The Punisher Pushed Back - December 5th

[citizenpain]

I guess because you have a Punsiher avy, you must have a negative outlook on Batman movies. Oh, please.

I have nothing against the Punisher character or mythos. However, I'm not a fan of lackluster movies, much like the 2004 adaptation, so excuse me for being wary of this film. I'm not a hater, just a realist. There's no way you can convince me that a sequel to a 2004 bomb with an even lesser known cast, smaller budget, awkard release date, and almost no anticipation (outside of us nerds) will be a big hit.

Hey, I hope the movie kicks ass. Box office receipts didn't stop me from seeing the last one, and it probably won't keep me away this time because I'm a comic fan. But you've got to look at the facts, and this push-back appears to be the final nail in the coffin, as far as box office goes. You guys are banking on this film being so good that it will be a big hit, but c'mon now...

didn't see this before... okay, the thing about the batman avy wasn't even all that serious. i guess you can't have a lil fun around here...



anyway. you're right, the 2004 adaptation was lackluster. but this isn't even a sequel, that's why it has potential to be really good. this movie is obviously trying to move past the 2004 film with its own take on the punisher. sort of like the incredible hulk, or even batman begins. the two things that i feel ruined the 2004 punisher were director johnathan hansleigh and john travolta. we almost did get another lackluster punisher movie, but luckily they shredded hansleigh's script and moved in a new and seemingly better direction. i'm not banking on the film being a big hit, i don't care if it has the biggest opening ever, i just want a faithful punisher film. and if that happens, and if it's as good as it's shaping up to be in my eyes, then it will make money. it probably won't be a big hit, but i bet it will easily outdo the 2004 punisher in the box office.

 

[citizenpain]

Was it moved to escape the "fierce competition", or to simply do less damage in theaters, die quietly, and move to home video quickly to reap the benefits there? We don't know.

Either way, I still can't see it having an opening larger than $20 million.

you're probably right, and that wouldn't even be bad. $20 million is a lot more than 04's measly $13, so that would certainly be an improvement. saw opened to around $18 million and look how that turned out.

 

[The Shape]

didn't see this before... okay, the thing about the batman avy wasn't even all that serious. i guess you can't have a lil fun around here...



anyway. you're right, the 2004 adaptation was lackluster. but this isn't even a sequel, that's why it has potential to be really good. this movie is obviously trying to move past the 2004 film with its own take on the punisher. sort of like the incredible hulk, or even batman begins. the two things that i feel ruined the 2004 punisher were director johnathan hansleigh and john travolta. we almost did get another lackluster punisher movie, but luckily they shredded hansleigh's script and moved in a new and seemingly better direction. i'm not banking on the film being a big hit, i don't care if it has the biggest opening ever, i just want a faithful punisher film. and if that happens, and if it's as good as it's shaping up to be in my eyes, then it will make money. it probably won't be a big hit, but i bet it will easily outdo the 2004 punisher in the box office.

Yeah, I realize it's a reboot, but you have to understand that the general public don't at this point. Hell, practically no one is even aware that this movie is being made and won't find out until the trailer hits later this year. Also, with a title like Punisher: War Zone, it makes the film sounds like a bad, direct-to-video sequel. I'm frankly surprised it isn't going direct-to-video.

And as for the 2004 film, there were many more things wrong with it besides Travolta and the director. I hope this one is MUCH better, but my expectations aren't too high at this point.

 

[The Shape]

you're probably right, and that wouldn't even be bad. $20 million is a lot more than 04's measly $13, so that would certainly be an improvement. saw opened to around $18 million and look how that turned out.

Saw had legs and a solid word of mouth. Even if this Punisher opens with $20mil, it would probably steeply drop after that and disappear, like many films with that release date do.

 

[S. Grundy]

Plus, Saw was a horror movie that came out around Halloween.

Actually one of my big worries is that War Zone will end up being an action equivalent to the Saw movies, whole lot of violence but no real strong story.

 

[The Shape]

Plus, Saw was a horror movie that came out around Halloween.

Actually one of my big worries is that War Zone will end up being an action equivalent to the Saw movies, whole lot of violence but no real strong story.

