Henry Golding in Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins

[MurkeNyou]

For some reason, I'm a bit more confident Shang-chi is gonna be better than this flick.

 

[MurkeNyou]

For some reason, I'm a bit more confident Shang-chi is gonna be better than this flick.

Oh right, mysterious silent faceless masked assassin. Why would a Snake eyes fan be interested in that...

 

[TheVileOne]

Shang-Chi at least has the support of the Marvel brand behind it. This movie did not.

 

[TheVileOne]

Oh right, mysterious silent faceless masked assassin. Why would a Snake eyes fan be interested in that...

View attachment 47685

OK that said, we don't know how this character is going to be portrayed in Shang-Chi and the depth and breadth of this character's role.

 

[Heretic]

You know...when Paramount told me that they didnt want me to buy out an entire movie screening's tickets to give to veterans, I assumed they had tracking that said that this was going to be a big opening. Oops. Not too many sold out screenings, it seems. I'm grateful, since the movie sucks and I would hate to have tortured people having them sit through that.

Meanwhile, my event went great! We didn't take many pictures because we obviously wanted to protect the privacy of the veterans...but there's a few pics with the blog post I made on
GWE's A Real American Hero Mental Health Day

 

[emc5466]

Chances are he was cheap, available, and said yes.

Exactly. He was the only hack they could find who agreed to direct that awful script.

 

[Drizzle]

This was never going to do well even if the pandemic wasn't a factor. G.I. Joe isn't that popular of an IP these days, the nostalgia never caught on for it like it did for Transformers. I feel like its target audience is adult toy collectors who grew up with the cartoon in the '80s. The last two Joe movies did okay but they were more ensemble movies and also had the added benefit of having stars like Dwayne Johnson and Channing Tatum involved. Frankly, I'm not expecting Shang Chi to do spectacular either (at least compared to other recent MCU films) but I'm sure it'll do better than Snake Eyes just from the Marvel brand alone.

 

[Detective Conan]

Snake Eyes’ Box Office Failure Is Terrible News For ‘Star Trek’

As expected by anyone paying attention, Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins bombed at the domestic box office this weekend, opening with just $13.3 million against a budget of $88 million. The overseas prospects aren’t much better, with $4 million in 37 markets making up 29% of the international footprint. Using spitball math, that translates into a $13.7 million total overseas opening for a $27 million global “debut.” Throw up an “optimistic” 2.77x multiplier (akin to Rise of Cobra with $150 million domestic off a $54 million debut back in 2009), and you still have a global cume of around $75 million.

There are a million reasons why this happened. Offhand, audiences didn’t want another badly-reviewed G.I. Joe movie. Audiences didn’t want a reboot that was a prequel for “the movie you wanted to see,” etc. The expected crash for the “Snake Eyes before he was Snake Eyes” flick serves as a cautionary tale for whatever Paramount has in the works for Star Trek. It’s been five years since the lackluster performance of Justin Lin’s (mainly well-liked) Star Trek Beyond, which earned $158 million domestic and $338 million worldwide against a $185 million budget. That means we’ve been getting five years’ worth of “Star Trek 4 is going to happen!” news blasts.

It started days before Star Trek Beyond, with word that Paramount was developing a sequel involving time travel and the post-death return of Chris Hemsworth as Kirk’s late father. As I noted then, it was a bluff, a preemptive show of false strength to make the upcoming film’s commercial performance seem more promising than it turned out to be. It’s not unlike when Warner Bros. reacted to the horrific 69% second-weekend drop of Green Lantern (which would eventually earn just $220 million on a $200 million budget) by (allegedly) announcing a sequel. Ten years later, and there’s no Green Lantern 2. We’ll see if Cruella 2 or Wonder Woman 3, both announced as a show of perceived success, actually get made.

We’ve been reading about starts and stops for Star Trek 4 ever since. Quentin Tarantino had an R-rated pitch disassociated from the reboot continuity, but that never advanced beyond news hits and hot takes. A sequel to Star Trek Beyond, which was to be directed by S. J. Clarkson, was undone in summer 2018 due to Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth refusing to take pay cuts over deals made on the assumption that Beyond would be a hit. Noah Hawley was hired in November 2019 to write and direct an entirely new Star Trek film, but that never went anywhere (allegedly due to the pitch involving a deadly virus).

