| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| What MI3 proves about sequels http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=19242 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | DP07 [ Sat May 06, 2006 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | What MI3 proves about sequels |
It's mostly about how much people liked the previous film. Duh.  
I never understood predictions over 170m since films usually need solid WOM to have sequels earn at least 80% of their gross. If the movie has poor to mediocre WOM, like MI2, it can be far worse. Cruise's antics didn't help either, but hype was also far lower then last time. In any case, I must add, POTC is one of the most beloved films of the generation, so increase those predictions.
|
|
| Author: | getluv [ Sat May 06, 2006 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
DP, what are you trying to say exactly? |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Sat May 06, 2006 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
getluv wrote: DP, what are you trying to say exactly? People predicting MI3 to pass the original but POTC2 to fall short of the original = Morons I happen to agree. 
|
|
| Author: | getluv [ Sat May 06, 2006 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i think we may see a better legs. |
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, you're probably right, MI2 made its money because it didn't have much competition, whereas MI3 doesn't stand out and is just one of many blockbusters in the summer season. Honestly, i wasn't feeling the hype for this one to be anything big enough to warrant such high predictions, yet i predicted $72m for its opening just because of what MI2 did back then and partially because of the good early buzz MI3 has been receiving, thinking that would bring people back for the next installment. Guess i was wrong... |
|
| Author: | Michael. [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Positive Jon wrote: getluv wrote: DP, what are you trying to say exactly? People predicting MI3 to pass the original but POTC2 to fall short of the original = Morons I happen to agree. Totally does not surprise me in the least. |
|
| Author: | A. G. [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How many mid 40s action stars are there? |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Archie Gates wrote: How many mid 40s action stars are there? Tom Hanks? 
|
|
| Author: | A. G. [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Positive Jon wrote: Archie Gates wrote: How many mid 40s action stars are there? Tom Hanks? That's not an action movie. |
|
| Author: | O [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Magnus101 wrote: I think the biggest reason for MI3 dissapointment(though I hsould say without any friday numbers it is is tough to judge but I'm just going off of crowd reports) is its release date. MI1 & MI2 I think both had amazing openings because of the holiday boost. Average movie-goers are intrguied by MI but won't probably go see it unless they had an extra incentive. Memorial Day would provide that extra boost. IMO, MI3 should have claimed the meomroial day weekend while X3 should have gone for May 5th release. X3 is a film that doesn't really need a holiday boost or anything. It could be relesaed in the middle of September and get a 85m+ OW. THe other factors were of course Cruise antics and the fact that the only reason why the 2nd one did good was because it was the movie-event of summer 2000. I mean, summer 2000 had no real big movies in May-June aside from MI2. Gladiator became big cause of its legs but its opening was not huge. Not to mention another fact that both MI1 and MI2 had medicore WOM. The first weekend of May is the one of the big three weekends of the year to open a film. Even if the gross is subdued compared to Memorial day weekend, I don't think the release date is to blame at all if MI3 disappointments. It had literally NO competition this week. Cruise's antics and a subpar last film are mostly to blame, but release date actually helped the film more than hurting it imo. |
|
| Author: | Excel [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
personally, i blame the marketing. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What MI3 proves about sequels |
DP07 wrote: It's mostly about how much people liked the previous film. Duh. But how do you really determine that? Legs? M:I-2 had very good legs for a sequel actually. Now look at Resident Evil and Underworld. Both weren't exactly beloved, well-graded and didn't have good legs at all, yet the sequels outperformed them. |
|
| Author: | El Maskado [ Sat May 06, 2006 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Like I said last year about the dissappointing openings of Stealth, the Island and XXX2, people are tired of the machismo action flicks and it shows. I dont think it will affect flicks like Bond since hes one of a kind or smart thrillers like the Jason Bourne series since it doesnt advertise itself filled with explosions |
|
