Damn, what does it take to get more people to go to theaters these days? Lowering ticket prices may not be a bad idea.
To be fair, only one of those films that looks appealing is Blade Runner 2049 (whiiiich, I should probably go see). Battle of The Sexes was an odd one... part of my really wants to see it, but I can't help but feel I wouldn't care about it (trailers weren't nearly enticing, and, honestly, I don't know a person's who's seen it). I really don't know what's up with 'the masses' right now... it seems (more than usual) people are only caring about a very small amount of films, which all seem to make big bucks afterwards. It's unfortunate.
@ nutso
I'm a bit surprised you're behind on movies given your profession.
I fixate on older and foreign movies and trying to introduce them to the current crop of filmgoers. Expand their horizon. And the internet is already full of people scrambling over each other to be the first to review the latest movies, so why bother? I'll hang back and explain why, if you like The Dark Knight so much, you should also give Akira Kurosawa films a go.
Hayden wrote:
Also, you have the wrong Denzel movie in there
Yeah, I was typing and found myself reminiscing about how much I'd hoped Denzel would beat Casey last year. Does a Freudian slip apply to typing?
Course, course. I've found myself making far more nonsensical typos
My Oscar predictions are pretty similar to yours... usually I think Oscar predictions this early are silly, but this year is proving remarkably easy for most of the categories (except the big one...)
Best Picture - Phantom Thread (maaaaaaaybe Three Billboards?)
Best Director - Guillermo Del Toro
Best Actor - Gary Oldman (don't count Daniel Day-Lewis out just yet...)
Best Actress - Sally Hawkins (Streep and Margot Robbie have a good shot though)
Supporting Actor - Willem Dafoe (against nobody?)
Supporting Actress - Allison Janney
Orig. Screenplay - Three Billboards (maybe Shape of Water)
Adapt. Screenplay - Call Me By Your Name (vs....? nobody?)
Animated - Coco (once again... against nobody?)
Cinematography - Blade Runner 2049
Costumes - Beauty & The Beast (cause Disney will campaign the hell out of it)
Make-up - Darkest Hour
Editing - Dunkirk
Sound - Dunkirk (for both, cause war bombs go boom)
Visual Effects - Blade Runner 2049 (possibly The Shape of Water if the Academy is feeling cool)
Original Score - Desplat (The Shape of Water) or Jonny Greenwood (Phantom Thread) if he knocks it out of the park.
Original Song - Something by Sufjan Stevens would be dope, but I doubt it. At this point though... like... scrap this category this year?
Foreign Language - 120 BPM (unless Jolie swings voters...)
Damn, what does it take to get more people to go to theaters these days? Lowering ticket prices may not be a bad idea.
To be fair, only one of those films that looks appealing is Blade Runner 2049 (whiiiich, I should probably go see). Battle of The Sexes was an odd one... part of my really wants to see it, but I can't help but feel I wouldn't care about it (trailers weren't nearly enticing, and, honestly, I don't know a person's who's seen it). I really don't know what's up with 'the masses' right now... it seems (more than usual) people are only caring about a very small amount of films, which all seem to make big bucks afterwards. It's unfortunate.
In other news, Phantom Thread should be getting a trailer soon
I saw Battle of the Sexes and really liked it. However the film is fairly microcasting towards history buffs and tennis fans (in other words, me). I don't think it was supposed to be a hit, but the producers were likely hoping it would get awards buzz which would then push its box office draw. But that doesn't seem to be happening. The acting from Carell and Stone is really great. It's hard to figure out what's up with the masses. The Mendelson article suggests valid reasons for why Blade Runner underperformed. The movie would actually be a hit if it didn't cost $155M. Did it need to cost so much? Well the visuals are awesome, so maybe it did?
Audiences are very hard to predict, thus the current business mentality is a crapshoot...throw billions of dollars at a select few films and see which ones hit, which ones do ok, and which ones flop. I remember in 2013 when Spielberg predicted this business model will someday implode when several big-budget movies will flop in a row. Is 2017 suggesting that day is approaching?
nutso42 wrote:
StreetSpirit wrote:
@ nutso
I'm a bit surprised you're behind on movies given your profession.
