2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 2

[HighFivingMF]

Eh. Half the people who say that complain about how all romantic comedies suck. Everyone has their favorite and least favorite genres, people who watch every movie that comes out for a living especially so. Just don't read their Comic Book Movie reviews.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yea, but as a pro critic you should be able to be completely unbias and walk into the cinema with a completely blank slate and open mind. That is the only way to be subjective. If you can't do that, you have no business being a film critic.

I completely disagree. I've no interest in reading the opinion of a personality-less robot, and I suspect no human being does either. Give me passion, a point of view, a sense of humor, and style over non-existent objectivity any day.

Ebert likes to quote the critic Robert Warshow who wrote, "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man."

Nobody's completely objective. Give me honesty and self awareness, those are obtainable goals.

 

[CConn]

I completely disagree. I've no interest in reading the opinion of a personality-less robot, and I suspect no human being does either. Give me passion, a point of view, a sense of humor, and style over non-existent objectivity any day.

Ebert likes to quote the critic Robert Warshow who wrote, "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man."

Nobody's completely objective. Give me honesty and self awareness, those are obtainable goals.

But I don't think Morningstar is asking for robotic subjectivity, he's asking for critics who aren't pompous, self-righteous *******s.

But you are right. Self-awareness is the key thing. I can say that I think Superman Returns is one of the best superhero movies...but then also realize most people don't feel that way.

That's the kind of subjectivity I want from, well, everyone; the ability to distinguish between your own personal opinion, and that of others...plus of course the technical merits of film as well.

 

[The Morningstar]

But I don't think Morningstar is asking for robotic subjectivity, he's asking for critics who aren't pompous, self-righteous *******s.

But you are right. Self-awareness is the key thing. I can say that I think Superman Returns is one of the best superhero movies...but then also realize most people don't feel that way.

That's the kind of subjectivity I want from, well, everyone; the ability to distinguish between your own personal opinion, and that of others...plus of course the technical merits of film as well.

Yea exactly. I don't want to read what a robot has to say. I like a sense of humour and emotion in reviews. Obviously as well as someone who knows what they are talking about, has an open mind and judges a film as a film, not generalisations based on ignorance.

If there is one thing i hate, it's small minded and ignorant people.

And like that thread you created a while back, people should be able to distinguish between an actual bad film, and a film they don't enjoy. I mean there is nothing wrong with enjoying a bad film, but at least recognise that it is poorly made. Same the other way. You might not enjoy a well made film, but at least respect that it's well made.

Like for example, I dunno, Blade Runner. I've seen people say they didn't enjoy it, but then have the cheek to say it's a badly made film. GTFO. The level of craft, the production design, the acting, the writing, the fact that it revolutionised an entire genre and helped pioneer an entire sub culture (cyberpunk) is all undeniable. But i could totally understand how someone could find it boring and too slow. Or the opposite, like Transformers 2. I could understand if someone enjoyed it. But don't try and tell me it's a well made film, because it simply isn't.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The nice things about all these things is that in movies, there's doesn't need to be objectivity. I mean why should it? Even as something like TF2 being called a good movie. You can't prove that it's a factually bad film, just like you can't prove that it's a good one. It's still your opinion that Blade Runner simply isn't a bad film, but you can't prove that it is. And that's ok. That's art. Save objectivity for math and science.

If you put objectivity in film you've pretty much taken the fun out of it and the pleasure of differing opinions. Those differing opinions is what makes seeing and talking about movies great. Wouldn't it be boring if there was scientific formula that proved TF2 was a bad film? That pretty much defeats the whole purpose of discussion. People's individual views are enough.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But back on topic, Battleship making that little is not surprising and surprising at the same time. I expected a little higher.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I expected BS to bomb but America really decided to make a statement this time.

"Stop treating us like morons."

Well done America.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Is there any synonym for "underperform" besides underperform that doesn't come out as a pun in reference to Battleship? Sink, flop, bomb, tank...

 

[Marvin]

The nice things about all these things is that in movies, there's doesn't need to be objectivity. I mean why should it? Even as something like TF2 being called a good movie. You can't prove that it's a factually bad film, just like you can't prove that it's a good one. It's still your opinion that Blade Runner simply isn't a bad film, but you can't prove that it is. And that's ok. That's art. Save objectivity for math and science.

