When has this not been what Hollywood does?Deku said:And the Ides of March didn't exactly get great reviews. A radio show was discussing how, having run out of leads, Hollywood is just cherry picking pretty but mediocre actors and shoehorning them as leads in as many movies as possible hoping it sticks.
Dan said:When has this not been what Hollywood does?
Will Smith is as bankable as it gets.Deku said:They used to have good bankable leads.
The 3 people they're pushing now are Will Smith, Ryan Gosling and Ryan Reynolds. at least those 3 were mentioned in the piece I listened to.
I suppose the dearth in talent has revealed the lie.
The original only pulled in ~$180,000 during its run, so the sequel will definitely outgross it.lazybones18 said:$54k for Human Centipede 2!
It has nowhere to go but up!
Scarecrow said:Real Steel was very entertaining. Good job, Jackman.
the walrus said:I disagree about Will Smith, he's not really a star due to Hollywood shoving him down our throats (a la Ryan Reynolds and the like), but one who's really understood which projects will get him the most box-office appeal as possible - and then done those projects.
the walrus said:I disagree about Will Smith, he's not really a star due to Hollywood shoving him down our throats (a la Ryan Reynolds and the like), but one who's really understood which projects will get him the most box-office appeal as possible - and then done those projects. Which is also why he's the only star with a genuine draw, because he isn't a Hollywood creation, but rather someone who mastered the system.
lazybones18 said:$54k for Human Centipede 2!
It has nowhere to go but up!
Tron 2.0 said:The original only pulled in ~$180,000 during its run, so the sequel will definitely outgross it.
The per screen average certainly doesn't look stellar for a limited release, but apparently the majority of the theaters were only showing it one or two showings a day around midnight.
B_Rik_Schitthaus said:Now, now, now, now once upon a time in the west
Mad man lost his damn mind in the west
Loveless, givin up a dime, nothin' less
Now I must put his behind to the test (can you feel me)
.......
Count Dookkake said:Butt of course.
I can assure you, it definitely outgrosses the first film.
Nah, I agree with ya'. But think its impossible to work out how Smith is so successful, he managed to bring a mainstream audience to 7 pounds and The Pursuit of Happyness.the walrus said:We all make mistakes. Can't fault the guy for making like... what, 10 100m+ movies back to back after that. Fuckin ridiculous.
Saw a 3 Musketeers trailers where the only word spoken was "We are the three Musketeers" spoken in a American accent, Laughed my ass off.ryutaro's mama said:If Ye Olde Resident Evil, er I mean, 3 Musketeers: 3D makes money...holy fuck...
Ryan Gosling has tons of talent. Will Smith is a decent actor at best. Reynolds is an Arnold type that gets by on his charisma intelligence.Deku said:They used to have good bankable leads.
The 3 people they're pushing now are Will Smith, Ryan Gosling and Ryan Reynolds. at least those 3 were mentioned in the piece I listened to.
I suppose the dearth in talent has revealed the lie.
I think your expectations for what films cost are unrealistic.ElTopo said:$127 million dollars for that film ? For what is essentially Rocky with robots ? Is that really true ? I haven't watched the film, so I can't comment on the quality, but...spending that much money seems pretty unreasonable.
Yup, saw it with the girlfriend and get family. Everyone enjoyed it.Slayven said:I hope Real Steel does well, it reminds me of truly awesome movies of my childhood. Like Robot Jox, Robot Wars, and Arena.
Is Hollywood going to learn that Butler isn't any type of draw?Busty said:Machine Gun Preacher struggling to build on it's platform release. With barely $250k in BO this $70m (or so) project is really struggling to get any traction as a wide release never mind Oscar bait.
B_Rik_Schitthaus said:Is Hollywood going to learn that Butler isn't any type of draw?
ElTopo said:It's a lot easier to judge this project in hindsight, though I think they might've done better (financially) if they had thrown that sci-fi stuff out.
DiatribeEQ said:If it wasn't for the little bastard in Real Steel, it was a great movie. Seriously, I hate 99% of all kids in movies starring alongside adults.
ryutaro's mama said:Natalie Portman in Leon better be your 1%.
DiatribeEQ said:She did a great job in the Professional, so yes, she is part of that 1%.
I think the consideration went something like this:ElTopo said:I admit they might be, but I just found it baffling that someone would think it's a good idea to spend that much money on a sci-fi Rocky film. They're essentially spending $40-60 million dollars on special effects (or at least quite a lot) and I'm just not sure that a Rocky film gains enough from them to justify it - haven't seen it, quite frankly I didn't even know the film was already running in Germany.
It's a lot easier to judge this project in hindsight, though I think they might've done better (financially) if they had thrown that sci-fi stuff out.
DiatribeEQ said:If it wasn't for the little bastard in Real Steel, it was a great movie. Seriously, I hate 99% of all kids in movies starring alongside adults.
ryutaro's mama said:Real Steel actually made money?
Unreal.
That movie looks like some executive pitched it as 'think "Rocky" meets "Transformers" with Wolverine in the lead role' and the large sack of cash with the "$" on the side was handed over.
The previews make this look horrible.
If Ye Olde Resident Evil, er I mean, 3 Musketeers: 3D makes money...holy fuck...
icarus-daedelus said:Most people are judging the trailer, which I have to agree was awful. It's good to hear the movie turned out well though.
ok now I'm soldarbok26 said:i suppose most people haven't played One Must Fall 2097 then...
arbok26 said:whats your point - puzzle quest is an RPG meets puzzle game.
it was good.
Real Steel was also good.
macuser1of5 said:ok now I'm sold
they need to make a game like that again fyi.
Takao said:I felt like Real Steel's trailers told me the entire movie, and it told me the movie was going to be bad.
I kind of want to see it, to see if it's bad, or if critics got some weird robo haterade. But I think the robot designs are so ugly, and I don't know if I could support that.Yes, I just judged the movie on its robot designs. Deal with it.
arbok26 said:come on people - this is a really good movie and it doesn't take itself that seriously at all.
ryutaro's mama said:Does one of the following endings happen:
1) Hugh Jackman's robot beats the odds and wins the game and ends with him starting a makeshift family with the kid and his mother.
or
2) Hugh Jackman's robot comes up a little short and loses but Hugh realizes that the most important thing wasn't winning the fight, but rather the people most important in his life--the kid and his mother. He gives up the fight game (until, of course there is a greenlit sequel) and walks into the sunset with his new family.
If the answer is something close to that or dead-on, then there is no point in seeing the film.
Yeah I played it, did not like it at all.arbok26 said:they did but it was awfulone must fall battlegrounds...
arbok26 said:so the first 120 minutes don't matter?
not going to spoil the movie here
but its a sports movie, there's a winner and loser obviously.
Neither of those endings are correct.ryutaro's mama said:Does one of the following endings happen:
1) Hugh Jackman's robot beats the odds and wins the game and ends with him starting a makeshift family with the kid and his mother.
or
2) Hugh Jackman's robot comes up a little short and loses but Hugh realizes that the most important thing wasn't winning the fight, but rather the people most important in his life--the kid and his mother. He gives up the fight game (until, of course there is a greenlit sequel) and walks into the sunset with his new family.
If the answer is something close to that or dead-on, then there is no point in seeing the film.
TacticalFox88 said:Neither of those endings are correct.