| Author: | Futureboy [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think there's some things we have to face: * We can't blame the marketing. I've been ASSAULTED with commercials, promotional appearances and the like for this movie. There's no way that awareness wasn't out there. * We can't blame the release date. We've had too many successes in the past with that date (SPIDER-MAN, MUMMY RETURNS, etc.). It's all about Mr. Cruise...who this film is put completely around. His antics didn't deter from last summer's WOTW because of the concept and the presence of Mr. Spielberg at the helm. MI3 is a product built completely around him...and people are rejecting it. That image that he took 20 years to perfect has come down to a self-parody that particularly women are not buying. When I saw the opening night showing of V FOR VENDETTA at the Cinerama in Seattle, one of the ushers came out to tell us what films would be playing there for the rest of the summer. SUPERMAN RETURNS: applause. X-MEN3: huge applause. MI3: major booing. So much so that the usher said that he personally knew it was a good film and for people to please come anyway. That's when I knew for sure that Tom was in trouble (and deservedly so). Still...a sub $50M opening? I still didn't quite expect that as I have been burned so many times with trying to estimate America's taste (or lack thereof). |
|
| Author: | El Maskado [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah it all goes to Mr Cruise, he may be depressed about his movie bombing but at least he can pop some Paxil pills to keep it under controll |
|
| Author: | MadGez [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I get the feeling that audiences have outgrown the non sci-fi/non comic book "action" film that was so big in the 90s. Really apart from the Bourne Series, the guns and explosions actioner hasnt had a major hit since what? Bad Boys 2?? |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MadGez wrote: I get the feeling that audiences have outgrown the non sci-fi/non comic book "action" film that was so big in the 90s. Really apart from the Bourne Series, the guns and explosions actioner hasnt had a major hit since what? Bad Boys 2?? That one and S.W.A.T., yeah. |
|
| Author: | Futureboy [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oompa Loompa Midget Man wrote: Like I said last year about the dissappointing openings of Stealth, the Island and XXX2, people are tired of the machismo action flicks and it shows. I dont think it will affect flicks like Bond since hes one of a kind or smart thrillers like the Jason Bourne series since it doesnt advertise itself filled with explosions Good point...but I only remember like one explosion in the trailers for the movie. It was advertised as being a globe-trotting adventure with Tom Cruise in every shot. I still think this rests on his shoulders. I mean, when shows commonly refer to your relationship and the birth of your baby as a publicity stunt...I think you've reached a point of no return! His personal life has completely shadowed any kind of persona that he could try to present onscreen (a la J. Lo). Seeing is that he's been concerned since the early 90s with being a brand name and not doing anything resembling a challenging acting performance (with the glorious exception of MAGNOLIA...which I'm sure he'll never do again since it didn't make anything close to $100M!), his career is effectively shot! |
|
| Author: | bABA [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Magnus I wouldn't group Van Helsing as disappointing. If that movie hadn't opened that weekend, it would have scored a whole lot less. i would put helsing with spidey and the rest. |
|
| Author: | O [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
KOH would have done badly any weekend. Bloom has no bankability whatsoever. Even in Dec, I would have seen it disappointing. Van Helsing looked quite subpar, and did $50 m + only due to its release date. MI3 is an example of a film just not already appealing to the public. 1996 : Twister 1998: Deep Impact 1999: The Mummy 2000: Gladiator 2001: Mummy Returns 2002: Spiderman 2003: X2 2004: Van Helsing 2005: Kingdom of Heaven 2006: MI3 I think the last three years just reflect poor films to start out the summer. |
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is of course a question of taste, but there was one thing that M:I-1 and M:I-2 had, but M:I-3 didn't. Kickass trailers. The trailer for the third film is certainly good, but the two first flicks had much more effective trailers with much more impressive action, IMHO. They offered the idea that people were going to see something fresh and excting, while the trailer (and TV-spots) made the third film look more like a standard actioner. |
|
| Author: | O [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think what certainly didn't help matters was that Cruise's female lead looked like a Katie Holmes clone.... |
|
| Author: | headcrush [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr. Lecter wrote: MadGez wrote: I get the feeling that audiences have outgrown the non sci-fi/non comic book "action" film that was so big in the 90s. Really apart from the Bourne Series, the guns and explosions actioner hasnt had a major hit since what? Bad Boys 2?? That one and S.W.A.T., yeah. Mr. & Mrs. Smith. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
headcrush wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: MadGez wrote: I get the feeling that audiences have outgrown the non sci-fi/non comic book "action" film that was so big in the 90s. Really apart from the Bourne Series, the guns and explosions actioner hasnt had a major hit since what? Bad Boys 2?? That one and S.W.A.T., yeah. Mr. & Mrs. Smith. That was not a straightforward, serious actioner. It was more of a comedy. At least that's how I perceived it. |
|
| Author: | Box [ Sat May 06, 2006 12:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr. Lecter wrote: That was not a straightforward, serious actioner. It was more of a comedy. At least that's how I perceived it. You are correct. The film was an absolute joke. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|