Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

2019 - a new low for Hollywood originality?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Wedwood


    There's a good article on the history of movie sequels on Den of Geek.

    In short, there's been sequels since movies came out. Up to the late 1960's these movies would usually have different names (e.g. the James Bond series). From the 1970's onwards, we got the numbered sequels (Godfather 2, Jaws 2 etc).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    Wedwood wrote: »
    There's a good article on the history of movie sequels on Den of Geek.

    In short, there's been sequels since movies came out. Up to the late 1960's these movies would usually have different names (e.g. the James Bond series). From the 1970's onwards, we got the numbered sequels (Godfather 2, Jaws 2 etc).


    Good point. There were 14 Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies between 1939 and 1946.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,736 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    Why do a remake of Jacobs Ladder.

    A great film the first time around. Leave it alone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Good point. There were 14 Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies between 1939 and 1946.

    they are more like episodes of inspector morse and most of the movies are about 70 minutes so i assume they were shown along with something else., not really comparable to today

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Charlie's Angels appears to be a flop, the original movie took in $40m on its first weekend

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed3765437444/
    Sony's Charlie's Angels, however, isn't living up even to the most modest of pre-weekend expectations, bringing in just $3.15 million on Friday, looking at a three-day weekend around $8 million. The film received a "B+" CinemaScore from opening day audiences.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,729 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    silverharp wrote: »
    Charlie's Angels appears to be a flop, the original movie took in $40m on its first weekend

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed3765437444/

    Terminator: Dark Fate looks to be underperforming as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Good news for everyone in the end. Recycling brand names every 15-20 years is not sustainable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭S.M.B.


    Unless you're Disney...


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Was about to make the same snark; let's not pretend that remaking franchises & IPs isn't some viable avenue. Disney are banking on our goodwill and patience for the same stuff, repackaged. Episode VII was almost laughably transparent in that respect.

    Lest we forget: Disney released FOUR live-action renames in a 12 month period recently. FOUR. I don't blame the Sonys of this world for trying to chase that cheddar, even if they overestimate the value of properties like Men in Black or Charlie's Angels.


  • Registered Users Posts: 60,279 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Charlie's Angels had a $50m budget I think so I would expect it to make a decent profit with worldwide takings.


    I think a lot of studios will look at Joker and before that Deadpool both coming form huge franchises and made on small budgets yet raked in the money.

    Solo was a box office bomb yet made probably made a $100m profit.


    We won't see the end of remakes, reboots etc when they make money no matter how little.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭Unearthly


    If anything new films not linked to any franchises or sequels are struggling box office wise.

    Tenet is an interesting one next year. Huge 225 million budget with no stand out A list actor. Goes to show the draw Christopher Nolan has


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Charlie's Angels had a $50m budget I think so I would expect it to make a decent profit with worldwide takings.


    I think a lot of studios will look at Joker and before that Deadpool both coming form huge franchises and made on small budgets yet raked in the money.

    Solo was a box office bomb yet made probably made a $100m profit.


    We won't see the end of remakes, reboots etc when they make money no matter how little.

    Solo was a financial bomb too, it took just under $400m gross but it cost $275m , Disney lost at least $100m on this if not much more.
    A 50m movie has a better chance to break even at least but looks like Banks is already bitching at men for not seeing her movie even though was telegraphed that it want made for men :D , seems like women didnt want to see it either :pac:

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt3778644/?ref_=bo_cso_table_186

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,903 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Solo's real budget was probably closer to over 300 million with everything factored in. That meant it would have had to have made over 600 million to be considered having made the studio's money back, and upwards of a billion for Disney to have considered it a hit.

    A lot of people on here know my opinion of that film, so I'll not rehash it here. But, yeah, 'Solo' flopped and it flopped really hard.

    The most astonishing thing about the whole affair is how nobody at Disney could see that the whole thing was simply a bad idea from the beginning.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Streaming rights, merchandising, home video... Even Solo will make a profit eventually. That's the magic of modern blockbusters with popular brand names: they can't fail.


Advertisement