Mission: Impossible - films and tv series

1277278280282283302

Comments

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    It's frustrating that it isn't doing better at the box office because the practical stunts alone deserve box office success.

    I know that's really frustrating, but the younger people prefer heavy CGI like Marvel or Fast an Furious... That's so depressing

    That’s not the reason.
    Oppenheimer - a 3 hours arty biopic about a scientist with no action - did more in 3 days than what Dead Reckoning did in its first 5 days.
    Fast is a damaged brand that bombed domestically.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    I think it's another case of the pandemic increasing production costs and the film eventually releasing at a really ill-timed moment. The latest Indy was a bomb but dropping so shortly after it and then right before a weekend as huge as Barbenheimer wasn't a good idea.
  • Posts: 6,743
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I can't wait to see this film again. It's frustrating that it isn't doing better at the box office because the practical stunts alone deserve box office success. The story is a bit convoluted at times, but I'm sure it'll make more sense when we see the complete story.

    I'm going to try and see it again this upcoming weekend. I've "tried" to rewatch it several times now and my plans constantly fall through.

    So far, it looks like rewatching the movie has been a "Mission: Impossible" for you.

    So you're saying I'm a member of the IMF now?? I'll pack a bag.

    Have a safe trip (by train?)
  • Posts: 3,169
    matt_u wrote: »
    Fast is a damaged brand that bombed domestically.
    The CGI flick still pulled 560mio foreign. No way MI7 will get close to those numbers. Most people don't care about if it's shot for real using practical effects or almost entirely in front of a green screen with layers of CGI.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 14,985
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I think it's another case of the pandemic increasing production costs and the film eventually releasing at a really ill-timed moment. The latest Indy was a bomb but dropping so shortly after it and then right before a weekend as huge as Barbenheimer wasn't a good idea.

    Yeah they were shooting it for about three years: that must've had huge cost implications. Usually MI films cost much less than the Bonds do.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Hell, I saw some production recently had to shut down and they have to pay something like $600,000 a week, I think it was, just to reserve the set they're using. If the strikes last for a few months, costs like that really add up.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2023 Posts: 4,343
    Zekidk wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    Fast is a damaged brand that bombed domestically.
    The CGI flick still pulled 560mio foreign. No way MI7 will get close to those numbers. Most people don't care about if it's shot for real using practical effects or almost entirely in front of a green screen with layers of CGI.

    Sure but it will still making less than 9 that came out during the pandemic and Universal will only keep 25% of the $130M it made in China.
    The times of Fast being a billion dollars hit are gone.

    The last two M:I films collected a huge amount of money in China, but Dead Reckoning will only make $40-50M there.
    Without China Fallout gross is $610M.
    The big problem here is that the release date was just wrong and the budget ballooned because of Covid.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,531
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hell, I saw some production recently had to shut down and they have to pay something like $600,000 a week, I think it was, just to reserve the set they're using. If the strikes last for a few months, costs like that really add up.

    Exactly @Creasy47 , and I think after these punishing strikes finally conclude, studios are really going to tighten belts, including 007 (which, I imagine, was in the plans anyways , with a new actor).

    And I’d watch an M:I film with you starring, 😘.
  • Posts: 3,169
    matt_u wrote: »
    The big problem here is that the release date was just wrong.
    Wrong is when you decide to premiere DOD in Cannes and make your whole marketing suffer because of early reviews from that crowd. But sliding an expensive blockbuster into a tiny slot between DOD and Barbenheimer is a decision that spells catastrophy.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    peter wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hell, I saw some production recently had to shut down and they have to pay something like $600,000 a week, I think it was, just to reserve the set they're using. If the strikes last for a few months, costs like that really add up.

    Exactly @Creasy47 , and I think after these punishing strikes finally conclude, studios are really going to tighten belts, including 007 (which, I imagine, was in the plans anyways , with a new actor).

    And I’d watch an M:I film with you starring, 😘.

    Too right, @peter - couple a new era and actor with all these hugely bloated bombs and I hope we end up with a much tighter and cheaper installment with this next one. Consider me interested.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 14,985
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hell, I saw some production recently had to shut down and they have to pay something like $600,000 a week, I think it was, just to reserve the set they're using. If the strikes last for a few months, costs like that really add up.

    I think if there is absolutely no shooting which can be done at all then they can claim insurance on that. I think that's why Indy 5 shot for so long when Harrison Ford was out of action, doing all of those scenes in Glasgow without him.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Hell, I saw some production recently had to shut down and they have to pay something like $600,000 a week, I think it was, just to reserve the set they're using. If the strikes last for a few months, costs like that really add up.

    Exactly @Creasy47 , and I think after these punishing strikes finally conclude, studios are really going to tighten belts, including 007 (which, I imagine, was in the plans anyways , with a new actor).

    And I’d watch an M:I film with you starring, 😘.

    Too right, @peter - couple a new era and actor with all these hugely bloated bombs and I hope we end up with a much tighter and cheaper installment with this next one. Consider me interested.

    I do think with some of the recent Bonds the huge amount of cost more than the recent M:Is has been a bit hard to reconcile when something like Rogue Nation or Fallout were just much better and more thrilling films; but then the Bonds did also make more money so what do I know :)
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,434
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    It's frustrating that it isn't doing better at the box office because the practical stunts alone deserve box office success.

    I know that's really frustrating, but the younger people prefer heavy CGI like Marvel or Fast an Furious... That's so depressing

    Don't see how you can say this with Oppenheimer and Barbie performing as they have this week. It's not a blanket-wash "young people" problem. Not even the Marvel projects are successful anymore. Find a new argument.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Bernie99 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    It's frustrating that it isn't doing better at the box office because the practical stunts alone deserve box office success.

    I know that's really frustrating, but the younger people prefer heavy CGI like Marvel or Fast an Furious... That's so depressing

    Where did you get that from? MI7 is currently tracking fast towards FAST X. It’s only less than $30m away from surpassing it. It probably will by the third weekend.
  • edited July 2023 Posts: 646
    Just one question. How in the world can a Barbie movie be such a huge hit?? Who is the target audience??? It sounds like something vapid that Paris Hilton would star in and would have a 2.5 rating on IMDB. Just boggles the mind. Does anyone even play with Barbies anymore ?

    How can it be a bigger hit than something like M:I or The Sound of Freedom?????
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Just one question. How in the world can a Barbie movie be such a huge hit?? Who is the target audience??? It sounds like something vapid that Paris Hilton would star in and would have a 2.5 rating on IMDB. Just boggles the mind. Does anyone even play with Barbies anymore ?

    How can it be a bigger hit than something like M:I or The Sound of Freedom?????

    The simplest answer is that YOU are outside the demographic.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Just one question. How in the world can a Barbie movie be such a huge hit?? Who is the target audience??? It sounds like something vapid that Paris Hilton would star in and would have a 2.5 rating on IMDB. Just boggles the mind. Does anyone even play with Barbies anymore ?

    How can it be a bigger hit than something like M:I or The Sound of Freedom?????

    The simplest answer is that YOU are outside the demographic.

    Correct.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I would have actually seen Barbie this weekend, but I’m seeing on Tuesday with friends instead. The reason I’m seeing it is because it looks like a fun subversive film made by an auteur director. The fact that this filmmaker was given close to free rein by a toy company to make the film they wanted to make is cool.

    It can’t be worse than TRANSFORMERS.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    I went and saw it yesterday with my girlfriend. It was pretty good, no masterpiece or anything, but definitely not the sort of world you see in films every day. That universe popped with vibrant colors.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    The only thing I fear from that film's success is the studios taking the wrong lessons from this, because they ALWAYS do.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,700
    I think that Oppenheimer sounds like a good movie. During my German high school days (we're talking fifty years ago), we actually handled the story based on the play "In der Sache Robert J. Oppenheimer" (In Re Robert J. Oppenheimer) by Heinar Kipphardt, which based on the minutes of O.'s questioning by the authorities including Joe McCarthy portrayed his more-or-less downfall after having developed the first U.S. nuke. I remember also a competition between him and Edward Teller being included in that drama, with Teller coming out as a weasel. (Don't take my word for it, this is just uncertified memory!)

    I've forgotten much about the play since then but the story is still interesting enough for me to want to watch the movie. I like biopics. But generally considering Christopher Nolan movies being "hit and miss" for myself (I just watched Dunkirk a few nights ago, which I'd put in the "hit" category, at least - but hated Interstellar and skipped Tenet), I'll rather wait until there is a cheap Blu-ray available. There is no Imax cinema within 300 kms anyway, so I'll be satisfied with my own screen until then and when it comes out.

    That being said, may I remind everyone that this thread is about M:I 7, which I haven't cared to watch and will continue to do so, and not about "Barbenheimer".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,985
    The only thing I fear from that film's success is the studios taking the wrong lessons from this, because they ALWAYS do.

    Well, this film is the lesson learnt from The Lego Movie, isn't it?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Was it? Sounds like the right thing the studios did was find the right filmmaker.
  • Posts: 669
    Just one question. How in the world can a Barbie movie be such a huge hit?? Who is the target audience??? It sounds like something vapid that Paris Hilton would star in and would have a 2.5 rating on IMDB. Just boggles the mind. Does anyone even play with Barbies anymore ?

    How can it be a bigger hit than something like M:I or The Sound of Freedom?????

    For me, the answer is that it's written and directed by Greta Gerwig, who also wrote and directed Little Women (2019) and Lady Bird, two absolutely phenomenal films. I'll follow her anywhere, and to see her take on such an iconic character has me very excited. That's just me, though. I realize that the vast majority of filmgoers are seeing the movie with no idea who Greta Gerwig is.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Everybody's on the Gerwig hype train these past few years but nothing I've seen of hers has really blown me away or come close to what I would consider a masterpiece. Shockingly enough, Barbie was the best thing I've seen from her.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,982
    Just one question. How in the world can a Barbie movie be such a huge hit?? Who is the target audience??? It sounds like something vapid that Paris Hilton would star in and would have a 2.5 rating on IMDB. Just boggles the mind. Does anyone even play with Barbies anymore

    How? There is a certain demographic, 30 to 50 something year old , mainly white, females. In large numbers this group has a rabid interest in this film; they are making seeing it a girls out event, much like going to a Taylor Swift concert.
    My daughter has connections in the Vintage clothing community; trust, I know what I’m talking about.

    Hey more power to them, it’s not my cup of tea but there’s nothing wrong with it.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    They make movies for WOMEN??!! That’s like, only half the world!

    ;)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,934
    Margot Robbie as Barbie - no further explanation needed, surely?
  • Posts: 79
    I have been watching Box Office stats for a long time. Marvel declining, Fast declining, MI not going anywhere no matter how much marketing and PR they invest,....

    I feel like these days, everything is totally unpredictable until a few weeks before the movie release, and then just based on bookings for the premiere showing, you can determine the success of a movie. Strange world!
    It is no longer about the power of a star (what it used to be in the 80s(90s), it is not even about the power of a franchise any more.

    My feeling is, it is all about getting the right viral campaign going few weeks before the movie starts.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    The only major box office decline with Marvel was ANT-MAN 3.

    GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 3, however, ended up having very strong legs and has $844m, which is only $19m below the second film. And that’s James Gunn’s farewell to Marvel, as he is moving to DC to do SUPERMAN.

    We’ll see how THE MARVELS turns up, as that’s the follow up to CAPTAIN MARVEL which made $1.13b. A major drop from that would certainly put Disney on high alert.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited July 2023 Posts: 1,375
    Surprisingly, amid all the box-office drama that's happening, Transformers: Rise Of The Beasts is slowly having legs. I find it surprising and funny...because, it's similar to a smaller person being quietly busy with plans, while the big ones fight out loud.
Sign In or Register to comment.