Jump to content

March Movies: Batman V. Superman, 10 Cloverfield Lane...

Mark Vader

By Mark Vader
in Off the Wall Archives

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

I'm seeing it Saturday too. Can't wait!

 

I finally made the May Movies post, also.

 

Wait...you actually made your movies post in the month it applies to?

 

That's too weird. I can't handle it. I'll wait until Memorial Day to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Vader Hall of Famer

Mark Vader

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Between Gigli and BvS...anyone else starting to notice the trend between Affleck's movies completely tanking in sync with his love life?

It didn't matter to him, because he got into the directing business and everyone gushed over "Gone, Baby, Gone" & "The Town".

 

Then "Argo" won an obscene amount of awards, and Affleck saw himself as a god in Hollywood.

 

Therefore he could do anything spectacular, including acting, and he didn't need Jennifer Garner anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

And the hammer drops at WB:

 

"Warner Bros. Reoganizes DC Movie Operations in Wake of ‘Batman v Superman’"

 

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/warner-bros-reoganize-dc-entertainment-batman-v-superman-1201777464/

 

 

 

Warner Bros. is reorganizing the executives handling its DC movies, two months after “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” delivered a mildly disappointing performance.

 

Yeah, executive reorganizations happen all the time in response to "mild" disappointments. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

So the movie was "moderately profitable."

 

We'll never know because every studio's books get cooked. Sony still claims it lost money on Spider-Man 2 (Tobey's version). We can guess and get pretty close to the truth though. Last I saw the BO was around 870m and change (all markets). It's not going to pass 1b, which was the rumored number they needed to hit to turn a profit (but again, never confirmed because studios lie about their budgets as a matter of doing business), but when you factor in sales to cable networks and broadcast rights on top of merchandising and downloads it should eek past that mark.

 

The real danger for WB isn't in BvS's final box office numbers but more in the very real possibility their other properties won't draw as well as they may have had BvS been an audience darling. Suicide Squad, with all that firepower on the cast, has a tremendous amount of pressure on its release now. There was a time when attaching Will Smith to a film would be enough to bring people to the theater but his last few have missed.

 

I think the only guy who's capable of doing that these days is Cruise. There just aren't many traditional, seat-filling movie stars left anymore.

 

I'm personally way more excited for Suicide Squad (I like the director way more), so I'm hopeful it'll be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shrader All Pro

shrader

Posted
Posted

 

I think the only guy who's capable of doing that these days is Cruise. There just aren't many traditional, seat-filling movie stars left anymore.

 

 

 

This drives me crazy. Of all the people it had to be him? I just don't see how he is still a draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

 

This drives me crazy. Of all the people it had to be him? I just don't see how he is still a draw.

 

To be honest I don't even know if he still qualifies but he's the only one I can think of. The one thing Cruise seems to have more so than the other A-listers is a sense of what the mass audience wants. He picks good projects -- popcorn projects but still it's good popcorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

I think the only guy who's capable of doing that these days is Cruise. There just aren't many traditional, seat-filling movie stars left anymore.

 

And Liam Neeson. Because of his very particular set of skills he's acquired over a long career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Vader Hall of Famer

Mark Vader

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

To be honest I don't even know if he still qualifies but he's the only one I can think of. The one thing Cruise seems to have more so than the other A-listers is a sense of what the mass audience wants. He picks good projects -- popcorn projects but still it's good popcorn.

How about Matthew McConaughey? He appears to be a big draw. They are really pushing "Free State of Jones". The trailer for that movie was attached to both "Batman V. Superman" & "Captain America: Civil War".

 

I'd also add Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt & Matt Damon as big draws.

 

Maybe Hugh Jackman? Maybe Christian Bale?

 

I'm hoping that "Doctor Strange" & "Assassin's Creed" can do wonders for both Benedict Cumberbatch & Michael Fassbender. They need more big projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted

How about Matthew McConaughey? He appears to be a big draw. They are really pushing "Free State of Jones". The trailer for that movie was attached to both "Batman V. Superman" & "Captain America: Civil War".

 

I'd also add Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt & Matt Damon as big draws.

 

Maybe Hugh Jackman? Maybe Christian Bale?

 

I'm hoping that "Doctor Strange" & "Assassin's Creed" can do wonders for both Benedict Cumberbatch & Michael Fassbender. They need more big projects.

 

It's an interesting conversation and dilemma for sure, and I'm just going by my gut and conversations I've had about casting with producers. I'm by no means an expert on casting and what it takes to get a studio movie green-lit these days.

 

Speaking only of studio pictures (indie movies are different, every one of those names could get an indie green-lit), McConaughey, Bale, Damon, and Jackman probably couldn't open a 100m+ movie with just their name alone. They could open a movie with their name and a recognized property (people will be lining up to see the new Bourne and Wolverine -- no one really turned out to see Dallas Buyers Club, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Let's Buy a Zoo, or Pan).

 

Leo is tough to determine as well. He's a draw but he only works with five directors -- each of those guys are names and draws in their own right and don't really do traditional studio pictures. Wolf of Wallstreet was, but it was also a Scorsese flick and had a huge cast. The Revenant was great and made a ton of dough for what was basically a small movie. He might very well fit the bill but I don't think he has an interest in doing studio flicks, unlike Cruise who has stayed away from prestige films in favor of popcorn ever since Magnolia.

 

It's more about the change in studio executive thinking coupled with the rise of streaming services. It used to be about attaching big names to projects to guarantee a big opening weekend. Now the stars are secondary to the material. Now it's about finding big IP with an existing fan base who will show up regardless of who's attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shrader All Pro

shrader

Posted
Posted

 

I don't know why it's so puzzling. His very first role was as an action movie hero.

 

023.jpg

 

That was his first ever movie? I'd make some witty remark, but I don't remember a thing about his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...