Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Drtooth]

The wheels have fallen off Pixar's wagon. Going dark for a year will provide them the opportunity to regroup and make an excellent picture. I'm actually excited about this new delay. It's important that their reasons for making a film reach beyond making money. If that was their only concern they would have sold out a long time ago. But they didn't. Pixar stands for something more. Well, they did. They've lost their way in recent years.

I think they'll find it again.

I'd agree if the reason wasn't one of the director's getting kicked off his own project. That's shades of Brave. Films with behind the scenes drama rarely turn out good. If the movie were being delayed to make it a more quality picture, I'd be all the more happy about a year blackout. I'm actually worried about this film now.

That said, Monsters University certainly doesn't deserve to be lumped in with Cars 2. It may not have been as good as the first one sure, and there were too many characters to really flesh out (why we need a series of MU shorts). Not only is it the best thing Pixar has done since Toy Story 3 (I'd almost say I liked MU better than TS3), but it gave a brutally honest message, almost subversively denouncing college. A refreshing message in a summer where a doped up snail can be a Nascar and a crappy plane that's afraid of heights can win a race.

I've gotten quite sick of the whole "you can do anything if you put your mind to it" Aesop, specifically the newfound "you can do anything physically impossible no matter how dangerously unqualified you are and completely unrealistic your goal is" that have plagued Turbo, Planes, and supposedly that poorly animated Flight of the Champion film have. I get the follow your dreams aspect, but you're setting kids up for disappointment. MU's message? You may not get the dream job you wanted, no matter how badly you want it, but you can surprise yourself with what that can accomplish. And think very hard before you decide to go to college. That's a moral I could have used back in 2000.

 

[MissMusical12]

Thirdly... and this is going to get a huge really!?!? from me: Disney's live action Cinderella movie.

Now it becomes clear with Maleficent. Hot on the heals of success with Once Upon a Time, Disney's planning live action remakes/reboots/alternate tellings of their old princess movies.

Live action remakes of Disney movies? No thanks....
But wouldn't the Tim Burton "Alice in Wonderland" count? I mean, it did come from Disney. And what about "Oz, The Great and Powerful?" I know it's not a remake, but really? And I thought the movie itself was pretty bad, aside from the special effects.

And speaking of remakes...the one remake I'm excited for is the new remake of "Carrie" with Chloe Grace Moretz coming out in a couple of weeks. Anyone else excited for it?

 

[CensoredAlso]

In general I don't get excited for remakes, lol. Not that I think the original Carrie is perfect, its storytelling is kinda sloppy (though there's still a lot of great moments). But I don't expect the obligatory remake to improve anything, they just so rarely do. Still it will be interesting to see how its executed.

 

[Drtooth]

Live action remakes of Disney movies? No thanks....
But wouldn't the Tim Burton "Alice in Wonderland" count? I mean, it did come from Disney. And what about "Oz, The Great and Powerful?" I know it's not a remake, but really? And I thought the movie itself was pretty bad, aside from the special effects.

And speaking of remakes...the one remake I'm excited for is the new remake of "Carrie" with Chloe Grace Moretz coming out in a couple of weeks. Anyone else excited for it?

I actually developed a pet peeve about the term remake when it applies to old stories/movies based on books. Those stories were meant to be retold over and over for generations, and often change the perspective of the story's telling. You know, because people read books and interpret them different ways (which is why I always hated how they taught about literature in school). And usually, when a movie is based on a novel (or whatever), it completely strays from the book anyway. Using the same source material, another movie based on the same book strays in different directions.

Here is the difference...

A Remake is when you take a movie that's already been done and change a few things around, but manage to keep a similar thread. Sometimes making homages to the original.

A Retelling is when you take an old story that was made into a movie (or anything else), and interpret the story differently than the previous film (whatever). Usually making it a comment on the current situation when the movie's being made.

A Reboot is when a film was considered a franchise, but made a terrible last movie, to start a franchise back up again fresh before the inevitable lousy third movie.

