Jason Statham to take on Meg

[I Am The Knight]

I can dig it.

 

[Marvolo]

I had little interest to begin with, but now that theyve cut this down to a fluffy bloodless PG-13 and dont want to release the full film in theaters or on bluray I'll just skip it altogether.

Ill reconsider if the studio gives Statham and the director the finger and forces them to release the full film on bluray. Theyll make more money that way, and studios love money.

 

[Mysteryman]

I had little interest to begin with, but now that theyve cut this down to a fluffy bloodless PG-13 and dont want to release the full film in theaters or on bluray I'll just skip it altogether.

Ill reconsider if the studio gives Statham and the director the finger and forces them to release the full film on bluray. Theyll make more money that way, and studios love money.

How much blood was there in Jaws?

 

[Rjones1325]

I’m not going to lie: I found myself enjoying this more than I thought I would. It’s much more campy and fun than other shark movies I’ve seen in the past. As far as shark movies go, it’s not as great as “Jaws” or “The Shallow”, but it is definitely the third best one on the list.

For a $150 million dollar budget, “The Meg” our all of the effects to good use. The effects of the Megalodon are great for sequences involving the characters getting eaten. The Meg has a believable appearance that makes some of the kills look insane and terrifying. It’s not on the same ironic level as “Sharknado” or as outdated as “Deep Blue Sea”. Even the underwater research facility base that most of the film takes place in looks incredible.

FULL REVIEW: https://rendyreviews.com/movies//the-meg-review

 

[harlequinade]

150 mil?! Jesus Christ....

 

[Schlosser85]

How much blood was there in Jaws?

Quite a bit actually.

 

[terry78]

You have to look at this as Jurassic Park for sharks basically

 

[Loki882]

Jaws funnily enough was rated PG (the PG-13 rating didn't exist at the time).

 

[Schlosser85]

Jaws funnily enough was rated PG (the PG-13 rating didn't exist at the time).

It'd be PG-13 today. Quint's demise is pretty gruesome, and there's also the severed leg sinking to the bottom of the pond and some other moments.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You have to look at this as Jurassic Park for sharks basically

SSssssssooooo........ Jurassic Shark?

 

[DarkShadow10]

SSssssssooooo........ Jurassic Shark?

Ouch!

 

[Deck Rickard]

Jurassic Schlock is more like it. That said... I may go see this at the drive-in because it feels like the type of movie that medium would be good for.

 

[moviedoors]

Ill reconsider if the studio gives Statham and the director the finger and forces them to release the full film on bluray. Theyll make more money that way, and studios love money.

I'm not sure why you're blaming them, or why you think they have final cut over the studio.

 

[TheVileOne]

No offense, but this does not look like a $150 million movie. Can Statham really have that big of an asking price?

 

[:eek:]

“The Meg” Heads For A Soft $20M Opening

By
Garth Franklin -

Wednesday, August 8th 2018 6:28 pm
http://cdn3.darkhorizons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/the-meg-heads-for-a-soft-20m-opening.jpg
Maybe they should’ve gone for the R-rating after all. THR reports that Jon Turteltaub‘s big-budget sci-fi creature feature “The Meg” is on track for a soft $20-22 million domestic opening.
For a film that cost a whopping $130 million officially ($150 million unofficially), that’s not good but the hope is the Chinese market will save the day in this battle of Jason Statham versus a giant prehistoric shark. The Chinese producer also supplied much of the film’s funding so Warners won’t be too hurt by this.
“The Meg” has been in development hell for twenty years, but got picked up when Warners nabbed the rights in 2015 and hired Eli Roth onboard to direct. He then left with “National Treasure” helmer Turteltaub taking over and the joint U.S. Chinese production kicked off late 2016.
The other day Turteltaub revealed that while he always wanted a ‘fun’ tone for the film, he had to make edits to cut it down to a PG-13 including cutting out almost all the blood from the movie including some completed digital effects shots.
In a new interview with Collider, the film’s star Jason Statham revealed that the film’s tone and rating had changed from what he signed up for:

“Scripts totally different. There was so many different … sometimes you just go, ‘How did it happen? How did it go from this to this to this to that?… I’m just saying it was radically different… Jon’s interpretation of this is a fun end of summer [movie]. It’s full of humor.
It’s a little bit more directed to a different taste of what my own is in terms of I like more gory adult stuff. I’m a lot older but I can’t speak for what this film could possibly speak to a younger audience.”
​

When told it was still alot of fun, Statham replied: “Yeah but you go, ‘Where’s the f–king blood?’ It’s like, ‘There’s a shark’.” Reviews have also started coming in for the film which sits at 47% on Rotten Tomatoes. It opens in cinemas everywhere starting this Friday.

 

[harlequinade]

No offense, but this does not look like a $150 million movie. Can Statham really have that big of an asking price?

I bet that's the dog's salary, it looked like a diva to me

 

[Blitzkrieg]

[YT]UoIpbh-RVfk[/YT]

 

[terry78]

haha, of course they have some insipid pop song playing over the credits.

 

[DarkKnight88]

You have to look at this as Jurassic Park for sharks basically

That's an insult to Jurassic Park.

This is Jurassic Park III for sharks.

The marketing has been terrible IMO. Had they played it up as a fun horror, it would be tracking much better.

The opening of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom with the Mosasaurus is looking to be a better "giant shark" movie than the entirety of this.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The marketing has been terrible IMO.

Actually the marketing campaign from WB has been stellar IMO. Campy, absurd fun in a big budget shark movie sounds like a much better sales pitch. WB could have focused on emphasizing the horror aspect if this had a lower budget but showing the perils of a big a$$ Megalodon in a tongue in-cheek way is probably the best way to market this movie as it caps off the summer of 2018 as the last big blockbuster.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Actually the marketing campaign from WB has been stellar IMO. Campy, absurd fun in a big budget shark movie sounds like a much better sales pitch. WB could have focused on emphasizing the horror aspect if this had a lower budget but showing the perils of a big a$$ Megalodon in a tongue in-cheek way is probably the best way to market this movie as it caps off the summer of 2018 as the last big blockbuster.

If that was true, it wouldn't be opening as low as tracking suggests. This kind of movie should be opening to at least 30-40 M. We'll see, I guess.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If that was true, it wouldn't be opening as low as tracking suggests. This kind of movie should be opening to at least 30-40 M. We'll see, I guess.

I'm going to predict that The Meg will open closer to 30m than 20m.

I'll be vindicated on 12/08/2018 when the actuals starts trickling in. Or I'll eat crow for misguided optimism.

Also, the most obvious comp for The Meg would be Deep Blue Sea which would have opened to 28.9m when adjusted for inflation of nominal usd. Shark movies are not hot commodity to the North American audience and they will always have a hard time to break out on OW unless they're a direct sequel to a beloved previous installment.

Look at the trailers for The Shallows. They're clearly embracing horror and adding elements of a thriller.

[YT]vPOpE-_42as[/YT] [YT]EgdxIlSuB70[/YT]

This movie was backed by a major studio and it released smack in the middle of summer opening in close to 3,000 locations in NA and it still opened to just 16.8m. The difference between that OW and The Meg's OW is gonna be blockbuster level special fx and well, the campy tone of the latter movie.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I don't think The Shallows is a fair comparison other than both having sharks. One is a smaller character piece that takes place in one location. The other is a big budget, popcorn film with big special effects. The recent comparisons to this film are closer to Rampage or Pacific Rim (both of which opened in the mid 30M range).

Deep Blue Sea's opening adjusted to inflation is fair. This should at least make 29M+. Again, anything below that shows a real lack in the marketing. Opening weekend box office is pretty much all marketing and trailers.

 

[Schlosser85]

James Berardinelli in his review says the trailer's tone doesn't reflect the actual movie, that the trailer makes it look fun and campy while the movie takes itself too seriously and isn't the tongue-in-cheek romp it's advertised as.


I was a little disappointed to read that.

 

[terry78]

Feh.