Kalina Vazquez was hired to write a separate screenplay based on her idea, while Lindsey Beer and Geneva Robertson-Dworet offered another competing script. With WandaVision director Matt Shakman being hired to direct earlier this month for a June 9, 2023 release date, that one seems to have won out. I’d hope the total failure of rebooting G.I. Joe showed Paramount that they need to retain at least the “reboot trilogy” cast. Whether they remain as popular as they were in 2009, Chris Pine’s Kirk, Zachary Quinto’s Spock, Karl Urban’s McCoy, Zoe Saldana’s Uhura, Simon Pegg’s Scott and John Cho’s Sulu are at least known/well-liked cinematic incarnations of marquee characters.

Going with a new crew means you’re betting on the mere abstract notion of Star Trek as an IP, something that has frankly never been tried for the movies. Going with another reboot means offering up another arbitrarily young, sexy, charismatic cast of folks playing characters defined by the original TV show cast and redefined by the Bad Robot-produced trilogy. Moreover, the very idea of a famous IP getting a young-and-hot recasting/reboot may have been unique in 2009, but now it’s almost par for the course. Heck, much of what made Star Trek special in 2009 (a mega-budget swashbuckling sci-fi adventure starring hip new actors) is now what everyone is trying to do in Hollywood.


Henry Golding and Samara Weaving in ‘Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins’


PARAMOUNT

A Star Trek movie with the rollercoaster spirit of a Star Wars movie instantly became less special once Disney bought Star Wars in 2012 and began making sequels to Return of the Jedi. Furthermore, the “only in Star Trek” elements (a high-energy blockbuster that’s part workplace melodrama, part surrogate family dramedy and all action-packed FX spectacular) became readily available in the 2010’s-era Fast & Furious movies and Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy. By 2016, Star Trek Beyond, like Independence Day Resurgence, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Into the Shadows, Jason Bourne and Ghostbusters, were arbitrary “attempted tentpole of the week” extensions of once-were-special brands and franchises. And even at the start, Star Trek and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra only flew so high.

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek earned just $385 million worldwide on a $150 million budget, less than the first Twilight ($391 million), Superman Returns ($394 million) and Tron: Legacy ($400 million)while barely out-earning X-Men Origins: Wolverine ($373 million). There was hope that a leggy, acclaimed and slightly underperforming reboot would lead to a breakout blockbuster sequel akin to Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins ($373 million/$150 million) leading to The Dark Knight ($1.004 billion/$180 million) just that previous summer. Alas, Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness took four long years to open. By that time, the Jedi were about to return, James Bond and Ethan Hunt were as popular as ever and the MCU had launched itself to the front of the pack with Joss Whedon’s The Avengers ($1.5 billion) and Shane Black’s Iron Man 3 ($1.215 billion). A $467 million cume, primarily due to overseas and 3-D up-charged earnings, was as high as it would get.

Likewise, Stephen Sommers’ (underrated) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra would battle bad buzz and a lack of pre-screening reviews to open with $54 million and leg out to $154 million in August 2009. It would earn $300 million global, barely enough on a $150 million budget, but we got a sequel anyway. Jon M. Chu’s G.I. Joe: Retaliation, specifically engineered to kick butt overseas, had a 3-D conversion and new protagonists in Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis even while continuing Rise of Cobra’s “The president is Zartan in disguise!” cliffhanger. It would earn $115 million domestic but $375 million on a $135 million budget. Paramount’s real hit in summer 2013 was Brad Pitt’s World War Z, which overcame bad buzz to earn $550 million on a $190 million budget.

In between Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond, Justin Lin’s Fast & Furious franchise became a multi-billion-dollar franchise, and the blow-out success of James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy ($773 million in 2014 primarily based on good buzz and the Marvel brand) cemented the MCU as the defining pop culture movie franchise. Oh, and J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: The Force Awakens had violently told Harry Potter to get the hell off its lawn as king of the blockbuster mountain. We’ll never know if things might have been different had Star Trek Into Darkness made it into theaters by summer 2012 (likely at worst placing third alongside Avengers, Dark Knight Rises and Amazing Spider-Man) with Star Trek Beyond opening summer 2015 just before The Force Awakens. But the Star Trek films never came anywhere close to top-tier blockbuster earnings.

