Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:37 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
3D 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1494
Post Re: 3D
Quote:
Paramount is making a last-minute change to its summer schedule by pushing back Hasbro sequel "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" from June 29 to March 29, 2013, to give the studio time to convert the pic to 3D.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118054562


Wed May 23, 2012 5:44 pm
Profile
Post Re: 3D
calvero wrote:
Quote:
Paramount is making a last-minute change to its summer schedule by pushing back Hasbro sequel "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" from June 29 to March 29, 2013, to give the studio time to convert the pic to 3D.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118054562


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Wed May 23, 2012 5:54 pm
Post Re: 3D
calvero wrote:
Quote:
Paramount is making a last-minute change to its summer schedule by pushing back Hasbro sequel "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" from June 29 to March 29, 2013, to give the studio time to convert the pic to 3D.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118054562

Oh man I am super pissed now! :evil: I was really looking forward to Retaliation, now I have to wait almost a whole year to see it cause the studios want to make one last desperate attempt to force 3-D on the masses despite clear evidence that 3-D isn't making anywhere near as much money as it was a few years ago. I REALLY hope that this decision somehow gets reversed, in fact, i'm going to start a petition to get Paramount to back down from this decision, maybe it won't do any good, but as a moviegoer i'm tired of being jerked around, and I want to at least try and make a difference rather then just taking it up the ass.


Wed May 23, 2012 5:57 pm
Post Re: 3D
Ok here's my petition, probably could've written it better, but I just had to get it out there, maybe i'll rewrite parts of it later, if any of you would sign I would greatly appreciate it. Even if you don't have any interest in seeing the film, if this decision goes through, you can bet other film companies will follow suit.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sto ... oe-re.html


Wed May 23, 2012 9:07 pm
Post Re: 3D
Patrick wrote:
calvero wrote:
Quote:
Paramount is making a last-minute change to its summer schedule by pushing back Hasbro sequel "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" from June 29 to March 29, 2013, to give the studio time to convert the pic to 3D.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118054562


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patrick, either you need to lay off the drugs or smoke more, unless you're being sarcastic.


Wed May 23, 2012 9:57 pm
Post Re: 3D
http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/g-i-joe-retaliation-moving-to-march-2012-to-add-3d-for-bigger-foreign-box-office/

Hopefully this'll work out for Paramount, although it feels strange having already spent cash on advertising.


Thu May 24, 2012 12:08 am
Post Re: 3D
Ciacco wrote:
http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/g-i-joe-retaliation-moving-to-march-2012-to-add-3d-for-bigger-foreign-box-office/

Hopefully this'll work out for Paramount, although it feels strange having already spent cash on advertising.

There's no way this decision is going to work out for Paramount, they've just alienated tons of fans by doing this, if there was ever a surefire way to promote piracy, this is it.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this film somehow gets leaked online sometime next month or so. If my petition dosen't work, then i'm definitely going to watch this film online in protest.

Shutter Island's succes was a fluke and an exception rather then the rule, and Hunger Games was a success because it was based off a popular book series with a strong appeal to both the male and female demographic, but the failure of John Carter proved that March is usually not an ideal month for blockbuster type films. I'll bet the REAL reason Paramount delayed this film is because they're getting cold feet due to the dissapointing box-office returns for Battleship. Plus March 2013 is already pretty crowded with Jack the Giantkiller, the new Percy Jackson films, etc. If this film gets released in 2013, it's going to become the next John Carter.


Thu May 24, 2012 12:15 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1588
Post Re: 3D
Vexer wrote:
I'll bet the REAL reason Paramount delayed this film is because they're getting cold feet due to the dissapointing box-office returns for Battleship.


I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse.

Battleship's already been written off as a bomb. This, a sequel to a movie that wasn't really necessary in the first place, opens against the latest Spiderman and a week later The Dark Knight Rises. This after The Avengers sunk Battleship. 3d Conversion? Bullshit. They figure it's best to bury it as much as possible and maybe hope it'll be less of a bomb.

