MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Jagged Yellow Klady

Friday Estimates 2015-07-11 at 8.08.29 AM

Minions had #1 animation opening day of all-time… and amazingly, only the fourth best opening day of this summer.

The idea that there is anything negative to say about this opening is foolish. Big win. No Penguins of Madagascar letdown. New records broken by this Universal summer.

It is time to point out again that Universal has a very different schedule next summer, which is not a tentpole city, and which could – like last year – be hugely profitable without all the crazy numbers of this summer. There are many ways to skin a cat in the film business, even if the media is a size queen.

Dropping off heavily on Friday, for the first time since the inevitable second Friday drops, were Inside Out and Jurassic World. It will be interesting to see how each bounces back over the weekend.

Newcomers The Gallows and Self/Less picked a bad weekend. Warner Bros offered up a pretty clear picture of what The Gallows is and what it offers, though it did look a bit more like a murderous ride at an amusement park than the next iteration of Freddy & Jason. Focus/Gramercy didn’t do a great job establishing just why we needed to see Self/Less, much less to see it mid-summer.

Terminator Genisys‘ Friday was off 63% and remember, last Friday was not opening day, so this drop is pretty rough. $100 million domestic is looking very far off.

Magic Mike XXL is looking like a $65m-70m domestic grosser, which is still an all-in winner for Warner Bros… just not the cash machine the first one was. The big question will still be international and whether it matches that number or doubles it. Magic Mike III: Look at The Veins In My Penis will be directed by Eli Roth and go direct to Netflix.

On the indie side, strong starts for Tangerine and Do I Sound Gay? on four screens and one, respectively.

73 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Jagged Yellow Klady”

  1. EtGuild2 says:

    I think it’s officially safe to say that Warner Bros’ 2009 record for domestic studio haul is toast. UNI will be at least $480 million away already by the end of this weekend with probably $280 million to come from holdovers. Unbelieeeevable.

    Glad to see “Tangerine” doing well ! “Starlet” deserved better…Sean Baker is quickly turning into the new, improved Gregg Araki (though nothing for me will probably ever match Mysterious Skin in this hard-to-categorize genre).

  2. palmtree says:

    Uni can do no wrong this year.

  3. movieman says:

    …except “Ted 2.”
    And “Seventh Son.”
    “Blackhat”?
    Otherwise, yep.
    Pretty fucking flame-retardant.

  4. brack says:

    @movieman – Yep, but two out of the three listed were dump released, just to keep things in perspective.

  5. EtGuild2 says:

    Exposure on “Seventh Son” was minimal and still too soon to tell whether TED 2 will lose money. “Blackhat” though….yikes.

    On the other hand….2009 WB had WATCHMEN and WTWTA.

  6. Hcat says:

    Weren’t blackhat and seventh son both fully financied by legendary? All universals shortfall on thae was the marketing costs. Which blackhat still failed to cover.

  7. movieman says:

    Is “Ted 2″ going to make even a quarter of what “Ted” grossed domestically?

  8. EtGuild2 says:

    It’s a disappointment to be sure…depends on how you quantify failure.

  9. Bulldog68 says:

    That squishing sound you hear is millions of comic book fans creaming their superhero jockeys for the new Batman vs Superman trailer. Looks good.

  10. Tracker Backer says:

    Movieman: Ted 2 has already made more than a quarter of what the first one did domestically.

    Hcat: yep, Blackhat and Seventh Son were Legendary movies that were brought over in the transition from WB.

    David: the Friday to Friday drops are big because last Friday was a day off for most people. It essentially played like a Saturday. The weekend to weekend drops will likely be a good deal smaller.

  11. amblinman says:

    “That squishing sound you hear is millions of comic book fans creaming their superhero jockeys for the new Batman vs Superman trailer. Looks good.”

    Yes, it really does. And it looks like a real movie vs the Marvel crap. I like that they do indeed address all the destruction caused in Man Of Steel, and that Wayne was witness to all that which is the impetus to his wanting to take out Superman. Like, logic! Not sold on Eisenberg as Luthor. I don’t mind the alternate take but I don’t know if he’s the guy. LOOOOOVE Irons as Alfred already.

    PS: JS: I’m actually a Marvel mark, not a DC dude. In fact growing up Spider-Man was my favorite comic(s). So save any rants about how I’m “rooting” for one or the other.