If you put objectivity in film you've pretty much taken the fun out of it and the pleasure of differing opinions. Those differing opinions is what makes seeing and talking about movies great. Wouldn't it be boring if there was scientific formula that proved TF2 was a bad film? That pretty much defeats the whole purpose of discussion. People's individual views are enough.

More to the point, film is an art form. When's the last time someone could walk into an art gallery and factually classify van gogh's work as kindergarden level work. If someone say's they don't like a film it's nothing more than an opinion...ever.

That being said, I still have no love for critics that have chips on their shoulders or that ilk. Faraci got into so many arguments about his early response to Avatar(and it's claims) that by the time his actual review came out it was simply...not what I was call keeled.


As for Taylor Kitsch, I like him. I think it should have been him as Sam Flyn. He's got the hair and the laid back persona too. Plus he looks great on a bike. Sadly, under Disney that film would have bombed regardless. Lucky for them they can just take credit for all of Jos...Marvel's work from now on.

 

[CConn]

More to the point, film is an art form. When's the last time someone could walk into an art gallery and factually classify van gogh's work as kindergarden level work. If someone say's they don't like a film it's nothing more than an opinion...ever.

I still partially disagree with that.

There's certain rules to every technical aspect of film that - if bad enough - could be academically classified as bad.

Y'know, if you don't have your actors framed right, it's technically not good cinematography, if you have a score that's out of key, it's technically not a good musical piece, etc.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But they're still not facts. And they don't need to be. That's why art is different. These academics can't sit down and prove scientifically or mathematically that these so called technically aspects of an art form are bad.

And believe me when I say this, I've have thought it over more times than I can count and looked at both sides and have come to the conclusion that nothing is objective in art. Yes, that means what is considered technically bad. And why does it have to be factual?

This conversation is boring anyway. I've gotten into it too many times. Moving on.

 

[CConn]

And why does it have to be factual?

Because people go to school and train for years to achieve a high level of technical skill for most of the various aspects of filmmaking.

And, I dunno, it just seems kinda insulting that even they couldn't be "allowed" to say some *******'s movie he shot with a handicam and no clue what he's doing is bad.

 

[CConn]

Also, I don't see why it's such a big deal that movies you like can't be "technically" bad as well. Again, if we all clamor for critics to be more self-aware of their opinions, why can't we be as well?

I mean, John Carpenter and Roger Corman's movies usually look like the cheapest, dumbest **** ever most of the time, but I still enjoy them, but at the same time don't feel the need to praise them as some technical masterworks.

 

[Marvin]

I still partially disagree with that.

There's certain rules to every technical aspect of film that - if bad enough - could be academically classified as bad.

Y'know, if you don't have your actors framed right, it's technically not good cinematography, if you have a score that's out of key, it's technically not a good musical piece, etc.

The first thing any art teacher worth his salt will tell you is that there is no wrong or right.

That's not to say there isn't more acceptable directions and philosophies one might follow. Though that may depend on the era you are living in. Right now film is expected to be a certain thing, in 100 years it might be more accepted to always frame your actors half in half out. What's really interesting is that you will get a filmmaker who is inspired to experiment with such a direction and he will be lambasted for it only to later be called the genius who brought it to the world.

Art isn't Science.

This is no more on display when you sit through a film that has the audience on the edge of their seat and in stitches only to see reviews saying it has no sense of humor and is unwatchable.

 

[CConn]

I swear, sometimes I have no idea what you're saying when you try to explain stuff.

 

[The Morningstar]

People need to understand that film isn't just an art form, it's a craft. It's not like painting where anyone can pick up an brush and splatter some paint on a canvas and some people will find some kind of deeper meaning out of it.

I remember a while ago there was a literal pile of rubbish presented as a piece of art at some museum in London.

 

[:eek:]

Sunday Update: The official release from Disney
MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS (Marvel): 3rd week of release
Worldwide, Marvel's The Avengers has surpassed Toy Story 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest to become the biggest Disney release of all time and is currently the #4 film of all time on a global basis.

