CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 617

post #30801 of 35240
Bourne does 60M.

Star Trek drops 60% (both Abrams films dropped less than 45%). How much is Paramount courting him to come back to direct the fourth now?
post #30802 of 35240
The one nuTrek film I like happens to be the one audiences are less enthusiastic about.

C'est la vie.
post #30803 of 35240
There shouldn't be a fourth. Trek belongs on TV.
post #30804 of 35240
Aw man, I just got around to see BEYOND Friday and had a hell of a time.
post #30805 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

There shouldn't be a fourth. Trek belongs on TV.

I agree with this sentiment.

However, Paramount no longer owns the TV rights for Trek, so they pretty much have no choice but to make movies. Given that case, I think their only realistic course of action is to make mid-budget Trek films like they smartly did before Bad Robot came along.
post #30806 of 35240

I dunno if I'd use the word "smartly" to describe those films. 

post #30807 of 35240
I'd love it if the lesson from Beyond was to make the franchise smaller. But I bet the lesson ends up being don't make more Trek movies for a bit.

I think they were hurt by STID and by the late July berth. That and people are getting tired of movies this year.
post #30808 of 35240
Also, the build up for the film was non-existent. I knew several people that loved the first two and were anticipating another, and had no idea one was coming out in two weeks.
post #30809 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I dunno if I'd use the word "smartly" to describe those films. 

Strictly speaking about the budgets. The first film was a big budget project expected to do STAR WARS numbers and didn't even come close. They cut it down significantly for THE WRATH OF KHAN and that resulted in better profit. The following films pretty much kept that budget to a reasonable minimum until NEMESIS put the franchise in a coma.
post #30810 of 35240
They've always seemed a little tight with the budgets all the way up till Trek 09. But it didn't really look that way until Insurrection. It and Nemesis looked dirt cheap..
post #30811 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

There shouldn't be a fourth. Trek belongs on TV.

You're getting both.
post #30812 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

I'd love it if the lesson from Beyond was to make the franchise smaller. But I bet the lesson ends up being don't make more Trek movies for a bit.

 

Good thing they're not Sony or Fox.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Strictly speaking about the budgets. The first film was a big budget project expected to do STAR WARS numbers and didn't even come close. They cut it down significantly for THE WRATH OF KHAN and that resulted in better profit. The following films pretty much kept that budget to a reasonable minimum until NEMESIS put the franchise in a coma.

 

Wrath of Khan was shot using Paramount's TV division. That's how cheap they went with it.


Edited by Hammerhead - 7/31/16 at 11:59am
post #30813 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

That last one just fully embraces the schlock, now I want to watch it again!

 

I'm really cross with myself for missing Resident Evil Part 5 in the cinema (first one I hadn't seen there). I can't remember why I was doing this but for some reason, I was making some kind of statement which was why I only saw 3 movies in the cinema the entire year of 2012 - Avengers, Iron Sky and Prometheus. Prometheus looked great in IMAX but for the amount of fun I had, I'd trade Resident Evil 5 for it in a heartbeat, just to have seen that opening sequence on the big screen alone.

 

The last major fight scene was really entertaining too because it was just totally mad. First off, the main villains intercept our heroes by bursting through the ice in a submarine, then when Leon Kennedy sees they've got Ada Wong prisoner, he's like "I told you she'd have a plan.". Yeah, great plan Leon. Then Rain pulls out some gnarly looking creature in a big syringe and Leon's like "The Las Plagas parasite." and I'm like "What are you, the narrator?" - and now I'm just realising that, that just translates to "The plagues.", doesn't it? Oh Resident Evil, don't ever change.

 

Then Rain shoots the parasite into her neck, knocks Ada clean out with the butt of her gun and then Leon and Luther shoot her full of holes but the parasite makes her instantly immune to bullets and she just passes them straight back out again through her fingertips and stuff (there's no place for biology here!). So of course, the logical thing to do is engage someone who you can no longer hurt with gunfire in a fistfight.

 

Meanwhile, at the exact same time, Jill Valentine and Alice engage in a fight and Jill utterly wipes the floor with Alice from start to finish. I don't blame her, actually. Alice is Jill's friend and knows she's mind controlled - Umbrella are if nothing else, not even remotely subtle, given Jill has a giant red electronic spider on her chest - and yet Alice gives her best effort to try and kill Jill from start to finish in this movie. She's not shooting to miss, especially with the start of this fight and if even one of those blows with her katanas had landed, no way was Jill getting back up again. Well, assuming reality was somewhere in the building, or at least the carpark. Not always a given with series, I know.