  12. Pete B. says:

    Pretty amazing that Baahubali made the Top Ten in just 239 theaters.
    When I clicked on it at Fandango I was greeted with “trailer coming soon”.

  13. movieman says:

    Finally had the chance to see “Amy” this afternoon. (Does its conspicuous absence from the Friday estimates mean that it bombed in its first expansion?)
    Pretty extraordinary film.
    I felt like I was watching a musical biopic starring the actual participants (and not “celebrity impersonators”).
    The classical narrative structure imposed upon the material felt kind of revolutionary for a doc.
    I don’t remember “Senna” at all (maybe because I didn’t particularly care for
    it–and/or wasn’t remotely interested in the subject matter). Was it the same directorial modus operandi? If so, I’m almost compelled to see it again.

  14. movieman says:

    Don’t most (successful) sequels gross (at least) a third more than the original?
    On that playing field, “Ted 2″ (and “XXL”) are “failures.”
    Particularly when judged opposite something like “PP 2.”
    Good for the Soderbergh derivative that it cost so little.
    And that “Ted 2″ cost less than, say, “Genisys.”

  15. Bulldog68 says:

    “And it looks like a real movie vs the Marvel crap.”

    I’m with you Amblinman. Though I don’t go so far as calling the Marvel movies crap. Probably with the exception of Ironman 1 and Winter Soldier, they have been what I consider lightweight popcorn fluff. And I like popcorn. But they never really conveyed any sense of drama to me. And in fact Guardians actually eclipsed them with what I thought was a really well achieved balance of wit, comedy, and sense of seriousness.

    I am a self aware Man of Steel apologist. Flaws and all, I loved it. We all have movies like that in our emotional library.

    My own little conspiracy theory is that the Oscars went to nominating more than 5 movies for Best Picture in 2009, because The Dark Knight in 2008 was so good and deserved to be on the finals list but they just couldn’t see it in themselves to nominate a “comic book” movie as one of five Best Pictures. One of ten on the other hand would have been easier to swallow.

    Now if only they could find a way to get Hulk with his demons in the DC Universe, then that would be epic. It’ll never happen of course, but a guy can dream, can’t he?

  16. movieman says:

    Amblin & Bulldog-
    You really thought that “B VS. S” trailer looked good?
    To me it seemed like the same old comic book crappola.
    Made me wonder which major North American city gets trashed in the (overextended) climax.

  17. Bulldog68 says:

    Hulk smash puny movieman. :-)

    Yes I thought it looked good. To me it’s well done disaster porn. And who doesn’t like a good porn flick.

  18. leahnz says:

    “You really thought that “B VS. S” trailer looked good?”

    i hear that

  19. Bulldog68 says:

    Leahnz, is there no movie that you like just for the hell of it? Is there no guilty pleasure that isn’t a technical marvel or directorial wonder that just spoke to you because it spoke to you?

    Is there no Right Said Fred or Battlefield Earth, or Showgirls in that Pulp Fictionesque puritan heart of yours? :-)

    Give me one film Leahnz, that you can’t defend, that isn’t some indie darling or has some type of a cult following, that you just like and your film friends hate it, and you understand why they hate it.

  20. palmtree says:

    BvS does looks good with lots of moneyshot-type moments. But then it makes me think it’s one of those movies where the trailer was way better. That’s the general sense I get from Zack Snyder anyway.

  21. Kevin says:

    MAN OF STEEL also had an awesome trailer. I liked the actual film okay, but the trailer was better.

    In any case, can’t you like the BvS trailer without having to call Marvel crap?

    In my opinion, every Marvel Studios film is good-to-great, give or take one or two films.

  22. Amblinman says:

    Movieman, yup. Looked good to me. I like the ideas at play. No clue as to whether they’ll actually execute on them, but I thought the trailer succeeded in making me want to see the movie.

  23. leahnz says:

    i have a headache so i can’t think, i’ll try to answer bulldog

    fwiw re the BvS trailer, as above, to clarify: do i think the trailer itself – cut together with big moments/lines from the movie by whoever to make it look appealing/get bums on seats – looks ok? yeah the TRAILER is fine, but like the trailer for the first one that frou-froued all Malicky and what we actually got of course was shittily-written overwrought kind of gormless one-note ’empty-of-content-“visualist”‘ heavy-handed and rather bland snyder.
    do i think the MOVIE looks like it’s going to be good from what’s in the trailer? fuck no. looks like more of the same fucking story and characters OVER and OVER and OVER again, ridiculous, contrived, silly, risk-free mediocre armpit stains made for beancounters that now appear to rule mainstream studio fare

    the other thing is hard to answer because i couldn’t care less what other people think about a movie, my like or dislike of a movie is based solely on my own assessment and reaction to it, so there may be lots of movies that i rather like for some unique reason that other people don’t care for at all and i’m not aware of it.
    i think i mentioned here before about ‘3000 miles to graceland’ and i know some people who really loathe that movie and give me shit for having a weird proclivity for it — and i don’t blame them, i wouldn’t in a million years try to mount some defence that it’s a ‘good’ movie, i do get why people hate it, but AT LEAST that movie has some audacious energy and a slightly weird/outrageous sensibility and conceivable action, not like the great bullshit BLANDENING of big mainstream flicks now, the big generic – uninventive, mediocre stories written to connect one GC action set-piece to another, and the COMPLACENCY and shoulder-shrugging toward the great blandening and its creeping, gaping mediocrity that’s infecting cinema is somehow even more disturbing. perhaps the two are symbiotic and this is the real problem. i don’t know, but it’s pretty fucking scary

  24. EtGuild2 says:

    I’m with movieman on BvS….but I’m just fatigued at this point.

    AMY is phenomenal.

  25. movieman says:

    Did anybody else watch HBO’s “7 Days in Hell” last night?
    I thought it was the funniest thing I’ve seen since “What We Do in the Shadows.”
    The 45-minute length seemed just about perfect. The whole thing might have collapsed if they’d stretched it to feature length.

  26. Amblinman says:

    “and the COMPLACENCY and shoulder-shrugging toward the great blandening and its creeping, gaping mediocrity that’s infecting cinema is somehow even more disturbing. ”

    If only I could summon more outrage towards Hollywood over summer blockbusters. If only they would stop counting the hundreds of millions of dollars they make from them and just fuckin *listen* to a bunch of lunatics on a movie blog!

    Guys, next year we bring bullhorns and picket signs to Comic Con!!! Who’s with me!??

  27. Hcat says:

    But B vs S is not a summer blockbuster, it drops in march. There is now not enough summer for all the blockbusters. I would think that’s a sign that there is too much concentration on one type of movie.

  28. Bulldog68 says:

    Ditto that Hcat. Kung Fu Panda 3 drops in January.

  29. js partisan says:

    The Suicide Squad trailer, is better than anything in the Dawn of Justice trailer. Also, Panda is opening in late January, because of Chinese New Year. Remember: Panda 3 only exists, because China loves the shit out of the previous Panda movies.

    Oh yeah, I have no idea how the Marvel movies could bother some of you so damn much. Absolutely no clue. What I find hilarious about this, going on fucking 8 years now, is that I get shit for liking them. It’s thoroughly bizarre, but it’s not like I am alone in loving these films. Ant-Man should make a couple of dollars next week, so yay!

  30. leahnz says:

    js, just to clarify re what i wrote above, it’s not marvel movies in particular or any other certain franchise that ‘bother’ me per se, it’s the sheer volume of sequels/prequals/reboots being produced and proliferated at the cinema, the same stuff over and over while original stories and characters are not that’s so disturbing

  31. js partisan says:

    Leah, that wasn’t about you at all. Yes, I get that they are making all of this shit that bothers a lot of people, but this Jurassic World thing made me realize something: Boomers loved b-movie schlock, and now the Millennials are doing the same. Sure. The movies are better, but they love this b-movie shit like Transformers and JW. It’s fucking cyclical, but that’s how things go. What we could use, is another fucking Cannon pictures. Hell. Give us another Orion pictures. Executives have just been trained to avoid risk and when you avoid risk, this is what you get. We still get interesting films somehow, even with that thinking, but the kids want their b-movies. They want their b-movies, and will probably want them until they grow up. What happens in the next decade will be interesting, because I doubt Comic Book movies dominated for another decade.

