Summer 2008 Box-Office Predictions Thread [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

dellamorte dellamore

03-19-2008, 04:29 PM

I see the possibility of 3 movies crossing 300 plus mil this summer . The obvious one is Indy , then you have DK and Hancock . Prince Caspian , i'm not sure , it may flirt with 300 mil but may just come up short .

It looks like this spring / summer season will be even bigger than last , but once again it's sequel mania gone wild . At least Hancock isn't sequel , well , in a way it is , it's the fresh Prince on yet another role lol . Just kidding it looks funny as hell , should be good .

Indy , ah , i'm lukewarm on this one , i was hoping Connery was in it , it's what made the last one so amazing , this one sort of looks like a greatest hits version of the franchise , not that excited for it , although there's no doubt it will give people what they want and make tons of dough . 360 mil

Dk should really tear things up now that Nolan doesn't have to convince anyone that this isn't the same batman they grew accustomed to when Burton and Schu were doing their thing , and mister obvious , people want to see the joker in action again . 330 mil

Hancock looks gut busting , Smith is really in his element now , he's doing the best work of his career , and he's totally confident in his abilities as an actor / entertainer . This thing is going to be huge , a nice counterpoint to the serious comic book offering of Dk . 305 mil

Prince Caspian looks like more Lotr lite . I did mildly enjoy the first one , it was entertaining , somewhat , i just never cared much for the characters or story , i was longing for the brilliance of Lotr the whole time . This series is a combo of Lotr and Potter , i love one and hated the other , so i had a split response to the first one . I could care less about this second installment , but i realize there are a good number of people who would disagree with me about this franchise and it's going to clean up . ( will Santa Clause show up again , or maybe the Easter bunny this time ) 270 mil

Jig Saw 123

03-19-2008, 05:15 PM

Iron Man- $190 Million
Speed Racer- $125 million
What Happens in Vegas- $50 million
Prince Caspian- $300 million
Midnight Meat Train- $40 million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- $260 million
The Strangers- $45 million
Sex and the City- $70 million
Kung Fu Panda- $125 million
The Incredible Hulk- $125 million
The Happening- $130 million
The Love Guru- $70 million
Wall-E- $230 million
Wanted- $80 million
Hancock- $220 million
Hellboy II: The Golden Army- $90 million
The Dark Knight- $280 million
Step Brothers- $120 million
X-Files: Done One- $95 million
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor- $130 million
Pineapple Express- $105 million
Tropic Thunder- $75 million

The Dark Knight will beat Indiana Jones IV domestically not foreign.

Bourne101

03-19-2008, 06:01 PM

however good the dark knight may be, it will NOT beat indy 4, it just aint happening. im sorry no :D

and if you triple your sex and the city prediction we may have something more 'realistic' :D

personally i think indy could top 400m and batman just getting 300m i emphasise the word JUST

and i think sex and the city will pull in 170m - 200m

So sure now are we? I would actually put money on The Dark Knight winning over Indy. The Dark Knight has zero competition, and plenty of summer weeks after it opens to keep raking in money, while Indy has a bound hit coming out each week after its release, sometimes two in one week. :D

Sex and the City will not make $170 million-$200 million, its just not happening. It will not make over $100 million, and will be lucky to make $60 million.

a7xfan

03-19-2008, 07:05 PM

you do realise that sex and the city if one of the 'big playas' in telivisionland. among sienfeld,friends and joey

Bourne101

03-19-2008, 07:49 PM

you do realise that sex and the city if one of the 'big playas' in telivisionland. among sienfeld,friends and joey

Sex and the City is nothing compared to Seinfeld and Friends... and Joey? That show blows and I didn't think it was that popular anyway. Trust me, Sex and the City will not do very well. Expect around $60 million total. Have you heard of the movies it's up against? Narnia, Indy, The Strangers, Kung Fu Panda, You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Narnia taking away the younger crowd, Strangers some of the older, Panda the younger, Zohan the teen to semi-older crowd, and Indy taking away every crowd. It's pretty much fucked.

Rick-James

03-19-2008, 10:17 PM

1. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - $300 Million
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - $290 Million
3. The Dark Knight - $280 Million
4. Wall-E - $240 Million
5. Hancock - $220 Milllion

Jig Saw 123

03-19-2008, 11:18 PM

I'm shocked to see people are really believing Indiana Jones will make more than The Dark Knight. Look at all the movies surrounding each movie. For Indiana Jones you've got Prince Caspian coming out a week before it than Kung Fu Panda the following week. While The Dark Knight has Hellboy 2 a week before it and really nothing except The Mummy 3, which releases the beginning of August. I've got my money on The Dark Knight. :)

Worthystevens

03-20-2008, 01:09 AM

Sex and the City is nothing compared to Seinfeld and Friends... and Joey? That show blows and I didn't think it was that popular anyway. Trust me, Sex and the City will not do very well. Expect around $60 million total. Have you heard of the movies it's up against? Narnia, Indy, The Strangers, Kung Fu Panda, You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Narnia taking away the younger crowd, Strangers some of the older, Panda the younger, Zohan the teen to semi-older crowd, and Indy taking away every crowd. It's pretty much fucked.

I don't know dude. Sex and the City has a huge female fanbase.

a7xfan

03-20-2008, 03:53 AM

Sex and the City is nothing compared to Seinfeld and Friends... and Joey?

i was kidding about joey. my shot at a joke obviously didnt land well :D

maybe i'm going oveboard with it being in the seinfeld league. but as
'WORTHYSTEVENS' said, it has a HUGE female fanbase

fooknasty

03-20-2008, 08:57 AM

Unfortunately, I think that both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk will not do all that great. I think both will land around the $110-$125 million. Neither one has a huge following, and one is a reboot coming off a critically ripped movie.

I think that Speed Racer will really struggle, but then again you could have soooo many adults from that generation take their kids to see that movie, that it could be huge. Hard to tell with that one.

As far as Indy and Bats. Geez, this is tough. This is really bad, but I think the death of Heath Ledger is really going to propel The Dark Knight past Indy. I would say that The Dark Knight will land somewhere around the $300 million range, and after looking at the abundance of solid money making movies surrounding Indy, I am gonna say something like $275 million for that.

Bourne101

03-20-2008, 09:53 AM

i was kidding about joey. my shot at a joke obviously didnt land well :D

maybe i'm going oveboard with it being in the seinfeld league. but as
'WORTHYSTEVENS' said, it has a HUGE female fanbase

Maybe it does have a huge female base, but what is the age group of that fan base? I don't hear many teenage girls, or women in their twenties talking about Sex and the City. Correct me if I am wrong, but the fan base for Sex and the City is geared toward women in their 30's and 40's, which is not usually a good thing at the box-office. When you take away the teen crowd for a chick flick, it usually equals BOMB.

My prediction stands. $60 million.

Scarfather

03-20-2008, 10:15 AM

I don't doubt The Dark Knight beating Jones, but 400 mil? Pfft.

No.

max314

03-20-2008, 10:55 AM

I don't see Speed Racer making so much $$. It is going to get buried in May with Iron Man, Narnia, and Indy 4. I say $70-75 million tops. It doesn't help that it looks kinda weak.

I'm not so sure about that.

Indy 4 probably won't have a huge under-25 audience. Iron Man probably won't be attracting the female audience. Narnia poses the greatest potential threat to Speed Racer's box office, but Racer does also have a head start (no pun intended).

What Speed Racer will have on its side is a huge marketing campaign - from Happy Meals and cereals to bubblegum and toy line tie-ins - courtesy of Joel Silver, who realises the need for the relatively unknown property to get as much public exposure as possible. It will also attract a very wide ranging demographic, from kids, parents, action-loving teens, fans of The Matrix, fans of the original show (now in their 30s, 40s, 50s, etc), males, females, young, old...you name it, there's something for everyone.

Insofar as we of the internet movie geek community are concerned, the trailers have proven highly divisive. What's interesting is that the more time passes, the more the skeptics and naysayers are starting to be won over by the uniqueness and overall charm of the film.

It's taken a while to sink in that this isn't some goth-grunge flick, like The Matrix. But once people understand that this is a totally different movie with a totally audacious visual style, I think they'll come around.

On paper, Speed Racer has the potential to be the biggest movie of the Summer. Perhaps even the year.

Bourne101

03-20-2008, 11:37 AM

max314

03-20-2008, 12:37 PM

Speed Racer will not make over $100 million. The appeal is just not there. Indy definitely appeals to people under the age of 25. Just because the other Indy films are older films doesn't mean young people don't watch them. The trailers for Speed Racer have been horrid. It looks like a film for 5 year olds who dig special effects. I doubt you'll be seeing too much of the older crowd hitting up Speed Racer. Even Narnia will attract more of the older crowd than Speed Racer.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/350/speedracerdefenceeditgz5.gif

I'm just kidding, of course :D

But seriously, I think that Speed Racer will have more appeal than some are giving it credit for.

I don't see kids tugging at mom's shirt sleeve to go and see Indy 4. I do, however, see a whole horde of them gagging to see Speed Racer.

Narnia is definitely the biggest threat to Speed Racer's box office, no doubt it. But Speed Racer has definitely got the time advantage on its side.

Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch.

PS
Early screenings are apparently saying that the film is awesome ;)

Worthystevens

03-21-2008, 02:24 AM

I don't doubt The Dark Knight beating Jones, but 400 mil? Pfft.

No.

Pirates 2 was able to make over $400 million.

Bourne101

03-21-2008, 10:59 AM

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/350/speedracerdefenceeditgz5.gif

I'm just kidding, of course :D

But seriously, I think that Speed Racer will have more appeal than some are giving it credit for.

I don't see kids tugging at mom's shirt sleeve to go and see Indy 4. I do, however, see a whole horde of them gagging to see Speed Racer.

Narnia is definitely the biggest threat to Speed Racer's box office, no doubt it. But Speed Racer has definitely got the time advantage on its side.

Whatever happens, it'll be interesting to watch.

PS
Early screenings are apparently saying that the film is awesome ;)

Haha, you're funny. :rolleyes:

Again, Speed Racer will not make over $100 million. And your so-called "joking" comments are just a step closer to your banishment. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

ilovemovies

03-22-2008, 08:52 AM

I think some people are underestimating Speed Racer. I could see that movie being huge.

Alright, I'll play:

Iron Man - 175 million
Speed Racer - 200 million
The Chronicles of Narnia - 200 million+
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 300 million+
Kung Fu Panda - 80 million
The Happening - 105 million
The Incredible Hulk - 120 million
You Don't Mess with the Zohan - 100 mil
Get Smart - 120 mil
WALL*E - 200 - 225 mil
Wanted - 75 - 100 mil (maybe I'm clouded by the fact that I think it looks pretty bad but is there really excitement for this lame looking movie?)
Hancock - 275 - 300 mil
Hellboy II - 110 mil
Journey 3D - 75 mil
Meet Dave - ??? (not sure)
The Dark Knight - 250 - 275 mil
Mamma Mia! - Not sure, but I think this has potential to be a real summer sleeper, Hairspray came out about the same time last year and surprised audiences and I think this could to
The X-Files 2 (300 mil, in my dreams, the reality is probably somewhere below or at 100 mil, maybe slightly more)

Top movies of the summer:

1. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull
2. Hancock
3. The Dark Knight
4. WALL*E
5. The Chronicles of Narina: Prince Caspian
6. Speed Racer
7. Iron Man

I'm not going to bother doing August. It doesn't look like a very promising lineup. I'm sure The Pineapple Express will be a hit. Maybe The Mummy although I think that franchise has run it's course and it won't be nearly as big as the other ones (hence the August release date rather than the May ones that the other two recieved).

I'm excited about The International but I'm not sure if that's going to be a big hit or not.

And Tropic Thunder could do well.

The rest of August's lineup, extremely meh. (Although I do look forward to He's Just Not That Into You, Crossing Over, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Babylon A.D. but there boxoffice potential are all very cloudy)

max314

03-22-2008, 01:36 PM

Haha, you're funny. :rolleyes:

Again, Speed Racer will not make over $100 million.

Test screenings are already proving highly popular, and the "love it or hate it" reaction to the visuals in the trailers is starting to move more and more towards the "love it" end of the spectrum.

Then you've got the kids and the mass appeal (I take it on authority that kids are already looking forward to Speed Racer more than Indy IV :D )...and you're in for one very healthy looking box office.

And your so-called "joking" comments are just a step closer to your banishment. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

Haha...oh, don't be like that Bourney Boy :D I was just startin' to like you :p

I think some people are underestimating Speed Racer. I could see that movie being huge.

;)

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 03:40 PM

max314

03-22-2008, 04:29 PM

Oh am I going to love it when Narnia and Indy crush the living shit out of Speed Racer! It's going to be a fucking blast to wake up on the Sunday of Narnia's opening weekend and log on to box-office mojo to see Speed Racer have dropped 60% after its $28-30 million opening weekend, and then wake up the next Sunday when Indy opens to see it has dropped another 60% and is in its last weekend in the top 10 topping off with about $70-80 million. And if kids had a choice between Speed Racer and Indy or Narnia, they would definitely choose Indy or Narnia, easily. There's no arguing it. They would rather see Indy kicking ass, or the adventures of Narnia, than a bunch of cars driving around in what looks like a prolonged version of the shroom scene from Tenacious D.

"Kids"? Or you? :D

And test screenings at this point don't mean shit. The movie doesn't come out for two months, and those who are watching the test screenings are most likely people working on the movie.

Test screenings always mean shit, dude.

The positives at the time of the screening included:
- Action scenes that apparently "make the Matrix look like a Gus Van Sant art film".
- Genuinely emotional character development.
- Gripping set-pieces.

The negatives were:
- Some slight pacing issues with the second act.
- The interaction and plotting between the villains needed to be made clearer.

I'm sure there's more than enough time to iron out the kinks. And this was from a guy who apparently wasn't even looking forward to seeing the film. Kinda like you ;)

And why all the love for Narnia? The first one was mediocre at best.

Bourney Boy? It's going to be fun to see how long you last around here.

We aim to please :cool:

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 04:39 PM

"Kids"? Or you? :D

Test screenings always mean shit, dude.

The positives at the time of the screening included:
- Action scenes that apparently "make the Matrix look like a Gus Van Sant art film".
- Genuinely emotional character development.
- Gripping set-pieces.

The negatives were:
- Some slight pacing issues with the second act.
- The interaction and plotting between the villains needed to be made clearer.

I'm sure there's more than enough time to iron out the kinks. And this was from a guy who apparently wasn't even looking forward to seeing the film. Kinda like you ;)

And why all the love for Narnia? The first one was mediocre at best.

We aim to please :cool:

Kids. If they have the choice, they are obviously going to choose Narnia or Indy. It's no contest.

Test screenings do not always mean shit. Judging by the trailers (which is most likely a good indicator for Speed Racer) the action sequences look retarded as fuck. Genuinely emotional character development? Not fucking likely. The trailer had some sappy moments that definitely gave the vibe of anything but genuinely emotional character development. Set-pieces. This movie looks like a fucking cartoon. There's nothing gripping about anything I've seen so far. And the two negatives that were mentioned are huge. Those two things can potentially fuck a movie over. I'd actually like to see this review, it's probably from some nobody who's favorite film is Spider-Man 3. And did I show love for Narnia? I simply stated it was definitely something that kids dig.

max314

03-22-2008, 05:10 PM

Kids. If they have the choice, they are obviously going to choose Narnia or Indy. It's no contest.

Really? Coz a friend of mine told me his 9 year old was more interested in Speed Racer than Indy. Much to his dismay, of course, since he was a long time Indy fan :D

Plus, Speed Racer is gonna be eating up all the marketing outlets (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117979682.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) (click) - cereal boxes, Happy Meals... You name it, kids are gonna be exposed to it.

Indiana Jones is gonna mostly attract over 21s methinks, since they're the ones with the childhood nostalgia that's driving the film's marketing campaign. The kiddies will want either Speed Racer or Narnia. And Speed Racer is gonna be getting the bigger marketing coverage.

Anyway, whatever happens, I think it'll be interesting to watch.

Test screenings do not always mean shit. Judging by the trailers (which is most likely a good indicator for Speed Racer) the action sequences look retarded as fuck. Genuinely emotional character development? Not fucking likely. The trailer had some sappy moments that definitely gave the vibe of anything but genuinely emotional character development. Set-pieces. This movie looks like a fucking cartoon. There's nothing gripping about anything I've seen so far. And the two negatives that were mentioned are huge. Those two things can potentially fuck a movie over. I'd actually like to see this review, it's probably from some nobody who's favorite film is Spider-Man 3. And did I show love for Narnia? I simply stated it was definitely something that kids dig.

Well, since you asked so nicely, you can click here for the review (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35695).

And test screenings do count.

The hugely successful tests for newcomer Transformers were followed by the movie raking up the third highest domestic gross of 2007, behind only established sequels Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third.

As for trailers, they tend to show the 'emotional endpoints'. A sort of broad summary of all the major moments. The stuff in between - the "genuine character development" - is why we actually see the film.

Yes, it's cartoony.

Yes, it's campy.

But that's the whole point.

It may not be your cup of tea, but interest in the film seems to be going up on IMDB, whereas interest in Indy IV seems to be sliding down somewhat. Narnia has remained steady recently.

The basic gist of my point is this: don't underestimate Speed Racer.

Sure, there's a chance it could flop. But there seems to be an even greater chance of it being the surprise hit of the Summer.

PS
Chill out, bub :cool:

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 05:22 PM

bigred760

03-22-2008, 05:32 PM

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 05:34 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy 2 make more than it does.

I agree.

max314

03-22-2008, 05:34 PM

Regardless if kids don't want to see Indy (which they will once they start seeing trailers and TV spots), Narnia is easily going to be bigger than Speed Racer, and comes out just a week after Speed Racer. Both Narnia and Indy will be bigger than Speed Racer, and both will attract kids, regardless of what you believe. Just because there hasn't been an Indy film in 20 years, doesn't mean that kids aren't interested. Transformers was a thing of the past for 20 years, and bam there's a movie, and kids loved it and were dying to see it. The first Narnia was a major hit, and I expect this one could be as big or bigger. With these two being so huge, Speed Racer will be the one lost in the crowd. And lets not forget Iron Man which comes out a week before Speed Racer. Kids are going to love that and are going to be dying to see that as well. And cereal boxes and McDonald's toys doesn't necessarily mean success. The Spiderwick Chronicles had all that shit, but only did OK at the box-office.

Spiderwick had a mediocre box office because it was a mediocre film.

It was just another Rings/Potter rip off with nothing setting it apart as something unique, and no fan base to guarantee its success.

Speed Racer will be something totally different. Totally insane. It sets itself apart from the competition in a very distinct way.

Prince Caspian is a follow-up to a fairly mediocre original. Yeah, kid's will probably go and see it, but I doubt over-21s will dig it after the distinctly average original.

Indy IV, like I said, may just prove a little dated for kids. Unlike Transformers, this doesn't have giant robots blowing shit up.

[i]As for the review. Ain't it Cool News? Are you kidding me. You would have been better off saying you made the whole review thing up. Test screenings for Transformers didn't mean anything and didn't contribute to its box-office success. And even though I did enjoy it, it wasn't exactly the highest rated movie of the year, in fact, many people loathed it.

We're talking about box office here. Audience popularity. Not critical acclaim.

Although I suspect the critics will rather like Speed Racer.

Also, I never said the positive test screenings "contributed" to the success of Transformers. I merely said that the favourable screenings were an indication of final performance. Which they were. Just as the test screenings for Blade Runner were an indication of its final performance. Which they were.

Nothing to do with the actual quality of the film.

And yes. AICN. Moarity and co always let you know if their source is dodgy. The ones they say are okay are usually okay. So you can rest easy ;)

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 05:42 PM

Spiderwick had a mediocre box office because it was a mediocre film.

It was just another Rings/Potter rip off with nothing setting it apart as something unique, and no fan base to guarantee its success.

Speed Racer will be something totally different. Totally insane. It sets itself apart from the competition in a very distinct way.

Prince Caspian is a follow-up to a fairly mediocre original. Yeah, kid's will probably go and see it, but I doubt over-21s will dig it after the distinctly average original.

Indy IV, like I said, may just prove a little dated for kids. Unlike Transformers, this doesn't have giant robots blowing shit up.

We're talking about box office here. Audience popularity. Not critical acclaim.

Although I suspect the critics will rather like Speed Racer.

Also, I never said the positive test screenings "contributed" to the success of Transformers. I merely said that the favourable screenings were an indication of final performance. Which they were. Just as the test screenings for Blade Runner were an indication of its final performance. Which they were.

Nothing to do with the actual quality of the film.

