side by side comparison. So WW can still catch up the one thing that is clear for me the announcement of the BluRay has stopped me from seeing this film again.

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

Really well said.

But I still think we can draw a bright line and compare at least relative box office performance in adjusted dollars since say...2000 onward.

Why 2000? X-Men came out that summer, and heralded a new modern era of superhero franchises.

Yeah -- Blade came first, but X-Men arguably started this current craze, and era (and Hugh Jackman rode that wave through what - 9 movies??)

As popular as Wonder Woman is, it's nowhere _near_ the cultural touchstone that was say...Batman in 1989, or Titanic in 1997.

Example: Iron Man 3 made more domestically than did Spider-Man.

But that's BS because Spider-Man opened on nearly 500 fewer screens yet sold a good 40% more tickets than did Iron Man 3.

And it was the # 1 movie of the year.

Sure, Iron Man III was # 2 for its year, but by a relative nose.

Not Spider-Man -- it made $60 million more than the # 2 (The Two Towers) and more than a $100 million more than # 3 (Attack of the Clones).

 

Inflation matters, y'all.

Does it? You now have DVD/BluRay sales stealing from that market even though that is going down and streaming sales stealing from it. WW is outperforming what it needs to when you throw that in and I would call the film a cultural phenomenon 

6 hours ago, 50 Cent #II (1st) said:

Odd, no thread for this just released movie?  It states it's based on the graphic novel The Coldest City .

I watched the film today. A throwback film to some great films of the 80s driven by arguably the best soundtrack I have heard in a long time. Eerily reminded me of Ashes to Ashes soundtrack from a British TV Show.

As I watched the film I told myself this is a film Abel Ferrara would have made in the 80s and had some essence Fassbinder and Tarkovsky in the film. I also thought man this would have been a great film for Joanna Lumley or Jenny Agutter in the 80s as well.

I absolutely loved the film and the only thing that brought this film down was that I watched the Complete Metropolis in the theater about 30 minutes before and the villain was too predictable. 8/10

14 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Much as I love Scott Mendelson, a Best Picture nom for Wonder Woman is a reach.

His "aspirational" argument boils down to: it was a better (and more popular) film than anyone expected.

That's great, but it's not enough for "Best Picture" consideration.

I loved it, and I'm sure it will end in my "5 favorite of the year" list, but for me the last 20 minutes (Ares showdown) were so tonally dissonant and a let-down from the 2 hours before that it prevents it from being a truly great film.

For me, Wonder Woman isn't comparable to the masterpiece that was The Dark Knight -- or even the Dark Knight Rises. Even The Winter Soldier was tighter overall -- and had more immediate social relevance, as it was a direct critique of the Patriot Act.

Wonder Woman was amazing -- and gives hope to the rest of the DCEU, but we geeks should slow our roll a bit.

Also, I agree with Mendelson that Get Out is the best film of the year so far.

I'm still processing Dunkirk, which I saw yesterday -- it was so different from what I was expecting that it may take me another week and/or viewing to decide how I feel about it. My gut reaction was that it's weakest film since Batman Begins.

That's less a criticism than it sounds, and more a reflection of how masterful I thought The Prestige, Dark Knight, Inception, Dark Knight Rises, and Interstellar were.

The Oscars by now are about making PC political statements when they can. Wonder Woman is the perfect film to do that with for the Academy.

11 hours ago, icouldbe said:

I was wondering how much more revenue Wonder Woman could still earn.  

I made a quick chart of most of the movies still ahead in 1st run revenue (as of Friday 7/28 - day 57) to see how much more those movies earned after that point.

After flipping the numbers around a few times, this chart seems to have the bigger earners at the top.

Day 57    To-Go
$2,515    $77,591   26  Frozen
$1,060    $42,563   10  Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace*
$985           ?           27  Wonder Woman
$903      $10,059    23   Spider-Man
$839      $20,247    14   Shrek 2
$829      $13,389    17   Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
$824      $18,556    22   The Hunger Games
$631       $9,037     16   The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
$618      $15,784    19   Toy Story 3
$609       $8,659     13   The Dark Knight Rises
$482       $7,738     12   Avengers: Age of Ultron
$416       $4,566     20   Iron Man 3
$413           ?           28   Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
$216       $3,220     21   Captain America: Civil War
$178       $4,812     25   Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

(I didn't look at movies ranked 1 - 9 in revenue and 4 movies only earned $400M by including rereleases*.)