Yeah, that would be bad. I didn't think the violence in the 2004 film was that weak, and I also don't think it's that important to have such gruesome violence in a Punisher movie. Yes, he's a violent character in the comics, but that can be expressed without gratuity.

 

[S. Grundy]

The violence in the '04 movie worked, like the scene where Dave is getting tortured by Glass, you don't see much of the act but it's still uncomfortable and effective.

To add to the Saw comparison comment I made, what's also worring me is that all that they've mostly talked up outside of name dropping Ennis is the fact it's gonna be R (duh) and violent.

 

[citizenpain]

my point about saw was that it's also a lionsgate property and even though it only opened to $18 million, it went on warrant several sequels. who's to say that punisher: warzone won't turn out the same?

Yeah, I realize it's a reboot, but you have to understand that the general public don't at this point. Hell, practically no one is even aware that this movie is being made and won't find out until the trailer hits later this year. Also, with a title like Punisher: War Zone, it makes the film sounds like a bad, direct-to-video sequel. I'm frankly surprised it isn't going direct-to-video.

And as for the 2004 film, there were many more things wrong with it besides Travolta and the director. I hope this one is MUCH better, but my expectations aren't too high at this point.

the general public won't know about the movie until the trailer comes out... wow. isn't that true for any movie ever? the general public didn't know there's a new hulk movie coming out, but once everybody saw the trailer, saw that it was an entirely new cast, it was pretty obvious that this was a new film. the same holds true for punisher: warzone... as for the title, it's better than punisher 2. that's why it's the incredible hulk, and not the hulk 2. again, they're distancing themselves from 2004.

speaking of which, actually... the director also happened to write the script and it was his idea to change the origin, so i would say that most of what was wrong with that film definitely does fall on him. he shot the freakin film in bright sunny florida!

Yeah, that would be bad. I didn't think the violence in the 2004 film was that weak, and I also don't think it's that important to have such gruesome violence in a Punisher movie. Yes, he's a violent character in the comics, but that can be expressed without gratuity.

you got that right. it doesn't have to be gratuitous, violence in films works best when it's implied. but it does have to be extreme. we have to see that the punisher does not even consider his targets as human as is willing to go to extreme and brutal lenghts to get the job done. the images on screen don't have to be overly violent, but the things the punisher does definitely do have to be.

 

[S. Grundy]

you got that right. it doesn't have to be gratuitous, violence in films works best when it's implied. but it does have to be extreme. we have to see that the punisher does not even consider his targets as human as is willing to go to extreme and brutal lenghts to get the job done. the images on screen don't have to be overly violent, but the things the punisher does definitely do have to be.

Like at the end of the '04 movie, Jane's walking and there's is a guy still breathing on the ground and he shoots him without even acknowledging the guy. Crawling across a table and stabbing a guy in the throat with a lobster (if it's still in the movie) is pretty dumb and over the top for no reason.

 

[The Shape]

my point about saw was that it's also a lionsgate property and even though it only opened to $18 million, it went on warrant several sequels. who's to say that punisher: warzone won't turn out the same?

The Saw films are a completely different case. They're filmed with extrememly low budgets, and since the original, have been churned out once a year around Halloween as an "event" movie with a gimmick that brings in young audiences every year.

the general public won't know about the movie until the trailer comes out... wow. isn't that true for any movie ever? the general public didn't know there's a new hulk movie coming out, but once everybody saw the trailer, saw that it was an entirely new cast, it was pretty obvious that this was a new film. the same holds true for punisher: warzone... as for the title, it's better than punisher 2. that's why it's the incredible hulk, and not the hulk 2. again, they're distancing themselves from 2004.

You can't quite compare those two films. The Hulk is a much bigger movie that has been announced and hyped for a while. Truth be told, the marketing for the new Hulk has sucked, it's still a tentpole film for this year and Hulk **** is going to be EVERYWHERE very soon. I highly doubt that will be the case for the Punisher. And with the whole reboot idea, it seems to be much more evident with the new Hulk. With the Punisher, people could just say, "Oh, they got a new guy for the Punisher this time around." Hell, some people thought Batman Begins was a prequel to the 1989 movie. You never know these days.

As for the titles, The Incredible Hulk actually sounds good. It's like the Amazing Spider-man. A little cheesy, but not too bad. The Punisher: War Zone, however, definitely sounds direct-to-video and pretty cheesy, as well.

speaking of which, actually... the director also happened to write the script and it was his idea to change the origin, so i would say that most of what was wrong with that film definitely does fall on him. he shot the freakin film in bright sunny florida!

I wasn't even talking about deviances from the comics. That means little to me when watching a movie. I can accept changes as long as they're done well (for example, the Joker in TDK seems great). But the 2004 punisher was lacking in the acting, story elements, pacing, and originality. It was just a forgettable B-action movie that you find in hotel rooms along with other flops.

[/quote]

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

This isn't a good sign.

It looks like that,because if Marvel was confident,it would have done nothing.

 

[TheVileOne]

american gangster, scream 2, bram stoker's dracula, interview with the vampire, ransom, sleepy hollow, the last samurai, the green mile...

American Gangster - Big budget crime drama with two huge movie stars and BO draws, Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington. Not at all like Warzone.

Scream 2 - Another bad example. Sequel to a huge sleeper horror movie hit. Also came out over TEN YEARS AGO. That's a long time. Slasher movies like the Scream series don't do as well they did in the 90's.

Dracula - came out 15 years ago, big ass Francis Ford Coppola with big names such as Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. Not at all like Warzone.

Ransom - Another movie starring MEL GIBSON, big BO draw that came out over 10 years ago. Kidnapping thriller movie very different from Warzone. Not at all like Warzone.

Sleepy Hollow - Tim Burton movie starring Johnny Depp, came out in 1999. Not at all like Warzone, was a big budget event holiday event blockbuster.

The Last Samurai - Period drama starring . . . TOM CRUISE pre-TomKat. Period dramas are different than Warzone and play much better over the holiday season than movies like Warzone.

all movies that were released in november/december that either had a good opening and/or went on to make a good profit. not all those movies may be as dark and violent as the punisher, but they are all rated-r.

All very different movies than Warzone with big name talent or big budgets and hype behind them. Also most of them were NOT sequels to a lackluster, poorly received first movie like THE PUNISHER.

None of those examples resemble Warzone any way at all outside of an R-rating.

also, there's i am legend which opened to $70 million but that was pg-13, however still pretty dark and violent.

PG-13 big budget big event blockbuster with a budget of about $150 million starring WILL SMITH. Will Smith could open $70 million of a movie of him on the toilet for 90 minutes or just 90 minutes of him reading the phone book. He's one of the biggest BO draws working today.

i was just asked to name some dark and violent movies that have done well during the holiday season.

No, I mean dark violent possibly action laden or shoot em up movies like WARZONE that don't necessarily have a huge budget or talent behind it. None of those movies are really like Warzone at all and they all had talent behind them that could draw audiences to serious R-rated fare. And many of your examples are decades old when the ones that play better are the broader family films.

i still don't agree that this is like immediate box office death for the punisher. the date was changed to move it away from fierce competition, giving it a chance to make more money. why would the studio move a film to a date that will knowingly kill its chances of making a profit?

If we had all the answers about why Hollywood makes the mistakes it does . . . well they wouldn't be constantly making them.

This is the same studio that placed the first Punisher opposite Kill Bill Volume 2. When another movie like Man on Fire was away from Kill Bill Volume 2 and did reasonably better than the Punisher. Maybe the studio just doesn't like the movie and wants to bury it.

 

[Balthus Dire]

In my opinion, anyone who thinks a movie like this would go straight to video is an idiot. There's no way LGF or Marvel would pass on an opportunity to cash in on one of their product names, even if the movie was a colossal piece of garbage. Look at Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Elektra. They all went to theatres, despite being absolutely horrible movies. The Punisher is a brand/product a lot of people recognize, and they would never send it straight to video. I'm so sick of hearing that.

And all this December talk is nonsense, too. It's not like they moved it from July to December, it was slated for a September release. September is a horrid release date, even more than December.


I said it once and I'll say it again...until the movie get pushed back to February (a fate shared by all 3 crap Marvel films I stated), I won't be worrying.