I fixate on older and foreign movies and trying to introduce them to the current crop of filmgoers. Expand their horizon. And the internet is already full of people scrambling over each other to be the first to review the latest movies, so why bother? I'll hang back and explain why, if you like The Dark Knight so much, you should also give Akira Kurosawa films a go.
Ah, nice. Nothing wrong with expanding horizons towards older and foreign films.
If I picked the winners:
Best Actress: Emma Stone - Battle of the Sexes
Best Actor: Steve Carrell - Battle of the Sexes
Best Supporting Actor: Jeff Goldblum - Thor Patrick Stewart - Logan
Best Supporting Actress: Emma Thompson - The Meyerwitz Stories
Best Director: Ummm tie between Wright and Nolan
Adapted Screenplay: Logan
Original Screenplay: Meyerwitz Stories[/s] _________________ Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.
Well the news of 2017 in film continues to get worse, especially with all these sexaul harrasment scandals.
I assume you've all heard the latest story about Kevin Spacey. In case you haven't, the actor is a pervert who has been sexually harassing fellow cast and crew members for years.
And now that this is public knowledge, Sony is completely erasing him from his upcoming movie 'All the Money in the World' directed by Ridley Scott. The film was already finished, and supposed to have its first screening this week. I love Ridley Scott and Kevin Spacey (his acting that is), so I was looking forward to this. Here's the trailer, with Spacey in it:
I don't condone what Spacey has done, but I would prefer to see this film with him in it, because he's perfect for the 'evil billionaire asshole' role. He's played it before and he's great at it. But of course, if Sony releases the film with him in it, it would be boycotted and very likely lose money at the box office. I totally understand that perspective. Cinema is a business as well as an art (and Sony is currently spending millions to remove Spacey from the film). It's a lousy situation.
But here's my issue: it's been known for years among industry insiders that Spacey is a pervert and has done the things he's been accused of, but Hollywood producers continued to let him work anyway. Why? Because he's a star who made millions for the big production companies. But now that it's public knowledge that Spacey's a sex offender, they're ruining him, not even letting him have one last performance on the big screen. Double standard? You tell me.
I still want to watch 'All the Money in the World', but I really hope they save the version of the film with Spacey in it, so I can watch it some day as a DVD bonus or a bootleg.
Anyway, 2017 in film desperately needs some good news. Better PR, better movies, no more off-screen scandals, or a surprise hit would be most welcome.
Anyway, 2017 in film desperately needs some good news. Better PR, better movies, no more off-screen scandals, or a surprise hit would be most welcome.
Yeah, it's just been an insanely bad month across the board with absolutely everything. Doubt this is the end of it...
Early reviews for Coco are in, and apparently it's incredible (possible best pic nom...), so at least there's that. Same with Three Billboards and Lady Bird.
Watched the trailer for The Post and pretty much shrugged... felt very Spotlight-esque (upon reflection, last 3 best pic winners have def been unexpected... straight up feeling Three Billboards is the only thing that can win at this point, no way the Academy is weird enough to swing for Del Toro). Mind you, still gotta watch Dunkirk. _________________ Submit Your List for BEA's 2023 Film Poll!
I love in this article how it shows somebody tweeting "People are going to watch the movie with or without the tomato score." Haha, that is such bullshit. More and more in recent years, it's been speculated Rotten Tomatoes does affect how well a movie will perform at the box office. There has definitely been a correlation. If you need any proof RT affects the box office, I don't think it can be any more concrete than this. Rotten Tomatoes is fucking withholding the score for Justice League until the day of release! HAHAHA. GUESS WHO OWNS ROTTEN TOMATOES...FANDANGO, A COMPANY THAT SELLS FUCKING MOVIE TICKETS! AND GUESS WHO OWNS FANDANGO...WARNER BROTHERS, THE COMAPNY THAT FUCKING PRODUCED JUSTICE LEAGUE! HAHAHAHAHA.
So who do you think made the decision to withhold the RT score for Justice League? If you think it was RT themselves, you're so damn naive. Here's what's happening...Justice League most likely sucks and is getting bad reviews from critics, but Warner Brothers is trying to keep the public from knowing this so more people will pay to see the movie this weekend.
Sorry but I find this all very funny and interesting.
Well actually it seems like the early social media reviews from critics of JL have been positive so I'm not sure that's the reason why. _________________ Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.
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 vote in polls in this forum