The two movies that stand out to me are

1) Frozen because it was only at $323M by day 57 (no other film that made $400M was under $388M on day 57)

2) Spider-Man because it looks like they pulled it from theaters after it made its $400M (it dropped from 1502 theaters to 574 the weekend after it got to $400M)

From looking at its competitors Wonder Woman looks like it has a reasonable shot at $410 and a top 20 slot. (currently IM3 at $409)
(4 of the 6 comparisons that earned over $800,000 on day 57, earned over $18M after that day and $393M + 18M = $411M)

Just some thoughts.  

Your chart is not making any sense here. Spider-Man was not pulled they just do not have the info for those days. I think right now it is hard to say, but is going to be close fight against Spidey for the number 1 superhero debut of all time for unadjusted. To be honest that is all the average person cares about they don't care about adjusted prices.

I would put Wonder Woman around 404 to 405 million, but has the potential to do around 410 million especially if Warner does the major Oscar push for a short rerelease around December time frame. The closest film right now we can compare the film to as to what the film is pulling in daily is Beauty and the Beast. On a weekday daily basis WW is outperforming BB at this point, but a weekend basis BB is outperforming WW. Yet those numbers equal out for a weekly basis. BB did another 10 million before Disney withdrew the film at a 119 days. 

4 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

I have no problem with the Craig movies aping the Bourne movies -- which I think is absolutely the case.

Consider how bad Die Another Day was -- holograms, lasers, a Korean-turned-Brit, a Korean with a diamond-studded face, Madonna stunt-casting, needless CGI wind-surfing and a flippin' invisible car. It was a cartoon.

And then the Bourne Identity came out and showed how well serious modern espionage could be done -- turning even _Matt Damon_ into a believable action star.

The Bourne Identity instantly made the Roger Moore-Pierce Brosnan Bond films obsolete.

So then we got Casino Royale, which was done better than the original book easily bested all of the Roger Moore entries.

It was a direct response to Bourne, and was necessary to keep the franchise alive.

On that note, it's succeeded beautifully.

The issue with Moore was despite looking younger than Connery in the first two films he stayed way too long for his own good. Moore should have gotten out around Moonraker at the latest. Later films suffered because of his old age over 55 filming A View to a Kill a great plot driven down because he could not do alot of the scenes anymore. Octopussy is the prime example of a film completely ruined by his age.

6 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Now this plotline might bring me back to Star Trek. 

Did you really like Generations?

5 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

My favorite as a child -- and the first one I ever saw -- was The Spy Who Loved Me. But as an adult it's not even in my top six.

And agreed -- On Her Majesty's Secret Service had arguably the best story this side of Skyfall. But it gets lost because it starred Lazenby rather than Connery.

Still, it has Telly Savalas and Diana Rigg.

Most importantly, it's the only film (and book) other than (perhaps) Casino Royale where Bond loses in the end.

OHMSS is by far one of the worst Bond films ever made. It's not as bad as Octopussy or Moonraker, but it's bad. Diana Rigg's character is one of the most annoying part of the film. Bond is escaping Blofeld and out of nowhere she just appears there for no rhyme or reason to help him escape. That scene alone is one of the three worst moments in Bond History where she shows up unplanned out of nowhere to help him escape. It ruins the story and flow of the film.

Every film has a gimme. OHMSS is the purposely trying to hide Lazenby's face and the jokes he is not the other guy.

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Friday ended up bringing another $985K, taking Wonder Woman $5.32MM above Guardians 2's domestic total (which is still being shown across 231 theaters, adding $85K to its domestic total).

It's the Showdown between Wonder Woman Vs. Spider-Man (2002) that you should focus on for best Superhero Debut. Wonder Woman is slowly catching up to that film now making more on daily basis. Could win

29 minutes ago, HouseofComics.Com said:

 

So they sampled Robert Plant's Immigrant Song and made the song worse for her theme

7 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Yes!

FORBES.COM: Why 'Wonder Woman' Deserves To Be In The Oscar Race

 

 I would take a step further knowing the Oscar voting community. They like to make political statements any chance they can make. Why do you think certain films have won best picture against more deserving films?

Here are the reasons this film could win Best Picture/Best Director.

1. This film was equally received well by both male and female critics. The audience is a 50/50 split of both genders.

a. That means the number of votes this film receives can be high from voters

2. A political statement to appease womens

5 hours ago, Turtle said:

I don't really dig her theme music.  I didn't know it was specific for her until I saw her solo movie and heard it again, but I first heard it during the Doomsday battle in BvS.  It sounds a little too punk rock to me.  I think that feel would be more befitting of Batman or Cyborg.  For Wonder Woman, a more regal, graceful fanfare would be more appropriate (I think). 

I hear you on the music. In my own review of the film I said I was nitpicking to find something wrong with the film, but the music was what I called out specifically her theme song. 

The reason I didn't like the theme song for her was because I thought the theme sounded too much like the XMen theme music from the films when they arrive on scene. 

As far as Right theme well the film probably  could have used a female composer like Lindsey Stirling.

12 hours ago, Drummy said:

Hey Chuck!

Not trying to argue against any of your ideas you presented earlier; my three points taken together were meant to suggest that while people did want to see it, it didn't have the expected legs due to those three dynamics.  I agree word of mouth is probably along the lines of, "Yeah, it was really fun.  Holland is great. See it if you can." rather than something like the first Avengers had('It's so freaking amazing, you HAVE to see it!  I'm going again this weekend.').

And my disappointment comment was very much in line with yours -- a disappointment only in comparison to what I'm sure Marvel was hoping for from its flagship character in the mid-summer.

Dan

He is hoping for Batman numbers on what is essentially a teenager film. This film does not translate well for an adult audience. It's essentially throwing Spidey into American Pie. The film is performing great considering the bump it got from joining the MCU which is why it is doing better than the last few films, but at the same time underperforming because of the mediocrity of the last Spider-Man film. Quite honestly we could of made a SuperPro film in the MCU and got good returns at the box office. I got asked what this film was by coworkers and all I said was the film was great throw Anthony Michael Hall into a Spidey suit, imagine John Hughes directing the film in a Ferris Bueller style, and a great 80s soundtrack. The film was a fresh take on Spidey and appreciated

15 hours ago, valiantman said:

My guess is that theaters will have to adjust their calculations for dropping films.  They probably use a standard calculation based on the age of the film and the number of first week screens, but I saw the movie in week 7 with a packed room.  There's no financial reason to cycle off hundreds of screens if the room is still packed in week 8.  If it doesn't make sense for profits, then something will change... too late for Wonder Woman, but some future movie will benefit.

It's a really weird relationship theaters have with studios. Ok so you want to show this film that is fine, but in order to do that you have to show this film. It's a juggling act between the studios and what films will be in which theaters.

37 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Now $2.4MM over Guardians of the Galaxy 2's domestic box office.

I guess Paperheart is right. This is a movie with balls.

Monday's return was shocking for me going down only 16.5 percent from the previous Monday was a pleasant surprise. You just can't predict the box office for this film.

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

That makes no sense.... after Civil War, the excitement for a new Spider-man was talked about everywhere, including here on these boards. 

What people DIDN'T want was the FIRST reboot, which ended up doing only $62 Million at the box office it's opening weekend, but had enough legs to do $262 Mill (on a $230 Mill budget - eek!)....

THIS reboot, that you say no one wanted.... did almost DOUBLE the opening weekend - $117 Million - the 5th largest opening weekend in July ever.... seems like SOMEONE wanted to see it. 

As I've stated though... it doesn't have the legs to sustain it, like the other 5 top weekend grossing movies of July, they went on to do BIG NUMBERS. 

Homecoming's drop is NOT a sign of too much competition, but rather a sign of... just not a good enough movie.

Example - The OTHER TOP 4 July Opening Movies:

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2 (July 2011) $169 Million opening weekend (vs Transformers: Dark of the Moon which would go on to do $350 Million domestic, and Captain America First Avenger which would go on to do $176 Million and in it's 4th week; Rise of the Planet of the Apes - another $176 Million. Vert stiff competition it handled)

2. Dark Knight Rises (July 2012) $160 Million opening weekend (vs Amazing Spider-man which would do $262 Million, Ice Age: Continental Drift - $117 Mil, Ted at $218 Mill, and in it's 4th week, the Bourne Legacy at $113 Million. Very stiff.)