Nor did either G.I. Joe movie. Both of these Paramount franchises barely hit Conjuring Universe-level grosses worldwide even amid a far more generous theatrical environment and when Paramount was the best of the best at selling blockbuster franchise tentpoles. The bitter irony is that Paramount helped launch the MCU, which would become the means of its destruction. Rise of Cobra was a gee-whiz MCU-style ensemble adventure (bright colors, PG-13 carnage, quirky villains and do-gooder heroes all tossing off quips, etc.) back before such a thing was unquestionably cool. Still, it never became the next Transformers, not even when the very idea of mega-budget Star Trek movies or big-budget G.I. Joe flicks were unique events unto themselves.

Snake Eyes, without arguing that G.I. Joe is anywhere near as popular as Star Trek, cost about what the next Star Trek movie should cost. Even without Covid, Snake Eyes would be looking at xXx: Return of Xander Cage-level grosses ($20 million debut and $45 million total) without a Chinese bailout. Star Trek may live long on TV, but I’m not sure if it can prosper in theaters. It couldn’t when the odds were in its favor, so why would it now? Star Trek 4 will open in summer 2023, weeks after a third Guardians of the Galaxy, months before Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and possibly (speculation) right after or right before Fast & Furious 10. Uh… good luck.

 

[emc5466]

Paramount is desperate for franchises, they really needed GI Joe to work. They need to regroup with a new creative team and sans Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

 

[psylockolussus]

Paramount has nothing to blame but themselves. A new G I Joe and Star Trek movie took so long for them to make. While they just ignored the critical reception for the Transformer movies directed by Michael Bay, to the point most no longer care about a new Transformers movie.

At least, they still have Sonic.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Shame as Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow are very solid characters from the 'universe', this really shouldn't be too hard to F-Up.

 

[Detective Conan]

At least, they still have Sonic.

…for now. We’ll see if they can maintain that franchise without running it to the ground with a bad sequel like they did with Turtles. If sequelitis kicks in, and that movie flops or tanks with bad reviews at the box office then they certainly won’t have that either.

Edit: Dan Murrell does a very good breakdown on movie’s lackluster box office.

 

[DarkKnight]

based on comments of those that have seen the film it appears my fears were true. I'm sure I'll still give it a watch eventually. But likely when on streaming for free.

 

[Detective Conan]

Good Twitter thread on why the movie bombed:

 

[MurkeNyou]

Paramount is desperate for franchises, they really needed GI Joe to work. They need to regroup with a new creative team and sans Lorenzo di Bonaventura.

Then they need to hire/ not work with some people. This failure falls 100% at corporate feet.

 

[TheVileOne]

Snake Eyes’ Box Office Failure Is Terrible News For ‘Star Trek’

Other than Paramount Pictures, I don't really see the connection. Can anyone explain this to me?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

This was never going to do well even if the pandemic wasn't a factor. G.I. Joe isn't that popular of an IP these days, the nostalgia never caught on for it like it did for Transformers. I feel like its target audience is adult toy collectors who grew up with the cartoon in the '80s. The last two Joe movies did okay but they were more ensemble movies and also had the added benefit of having stars like Dwayne Johnson and Channing Tatum involved. Frankly, I'm not expecting Shang Chi to do spectacular either (at least compared to other recent MCU films) but I'm sure it'll do better than Snake Eyes just from the Marvel brand alone.

The main reason Transformers did well as a movie was because it appealed to kids in the late 2000s for the same reason it appealed to kids in the 80s. They are colorful and cool looking cars that turned into robots. The movies kept that aspect of the IP and reaped the rewards.

The GI Joe movies on the other hand, they put all of their heroes in black leather and had an ugly unappealing look to the first movie. There was no color. It didn't have the same appeal to kids that the 80s cartoon did or the Larry Hama comics. Both movies were drab and boring to look at. I mean, what kids are going to want to buy Channing Tatum's character action figure?

 

[samsnee]

This is going to make less than Nic Cage’s Snake Eyes movie

 

[psylockolussus]

Other than Paramount Pictures, I don't really see the connection. Can anyone explain this to me?

Star Trek as a movie series isn't really a good position right now. Beyond underperformed and it is taking ages for the follow up to start filming. Like G.I. Joe, Star Trek is a blockbuster film series that is kinda in limbo. I'm sure after Snake Eyes, Paramount doesn't want another disappointment from one of their blockbuster franchises.

Anyway, aside from Sonic, Paramount still has Mission Impossible and A Quiet Place which I forgot to mention in my older post.

 

[TheVileOne]

Star Trek as a movie series isn't really a good position right now. Beyond underperformed and it is taking ages for the follow up to start filming. Like G.I. Joe, Star Trek is a blockbuster film series that is kinda in limbo. I'm sure after Snake Eyes, Paramount doesn't want another disappointment from one of their blockbuster franchises.

It's a very flimsy argument for that Forbes writer to make. Yes, Star Trek is in limbo and development hell right now. No question.

That said, Star Trek as a franchise has far more history and background at theaters, also doing well in theaters, over GI Joe. It's a far more established picture with box office legs over the years. Also, the franchise could always just be one film away from turning things around again. Look at First Contact in 1996 or the reboot in 2009.

I don't see why GI Joe doing bad is terrible for Star Trek specifically. I'd say it's terrible for GI Joe and just bad for Paramount in general right now, not necessarily Star Trek. Not to mention Star Trek and GI Joe have very little in common and different types of audiences and fanbases.

Anyway, aside from Sonic, Paramount still has Mission Impossible and A Quiet Place which I forgot to mention in my older post.

I think what's been worse for Star Trek, not GI Joe bombing, is that they've stalled too much over the years. They can't figure out what they want to do with the films, what cast they want to use, Quentin Tarantino, etc. Even when JJ Abrams was on board, they stalled getting Into Darkness off the ground. When Beyond came out, they failed to capitalize on the 50th anniversary, which was SHAMEFUL. Those were the terrible moves IMO. I think in the grand scheme of things, Snake Eyes bombing has little to no effect.

 

[TheVileOne]

…for now. We’ll see if they can maintain that franchise without running it to the ground with a bad sequel like they did with Turtles. If sequelitis kicks in, and that movie flops or tanks with bad reviews at the box office then they certainly won’t have that either.

Edit: Dan Murrell does a very good breakdown on movie’s lackluster box office.

Does this guy have a decent channel? Are his takes decent and backed up/

 

[lespaul59]

Didn't he work for Screen Junkies or some similar company or am I getting him confused with somebody else?

 

[Detective Conan]

Does this guy have a decent channel? Are his takes decent and backed up/

He generally does a very thorough and fair breakdown of the box office without the cringey histrionics that you get with other critics like a Grace Randolph or sometimes a John Campea. I think he’s good and quite knowledgeable about the industry so I recommend you check him out.

 

[TheVileOne]

He generally does a very thorough and fair breakdown of the box office without the cringey histrionics that you get with other critics like a Grace Randolph or sometimes a John Campea. I think he’s good and quite knowledgeable about the industry so I recommend you check him out.

Thanks, the note on lack of cringe definitely helps!

 

[DarkKnight]

I often wonder how do these type of films (Super Hero films, 80's cartoon films, etc) fail........ its 2021 and for the at least the past two decades, give or take a bit, its very easy for the fandom and topic forums to be found as well as any information that can easily be researched to see how and what a character should be and how and what the fans would want. I've seen far too many attempts of what should have been awesome to fail because of what seems to be no effort in the aforementioned research.

Granted, I understand Studio interference can be a big issue as it has been with various properties. But you would think studios would have learned their lessons by now. I also understand that if you selected say 20 of us Hypsters and sat us all down in a room and asked each of us "What would you like to see in this new (Insert Superhero or 80's iconic cartoon live action) film" and there would be a percentage that wouldn't agree with each other and each person would likely want specific things. However, to produce a product that at least represents the character(s) and mythos should not be that hard.

I just dont get it.