  32. Bulldog68 says:

    I do agree with your sentiments Leahnz. People like blockbusters. They love the big show. But when Jupiter Ascending, John Carter, and Tomorrowland happen, they get original shy. Sure you get the Interstellars, Harry Potters, and Twilights in between, and yes they were of varying qualities but still original films, and the studios have been chasing a replication of their success.
    I long for the next original blockbuster that’s not a reboot or retelling. I’ll defend Guardians of the Galaxy as qualifying for now as it was a little known property to mainstream audiences, but still capitalized on Marvel familiarity. It was better than it needed to be. Highly entertaining in my book.

  33. palmtree says:

    In a way, endless sequelization is kinda like our version of the serials that used to be shown in theatres in the 1930s and 40s. Our era will be remembered more for its original, groundbreaking TV shows.

  34. Mike says:

    BvS looks good until you think about it in the slightest.

    Why does Batman hate Superman? Because Supes was in a fight where people got hurt! Wait, what? Are we honestly expected to believe Batman–BATMAN–has never been in a fight with a bad guy where there was collateral damage? Really?

    I’ll see it eventually, and I hope it’s good, but man does it sound stupid.

  35. Jerryishere says:

    Cannon and Orion existed in a different pre-digital universe.
    There is no place for them now.

  36. brack says:

    movieman – 7 Days in Hell was “indubitably” hilarious. I’m a tennis fan, so I loved the real-life cameos.

    palmtree – agree with your idea that the sequels akin to serials of the 30s and 40s, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    But aside from the lack of “originality” in films, there’s nothing truly original. Shakespeare retooled a lot of the plays from earlier works. I’m not in favor of sequels over “original” stories, but pretending like there’s an over saturation of sequels, as if it’s a new thing, is preposterous. Jaws 4 anyone? Rocky V? Cocoon: The Return (talk about an unnecessary sequel). And that was just the 80s.

    Godzilla movies? King Kong movies? Dracula?, etc.

  37. PcChongor says:

    So which Shakespeare is this one exactly?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE6uWRwZc2U

  38. Bulldog68 says:

    My understand is that Batman doesn’t like the God Complex thing that Supes is being bestowed with.

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    The Red Capes are coming? Ugh that’s dumb. So is the trailer. First of all, it’s so ugly. I hate the way it looks (and felt the same about the abysmal Man of Steel). And granted it’s only a trailer, but Batman is an afterthought in it and the mixing of the two superheroes is awkward at best. I have no interest whatsoever and will probably watch it on HBO someday like I did Man of Steel, which is one of the worst movies of the last 5 years.

  40. palmtree says:

    Yes, there’s nothing new under the sun. But that doesn’t mean everything has to be a sequel either. I think “original” in this case means not a blatantly cash grabbing sequel.

  41. Pete B. says:

    “…Man of Steel…is one of the worst films of the last 5 years.”

    No, no, and NO.

  42. Bulldog68 says:

    Among blockbusters, you had 2 Transformers, Pirates, Godzilla, 2 Spidermans, not to mention stuff like Alice in Wonderland and Oz, Twilight, as well as failed attempts at blockbusters like John Carter, Battleship, Prometheus. I’d even throw in Thor: The Dark World.

    Everything is always subjective, but Man of Steel is nowhere near the bottom heap of movies for the past five years.

  43. brack says:

    Most new movies aren’t sequels. True story.

  44. Mike says:

    “My understand is that Batman doesn’t like the God Complex thing that Supes is being bestowed with.”

    So he goes to war? Um, okay.

    Look, I thought Man of Steel was an okay, if underwhelming film, that had some real problems understanding its characters. This looks like they upped those problems tenfold. But it looks cool, so who gives a shit.

  45. Stella's Boy says:

    First of all, I have not seen many of those movies Bulldog. Second, I liked some of those movies way more, like Prometheus and Godzilla. Not even close. And as you said, everything is subjective. I loathed Man of Steel in a way that I’ve loathed few movies in the last 5 years (that I have seen). So yes it is one of the worst movies in the last 5 years. What people suddenly can’t have opinions here anymore?

  46. movieman says:

    My favorite 1981 summer movies:

    “Raiders,” “Blow Out,” “American Werewolf” and “Body Heat.”
    Not a sequel or remake/reboot in the bunch.

