ST The Last Jedi Box Office Discussion (see warning on page 307 before posting)

Yeah. But they are selling an illusion right ( if you really care about lying down and having a glass of champagne when watching a movie) . The movies, the storytelling is not getting any better. The latest tech is available for most people, 4K, Dolby Atmos etc, but yeah, i agree that price differentiation exists of course, and it will continue. But there are a lot of things in the works to make the cinema experience more exclusive and event type of marketing agenda. 3D without glasses will be big, for a while, and its quite obvious its Cameron who will benefit from this.

I saw Spiderman: Homecoming in the weekend and while its great fun, entertaining and feature a charming Tom Holland + finally a Spidey villain with some edge, the great Michael Keaton ( this is of course his second film in the Birdman franchise!) - it also feels like it has nothing special to say, other than fitting well into the Avengers universe. Its very well made and easy digestible. One silly action scene, the Staten Island Ferry scene that is, and the climax is a bit to flashy and Marvel repetitive for me. The scenes at the teenage party, the high school scenes etc, those are great and so much reminds me of the 80s teen comedies, houseparties at rich Hollywood Hills mansions, Miami Vice style clothing and pastel colours.

I also think Wonder Woman stole the attention this early summer, they had something fresh and the timing for the movie was good, opening a month ahead of Spidey. I loved the love-story between Gadot and Pine, its really the heart of the movie, but the climax in Wonder Woman is dragging the movie down a bit. Chaotic and too much Zach Snyder style of filmmaking for me.

Edit: Some updated numbers maybe: ( domestic + total global)

Guardians of the Galaxy 2: $ 386.6 mill /$ 859 mill global
Pirates 5: $ 170.1 mill / $ 754.4 mill global
Wonder Woman: $ 381.4 mill / 764.9 mill global
Transformers 5; $ 129.9 mill / $ 517 mill global ( disaster! )
Despicable Me 3: $ 191.4 mill / $ 625 mill global
Spiderman: Homecoming: $ 212.7 mill / $ 472.7 mill global

Edit: Did not include Apes 3 and Cars 3 since both movies has yet some open in many key markets.
The two biggest grossing movies of the year are still Furious 8 and Beauty and the Beast.

 

One thing I'm curious about regarding the 3D w/o glasses angle is will it require movie theaters to upgrade or change their current equipment to utilize? If so that could put a damper on the potential of such an advancement to boost the box office of the initial films that make use of it.

 

Despite all the advances in digital, no one has improved on the look of film stock. The Force Awakens, The Hateful 8, Dunkirk, all shot in whole or in part in some combination of 35 mm, 65 mm, IMAX film stock, just look better than anything else that's all digital. Even 8k Digital films look crappy compared to high quality film stock cinematography, (the difference in the quality of Rogue One and The Force Awakens in this regard is astounding) and the only excuse for them is that they make the work easier, unless you're really incorporating digital into the style of the film, like the crazy low res digital but magnificent "28 Days Later."

 

This is going to be tricky. I'm not knowledgeable about all the tech as some others here are (where's Bowen???), but theaters, while clear, are not nearly as detailed as blu ray or any kind of high def. The 3D glasses took care of that. I think this tech will not be what we think it is. It won't be the pop-out and grab ya 3D but rather more of a 4K type look with a great deal of depth. Not sure, though, how that would work on the big screen without glasses and without a total upgrade on screens. I think it would work better at home with 4 K tv's.

Weird-TV's are the one thing that seem to get better for a lower price. I could get a 60 inch 4K tv for less than what I paid for my 46 inch LCD tv back in 2010. Getting MUCH better products for the same price has also led to a moderation of box office revenue.

Othini I like what you said about movies having something to say. I always wonder about what that means but know it's very true. Then I wonder, what exactly should a movie be saying? Should it say something about our current world? Should it reflect on real human issues while also giving us something nice visually? Should it echo what many people feel about themselves or society? Would that be too dark and dreary? Superheroes in general offer up hope where, in the real world, few see any. The idea that an evil villain can be defeated and represent all of society's woes when, in actuality, it doesn't work like that, gives people an escape. I think WW sort of gave that idea. Hard to say what messages need to be told in movies that will catch people's attention. Not without coming across looking like you're pushing an agenda. It's a tough balance, especially for wide mainstream films. Indie films can do it all the time.

 

jedijax For me its important that there at least are some underlying themes that serves like an allegory for something. I find many films in the action/ adventure genre to have a great chance to tell us something about the state of our society - if you play it right and find a good balance overall with the more lighter entertaining angles of the story.

There is one scene in Spiderman: Homecoming - don`t want to spoil it here though - although its not really a spoiler actually.
The scene is good though, because it tell us ( or especially the younger generation) that fame and fortune maybe comes with some hard work too. Its not only to flash your superhero suit and love your own face in the mirror. This scene works fine for me, and Tom Holland brings some real angsty reactions to it. So maybe it has something to say, after all.....

Rylo Ken I can`t watch Dunkirk in either IMAX or 70mm this time unfortunately so it would be good to get a report from you ( or someone else ) about how the movie looked ( and sounded) if you choose to watch it in those superior formats. I know Nolan is still fronting film and i think its both cool and arrogant. Who cares as long as the movies are great.

 

Othini

Maybe it is because I am with high school students almost every single day as a teacher and coach (we are in the midst of summer camp for football and I am starting to get ready already for lacrosse again next year even though it is a spring sport LOL!) but I felt like out of the four comic book movies this year so far, it had the biggest and best message behind it. Again maybe that is because I sort of get the "high school perspective" still since I spent the last 10+ years working in one LOL!

I am in sort of the same pickle with you when it comes to Dunkirk. I am taking my parents to go see it next Tuesday. I sort desperate want to take them to the IMAX showing at 11 AM but my mom in particular doesn't like it. They were just want to go to Cinemark since it's the closest (and cheapest particularly since it's Discount Tuesday) and go see it on the regular format. I told them I am willing to pay I don't mind paying for the I-MAX tickets (I am taking them both as part of my mom's birthday gift) but my dad being a typical father and saying "it is just wasting your money" since I won't let them pay for anything that day. So I might have to go see it with them on a regular format screen and try to convince my wife that I need to see it again in IMAX as doing "research for the upcoming school year" even though I know longer teach either World or even European History.

FYI for everyone, Spidey beat Apes 3 yesterday:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Don't know if this means Spidey could have a bit stronger legs then we expect or Apes 3 is just dropping faster then we even thought? Perhaps a bit of both though my guess is Apes 3 is just gaining no traction despite all the glowing reviews.

 

War of POTA is starting to be advertised on Yahoo's front page. Rare for a movie that is already out. I think they are feeling desperate. It is EXTREMELY rare for a follow up to a movie with a 90% RT score that, itself has an even higher RT score to crash and burn so quickly as War seems to be doing. Such a shame!

 

I used to feel this way, but have changed my mind completely. IMO, Rogue One, visually, looks far better than TFA, and some of that has to do with a masterful use of digital cinematography (as well as super-wide lenses).

 

The movie was what it was advertised as: a literal "homecoming" of Spiderman to Marvel. I don't think it was supposed to be anything more than that.

 

I caught a screening of Dunkirk last night and thought the movie was superb, though hardly the masterpiece the critics made it out to be. There are some really memorable scenes - I especially liked the air duel - and Mark Rylance gives a wonderful performance, but the movie doesn't impress with its scale. Where did the budget go? I guess I was expecting spectacle on the order of the Normandy landings in Saving Private Ryan, or the paratroop drop in A Bridge Too Far.

It should do well at the tills, but I reckon is a long shot to match the blockbusters of summer.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the amateur critics - like Red Letter Media, Lessons from the Screenplay, etc. - the folks who hammered Rogue One because of a perceived lack of backstories or arcs. There is none or very little of that in Dunkirk, and it still manages to be a very entertaining film.

 

Some films, like Rogue One and Dunkirk, are about a moment in time when people showed heroism. Not everything in film needs to follow the coming of age genre formula.

 

Going to see Planet of the Apes this weekend. Anyone seen it? Good?

 

Really good.

 

Lee_

It's an epic conclusion to an epic trilogy 10/10......

 

Regardless of its actual quality I am rooting more for Dunkirk to do well than any movie in a long time. It would serve as a perfect rebuke to today's superhero-sequel-reboot extravaganza.

 

But why expect spectacle on the scale of D-Day in a film about an evacuation that was much smaller scale? Personally, I found Nolan's approach refreshingly realistic. There's no need to pump actual WWII events up with artificial, CGI scale, IMO. It bucked the summer blockbuster trend in just the right way. And if got me to the cinema in the summer, which rarely happens.

 

Thanks guys.

I had never watched the other 2 until last weekend. I thought they looked cheesy in the trailers, so I never was interested.

But I realized how well reviewed they were, and watched them both. I very much liked them, and clearly got the wrong impression from the trailers.

I have the best seat in the house (center of the theater just above the divide in a recliner) for 7 PM tonight, can't wait!

 

Trailers for Ready Player One and a new one for Justice League with all new footage are now available.

Will Marvel up the ante and get their Infinity Wars trailer out this weekend or next week? Let's hope so.

 

I'm not 100% sure about the legs but Dunkirk is the only movie this year, besides TLJ that I plan to see several times.

Отправлено с моего SM-A310F через Tapatalk

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/22/media/wonder-woman-sequel-dc-comics/index.html

 

its jus amazing how they escaped. mostly due to hitlers paranioa that things were going to weel so obviously they would start going bad. in a way he ended up being right, by being too cautious he let the allied forces escape from under his nose and essentially made dunkirk what cost the nazis the war in the long term.

 

Well, the evacuation involved hundreds of naval and civilian ships - over 200 of which were sunk - but the film only gives us a handful. Meanwhile, the RAF lost over 100 planes. Further, I feel a story about Dunkirk is incomplete if it doesn't also show us the sacrifice made by the soldiers on the ground who kept the Germans at bay - the gallant Frenchmen of 12th Motorised Infantry division, for example, fought tenaciously despite being outnumbered and outgunned. So did the Highlanders of British 51st division. Depicting this would have helped give a more complete picture of the desperate situation and the scale of the sacrifice.

 

I wouldn't exactly call the evacuations at Dunkirk much smaller in scale than D-Day. 338k British and French soldiers got evacuated during the operation, D-Day saw the landing of around 170k troops. Not sure if that number already includes the paratroopers, but even if it didn't, those would still not make up the difference.

From what I understand, Nolan choose this approach on purpose. He went for suspense over action. He easily could have shown all sorts of action, even if there probably wasn't much that would offer the same spectacle as the landings on D-Day did, but that wasn't what the movie was about. It's not like Saving Private Ryan was representative of the actions on D-Day either. For some reason the operation often gets reduced to that hard fighting at Omaha Beach, which was by far the most fought over landing ground. There were tough battles elsewhere as well, but just like that, there were areas were the landing itself saw little immediate resistance.

If it wasn't for the evacuation, Churchill's government could have fallen before it really got off the ground. The BEF basically was the entire professional British army. If those end up as prisoners of war, there are hardly any experienced soldiers left to fight, few to train new recruits, and no core to build up divisions around. Even if it wouldn't have led to immediate peace-talks, the British wouldn't have been able to do any of the operations that followed in 1940/41/42 (Greece, Africa).

It wasn't all about Hitler though, as he didn't give the order, von Rundstedt, the commander of Army Group A did. He feared that the spearhead could be cut off, thus he ordered the tanks to stop to allow the infantry divisions to catch up. That's where his superior got involved. von Brauchitsch removed the army that controlled all the tanks from Army Group A's control, handed them to Army Group B, and ordered AG B to wipe out the remaining resistance, with AG A being reduced to build up a front towards the rest of France. If that had gone through, the Allies would have been screwed. That's where Hitler comes in. He wasn't informed of this because he was currently travelling towards the front. When he arrived, he was informed about it by von Rundstedt, who obviously wasn't a fan of this approach. Hitler got angry over such a decision being made without anyone bothering to inform him about it. He rescinded the order, put the tanks back under the control of Army Group A, and gave von Rundstedt a free hand to have further attacks start whenever he deemed it to be the correct time, thus taking the head of the army out of the play. Once the tanks started to move again, there were defensive positions created around Dunkirk, instead of the basically empty path that had existed before. This turned a catastrophic defeat for the allies into a morale boost for the British. The whole battle for France was obviously not successful for the allies, but being able to go from likely losing your whole army to saving most of your men is enough to make it look not quite as big as a desaster.