3. Dark Knight (July 2008) $158 Million (vs Hancock at $227 Mil, Mama Mia at $144 Mil, Step Brothers and the Mummy bot over $100 Mill and in the 5th week - Tropic Thunder at another $110 Mil.) Still kicked butt.

4. Well... you get the point.

THIS Spider-man, may not (probably won't) break $300 Million domestically, and that would make it the ONLY top July opening weekend grossing movie in the TOP 11, that DIDN'T. Because, even though people don't DISLIKE it, they don't like it ENOUGH to tell people they HAVE to go see it.

It doesn't have legs.
 

You have to judge the marketplace in a 5 year window. It doesn't matter what Dark Knight, DKR, or HP did it is a very different marketplace.

Hmm the increase in Spidey tickets is because this film takes place on the Marvel Cinematic Universe and RDJ is in it. You now have to watch this film because it may affect Avengers Infinity War.

 The truth is we are use to these type of films and special effects. The public in general has become bored of them. 

43 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Same with the latest Planet of the Apes flick which is a critical success, but is even doing worst at box office than Spider-Man Homecoming. People just have so many different alternatives for enterntainment that it will be hard for most future blockbuster movies to get to that 1 billion number.

I have also noticed that domestic numbers are way down for most blockbusters,so it will be interesting to see what Thor Ragnorak and Justice League pull in.

One movie though that should do good will be the upcoming new Star Wars movie.

See that is an event movie like the Super Bowl. We all want to see that.

I see 2 to 3 films a week in the theater, but those are mostly indie, foreign, and art films. The mainstream films bore me because it is a been there and seen that mentality. I liked the fresh John Hughes style take on the film, but Deadpool was the first comic film to take this direction.

Is it fresh if we are getting all these Comic films out in one year. It becomes a chore to watch them all of that is your intention. I felt I hit the wall last year in a marathon with Civil War. Sure a few films have been outliers like Wonder Woman, Deadpool, and Spider-Man. Yet what we end up with is an overcrowded market that makes the usual comic film nothing special. Films are just not performing well because in the long run we are not being given anything new or groundbreaking.

Then other factors as well come into play. If I go out to a film I usually spend enough to buy it outright on any home media format. Then factor a videophile like myself guarantees my at home system after calibration blows away picture wise what most theaters can provide. Then add in a sound system that provides great sound. If done right your at home system can blow away 90 percent of the theaters you can go to unless it is an IMAX or a theater like the Cine Capri super wide theater with Dolby Atmos installed

46 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

JAMES BOND 25 Has A Release Date And Writing Team But Will Daniel Craig Return As 007?

Daniel Craig Is Coming Back as James Bond in 2019

 

Should be his last film that will. That give Theo James enough time to be the appropriate age when they make the 26th film to take over. Funny thing is 2015 had too many spy films.

20 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Uh....no.

Spider-man is Marvel's BIGGEST selling character. He makes more merchandising money for them than ALL of the other characters combined.

It stands to reason his MOVIES should be the biggest.

Kevin Feige: “Spider-Man is the biggest Marvel character. He is the jewel in the crown. Such an amazing icon. He’s a very different kind of hero because he is, quite simply, the greatest superhero of all-time.” 

Is Spidey 'Just fine'?

Yes. He's going to do well enough. But they expected a LOT more.

For the 'jewel in the crown' of Marvel to be doing HALF of what Wonder Woman was doing in the third week, says a lot. Wonder Woman did $40 Million in it's 3rd weekend, compared to Homecoming's $22 Million. Even GOTG2, the SEQUEL, did $34.5 Million.

Great opening. No legs. 

The reason this movie is not doing as well as it could have is because hardly anyone was asking for this film. The film itself was a critical success, but no one was begging for a a reboot, remake, or sequel.

Unlike Wonder Woman we had as a public been asking for that film for 20 years. Make a film that women in general want to see making it almost a 50/50 split for gender seeing the film is unusual.

5 hours ago, apollobuzz said:

Looks like Wonder Woman had the worst drop in week 6.

Yeah that was the week after the 4th of July. In which the film benefited from a 5 day weekend the week before