And yes. AICN. Moarity and co always let you know if their source is dodgy. The ones they say are okay are usually okay. So you can rest easy ;)

Actually, The Spiderwick Chronicles was not mediocre at all. It has received an 80% fresh rating on RT, which is better than Transformers, and is better than what Speed Racer will get.

Speed Racer is not totally different at all. Just because it has some special effects that are different (although really stupid looking), doesn't mean it's a different or unique film. The plot is generic and lame.

Regardless of what kids want to see Indy and Narnia will both do better than Speed Racer, as will the majority of other films released this summer.

And AICN is nearly always way off and I sometimes wonder if the people who put the reviews on there have actually seen the films.

bigred760

03-22-2008, 05:43 PM

Speed Racer will be something totally different. Totally insane. It sets itself apart from the competition in a very distinct way.

How? Please elaborate.

Prince Caspian is a follow-up to a fairly mediocre original. Yeah, kid's will probably go and see it, but I doubt over-21s will dig it after the distinctly average original.

Kids are all you need. The first one was very successful because not only did you have the kids go and see it, but fans of the books (young and old), and the "major-Christian" demographic as well.

Indy IV, like I said, may just prove a little dated for kids. Unlike Transformers, this doesn't have giant robots blowing shit up.

Indy IV won't be dated; the series might be a little, but the first three still have a lot of fans (young and old) who will want to go and see it. Giant robots blowing shit up isn't a requirement for young audiences to go and see it. Let's hope so anyway, because I doubt Speed Racer has much of that either.

max314

03-22-2008, 05:48 PM

I don't think Speed Racer will make much of a dent in the box office. It's small potatoes compared to everything else that's coming out this summer: Narnia, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Indy, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if The Incredible Hulk and Hellboy 2 make more than it does.

It's precisely that reason that Joel Silver's been busy getting the biggest and best international marketing deals.

It's hard to turn a relatively unknown property into a huge Summer success - particularly in a Summer like this one.

But Speed Racer seems to be generating and increasing amount of interest in critical and wider audience circles, and this is before the marketing campaign has even begun.

As I said, I fully understand if the movie flops. But I've got a gut feeling this movie could hit it big.

bigred760

03-22-2008, 06:06 PM

I've been wrong before, and there's little doubt that I'll be wrong again. I haven't seen much as far as marketing for it, other than the trailer, which didn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Of course, it's still early. But even with a lot of marketing, it still has to go up agains the big dogs.

Scarfather

03-22-2008, 06:37 PM

Speed Racer will either do great business or bomb entirely. And I submit this evidence: it looks horrible.

And seeing that it looks horrible, I expect it to do very well. Children these days have the attention spans of semi-retarded fruit flies and are only particularly interested in films that look like their Wii games. Speed Racer will succeed because of this.

I don't see Jones doing much more then the previous two installments, maybe 250 tops. Most kids aren't even aware of the previous films. IJATCS's box office will rely heavily on nostalgia which can only go so far.

Narnia? Church groups, overly protective parents with their sheltered children, and bored-os will see it, God knows there are a lot of all of them. Why don't I just vomit some meaningless predictions out:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Hancock
3. Wall-E
4. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
5. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
6. Speed Racer
7. Iron Man
8. Mamma Mia
9. Kung Fu Panda
10. The Incredible Hulk

I think the Ferrell train is finally petering to a stop. May be wrong, but his past three films have all underperformed. The Shyamalan freight is in the train graveyard. X-Files, Sex and the City, and especially The Mummy all fall into the who cares category.

The only one left out I think might do very well is Zohan, that, because it looks abhorrently abysmal, I left out, but, abhorrently abysmal is what Americans are looking for. So it might beat Titanic.

Hellboy II won't do shit. And the rest look like shit. So wah.

*looks at message box*

Holy fuck, I typed all that? What a waste of time.

max314

03-22-2008, 07:24 PM

How? Please elaborate.

If you haven't yet seen the trailers, I suggest you watch them.

It looks like nothing we've ever seen before.

Kids are all you need. The first one was very successful because not only did you have the kids go and see it, but fans of the books (young and old), and the "major-Christian" demographic as well.

Yep, very true. But like you say - "kids are all you need". There's a very real possibility that Speed Racer will suck up that whole group.

Indy IV won't be dated; the series might be a little, but the first three still have a lot of fans (young and old) who will want to go and see it. Giant robots blowing shit up isn't a requirement for young audiences to go and see it. Let's hope so anyway, because I doubt Speed Racer has much of that either.

Nope, but it's got crazy-ass cars fighting in mid-air whilst speeding through a sonic boom :D

Actually, The Spiderwick Chronicles was not mediocre at all. It has received an 80% fresh rating on RT, which is better than Transformers, and is better than what Speed Racer will get.

Speed Racer is not totally different at all. Just because it has some special effects that are different (although really stupid looking), doesn't mean it's a different or unique film. The plot is generic and lame.

Regardless of what kids want to see Indy and Narnia will both do better than Speed Racer, as will the majority of other films released this summer.

And AICN is nearly always way off and I sometimes wonder if the people who put the reviews on there have actually seen the films.

A 'fresh' rating on RT simply means that most people's scores averaged out at over 60%, so that doesn't tell you too much.

'Empire' magazine rated it at 3 stars, which simply means it's a solid genre example. Nothing exceptional, just..."okay".

In a world of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, you need to have either:

(a) An exceptionally well-made property; or
(b) An exceptionally huge fan base

In order to make it work.

The movie just got ignored due to its averageness. Its mediocrity.

Also, you can't call Speed Racer's plot "generic" whilst simultaneously bigging up Indy. We've already had three Indy movies. We know the score. It's gonna be Indy going after some magical relic and trying to keep it out of the hands of bad guys who want to use it for some evil purpose. At least Speed Racer will introduce us to an exciting and unique world that's punctuated with adrenaline pumping races, whilst being presented in way like no other.

Alright, so you think the look is "stupid". I think it looks amazing. Revolutionary, even. But looks and aesthetics are very personal things. And while this innovative new look has people confounded, it also has a lot of people very, very excited. 'Empire Online' users have rated it the third most anticipated film of the year, trailing only Indy IV and the next Bond film! And that's taking into account the fact that 'Empire Online' has a huge Indiana Jones fan base, with a lot of them harboring fond childhood memories of the first three films.

That's quite something.

I've been wrong before, and there's little doubt that I'll be wrong again. I haven't seen much as far as marketing for it, other than the trailer, which didn't instill a lot of confidence in me. Of course, it's still early. But even with a lot of marketing, it still has to go up agains the big dogs.

I suspect the marketing will begin kicking in by early-to-mid April.

And yes, there's no doubt that Speed Racer will be facing some pretty stiff competition. It's gonna be an interesting Summer :D

Speed Racer will either do great business or bomb entirely. And I submit this evidence: it looks horrible.

And seeing that it looks horrible, I expect it to do very well. Children these days have the attention spans of semi-retarded fruit flies and are only particularly interested in films that look like their Wii games. Speed Racer will succeed because of this.

Heh...funny you should mention that, since there's going to be a Speed Racer tie-in for the Nintendo Wii :p

The look of the film is obviously highly risky. But from the lesbian protagonists in Bound and the intellectual ambitions of The Matrix, to the terrorist 'hero' blowing up the Houses of Parliament in V For Vendetta, the Wachowskis have never been averse to taking risks.

As an aspiring filmmaker, that's one thing I admire that greatly about them.

To quote a weary Joel Silver, "they never do things the easy way" :D

bigred760

03-22-2008, 08:37 PM

If you haven't yet seen the trailers, I suggest you watch them.

It looks like nothing we've ever seen before.

I've seen the trailer, I was just asking your opinion on what we'll be seeing in it . . . that's all.

max314

03-22-2008, 09:06 PM

I've seen the trailer, I was just asking your opinion on what we'll be seeing in it . . . that's all.

Well, the aesthetic alone is original enough. Before any images were released, Emile Hirsch initially described it as "Blade Runner meets Andy Warhol meets pop art". And I think that's actually a fairly accurate description.

Anything that's visually comparable to Blade Runner at least deserves a look in :D

Add to that the Wachowskis' famous capacity for building sublime action sequences, and you can bet we're in for one hell of a roller coaster ride.

Even those who didn't like / understand Reloaded and Revolutions had to at least commend the Brothers for their incredibly visionary sense of action cinema. With the grace of John Woo, the action timing of animé, and the careful framing of a comic book, the Wachowskis will these incredible action scenes to life. Unlike some directors, the Wachowskis aren't afraid to SHOW you what they're doing, instead of hiding behind a series of shaky close-ups that are edited together later in the production, and have the label "gritty" slapped on the front.

And they're all the better for it, methinks.

Bourne101

03-22-2008, 09:29 PM

A 'fresh' rating on RT simply means that most people's scores averaged out at over 60%, so that doesn't tell you too much.

'Empire' magazine rated it at 3 stars, which simply means it's a solid genre example. Nothing exceptional, just..."okay".

In a world of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, you need to have either:

(a) An exceptionally well-made property; or
(b) An exceptionally huge fan base

In order to make it work.

The movie just got ignored due to its averageness. Its mediocrity.

Also, you can't call Speed Racer's plot "generic" whilst simultaneously bigging up Indy. We've already had three Indy movies. We know the score. It's gonna be Indy going after some magical relic and trying to keep it out of the hands of bad guys who want to use it for some evil purpose. At least Speed Racer will introduce us to an exciting and unique world that's punctuated with adrenaline pumping races, whilst being presented in way like no other.

Alright, so you think the look is "stupid". I think it looks amazing. Revolutionary, even. But looks and aesthetics are very personal things. And while this innovative new look has people confounded, it also has a lot of people very, very excited. 'Empire Online' users have rated it the third most anticipated film of the year, trailing only Indy IV and the next Bond film! And that's taking into account the fact that 'Empire Online' has a huge Indiana Jones fan base, with a lot of them harboring fond childhood memories of the first three films.

That's quite something.

Actually it tells you a lot. If a film has an 80% fresh rating, it's probably going to be pretty damn good. The Spiderwick Chronicles has an average rating at RT of 7/10 which is above average and pretty solid. If you've actually seen the film you would realize that it is nothing like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Speed Racer I'm predicting will probably end up with a 25-40% fresh rating, with an average rating of about 4/10. The Spiderwick Chronicles is easily going to be better than Speed Racer.

Indy is a franchise, it doesn't need to be anything drastically new, it just needs a fresh script, great action, and Harrison Ford kicking ass, which I'm sure it will have all three of! Speed Racer on the other hand has just a lame and generic plot with some Tenacious D shroom scene looking special effects. Have you heard the horrendous dialogue in the trailer? "Hubba Hubba" followed by an "OOO!" Seriously, WTF? I can't believe the Wachowski's actually made this. Emile Hirsch really won me over with Into the Wild and I thought it was one of the best performance of the year, but boy is he letting me down acting in this garbage.

Revolutionary? Just go watch the Tenacious D shroom scene, and you've seen more "revolutionary" special effects, and that's pretty sad.

bigred760

03-23-2008, 12:20 AM

I really enjoyed all of the Matrix movies, sequels included. I agree the Wachowski's have a great sense of action and style, but like Bourne101 said - the dialogue was horrid. I know very little about Speed Racer to begin with, and I don't see this movie being that revolutionary considering what's been done with movies like Sin City and 300; I think those movies beat Speed Racer to any kind of revolutionary visual styles.

Backstabba

03-23-2008, 12:58 AM

This little debate between Bourne101 and max314 is entertaining, but I must say.
While max is actually giving some pretty valid points, everything Bourne is saying seems like a matter of opinion.

Ok, now to show off my horrible prediction skills.

Iron Man- $160 million
Speed Racer- $180 million
What Happens in Vegas- $30 million
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian- $300 million
Midnight Meat Train- $18 million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- $280 million
The Strangers- $40 million
Sex and the City- $80 million
Kung Fu Panda- $90 million
You Don't Mess With the Zohan- $105 million
The Incredible Hulk- $120 million
The Happening- $120 million
Get Smart- $90 million
The Love Guru- $75 million
Wall-E- $280 million
Wanted- $70 million
Hancock- $180 million
Meet Dave- $25 million
Hellboy II: The Golden Army- $110 million
The Dark Knight- $410 million
Mamma Mia- $75 million
Step Brothers- $115 million
X-Files: Done One- $90 (Just under 100)
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor- $150 million
Journey 3-D- $55 million
Pineapple Express- $90 million
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2- $35 million
Tropic Thunder- $120 million
The International- $60 million
Babylon A.D.- $45 million

ilovemovies

03-23-2008, 01:19 AM

I'm just going by my gut feeling and I think Speed Racer COULD be huge. Not it will be huge. It does, admittedly, come out in a time of great competition between Iron Man, Narnia and Indiana Jones. But I still think it could be a huge hit.

Bourne101

03-23-2008, 10:24 AM

This little debate between Bourne101 and max314 is entertaining, but I must say.
While max is actually giving some pretty valid points, everything Bourne is saying seems like a matter of opinion.

True, but I made my point back early in the debate. What's going to hurt Speed Racer is the massive amount of competition. His points were that it is revolutionary (although that's pretty opinionated), it had good test screenings, and that it has McDonald's toys to help it out. Those aren't exactly valid points. And I don't think there's any disagreeing with the fact that kids will choose Iron Man, Indy, or Narnia over Speed Racer. Speed Racer is more of a film for young boys who like cars. Now, there is a lot of them, but of course Iron Man blowing shit up may win them over, or Indy kicking ass and doing crazy stunts may also win them over. Then there's Narnia which pretty much appeals to most kids. Speed Racer would have the potential to make more than $100 million if it didn't have so much competition, but it's stuck between three definite hits which all have a chance to make over $200 million. Now competition doesn't always mean everything, and Transformers held on well last year with Harry Potter ahead of it. But it didn't also have Narnia or Indy in front of it, and Iron Man behind it. I see Speed Racer having a similar box-office pattern to Evan Almighty, or at the least, Surf's Up. Almighty made $100 million, and Surf's Up made $60 million.

max314

03-23-2008, 11:51 AM

Actually it tells you a lot. If a film has an 80% fresh rating, it's probably going to be pretty damn good. The Spiderwick Chronicles has an average rating at RT of 7/10 which is above average and pretty solid. If you've actually seen the film you would realize that it is nothing like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Speed Racer I'm predicting will probably end up with a 25-40% fresh rating, with an average rating of about 4/10. The Spiderwick Chronicles is easily going to be better than Speed Racer.

That's a very specific prediction for a film you haven't even seen.

Are you sure you're not jumping the gun a little here?

Indy is a franchise, it doesn't need to be anything drastically new, it just needs a fresh script, great action, and Harrison Ford kicking ass, which I'm sure it will have all three of! Speed Racer on the other hand has just a lame and generic plot with some Tenacious D shroom scene looking special effects. Have you heard the horrendous dialogue in the trailer? "Hubba Hubba" followed by an "OOO!" Seriously, WTF? I can't believe the Wachowski's actually made this. Emile Hirsch really won me over with Into the Wild and I thought it was one of the best performance of the year, but boy is he letting me down acting in this garbage.

Revolutionary? Just go watch the Tenacious D shroom scene, and you've seen more "revolutionary" special effects, and that's pretty sad.

Yes, the dialogue was cheesy. Congratulations for figuring out the style the Wachowskis are going for :D

Indy is a more established property. It's a sequel. Sequels tend to be guaranteed money makers. But Speed Racer will have the marketing aimed at children to garner its own audience.

And yeah, it is "revolutionary". I've never seen anything look like this.

You almost sound like you physically hate Speed Racer. You actually said you were rooting for it to fail?! Might I ask why that is?

I really enjoyed all of the Matrix movies, sequels included. I agree the Wachowski's have a great sense of action and style, but like Bourne101 said - the dialogue was horrid. I know very little about Speed Racer to begin with, and I don't see this movie being that revolutionary considering what's been done with movies like Sin City and 300; I think those movies beat Speed Racer to any kind of revolutionary visual styles.

Speed Racer will indeed be part of that lineage of highly sylised movies, like 300 and Sin City that used heavy amounts of CG augmentation to create a very particular visual palette that was reminiscent of their source material.

But neither of those movies have the pure kinetic potential of Speed Racer. Another thing about Speed Racer is that it will have this new world whose rules will be completely different. Like The Matrix, we'll be learning about a whole new world and how it operates. That, for me, is an exciting cinematic prospect.
And as for the dialogue, I don't think it was "horrid". Merely stylised.

Once you get into the mindset of the film, I suspect it will all start gelling together rather nicely.

This little debate between Bourne101 and max314 is entertaining, but I must say.
While max is actually giving some pretty valid points, everything Bourne is saying seems like a matter of opinion.

I think Bourne is also making some interesting statements, even though I don't necessarily agree with everything he's saying.

But as excited as I am for the film, and as much as I'm rooting for it to do well - Bourne seems to be almost willing it to fail. Like he finds the film personally offensive or something, or is afraid of its uniqueness. I find that curious.

True, but I made my point back early in the debate. What's going to hurt Speed Racer is the massive amount of competition. His points were that it is revolutionary (although that's pretty opinionated), it had good test screenings, and that it has McDonald's toys to help it out. Those aren't exactly valid points. And I don't think there's any disagreeing with the fact that kids will choose Iron Man, Indy, or Narnia over Speed Racer. Speed Racer is more of a film for young boys who like cars. Now, there is a lot of them, but of course Iron Man blowing shit up may win them over, or Indy kicking ass and doing crazy stunts may also win them over. Then there's Narnia which pretty much appeals to most kids. Speed Racer would have the potential to make more than $100 million if it didn't have so much competition, but it's stuck between three definite hits which all have a chance to make over $200 million. Now competition doesn't always mean everything, and Transformers held on well last year with Harry Potter ahead of it. But it didn't also have Narnia or Indy in front of it, and Iron Man behind it. I see Speed Racer having a similar box-office pattern to Evan Almighty, or at the least, Surf's Up. Almighty made $100 million, and Surf's Up made $60 million.

Okay, that's interesting. Let's go through the candidates one at a time:

Iron Man (Favreau):
Not one of the premiere properties in the Marvel roster (unlike the Hulk, Spider-Man, etc), but probably enough clout to attract at least some of the kids. Favreau isn't a bad director, but Zathura (2005) - his last blockbuster - didn't even break even in worldwide grosses, as it crawled over the finish line with less than $65 mil in the bank. Being a comedic actor himself, comedies like Elf (2003) have done a lot, lot better. But seeing as this looks more like a Zathura than an Elf doesn't bode all that well for the movie's final box office.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Spielberg):
A sequel to an established franchise. But the last installment of that franchise was almost 20 years ago, and a whole generation of kids have been brought up without necessarily knowing what it is beyond, perhaps, its name. The marketing people over at Paramount are aware of this, and they're gearing their campaign toward the over-21 crowd. Mostly male. While I'm sure some parents will take their kids to see it, and some kids may want to see it out of their own accord, they're not the main demographic that's being targeted by the marketeers. Which leaves that kid demographic open to other more established names among the youth of today.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Adamson):
The first one was merely okay in terms of quality. But, like other adaptations of popular children's books (Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings), it did a lot of business. Regardless of quality, the second film will no doubt rake in a hefty amount of cash as well, and will likely be one of the biggest attractions for child demographics this year. Insofar as Speed Racer is concerned, this film poses the biggest threat to its child-centric box office.

Speed Racer (Wachowskis):
The Brothers are renowned for quality mainstream entertainment, and have yet to produce a blockbuster that performs poorly at the box office. With regard to their property, they are playing catch up with the likes of Narnia to get their desired target audience of children and families. But a bludgeoning marketing campaign to the point of potential saturation, combined with a one week head start on Narnia may prove to be enough to snag kids' attention with its unique look and action scenes. If the movie is as good as past Wachowski efforts, playground chatter among children and parents alike may create the positive word of mouth required to turn Speed Racer into a success.

----

Whatever happens, though, I suspect it will be an interesting Summer to watch.

Personally, I intend on seeing three of the four movies mentioned above. But Speed Racer is at the top of my list of priorities, followed by Indy, followed by Iron Man.

At least we can all agree on one thing - it's gonna be hell of a holiday season :D

Bourne101

03-23-2008, 02:45 PM

That's a very specific prediction for a film you haven't even seen.

Are you sure you're not jumping the gun a little here?

Yes, the dialogue was cheesy. Congratulations for figuring out the style the Wachowskis are going for :D

Indy is a more established property. It's a sequel. Sequels tend to be guaranteed money makers. But Speed Racer will have the marketing aimed at children to garner its own audience.

And yeah, it is "revolutionary". I've never seen anything look like this.

You almost sound like you physically hate Speed Racer. You actually said you were rooting for it to fail?! Might I ask why that is?

I don't think I'm jumping the gun at all, this film looks absolutely horrible. And the dialogue is not just cheesy, not so bad its good, it's just plain bad.