Shedding no tears here at all as the next GI Joe movie interested me about as much as a tub of dishwater. Ironically the original GI Joe, while not anywhere near being good, wasn't mind numbingly awful either. It was mediocre to a t.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Thu May 24, 2012 11:13 am
Profile
Post Re: 3D
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I'll bet the REAL reason Paramount delayed this film is because they're getting cold feet due to the dissapointing box-office returns for Battleship.


I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse.

Battleship's already been written off as a bomb. This, a sequel to a movie that wasn't really necessary in the first place, opens against the latest Spiderman and a week later The Dark Knight Rises. This after The Avengers sunk Battleship. 3d Conversion? Bullshit. They figure it's best to bury it as much as possible and maybe hope it'll be less of a bomb.

Shedding no tears here at all as the next GI Joe movie interested me about as much as a tub of dishwater. Ironically the original GI Joe, while not anywhere near being good, wasn't mind numbingly awful either. It was mediocre to a t.
Well even if you don't have any interest in seeing the film, the fact remains that delaying and converting a film just a month before release is highly unprofessional behavior and it could very well set a precedent for other film companies to do the same thing, and nobody wants that(though if any film should've been pushed back to next year, it's Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, I doubt too many people would miss it) If you get sold an inferior product, you expect a refund, well that's exactly what this post-conversion 3-D is, an inferior product designed to suck money from people too ignorant to know the difference between real and fake 3-D. So I urge everyone to like this Facebook page to stand up for everyone getting sick of having 3-D crammed down our throats at every opportunity, especially post-conversion 3-D.

http://www.facebook.com/MessageToHasbroStopTheMadnessWithGiJoe


Thu May 24, 2012 12:27 pm
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1494
Post Re: 3D
Quote:
I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse


Paramount said this was mainly about international box office.

3D is showing no signs of slowing down abroad(partly since they have no choice, unlike US, pretty much all screens for a 3D release in many countries only have the 3D option)

Its amazing how much more important non US box office has become, US was by far the most important market 20 years ago, now so many films underperform here but do well internationally. Its pretty shocking to see Avengers & Battleship(which has 200 mill from intl BO, US won't get anywhere near that number) premiere outside of the US, again that was unheard of not too long ago.

from deadline(Ciacco posted it upthread)

Quote:
But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me.


Thu May 24, 2012 1:08 pm
Profile
Post Re: 3D
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse


Paramount said this was mainly about international box office.

3D is showing no signs of slowing down abroad(partly since they have no choice, unlike US, pretty much all screens for a 3D release in many countries only have the 3D option)

Its amazing how much more important non US box office has become, US was by far the most important market 20 years ago, now so many films underperform here but do well internationally. Its pretty shocking to see Avengers & Battleship(which has 200 mill from intl BO, US won't get anywhere near that number) premiere outside of the US, again that was unheard of not too long ago.

from deadline(Ciacco posted it upthread)

Quote:
But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me.

If Paramount actually thinks they're going to get more money overseas because of this move, then they have even less intelligence then the cast of Jersey Shore, even people overseas are getting pissed off over this decision, and rightfully so since like you said, most other countries won't even be offering 2-D options, so they'll be forced into paying for an inferior product if they want to se the film in theaters.


Thu May 24, 2012 1:19 pm
Post Re: 3D
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse


Paramount said this was mainly about international box office.

3D is showing no signs of slowing down abroad(partly since they have no choice, unlike US, pretty much all screens for a 3D release in many countries only have the 3D option)

Its amazing how much more important non US box office has become, US was by far the most important market 20 years ago, now so many films underperform here but do well internationally. Its pretty shocking to see Avengers & Battleship(which has 200 mill from intl BO, US won't get anywhere near that number) premiere outside of the US, again that was unheard of not too long ago.

from deadline(Ciacco posted it upthread)

Quote:
But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me.


Nailed it.

Why release what's likely going to be a turd of a movie between 2 of the summer's biggest releases? Convert it to 3D, push it back to next year when it won't be against big summer releases, and milk that motherfuckin surcharge, son!