  47. Mike says:

    No, but the summer of 1981 also saw Superman II, For Your Eyes Only and the Great Muppet Caper, so it’s not like they weren’t trying to do sequels then, too.

  48. Stella's Boy says:

    Isn’t Blow Out a remake of Blow Up? And isn’t Body Heat a loose remake of Double Indemnity? Empire Magazine labels Blow Out “a remake that works.” http://www.empireonline.com/features/remakes/default.asp?film=28

  49. Bulldog68 says:

    ” What people suddenly can’t have opinions here anymore?”

    Never said you didn’t have the right to your opinion, so essentially we are saying the same thing, just we are on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to our opinions of MoS.

    I hated Godzilla, I disliked Prometheus. I couldn’t even put Prometheus in my Glorious Failure category. The fist 15 minutes were great. The rest of the movie was filled with flaws that I couldn’t forgive, particularly in a world that is based on an alternate reality as opposed to completely fantastical worlds of comic book movies.

    Pacific Rim gave me much more bang for my buck pound for pound than Godzilla. I was bored in Godzilla.

    Like I said, MoS ends up being one of those flawed movies that I accept. I fully comprehend why people didn’t like it, so I don’t expect anyone not liking it to suddenly agree with me, but there was something visceral about it that connected with me.

    That’s movies for ya.

  50. Stella's Boy says:

    Indeed you are correct. Apologies for getting all beasty. I like Pacific Rim and Godzilla.

  51. Bulldog68 says:

    No worries Stella. At least you didn’t start typing in ALL CAPS. :-)

  52. Stella's Boy says:

    Ha I promise I will never ever do that.

  53. movieman says:

    You could call “The Conversation” a reimagining of “Blow Up,” too, SB. (Not to mention a lot of other movies that were inspired by Antonioni.)
    And people have been playing w/ the noir template since the ’40s. But nobody had done what Kasdan did (as successfully) w/ “BH” for ages, maybe since Malle’s “Elevator to the Gallows.”
    Hell, you could even say “Raiders” was a reboot of old movie serials, and that Landis took his cues from Lon Chaney Jr’s “Wolfman.”
    But they were all based on “original”screenplays–at least according to Oscar rules.

  54. Stella's Boy says:

    Fair enough movieman. In tribute to you, my favorite 1982 summer movies: a remake (The Thing) and sequels (The Road Warrior, Friday the 13th Part III).

  55. Pete B says:

    Stella’s Boy, if you and I had a review show, we would argue more than Siskel & Ebert ever did. How anyone can loathe Man of Steel, but like Godzilla is beyond my comprehension.

    I’m still steamed about that movie a year later.

  56. leahnz says:

    i think this debate can easily get weighed down in semantics re: remakes/sequels/reboots, but as is almost always the case, it’s not so much what you do but how you do it, ideally with deft originality, creativity, ingenuity, flair and imagination. take for example ‘the thing’ (adaptations of a novel), carpenter’s version is a completely original film in most every aspect in terms of design, character, setting, plot, etc; american werewolf is yet another werewolf movie but is incredibly original in its mash up of genres and tone – and on and on with the other examples mentioned here, which utilise FRESH IDEAS, themes, characters, plots, etc, well written/conceived and executed by film-makers with actual unique stand-out talent and vision for conceptual film-making as an art.

    this is quite different from what we are inundated with today in mainstream cinema, which is literally the exact same characters (and very often the same stories called reboots) told over and over and over and over and over. and over. by predominantly average-to-poor writers/directors with little discernible artistic talent for good storytelling and film-making. telling a visual story well – well structured with clarity and imagination – is a serious art; some people have an artist’s eye/flair/imagination and some people simply don’t. many (most?) of the younger film-makers today out of film school, inexplicably given work despite their glaring mediocrity, can make movies that ‘look cool’ and that’s about the extent of it. it’s a freakin’ travesty. i think anyone who can’t tell the difference with what’s happening in the current mainstream cinema of mediocrity and repetition vs the originality of the past (originality conceptually, thematically etc) needs to wake up. or not. sometimes things just go to shit in a certain culture.

  57. Doug R says:

    Carpenter’s The Thing was actually closer to the original John W Campbell’s Who Goes There.