 

[CensoredAlso]

It's been my experience Retellings are a rare breed in Hollywood. New projects might start out hoping to be Retellings, but they usually end up as Remakes in the end.

 

[jvcarroll]

I'm neither in support nor opposition to remakes. I just like good movies.

There are only three things that studios seem to care about these days:

• Celebrities
• Brands/Franchises
• Special Effects

There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of these things. The problem is, that they've neglected to care about:

• Talented (Non-Celebrity) Actors
• Original Ideas
• Competent Storytelling

These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

I remember a time when Demi Moore kept landing big paydays for sub-standard films. Many studios believed, since she was in a string of box office hits (Ghost, A Few Good Men. Disclosure and Indecent Proposal), that she was the magic ingredient to the success. She hasn't had a success since. The same holds true for Ben Affleck [as an actor] except that he really hasn't had any legitimate hits of his own, yet he's seen as a bankable actor. One only needs to look at the numbers to know that isn't true.

On the other hand, Pacific Rim, what I believe to be the best film of the summer, had everything but celebrity actors. It did okay here and fared amazingly well worldwide, but it fell short of American box office expectations. The addition of one bankable star would have probably changed that. I'm kind of glad they didn't do it that way.

Both of these examples illustrate the point that the whole thing is a balancing act. Keep in mind, this is a box office thread so I am talking about financial successes. There are plenty of great films that ignore the rules yet don't make any of the box office lists. There are even some that magically get there on their own steam. Those are few and far between.

I prefer my favorite films to be financial successes because I like quality and it sends the message to studios to make quality films instead of just Transformers 12: The Search for More Advertising Opportunities.

 

[Drtooth]

I agree with everything but the "Original Ideas."

Seems that most who say there isn't any original ideas anymore confuse original with quality. Is there a lack of quality ideas? perhaps... but there is no such thing as an entirely original idea. Something is going to follow some thread, cliche, trope, or whatever no matter how hard it tries not to. Things will be similar, even if the similarities are completely coicidental with neither party knowing about the other's similar work.

Remakes, if nothing else, are honest. They tell the same story, more or less, without titling it differently. The two movies that stick out in my mind are "It Takes Two" and "The Parent Trap (remake)." There's the original 60's Parent Trap movie... the former is a complete knockoff, the latter a remake that essentially acknowledges that it took the story from somewhere else. Not saying all similar movies are ripoffs, though.

Anyway, all stories are about someone that has to get something, do something, or go somewhere (or get somewhere to do something to get something) with some sort of tension and antagonist along the way, and then either winning, losing, or maybe the occasional tie. There are variations on all counts, but if you boil it down, it's the same structure. You can do your best to subvert or avert them, but that's been done too. Tropes were old in Shakespeare's day.

I once asked someone what some obscure TV series was about. The reply was essentially saying a Good Guy beats up Bad guys. And I'm like... that's essentially half of everything ever.

Other than that, I agree that movies rely too much on the success of certain film genres and audiences that go see them, leading us to things that are very similar to each other. That's a low risk investment, at least until the desire of the public to see those films collapses and kills the genre. Taking risks sometimes pays off, but that payoff is met with imitation (direct, satirical, or accidental). As for stars... depends on the star. People love to turn on certain stars because they're either in similar movies that they eventually get sick of, or they're just in movies that are bad beyond the star's control. As far as compelling stories, the public either A) says they want them and completely ignore them at the theaters or B) only like them because they're told to like them in an Emperor's New Clothes way. There are some great smaller, quiet third string films out there. Even they're not immune, as they're buried under ego pieces and some director's political pet project.

 

[jvcarroll]

I agree with everything but the "Original Ideas."

Seems that most who say there isn't any original ideas anymore confuse original with quality. Is there a lack of quality ideas? perhaps... but there is no such thing as an entirely original idea. Something is going to follow some thread, cliche, trope, or whatever no matter how hard it tries not to. Things will be similar, even if the similarities are completely coicidental with neither party knowing about the other's similar work.