It's not revolutionary at all. It looks like a mix of The Matrix, The Cat in the Hat, Austin Powers lair, and the Tenacious D shroom scene.

I am rooting for it to fail, because garbage like this doesn't deserve to make money. Money should be going to much better looking films like Iron Man, Indy, Narnia, or even films like Son of Rambow (which is going to be completely overshadowed by this garbage).

And as for the dialogue, I don't think it was "horrid". Merely stylised.

Once you get into the mindset of the film, I suspect it will all start gelling together rather nicely.

It's horrid, if you think it's stylized... wow.

I doubt it will all start gelling together rather nicely. Garbage doesn't usually do that.[/QUOTE]

But as excited as I am for the film, and as much as I'm rooting for it to do well - Bourne seems to be almost willing it to fail. Like he finds the film personally offensive or something, or is afraid of its uniqueness. I find that curious.

Afraid of its uniqueness. They use stupid looking special effects to hook kids into seeing it, when they could be seeing something with a little more substance like Iron Man, Indy, or Narnia.

Iron Man (Favreau):
Not one of the premiere properties in the Marvel roster (unlike the Hulk, Spider-Man, etc), but probably enough clout to attract at least some of the kids. Favreau isn't a bad director, but Zathura (2005) - his last blockbuster - didn't even break even in worldwide grosses, as it crawled over the finish line with less than $65 mil in the bank. Being a comedic actor himself, comedies like Elf (2003) have done a lot, lot better. But seeing as this looks more like a Zathura than an Elf doesn't bode all that well for the movie's final box office.

To compare Iron Man to Zathura or Elf is absurd. This doesn't look like Zathura at all, and most people won't know and don't care who directed Iron Man. Saying it being made by the director of Zathura doesn't bode all that well for its box-office is completely insane. Iron Man will do better than Speed Racer, simply based on the fact that it has a wider appeal, it actually looks like a good movie, and the special effects don't look like complete crap.

Speed Racer (Wachowskis):
The Brothers are renowned for quality mainstream entertainment, and have yet to produce a blockbuster that performs poorly at the box office. With regard to their property, they are playing catch up with the likes of Narnia to get their desired target audience of children and families. But a bludgeoning marketing campaign to the point of potential saturation, combined with a one week head start on Narnia may prove to be enough to snag kids' attention with its unique look and action scenes. If the movie is as good as past Wachowski efforts, playground chatter among children and parents alike may create the positive word of mouth required to turn Speed Racer into a success.

The only Blockbusters they have produced are The Matrix films and V for Vendetta. The Matrix Revolutions did poorly at the box-office, and V for Vendetta wasn't exactly a smash hit either, although it was a good movie. And the Wachowski's are really 2/4. The Matrix was good, V for Vendetta was good, but The Matrix Reloaded (enjoyable but a huge disappointment), and The Matrix Revolutions, were huge letdowns... and yes, I understood them.

At least we can all agree on one thing - it's gonna be hell of a holiday season

I can agree to that, my friend, I can agree to that.

max314

03-23-2008, 07:54 PM

I don't think I'm jumping the gun at all, this film looks absolutely horrible. And the dialogue is not just cheesy, not so bad its good, it's just plain bad.

It's not revolutionary at all. It looks like a mix of The Matrix, The Cat in the Hat, Austin Powers lair, and the Tenacious D shroom scene.

I am rooting for it to fail, because garbage like this doesn't deserve to make money. Money should be going to much better looking films like Iron Man, Indy, Narnia, or even films like Son of Rambow (which is going to be completely overshadowed by this garbage).

"Better looking" in your opinion.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that Narnia - particularly given its predecessor - deserves any real kudos. And I have my reservations about Iron Man. It looked very generic.

I'm looking forward to Kingdom, but only because I think it will be more like Crusade (i.e. it should have the great father-son dynamic) than the flat Raiders.

Above all else, though, it is the previews of Speed Racer that have excited me the most with its unique look and revolutionary new photographic technology whereby the entire depth of field is kept in focus at the same time.

If anything, it should be movies like Speed Racer - films that are truly pushing the envelope in modern filmmaking - that should be getting the money they deserve, instead of encouraging endless slews of unoriginal and uninspiring sequels and adaptations of stock franchises that rehash the same old techniques.

It's horrid, if you think it's stylized... wow.

I doubt it will all start gelling together rather nicely. Garbage doesn't usually do that.

Again, you think it's garbage. I don't.

I think it will work.

Afraid of its uniqueness. They use stupid looking special effects to hook kids into seeing it, when they could be seeing something with a little more substance like Iron Man, Indy, or Narnia.

How can you make a judgement on Speed Racer's "substance" when you haven't even seen the movie? You've only seen its aesthetic.

Speed Racer is going to be about the value of family over the value of corporate seductions.

No, it's not as substantial as, say, The Matrix Trilogy or V for Vendetta. But then, neither will Kingdom or Iron Man be more substantial than those previous Wachowski films.

These are family movies after all.

To compare Iron Man to Zathura or Elf is absurd. This doesn't look like Zathura at all, and most people won't know and don't care who directed Iron Man. Saying it being made by the director of Zathura doesn't bode all that well for its box-office is completely insane. Iron Man will do better than Speed Racer, simply based on the fact that it has a wider appeal, it actually looks like a good movie, and the special effects don't look like complete crap.

How do you know that it "looks like a good movie"?

You've only seen the visual and comedic highlights of the movie. For all you know, that could be all the movie has to offer - as so often happens with trailers that show all the best bits.

How you can be so glowingly positive about Iron Man - a very generic looking film - whilst viciously lambasting Speed Racer on nothing more than "looks", smacks to me of arbitrary discrimination.

Now, if you'd just said "personally, Speed Racer doesn't look like my cup of tea", that would have been fine. Because you haven't seen the movie, but you don't think that the trailer appeals to you. But to have already come to such a definite conclusion without even seeing the film... Well, you tell me what that "looks like".

The only Blockbusters they have produced are The Matrix films and V for Vendetta. The Matrix Revolutions did poorly at the box-office, and V for Vendetta wasn't exactly a smash hit either, although it was a good movie. And the Wachowski's are really 2/4. The Matrix was good, V for Vendetta was good, but The Matrix Reloaded (enjoyable but a huge disappointment), and The Matrix Revolutions, were huge letdowns... and yes, I understood them.

People often say they understand the latter two Matrix films, but usually when I press people about the specifics, the true extent of their understanding is often quite clearly and painfully revealed.

Anyway, The Matrix was a smash. The Matrix Reloaded was the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time, raking in a whopping $739 million in worldwide grosses. The Matrix Revolutions made just a little less than the first film, which was partly due to bad marketing. I've actually met people who didn't even know that there even was a third film :eek: Even so, it still wasn't a flop. V for Vendetta was only written by the Wachowskis, and had a relatively modest budget of $54 million. It ended up taking $133 million at the worldwide box office, which was a definite financial success for first time director James McTeigue.

So no, the Wachowskis have never been written or directed anything other than successful films. A definite plus in Speed Racer's corner.

I can agree to that, my friend, I can agree to that.

About frickin' time :rolleyes:

Bourne101

03-23-2008, 09:26 PM

"Better looking" in your opinion.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that Narnia - particularly given its predecessor - deserves any real kudos. And I have my reservations about Iron Man. It looked very generic.

I'm looking forward to Kingdom, but only because I think it will be more like Crusade (i.e. it should have the great father-son dynamic) than the flat Raiders.

Yes it is my opinion, just as you going ape shit over Speed Racer is your opinion. But on this board, you won't find many people who are looking forward to Speed Racer more than Indy, Narnia, or Iron Man.

Iron Man looks generic? Then what the fuck is Speed Racer. If test screenings really are that important, then I guess Iron Man is going to be a fucking classic! Test screenings have hailed it amazing and anything but generic.

Raiders... flat?!?... WTF?

If anything, it should be movies like Speed Racer - films that are truly pushing the envelope in modern filmmaking - that should be getting the money they deserve, instead of encouraging endless slews of unoriginal and uninspiring sequels and adaptations of stock franchises that rehash the same old techniques.

If movies like Speed Racer that use technology that is repetitive and headache inducing are the ones that deserve the money, then God help us. And mark my words, if Speed Racer makes over $60 million, there will be many unoriginal and uninspiring sequels and will rehash the same old techniques just as The Matrix Revolutions did to The Matrix series.

How can you make a judgement on Speed Racer's "substance" when you haven't even seen the movie? You've only seen its aesthetic.

Speed Racer is going to be about the value of family over the value of corporate seductions.

No, it's not as substantial as, say, The Matrix Trilogy or V for Vendetta. But then, neither will Kingdom or Iron Man be more substantial than those previous Wachowski films.

These are family movies after all.

A trailer doesn't show the whole movie, no, but it definitely gives us a good idea of what is going to occur, and if Speed Racer's trailer is any indicator, then it's going to be a crap fest.

Value of family over the value of corporate seductions. Please, Speed Racer is a film made to wow people with its special effects. The story of this film, is the least of the Wachowski's worries.

I can almost guarantee that Iron Man will be better than all three Matrix films, and possibly V for Vendetta. The Kingdom also has a solid chance at this.

How do you know that it "looks like a good movie"?

You've only seen the visual and comedic highlights of the movie. For all you know, that could be all the movie has to offer - as so often happens with trailers that show all the best bits.

How you can be so glowingly positive about Iron Man - a very generic looking film - whilst viciously lambasting Speed Racer on nothing more than "looks", smacks to me of arbitrary discrimination.

Now, if you'd just said "personally, Speed Racer doesn't look like my cup of tea", that would have been fine. Because you haven't seen the movie, but you don't think that the trailer appeals to you. But to have already come to such a definite conclusion without even seeing the film... Well, you tell me what that "looks like".

How do I know that it looks like a good movie, because it looks like a good movie. What kind of a question is that? I don't know that it is going to be a good movie, but it definitely looks like a good movie. That question makes no sense.

If your precious "test screenings" are any indication, Iron Man will be amazing. And I can guarantee Iron Man will be better than Speed Racer, at least from a majority standpoint.

People often say they understand the latter two Matrix films, but usually when I press people about the specifics, the true extent of their understanding is often quite clearly and painfully revealed.

Seriously dude, do not fuck with my Matrix knowledge.

Anyway, The Matrix was a smash. The Matrix Reloaded was the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time, raking in a whopping $739 million in worldwide grosses. The Matrix Revolutions made just a little less than the first film, which was partly due to bad marketing. I've actually met people who didn't even know that there even was a third film :eek: Even so, it still wasn't a flop. V for Vendetta was only written by the Wachowskis, and had a relatively modest budget of $54 million. It ended up taking $133 million at the worldwide box office, which was a definite financial success for first time director James McTeigue.

So no, the Wachowskis have never been written or directed anything other than successful films. A definite plus in Speed Racer's corner.

The Matrix Revolutions tanked domestically, and V for Vendetta isn't considered a successful domestic film either. Even worldwide V for Vendetta can't be considered a successful film financially. Their only two hits were The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded.

So the Wachowski's have had two successful films, and two not so successful films. I don't think you'll want to argue this one. :D

max314

03-23-2008, 10:16 PM

Yes it is my opinion, just as you going ape shit over Speed Racer is your opinion. But on this board, you won't find many people who are looking forward to Speed Racer more than Indy, Narnia, or Iron Man.

Iron Man looks generic? Then what the fuck is Speed Racer. If test screenings really are that important, then I guess Iron Man is going to be a fucking classic! Test screenings have hailed it amazing and anything but generic.

Raiders... flat?!?... WTF?

Yeah, I'm looking forward to Speed Racer. But I'm not pissing on movies like Iron Man that I expect to be generic. I'm keeping an open mind and will go and see it. Unlike you, who seems to have close himself off entirely.

I'm just saying you might want to reassess your approach to such things.

And yes, Raiders was flat. In my view, the only Indy film worth watching is The Last Crusade.

If movies like Speed Racer that use technology that is repetitive and headache inducing are the ones that deserve the money, then God help us. And mark my words, if Speed Racer makes over $60 million, there will be many unoriginal and uninspiring sequels and will rehash the same old techniques just as The Matrix Revolutions did to The Matrix series.

En contraire, mon frère.

Reloaded and Revolutions (which were developed as one project) evolved bullet time technology from the first film, pioneering the U-Cap technology that allowed the visuals in the second and third films to be possible.

If Speed Racer is successful, there will certainly be sequels. But knowing the Wachowskis' taste for ambition, they will no doubt take it to a whole other visual level as they did with Reloaded and Revolutions.

There's no standing around with those two.

A trailer doesn't show the whole movie, no, but it definitely gives us a good idea of what is going to occur, and if Speed Racer's trailer is any indicator, then it's going to be a crap fest.

Value of family over the value of corporate seductions. Please, Speed Racer is a film made to wow people with its special effects. The story of this film, is the least of the Wachowski's worries.

I can almost guarantee that Iron Man will be better than all three Matrix films, and possibly V for Vendetta. The Kingdom also has a solid chance at this.

I'm sorry...a dude in an iron suit and an old codger with a whip will be better than the film that redefined modern cinema?

I'm wondering if we're even on the same wavelength, here... :rolleyes:

How do I know that it looks like a good movie, because it looks like a good movie. What kind of a question is that? I don't know that it is going to be a good movie, but it definitely looks like a good movie. That question makes no sense.

If your precious "test screenings" are any indication, Iron Man will be amazing. And I can guarantee Iron Man will be better than Speed Racer, at least from a majority standpoint.

I'm saying you've already made up your mind that Speed Racer will literally have no chance at being any good, and that this is an unnervingly dismissive attitude to have.

And I've heard about the Iron Man test screenings. They sound even more dubious than the ones for Speed Racer. Not that I don't want Iron Man to rock, because I genuinely hope it does. I've been looking forward to the movie ever since its Tom Cruise phase all those years back.

Seriously dude, do not fuck with my Matrix knowledge.

So tell me, dude. How did Neo stop the sentinels at the end of Reloaded?

The Matrix Revolutions tanked domestically, and V for Vendetta isn't considered a successful domestic film either. Even worldwide V for Vendetta can't be considered a successful film financially. Their only two hits were The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded.

So the Wachowski's have had two successful films, and two not so successful films. I don't think you'll want to argue this one. :D

You know full well that domestic grosses aren't the main breadwinner they once were. The international market is the one being looked at with equal if not greater interest.

Reloaded and Revolutions were under the same production banner, costing an estimated total of $300 million. The movies took over $1.2 billion between them worldwide. Not including lifetime grosses, which would no doubt be insurmountably greater. Even taken on its own, Revolutions still took $425 million, which is not a flop by any means.

I'd say that's a pretty fucking huge success.

And V was a success, considering it was from a first time director (i.e. not the Wachowskis).

All this sets them in very good stead for Speed Racer.

Bourne101

03-23-2008, 10:55 PM

Yeah, I'm looking forward to Speed Racer. But I'm not pissing on movies like Iron Man that I expect to be generic. I'm keeping an open mind and will go and see it. Unlike you, who seems to have close himself off entirely.

I'm just saying you might want to reassess your approach to such things.

And yes, Raiders was flat. In my view, the only Indy film worth watching is The Last Crusade.

Again, how is Speed Racer not generic? Because it has "cool" special effects? Oh, I'll see Speed Racer, but I have extremely low expectations.

I might want to reassess your approach to such things? You obviously haven't been around this board for very long.

Considering Raiders is considered a revelation, and one of the greatest films of all time, much better than any Wachowski film, I'd say you my friend, are an extreme minority.

En contraire, mon frère.

Reloaded and Revolutions (which were developed as one project) evolved bullet time technology from the first film, pioneering the U-Cap technology that allowed the visuals in the second and third films to be possible.

If Speed Racer is successful, there will certainly be sequels. But knowing the Wachowskis' taste for ambition, they will no doubt take it to a whole other visual level as they did with Reloaded and Revolutions.

There's no standing around with those two.

French? Pff :rolleyes:

But see, that's all it is, a visual level. That's what killed Reloaded and Revolutions. There was no substance there. The first Matrix was a revelation because it had great visuals and it had a great story with a lot of substance. I really could care less about the improving technology, it doesn't make it original, it just keeps focus on visuals, rather than story, which is ultimately a horrible thing.

I'm saying you've already made up your mind that Speed Racer will literally have no chance at being any good, and that this is an unnervingly dismissive attitude to have.

And I've heard about the Iron Man test screenings. They sound even more dubious than the ones for Speed Racer. Not that I don't want Iron Man to rock, because I genuinely hope it does. I've been looking forward to the movie ever since its Tom Cruise phase all those years back.

Yes, I have pretty much made up my mind. I'm not one for loving a movie simply for its visual achievement. I like a film with a story, some originality, some substance. Speed Racer will not have any of these things other than the originality of the visuals.

Again, test screenings don't mean shit. That was my point. :rolleyes:

So tell me, dude. How did Neo stop the sentinels at the end of Reloaded?

When Neo and the other crew are being chased by the sentinel, Neo stops and notices that he is aware of the approaching sentinel similar to the way he is aware of things inside the Matrix. Then he drops the sentinels, just like he stopped bullets in the Matrix. He realizes that what he thought was the real world is actually a virtual one. He realizes that he can mentally hack into its network and override the software modules that simulate sentinels. :rolleyes:

You know full well that domestic grosses aren't the main breadwinner they once were. The international market is the one being looked at with equal if not greater interest.

Reloaded and Revolutions were under the same production banner, costing an estimated total of $300 million. The movies took over $1.2 billion between them worldwide. Not including lifetime grosses, which would no doubt be insurmountably greater. Even taken on its own, Revolutions still took $425 million, which is not a flop by any means.

I'd say that's a pretty fucking huge success.

And V was a success, considering it was from a first time director (i.e. not the Wachowskis).

All this sets them in very good stead for Speed Racer.

The international market is definitely not equal or greater than domestic.

They may be a success as one, but individually Revolutions was a tank and a half. It didn't make its budget back domestically, and that $300 million budget between the two of them is not including P&A costs which were extremely fucking high. The series is a success, but Revolutions was rushed, was not a good movie and on its own was not a success at the box-office.

As for V, it doesn't matter who the director is, the budget was $54 million, it barely made that back domestically and only made $132 million world wide, which with P&A cost taking into account, is not a financial success. It is a great film, I love the hell out of it, but it simply is not a pure financial success , it just isn't.

Speed Racer is a kids movie, kids who are going to see it don't even know who the fuck the Wachowski's are and most of them probably haven't seen the R-rated Matrix films or the R-rated V for Vendetta. Those movies being made by the Wachowski's will only help the older audience, which I doubt will be that big.

shoe1985

03-23-2008, 11:17 PM

I don't see this summer doing that great box office wise. The economy and gas is going to hurt movies and the money they make.

I think Iron Man and Dark Knight will do the most business though.

I don't see Speed Racer doing that well. I think it looks like crap.

I really enjoyed Revolutions. I didn't like Reloaded that much, but the final fight in Revolutions was awesome. It made up for the rest of the movie, in my opinion.

bigred760

03-24-2008, 12:07 AM

I think any kid's movie has a chance, especially if it's released during the summer. Hell, who would've thought Alvin and the Chipmunks would be as successful as it was (my 3 yr old nephew LOVED it) and while I haven't seen it, the trailer for it looked horrible. Speed Racer does look cool visually, and that might be enough for kids. It probably won't be my cup o' tea, but I'll see it regardless . . . out of curiosity.

Bourne101

03-24-2008, 10:54 AM

I don't see this summer doing that great box office wise. The economy and gas is going to hurt movies and the money they make.

What? Here are a list of movies that should make anywhere from $100 million-$350 million:

Iron Man
Speed Racer
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom
Kung Fu Panda
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
The Incredible Hulk
The Happening
Get Smart
Wall-E
Hancock
Hellboy II
The Dark Knight
Step Brothers
X-Files 2
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Journey 3D
The Pineapple Express
Tropic Thunder

If that's not a successful summer, then I don't know what is.

I don't see Speed Racer doing that well. I think it looks like crap.

Ditto

max314

03-24-2008, 12:41 PM

Again, how is Speed Racer not generic? Because it has "cool" special effects? Oh, I'll see Speed Racer, but I have extremely low expectations.

I might want to reassess your approach to such things? You obviously haven't been around this board for very long.

Considering Raiders is considered a revelation, and one of the greatest films of all time, much better than any Wachowski film, I'd say you my friend, are an extreme minority.

Iron Man looks generic, both in terms of its visuals and its story. Let me see if I can predict what it'll be about...

Tony Stark - billionaire arms dealer with a drinking problem - undergoes a near death experience and has an epiphany. Having encountered a mysterious mentor who helps him 'find himself', he now wants to fight against the very people he once supplied arms to. At first he stumbles, trying to get to grips with his new toys. But eventually he masters them and saves the city from a great evil.