  58. leahnz says:

    yes even the creature art on the original cover of ‘who goes there’ (i have that one) has similarities to the terrifically grotesque creature designs in carpenter’s version (possibly rivalled only by cronenberg’s ‘the fly’ – another very original ‘remake’ – in terms of eye-popping ick-factor effects, yowza)

  59. brack says:

    Or we can stop pretending there was ever a time when film was just full of originality, and now it just sucks. Sounds more like nostalgia than any sort of objective argument. Film is no better or worse. Some years are better than others. You can find great movies, and crap movies, from any given year. An American Werewolf in London was never that great. Some neat special effects, sure, but not original other than mixing in some dark comedy. The idea that Hollywood is bankrupt of ideas is attributed to sequels, remakes, etc. is nonsense. It’s the chasing of the blockbuster numbers, and sequels, remakes, etc. are just what the studios want to do. Don’t like them? Don’t see them, plain and simple.

  60. Stella's Boy says:

    Sounds like fun Pete. I’m in. How anyone can believe MoS is even halfway decent, much less good, is totally beyond my comprehension. I haven’t seen it yet but I’m positive Sharknado 3 is better than MoS, and Anthony Ferrante is a better director than Hack Snyder.

    While I love An American Werewolf in London, I agree with you brack. I don’t hate sequels or remakes or reboots and automatically dismiss them. If something looks good and worth seeing, I don’t care whether or not it’s a sequel/remake/reboot/re-imagining/whatever.

  61. movieman says:

    I’ve always considered “Werewolf in London” to be one of John Landis’ 3 masterpieces (the others being “Animal House” and “Into the Night”).
    Its mixture of pitch-black comedy; copious gore; R-rated sexuality/sensuality/nudity!; old-fashioned, deeply nostalgic werewolf chills; and a deeply affecting love story (one that made me cry) was pretty damn rad(ical) in 1981.
    Admittedly I haven’t seen it in years, but the only contemporary genre mash-up to touch as many of the same bases (including the tears) was “Shaun of the Dead.”

  62. leahnz says:

    movieman, do you remember some years back when we had a huge long discussion about ‘into the night’ on here? back in the day. ‘into the night’ is, as always, choice

    as for the tiresome (and yet hardly surprising) ‘movies are as good now as they’ve ever been and movies have never been that good anyways so movies are ok now don’t go see them if you don’t like it derp derp derp’ sentiment: blah blah blah snicklefritz, the ushe nonsense.

    brack doesn’t think ‘american werewolf’ is a classic of the genre or even that good so of course landis’ much-celebrated, ingeniously original, delightfully weird and twisted film is not really that good compared to today’s film! well ok then. christ this blog is hilarious sometimes

    MAINSTREAM studio movies – risk averse and fear-based, awash with dull, unoriginal, pedestrian remakes/reboots/sequels made by safe, middling, pedestrian film-makers hired by insipid beancounters who don’t understand that they have no business putting their creatively-bankrupt fingers in the pie – don’t even begin to hold a candle to the creativity and originality of film and film-makers of even just a decade or so ago, including some great occasional remakes and franchises — there are some exceptions now thank goodness, and i think i was pretty clear that it’s not remakes per se that’s the problem, it’s the sheer glut of them and acute lack of originality in the actual film-making that’s so problematic, not to mention the bankruptcy of imagination/unique, fresh ideas it clearly indicates; more origin spider-man, more origin batman, more origin superman, more origin fantastic four, etc comics ad nauseum, more sequels, more prequels, more reboots, ORIGINALITY in film-making is in critical wane, whether it’s a remake/sequel/prequel/reboot or not. frankly, if you think mainstream studio film is as original, vibrant, ground-breaking and fresh as it once was, you’ve got your head up your ass. yeah there have always been shitty studio flicks, but there have also been a lot of really good/great studio movies made by truly talented artists, many of them now classics. this is clearly no longer the case under the current paradigm.

  63. js partisan says:

    Godzilla made FUCKING GOJIRA look like more of a hero, than MoS even comes close to let Superman look like. That’s how you can like one, and loathe the other, when THE GIANT CITY DESTROYING LIZARD is more of a good guy, than the fucker who wears HOPE ON HIS CHEST!