Remakes, if nothing else, are honest. They tell the same story, more or less, without titling it differently. The two movies that stick out in my mind are "It Takes Two" and "The Parent Trap (remake)." There's the original 60's Parent Trap movie... the former is a complete knockoff, the latter a remake that essentially acknowledges that it took the story from somewhere else. Not saying all similar movies are ripoffs, though.

Anyway, all stories are about someone that has to get something, do something, or go somewhere (or get somewhere to do something to get something) with some sort of tension and antagonist along the way, and then either winning, losing, or maybe the occasional tie. There are variations on all counts, but if you boil it down, it's the same structure. You can do your best to subvert or avert them, but that's been done too. Tropes were old in Shakespeare's day.

I once asked someone what some obscure TV series was about. The reply was essentially saying a Good Guy beats up Bad guys. And I'm like... that's essentially half of everything ever.

Other than that, I agree that movies rely too much on the success of certain film genres and audiences that go see them, leading us to things that are very similar to each other. That's a low risk investment, at least until the desire of the public to see those films collapses and kills the genre. Taking risks sometimes pays off, but that payoff is met with imitation (direct, satirical, or accidental). As for stars... depends on the star. People love to turn on certain stars because they're either in similar movies that they eventually get sick of, or they're just in movies that are bad beyond the star's control. As far as compelling stories, the public either A) says they want them and completely ignore them at the theaters or B) only like them because they're told to like them in an Emperor's New Clothes way. There are some great smaller, quiet third string films out there. Even they're not immune, as they're buried under ego pieces and some director's political pet project.

Most everything is derived from mythology. That means the majority of works since the Odyssey aren't technically original. I'm obviously using the term "original" to describe non-remade materials, fresh takes and ideas outside the general film formula. Arguing over semantics is as irritating as it is pointless.

 

[Drtooth]

Like I said. We have to work between remakes and ripoffs, both accidental and intentional. When I hear "Hollywood is out of ideas" it becomes noise to me. That said, there are genuinely good ideas that don't get anywhere due to the fact it's just a safer bet (at least according to studio heads) to just make things look the same. It either works or bites them in the butt. I'm of the mindset that there truly isn't anything original, even aversions/subversions/lampshades. Best anyone can do is take those ideas and put them together in ways that haven't been done frequently enough. A good work can do something another work did if they do it well enough. A bad work makes cliches obvious.

I also have a big problem with "original ideas" being confused with Big Budget vs small budget films. Not that either are entirely great or terrible. But the supposed low budget "adult" (adult not in X-rated context, but a patronizing term for more realistic films) are just as low varying as the blockbusters... also due to the fault of the same studio execs that just want to crank out Oscar Bait.

But aside from that, I feel I need to change the subject because I just can't remain silent on this any longer.

I've noticed that, even with hit movies, you rarely see the TV Spot trailers after the film hits theaters. Like as soon as it hits the first Monday of the film's release, you almost stop seeing the commercials for the film, then as the week progresses, they stop showing it entirely. Maybe that bragging "It's the Number one movie" or type of movie for a few days, and then they just disappear. While I usually get annoyed by that, I'm going to be freaking bouncing off the walls happy once they stop showing Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 TV ads. If I see that completely unfunny bit about "There's a leak in the boat" and the even less funny screaming leaks (which are clearly a not funny at all running gag), I'm going to smash my TV's screen in.

 

[mr3urious]

I'm of the mindset that there truly isn't anything original, even aversions/subversions/lampshades. Best anyone can do is take those ideas and put them together in ways that haven't been done frequently enough. A good work can do something another work did if they do it well enough. A bad work makes cliches obvious.

Star Wars is one example. The space operas and westerns that it drew inspiration from have been using many tropes that have been done before, but here they were used in such a way that it made them feel fresh and new. Same goes for Indiana Jones.