Wonderful.

Not unlike billionaire Bruce Wayne having his parents killed and bumping into a mentor who helps him 'find himself'. He then goes back to Gotham and fights people like the one who killed his parents. He stumbles at first, trying to get to grips with his new toys, but eventually masters them and saves the city from a great evil.

Also notice a couple of lines in the trailer that seemed like near-lifts from Batman Begins. The "does it come in black?" line is translated to "put a little Hot Rod red in there", and the ironic "clearly, I'm not the superhero type" denial smacks a little of the ironic "a man who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues" smoke screen.

So sure. Speed Racer will no doubt have a generic plot. But you can't say that Iron Man doesn't look generic either. But what Speed Racer has in its corner is the unique visuals that are far, far removed from anything we've ever seen before.

That, to me, is worth a look in.

French? Pff :rolleyes:

But see, that's all it is, a visual level. That's what killed Reloaded and Revolutions. There was no substance there. The first Matrix was a revelation because it had great visuals and it had a great story with a lot of substance. I really could care less about the improving technology, it doesn't make it original, it just keeps focus on visuals, rather than story, which is ultimately a horrible thing.

The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions had more substance than most people knew what to do with.

That's what "killed" them with regards to audience reception.

Personally, I think they're on a par with other misunderstood sci-fi greats like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner, which were also accused by many contemporaries as being "style over substance" when the reality of the situation was that the "substance" was merely too much for most contemporary audiences to handle.

But we were discussing the visuals in particular, which is why I was emphasising the Reloaded and Revolutions' visual achievements.

Yes, I have pretty much made up my mind. I'm not one for loving a movie simply for its visual achievement. I like a film with a story, some originality, some substance. Speed Racer will not have any of these things other than the originality of the visuals.

Again, test screenings don't mean shit. That was my point. :rolleyes:

As discussed above, Iron Man will likely have no more or less substance than Speed Racer in the story department.

When Neo and the other crew are being chased by the sentinel, Neo stops and notices that he is aware of the approaching sentinel similar to the way he is aware of things inside the Matrix. Then he drops the sentinels, just like he stopped bullets in the Matrix. He realizes that what he thought was the real world is actually a virtual one. He realizes that he can mentally hack into its network and override the software modules that simulate sentinels. :rolleyes:

No.

The international market is definitely not equal or greater than domestic.

They may be a success as one, but individually Revolutions was a tank and a half. It didn't make its budget back domestically, and that $300 million budget between the two of them is not including P&A costs which were extremely fucking high. The series is a success, but Revolutions was rushed, was not a good movie and on its own was not a success at the box-office.

As for V, it doesn't matter who the director is, the budget was $54 million, it barely made that back domestically and only made $132 million world wide, which with P&A cost taking into account, is not a financial success. It is a great film, I love the hell out of it, but it simply is not a pure financial success , it just isn't.

Speed Racer is a kids movie, kids who are going to see it don't even know who the fuck the Wachowski's are and most of them probably haven't seen the R-rated Matrix films or the R-rated V for Vendetta. Those movies being made by the Wachowski's will only help the older audience, which I doubt will be that big.

Revolutions couldn't have been "rushed" since it was being shot back-to-back with Reloaded. If anything, they had more time (at least an extra six months) on Revolutions. And the trilogy is a success. It's a multi-billion dollar franchise.

V was a smaller film, but it did good business. So good, in fact, that the Wachowskis are penning another script for the same director to helm next year: Ninja Assassin.

And as for the Speed Racer crowd, I'm sure that kids will flock to see it, and that adults will want to see it just out of sheer curiosity and end up enjoying it more than they thought they would.

Methinks it'll do just fine.

Bourne101

03-24-2008, 01:52 PM

Iron Man looks generic, both in terms of its visuals and its story. Let me see if I can predict what it'll be about...

Tony Stark - billionaire arms dealer with a drinking problem - undergoes a near death experience and has an epiphany. Having encountered a mysterious mentor who helps him 'find himself', he now wants to fight against the very people he once supplied arms to. At first he stumbles, trying to get to grips with his new toys. But eventually he masters them and saves the city from a great evil.

No shit Sherlock, it's based on a comic book so the story is already out there. You're so clever. :rolleyes:

So sure. Speed Racer will no doubt have a generic plot. But you can't say that Iron Man doesn't look generic either. But what Speed Racer has in its corner is the unique visuals that are far, far removed from anything we've ever seen before.

Speed Racer is beyond generic. Little Speedy, will save the day and his family, overcoming the odds! While Iron Man will actually have some solid acting and the action will be much more fun and badass, and the story much more interesting!

Personally, I think they're on a par with other misunderstood sci-fi greats like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner, which were also accused by many contemporaries as being "style over substance" when the reality of the situation was that the "substance" was merely too much for most contemporary audiences to handle.

Wow, The Matrix on par with Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey. To each his own, but wow.

As discussed above, Iron Man will likely have no more or less substance than Speed Racer in the story department.

Iron Man will easily have more substance than Speed Racer. And even if they were on par, the fact that Downey Jr. is in it will probably create substance. The guy is fucking brilliant.

No.

Uh... yeah. :rolleyes:

Revolutions couldn't have been "rushed" since it was being shot back-to-back with Reloaded. If anything, they had more time (at least an extra six months) on Revolutions. And the trilogy is a success. It's a multi-billion dollar franchise.

That was the problem. It didn't need to be shot back to back. That's called rushing. It's called "We want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time possible."

And as for the Speed Racer crowd, I'm sure that kids will flock to see it, and that adults will want to see it just out of sheer curiosity and end up enjoying it more than they thought they would.

Methinks it'll do just fine.

Methinks :rolleyes: it will do very mediocre.

max314

03-24-2008, 04:22 PM

No shit Sherlock, it's based on a comic book so the story is already out there. You're so clever. :rolleyes:

You're missing the point.

You are saying that Speed Racer will have a generic story.

I am saying that Iron Man will also have a generic story.

However, Speed Racer will have the never-before-seen aesthetic that is pushing the boundaries of the cinematic medium. Which, in my view, gives it something of an edge over Iron Man.

It also shows an inexplicable double-standard on your part; you're convinced Speed Racer will suck on account of its generic story, and yet you're also convinced that Iron Man will rock even though it too has a generic story.

Feel free to clarify your comments at any point.

Speed Racer is beyond generic. Little Speedy, will save the day and his family, overcoming the odds! While Iron Man will actually have some solid acting and the action will be much more fun and badass, and the story much more interesting!

You're saying that Iron Man won't "save the day...overcoming the odds"?

Let's have a look at your other points:

ACTING
It's obvious that Speed Racer is going for a very particular style of acting, whereas Iron Man is gonna have Robert Downey Jr. doing his usual quirky charm thing where he sorta half-mumbles his lines in weird-but-interesting tones. It's like comparing apples and pears. Neither is better nor worse. They're just different.

ACTION = FUN & BADASS
Well, that's a highly subjective call. But I think I can pretty safely say that the action in Speed Racer will indeed be "fun and badass". Whatever your opinion of Reloaded and Revolutions, there's little denying that the Wachowski Brothers know how to cobble together a kick-ass action scene :D

STORY = SOLID & INTERESTING
Well, whether one finds the story "interesting" is yet another highly subjective opinion. But I'm sure that Iron Man's story (essentially a rehash of Batman Begins with a few modifications here and there) will be equally as interesting as that of Speed Racer. And the Wachowskis are very solid writers. Even if you thought the reach of Reloaded and Revolutions exceeded their grasp, you can't deny that Bound, The Matrix and V for Vendetta are testament to their incredible, almost effortless writing abilities.

Wow, The Matrix on par with Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey. To each his own, but wow.

Yeah. Chew on that ;)

Iron Man will easily have more substance than Speed Racer. And even if they were on par, the fact that Downey Jr. is in it will probably create substance. The guy is fucking brilliant.

No doubt. He's got that quirky thing about his oration and body language that's very appealing to watch.

But I'm curious - pray tell, how do you define "substance" in a cinematic context? You seem to use this word a lot.

Uh... yeah. :rolleyes:

I'm afraid not.

That was the problem. It didn't need to be shot back to back. That's called rushing. It's called "We want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time possible."

It's called efficiency.

When was the last time you ever invested over $300 million in something?

Methinks :rolleyes: it will do very mediocre.

Don't worry. You'll come around ;)

Bourne101

03-24-2008, 05:13 PM

However, Speed Racer will have the never-before-seen aesthetic that is pushing the boundaries of the cinematic medium. Which, in my view, gives it something of an edge over Iron Man.

It also shows an inexplicable double-standard on your part; you're convinced Speed Racer will suck on account of its generic story, and yet you're also convinced that Iron Man will rock even though it too has a generic story.

Think what you'd like about Speed Racer pushing the boundaries of the cinematic medium, but any movie that uses entirely green-screen for the whole film and has an extremely weak plot, is anything but pushing the boundaries.

Speed Racer won't just suck because of its generic story. It's going to have terrible acting, a terrible screenplay, horrible dialogue, and special effects that will be interesting for the first 5 minutes, but will become extremely tiresome over the 90 minute or so runtime.

You're saying that Iron Man won't "save the day...overcoming the odds"?

Oh he will, but what superhero movie doesn't end that way? Iron Man saving the day just won't be nearly as stupid or lame as the way Speedy does it.

Let's have a look at your other points:

ACTING
It's obvious that Speed Racer is going for a very particular style of acting, whereas Iron Man is gonna have Robert Downey Jr. doing his usual quirky charm thing where he sorta half-mumbles his lines in weird-but-interesting tones. It's like comparing apples and pears. Neither is better nor worse. They're just different.

ACTION = FUN & BADASS
Well, that's a highly subjective call. But I think I can pretty safely say that the action in Speed Racer will indeed be "fun and badass". Whatever your opinion of Reloaded and Revolutions, there's little denying that the Wachowski Brothers know how to cobble together a kick-ass action scene :D

STORY = SOLID & INTERESTING
Well, whether one finds the story "interesting" is yet another highly subjective opinion. But I'm sure that Iron Man's story (essentially a rehash of Batman Begins with a few modifications here and there) will be equally as interesting as that of Speed Racer. And the Wachowskis are very solid writers. Even if you thought the reach of Reloaded and Revolutions exceeded their grasp, you can't deny that Bound, The Matrix and V for Vendetta are testament to their incredible, almost effortless writing abilities.

Saying that Speed Racer is going to have better acting than Iron Man is absurd. It doesn't matter what style Speed Racer is going for, I'm sure the Wachowski's don't want the acting to be intentionally horrible.

Speed Racer will not be badass, it just won't, and I'm sure that's not the intention. There's a difference between "kickass" and "badass". Kickass is lots of exciting, thrilling action with crashes, explosions etc. Badass on the other hand is action that really gives you a kick in the nuts, and isn't sunshine and rainbows like Speed Racer will be.

A rehash of Batman Begins? You aren't serious. They may have similar plots, but in no way is Iron Man a rehash of Batman Begins. Completely different tones, directions and atmosphere.

And I wouldn't say The Wachowski's are GREAT writers. They are solid writers, but really their only great script is V for Vendetta. The Matrix is a good film, but its script isn't what makes it a good film.

But I'm curious - pray tell, how do you define "substance" in a cinematic context? You seem to use this word a lot.

By substance I mean, a film that has a real story, a distinct atmosphere. You watch it, and the special effects aren't the only thing that makes it interesting and it doesn't rely on special effects to get audiences in seats. The characters are interesting and have personality. And ultimately the film has a meaning, a purpose, a true purpose. Speed Racer simply looks like an attempt for the Wachowski's to show off their improved technical abilities. A good example of this would be David Fincher. The guy made movies with so much style that he really relied on the script to give the film any substance. Now don't get me wrong, Fincher is one of my favorite directors and Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac are easily in my top 100 of all-time, but Fincher really never learned to create substance until he made Zodiac. He really dug deep and not only showed off his technical abilities, but also his ability to direct a story and really create an amazing story through direction.

I'm afraid not.

Well, feel free to post what you believe and I'll be glad to read and laugh.

It's called efficiency.

When was the last time you ever invested over $300 million in something?

Great filmmakers don't need to rely of efficiency. I'm sure with all the crazy amount of money that the first two Matrix films made, that Revolutions could have waited a little longer. It didn't, and it ended up being a massive disappointment, even to the greatest of Matrix fans.

Don't worry. You'll come around ;)

Trust me, no I won't. I will keep my strong belief that Speed Racer will do mediocre at the box-office until the day its opening box-office numbers are released.

max314

03-24-2008, 06:02 PM

Think what you'd like about Speed Racer pushing the boundaries of the cinematic medium, but any movie that uses entirely green-screen for the whole film and has an extremely weak plot, is anything but pushing the boundaries.

Speed Racer won't just suck because of its generic story. It's going to have terrible acting, a terrible screenplay, horrible dialogue, and special effects that will be interesting for the first 5 minutes, but will become extremely tiresome over the 90 minute or so runtime.

What do you have against green screen films? A well made film is a well made film, whether it's live action, animation, or a combination of both - like this movie will be.

"Extremely weak plot"? "Terrible screenplay"? How do you know any of this when you haven't even seen the film? This is the Wachowski Brothers. The writers of Bound, The Matrix and V for Vendetta. If anything, they should get the benefit of any doubt you may have about the writing.

"Terrible acting" and "horrible dialogue"? Substitute your negative words "terrible" and "horrible" with "uniquely stylised", and you'll be closer to the mark. If you don't like it, that's one thing. But that doesn't make it bad by default.

Oh he will, but what superhero movie doesn't end that way? Iron Man saving the day just won't be nearly as stupid or lame as the way Speedy does it.

Again, how do you know any of this?

You haven't seen the films or read the screenplays.

Saying that Speed Racer is going to have better acting than Iron Man is absurd. It doesn't matter what style Speed Racer is going for, I'm sure the Wachowski's don't want the acting to be intentionally horrible.

Speed Racer will not be badass, it just won't, and I'm sure that's not the intention. There's a difference between "kickass" and "badass". Kickass is lots of exciting, thrilling action with crashes, explosions etc. Badass on the other hand is action that really gives you a kick in the nuts, and isn't sunshine and rainbows like Speed Racer will be.

A rehash of Batman Begins? You aren't serious. They may have similar plots, but in no way is Iron Man a rehash of Batman Begins. Completely different tones, directions and atmosphere.

And I wouldn't say The Wachowski's are GREAT writers. They are solid writers, but really their only great script is V for Vendetta. The Matrix is a good film, but its script isn't what makes it a good film.

I don't know who's more confused about what you're saying. Me or you.

"There's a difference between kickass and badass"? Are you shitting me...?

Also, I never once said that the acting in Speed Racer would be better than Iron Man. I only said it would be different. It was you who was saying that the acting in Iron Man would be better than Speed Racer.

And yes, the plot will be a rehash of Batman Begins. Not "tone". Not "atmosphere". Plot.

Got it?

And yes, the Wachowskis are great writers. They wrote Bound off-the-cuff. V for Vendetta - as you readily agree - was a fantastic screenplay. And even though the aesthetics of The Matrix were definitely a contributing factor to the film's success, all of those visuals and the dramatic character interactions that keep you on the edge of your seat are rooted in the script.

However, if you do believe that "its script is not what makes [The Matrix] a good film", then - even with its "generic" script, as you put it - Speed Racer should still have the potential to be kickass. Or is it "badass" :rolleyes:

By substance I mean, a film that has a real story, a distinct atmosphere. You watch it, and the special effects aren't the only thing that makes it interesting and it doesn't rely on special effects to get audiences in seats. The characters are interesting and have personality. And ultimately the film has a meaning, a purpose, a true purpose. Speed Racer simply looks like an attempt for the Wachowski's to show off their improved technical abilities. A good example of this would be David Fincher. The guy made movies with so much style that he really relied on the script to give the film any substance. Now don't get me wrong, Fincher is one of my favorite directors and Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac are easily in my top 100 of all-time, but Fincher really never learned to create substance until he made Zodiac. He really dug deep and not only showed off his technical abilities, but also his ability to direct a story and really create an amazing story through direction.

First off, I disagree with you about David Fincher. But that's for another thread.

Back onto the topic of "substance":

- "Real story"? What the hell is a "real story"?

- "Distinct atmosphere"? You don't think Speed Racer has a "distinct atmosphere"? I suspect even those who dislike the trailers will disagree with you on that one.

- A film "shouldn't rely on special effects to get audiences in seats"? Do you know how childish that sounds? They're spending millions on the movie, and you don't expect them to use those expensive special effects they invested in to hook peoples' interest? I suppose the next thing you'll say is the Titanic trailers shouldn't have used the huge special effects shots of the ship...

- The "special effects [shouldn't be] the only thing that makes it interesting"? You haven't seen the film. How do you know that the special effects are the only thing that makes it interesting?

- How do you know whether or not "the characters are interesting and have personality". For the umpteenth time...you haven't seen the film or read the script, so you simply don't know.

Well, feel free to post what you believe and I'll be glad to read and laugh.

You're kidding, right?

I'm not saying this out of spite or anything, but nothing you wrote in that previous paragraph even made any sense. I'm wondering if you even know what you're talking about, or if you're just running around in circles because you just don't want to be proved wrong.

Great filmmakers don't need to rely of efficiency. I'm sure with all the crazy amount of money that the first two Matrix films made, that Revolutions could have waited a little longer. It didn't, and it ended up being a massive disappointment, even to the greatest of Matrix fans.

Tell that to Steven Spielberg :rolleyes:

Anywho, I'm still not buying your contention that Revolutions was "rushed". Shooting Reloaded and Revolutions back-to-back is not a big deal. You just arrange your shooting days to get both done. Ultimately, it's like shooting a four hour movie. Besides, the structure of Reloaded and Revolutions reads as one continuous script, anyway. So it really is like shooting one four hour movie. Except you have an extra six months to work on Revolutions. Therefore, if either of the two films can be said to have been "rushed" (which they weren't), it would be Reloaded not Revolutions.

And I really have no concern with people who didn't like Revolutions. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the same boat as the people who didn't like Blade Runner or 2001. They just didn't get it - as you so kindly demonstrated in your last post (I noticed you side-stepped the whole issue about you not understanding the sequels, by the way...very clever ;) ).

I don't dislike those people. But I do disagree with them.

Trust me, no I won't. I will keep my strong belief that Speed Racer will do mediocre at the box-office until the day its opening box-office numbers are released.

I wouldn't have it any other way :D

Bourne101

03-24-2008, 06:38 PM

What do you have against green screen films? A well made film is a well made film, whether it's live action, animation, or a combination of both - like this movie will be.

I don't have anything against green screen films (Sin City is among my favorite films of all-time), but if there is no story, then green screen can go fuck itself as far as I am concerned.

"Extremely weak plot"? "Terrible screenplay"? How do you know any of this when you haven't even seen the film? This is the Wachowski Brothers. The writers of Bound, The Matrix and V for Vendetta. If anything, they should get the benefit of any doubt you may have about the writing.

"Terrible acting" and "horrible dialogue"? Substitute your negative words "terrible" and "horrible" with "uniquely stylised", and you'll be closer to the mark. If you don't like it, that's one thing. But that doesn't make it bad by default.

It's called a fucking opinion. If I had to say "in my opinion" after everything I said then I would fucking kill myself. If you knew anything about this board, you'd know that pretty much everything is based on opinion.

I've seen enough movies and their trailers to know when a shit fest with a horrible screenplay, terrible acting, horrible dialouge, and extremely weak plot is on its way. Uniquely stylized? Exactly what about "Hubba hubba" is uniquely stylized? And that's just one of many horrible lines in the trailer, and I'm sure the film is filled with plenty more. That's not style, that's just a way to grab the attention of a bunch of immature 5 year olds. The dialogue in Speed Racer is probably going to be worse than that of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Judging by the trailer, it will be.

"There's a difference between kickass and badass"? Are you shitting me...?

Yes, there is. If you really want to get technical, the prefixes have completely different meanings. Badass is usually categorized to mostly hard R-rated films such as Sin City, Rambo, etc. Kickass is usually used towards lighter fare such as Speed Racer or The Matrix.

It was you who was saying that the acting in Iron Man would be better than Speed Racer.

And it will be.

And yes, the plot will be a rehash of Batman Begins. Not "tone". Not "atmosphere". Plot.

Got it?

Um... no. You're wrong, I'm really sorry, but you're wrong. :( Iron Man is anything but a rehash of Batman Begins.

And yes, the Wachowskis are great writers. They wrote Bound off-the-cuff. V for Vendetta - as you readily agree - was a fantastic screenplay. And even though the aesthetics of The Matrix were definitely a contributing factor to the film's success, all of those visuals and the dramatic character interactions that keep you on the edge of your seat are rooted in the script.

However, if you do believe that "its script is not what makes [The Matrix] a good film", then - even with its "generic" script, as you put it - Speed Racer should still have the potential to be kickass. Or is it "badass" :rolleyes:

Again, The Wachowski's have written one GREAT screenplay, I stress the word GREAT, not good, not awesome, GREAT.

I didn't say that the script was horrible for The Matrix, or that it had no contribution to the quality of the film, I simply stated it wasn't the sole reason that the film was good. The Matrix had a good story, good acting and good action. Three things that Speed Racer probably won't have.

No, you were correct, kickass would be correct :rolleyes:, although it won't be.

Back onto the topic of "substance":

- "Real story"? What the hell is a "real story"?

A captivating story, an interesting story, a well told story, a story that people don't forget.

- "Distinct atmosphere"? You don't think Speed Racer has a "distinct atmosphere"? I suspect even those who dislike the trailers will disagree with you on that one.

I didn't say Speed Racer didn't have a distinct atmosphere. Distinct atmosphere was simply a part of my definition of substance.

- A film "shouldn't rely on special effects to get audiences in seats"? Do you know how childish that sounds? They're spending millions on the movie, and you don't expect them to use those expensive special effects they invested in to hook peoples' interest? I suppose the next thing you'll say is the Titanic trailers shouldn't have used the huge special effects shots of the ship...

It doesn't sound childish at all. They can use all the special effects they want, but special effects + no story = SHIT FEST! The Titanic has story and that was evident from the trailer, and obviously from the movie. I can't believe I'm talking about Titanic while I'm talking about Speed Racer. Titanic puts Speed Racer to shame.

- The "special effects [shouldn't be] the only thing that makes it interesting"? You haven't seen the film. How do you know that the special effects are the only thing that makes it interesting?

Because the plot is horrible, the acting looks terrible, the dialogue will be brutal. That pretty much just leaves special effects, and that is all Speed Racer is looking like it's going to have.

You're kidding, right?

I'm not saying this out of spite or anything, but nothing you wrote in that previous paragraph even made any sense. I'm wondering if you even know what you're talking about, or if you're just running around in circles because you just don't want to be proved wrong.

It seems as though you are trying to get around trying not to explain what you believe. Are you not confident in your belief? :rolleyes:

Anywho, I'm still not buying your contention that Revolutions was "rushed". Shooting Reloaded and Revolutions back-to-back is not a big deal. You just arrange your shooting days to get both done. Ultimately, it's like shooting a four hour movie. Besides, the structure of Reloaded and Revolutions reads as one continuous script, anyway. So it really is like shooting one four hour movie. Except you have an extra six months to work on Revolutions. Therefore, if either of the two films can be said to have been "rushed" (which they weren't), it would be Reloaded not Revolutions.

And I really have no concern with people who didn't like Revolutions. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the same boat as the people who didn't like Blade Runner or 2001. They just didn't get it - as you so kindly demonstrated in your last post (I noticed you side-stepped the whole issue about you not understanding the sequels, by the way...very clever ;) ).

That makes absolutely no sense. Revolutions was rushed, simple as that. The script was rushed, production was rushed, everything was rushed. Revolutions should have been released at least a complete year after Reloaded, and probably two.

Even the greatest of Matrix fans, the ones who study the films to death and know every detail, most of them thought Revolutions was a huge disappointment. You act as though you wrote the fucking screenplay for the films, and yet you don't have the guts to make an explanation of the question that you presented to me and I kindly answered.

Side-stepped the issue? WTF are you talking about. I told you my belief, you have failed to do the same. If anyone is being "clever" :rolleyes: it's you.

I wouldn't have it any other way :D

It's going to be so great when Speed Racer's Friday estimates come on fantasymoguls.com, showbizdata.com, and boxofficemojo.com, and it has only made a medicore $10 million or less on that Friday. :D

Backstabba

03-24-2008, 07:20 PM

http://www.stephenrahn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/catfight.jpg

Bourne101

03-24-2008, 07:49 PM

JoeChar4321

03-24-2008, 09:25 PM

Haha, it's all in good fun.

I think Speed Racer looks like crap and a complete CGI mess, Max thinks it's going to be the next coming of God, I think it will do mediocre at the box-office, he thinks it will do great.

I think we'll leave it at that and we'll just have to wait and see, although this debate was a blast.

If I dare, my vote goes to you. Speed Racer is going to get crushed by the big boys. Iron Man/Narnia/Indy are going to severely overshadow that "G" rated, seizure inducing color-fest.

My surprise pick is Incredible Hulk. I think it'll be the sleeper hit of the summer. Because of Ang Lee's 2003 mess and the shadow it casts, it won't be a massive hit but it will surprise quite a few people. Word of mouth and release time advertising will make most realize that this movie will be nothing like the last film. It also has a superb release date. Plenty of time do draw dollars before Will Smith takes over in July.

Dark Knight has a leg up in terms of buzz. I hate to say it but the Heath Ledger tragedy will increase interest. Everyone will want to see him in that role. It was already going to be big but that means Dark Knight will rule the domestic box office or at least be right at the top.

I also really think Iron Man will run at 200 million domestic as well. It's fresh, has great buzz and is in the high money lead off spot in May.

NO film will break 300 million domestic but Indy and DK will run in to the high 200's. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian won't do as well as the original but still break 230 domestic. Iron Man will draw between 185-220 million. Incredible Hulk will beat Ang Lee's mark and probably draw in Fantastic Four numbers, $160 million or so. Hancock is the wildcard. Will Smith knows how to pack them in. Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda have their built in crowd and built in money.

The Happening and Speed Racer will be the bombs of the summer.

MidnightAngel

03-24-2008, 09:42 PM

Every summer means the obviously under/overrated summer movie season with the same crap as always......sequels, comic book based movies, animated films for children, comedies, action flicks, some horror films(like the lame Hostel 2 released last year :p)and movies with expensive cgi effect and but all mediocre script. I know some films like the new Indiana Jones sequel and the Disney/Pixar film Wall E will be very successful and the other films might be unpredictable flops. I'm only intetested in seeing Indiana Jones and The Dark Knight and the rest of the other movies waiting for their dvd releases. Movie ticket prices are a real pain in the ass. :mad:

P.S.-Speed Racer will definitely be a blockbuster hit.

In Japan. :rolleyes:

bigred760

03-24-2008, 10:15 PM

Backstabba

03-24-2008, 10:23 PM

I think TDK will be a HUGEEEEEEE hit.
Spiderman big.
(Notice I said Spiderman and not Spiderman 3, though I could see that)

ilovemovies

03-25-2008, 12:58 AM

Sigur509

03-25-2008, 01:33 AM

Damn Ilovemovies, Im not used to you having an avatar.

ilovemovies

03-25-2008, 01:50 AM

Ha. It took me a while to get use to it as well. But it's been quite a while now so I've been use to it for some time.

Bourne101

03-25-2008, 07:21 AM

Didn't you say you thought the Iron Man trailer was awful too?

I did, but I have warmed up to it a bit over the past few weeks, and a few days ago I posted my thoughts in the Iron Man thread.

max314

03-25-2008, 08:34 AM

I don't have anything against green screen films (Sin City is among my favorite films of all-time), but if there is no story, then green screen can go fuck itself as far as I am concerned.

And how do you know "there is no story"?

You haven't even seen the movie.

It's called a fucking opinion. If I had to say "in my opinion" after everything I said then I would fucking kill myself. If you knew anything about this board, you'd know that pretty much everything is based on opinion.

I've seen enough movies and their trailers to know when a shit fest with a horrible screenplay, terrible acting, horrible dialouge, and extremely weak plot is on its way. Uniquely stylized? Exactly what about "Hubba hubba" is uniquely stylized? And that's just one of many horrible lines in the trailer, and I'm sure the film is filled with plenty more. That's not style, that's just a way to grab the attention of a bunch of immature 5 year olds. The dialogue in Speed Racer is probably going to be worse than that of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Judging by the trailer, it will be.

Then maybe you should try saying "in my opinion" after everything you say :rolleyes:

Yes, there is. If you really want to get technical, the prefixes have completely different meanings. Badass is usually categorized to mostly hard R-rated films such as Sin City, Rambo, etc. Kickass is usually used towards lighter fare such as Speed Racer or The Matrix.

First of all, The Matrix was an R-rated film.

Second of all, what the fuck...?

And it will be.

In your opinion ;)

Um... no. You're wrong, I'm really sorry, but you're wrong. :( Iron Man is anything but a rehash of Batman Begins.

C'mon. The only major plot difference between Iron Man and Batman Begins (apart from the obvious ones like names and locations) will be that Stark will be taken in by a group of people who are overtly malicious, instead of discovering their evil natures later as Bruce did with the League of Shadows.

Again, The Wachowski's have written one GREAT screenplay, I stress the word GREAT, not good, not awesome, GREAT.

I didn't say that the script was horrible for The Matrix, or that it had no contribution to the quality of the film, I simply stated it wasn't the sole reason that the film was good. The Matrix had a good story, good acting and good action. Three things that Speed Racer probably won't have.

No, you were correct, kickass would be correct :rolleyes:, although it won't be.

So, not only are we getting into ad absurdum debates of "kickass" versus "badass", but now we're also going to discuss the semantic differences between "awesome" and "great"?

I can see we functioning on two quite different wavelengths here...

A captivating story, an interesting story, a well told story, a story that people don't forget.

Given its caliber, I think Speed Racer has more of a chance to be "captivating", "well told story" than Iron Man.

I didn't say Speed Racer didn't have a distinct atmosphere. Distinct atmosphere was simply a part of my definition of substance.

So you concede that Speed Racer does indeed have a distinct atmosphere, thus satisfying one of your personal criteria for what constitutes a movie of "substance"?

It doesn't sound childish at all. They can use all the special effects they want, but special effects + no story = SHIT FEST! The Titanic has story and that was evident from the trailer, and obviously from the movie. I can't believe I'm talking about Titanic while I'm talking about Speed Racer. Titanic puts Speed Racer to shame.

Titanic is perhaps the most perfect film ever made, but that doesn't change the fact that Speed Racer is just as entitled to use its expensive VFX shots in its trailer as Titanic was.

And again, you can't say that Speed Racer has "no story" when you haven't even seen it.

Because the plot is horrible, the acting looks terrible, the dialogue will be brutal. That pretty much just leaves special effects, and that is all Speed Racer is looking like it's going to have.

You're obviously allowed to think that the dialogue and acting looks "terrible" (it's not, of course, it's merely stylised).

But to say that "the plot is horrible"? What makes you say this? What do you know of the plot, and what about it do you not like?

It seems as though you are trying to get around trying not to explain what you believe. Are you not confident in your belief? :rolleyes:

I dissected the paragraph point-for-point whereas you are cutting out entire slews of what I say in your reply posts.

If anyone is trying to "get around" anything, it's you.

And what "belief" are you talking about? All I've ever said is that Speed Racer has the potential to be a big hit. Yes, it's an underdog. It's playing catch up. I've acknowledged that countless times. But I also think it could be a surprise hit, so don't count it out just yet.

That makes absolutely no sense. Revolutions was rushed, simple as that. The script was rushed, production was rushed, everything was rushed. Revolutions should have been released at least a complete year after Reloaded, and probably two.

Even the greatest of Matrix fans, the ones who study the films to death and know every detail, most of them thought Revolutions was a huge disappointment. You act as though you wrote the fucking screenplay for the films, and yet you don't have the guts to make an explanation of the question that you presented to me and I kindly answered.

Side-stepped the issue? WTF are you talking about. I told you my belief, you have failed to do the same. If anyone is being "clever" :rolleyes: it's you.

Well, I'm glad to see you think yourself worthy to be appointed as the ambassador for "the greatest of Matrix fans"...

And no, I don't owe you an explanation for the events of The Matrix. If you really want to know, you'll accord the due respect owed to anyone from whom you seek knowledge. Otherwise, you can bugger off.

PS
Don't kid yourself. You answered that question in an attempt to prove me wrong. There was nothing "kind" about it :D

It's going to be so great when Speed Racer's Friday estimates come on fantasymoguls.com, showbizdata.com, and boxofficemojo.com, and it has only made a medicore $10 million or less on that Friday. :D

Again, you're actually rooting for the movie to fail?

I get this image of some evil, twisted maniac as he sits in his lair, twiddling his thumbs, saying "Mwahahahaha...Speed Racer will be DESTROYED!" :D

Amusing though it is, I wonder where this apparently arbitrary vitriol is coming from?

max314

03-25-2008, 08:43 AM

Haha, it's all in good fun.

I think Speed Racer looks like crap and a complete CGI mess, Max thinks it's going to be the next coming of God, I think it will do mediocre at the box-office, he thinks it will do great.

And therein lies the gross misrepresentation of my views.

I never said that Speed Racer would be "the next coming of God", or anything of the kind.

I said that Speed Racer has the potential (that's "potential") to be a surprise box office success, given its mass audience appeal, its incredibly unique look, the rip-roaring action sequences, and the talent involved in creating it.

That's all.

You, on the other hand, seem to be out for blood. Big buckets of DayGlo-colored blood :D And I can't seem to figure out why.

I think we'll leave it at that and we'll just have to wait and see, although this debate was a blast.

Debates in which we're forced to discuss the differences between "kickass" and "badass"?

It seems we have wholly differing opinions on what constitutes a good debate... :D

max314

03-25-2008, 08:56 AM

Didn't you say you thought the Iron Man trailer was awful too?

Indeed.

In fact, I believe he quoted therealjohng, saying that Iron Man "looks retardred as fuck" :D

Click here (http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2682096&postcount=104) for the post.

Of course, he later said that the movie had begun to grow on him. Although this 'mysteriously' coincided with the time he began to bash Speed Racer with any weapons he could grab. Including Iron Man... :rolleyes:

corran horn

03-25-2008, 09:57 AM

NO film will break 300 million domestic but Indy and DK will run in to the high 200's. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian won't do as well as the original but still break 230 domestic. Iron Man will draw between 185-220 million. Incredible Hulk will beat Ang Lee's mark and probably draw in Fantastic Four numbers, $160 million or so. Hancock is the wildcard. Will Smith knows how to pack them in. Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda have their built in crowd and built in money.

Not necessarily. Indiana Jones could easily top 300 or even 400M as it has fans in almost every age bracket + the fact that the teaser's been viewed by a huge number of people + the fact that, after 19 years of waiting, it's finally here!

WALL-E could do very well too. Not only b/c it's Pixar, but also b/c the last time Andrew Stanton directed a film, it was FINDING NEMO--Pixar's biggest success (I remember it being in the top 10 for nearly the entire summer and even into the fall). Plus, there's the obvious appeal of WALL-E himself.

TDK could easily reach 300M, given not only the viral marketing but also the immensely positive buzz it's been getting. It also has a leg up in that it doesn't have that much competition after it comes out. Remember how BOURNE ULTIMATUM stayed in the top 10 for so long despite coming out in August? TDK will achieve a similar feat.

I don't see this summer doing that great box office wise. The economy and gas is going to hurt movies and the money they make.

Strangely enough, films tend to do BETTER during hard economic times, as people look for some way to distract themselves from their economic troubles. Plus, even with ticket prices going up, they're still WAY cheaper than getting all the fancy home theater gadgets people would normally buy in better economic times. In fact, one of the best times financially for movies was during the Great Depression. The oil embargo of the 1970s didn't hurt the movie business then either.

max314

03-25-2008, 10:11 AM

Not necessarily. Indiana Jones could easily top 300 or even 400M as it has fans in almost every age bracket + the fact that the teaser's been viewed by a huge number of people + the fact that, after 19 years of waiting, it's finally here!

WALL-E could do very well too. Not only b/c it's Pixar, but also b/c the last time Andrew Stanton directed a film, it was FINDING NEMO--Pixar's biggest success (I remember it being in the top 10 for nearly the entire summer and even into the fall). Plus, there's the obvious appeal of WALL-E himself.

TDK could easily reach 300M, given not only the viral marketing but also the immensely positive buzz it's been getting. It also has a leg up in that it doesn't have that much competition after it comes out. Remember how BOURNE ULTIMATUM stayed in the top 10 for so long despite coming out in August? TDK will achieve a similar feat.

Strangely enough, films tend to do BETTER during hard economic times, as people look for some way to distract themselves from their economic troubles. Plus, even with ticket prices going up, they're still WAY cheaper than getting all the fancy home theater gadgets people would normally buy in better economic times. In fact, one of the best times financially for movies was during the Great Depression. The oil embargo of the 1970s didn't hurt the movie business then either.

Very salient points. It's also for the reasons cited above that I think that light-hearted family films will do very, very well this year.

Bourne101

03-25-2008, 03:32 PM

And how do you know "there is no story"?

You haven't even seen the movie.

Then maybe you should try saying "in my opinion" after everything you say :rolleyes:

Because there will be no story to this movie. I don't give a fuck if you think it's going to have the best story of all time, it's going to be lame, it's going to be shitty, and it's going to do poorly at the box-office.

First of all, The Matrix was an R-rated film.

Second of all, what the fuck...?

Yeah, The Matrix was rated R, but it wasn't HARD R, which is what I said. Uh oh, Maxy missed a detail! :D:D:D

C'mon. The only major plot difference between Iron Man and Batman Begins (apart from the obvious ones like names and locations) will be that Stark will be taken in by a group of people who are overtly malicious, instead of discovering their evil natures later as Bruce did with the League of Shadows.

Blah blah blah blah blah. I guess then I could call Speed Racer a rehash of Cars. :rolleyes:

So, not only are we getting into ad absurdum debates of "kickass" versus "badass", but now we're also going to discuss the semantic differences between "awesome" and "great"?

I can see we functioning on two quite different wavelengths here...

Jesus, you really don't miss a detail. :D Alright then, substitute other word that is less than great. Seriously WTF? This isn't English class. :rolleyes: And I'm not seeing how you don't see the difference between kickass and badass. A completely stupid issue, but there is a difference. You don't call Rambo "kickass". It's BADASS. Brutal, realistic violence. Kickass is more toward The Matrix fare. It's light, fake looking, but cool. End of story, get over it.

Given its caliber, I think Speed Racer has more of a chance to be "captivating", "well told story" than Iron Man.

Well I don't. ;)

So you concede that Speed Racer does indeed have a distinct atmosphere, thus satisfying one of your personal criteria for what constitutes a movie of "substance"?

Yes, one little bit of my personal criteria. Whoopdy fuckin' doo.

And again, you can't say that Speed Racer has "no story" when you haven't even seen it.

It will have a shitty story, mark my fucking words.

You're obviously allowed to think that the dialogue and acting looks "terrible" (it's not, of course, it's merely stylised).

But to say that "the plot is horrible"? What makes you say this? What do you know of the plot, and what about it do you not like?

Haha, I love how you call it stylized. It's merely garbage that can be heard in a 2nd grade classroom.

I dissected the paragraph point-for-point whereas you are cutting out entire slews of what I say in your reply posts.

If anyone is trying to "get around" anything, it's you.

And what "belief" are you talking about? All I've ever said is that Speed Racer has the potential to be a big hit. Yes, it's an underdog. It's playing catch up. I've acknowledged that countless times. But I also think it could be a surprise hit, so don't count it out just yet.

You expect me to write about every point? This is a leisurely activity, not a fucking assignment.

The belief you have about your knowledge of The Matrix, which you are obviously just bullshitting.

Well, I'm glad to see you think yourself worthy to be appointed as the ambassador for "the greatest of Matrix fans"...

And no, I don't owe you an explanation for the events of The Matrix. If you really want to know, you'll accord the due respect owed to anyone from whom you seek knowledge. Otherwise, you can bugger off.

PS
Don't kid yourself. You answered that question in an attempt to prove me wrong. There was nothing "kind" about it :D

Actually, no I gave The Matrix an 8/10, The Matrix Reloaded a 7/10 and The Matrix Revolutions a 4/10, I'm anything but a hardcore fan.

Then you obviously are just ignorant. This is a movie website. We don't hold secrets on our movie beliefs, we express our knowledge and discuss it. Who do you think you are, David Lynch? I think you're just afraid of your lack of knowledge, which is a shame because we'd all love to hear what you think.

Again, you're actually rooting for the movie to fail?

Yes, because it looks like absolute crap, like I have said many times. This making money will just lead to more garbage.

I get this image of some evil, twisted maniac as he sits in his lair, twiddling his thumbs, saying "Mwahahahaha...Speed Racer will be DESTROYED!" :D

Amusing though it is, I wonder where this apparently arbitrary vitriol is coming from?

Wow, you're something else.

It's called this movie looks like absolute shit and I want it to be unsuccessful. Simple as that.

Bourne101

03-25-2008, 03:35 PM

And therein lies the gross misrepresentation of my views.

I never said that Speed Racer would be "the next coming of God", or anything of the kind.

I said that Speed Racer has the potential (that's "potential") to be a surprise box office success, given its mass audience appeal, its incredibly unique look, the rip-roaring action sequences, and the talent involved in creating it.

That's all.

You, on the other hand, seem to be out for blood. Big buckets of DayGlo-colored blood :D And I can't seem to figure out why.

Debates in which we're forced to discuss the differences between "kickass" and "badass"?

It seems we have wholly differing opinions on what constitutes a good debate... :D

Don't deny it, this is like your most anticipated film of all time.

You can't seem to figure out why? BECAUSE I THINK THIS MOVIE LOOKS LIKE ABSOLUTE SHIT! :)

We shouldn't have even debated the kickass badass thing. I simply told you that there is a difference and you went ape shit.

Bourne101

03-25-2008, 03:37 PM

Indeed.

In fact, I believe he quoted therealjohng, saying that Iron Man "looks retardred as fuck" :D

Click here (http://joblo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2682096&postcount=104) for the post.

Of course, he later said that the movie had begun to grow on him. Although this 'mysteriously' coincided with the time he began to bash Speed Racer with any weapons he could grab. Including Iron Man... :rolleyes:

Wow, I feel like I'm being stalked.

It's called a change of opinion. I'd watched the Iron Man trailers over the past few weeks, had a change of views, I didn't think it was such a blasphemy. :rolleyes: And if you had stalked me any more, you would have realized that I had said the movie looked like a good time long before you ever came along.

And I wouldn't bother responding. Quite frankly you are taking this way too seriously. This is supposed to be fun and light, not Clinton Vs. Obama.

max314

03-25-2008, 06:32 PM

Because there will be no story to this movie. I don't give a fuck if you think it's going to have the best story of all time, it's going to be lame, it's going to be shitty, and it's going to do poorly at the box-office.

I never said this will "have the best story of all time".

It all started when you said that Speed Racer's story would be generic.

I simply said that it wouldn't be any more generic than Iron Man, which you were bigging up.

Yeah, The Matrix was rated R, but it wasn't HARD R, which is what I said. Uh oh, Maxy missed a detail!

You didn't say "hard R". You said "R".

Guess I'm not the one missing the details...

blah blah blah blah blah. I guess then I could call Speed Racer a rehash of Cars. :rolleyes:

Nor really, since Cars was about cars that are actually alive, living on an imaginary planet where cars substitute people.

The plot of Iron Man, on the other hand - spoiled billionaire who comes face-to-face with violence and is forced to confront it and become a hero - is pretty much a rehash of Batman Begins.

And I'm not denying that Speed Racer's plot won't be the stuff of generic feel-good crowd pleasers. However, you were the one denying that Iron Man wouldn't be generic.

Jesus, you really don't miss a detail. :D Alright then, substitute other word that is less than great. Seriously WTF? This isn't English class. :rolleyes: And I'm not seeing how you don't see the difference between kickass and badass. A completely stupid issue, but there is a difference. You don't call Rambo "kickass". It's BADASS. Brutal, realistic violence. Kickass is more toward The Matrix fare. It's light, fake looking, but cool. End of story, get over it.

I've just walked into the twilight zone...

Well I don't. ;)

Yeah, you haven't exactly made any secrets about that...

Yes, one little bit of my personal criteria. Whoopdy fuckin' doo.

Hey, it was your criteria.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

It will have a shitty story, mark my fucking words.

Well, since "shitty" has no real litmus test except personal taste, I'm guessing you'll convince yourself that the story is shitty even if it moves the audience around you to near elation. Just so you can make a point :D

Why don't you just relax and give the film a chance? Why don't you rekindle that pure love of cinema you had as a kid, and just let go of all these petty things. Don't ruin what could be a perfectly wonderful experience at the theatre just because you want to uphold your image of being a big old humbug.

Haha, I love how you call it stylized. It's merely garbage that can be heard in a 2nd grade classroom.

Second graders don't speak like that.

Cartoon characters do.

Oh, wait...

You expect me to write about every point? This is a leisurely activity, not a fucking assignment.

The belief you have about your knowledge of The Matrix, which you are obviously just bullshitting.

Wait just a minute...

You accuse me of skirting the issue, and when I show that I've actually taken given each point its due time and that you are the one skirting the issue, you start lecturing me about this being "a leisurely activity"?

You really are something else, aren't you?

As for me and The Matrix, consider me sort of an unofficial "go to" guy for some people.

Actually, no I gave The Matrix an 8/10, The Matrix Reloaded a 7/10 and The Matrix Revolutions a 4/10, I'm anything but a hardcore fan.

Then you obviously are just ignorant. This is a movie website. We don't hold secrets on our movie beliefs, we express our knowledge and discuss it. Who do you think you are, David Lynch? I think you're just afraid of your lack of knowledge, which is a shame because we'd all love to hear what you think.

If you're not a hardcore fan, then what in the blue hell compelled you to speak on the behalf of "the greatest Matrix fans"? Your words.

Yes, because it looks like absolute crap, like I have said many times. This making money will just lead to more garbage.

Uh, no. If anything, it'll discourage studios from taking creative risks, and will encourage them to stick to "safer", more generic filmmaking.

Wow, you're something else.

It's called this movie looks like absolute shit and I want it to be unsuccessful. Simple as that.

I'm guessing Happy wasn't your favourite dwarf as a kid?

Don't deny it, this is like your most anticipated film of all time.

You can't seem to figure out why? BECAUSE I THINK THIS MOVIE LOOKS LIKE ABSOLUTE SHIT! :)

We shouldn't have even debated the kickass badass thing. I simply told you that there is a difference and you went ape shit.

I didn't go "ape shit". I was just bewildered at the puerile "kickass" versus "badass" thing you decided to bring up. It was like I was back in the playground discussing things that have no reference point in reality...

And what's to deny? This is my most anticipated movie of the year. I've never seen anything like it.

Wow, I feel like I'm being stalked.

It's called a change of opinion. I'd watched the Iron Man trailers over the past few weeks, had a change of views, I didn't think it was such a blasphemy. :rolleyes: And if you had stalked me any more, you would have realized that I had said the movie looked like a good time long before you ever came along.

And I wouldn't bother responding. Quite frankly you are taking this way too seriously. This is supposed to be fun and light, not Clinton Vs. Obama.

Oh, it's fun for me alright :D It's great to watch someone so baselessly angry about a movie.

And I saw your comments about Iron Man while I was in that thread a little while back, and it stuck with me. But I didn't bother mentioning it until another user brought it up.

Bourne101

03-25-2008, 06:56 PM

Ok, so I'm going to narrow it down.

You didn't say "hard R". You said "R".

Guess I'm not the one missing the details...

Actually no I did say hard R. I posted it, you quoted it, you missed the detail.

The plot of Iron Man, on the other hand - spoiled billionaire who comes face-to-face with violence and is forced to confront it and become a hero - is pretty much a rehash of Batman Begins.

*Laughs at the fact that Maxy doesn't seem to understand that Iron Man and Batman Begins are adaptations of superhero comics which tend to have similar plots*

Hey, it was your criteria.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

Did I ever say that Speed Racer didn't possess any of my criteria? No, so drop it.

Well, since "shitty" has no real litmus test except personal taste, I'm guessing you'll convince yourself that the story is shitty even if it moves the audience around you to near elation. Just so you can make a point :D

Why don't you just relax and give the film a chance? Why don't you rekindle that pure love of cinema you had as a kid, and just let go of all these petty things. Don't ruin what could be a perfectly wonderful experience at the theatre just because you want to uphold your image of being a big old humbug.

I don't see why you don't realize that Speed Racer's story isn't going to be good. I'm not trying to make a point, it's already a point and a fact. Unless the film is nothing like the trailer presented, the story will be horrible, regardless of how entertaining or cool the movie is.

When I was a kid, films with cool special effects usually had something that Speed Racer probably won't have, and that is STORY.

You really are something else, aren't you?

As for me and The Matrix, consider me sort of an unofficial "go to" guy for some people.

Get used to it, if you can't handle my ways, you might not last long. I'd love to see you and some other select schmoes go head-to-head.

If you're not a hardcore fan, then what in the blue hell compelled you to speak on the behalf of "the greatest Matrix fans"? Your words.

Because I know a lot of huge Matrix fans, and a lot of them were disappointed in Revolutions. And you not giving your answer to the question that YOU asked me, is making you look more an more like a coward.

Uh, no. If anything, it'll discourage studios from taking creative risks, and will encourage them to stick to "safer", more generic filmmaking.

Speed Racer may have the special effects, but it isn't doing anything to stray away from the lines of generic film making.

I'm guessing Happy wasn't your favourite dwarf as a kid?

Correct. It was Sneezy. :rolleyes:

max314

03-26-2008, 09:35 AM

Actually no I did say hard R. I posted it, you quoted it, you missed the detail.

Okay. I haven't gone back and checked, but I'll take your word for it.

*Laughs at the fact that Maxy doesn't seem to understand that Iron Man and Batman Begins are adaptations of superhero comics which tend to have similar plots*

*Laughs at the fact that Bourney Boy doesn't seem to understand that Max only brought up the similar plots of Iron Man and Batman Begins because Bourney Boy was attacking Speed Racer's plot for being "generic".*

Did I ever say that Speed Racer didn't possess any of my criteria? No, so drop it.

You brought it up.

I don't see why you don't realize that Speed Racer's story isn't going to be good. I'm not trying to make a point, it's already a point and a fact. Unless the film is nothing like the trailer presented, the story will be horrible, regardless of how entertaining or cool the movie is.

When I was a kid, films with cool special effects usually had something that Speed Racer probably won't have, and that is STORY.

There's no doubt that the Wachowskis are making a much more straight-faced piece of entertainment with Speed Racer than they've ever done before.

But that doesn't mean that the story will suck.

It might be simple like, say, the plot of Toy Story or Finding Nemo. But, like those films, I suspect that the story will be executed with skill and care. And it will have a lot of heart.

Get used to it, if you can't handle my ways, you might not last long. I'd love to see you and some other select schmoes go head-to-head.

Most discussions function with certain things - like the English language :rolleyes: - being standardised starting points so that all involved can actually make sense of what's going on.

When you start making distinctions between words like "kickass" and "badass", what should be an intellectual discussion begins tumbling into the realm of the nonsensical. It's the kind of castle-in-the-sky arguments you used to have in the playground when you were 8 or something.

If those playground modes and mannerisms are your "ways", then I'm not sure it's worth my time learning how to "handle". Although it might behoove you to know that I have battled and toppled more acute debaters than yourself in my time. That post count in the top right corner of the thread only applies to this forum ;)

Because I know a lot of huge Matrix fans, and a lot of them were disappointed in Revolutions. And you not giving your answer to the question that YOU asked me, is making you look more an more like a coward.

****MATRIX TRILOGY SPOILERS AHEAD****

I'm sure I know more Matrix fans than yourself, seeing as I've been a prominent contributer to Matrix discussions on the internet since mid-2003. And while I am more than aware of certain Matrix fans who were indeed disappointed with Reloaded and Revolutions (a lot of whom simply didn't understand what was going on, from my experience), I am also aware of many Matrix fans who thought the second two films were utterly sublime. Taking the relatively simple premise of the first film into sublime levels of cinematic excellence.

Seeing as you seem to be gagging for an answer to the question I posed to you earlier in the thread, I'll give you another chance to prove your knowledge and replace the mistake you made with that previous answer.

How can Neo see Smith inside Bane after he is blinded by him?

Speed Racer may have the special effects, but it isn't doing anything to stray away from the lines of generic film making.

But neither is Iron Man. So it's not a reason to hate it.

Correct. It was Sneezy. :rolleyes:

There is such a thing as an analogy taken to far...

KingofKings2525

03-26-2008, 12:26 PM

For some reason I think Hancock will be the biggest money maker this summer. Everybody is picking TDK and Indy but I just see Hancock beating them out.

max314

03-26-2008, 12:55 PM

For some reason I think Hancock will be the biggest money maker this summer. Everybody is picking TDK and Indy but I just see Hancock beating them out.

Action. Comedy. Will Smith.

Yeah, you could be right.

Bourne101

03-26-2008, 03:01 PM

I'll narrow it down some more.

*Laughs at the fact that Bourney Boy doesn't seem to understand that Max only brought up the similar plots of Iron Man and Batman Begins because Bourney Boy was attacking Speed Racer's plot for being "generic".*

You said Iron Man was just a complete rehash of Batman Begins, which it isn't, end of story.

It might be simple like, say, the plot of Toy Story or Finding Nemo. But, like those films, I suspect that the story will be executed with skill and care. And it will have a lot of heart.

Wow, I think I'm going to drop this one before I go crazy.

If those playground modes and mannerisms are your "ways", then I'm not sure it's worth my time learning how to "handle". Although it might behoove you to know that I have battled and toppled more acute debaters than yourself in my time. That post count in the top right corner of the thread only applies to this forum ;)

No one wants to hear that shit. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of God. You just come off as completely childish and arrogant. Don't ever fucking talk to me like you know me.

And that post count applies to the single best forum on the planet, with some of the greatest members of any members on any forum.

Seeing as you seem to be gagging for an answer to the question I posed to you earlier in the thread, I'll give you another chance to prove your knowledge and replace the mistake you made with that previous answer.

How can Neo see Smith inside Bane after he is blinded by him?

Alright, you are just avoiding the fact that you simply don't know the answer to the question you asked me. I answered it, and you have yet to prove me wrong. You've completely avoided it and you are simply being a complete coward.

Neo stopped the sentinels in Reloaded because his powers extend into Zion (connection between his brain and machine core) and then does the same in Revolutions. When Bain blinded him he was able to see for the same reason.

And regardless if I'm right or wrong (although this is one of the most popular theories), that's all it is, is a theory. Just because you are the "go to guy":rolleyes:, doesn't mean that are your theories are now laws. I think really the only guys who really know for sure are the Wachowki's, and unless you want to call them up, all you have is a theory. ;)

max314

03-26-2008, 06:40 PM

You said Iron Man was just a complete rehash of Batman Begins, which it isn't, end of story.

I said that the plot of Iron Man will be a rehash of Batman Begins. Which it will be.

And I only said that because you insisted Speed Racer would suck because plot would be "generic", whilst failing to acknowledge that Iron Man's plot would also be "generic". As would the plot of Indy IV.

Wow, I think I'm going to drop this one before I go crazy.

Hey, at least you don't have to put up with being thrust into bullshit debates about "kickass" versus "badass"...

No one wants to hear that shit. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of God. You just come off as completely childish and arrogant. Don't ever fucking talk to me like you know me.

And that post count applies to the single best forum on the planet, with some of the greatest members of any members on any forum.

I'll only consider myself "childish" when I start debating the difference between "badass" and "kickass". Or "awesome" and "great".

And as for "arrogant"? I think that's a pretty rich claim from someone who claims his forum is "the single best forum on the planet".

Hey, I'm starting to like this place myself. And I've had the pleasure of reading the thoughts of some very interesting people. Yourself included. But the internet is full of delightful forums, which are full of delightful people engaged in delightful debates.

To say what you said, and to disrespect every other movie fan who isn't a member of your forum is the epitome of the very "arrogance" you accuse me of.

I think you need to go dunk your head in a cold tub of ice water and calm down before you decide to talk to me. For your sake.

Alright, you are just avoiding the fact that you simply don't know the answer to the question you asked me. I answered it, and you have yet to prove me wrong. You've completely avoided it and you are simply being a complete coward.

Neo stopped the sentinels in Reloaded because his powers extend into Zion (connection between his brain and machine core) and then does the same in Revolutions. When Bain blinded him he was able to see for the same reason.

And regardless if I'm right or wrong (although this is one of the most popular theories), that's all it is, is a theory. Just because you are the "go to guy":rolleyes:, doesn't mean that are your theories are now laws. I think really the only guys who really know for sure are the Wachowki's, and unless you want to call them up, all you have is a theory. ;)

I'll take that to mean you just quickly Googled for the answer, huh? Hehe... :D

I can tell you that what you said is not actually a theory. It's half of a theory. Actually, it's a misinterpretation of half of a theory. So I'm pretty sure you just Googled it and posted it without really understanding what it meant :D And I know exactly which "half of a misinterpreted theory" you're talking about, since I happened one of the most vocal proponents of the idea and have written at some length on the subject.

Okay, so let's talk about this. I'll ease you into it through a bit of Socratic to-and-fro.

You say that Neo could see Bane because there is a "connection between his brain and the machine core". Could you expand on your understanding of this "connection"?

Also, you say that Neo's "powers extend into Zion", what do you mean by "Zion" (are you simply referring to the "real world"?) and what do you mean when you say his "powers extend" (are you saying that the "real world" and the Matrix are a continuous simulation; and, if that is the case, what reasons do you have for believing this?)?

Remember: leave your confrontational attitude at home. We're just friends having a chat ;)

Bourne101

03-26-2008, 07:06 PM

I'll only consider myself "childish" when I start debating the difference between "badass" and "kickass". Or "awesome" and "great".

You're the one who seems to keep bringing it up. I simply told you that I thought there was a difference.

And as for "arrogant"? I think that's a pretty rich claim from someone who claims his forum is "the single best forum on the planet".

You obviously haven't been around long enough. This is the best forum on the planet. ;)

I think you need to go dunk your head in a cold tub of ice water and calm down before you decide to talk to me. For your sake.

Because you're that good? For the record, you're not quite the master of life that you think you are. I'd like to see you debate against someone like Madsen or yorrick brown.

I'll take that to mean you just quickly Googled for the answer, huh? Hehe... :D

Wow, you are something else. I guess the next thing I'm about to hear is that you are actually Andy Wachowski. :rolleyes:

I won't bother answering your questions, I'll leave those to you Mr. "go to", or is it Wachowski? :rolleyes:

max314

03-27-2008, 06:18 AM

You're the one who seems to keep bringing it up. I simply told you that I thought there was a difference.

I continue to bring it up because I continue to be bewildered by it every time I think about it :D

Plus, I find it hugely indicative of who you are and how you think.

You obviously haven't been around long enough. This is the best forum on the planet. ;)

It may well be. But I don't think that justifies you to insult every other film fan community on the internet.

We're all movie lovers, after all.

Because you're that good? For the record, you're not quite the master of life that you think you are. I'd like to see you debate against someone like Madsen or yorrick brown.

"Master of life"? I think not. More like an "eternal student" :D

But I still think you should learn to relax a little bit. We're just batting around opinions.

As for Masden and yorrick brown (I don't know who they are, but I'm sure they're fantastic people), I don't engage in debates just for the hell of it. They usually occur much more organically than that. It usually happens when two people disagree on an issue vehemently enough to actually engage in a long, drawn-out process of trying to reach some sort of common ground - if any.

As you've no doubt seen, however, such processes can be rather exhausting. So I try not to throw myself headlong into any and all debates.

Wow, you are something else. I guess the next thing I'm about to hear is that you are actually Andy Wachowski. :rolleyes:

I won't bother answering your questions, I'll leave those to you Mr. "go to", or is it Wachowski? :rolleyes:

Fine. No skin off my back. Just don't say I didn't give you a chance to understand The Matrix :D

And you've also further vindicated my confidence in the theory that people who disliked The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions simply didn't understand them. So thanks ;)

Bourne101

03-27-2008, 07:34 AM

As for Masden and yorrick brown (I don't know who they are, but I'm sure they're fantastic people), I don't engage in debates just for the hell of it. They usually occur much more organically than that. It usually happens when two people disagree on an issue vehemently enough to actually engage in a long, drawn-out process of trying to reach some sort of common ground - if any.

I didn't say you should engage in a debate with them for the hell of it, I simply said it would be interesting to see you in a debate with them. If you don't understand that then maybe I'll make it a little bit clearer. Sometime down the road when you argue something as ridiculous as The Matrix Revolutions being a success on its own (not with the other Matrix films combined), I'd love to see them or many other schmoes debate, because you are simply wrong.

Fine. No skin off my back. Just don't say I didn't give you a chance to understand The Matrix :D

And you've also further vindicated my confidence in the theory that people who disliked The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions simply didn't understand them. So thanks ;)

You still haven't explained anything, which leads me more and more to believe that you actually don't know shit about The Matrix, and you are just trying to sound intelligent. I believe we call that a... COWARD.

Maybe The Matrix Reloaded, but The Matrix Revolutions is not that difficult to understand, and even understanding every little single aspect (which you obviously don't), it still wouldn't make it enjoyable. The whole movie was basically just machine war with a few bits of the Wachowski's trying to make it a smart movie. I think you're just trying to make them sound like good movies to people with knowledge, but face it man, Revolutions was not that good. Knowledge or no knowledge. Reloaded and Revolutions were filled with plot holes (not unknown knowledge, PLOT HOLES), and focused more on action than story. But if you really want to talk about this, go over to The Matrix forum under General Movie Talk.

max314

03-27-2008, 08:19 AM

I didn't say you should engage in a debate with them for the hell of it, I simply said it would be interesting to see you in a debate with them. If you don't understand that then maybe I'll make it a little bit clearer. Sometime down the road when you argue something as ridiculous as The Matrix Revolutions being a success on its own (not with the other Matrix films combined), I'd love to see them or many other schmoes debate, because you are simply wrong.

Revolutions cost $150 million to make.

It took $425 million at the box office.

Granted, that's not as high as the previous two, but it's still making a sizable profit.

You still haven't explained anything, which leads me more and more to believe that you actually don't know shit about The Matrix, and you are just trying to sound intelligent. I believe we call that a... COWARD.

Maybe The Matrix Reloaded, but The Matrix Revolutions is not that difficult to understand, and even understanding every little single aspect (which you obviously don't), it still wouldn't make it enjoyable. The whole movie was basically just machine war with a few bits of the Wachowski's trying to make it a smart movie. I think you're just trying to make them sound like good movies to people with knowledge, but face it man, Revolutions was not that good. Knowledge or no knowledge. Reloaded and Revolutions were filled with plot holes (not unknown knowledge, PLOT HOLES), and focused more on action than story. But if you really want to talk about this, go over to The Matrix forum under General Movie Talk.

Haha...goad me all you want, but it's not going to work :p

There's a good reason why I can't just tell you. Imagine all the potential Matrix-naysayers who might be reading this thread. If I say that "X, Y, Z is the explanation to The Matrix Trilogy", then a whole host of them could come and say "ah, I already knew that - and I still think they suck!" :D

It's happened before, and they're obviously lying through their teeth. I'm sure that wouldn't happen on a wonderful forum like this, but there's always a chance that certain individuals could and would do that.

Indeed, it's more than likely that even after explaining how the films work, and how Neo can do the things he can do, you still won't change your mind about liking the films. Why? Well, it's sort of like having to explain the punch line to a joke. It's just not funny when you have to sit down with someone and explain why it's funny :p

As such, all I really wanted was a sense of personal vindication that my theory (i.e. that people who didn't like the movie are generally people who simply didn't understand them) continued to hold water. I find that satisfying enough. No matter how much you taunt me ;)

But... If you really want to know - and are prepared to move beyond this juvenile confrontationalism - then ask me nicely via PM, convince me that there is no malice behind your motives, and I'd be more than happy to share it with you as a friend :)

max314

03-27-2008, 08:40 AM

Hey Bourne, I took your advice and went over to that Matrix sub-forum in the 'General Movie Talk' forum.

How's about we agree to disagree about Speed Racer and chat about The Matrix Trilogy over in the designated area? I'll explain the ending, Neo's powers, etc in an environment conducive to such discussions. Plus, you can read about how I'm working on rewrites of Reloaded and Revolutions - what script would have been produced if a studio hired me to make a more mainstream pair of sequels.

PS
Forgive me if I have to call out correspondence short at any point, because I have finals in May and am already spending far too much time here :D

Bourne101

03-27-2008, 02:55 PM

max314

03-27-2008, 04:51 PM

Sounds like a plan. ;) Maybe we can get that sub-forum booming again. It's been pretty dead for a while.

Cool beans :p

ilovemovies

03-28-2008, 12:42 AM

Cool beans :p

Speaking of that saying, did it generate from Speed Racer? Because a long time ago I knew this one guy who would always say that. I always wondered where he got that from but never asked.

max314

03-28-2008, 09:53 AM

Speaking of that saying, did it generate from Speed Racer? Because a long time ago I knew this one guy who would always say that. I always wondered where he got that from but never asked.

Well, I said it in reference to Speed Racer :D

Wiktionary (click (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cool_beans)) traces its etymology back to the late '60s, which would coincide with Speed Racer. So its possible it was actually derived from the show. Or it influenced the show.

Either way, I think most people associate "cool beans" with Speed Racer.

corran horn

03-28-2008, 02:54 PM

Test screenings are already proving highly popular, and the "love it or hate it" reaction to the visuals in the trailers is starting to move more and more towards the "love it" end of the spectrum.

Then you've got the kids and the mass appeal (I take it on authority that kids are already looking forward to Speed Racer more than Indy IV :D )...and you're in for one very healthy looking box office.

Really? The only screening review I read was only mildly positive, and the reviewer said that it would be extremely difficult to make SR a G-rated film, as there were more than a few obscenities in the cut he saw (no F-bombs, though).

Another thing to keep in mind: what other R-rated directors have made successful transitions to G/PG material? None.

I also question your statement about more and more people loving the trailer. Seems to me the response is still very split, and I pride myself on hating SR the more I see it. That hate doesn't extend to the cast though, as I think Emile Hirsch has a lot of talent.

While I'll grant you that SR may be more popular among those under 12 than Indiana Jones, that won't happen with any of the other demographics, I assure you.

BTW, what's all this blabbering about Indy having a lot of competition? Iron Man will be in its third weekend by then, and its impact will be minimal. Narnia might pose a threat, but they're not gunning for the same demographic. What comes out after Indy's release? Sex in the City? Yeah, right. Kung Fu Panda? Maybe, but Dream Works' talking animal schtick is wearing thin. I will say though that TDK could come close, as it not only has little competition (The Mummy 3 maybe, but I don't see it making that much of a dent) but it also looks amazing on multiple levels. TDK has the best chance to be the best live-action movie of the summer (WALL-E has the animated category covered), and I see it having a long shelf-life. One detail people seem to forget about Batman Begins is than even though its opening and total domestic grosses weren't as big as they could have been, BB had tremendous legs and kept going strong through much of the Summer.

I do agree with the idea that HANCOCK will do well b/c not only is it Wil Smith, it also comes out on the July 4 weekend. I forsee a 220-250 total for this one.

My projected grosses for the big summer films

Indy IV: 330M+ (if any make over 400M, it will be Indy)
TDK: 275M+
Prince Caspian: 260-290 (it will match its predessor's gross or come close)
Wall-E: 250+ (could easily make FINDING NEMO-sized numbers)
Hancock: 220-250 (see above)
Iron Man: 200-225
Kung Fu Panda: 130-160 (based on performance of other DW animations)
Incredible Hulk: 120-140 (way less excitement for this one)
Mummy 3: 110-140 (best-case scenario)
Hellboy 2: 100-125
Speed Racer: 90-110 (I can't see it beating out Iron Man, and Prince Caspian will crush it)

max314

03-28-2008, 03:30 PM

Really? The only screening review I read was only mildly positive, and the reviewer said that it would be extremely difficult to make SR a G-rated film, as there were more than a few obscenities in the cut he saw (no F-bombs, though).

Another thing to keep in mind: what other R-rated directors have made successful transitions to G/PG material? None.

I also question your statement about more and more people loving the trailer. Seems to me the response is still very split, and I pride myself on hating SR the more I see it. That hate doesn't extend to the cast though, as I think Emile Hirsch has a lot of talent.

While I'll grant you that SR may be more popular among those under 12 than Indiana Jones, that won't happen with any of the other demographics, I assure you.

Yes, Joel Silver is apparently resigned to the fact that the film will end up with a PG rating.

And with images like this coming out on a semi-regular basis...

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/9995/speedracercar1ii0.gif

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/4889/speedracercar2gx5.gif

...I can only try and imagine why it is you so hate Speed Racer.

And I do think that Indy is going to do very well. Just re-watched The Last Crusade (the only Indy film that really counts - the other two are only worth watching for the back story), and I think that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a great chance at being another great Indy film as long as they can make the father-son dynamic work as well between Harrison and Shia as it did between Harrison and Sean.

Indy and Speed are my two most anticipated movies of the Summer. The Dark Knight comes in at number two for me.

BTW, what's all this blabbering about Indy having a lot of competition? Iron Man will be in its third weekend by then, and its impact will be minimal. Narnia might pose a threat, but they're not gunning for the same demographic. What comes out after Indy's release? Sex in the City? Yeah, right. Kung Fu Panda? Maybe, but Dream Works' talking animal schtick is wearing thin. I will say though that TDK could come close, as it not only has little competition (The Mummy 3 maybe, but I don't see it making that much of a dent) but it also looks amazing on multiple levels. TDK has the best chance to be the best live-action movie of the summer (WALL-E has the animated category covered), and I see it having a long shelf-life. One detail people seem to forget about Batman Begins is than even though its opening and total domestic grosses weren't as big as they could have been, BB had tremendous legs and kept going strong through much of the Summer.

In all honesty, I think Indy IV will do great business.

Spielberg's got better as a filmmaker, and I think the Harrison-Shia dynamic will make the film very popular with audiences of all ages.

Then there's the whip-cracking, gun-slinging adventure element that proves so popular with audiences.

Yeah, I think Indy's gonna do just fine.

I do agree with the idea that HANCOCK will do well b/c not only is it Wil Smith, it also comes out on the July 4 weekend. I forsee a 220-250 total for this one.

My projected grosses for the big summer films

Indy IV: 330M+ (if any make over 400M, it will be Indy)
TDK: 275M+
Prince Caspian: 260-290 (it will match its predessor's gross or come close)
Wall-E: 250+ (could easily make FINDING NEMO-sized numbers)
Hancock: 220-250 (see above)
Iron Man: 200-225
Kung Fu Panda: 130-160 (based on performance of other DW animations)
Incredible Hulk: 120-140 (way less excitement for this one)
Mummy 3: 110-140 (best-case scenario)
Hellboy 2: 100-125
Speed Racer: 90-110 (I can't see it beating out Iron Man, and Prince Caspian will crush it)

You honestly think Speed Racer is gonna do worse than stuff like The Mummy III and Hellboy 2?

Coz I sure as hell don't.

I can understand Indy, TDK, Prince Caspian and Wall-E. Heck, I'll even give you Iron Man. But I think you're rather underestimating Speed Racer's chances.

Are you sure that cramming Speed Racer all the way at the bottom is more wishful thinking than an actual, objective prediction?

bigred760

03-28-2008, 09:12 PM

I think Speed Racer's success will be based mostly on whether on not younger crowds and families will want to watch it - cuz I don't think the 18-30+ crowd will flock to it (like they will Indy IV and TDK).

corran horn

03-29-2008, 09:06 AM

You honestly think Speed Racer is gonna do worse than stuff like The Mummy III and Hellboy 2?

Coz I sure as hell don't.

I can understand Indy, TDK, Prince Caspian and Wall-E. Heck, I'll even give you Iron Man. But I think you're rather underestimating Speed Racer's chances.

Are you sure that cramming Speed Racer all the way at the bottom is more wishful thinking than an actual, objective prediction?

If you look closer, you'll notice that those three are all in the same ballpark. Might SR make more than the other 2? Absolutely, but I think those three will make about the same amount. I'm basing Mummy III's gross on the performance of Rush Hour 3. Granted, they're different genres, but both were made 5+ years after their predecessors and are coming out at the same time. Furthermore, both faced/will face competition from another, more well-regarded sequel (Bourne Ultimatum, Dark Knight).

p_gautam

03-31-2008, 03:10 AM

skc087

04-15-2008, 08:26 AM

Indiana Jones 4: $380 M
Batman The Dark Knight: $315 M
Chronicles of Narnia 2: $300 M
Hancock: $215 M
Wall E: $210 M
Iron Man: $176 M
Get Smart: $175 M
The Mummy 3: $160 M
The Incredible Hulk: $125 M
Speed Racer: $115 M
Kung Fu Panda: $111
Wanted: $110 M
The Happenings: $100 M
Pineapple Express: $89 M
Tropic Thunder: $88
You Dont Mess With the Zohan: $87 M
Love Guru: $85 M
Step Brothers: $75 M
X-Files: $70 M
Hellboy 2: $50 M
Sisterhood 2: $30 M

darknite125

04-21-2008, 04:58 PM

The Dark Knight- $400 million
Indian Jones 4: $350 million
Iron Man: $300 million
Wall E: $250 million
Prince Caspian: $250 million
Incredible Hulk: $200 million
Hellboy 2: $150 million
X-Files 2: $100 million

MidnightAngel

04-21-2008, 07:13 PM

MisterChristian

04-21-2008, 07:34 PM

P.S. Wall E will have a good opening but with not so high numbers as Cars and Ratattoile.

Wall E will be huge! It'll easily surpass Cars and Ratatouille. 2008's biggest grosser...

Kevin Smith fan

04-22-2008, 11:24 AM

Silverload

04-22-2008, 11:49 AM

I find it funny that people actually think TDK is going to make more than Indy 4. I doubt TDK will reach $300million even if it's the greatest thing ever, and Indy 4 will far surpass $300million even if it sucks ass. Indy is in Star Wars territory, way too many fans for it to ever make less than $300million. TDK will do better than Begins, but not by that much. If TDK does reach $300million it will be barely, I predict something at around $280million. And I predict Indy 4 will surpass $400million.

angelamia

04-22-2008, 02:35 PM

I'm with most of you here, I think Indy will be #1 followed by The Dark Night. Although TDK has the whole Heath Ledger death thing to boost sales, nothing is going to touch Harrison Ford. Seriously.

I think a movie that might surprise us is American Teen (http://www.americanteenthemovie.com/). It's done well at Sundance and might be the next Napoleon Dynamtie. People are all into the reality tv these days, right. What better place to exploit than high school.

Bourne101

04-22-2008, 04:35 PM

Hancock will be a dissapointment. Speed Racer will hit #1 when it's released. The Dark Knight will surpass its original opening. The Love Guru call it a guaranteed flop. Tropic Thunder will be this summer's top comedy but Pineapple Express won't but it will become a cult favorite like Half Baked. Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk will become moderate hit films. The Strangers will become the first non remake horror movie of the year to open with good numbers.Get Smart will be this year's Evan Almighty Is the film Wanted still to be released this summer?

P.S. Wall E will have a good opening but with not so high numbers as Cars and Ratattoile.

So sure that Hancock will be a disappointment? Of course Speed Racer will be #1 on its opening weekend, but that's not to say that it will be much more than $30-40 million (which is not enough to carry it to success). I wouldn't be so sure about The Love Guru. It might not be a massive hit, but it could definitely put up solid numbers. I think Pineapple Express will easily cross $100 million, and will probably make more. It should make $30 million on opening weekend alone, well on its way to $100+ million. I think you're underestimating Iron Man a bit. I could see it doing much better than Speed Racer. I hope you're right about The Strangers. Wanted is being released on June 27th along with Wall-E.

And for those arguing that Indy is a sure bet over The Dark Knight. I think people are saying otherwise because The Dark Knight has virtually no competition and easily has the best marketing plan of the summer films. I can see it being huge.

CuatroDiablos

04-22-2008, 05:04 PM

I see Batman making 100+ on opening just because of Heath Ledgers death..sad but true , in the end it will make 300 miliion I think.

skc087

04-23-2008, 12:39 AM

skc087

04-23-2008, 12:51 AM

Iron Man- $175 Million
Speed Racer- $190 million
What Happens in Vegas- $40 million
Prince Caspian- $250 million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- $275 million
Sex and the City- $60 million
Kung Fu Panda- $90 million
The Incredible Hulk- $100 million
The Happening- $90 million
The Love Guru- $110 million
Wall-E- $225 million
Wanted- $75 million
Hancock- $200 million
Hellboy II: The Golden Army- $130 million
The Dark Knight- $350 million
Step Brothers- $150 million
X-Files 2- $110 million
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor- $60 million
Pineapple Express- $90 million
Tropic Thunder- $150 million

Sorry to disappoint but
SpeedRacer wont get anywhere near $190
What Happens in Vegas/Sex and the City will both make near $100
Tropic Thunder is R rated and it will do around $85
X-Files 2 will do around $70
Hellboy 1 only made like $100 and thats worldwide so it wont do $130
Wanted will be more like $130

Badbird

04-23-2008, 01:55 AM

skc087

04-23-2008, 06:36 AM

Iron Man- $185 Million
Speed Racer- $105 million
What Happens in Vegas- $45 million... I guess
Prince Caspian- $160 million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- $315 million
Sex and the City- $55 million
Kung Fu Panda- $110 million
The Incredible Hulk- $90 million
The Happening- $75 million
The Love Guru- $55 million
Wall-E- $290 million
Wanted- $50 million
Hancock- $240 million
Hellboy II: The Golden Army- $75 million
The Dark Knight- $220 million
Step Brothers- $80 million
X-Files 2- $60 million
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor- $60 million
Pineapple Express- $90 million
Tropic Thunder- $80 million??? Don't really know enough to make a prediction on this one.

What Happens In Vegas Only $40? More like $100 atleast
Mummy 3 only $60? More like $180
Narnia did $290 so the second will do atleast that much if not more $160 is way too low of a guess I am thinking more like $295
Hancock $240? You may be right about this, unfortunately. I hope it does $130 but people might just run out there July 4th and watch this.
Dark Knight at $220? More like $290

Badbird

04-23-2008, 02:02 PM

What Happens In Vegas Only $40? More like $100 atleast
Mummy 3 only $60? More like $180
Narnia did $290 so the second will do atleast that much if not more $160 is way too low of a guess I am thinking more like $295
Hancock $240? You may be right about this, unfortunately. I hope it does $130 but people might just run out there July 4th and watch this.
Dark Knight at $220? More like $290

I don't know much about Vegas, but the trailer looked stupid. Plus it's gonna get crushed by all the other big May/June movies.

The first Narnia did great... in winter... with almost no competition. I see a large drop simply due to competition.

I can't really imagine anyone still gives a shit about The Mummy. It comes out in August and everyone will be tired of blockbusters.

And let's face it. Dark Knight is just too dark to make that kind of cash. It ain't Pirates of the Caribbean that inexplicably had entire families flocking to see it.

Kevin Smith fan

04-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Sorry to disappoint but
SpeedRacer wont get anywhere near $190
What Happens in Vegas/Sex and the City will both make near $100
Tropic Thunder is R rated and it will do around $85
X-Files 2 will do around $70
Hellboy 1 only made like $100 and thats worldwide so it wont do $130
Wanted will be more like $130

I'm just saying what I'd expect these films to make. Definitley not saying their 100% accurate. I definitley don't see What Happens in Vegas crossing over 100 mill, Wanted looks worse than Jumper, and Hellboy got a lot of fans from DVD audience-plus the original was released on president's day as compared to the July release of the upcoming sequel. I guess I could agree with your criticisms about TT, X files, and maybe Sex. We'll see.

skc087

04-23-2008, 09:08 PM

I don't know much about Vegas, but the trailer looked stupid. Plus it's gonna get crushed by all the other big May/June movies.

The first Narnia did great... in winter... with almost no competition. I see a large drop simply due to competition.

I can't really imagine anyone still gives a shit about The Mummy. It comes out in August and everyone will be tired of blockbusters.

And let's face it. Dark Knight is just too dark to make that kind of cash. It ain't Pirates of the Caribbean that inexplicably had entire families flocking to see it.

WHATEVER HAPPENS IN VEGAS is a movie for everyone who doesnt like big action blockbusters. Remember just two years ago the Devil Wears Prada came out the same day as Superman Returns and made like $125US and
$200+ Overseas.

People will be tired of blockbusters by August? Last year some of the biggest movie that came out were in August!
(Bourne Ultimatum, Rush Hour 3, Superbad)

Dark Knight is too dark to make that kind of cash? WTF? Are you serious?
Batman Begins was very dark and made $200+ Million and this one will have that fan base plus some and Heath Ledger fans will go so it even if they are not into Batman. I think it will clear $250 easily. Maybe $300.

skc087

04-23-2008, 09:13 PM

I'm just saying what I'd expect these films to make. Definitley not saying their 100% accurate. I definitley don't see What Happens in Vegas crossing over 100 mill, Wanted looks worse than Jumper, and Hellboy got a lot of fans from DVD audience-plus the original was released on president's day as compared to the July release of the upcoming sequel. I guess I could agree with your criticisms about TT, X files, and maybe Sex. We'll see.

Have you seen Jumper? It was a bag of shit inside of another bag of shit.
Wanted looks really out there kinda like Shott Em Up but, it has Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman in it.
You maybe completly right on Hellboy. I looked at the numbers of the first Hellboy and it barely made a profit so I was very curious why they were making a part too but if it has a big fanbase then it just might do some damage at the box office.

bigred760

04-23-2008, 11:58 PM

What Happens in Vegas looks like most other romantic comedies: same ole jokes, gags, etc. I freakin' hate Cameron Diaz so I know I won't be seeing it. Something tells me it's not going to do very well at all.

JoeChar4321

04-24-2008, 01:50 AM

I looked at the numbers of the first Hellboy and it barely made a profit so I was very curious why they were making a part too but if it has a big fanbase then it just might do some damage at the box office.

Hellboy has no chance simply because they chose to release it directly between Hancock and Dark Knight. Completely foolish.

Badbird

04-24-2008, 02:02 PM

WHATEVER HAPPENS IN VEGAS is a movie for everyone who doesnt like big action blockbusters. Remember just two years ago the Devil Wears Prada came out the same day as Superman Returns and made like $125US and
$200+ Overseas.

People will be tired of blockbusters by August? Last year some of the biggest movie that came out were in August!
(Bourne Ultimatum, Rush Hour 3, Superbad)

Dark Knight is too dark to make that kind of cash? WTF? Are you serious?
Batman Begins was very dark and made $200+ Million and this one will have that fan base plus some and Heath Ledger fans will go so it even if they are not into Batman. I think it will clear $250 easily. Maybe $300.

A third Mummy movie missing most of its original cast hardly has the clout of Bourne Ultimatum.

Vegas is no Devil Wears Prada. Prada had some serious pedigree behind it (and marketing), Vegas just looks dumb.

And no, Batman simply doesn't have the crossover appeal to make that much. Batman Begins just barely got over $200. So you're saying that this will be the most successful Batman movie of all time? Even though no Batman movie has come close to $300 million? I don't think so.

Backstabba

04-24-2008, 03:33 PM

I don't only think TDK will be the most successful Batman film of all time, I think it'll be HUGE.

I'm predicting a 90+ million opening, easy.

CyclicNightmare

04-25-2008, 12:47 AM

EW released their list:

1. Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (355.9 million)
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (310.8 million)
3. Hancock (280.4 million)
4. Wall-E (280.3 million)
5. Iron Man (267.7 million)
6. The Dark Knight (255.0 million)
7. Kung Fu Panda (244.6 million)
8. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (176.5 million)
9. The Incredible Hulk (147.2 million)
10. Tropic Thunder (146.6 million)

Interesting.

franky4fingerz

04-26-2008, 09:24 PM

I cant see Narnia doing that well. I've seen zero marketing for it. Batman will finish 1st or 2nd, no way its coming in 6th.

bigred760

04-26-2008, 09:26 PM

I cant see Narnia doing that well. I've seen zero marketing for it. Batman will finish 1st or 2nd, no way its coming in 6th.

I've started seeing TV ads for it; it's still got another 3 weeks before it's released.

Jig Saw 123

04-26-2008, 09:48 PM

Iron Man: 202 Million
Speed Racer: 175 Million
The Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian: 240 Million
Indiana Jones IV: 255 Million
The Happening: 80 Million
The Incredible Hulk: 140 Million
Wall-E: 230 Million
Hellboy II: 95 Million
Hancock: 205 Million
The Dark Knight: 275 Million
The Mummy 3: 170 Million
X-Files 2: 75 Million

Frank the Tank

04-27-2008, 01:53 AM

Since I'm very bored, I'll take a shot at it:

May:

Iron Man - 178 million
Speed Racer - 125 million
What Happens In Vegas - 35 million
Chronicals of Narnia 2 - 220 Million
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 330 Million
Sex And The City - 62 Million

June:

Kung Fu Panda - 95 Million
You Don't Mess With The Zohan - 45 million (Probably won't happen, but the odd yet horrible plot could scare off Sandler fans)
Incredible Hulk - 205 Million
The Happening - 75 Million
Get Smart - 65 Million
The Love Guru - 55 Million
Wall-E - 280 Million
Wanted - 70 Million

July:

Hancock - 175 Million
Meet Dave - 30 Million (Possibly lower, this looks like Pluto Nash 2 to me.)
Hellboy 2 - 115 Million
The Dark Night - 310 Million
Mamma Mia - 69 Million
Step Brothers - 83 Million
The X Files 2 - 51 Million

August:

The Mummy 3 - 145 Million
Journey 3-D - 45 Million
Pineapple Express - 90 Million
Tropic Thunder - 110 Million
The International - 38 Million
Dragonball - 19 Million
Bangkok Dangerous - 25 Million
Babylon A.D. - 58 Million

BanksIsDaFuture

04-27-2008, 02:05 AM

Guess I'll take a stab at this.

May:

Iron Man - 220 million

Speed Racer - 110 million

What Happens In Vegas - 80 million

The Chronicles of Narnia 2 - 200 million

Indiana Jones - 325 million

Sex & The City - 75 million

June:

Kung Fu Panda - 160 million

You Don't Mess With The Zohan - 95 million

Incredible Hulk - 80 million

The Happening - 55 million

Get Smart - 120 million

Love Guru - 70 million

Wall-E - 290 million

Wanted - 110 million

July:

Hancock - 210 million

Hellboy 2 - 85 million

Meet Dave - 105 million

The Dark Knight - 310 million

Mamma Mia! - 55 million

Step Brothers - 135 million

The X-Files 2 - 65 million

August:

The Mummy 3 - 40 million

Pineapple Express - 100 million

Tropic Thunder - 140 million

Babylon A.D. - 70 million

Drewza89

04-27-2008, 03:53 AM

pablo_super1!

05-04-2008, 04:32 PM

Ok I didn't predict, but Currently as of Today Iron Man has made $ 100.8 Million in the US alone and about $200M worldwide. So who predicted it.

Bourne101

05-04-2008, 06:37 PM

After the success of Iron Man, I can't see anything exploding next weekend.

Worthystevens

05-04-2008, 07:32 PM

A third Mummy movie missing most of its original cast hardly has the clout of Bourne Ultimatum.

Vegas is no Devil Wears Prada. Prada had some serious pedigree behind it (and marketing), Vegas just looks dumb.

And no, Batman simply doesn't have the crossover appeal to make that much. Batman Begins just barely got over $200. So you're saying that this will be the most successful Batman movie of all time? Even though no Batman movie has come close to $300 million? I don't think so.

Batman '89 made $250 million... close enough to $300 million.

Let's not forget the absolute GARGANTUAN anticipation for TDK.

Bourne101

05-04-2008, 07:38 PM

The Dark Knight will make close to or more than $300 million. Its opening weekend will at least double Batman Begins' opening, and the word of mouth (which I expect will be great) should keep it atop the charts with small week to week drops, and virtually no competition. The Dark Knight will be huge.

Scarfather

05-04-2008, 08:56 PM

I expect The Dark Knight to do similar numbers to Dead Man's Chest.

Remember that the first Pirates didn't do phenomenal at the box office either, however it grew such a following on DVD that the sequels soared.

Let's just hope TDK is better then the meh fest that was DMC.

Though Batman Begins is a better film than Black Pearl anyway, so we shouldn't sweat it.

Bourne101

05-04-2008, 10:17 PM

The first Pirates actually made $306 million domestically at the box-office, but I see where you are coming from. It opened to only $46 million, and great word of mouth and DVD sales lead to higher grossing sequels. I expect The Dark Knight to follow a similar path. Batman Begins opened with $48 million, and went on to a whopping $205 million, and great word of mouth and DVD sales of Begins, will ultimately make The Dark Knight much more successful.... that and the fact that it looks to be, and should be amazing.

yorrick brown

05-04-2008, 10:52 PM

iron man will stay at number 1 next weekend ,with speed racer not even coming close to it.

dellamorte dellamore

05-05-2008, 09:47 AM

I wouldn't be so sure , kid's will eat up those day glo colors , i think SR has a chance to come out on top next weekend .

About Batman , it's easily crossing 300 mil , think i predicted 330 mil or so . The anticipation for this one is much like it was for Bat 89 , it's going to dominate for at least 3 weeks . I don't understand how some people are predicting that it will only make a little more than BB , what are they smoking , because i want some , it's either Indy or Bat on top for the spring / summer season , and although i'm predicting Indy as the winner ( if not domestic , definitely worldwide like At world's End last year ) , there is a chance TDK will be number one .

ilovemovies

05-05-2008, 10:18 AM

Ha. Looks like I underestimated Iron Man. I predicted it would do a total of 175 mil. It looks it will EASILY make 200 mil since it's already made 100 mil domestically in it's first week alone. It should make somewhere around 250 - 275 mil. Who knows, maybe it could even top 300. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility at this point although it will have competition with Narnia and Indy and depending how it does this weekend, Speed Racer.

skc087

05-08-2008, 12:49 AM

A third Mummy movie missing most of its original cast hardly has the clout of Bourne Ultimatum.

Vegas is no Devil Wears Prada. Prada had some serious pedigree behind it (and marketing), Vegas just looks dumb.

And no, Batman simply doesn't have the crossover appeal to make that much. Batman Begins just barely got over $200. So you're saying that this will be the most successful Batman movie of all time? Even though no Batman movie has come close to $300 million? I don't think so.

If a bad Batman movie back in 1989 can make $250 then a good Batman movie in 2008 movie can certainly make $300M.

yorrick brown

05-08-2008, 03:47 AM

Jig Saw 123

05-08-2008, 10:00 AM

Am I the only one who thinks Indy will not make as much as people are predicting. :rolleyes:

yorrick brown

05-11-2008, 03:02 AM

Speed Racer- $166 million
What Happens in Vegas- $30-40 million

yikes and add iron man ,thats 3 from 3 i`ve been miles off lol.

JoeChar4321

05-12-2008, 10:57 PM

On paper, Speed Racer has the potential to be the biggest movie of the Summer. Perhaps even the year.

The Happening and Speed Racer will be the bombs of the summer.

Hmmmmmm...

skc087

05-24-2008, 05:35 AM

Am I the only one who thinks Indy will not make as much as people are predicting. :rolleyes:

I think so. I just checked the day 1 estimaes for Thursday the 22 and it looks like it has already made $25M. It is estimated that it will bring in about $125 for this weekend.

Jig Saw 123

05-24-2008, 09:40 AM

I think so. I just checked the day 1 estimaes for Thursday the 22 and it looks like it has already made $25M. It is estimated that it will bring in about $125 for this weekend.

Thats actually lower than most expected, everyone was saying this will make the same as Spider-Man, which is completely ridiculous. I doubt it will hold up like Iron Man did, which is still kicking ass...

skc087

06-12-2008, 02:40 AM

As of June 11th, Indy 4 has already grossed $585M at the box office worldwide. Thats $257M in the US and $327 overseas. I think it will make atleast $300M total in the US and atleast $400 overseas and end at around $700M.

p_gautam

06-13-2008, 03:38 AM

Indiana is gonna die out somewhere near 320 million and TDK is gonna cross that. All in all, TDK will own this summer.

Iron Man will be a close 3rd to Indiana at around 320 too.

Wall-E at 4th with 300+

AndrewDB

06-13-2008, 03:42 AM

I'll be happy if TDK smashes the Opening Weekend that Spider-Man 3 has at $151,116,516.

ilovemovies

06-13-2008, 03:47 AM

At this point either The Dark Knight or potentially maybe Hancock I'm thinking will end up taking the top spot of the summer. That is unless Wall-E completely surprises and does that great.

Bourne101

06-13-2008, 12:48 PM

At this point, I nearly guarantee that The Dark Knight will be the highest grossing movie of the summer.

skc087

06-21-2008, 04:14 PM

At this point, I nearly guarantee that The Dark Knight will be the highest grossing movie of the summer.

I think that you might be wrong. It could do well in America but not overseas. Batman Begins only mad $166M overseas with a total of $371.

I think that Dark Knight could open at around $85 and then make a total of like $285 in the US and then mabe another $215 overseas to a total of $500 World Wide but thats about it.

Bourne101

06-21-2008, 07:45 PM

I think that you might be wrong. It could do well in America but not overseas. Batman Begins only mad $166M overseas with a total of $371.

I think that Dark Knight could open at around $85 and then make a total of like $285 in the US and then mabe another $215 overseas to a total of $500 World Wide but thats about it.

I was referring to domestic (US and Canada) and I think it will definitely come out on top domestically. Worldwide, not likely. Indy pretty much owns the worldwide status, although I think The Dark Knight will do much better worldwide than Batman Begins did. Hell, you never know, it could be top in worldwide and domestic numbers. Realize that the popularity of Batman has increased massively since Batman Begins. I think it will go down similar to Pirates of the Caribbean. The first one opened with around $50 million, and went on to create a huge fan base, long after the theatrical release and then the second opens huge and finishes huge both domestically and worldwide.

I think The Dark Knight will open well above the $100 million mark and will hold up very well with a great word of mouth and because there is no serious competition in its way. I'm talking like only 30-40% drops after the first weekend, maybe lower.

skc087

06-28-2008, 05:21 AM

Bourne101
"I think The Dark Knight will open well above the $100 million mark and will hold up very well with a great word of mouth and because there is no serious competition in its way. I'm talking like only 30-40% drops after the first weekend, maybe lower."

You are right about Pirates of the Caribbean. There are 2 things that are going against Batman 1) The new movie Dark Knight is more than 2.5 hrs long....and I know that Pirates 2 was well over 2.5 hrs but still thats one thing that might turn some people off and 2) Its very very dark. I dont think that adults will take their kids to see this movie like they would with Iron Man or Indy

Worthystevens

08-05-2008, 01:48 PM

1. The Dark Knight, $410 million
2. Indy 4, $350 million
3. Narnia, $275 million
4. Wall-E, $240 million
5. Iron Man, $210 million
6. Hancock, $185 million
7. Wanted, $170 million
8. Hulk, $160 million
9. The Mummy, $155 million
10. Speed Racer, $140 million
11. Step Brothers, $137 million
12. Tropic Thunder, $130 million
13. Get Smart, $125 million
14. The Pineapple Express, $120 million
15. The Happening, $115 million
16. X-Files 2, $110 million
17. Sex and the City, $100 million

Holy fuck. I was way off on a few of these movies. Except for TDK.

Bourne101

08-10-2008, 11:04 PM

The Dark Knight- $400 million

The Dark Knight- $240 million

The Dark Knight- $220 million

The Dark Knight - $300 million

1. The Dark Knight, $410 million

however good the dark knight may be, it will NOT beat indy 4, it just aint happening. im sorry no :D

personally i think indy could top 400m and batman just getting 300m i emphasise the word JUST

Batman Begins made $205 million domestically. I highly doubt The Dark Knight will DOUBLE that, but I definitely see a big boost. I'm pegging it around $300m for now.

Dk should really tear things up now that Nolan doesn't have to convince anyone that this isn't the same batman they grew accustomed to when Burton and Schu were doing their thing , and mister obvious , people want to see the joker in action again . 330 mil

The Dark Knight- $280 million

3. The Dark Knight - $280 Million

The Dark Knight will land somewhere around the $300 million mark

I don't doubt The Dark Knight beating Jones, but 400 mil? Pfft.

No.

The Dark Knight- $410 million

Indy IV: 330M+ (if any make over 400M, it will be Indy)
TDK: 275M+

Batman The Dark Knight: $315 M

The Dark Knight- $400 million

The Dark Knight- $350 million

I find it funny that people actually think TDK is going to make more than Indy 4. I doubt TDK will reach $300million even if it's the greatest thing ever, and Indy 4 will far surpass $300million even if it sucks ass. Indy is in Star Wars territory, way too many fans for it to ever make less than $300million. TDK will do better than Begins, but not by that much. If TDK does reach $300million it will be barely, I predict something at around $280million.

I'm with most of you here, I think Indy will be #1 followed by The Dark Night. Although TDK has the whole Heath Ledger death thing to boost sales, nothing is going to touch Harrison Ford. Seriously.

The Dark Knight- $220 million

Dark Knight at $220? More like $290

And let's face it. Dark Knight is just too dark to make that kind of cash. It ain't Pirates of the Caribbean that inexplicably had entire families flocking to see it.

I think it will clear $250 easily. Maybe $300.

And no, Batman simply doesn't have the crossover appeal to make that much. Batman Begins just barely got over $200. So you're saying that this will be the most successful Batman movie of all time? Even though no Batman movie has come close to $300 million? I don't think so.

I don't only think TDK will be the most successful Batman film of all time, I think it'll be HUGE.

I'm predicting a 90+ million opening, easy.

EW released their list:

1. Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (355.9 million)
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (310.8 million)
3. Hancock (280.4 million)
4. Wall-E (280.3 million)
5. Iron Man (267.7 million)
6. The Dark Knight (255.0 million)
7. Kung Fu Panda (244.6 million)
8. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (176.5 million)
9. The Incredible Hulk (147.2 million)
10. Tropic Thunder (146.6 million)

Interesting.

The Dark Knight: 275 Million

The Dark Night - 310 Million

The Dark Knight - 310 million

The Dark Knight $295,000,000

I think that Dark Knight could open at around $85 and then make a total of like $285 in the US and then mabe another $215 overseas to a total of $500 World Wide but thats about it.

Wow, we were WAY WAY WAY the fuck off. Even the high-ballers were off.

Backstabba

08-10-2008, 11:16 PM

Yeah but I was closest.

:-P

(Okay, TIED for closest. What do you want from me?)

corran horn

08-11-2008, 10:54 AM

My projected grosses for the big summer films

Indy IV: 330M+ (if any make over 400M, it will be Indy)
TDK: 275M+
Prince Caspian: 260-290 (it will match its predessor's gross or come close)
Wall-E: 250+ (could easily make FINDING NEMO-sized numbers)
Hancock: 220-250 (see above)
Iron Man: 200-225
Kung Fu Panda: 130-160 (based on performance of other DW animations)
Incredible Hulk: 120-140 (way less excitement for this one)
Mummy 3: 110-140 (best-case scenario)
Hellboy 2: 100-125
Speed Racer: 90-110 (I can't see it beating out Iron Man, and Prince Caspian will crush it)

Well...looks like I both overestimated AND underestimated this summer's releases. Speed Racer and Caspian crashed and burned (though I'm quite elated by that). Hellboy 2's projections were, in all honesty, nothing more than a dream. Iron Man surpassed my wildest hopes, while Indy was something of a disappointment. As for Wall-E, I can see how, with its subject matter and use of silent cinema, it may not have done as well as I would have liked, BUT it isn't doing too badly for itself either. I was right on with Hancock and Hulk. As for TDK, in my defense, I did say 275M was its floor. I just didn't expect it to pack the punch it did.

I was right about TDK and WALL-E being the best films of the summer (indeed maybe even the year). What I didn't expect was how good they (and Iron Man and Hellboy 2) really were. Summer 2008 has officially entered my book as the best movie summer of the decade.

dellamorte dellamore

08-11-2008, 05:47 PM

I see the possibility of 3 movies crossing 300 plus mil this summer . The obvious one is Indy , then you have DK and Hancock . Prince Caspian , i'm not sure , it may flirt with 300 mil but may just come up short .

I was right about three films crossing 300 mil , but got one of them wrong .

It looks like this spring / summer season will be even bigger than last , but once again it's sequel mania gone wild . At least Hancock isn't sequel , well , in a way it is , it's the fresh Prince on yet another role lol . Just kidding it looks funny as hell , should be good .

Hancock did excellent , but i thought it would do a bit better , at least 280 mil

Indy , ah , i'm lukewarm on this one , i was hoping Connery was in it , it's what made the last one so amazing , this one sort of looks like a greatest hits version of the franchise , not that excited for it , although there's no doubt it will give people what they want and make tons of dough . 360 mil

Overestimated this one but it did cross 300 mil

Dk should really tear things up now that Nolan doesn't have to convince anyone that this isn't the same batman they grew accustomed to when Burton and Schu were doing their thing , and mister obvious , people want to see the joker in action again . 330 mil

It did tear things up and people really did want to see the Joker , but it really just took on a life of it's own . It's funny because i think i said way back when that this is the film everyone wants to see , i should have went with that instinct . The Joker has always been a cash cow and the most successful Bat films star him , who knew it would take off like this though . Then again , i should have adjusted for inflation , Bat 89 made 250 mil and that one starred the Joker , so what is that 450 or something in today's dollars , so it's close to what this one will do . Yeah right , that's that hindsight thing again :) .

Hancock looks gut busting , Smith is really in his element now , he's doing the best work of his career , and he's totally confident in his abilities as an actor / entertainer . This thing is going to be huge , a nice counterpoint to the serious comic book offering of Dk . 305 mil

A bit off on this one , it should top out at 220 mil or so .

Prince Caspian looks like more Lotr lite . I did mildly enjoy the first one , it was entertaining , somewhat , i just never cared much for the characters or story , i was longing for the brilliance of Lotr the whole time . This series is a combo of Lotr and Potter , i love one and hated the other , so i had a split response to the first one . I could care less about this second installment , but i realize there are a good number of people who would disagree with me about this franchise and it's going to clean up . ( will Santa Clause show up again , or maybe the Easter bunny this time ) 270 mil

Way off on this one , i gave it too much credit , but the funny thing is , i tore it a new one than i predicted it was going to do 270 mil , i should have listened to my inner pessimist on this one because " he " was right .