    That aside. A good artist creates in any medium available. No matter what tool they are given to create it with. There may be a lot of FRANCHISING out there, but that doesn’t mean artists aren’t creating great art within these films, or that great films aren’t being made Also, it’s fucking cyclical. Every year can’t be 1939, 1972, 1999, or 2004. That doesn’t mean 1938 sucked. I mean, “The Lady Vanishes” for fuck’s sake. There’s just no real reason to fear out about these things.

  64. Pete B. says:

    Too bad the Hero Gojira is 2nd fiddle, er 3rd fiddle to the crappily conceived MUTOs and Charisma Free Couple of Johnson-Taylor and Olsen (who were the worst part of AoU too).

  65. leahnz says:

    definitely good artists can create in any medium, but they have to be hired to do the job first

    i really liked gojira and the mutos – the monsters – in edward’s movie, it’s the people stuff that was poorly written and rather dull. i’m hoping edwards can improve somehow for the next one (if there is a next one, i thought i heard it was going ahead); his one-man-band first feature ‘monsters’ was intriguing and the human characters/protags were written so much better, with a convincing intimacy contrasting with some larger scale sensibility (on a zero budget), so here’s hoping. js i know you’re a fan of whedon, i’m also hopeful that he can hone his writing to a finer point and stop trying to do too much and focus on doing less better – i thought AoU was messy and underwritten in parts and too constrained using many of the same concepts from the first movie, but i rather like ‘serenity’ and i’m kind of rooting for whedon to break out of his box as someone with more potential than a lot of the current crop of mediocre directors.

    ETA: “and Charisma Free Couple of Johnson-Taylor and Olsen (who were the worst part of AoU too).”

    ha good point, those two are kind of the anti-charisma together, why they were paired again is baffling

  66. movieman says:

    Leah- I either kissed (or completely forgot) that “Into the Night” discussion.
    Too bad either way.
    I still consider “Night” the ultimate (non-period, meaning “Chinatown”) “L.A. Movie.”
    Although Michael Mann got a lot of praise for his shooting of the City of Angels in “Collateral,” Landis did it better as far as I’m concerned.

  67. movieman says:

    LOL.
    “missed” not “kissed.”
    Talk about your Freudian slips.

  68. leahnz says:

    ha i was trying to figure out how you ‘kissed’ it

    “I still consider “Night” the ultimate (non-period, meaning “Chinatown”) “L.A. Movie.”
    Although Michael Mann got a lot of praise for his shooting of the City of Angels in “Collateral,” Landis did it better as far as I’m concerned.”

    intriguing call movieman. not only a great ‘L A Movie’ but one of the unique pack of modern-era LA flicks with the distinction of being ‘good-to-great movies that take place OVER JUST ONE DAY/NIGHT IN LA': those you mention of course – ‘into the night’ and ‘collateral’ – plus ‘training day’, liman’s GO (though a brief vegas segment could disqualify it? i just ignore that bit haha), ‘die hard’ and ‘pulp fiction’… maybe more that aren’t coming to mind right now (P F because of its unconventional narrative structure is a less obvious one but apart from the brief walken flashback all the story/character threads interweave over a single day/night/day, at least i think so – a friend and i had a brain strain about it from memory but i haven’t watched the movie in a while or with the express purpose of confirmation of this, one day)

    + ‘the terminator’, d’oh

  69. leahnz says:

    final brief prologue-y scene could DQ terminator though, being purist

  70. Doug R says:

    Falling Down.

  71. leahnz says:

    the shcu, added to the list

  72. leahnz says:

    and P fiction takes place over 2 nights so, take that off the single day/night list my bad

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“What Quibi trying to do is get to the next generation of film narrative. The first generation was movies, and they were principally two-hour stories that were designed to be watched in a single sitting in a movie theater [ED: After formats like the nickelodeon]. The next generation of film narrative was television, principally designed to be watched in one-hour chapters in front of a television set. I believe the third generation of film narrative will be a merging of those two ideas, which is to tell two-hour stories in chapters that are seven to ten minutes in length. We are actually doing long-form in bite-size.”
~ Jeffrey Katzenberg

“The important thing is: what makes the audience interested in it? Of course, I don’t take on any roles that don’t interest me, or where I can’t find anything for myself in it. But I don’t like talking about that. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work. My explanations would come into conflict with the reason a movie is made in the first place — for the experience of the audience — and that, I would not want.
~  Christoph Waltz