MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates: Mission Teen (Not So) Impossible Go

Friday Estimates 9a 072818

14 Responses to “Friday Estimates: Mission Teen (Not So) Impossible Go”

  1. JS Partisan says:

    So… a Mission Impossible movie makes Mission Impossible money! Hooray!

  2. Pete B says:

    That should be Detective Dee and not Doctor.

  3. Hcat says:

    So Mowgli is going to Netflix instead of theaters. The project always sounded sort of Pan-y (Panesque?), but there is no way they are getting fully reimbursed for what I understand was quite a pricy project. I expect Fantastic Beasts to be a Solo Level disappointment and Aquaman to be the straight out flop of the year. So do you think they were trying to minimize the PR damage that would come with another flop? And I say this expecting Star to do beyond gangbusters business, up with Coopers other big hits.

  4. movieman says:

    Does anyone else think the fanboy/girl-heavy Xmas slate is ridiculous?
    There’s a D.C. comic book movie; a “Spider-Man” cartoon; a James Cameron/Robert Rodriguez collaboration; a Peter Jackson-produced fantasy film; a “Transformers” spin-off…
    …and don’t forget “Untitled Warner Brothers Event Film #2″ (whatever the f**k that means).
    Does anyone really think it’s a good idea to release ALL of those “same-demographic-skewing” movies at the EXACT SAME TIME?
    It’s berserk.
    And the lack of wide-release alternatives–i.e., movies adults might want to actually leave the house to see–is positively staggering.

  5. movieman says:

    “Hot Summer Nights” is wildly derivative, but it’s derivative of a style (of movie) and a filmmaking period (the ’70s) I have a lot of affection for.
    I liked it a lot.
    (Killer soundtrack, too.)

  6. Night Owl says:

    Mowgli was doomed the minute Dinsey’s Jungle Book broke $900 million and got killer reviews. I’m honestly a bit relieved they aren’t pretending otherwise. Yes movies on the same subject can succeed (Asteroids! Alien invasion!) but on the exact same story?? If there are good examples of that I’m not remembering them. Sometimes someone has to win the race.

    I don’t think Fantastic Beasts will be quite a Solo level disappointment, as international should prop it up. I don’t see it growing though. And it will lose audience, considering the general public seemed to leave the first one with pleasant indifference. Not great considering WB wants to make, what, five of these? They’re trying though. They’re pushing the hell out of Jude Law and Johnny Depp, after Eddie Redmayne made next to no impact (he’s coming across as an after thought in the franchise now). Eh, first one was dull and a lame cash grab. I’d love to see the franchise go belly up. WB could and should do better.

    Aquaman? Who knows. Suicide Squad was a piece of garbage and made $700 million off a cool trailer.

  7. Bulldog68 says:

    Mirror Mirror/ Snow White and the Huntsman.
    March/June 2012, comes to mind. Don’t know whether Mirror’s $183m worldwide on an $85m budget was considered a disappointment or break even. Huntsman did $396m on a $170m budget.

  8. Hcat says:

    Marween comes out around that Christmas logjam and there will be limited releases from November that will be wide for adults by then. As for the Fanboy films I would think one or two will blink and go to April. Beat bet would be mortal engines. Saw the trailer and still don’t know what the hell that is. I’m thinking Bumblebee and Aqua stumble no matter where they go,

    Warner’s always used to win the game of competing project chicken. Maybe Mowgli is long overdue Karma for denying the world Baz’s Alexander the Great film with Leo, or Micheal Mann’s take on the Spartans

  9. JS Partisan says:

    The Crimes of Grindlewald will make a couple of dollars, but I am not sure it’s going Solo levels. It may, if Depp goes even creepier and worse as a human being, but right now? It actually looks like a more entertaining movie than the original.

    The funny thing with Mowgli, is Netflix GIVING SERKAIS MORE MONEY to complete it. They want to have a solid movie for once, so that’s a plus.

    Some film opening around Xmas, should move to the December weekend, that we dare not speak its name. It’s the only thing that would make a lick of sense, because there is only so much money to go around during Xmas.

    Yeah. Yeah. Star Wars, but none of this is Star Wars, and we all know Mary Poppins is going to kill it. Everyone else is going for second like Aquaman. James Wan gets horror, but making an 80s dayglo comic book movie for 2018, is just asking for some problems. If that movie succeeds on any level, then Walter Hamada should consider himself lucky. If Aquaman makes anything above 500m.

    And Mortal Engines is basically Snowpiercer.

  10. Hcat says:

    And as for closet competitors I would have to go with Dangerous Liasons and Valmont. Warner’s in that mix as well.

  11. movieman says:

    “Bumblebee”–which would make more sense Martin Luther King Weekend in January–actually seems preferable to the icky-looking Zemeckis.
    And the Miller/Lord “Spider-Man” ‘toon seems like an early February-ish title.
    That Jackson thing? March.
    Etc.
    See. It’s not that hard to bump things around and avoid Kamikaza Comic Con Christmas 2018.

  12. Dr Wally Rises says:

    As to the logjam of product this Christmas, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Next November / December brings Frozen 2, Wonder Woman 2, James Bond, Jumanji 3 and Star Wars Episode 9 in the space of seven weeks. Next Winter is going to be absolute carnage.

  13. movieman says:

    While I was obsessing about the bleuch Xmas line-up, Annapurna moved Linklater’s “Where’d You Go, Bernadette?” from October to (an allegedly “wide” release) late February.
    WTF?!?

  14. Greg says:

    And oh by the way, MI:Fallout is simply terrific.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin