• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Rise of the Silver Surfer BOX OFFICE Discussion

Any word yet from FOX... they are stating to annoy me! :cmad:

I'm boycotting every single film that they pump out until FF3 is greenlit.

They can't greenlight anything till the writers strike is over. All the major studios have been silent. Can't start thinking about a movie till you have a writer. The last writers strike lasted 22 weeks. If this one is as long as that one you're talking middle to end of April 08 before it is settled.
 
Any word yet from FOX... they are stating to annoy me! :cmad:

I'm boycotting every single film that they pump out until FF3 is greenlit.


You should be grateful.

They could still ruin Annihilus, the Puppet Master, Mole Man, Mad Thinker, etc.... :whatever:
 
Honestly, I think if the Doom origin was closer to the comics this movie would have surpassed the budget. He really was like Norman Osborne. Heck even the board room firing was very similiar to SM1. If they could have done a quick flashback with him growing up with his mother and she being killed as a witch and him ruling Latveria and not just being a businessman, this would have worked. I was disappointed in this movie when Story said that Doom would be in all his "bada$$ness" but we have yet to see it. Matter of fact, he looked like the GG on Surfer's board. I hope they have a part 3 but with a smaller budget. Maybe the villian can be .............the Xmen? There's a thought! The first superhero crossover film.

Why would the X-Men be 'villains' in an FF movie? That's a less than intelligent suggestion. In the comicbooks, Reed Richard even designed the X-Men's uniforms, Nightcrawler's holographic image inducer and probably a lot of other technology. They're all good guys. But they do exist in a somewhat different world yet within the same city. The mutated FF are welcomed as heroes, the mutant X-Men are feared and hated (until the end of X3 anyway).

X-Men + FF vs Inhumans = better! But too expensive, too many characters to service well...
 
And back to the box office topic, neither of the FF movies were what they could have been, sadly. I don't know if its budget or director's (lack of) vision (or inexperience); or studio demands. One suspects it's a bit of all three.

When you see the 'big' movies like Pirates, you see how action-adventure is made. The storylines in Pirates aren't even that good or well-structured, but (in Pirates 2 and 3 particularly) the set pieces, the action, the climactic sequences, are staggering, memorable, the camerawork patiently shows us what is at stake and takes us right into the heart of it all, the FX are flawless, making you want to watch over and over again. The directing and cinematography are fantastic, with vast power and scale delivered on the screen. In other movies, it often doesn't match that level. It does in LOTR of course. In terms of comicbook movies, quality scenes matching those in Pirates come a few times in SM3, mainly at the end battle; there are a few parts of X3 and one or two parts of X2 that come close.

When I see these big movies like Pirates, I feel regret that X-Men and Fantastic Four never climbed to those heights. Next up on the fantasy must-see list is Golden Compass, which looks to exude quality and the same sort of dramatic power.
 
When you see the 'big' movies like Pirates, you see how action-adventure is made. The storylines in Pirates aren't even that good or well-structured, but (in Pirates 2 and 3 particularly) the set pieces, the action, the climactic sequences, are staggering, memorable, the camerawork patiently shows us what is at stake and takes us right into the heart of it all, the FX are flawless, making you want to watch over and over again. The directing and cinematography are fantastic, with vast power and scale delivered on the screen.

When I see these big movies like Pirates, I feel regret that X-Men and Fantastic Four never climbed to those heights.

Well let's take a look see. Shall we ? 2 FF movies $ 230 million. $ 115 per movie. POTC $ 565 million 3 movies. $ 188.3 million per movie. $ 73 million per movie more then Fox is putting out for FF. Big difference. You want a movie visualy stunning with flawless sets and tons of flawless special effects ? It cost MONEY. Fox is not spending that kind of money. X-Men ? $ 395 million 3 movies. $ 131.6 million per movie. $ 210 for the 3rd one, and it showed. Much better sets, and special effects. Will Fox put out $ 210 for a 3rd FF movie ? Dream on. Fox even admitted they shelled out the bucks for the SS effects. FF 2 was a 90 minute trailer for the SS movie. Plain and simple. $ 130 budget ? I'll bet my last dollar that 10 to 15 million went to the SS effects.
 
Well let's take a look see. Shall we ? 2 FF movies $ 230 million. $ 115 per movie. POTC $ 565 million 3 movies. $ 188.3 million per movie. $ 73 million per movie more then Fox is putting out for FF. Big difference. You want a movie visualy stunning with flawless sets and tons of flawless special effects ? It cost MONEY. Fox is not spending that kind of money. X-Men ? $ 395 million 3 movies. $ 131.6 million per movie. $ 210 for the 3rd one, and it showed. Much better sets, and special effects. Will Fox put out $ 210 for a 3rd FF movie ? Dream on. Fox even admitted they shelled out the bucks for the SS effects. FF 2 was a 90 minute trailer for the SS movie. Plain and simple. $ 130 budget ? I'll bet my last dollar that 10 to 15 million went to the SS effects.

Yes, more money was spent on Pirates, and more money was earned from it being a quality piece of movie-making that dazzles on screen. And not only did Pirates have more money, but the movies were longer.