 

I wish I could have found one complete clip but enjoy the madness here. You can either autoplay it from the first one or just use this post here.

 

Part 1

 

 

Part 2

 

 

 

Part 3

 

 

Part 4

 

post #30814 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

 

I totally failed to think of Wentworth Miller and Prison Break when I was watching part 4 (Afterlife). His very first scene was in a special jail cell in the middle of a big room inside the prison. If I remember this story correctly, I later heard that he read the script and originally thought they were making fun of him precisely because he was the star of that TV show. Then he's like "Oh wait, you're serious aren't you?"


Edited by Shan - 7/31/16 at 1:03pm
post #30815 of 35240

This thread has taken a terrifying turn. Much more terrifying than these Resident Evil films have ever been.

post #30816 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 

This thread has taken a terrifying turn. Much more terrifying than these Resident Evil films have ever been.

 

Jason Bourne has taken in about $60 million this weekend and got an A- Cinemascore from opening day audiences. I'm starting to wonder if we're the ones who are not only out of step but actually just completely wrong about film, this, Transformers movies etc etc and maybe we should just give in and learn how to appreciate what the masses like. Then again, maybe that's the really terrifying prospect?

post #30817 of 35240

I think Resident Evil movies are the epitome of giving in to what the masses like...and then forgetting about it all 2 minutes after it's done.

post #30818 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 

I think Resident Evil movies are the epitome of giving in to what the masses like...and then forgetting about it all 2 minutes after it's done.

 

I suppose, maybe. At least they're sufficiently gonzo insane to be fun in a strange sort of way (even that effect was unintentional). It also helps that they're not ridiculously long, either. There's no reason Michael Bay films need to be as long as they are (except Michael Bay that is). 

 

Also, I guess they're not completely forgettable either. Here we are talking about them - also I think it helps that each film has at least one memorable set piece (for some people at least). Maybe they're not always good set pieces but at least they're not forgettable, either.

post #30819 of 35240

What I don't understand about the Resident Evil movies is how different they are to the games.

 

You would think that a film franchise would want to cash in on the appeal of the games -- survival horror -- not crazy sci-fi gun battles.

post #30820 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
 

What I don't understand about the Resident Evil movies is how different they are to the games.

 

You would think that a film franchise would want to cash in on the appeal of the games -- survival horror -- not crazy sci-fi gun battles.

 

Well, I know George A. Romero wrote a script for the first film that was much closer to the games.

 

And yet, here we are.

post #30821 of 35240
I was pretty big on the orignal few games so that really irked me as well.

But then the last film introduces several plot points and villians from the games, along with several main characters from the games including Leon, Ada, and Barry. You find out that all those game stories did happen but the films follow a separate path.

That Romero script used to be online, and I liked it! He even included Neptune the great white shark!
post #30822 of 35240

I mean, even the "Resident" part of the title hints at the film or at least the "evil" itself being set in a house.

post #30823 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
 

I mean, even the "Resident" part of the title hints at the film or at least the "evil" itself being set in a house.

 

On the other hand, the game series was called Biohazard in Japan, wasn't it? So goodness knows where Resident Evil came from. Though I guess it distinctly belongs to the series, so mention it, if people know at all what you're talking about, they'll know it's this or the games. Biohazard is a bit more generic, this is true.

post #30824 of 35240
That's just a crappy title change from the orignal Japanese games. And the games never really adhered to the "trapped in a house" thing. I know the game creators never liked the name.

They say "biohazard" throughout the movies, don't they?
Edited by Raynis - 7/31/16 at 2:37pm
post #30825 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
 

Also, I guess they're not completely forgettable either. Here we are talking about them - also I think it helps that each film has at least one memorable set piece (for some people at least). Maybe they're not always good set pieces but at least they're not forgettable, either.

 

Aren't they though? We're talking about them cause they never end. There's like five of them. I think of them like I do the Underworld series, generic. I remember seeing the fourth one but can't remember a damn thing about it. Basically it's a franchise for Paul Anderson to cast his wife as the lead. I don't see Alice on any iconic movie character lists.

post #30826 of 35240
Not critic lists, no.

But I know a fuckload of people that are completely in love with Alice and Milla. Like tattoos and shit. She is, without a doubt, the Ripley of the mindless masses. I remember the trailer in theaters for the fourth one: The text screens say "MILLA JOVOVICH... IN 3D!"

The crowd lost it.
post #30827 of 35240

To be fair, Anderson does shoot 3D well.

post #30828 of 35240
They're too weird to be forgettable. The dreary UNDERWORLD series does not have RESIDENT EVIL's gonzo ethos.
post #30829 of 35240
I enjoyed the 5th one.

The 3rd one stunk. So boring.
post #30830 of 35240
I finally gave up on the Resident Evil series after part four. I thought the dude with the giant hammer would be nifty, but I was mistaken.
post #30831 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I enjoyed the 5th one.

The 3rd one stunk. So boring.
I get 'em mixed up because I've generally watched them in segments. A bit on TV here, a bit on streaming services there...

I recall liking the fifth one more than the others.

The second one is widely regarded as the worst one, right?
post #30832 of 35240

I never saw the 2nd or the 4th.

post #30833 of 35240
I remember hating the second one and then being reluctant to see the third one. Jesus, I used to be like Freem and see movies I was almost certain I'd dislike.

Now, now I am truly free, man.
post #30834 of 35240
If you wanna see how weirdly obsessed the vulgar auteurists get with Anderson and this film series in general, I invite you to read Neil Bahadur's thoughts on RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION.
post #30835 of 35240

and yet the same reviewer gave FACE/OFF only 2 STARS??????

 

FOR SHAAAAAME!!!

post #30836 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I get 'em mixed up because I've generally watched them in segments. A bit on TV here, a bit on streaming services there...

I recall liking the fifth one more than the others.

The second one is widely regarded as the worst one, right?

 

That's probably the best way to watch any of the series for most people instead of from start to finish in order. Just dive in at random and watch clips of what are generally thought to be the best bits from any of the movies in no particular order. Or at least the bits where something happens involving more explosions and less talking.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I finally gave up on the Resident Evil series after part four. I thought the dude with the giant hammer would be nifty, but I was mistaken.

 

I've probably put most of what is most worth seeing of part 5 in this thread, namely the very start and the fight at the end.

post #30837 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

To be fair, Anderson does shoot 3D well.

 

He's also one of the very few directors working now who actually shoots in 3D.

post #30838 of 35240
I was at a comic book convention before the first "Underworld" came out, and the actor with the super deep voice said in his super deep voice during an "Underworld" panel that Len Wiseman was the next James Cameron.

He married his lead actress, so I guess he's kinda like Cameron.
post #30839 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I was at a comic book convention before the first "Underworld" came out, and the actor with the super deep voice said in his super deep voice during an "Underworld" panel that Len Wiseman was the next James Cameron.

He married his lead actress, so I guess he's kinda like Cameron.

 

Well, I did get one never to be repeated experience from a film thanks to him. I'm watching Underworld for the first time in a hotel in Sri Lanka and I'm about halfway through watching a giant at least part CGI vampire when I suddenly go "Wait a moment, is that Bill Nighy?"

 

I can honestly say I wasn't expecting that.

post #30840 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

Any franchise that brings back Michelle Rodriguez despite having killed off her character is doing something right.

 

The Fast And The Furious series did this too, I think.

post #30841 of 35240
Hopefully "Avatar 2: The Search for Letty" brings her back as well.
post #30842 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Hopefully "Avatar 2: The Search for Letty" brings her back as well.


That is my dream, yes.

post #30843 of 35240
I love Michelle Rodriguez so much.

<3
post #30844 of 35240
She is unique. Not many people can say they were jealous that a friend and co-worker died senselessly and horribly before they did.
post #30845 of 35240

Also, she was arguably resurected in her sideways-universe appearance in Lost season 6.

 

Each time she reincarnates, she gains wisdom, like the Dalai Lama.

post #30846 of 35240

Michelle Rodriguez + Vin Diesel

 

 

= CHEMISTRY!

post #30847 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post
 

Also, she was arguably resurrected in her sideways-universe appearance in Lost season 6.

 

Each time she reincarnates, she gains wisdom, like the Dalai Lama.

 

Having met the Dalai Lama (well, the current one, anyway), I'm going to dispute that at least slightly. He's like on a whole other level to us mere mortals, even Hollywood celebrities.

post #30848 of 35240
I wonder if this summer is making studios sweat slightly. Seems like there's a *lot* of stuff struggling to make a profit even when they're reasonably popular, because they spent too much and expected international to pick up the slack.
post #30849 of 35240
It's been a disaster, right? Basically everything that wasn't Civil War, Dory or Pets was a disappointment at best.

The lesson? More superheroes!
post #30850 of 35240
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Why not count WW, though? Money is money. It's made $433M on a budget of $160M so, technically, Warcraft's not a flop.

Marketing budget. Usually equal to and often greater than the production budget, so WoW flopped (studios get roughly half the gross, and only 25% of China). This is why blockbusters are becoming bad business.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread