The Disappointments of 2011 and beyond...

[Timothy225]

I've got no connection to the character at all, other than 'Hey, this is a superhero film with space stuff in - cool'. And I have semi for Reynolds, even in stuff like The Proposal.

It was unspectacular. It was a waste of a lot of money on nothing new. It was BORING.

'You know what worked really well? That superhero film with the giant gas ball at the end, made of pixels that is pretty much incoherent and lacks any semblance of character. The villain.'

Fantastic Four?'

'Mm-hm. Let's do that again.'

Geez, FF2. Yeah, we got the Silver Surfer. Doom looked and acted like Dr. Doom, and instead of Galactus and his big ass Kirby-designed purple helmet, we get a cosmic fart cloud. Because...

Wikipedia: Galactus appears in the 2007 film Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the story of which was based upon the character's debut and his Ultimate incarnation.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-118">[119]</sup> The official novelization of the film names the character as "the Gah Lak Tus". 20th Century Fox's rationale for having the character as a cloud was to keep him discreet.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-vfx_119-0">[120]</sup> Visual effects studio Weta Digital convinced Fox to add physical hints of the comic book incarnation, such as a shadow and the fiery mass within the cloud resembling Galactus' signature helmet.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-vfx_119-1">[120]</sup> Director Tim Story has said he made Galactus a cloud so that the future Silver Surfer spin-off film would have a chance to be unique and introduce the character as he normally appears.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-120">[121]</sup> J. Michael Straczynski, the spinoff's writer, confirmed Galactus is in his script, saying, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-121">[122]</sup>

Fuck that shit. No follow-up Silver Surfer film yet, and what could've been one mother of a special effects battle royale got shit-canned.

[Captain Russ]

One day, far off in the future, I hope to see the Annihilation Wave.

[PHEDG]

"Dragon Tattoo" Is A Loss For MGM

Despite a $231 million global haul, David Fincher's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" adaptation is being written off as a loss for MGM reports Deadline.

MGM Holdings CEO Gary Barber says that the movie, which they co-financed, performed "below our expectations and we booked a modest loss.” While he didn't disclose how much of a loss, Barber said executives at the company "were hoping we’d do 10% more than we did."

What does this mean for the fate of the two other films in the series? MGM has an option to co-finance the next films and is talking to Sony about following through, but only "assuming we can achieve better economics."

The big issue with 'Tattoo' isn't the performance, which is actually impressive considering the runtime and subject matter, rather it's the cost. The notoriously meticulous Fincher created the film for $90 million, a rather considerable sum for an R-rated adult mystery thriller along with an expensive high-profile P&A campaign to promote it.

Had the film been made for half the amount and with a tighter (ie. cheaper) marketing campaign, the sequels would likely be much further along by now.

All this follows on from the announcement on Monday when The Walt Disney Company revealed they expected to book a loss of $200 million on its big-budget 3D "John Carter" tentpole movie in the quarter through March.

The company made the announcement in a statement which also confirmed the Mouse House's studio division would report an overall operating loss of $80 million to $120 million in the fiscal quarter ending March 31st.

[B_Metal]

HOW THE FUCK MUCH DID THEY SPEND ON ADS??? MORE THAN 141 million?

[Ben Thomas]

Yeah, its unforgivable that with that take, this didn't go down as a hit. That said, no-one needs to make the sequels unless they are going to seriously re-jig them or turn them into one film (not likely, given the idea is to make as much money as possible).

[B_Metal]

If you make 231 million off a movie you should be labeled a success. If you aren't something went TERRIBLY wrong.

[FilmNerdJamie]

They overestimated its appeal. Simple as that.

[Matt]

Yeah, its unforgivable that with that take, this didn't go down as a hit. That said, no-one needs to make the sequels unless they are going to seriously re-jig them or turn them into one film (not likely, given the idea is to make as much money as possible).

Turning FIRE and HORNET'S NEST into one film would be really quite simple, considering that they function as part 1 and part 2 of a plotline and really can't exist without the other. Jettison the extraneous and it'd be EASY to make them both into one 2.5 hour film:

THE GIRL WHO SET FIRE TO THE HORNET'S NEST.

[BillyG]

They overestimated its appeal. Simple as that.

I think there's a level of burnout to attribute to it as well. The films were pretty big hits all through Europe, and the books have been bigger hits for longer as well. The international take I have to guess was not what they wanted. Even in the US the foreign flicks are readily available on Netflix instant, and I'm sure that kept at least some percentage of people out of the theater.

I liked it a lot, not loved it, but liked it a lot. The direction and all the technical aspects were incredible, but after reading the books and seeing the original films I know I was just kind of like ....yeah I've seen all this.

If they make the next movies they have to either make it one 3 hour film, or tell everyone that "hey, the 3rd movie will be out in six months!" and film together. The cliffhanger in part 2 requires a BIG leap of faith, and if people don't know that the ending is coming fast they will lose interest or be too annoyed to follow up.

[B_Metal]

I don't want to live in a world where making 231 MILLION is considered failure. Fucking end me now.

[Anderson]

I don't want to live in a world where making 231 MILLION is considered failure. Fucking end me now.

You're seeing small picture, not big picture.

There was way more money spent than what was made.

[B_Metal]

You're seeing small picture, not big picture.

There was way more money spent than what was made.

Oh I see the picture, the unstated subtext that was intended was that it's ridiculous that 231 million can be made on a movie and it's a loss because of over spending in ad campaigns. I understand the economics behind it, I just think it's fucking stupid to blow that much dough on one flick but that's just my uneducated opinion.

[Anderson]

Oh I see the picture, the unstated subtext that was intended was that it's ridiculous that 231 million can be made on a movie and it's a loss because of over spending in ad campaigns. I understand the economics behind it, I just think it's fucking stupid to blow that much dough on one flick but that's just my uneducated opinion.

It's a lot like gambling. 5 bucks won off a dollar bet is nice.

100 bucks off of 20 is better.

Keep that line of thought going through coke noses and a system built on excess and you have what lead to that scenario.

[B_Metal]

Oh well, it's not my dough but it's just nuts.

[Anderson]

Oh well, it's not my dough but it's just nuts.

The whole process is fucking nuts and no studio has ever learned from past mistakes.