the division of joy Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 The character had great scope to have a lot of depth to him, but the actor just was hammy as fuck. I felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_U_SPACECOWBOY Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Pacific Rim Domestic: $38,300,000 - 41.9% Foreign: $53,000,000 - 58.1% Worldwide: $91,300,000 Guess I'll never see this type of movie ever again. Yes, it's really heartbreaking, but that's not as terrible as trackers were thinking. They had it coming in at under $30 million for the opening weekend. As it stands it's Del Toro's biggest opening weekend ever too. Those foreign numbers are really strong, particularly for a completely unknown property. While it's still early as hell, revised estimates for the final foreign haul are around $300 million, which is hopeful. Might not be the unmitigated disaster everyone's thinking it will be. Still, I'mma try and see it multiple times to support, just in case.... Edited July 15, 2013 by C_U_SPACECOWBOY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 What about Pan's Labyrinth? Also, word is WB has been considering that white, blond boring-as-toast actor to play Flash in the Justice League. So was the character written boring, or was the actor boring? I also really wanted to like pan's labyrinth but didn't love it. I liked the "real life" stuff and didn't feel the fantasy element was all that interesting or creative. I like his first two, Cronos, and Devil's Backbone, I especially like Devil's Backbone. I can get behind Mimic a little bit. I'm very glad I like this, cause GDT is a cool guy and I love to read what he has to say, it just hasn't translated to things I want to see for teh most part until now. I think the character was written boring and the actor was boring. It was like I was looking right through that motherfucker. I also hope people pay money for this. When I saw it, people in the theater (not a dorky crowd AT ALL, theater full of total Brooklyn italian bros) were loving it, cheered during the fights and such. I have no doubts that "normal" folk will enjoy this movie if they actually sit down to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 15, 2013 Author Share Posted July 15, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) If I had to guess, I'd say that the message Hollywood is taking from Pacific Rim under-performing is "don't think star power and big names are irrelevant." The message I got from the hype for PR was "we spent all out money on production, not $20M for each big name movie star!" It seem people have no problem going to horror movies without any big name movie stars (that formula also seemed to work because the budgets for horror movies tend to be so small that often a $20M opening weekend means the studio already made back all it's money), but other than horror, if you want it to gross hundreds of millions of dollars, it seems to need big name stars, particularly if it's not an established property (sequel, adaptation or remake). I mean, Hollywood is doing far fewer big budget tent pole movies that are not established properties, but when they do, they usually insist on big name movie stars being attached. Edited July 15, 2013 by Reverend Jax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 I couldn't agree more. Much more than it being a sequel or a remake or anything, it is a big risk not to have a star attached. Most regular folk I know watch things because of who's in it. If this had any kind of action star in it, it would have a decent opening, then good word of mouth/reviews would do the rest. To an average moviegoer who couldn't care less about kaiju flicks and giant robots, the trailer for Pacific Rim looks like a big blockbuster transformers-ish thing without any stars attached. Hope it picks up traction and makes ok monies. I'm sure it'll do well on video, but no studio wants to wait that long for a return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Name recognition is the only reason this movie did as well as it did. Would any of us have been half as excited is out this movie if it hadn't been done by Guillermo del Toro? Even Idris Elba, Charlie Day, and Ron Perlman helped sell it to us. A big mis-step was probably not showing us enough of the human element in the promos. District 9 made this mistake too but it was made for the price of a luxury sedan so making its budget back was no big thing. This movie did far better than it would've a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visitant Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I would have. Because giant robots. Del Toro really did see it for me though so I see where you're coming from. Also, I fucking adored the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Yeah, well, a director's name will only draw people who actually know anything about movies. People on message boards are not enough business for a movie that cost over $150 million. The average person on the street doesn't know/give a fuck who GDT is, but maybe would have watched this this if it had Matt Damon in it or something. While I agree it's a shame if this thing doesn't make the money it needed to, if your movie already costs $190 million dollars it seems a little silly not to throw an extra 10 mil into some big name person to be in it to increase the turn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Yeah, well, a director's name will only draw people who actually know anything about movies. People on message boards are not enough business for a movie that cost over $150 million. The average person on the street doesn't know/give a fuck who GDT is, but maybe would have watched this this if it had Matt Damon in it or something. There are directors who are themselves now a brand, and who average people on the street will go to the theaters for. Del Toro is not in that club of directors. I think that that group is essentially Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino, Scorsese, Bay, Nolan and Burton. Any of those guys could develop a concept for a new property (not a sequel, remake or adaptation), put no bankable stars in it, and there's a better than even chance it would makes several hundreds of millions of dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Sure, some directors will draw more folks than others, but few of those directors will make a film without some big names on the bill. In fact, a lot of them use the same actors, therefore creating a very obvious brand. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think if you dump a certain amount of money into a movie, and you need a big return, no matter who you are, you put a recognizable face or two in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I would have. Because giant robots. Del Toro really did see it for me though so I see where you're coming from. Also, I fucking adored the movie. So you would've loved the idea of Michael Bay's Pacific Rim, Paul W.S. Anderson's Pacific Rim, or Roland Emerich's Pacific Rim? Here's Charles Band's Pacific Rim: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 16, 2013 Author Share Posted July 16, 2013 I would actually not be opposed to paul ws anderson. Dude isnt a bad director, he is just too caught up with Resident Evil. Shame he cant/wont give us another Event Horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Or another Soldier. I'm with you on Anderson, he gets lumped in with a lot of worse directors pretty often but to be fair that's largely his own fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It'll pay to see Paul Thomas Anderson's Pacific Rim. Sure, some directors will draw more folks than others, but few of those directors will make a film without some big names on the bill. In fact, a lot of them use the same actors, therefore creating a very obvious brand. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I think if you dump a certain amount of money into a movie, and you need a big return, no matter who you are, you put a recognizable face or two in there. Avatar is the obvious exception. That movie didn't have any big-marquee star names. It had people that the average non-movie buff off the street might say he/she recognizes from something, but it was not star power drawing people to that movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 I'll watch Emmerich's ANYTHING. He rules. White House down is (intentionally) fuckin hilarious and lotsa fun. I've honestly enjoyed far more of his films than del toro's :dodges every nerd in the universe's keyboard: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Yeah I owe you two black eyes, one for The Day After Tomorrow and another for 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Yeah I owe you two black eyes, one for The Day After Tomorrow and another for 2012 In the Day After Tomorrow Jake Gyllenhal (sp? I don't actually care) outruns THE COLD In 2012, this exchange happens between Woody Harrelson and John Cusack: Why do you guys watch movies? This is why I do. Edited July 16, 2013 by JunkerSeed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 You are what is wrong with movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Also this, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 It'll pay to see Paul Thomas Anderson's Pacific Rim. Motherfucker. As I'm scrolling down, all I want to post is this. You are in my brain. That means you may need to take a good, hard look at your life and the unhealthy direction you're clearly heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Any time I see a Paul Anderson movie, I always wonder how the movie would have turned out if the other Paul Anderson had directed it. I occasionally think about how a Wes Anderson directed Boogie Nights would have been. Also, I think about how different the movie Shame would have been if it had been directed by the other Steve McQueen. Edited July 16, 2013 by Reverend Jax 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the division of joy Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 You are not the first to compare the andersons! You folks are probably familiar with Armond. He's the ultimate shit stirrer, but fun to read, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 You folks are probably familiar with Armond. He's the ultimate shit stirrer, but fun to read, IMO. Oh, you mean Armond hates-everything-everyone-else-loves-and-loves-everything-everyone-else-hates White? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.