If Fox gave more time and money to their movies, they might earn more from their movies. People will flock to see epic, quality movies.

Clearly, cutting back on budgets and making movies too short does NOT make movies as successful as those with larger budgets and longer running times.
 
I bet money that 3x the amount you just said was spent on SS FX alone...Carpy....
 
Why would the X-Men be 'villains' in an FF movie? That's a less than intelligent suggestion. In the comicbooks, Reed Richard even designed the X-Men's uniforms, Nightcrawler's holographic image inducer and probably a lot of other technology. They're all good guys. But they do exist in a somewhat different world yet within the same city. The mutated FF are welcomed as heroes, the mutant X-Men are feared and hated (until the end of X3 anyway).

X-Men + FF vs Inhumans = better! But too expensive, too many characters to service well...
I didn't mean vs. each other. I mean, just a crossover film. It hasn't been done before in the comic world and I think it would work. Imagine a team up of Doom and Magneto.
Crossover in some kind of form.
 
Yes, more money was spent on Pirates, and more money was earned from it being a quality piece of movie-making that dazzles on screen. And not only did Pirates have more money, but the movies were longer.

If Fox gave more time and money to their movies, they might earn more from their movies. People will flock to see epic, quality movies.

Clearly, cutting back on budgets and making movies too short does NOT make movies as successful as those with larger budgets and longer running times.

Fox seems to have the thinking, make a lot of cheep, short films, make a bit of profit on each, and that equals more in the long run. Fox is the Sam Walton of movie making. Make a little on each movie, rather then a killing on 1 movie. Time, money and a longer movie does not = a landslide of profit. Case in point ? SR. $ 270 spent. $ 391 WW. $ 200 domestic. 1.4 multiplier. FF 2 $ 130 spent. $ 289 WW. 2.2 multiplier. For budget FF 2 made more than SR. Fox got a better return on investment with FF 2, then Parimount did on SR. To put that in terms that everyone can understand, for every $ 1.00 Fox spent on FF 2, they made back $ 2.20. For every $ 1.00 spent on SR the studio made back $ 1.40.
 
Fox seems to have the thinking, make a lot of cheep, short films, make a bit of profit on each, and that equals more in the long run. Fox is the Sam Walton of movie making. Make a little on each movie, rather then a killing on 1 movie. Time, money and a longer movie does not = a landslide of profit. Case in point ? SR. $ 270 spent. $ 391 WW. $ 200 domestic. 1.4 multiplier. FF 2 $ 130 spent. $ 289 WW. 2.2 multiplier. For budget FF 2 made more than SR. Fox got a better return on investment with FF 2, then Parimount did on SR. To put that in terms that everyone can understand, for every $ 1.00 Fox spent on FF 2, they made back $ 2.20. For every $ 1.00 spent on SR the studio made back $ 1.40.

I knew SR would be brought up. Clearly, a long, expensive movie reviving the Superman franchise and directed by X-Men director Singer should have been a big moneyspinner.

But if you watch the movie, it doesn't look like a $270m product. A lot of money was wasted - a $10m, 10-minute, completed sequence showing Superman exploring the remnants of his planet was cut out by Singer; money was spent buying land and growing a field of corn for childhood flashback sequences that were unnecessary to the thrust of the narrative; and a lot of other money is said to have been frittered away. There was therefore no money left for the proposed climactic action scenes of a tidal wave crashing into Metropolis and Superman lifting a train out of the way of the water.

What's left on screen in the released film is a ponderous and almost boring film where the action is either poor or absent. There is no 'wow' factor leaping out from the screen, no sense of dynamism or energy.

It should be noted that there are long periods between action in Pirates, but when the action comes, it does not in any way disappoint: it's so staggering and flawless that it's hard to imagine how some of the scenes and FX were done, such is the merging of real and unreal.

Transformers is an example of money well spent and one suspects it was down to the expertise and experience of Spielberg in getting as much dollar on screen as possible.

FF:RoTSS had SOME good scenes and SOME good action... but it all sped past in such a way that it becomes insubstantial and forgettable, the camera never staying too long on anything. Just when the audience was getting ready to gasp and drop their jaws, we were hurried on to something else, like a guided tour where the tourguide is rushing too much. The same can be said of X3... though X3 is a better-made movie than FF:RoTSS (but X3 is still far from what it should have been, mainly because of its runtime which skipped over characters and events too quickly).
 
I knew SR would be brought up. Clearly, a long, expensive movie reviving the Superman franchise and directed by X-Men director Singer should have been a big moneyspinner.

But if you watch the movie, it doesn't look like a $270m product. A lot of money was wasted - a $10m, 10-minute, completed sequence showing Superman exploring the remnants of his planet was cut out by Singer; money was spent buying land and growing a field of corn for childhood flashback sequences that were unnecessary to the thrust of the narrative; and a lot of other money is said to have been frittered away. There was therefore no money left for the proposed climactic action scenes of a tidal wave crashing into Metropolis and Superman lifting a train out of the way of the water.

What's left on screen in the released film is a ponderous and almost boring film where the action is either poor or absent. There is no 'wow' factor leaping out from the screen, no sense of dynamism or energy.

It should be noted that there are long periods between action in Pirates, but when the action comes, it does not in any way disappoint: it's so staggering and flawless that it's hard to imagine how some of the scenes and FX were done, such is the merging of real and unreal.

Transformers is an example of money well spent and one suspects it was down to the expertise and experience of Spielberg in getting as much dollar on screen as possible.

FF:RoTSS had SOME good scenes and SOME good action... but it all sped past in such a way that it becomes insubstantial and forgettable, the camera never staying too long on anything. Just when the audience was getting ready to gasp and drop their jaws, we were hurried on to something else, like a guided tour where the tourguide is rushing too much. The same can be said of X3... though X3 is a better-made movie than FF:RoTSS (but X3 is still far from what it should have been, mainly because of its runtime which skipped over characters and events too quickly).

I must say, you have hit the nail on the head.

This is exactly how a lot of things seem to me now with FF1 and 2, like I was eating an icecream and it slips out of the cone after only a few licks.

I wanted more but it was over so suddenly before I could lose myself in the ecstasy.
 
I knew SR would be brought up. Clearly, a long, expensive movie reviving the Superman franchise and directed by X-Men director Singer should have been a big moneyspinner.

But if you watch the movie, it doesn't look like a $270m product. A lot of money was wasted - a $10m, 10-minute, completed sequence showing Superman exploring the remnants of his planet was cut out by Singer; money was spent buying land and growing a field of corn for childhood flashback sequences that were unnecessary to the thrust of the narrative; and a lot of other money is said to have been frittered away. There was therefore no money left for the proposed climactic action scenes of a tidal wave crashing into Metropolis and Superman lifting a train out of the way of the water.

What's left on screen in the released film is a ponderous and almost boring film where the action is either poor or absent. There is no 'wow' factor leaping out from the screen, no sense of dynamism or energy.

It should be noted that there are long periods between action in Pirates, but when the action comes, it does not in any way disappoint: it's so staggering and flawless that it's hard to imagine how some of the scenes and FX were done, such is the merging of real and unreal.

Transformers is an example of money well spent and one suspects it was down to the expertise and experience of Spielberg in getting as much dollar on screen as possible.

FF:RoTSS had SOME good scenes and SOME good action... but it all sped past in such a way that it becomes insubstantial and forgettable, the camera never staying too long on anything. Just when the audience was getting ready to gasp and drop their jaws, we were hurried on to something else, like a guided tour where the tourguide is rushing too much. The same can be said of X3... though X3 is a better-made movie than FF:RoTSS (but X3 is still far from what it should have been, mainly because of its runtime which skipped over characters and events too quickly).
I agree.
 
I must say, you have hit the nail on the head.

This is exactly how a lot of things seem to me now with FF1 and 2, like I was eating an icecream and it slips out of the cone after only a few licks.

I wanted more but it was over so suddenly before I could lose myself in the ecstasy.

I agree. The only reason I can think of for such short films is, get as many showings as possible. Fox seems to have the mindset, if we can get 2 or 3 extra showings at each theater, it will make money. They take a quanty over quality approach. I did not get the same pop from the 2nd movie as I got from the 1st movie. The 1st movie had a much better ending. The ending of the 2nd movie had a rushed feeling. It was hard to follow what was happening it went by so fast, and left me empty. Oh well. That movie was about the Surfer period. It was so apparent. :csad: The dialogue was better. The sets were better, but the feel of the 1st movie just was not there. Everyone on these boards knows I'm as huge a FF, and Thing fan as there is on these boards. The Thing was practually non existant in the 2nd movie. He had 1 good scene with Johnny, then disapeared for the rest of the movie. The whole Reed bachelor party scene was too long, and totaly added nothing to the story. It was a total waste of time. It took precious minutes away from other things that could have been put in its place. The scene where Sue was on fire was the best scene in the movie in my opinion. :woot: I laughed my rear off, and so did everyone else.
 
The Thing is definately the least important character of the main ones in FF2, and the Thing was one of the primary reasons I enjoyed FF1.
 
The Thing is definately the least important character of the main ones in FF2, and the Thing was one of the primary reasons I enjoyed FF1.

Agreed, him and Johnny were practically the ONLY reasons i enjoyed the first one, and one was shunned in the sequel, while the other was given an arc which he went through in the extended version of the 1st movie.
 
Have you ever seen the Corman version of the FF ? To compair that to these films, is an insult. Mabey you would like Singer to do the next one ? FF would mean something totaly different to him. Sheesh. After seeing the Superman suit, I can only imagine what The Thing would look like.
Yes, it was meant to be an insult.

Singer's take on the FF would have been as equally bad as Story's. They have both proven that they don't get (AT ALL!) the characters they SAY they love.

Singer would have made the Thing look the same, the only difference: Instead of black Alicia... Ben would be dating Al.
 
Not sure that it ever opened in China....but yeah I think we can pretty much say.....that the BO is done.
 
Not sure that it ever opened in China....but yeah I think we can pretty much say.....that the BO is done.


O my God, the BO is not done! This is beyond BO, it's BBO! :woot:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,422
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"