Seriously though, it's a bit surprising, but I can understand it given the likely boost from overseas (despite what you say, Vex, my guess is most overseas audiences will forgot or not care by next year). It was obviously going to bomb this summer, at least it has a chance to make money now.

I won't be seeing it either way because it looks like it blows big dicks.


Thu May 24, 2012 4:31 pm
Post Re: 3D
PeachyPete wrote:
calvero wrote:
Quote:
I agree with that. I don't buy the 3-d conversion part. That seems too much like a convenient excuse


Paramount said this was mainly about international box office.

3D is showing no signs of slowing down abroad(partly since they have no choice, unlike US, pretty much all screens for a 3D release in many countries only have the 3D option)

Its amazing how much more important non US box office has become, US was by far the most important market 20 years ago, now so many films underperform here but do well internationally. Its pretty shocking to see Avengers & Battleship(which has 200 mill from intl BO, US won't get anywhere near that number) premiere outside of the US, again that was unheard of not too long ago.

from deadline(Ciacco posted it upthread)

Quote:
But I’ve learned that Paramount is moving the movie nine months to March 29, 2013, to add 3D. “We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally,” one of the studio execs just told me.


Nailed it.

Why release what's likely going to be a turd of a movie between 2 of the summer's biggest releases? Convert it to 3D, push it back to next year when it won't be against big summer releases, and milk that motherfuckin surcharge, son!

Seriously though, it's a bit surprising, but I can understand it given the likely boost from overseas (despite what you say, Vex, my guess is most overseas audiences will forgot or not care by next year). It was obviously going to bomb this summer, at least it has a chance to make money now.

I won't be seeing it either way because it looks like it blows big dicks.

Not really, this decision is going to piss off everyone and please no one, March 2013 does actually have some pretty serous competition for this film anyways, it's going to flop like a dead fish.


Thu May 24, 2012 4:53 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1588
Post Re: 3D
http://www.vulture.com/2012/05/gi-joe-2-delayed-to-add-more-channing-tatum.html?mid=rss

So the real reason for the GI Joe delay is to add more Channing Tatum scenes. Can't say that this will improve the movie any as Tatum is a more wooden Keanu Reeves for his generation.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Wed May 30, 2012 4:57 pm
Profile
Post Re: 3D
Jeff Wilder wrote:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/05/gi-joe-2-delayed-to-add-more-channing-tatum.html?mid=rss

So the real reason for the GI Joe delay is to add more Channing Tatum scenes. Can't say that this will improve the movie any as Tatum is a more wooden Keanu Reeves for his generation.

I like him OK, he was geniunely funny in 21 Jump Street, from what I heard, a lot of people were pissed off at most of the main characters from the previous film being killed 10 minutes into the film, so they're giving Duke more screentime with Dwayne Johnson's character. I can understand that, I was dissapointed when I heard about that from those who went to test screenings. Ironically Tatum was reluctant to do a sequel and only agreed on the condition that Duke was killed off.


Wed May 30, 2012 5:45 pm
Post Re: 3D
MGamesCook wrote:
People tried to make Avatar out to be the ultimate game-changer, but they weren't looking quite close enough. Sure, it's the highest grossing film of all time...okay...but wait a minute, something's not right. If that's the case, why are none of its actors big movie stars now? How come nobody wants to see Sam Worthington? How come the general hasn't been hailed as an iconic cinematic villain a 'la The Joker, Anton Chigurh, the Basterds Nazi, etc.? How come people don't quote the film or make jokes about it or talk about it at all in their spare time? Makes you wonder, where exactly did this success come from?

My theory: the film was basically a hydrogen bomb; worked once, but don't try it again. It spoiled audiences to the point of over-saturation. It was TOO visual, TOO epic, TOO much action, effects that were TOO real. Most decent movies can beat it's shitty storyline, but few can measure up to its production values. People tried to make it into a watershed touchstone, but here's the thing: few movies will EVER approach that level of...well, sheer size...and that kind of scale will NEVER become the standard even if 3D movies continue to be the standard for 100 years. The studios are in denial about the truth: Avatar was a one time thing, and I truly believe that if Hollywood continues to rely on its 3D "standard" for too long, they will be in serious trouble.


