Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
19-11-2018, 16:56   #31
Stone Deaf 4evr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Palmr View Post
Why would anyone be against a sequel to Shawn the sheep?!
I now want a fast and furious crossover with Aardman studios.

Hobbs and Shaun.
Stone Deaf 4evr is offline  
Advertisement
20-11-2018, 22:54   #32
Wedwood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 514
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).
Wedwood is offline  
21-11-2018, 00:57   #33
SimonTemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedwood View Post
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.
SimonTemplar is offline  
25-11-2018, 03:49   #34
ebbsy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,630
Why do a remake of Jacobs Ladder.

A great film the first time around. Leave it alone.
ebbsy is offline  
(2) thanks from:
25-11-2018, 09:43   #35
silverharp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonTemplar View Post
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

Last edited by silverharp; 25-11-2018 at 09:47.
silverharp is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
17-11-2019, 18:26   #36
silverharp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,076
Charlie's Angels appears to be a flop, the original movie took in $40m on its first weekend

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

Quote:
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.
silverharp is offline  
Thanks from:
18-11-2019, 13:08   #37
loyatemu
Registered User
 
loyatemu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverharp View Post
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.
loyatemu is offline  
18-11-2019, 16:19   #38
Harry Palmr
Registered User
 
Harry Palmr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 32,316
Good news for everyone in the end. Recycling brand names every 15-20 years is not sustainable.
Harry Palmr is offline  
Thanks from:
18-11-2019, 16:59   #39
S.M.B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,700
Unless you're Disney...
S.M.B. is offline  
Advertisement
18-11-2019, 17:02   #40
pixelburp
Moderator
 
pixelburp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,745
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.
pixelburp is offline  
18-11-2019, 18:46   #41
Agent Coulson
Registered User
 
Agent Coulson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 37,720
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.
Agent Coulson is offline  
18-11-2019, 19:09   #42
Unearthly
Registered User
 
Unearthly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,769
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
Unearthly is offline  
18-11-2019, 19:36   #43
silverharp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Coulson View Post
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 , seems like women didnt want to see it either

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/..._cso_table_186
silverharp is offline  
19-11-2019, 14:56   #44
Tony EH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,381
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.
Tony EH is offline  
19-11-2019, 18:14   #45
Sad Professor
Information Retrieval
 
Sad Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,338
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.
Sad Professor is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet