I don't have much to comment on for what could come back following this pandemic. Many states have their phases on what should reopen. Being couped up in a home for a long time could drive some a little crazy. But what if you want to see a movie? Parts of the country will more than likely have plans on what should open and what shouldn't until a specific time. Drive-ins seem like they would be a low risk.
You're in your car. You listen via your radios whether in the vehicle or you bring a portable radio. You're set. But what about food? I don't see the concession stand open. The last time I went to a drive-in was not too long ago in 2016. Brought my own food and drink, a little entertainment before the movies began. People, especially if its families, will need to be well-prepared. I would bring some protection like wipes and some Lysol to keep everyone clean and safe. A little precaution doesn't hurt.
But what movies could you have? Many are still pushed back. I didn't know Top Gun: Maverick got pushed back to the Christmas season until a few days ago. I knew many were delayed, but I didn't think it would because of it being a June release and my assumptions that things would get better by the time that month hit. Can't use movies that haven't been in theaters for a while and/or made the release to home video and streaming. Maybe you have to go old school and do older movies. There's not a good solution depending on the drive-in in question. You would hope at least that they would know there should be entertainment and get people out of the house for a short while, even if it's for three to six hours.There are triple features at some places.
This should be a low risk option. Practice the social distancing and plan ahead and things should go smoothly. We do need entertainment. But we still have to have it in a safe manner.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Thursday, May 14, 2020
Saturday, March 21, 2020
The Universal Stream Appeal
Obviously, a lot of businesses are trying to make sure that there isn't huge crowds at their places. Movie theaters are a huge example with many shutting down for the time being. The time it would be to reopen, who the hell knows? And that is why some of the studios have attempted to get into the streaming apps to deliver on content for movies that released in theaters over the fall and winter. Disney has been generous with Frozen II and the latest Star Wars movie.
But what Universal is doing is something that could be seen as an acid test. They are one of the very few studios to put movies of theirs that had gotten into theaters within the last month and a half and are putting them on streaming. The cost would be 20 dollars, roughly what a DVD cost would be. This includes The Invisible Man and The Hunt or example. One that hasn't seen release yet in theaters is Trolls World Tour and one or two other films.Maybe more, maybe less.
The ultimate question is this is. Will people bite at 20 dollars? Yes and no. What people may perceive as good value could factor in. Not every theater charges the same amount. If you pay five to seven dollars for a ticket, it may not be worth it. If you go to one that is double digit prices or if you have a family of four or five, then I can see the justification from some individuals. The Trolls film will be interesting as this acid test. Will parents go out of their way to spend 20 dollars for the streaming of the newest movie? Who will budge? That's what I wonder. I look at it as being easier to judge on an adult film than a kids film.
Regardless, it's something to help keep moviegoers at bay until the pandemic is over. Is going the streaming route the future? Maybe. When it could happen, I don't know. But these studios know they have to treat their customers with a decent amount of respect. Get comfy for a while and understand when things go back to normal, they will want you back in the theaters.
But what Universal is doing is something that could be seen as an acid test. They are one of the very few studios to put movies of theirs that had gotten into theaters within the last month and a half and are putting them on streaming. The cost would be 20 dollars, roughly what a DVD cost would be. This includes The Invisible Man and The Hunt or example. One that hasn't seen release yet in theaters is Trolls World Tour and one or two other films.Maybe more, maybe less.
The ultimate question is this is. Will people bite at 20 dollars? Yes and no. What people may perceive as good value could factor in. Not every theater charges the same amount. If you pay five to seven dollars for a ticket, it may not be worth it. If you go to one that is double digit prices or if you have a family of four or five, then I can see the justification from some individuals. The Trolls film will be interesting as this acid test. Will parents go out of their way to spend 20 dollars for the streaming of the newest movie? Who will budge? That's what I wonder. I look at it as being easier to judge on an adult film than a kids film.
Regardless, it's something to help keep moviegoers at bay until the pandemic is over. Is going the streaming route the future? Maybe. When it could happen, I don't know. But these studios know they have to treat their customers with a decent amount of respect. Get comfy for a while and understand when things go back to normal, they will want you back in the theaters.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Heading Towards Box Office Decline?
This month has had the ups and downs of movies doing well in theaters or struggling. Not a shocker. But it could be a sign that the new decade may begin with not many checking out specific movies.
Some of the biggest failures were films such as Richard Jewell and Cats. I saw Jewell failing because of the subject matter and not knowing what exactly was the truth. I don't think politics played a role. Cats is one of those ideas that bringing a musical play to the big screen would be good. Universal has had some hits with musicals in recent memory and more than likely thought they had a good spot to do strong. They are going to lose millions on it.
Sequels like Star Wars and Jumanji are still films people will fawn over and anticipate the next big release. So far, Star Wars has done okay, but how much people are still on the bandwagon for it, that's what I'm looking at. Last year I talked about oversaturation and fatigue. I think we're seeing it even though it's only been out for less than two weeks. Not to the level of Solo, but still. The amount of success Jumanji has had these last two years, it's a surprise to revive a modest success the 1995 original had. Maybe ditching a storyline helps? As long as it doesn't get too sequel happy.
Then you have films like Uncut Gems and Little Women. Uncut Gems helps a little bit with Adam Sandler and a few other people like Kevin Garnett being in it. A crime thriller, something you don't see too often. While it debuted a strong opening weekend, whether it has legs is another question for A24, which is still a very small company despite growing and getting into television. Little Women is more of a smaller budget adaptation of a book that hasn't seen a film adaptation in a very long time. With critical acclaim at the moment, it enjoyed a good five day debut. These are the kind of films we need as we rely too much on tent pole releases
Smaller releases around this time are getting wide releases soon. Just Mercy and 1917 are just a few example. VHYes is something I am genuinely curious about and hopefully it goes wide after its release in mid January. We need that healthy mix of small films and the big ones as 2020 begins. Something like a Bad Boys or a Birds of Prey. You have to hope Hollywood knows what kind of dark future it could have for a year or so as people continue to go towards the streaming route and watching more and more movies at home.
Some of the biggest failures were films such as Richard Jewell and Cats. I saw Jewell failing because of the subject matter and not knowing what exactly was the truth. I don't think politics played a role. Cats is one of those ideas that bringing a musical play to the big screen would be good. Universal has had some hits with musicals in recent memory and more than likely thought they had a good spot to do strong. They are going to lose millions on it.
Sequels like Star Wars and Jumanji are still films people will fawn over and anticipate the next big release. So far, Star Wars has done okay, but how much people are still on the bandwagon for it, that's what I'm looking at. Last year I talked about oversaturation and fatigue. I think we're seeing it even though it's only been out for less than two weeks. Not to the level of Solo, but still. The amount of success Jumanji has had these last two years, it's a surprise to revive a modest success the 1995 original had. Maybe ditching a storyline helps? As long as it doesn't get too sequel happy.
Then you have films like Uncut Gems and Little Women. Uncut Gems helps a little bit with Adam Sandler and a few other people like Kevin Garnett being in it. A crime thriller, something you don't see too often. While it debuted a strong opening weekend, whether it has legs is another question for A24, which is still a very small company despite growing and getting into television. Little Women is more of a smaller budget adaptation of a book that hasn't seen a film adaptation in a very long time. With critical acclaim at the moment, it enjoyed a good five day debut. These are the kind of films we need as we rely too much on tent pole releases
Smaller releases around this time are getting wide releases soon. Just Mercy and 1917 are just a few example. VHYes is something I am genuinely curious about and hopefully it goes wide after its release in mid January. We need that healthy mix of small films and the big ones as 2020 begins. Something like a Bad Boys or a Birds of Prey. You have to hope Hollywood knows what kind of dark future it could have for a year or so as people continue to go towards the streaming route and watching more and more movies at home.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Going Against Loved Stuff
Like everyone, I have stuff I don't like, but others do. Most of the time, people act like I committed the worst crime if I don't like what they like.
Cartoons is a great example. I hate Animaniacs, and it bothered a handful of people and a couple berating me for having bad taste. Even when I explained my reason (obnoxious characters, tried way too hard to be funny), it was for naught. I prefer other Spielberg cartoons over it. Frankly, I didn't watch kids networks (TV in general ) until 1996/97 and even then, I watched other channels like TBS. I think cartoons get many offended if you don't love them the same way others do. I think part of it is nostalgia and being big fans of said programs. But they are the ones that suffer from age most of the time and don't hold up.
Movies is a bit different. For a lot of the really loved ones, I can see why. Part of it is the high bar that is set for movies like The Godfather Part II, and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. I watch those and I feel underwhelmed. I can find enjoyment and say they are good, but that good? I don't think so. Definitely watchable, though. One I watched recently was the first Gremlins. I like the Gremlin design and set up. It had funny moments, but I didn't find it that scary. Not that good, but still pretty good.
Video games fall in the same thing as movies, but way worse. There is a very high bar set and if I don't agree, regardless of if I love the game or not, it would hypothetically bother many. My big example is The Legend of Zelda for the original NES. A lot of people view it as a masterpiece. I don't see it as being more than just a good game. I think nostalgia is heavily involved as it has its share of flaws like the grinding and the health system as get a bigger life meter. You can't ignore small things that hurt a game, regardless of age.
I don't try to be different for the sake of being different. Just understand that the opposite opinion can occur unless someone is being different on purpose or trying to hate something on purpose.
Cartoons is a great example. I hate Animaniacs, and it bothered a handful of people and a couple berating me for having bad taste. Even when I explained my reason (obnoxious characters, tried way too hard to be funny), it was for naught. I prefer other Spielberg cartoons over it. Frankly, I didn't watch kids networks (TV in general ) until 1996/97 and even then, I watched other channels like TBS. I think cartoons get many offended if you don't love them the same way others do. I think part of it is nostalgia and being big fans of said programs. But they are the ones that suffer from age most of the time and don't hold up.
Movies is a bit different. For a lot of the really loved ones, I can see why. Part of it is the high bar that is set for movies like The Godfather Part II, and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial. I watch those and I feel underwhelmed. I can find enjoyment and say they are good, but that good? I don't think so. Definitely watchable, though. One I watched recently was the first Gremlins. I like the Gremlin design and set up. It had funny moments, but I didn't find it that scary. Not that good, but still pretty good.
Video games fall in the same thing as movies, but way worse. There is a very high bar set and if I don't agree, regardless of if I love the game or not, it would hypothetically bother many. My big example is The Legend of Zelda for the original NES. A lot of people view it as a masterpiece. I don't see it as being more than just a good game. I think nostalgia is heavily involved as it has its share of flaws like the grinding and the health system as get a bigger life meter. You can't ignore small things that hurt a game, regardless of age.
I don't try to be different for the sake of being different. Just understand that the opposite opinion can occur unless someone is being different on purpose or trying to hate something on purpose.
Thursday, October 3, 2019
Horror Appeal
It's that time of the year again. Everyone is in for Halloween and the trick or treating. As always networks and studios are looking towards movies for success and airtime. Same with television as shows try at least one episode around the time of the month if they aren't doing it every year.
Unfortunately, I'm not entertained by horror. The idea of being scared leaves me a bit uneasy. It's not the case with every horror movie, but I don't make an incentive to watch all these films that air. I do like stuff like Jaws, although that's more suspenseful than trying to scare people in my opinion. Zombie stuff doesn't bother me too much. It depends on the level of horror and blood and gore. I can tolerate some blood, but other times, it makes me a bit queasy. Something like Friday the 13th or Elm Street would more than likely want me changing the channel.
I'm more comfortable with video games. Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, Doom. Tons of games that have horror elements. Maybe because they know not to go overboard most of the time. Television wise, it depends. Light hearted comedies, I can laugh a lot. Drama, it depends, but I wouldn't be against it fully. I wouldn't mind reading some books. I do have some like The Shining for example.
Take it or leave it, horror isn't something I'm entertained about. Oh well. But I'm not against watching some stuff that airs in October.
Unfortunately, I'm not entertained by horror. The idea of being scared leaves me a bit uneasy. It's not the case with every horror movie, but I don't make an incentive to watch all these films that air. I do like stuff like Jaws, although that's more suspenseful than trying to scare people in my opinion. Zombie stuff doesn't bother me too much. It depends on the level of horror and blood and gore. I can tolerate some blood, but other times, it makes me a bit queasy. Something like Friday the 13th or Elm Street would more than likely want me changing the channel.
I'm more comfortable with video games. Resident Evil, Dino Crisis, Doom. Tons of games that have horror elements. Maybe because they know not to go overboard most of the time. Television wise, it depends. Light hearted comedies, I can laugh a lot. Drama, it depends, but I wouldn't be against it fully. I wouldn't mind reading some books. I do have some like The Shining for example.
Take it or leave it, horror isn't something I'm entertained about. Oh well. But I'm not against watching some stuff that airs in October.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Rambo Series Thoughts Part II
Part II with the last two movies prior to Last Blood.
Rambo III's story is a lot more simpler. Colonel Trautman is captured after trying to help the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He tried to get Rambo to help, but he refused. When the capturing happened, Rambo decides to save his mentor from torture and possible death. Out of the entire series, it has the most action and it has a good pace between having the dramatic moments and then squeezing in some action here and there. The cinematography made great use of lighting and the script is decent.
That being said, it is very over the top. A lot more than the second film. With all the stuff Stallone made Rambo do, I wonder how much of it tried to imitate or take over Schwarzenegger for ridiculous action. The amount of one man army gunplay and set ups to kill the enemy is a lot to swallow. There isn't much use to the guerrilla warfare, but a lot more of the arrows and knife kills. One thing before I forget is the soundtracks done by Jerry Goldsmith. The first three films have similar motifs and themes, They work very effectively and add to the tones of the movies. As a whole, Rambo III is the weakest of the bunch and the one I would more than likely skip if I want an action film from the series.
Score: 6 out of 10
Twenty years later came a new film in the series, simply named Rambo. Living life in Thailand, where it was actually filmed, Rambo leads a quiet life and after some begging, reluctantly agrees to take a Colorado missionary group to Burma to help villagers. It goes sour very quick after he drops them off, which leads to him and a mercenary group a couple weeks later doing a rescue mission. As far as story goes, it's as simple as the third. Not to mention it is a lot more grounded in reality without being as ridiculous as III and not having any cheese like the second one. It is very gritty and some of the shots, I hope some of you have strong stomachs.
This is a very gruesome movie. It doesn't have a lot of action and it's more along the line of the second film, though less action. I wouldn't be surprised at how that part of the world is. There are places where civil war is still a big issue. The first half is about the drama and the missionaries, where as the second half starts the rescue and the action, which is mostly reserved for the last 20 minutes. The pacing is very quick and you get to see some drama and a new composer taking over with new music that is different but fits the film to full effect.
I don't have too much else I can say with 08 Rambo. Less cheese is a good thing and I would watch this instead of III. That being said, the second film I would put above it just because it didn't go that overboard in its kills. I don't mind it in its own ways. Not a great movie, but not as bad as the third.
Score: 6.5 out of 10
Rambo III's story is a lot more simpler. Colonel Trautman is captured after trying to help the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He tried to get Rambo to help, but he refused. When the capturing happened, Rambo decides to save his mentor from torture and possible death. Out of the entire series, it has the most action and it has a good pace between having the dramatic moments and then squeezing in some action here and there. The cinematography made great use of lighting and the script is decent.
That being said, it is very over the top. A lot more than the second film. With all the stuff Stallone made Rambo do, I wonder how much of it tried to imitate or take over Schwarzenegger for ridiculous action. The amount of one man army gunplay and set ups to kill the enemy is a lot to swallow. There isn't much use to the guerrilla warfare, but a lot more of the arrows and knife kills. One thing before I forget is the soundtracks done by Jerry Goldsmith. The first three films have similar motifs and themes, They work very effectively and add to the tones of the movies. As a whole, Rambo III is the weakest of the bunch and the one I would more than likely skip if I want an action film from the series.
Score: 6 out of 10
Twenty years later came a new film in the series, simply named Rambo. Living life in Thailand, where it was actually filmed, Rambo leads a quiet life and after some begging, reluctantly agrees to take a Colorado missionary group to Burma to help villagers. It goes sour very quick after he drops them off, which leads to him and a mercenary group a couple weeks later doing a rescue mission. As far as story goes, it's as simple as the third. Not to mention it is a lot more grounded in reality without being as ridiculous as III and not having any cheese like the second one. It is very gritty and some of the shots, I hope some of you have strong stomachs.
This is a very gruesome movie. It doesn't have a lot of action and it's more along the line of the second film, though less action. I wouldn't be surprised at how that part of the world is. There are places where civil war is still a big issue. The first half is about the drama and the missionaries, where as the second half starts the rescue and the action, which is mostly reserved for the last 20 minutes. The pacing is very quick and you get to see some drama and a new composer taking over with new music that is different but fits the film to full effect.
I don't have too much else I can say with 08 Rambo. Less cheese is a good thing and I would watch this instead of III. That being said, the second film I would put above it just because it didn't go that overboard in its kills. I don't mind it in its own ways. Not a great movie, but not as bad as the third.
Score: 6.5 out of 10
Monday, September 23, 2019
Rambo Series Thoughts Part I
For today and tomorrow, I want to give my thoughts on the series of Rambo films that have been around since 1982. Today will be my thoughts on the first two films and tomorrow the last two and the one that just hit theaters. Let's get cracking.
First Blood had a lot of trouble getting made as a film before releasing in the fall of 82. I can't say much for the book since I have never read it, but I've heard of the changes made to it. Some of it done by leading man Sylvester Stallone. Despite that, it's the best of the series. It's more along the line of a suspenseful and survival movie. Rambo will do anything to survive and get rid of Sheriff Teasle and the rest of the Hope, Washington cops. And this comes after constant harassment from Teasle and the effects of being in Vietnam and various torture with PTSD coming when the cops want to shave him.