 

[TheVileOne]

Man-Thing went straight to video. That had a $30 million budget too.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Man-Thing is a barely recognized Marvel property. The Punisher is not.

 

[claydogg]

I seen alot of talk about the december maybe not so good.

but keep in mind guy "Lethal Weapon" was a december release.
and even though it was ages ago.
the main character "Riggs" was very similair to "Frank" with his loss of family and a highly trained military leader and recon in vietnam.

as far as action goes and that was one of the best action flicks of all time.

 

[TheVileOne]

I seen alot of talk about the december maybe not so good.

but keep in mind guy "Lethal Weapon" was a december release.
and even though it was ages ago.
the main character "Riggs" was very similair to "Frank" with his loss of family and a highly trained military leader and recon in vietnam.

as far as action goes and that was one of the best action flicks of all time.

There's no similarity to Warzone and Lethal Weapon at all. Lethal Weapon was a buddy cop action/comedy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093409/releaseinfo

March 1987, not December.

 

[citizenpain]

i named a bunch of dark and violent movies that have done well during the holidays just as you wanted, but apparently they're not good enough because they have real actors. however, i'm pretty sure my list goes to show that dark and violent movies can indeed perform well during the holiday season.

here's another one, without any big name actors: apocalypto. opened on 12/8/06 to $16 million, went on to make $51 domestic and $120 worldwide. not the most impressive numbers, but once again it does show that a dark and violent movie can perform well during the holidays. although you'll probably tell me that it did so well only because of mel gibson...

 

[The Shape]

i named a bunch of dark and violent movies that have done well during the holidays just as you wanted, but apparently they're not good enough because they have real actors. however, i'm pretty sure my list goes to show that dark and violent movies can indeed perform well during the holiday season.

here's another one, without any big name actors: apocalypto. opened on 12/8/06 to $16 million, went on to make $51 domestic and $120 worldwide. not the most impressive numbers, but once again it does show that a dark and violent movie can perform well during the holidays. although you'll probably tell me that it did so well only because of mel gibson...

That's exactly right. Mel Gibson. No one would have even know about Apocalypto, a film with subtitles, had Mel Gibson's name not been plastered all over it.

Yes, you've provided examples of dark films, but War Zone is not exactly on par with them, nor does it have similiar situations.

 

[citizenpain]

That's exactly right. Mel Gibson. No one would have even know about Apocalypto, a film with subtitles, had Mel Gibson's name not been plastered all over it.

Yes, you've provided examples of dark films, but War Zone is not exactly on par with them, nor does it have similiar situations.

mel gibson or not, people are still willing to see dark and violent movies over the holidays. there is an audience for it, this depressed and lonely demographic that i speak of is not a myth, even lexi alexander mentioned it.

 

[The Shape]

mel gibson or not, people are still willing to see dark and violent movies over the holidays. there is an audience for it, this depressed and lonely demographic that i speak of is not a myth, even lexi alexander mentioned it.

I'm not saying that dark movies necessarily fail over the holidays. There have been plenty known to succeed. However, it seems highly unlikely that the Punisher will be one of them, given the history of the first film and the fact that this is a low-budget sequel/reboot full of unknowns with no hype behind it.

Also, so what if Lexi said that? She seems to be trying to stay optimistic.

 

[TheVileOne]

The ones that do well are big budget event blockbusters, acting dramas, or period pieces with big name talent behind them. That's a lot different than Punisher which is a sequel to a poorly received first movie from 2004. It's going to be a lower profile release.

 

[Balthus Dire]

The first movie was not poorly received. The only reason it got screwed at box office was because they opened it next to Kill Bill 2. DVD sales for the 2004 Punisher film were more than enough for the film to turn a profit.

When the trailer hits, this movie will be hyped, and you will eat your words.

 

[screams]

The ones that do well are big budget event blockbusters, acting dramas, or period pieces with big name talent behind them. That's a lot different than Punisher which is a sequel to a poorly received first movie from 2004. It's going to be a lower profile release.

Luckily this movie isn't a sequel to anything. And like Balthus Dire said, it did very well in DVD sales.

 

[kamillon66]

I'm gonna be pissed if this goes straight-to-DVD.

Oh hellz yeah