One could argue that the same thing happened with the first Star Wars when it came ot first.
Again the film had a massive amount of energy but like Avatar had very little depth.


Thu May 31, 2012 4:33 pm
Post Re: 3D
Jeff Wilder wrote:
http://www.vulture.com/2012/05/gi-joe-2-delayed-to-add-more-channing-tatum.html?mid=rss

So the real reason for the GI Joe delay is to add more Channing Tatum scenes. Can't say that this will improve the movie any as Tatum is a more wooden Keanu Reeves for his generation.


Is it still being converted to 3D? If so, this sounds like damage control to me. They can appease the fans of the movie by saying they're giving them more of what they want (more Tatum), while also using 3D to make more money. It seems logical to think they'll make more money off of the 3D surchage and more advantageous release date that they will off of more Tatum.


Thu May 31, 2012 4:48 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1588
Post Re: 3D
It was probably only a matter of time. But now Independence Day is getting the 3D treatment.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=732783

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:33 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1588
Post Re: 3D
MGamesCook wrote:
I've said this before in another thread, but again: what happened in the 1960s? Hollywood panicked because all of their great directors were getting old. They kept on going bigger, bigger, bigger, until finally they went so big that audiences became weary and the system collapsed on itself. The result: a time when Night of the Living Dead was the blockbuster standard. History will repeat itself if they don't wise up.


Which brings up something that's been overlooked in light of the brouhaha over the GI Joe postponement.

Battleship gets written off as a bomb after only one week. Never mind that despite not being able to stop the buzzsaw that's The Avengers it still debuted at #2 and has grossed at last count $282,086,925. But it didn't make the $35-40 million the studio hoped for.

Men In Black 3 comes out and it's a success. It makes it to #1 dethroning The Avengers (although I wouldn't gloat about that too much as I suspect that this was mainly because The Avengers peaked after nearly a month at the top). Yet its already being seen as an underperformer.

Doubtlessly Hollywood will continuir on the path it's on for a while. Yet it eventually will reach a point where it simply cannot afford more underperforming big budget blockbusters. That might only happen however if we end up with another massive collapse like the one being referred to above.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:18 am
Profile
Post Re: 3D
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Battleship gets written off as a bomb after only one week. Never mind that despite not being able to stop the buzzsaw that's The Avengers it still debuted at #2 and has grossed at last count $282,086,925. But it didn't make the $35-40 million the studio hoped for.

Men In Black 3 comes out and it's a success. It makes it to #1 dethroning The Avengers (although I wouldn't gloat about that too much as I suspect that this was mainly because The Avengers peaked after nearly a month at the top). Yet its already being seen as an underperformer.


Battleship was out for weeks (mid-April in a lot of places) overseas before it came out here (my girlfriend's brother is in the Navy and stationed in Japan and saw it over a month ago). It's $232 foreign gross isn't impressive given that it's been out for a while and had a $209 million production budget. It's made around $50 million here in 2 weeks. At $282 million total, it will likely creep a little past $300 million, which not only doesn't constitute a hit, but probably constitutes a net loss for the studio. It isn't just that it wasn't as big of a moneymaker as the studio expected, it's that the movie very well could end up losing them money. The best case scenario, after DVD/Blu-Ray sales and rentals, is a marginal profit. When a movie costs that much money to make, marginal profits as the best case scenario is an unmitigated disaster.

MIB 3, on the other hand, came out last week virtually all over the world. It didn't have 5 weeks of foreign box office receipts to make it look like a bigger hit than it was. It's made $212 million worldwide in a week (as opposed to $282 for Battleship is close to 2 months). With a $225 million production budget it's still underperforming, but it isn't even remotely close to the bomb that Battleship is.

Your comparison doesn't really take the full picture into account. A movie's budget and how long it's been out matter a whole lot when talking about box office performance. Battleship is a huge bomb, despite the raw box office gross looking fairly decent. If you're looking for a collapse, MIB 3 certainly isn't going to be a part of that happening. More movies like Battleship, however, will be.


Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:20 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Thief12 and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr