Universal Monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn't a bad strategy in principle but in terms of box office, Depp and Cruise are risky propositions now. Crowe and Bardem will intrigue but again not sure how much of a pull they have.

Part of Depp and Cruise's problem are their characters. The latter is an unknown (as as we know) while the former, unless it's going to be absolutely off the wall and firmly tongue in cheek, I'm not sure how many people will have interest in the invisible man.

I think it's a bad strategy on principle. The idea of a movie star in the sense of being a huge box office draw is kinda dead.
Look at this weekend, at least domestically, The Rock failed to bring in an audience and Johnny Depp didnt bring them in like he used to. Now for Depp there could be multiple reasons, but The Rock is so beloved. You take a star as big as the Rock is now and throw him 10-15 years ago, Baywatch would've been a megahit.
Even the stars they're getting have recently proven not to be draws. Crowe had Noah which barely made 100 mill domestic in 2014 and then even more pressing last year The Nice Guys only made $57 mill worldwide. Bardem...has he ever led a HUGE movie before Pirates? He was the villain in Skyfall but he wasn't the star. And with Cruise if it's not Mission Impossible people don't seem to be that interested.

They'd be better to save that large amount of money I'm sure they're paying and either
a) Throw it into the marketing
b) Throw it into the production and SFX
c) the best choice make smaller scale movies.
 
Hollywood is about franchises now. In another 10-15 years, it will probably change to another landscape but this is the time for franchises. The late 00s killed the movie star.
 
Eh, I think I'm gonna pass on this as a whole. Penny Dreadful's already done it better.

If not for how Penny Dreadful ended, I'd agree. That finale felt like a slap in the face that primed me for something different.
 
Hollywood is about franchises now. In another 10-15 years, it will probably change to another landscape but this is the time for franchises. The late 00s killed the movie star.

My guess is Universal wants to try to bring the movie star back and usher in a "new" age.
 
Hollywood is about franchises now. In another 10-15 years, it will probably change to another landscape but this is the time for franchises. The late 00s killed the movie star.

Exactly. I love Chris Pratt since he was in Parks and Rec. But, it's not him bringing in audiences (See Passengers), it's the franchises (GOTG and JW).
 
I confess I would like to see Jolie play the Bride. I ain't seen her in anything for a minute.
 
I confess I would like to see Jolie play the Bride. I ain't seen her in anything for a minute.

Dunno why but it looks like Theron basically took her place.
Jolie probably wants to stick behind the camera and maybe act for the sure-fired hits.
 
Jolie will be great as the Bride, there is this cadaver look about her.
 
I don't think it will. International will probably save it. It's the Frankenstein movie I think is a riskier bet.

Yeah, people forget that Cruise is still a HUGE draw overseas. I noticed some discussion earlier in this thread as to whether or not movie stars still matter. They may be becoming less important in the US, but in foreign markets, star power still matters.
 
Yeah, people forget that Cruise is still a HUGE draw overseas. I noticed some discussion earlier in this thread as to whether or not movie stars still matter. They may be becoming less important in the US, but in foreign markets, star power still matters.

It depends. I think it still ties in with franchises. Without MI for Cruise and Pirates and Alice (2010) for Depp, none of the overseas even for their action/Summer movies are anything to write home about.
 
Yeah, people forget that Cruise is still a HUGE draw overseas. I noticed some discussion earlier in this thread as to whether or not movie stars still matter. They may be becoming less important in the US, but in foreign markets, star power still matters.

yeah but domestic matters way more. That's what they aim for. Unless it's like Return of Xander Cage and most of the money comes from a bunch of foreign investors, domestic is still king

Dunno why but it looks like Theron basically took her place.
Jolie probably wants to stick behind the camera and maybe act for the sure-fired hits.

Yeah I read it was a mix of wanting to focus on humanitarian work, wanting to direct (her two movies didn't really pan out though), and wanting to raise her family.
 
Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame Join Dark Universe

http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...nd-hunchback-of-notre-dame-join-dark-universe


talkshowexcitement.gif
 
Hugh Jackman as The Phantom.
 
I think that ship has sailed. He would have been perfect for the musical version.
 
Yup. Such a bone-headed choice that destroyed an otherwise solid and faithful adaption of the iconic musical.
 
Yeah. Why the hell would you cast a lead who can't sing, especially for the ONE character in the movie who is supposed to have this angelic voice? It sure as hell wasn't star power because Butler wasn't an A-lister back then at all. I remember, back before that movie came out, I thought it was going to redeem Schumacher as a director. Instead, it further cemented his place in movie infamy.
 
Yeah. Why the hell would you cast a lead who can't sing, especially for the ONE character in the movie who is supposed to have this angelic voice? It sure as hell wasn't star power because Butler wasn't an A-lister back then at all. I remember, back before that movie came out, I thought it was going to redeem Schumacher as a director. Instead, it further cemented his place in movie infamy.

Because Shumacher wanted the Phantom to be "sexy". Even his disfigurement amounted to little more than a second-degree sunburn.

But you're right, the Phantom musical literally hinges upon the Phantom himself and his powerful, vocally-challenging performance. It doesn't work when the Phantom can't sing for his life. It's a shame, because Shumacher did a great job with so many other things in the film and Emmy Rossum was a great Christine. Gerard Butler even had some great moments, aside from his singing.
 
Because Shumacher wanted the Phantom to be "sexy". Even his disfigurement amounted to little more than a second-degree sunburn.

But you're right, the Phantom musical literally hinges upon the Phantom himself and his powerful, vocally-challenging performance. It doesn't work when the Phantom can't sing for his life. It's a shame, because Shumacher did a great job with so many other things in the film and Emmy Rossum was a great Christine. Gerard Butler even had some great moments, aside from his singing.

Yeah, Emmy Rossum was good. And the film overall looked pretty good. But Butler just ruins it. Patrick Wilson was also pretty lousy in it too (more from an acting standpoint than a singing one) and I typically really like him.
 
One. I liked Butler in the movie. Two, since when is Hugh Jackman not sexy? :funny:
 
Yeah, Emmy Rossum was good. And the film overall looked pretty good. But Butler just ruins it. Patrick Wilson was also pretty lousy in it too (more from an acting standpoint than a singing one) and I typically really like him.


Agreed. Raoul is pretty much a little *****, both in the show and the movie. He's not supposed to be nearly as interesting or commanding as the Phantom, so I was cool with Wilson's portrayal.
 
Yeah, Raoul is a tool; admittedly it's not the best role but I felt like Wilson just sucked.
 
Just more of counting their chickens before they hatch. It's getting to be embarrassing now. This might just top DC in terms of embarrassing, and that's saying a lot. At least DC has WW now.
 
Yeah, they're getting to Sony levels of embarrassment with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,333
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"