DOMESTIC WKND ESTIMATE (May 18-20): $55.1M at 4,249 locations (down 47% from last weekend). Weekend theater average: $12,958.

INTERNATIONAL WKND ESTIMATE (May 18-20): $56.0M
MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS is currently in release in 54 territories representing about 95% of the international market.

ESTIMATED DOMESTIC CUME: $457.1M MILLION
ESTIMATED INTERNATIONAL CUME: $723.3 MILLION
ESTIMATED GLOBAL CUME: $1.180.4 MILLION

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Film is art, but it does have purely technical aspects to achieve that art that could be objectively judged that isn't present in painting or books.

 

[Marvin]

I swear, sometimes I have no idea what you're saying when you try to explain stuff.

simply put, art is free roaming and it can evolve in an instant. what's seen as crap today could be cherished in a matter of years. Just ask Pollock.

 

[DACrowe]

I predicted Battleship to flop, but I thought it'd cross $120 million domestic (slightly better than Green Lantern). I don't think it's going to cross $100 million with that opening. Probably not even $75 million. Wow, that's just shocking.

 

[david icke]

The first thing any art teacher worth his salt will tell you is that there is no wrong or right.

That's not to say there isn't more acceptable directions and philosophies one might follow. Though that may depend on the era you are living in. Right now film is expected to be a certain thing, in 100 years it might be more accepted to always frame your actors half in half out. What's really interesting is that you will get a filmmaker who is inspired to experiment with such a direction and he will be lambasted for it only to later be called the genius who brought it to the world.

Art isn't Science.

This is no more on display when you sit through a film that has the audience on the edge of their seat and in stitches only to see reviews saying it has no sense of humor and is unwatchable.

There is a rule though, that you need to know the rules before you can break them. Salvidor Dali said this famously of course, that you need to learn how to properly paint real things before you can viably go onto do your best work with a more surrealist approach.
Andy Warhol is famous for his screen prints of soup cans, but he could draw and paint real life extremely well.

If after being proficient working within the rules, you then go onto break them, no-one can tell you you are 'wrong' if you make a film where you place the camera upside down, or where you never see anyone's face, or have the whole film covered in custard. Because what might be going on is that you are not perceptive enough to realise what the artist is trying to do with their rule breaking.

 

[psylockolussus]

I predicted Battleship to flop, but I thought it'd cross $120 million domestic (slightly better than Green Lantern). I don't think it's going to cross $100 million with that opening. Probably not even $75 million. Wow, that's just shocking.

I agree. I think it will get less than $40 million in its opening weekend.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I predicted Battleship to flop, but I thought it'd cross $120 million domestic (slightly better than Green Lantern). I don't think it's going to cross $100 million with that opening. Probably not even $75 million. Wow, that's just shocking.

I can't remember my prediction, it was like 140mil or so because I had no faith in the American public and I'm happy as a clam that I was wrong as I thought that the movie looked like **** and now have conformation after seeing it. Also Battleship has to be one of the most cynical cash grabs of all time because it made no bones about being a Transformers ripoff in ever way possible. Luckily, It's not going to come anywhere near making that 200mil budget back and it didn't make enough overseas to save it either. It doesn't have as much publicity but it is almost as big a flop as John Carter.

The Dictator did as well as can be expected. It's not a game changer one way or the other unless it has a long run.

Dark Shadows is officially a huge bomb after that drop. I predicted in the 100's for it but I'm not really sad about being wrong. I didn't see it and don't want to.

What to Expect When Your Expecting did a great deal worse that I thought it would, for some reason I saw it opening to like 20mil. I guess women who see these types of films just decided that it looked too cheap and pathetic even for their tastes. I'm always happy to see bad looking films bomb.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Women can go see hot guys in Avengers anyway.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, I'm glad the American public could smell outright pandering a mile away. Battleship was a film designed as product first, derivative product at that, with a plot, I'm hesitant to use story, grafted on afterwards.

Hell, Universal reportedly chose this product over a passion project like At the Mountains of Madness. At least they would have been attempting to make something artful and lasting with the alternative, instead all they get is red ink. Serves them right.