It's well crafted. Great cinematography for the 80s that makes it feel like it could be filmed from any era. A nice showcase of Rambo living off the land during his fight for survival. Stallone is excellent as the character. Add in solid performances from Richard Crenna as Colonel Trautman and Brian Dennehy's Teasle, who both create excellent drama with their clashes in how things should be handled, and you got one of the great movies of that decade. It is a little ridiculous at the end, but you can't blame Rambo for wanting to wreak havoc and get back at them. But the end dialogue is something you don't expect for that era of action heroes. The must watch film of the series.
Score: 8 out of 10
Now, First Blood Part II. Rambo is given a chance for freedom by participating in a mission to find POW's in Vietnam. A pardon may be made for him. With help from Trautman and stationed military guys in Thailand, he finds himself in a different kind of era of war. However, things don't go as smoothly and when the mission backfires, he must use whatever methods to escape and accomplish the mission at hand. I don't think this movie is that bad. Not as good as the first, but I don't see it as being that ridiculous compared to Commando or other Schwarzenegger action films.
It saves a lot of its action for the last 20 minutes when Rambo goes nuts and takes matters into his own hands to free the POW's. But it feels like two movies. The first half is a basic military film with redemption and a little action. Then the second half has some thrilling and suspenseful moments that ultimately becomes a popcorn flick action film. Some cheese, but it's not that over top. There is a love that feels a bit forced and the plot might confuse viewers. It's a very quick film that gets from point A to point B very fast without having additional storylines. The showcase of Rambo's ability to survive is not the greatest, but it has some stuff like resisting torture and using some of his guerrilla warfare. Out of the sequels, it's the best of them. It's just a matter of how much you can handle the cheese and action towards the end.
Score: 7 out of 10
First Blood had a lot of trouble getting made as a film before releasing in the fall of 82. I can't say much for the book since I have never read it, but I've heard of the changes made to it. Some of it done by leading man Sylvester Stallone. Despite that, it's the best of the series. It's more along the line of a suspenseful and survival movie. Rambo will do anything to survive and get rid of Sheriff Teasle and the rest of the Hope, Washington cops. And this comes after constant harassment from Teasle and the effects of being in Vietnam and various torture with PTSD coming when the cops want to shave him.
It's well crafted. Great cinematography for the 80s that makes it feel like it could be filmed from any era. A nice showcase of Rambo living off the land during his fight for survival. Stallone is excellent as the character. Add in solid performances from Richard Crenna as Colonel Trautman and Brian Dennehy's Teasle, who both create excellent drama with their clashes in how things should be handled, and you got one of the great movies of that decade. It is a little ridiculous at the end, but you can't blame Rambo for wanting to wreak havoc and get back at them. But the end dialogue is something you don't expect for that era of action heroes. The must watch film of the series.
Score: 8 out of 10
Now, First Blood Part II. Rambo is given a chance for freedom by participating in a mission to find POW's in Vietnam. A pardon may be made for him. With help from Trautman and stationed military guys in Thailand, he finds himself in a different kind of era of war. However, things don't go as smoothly and when the mission backfires, he must use whatever methods to escape and accomplish the mission at hand. I don't think this movie is that bad. Not as good as the first, but I don't see it as being that ridiculous compared to Commando or other Schwarzenegger action films.
It saves a lot of its action for the last 20 minutes when Rambo goes nuts and takes matters into his own hands to free the POW's. But it feels like two movies. The first half is a basic military film with redemption and a little action. Then the second half has some thrilling and suspenseful moments that ultimately becomes a popcorn flick action film. Some cheese, but it's not that over top. There is a love that feels a bit forced and the plot might confuse viewers. It's a very quick film that gets from point A to point B very fast without having additional storylines. The showcase of Rambo's ability to survive is not the greatest, but it has some stuff like resisting torture and using some of his guerrilla warfare. Out of the sequels, it's the best of them. It's just a matter of how much you can handle the cheese and action towards the end.
Score: 7 out of 10
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Marathons for TV
Especially around this part of the year, we see a lot of marathons for various movies and to a lesser extent, television shows that air for nonstop hours. It's quick ad it's a ratings grabber for a network who is putting up with more than five hours worth of the same thing over and over. When you look at Christmas, it's clear a lot of channels do it.
It all starts with A Christmas Story. The film started to get attraction with airings during the 90s. Then in 1997, TNT started the 24 hour marathon of the film. That gets ratings, but with that mind, the landscape has changed a bit from what it was 21 years ago. Now, it's on both TNT and TBS, as a lot of networks will lump one program onto multiple channels. Turner and Viacom do this a lot. Anyway, other networks have done marathons similar to Christmas Story. FX has done it multiple movies. So has AMC, Freeform. The list goes on.
Outside of Christmas, there might be something around Thanksgiving or July 4th for a few networks. AMC is the only one now these days that airs The Godfather trilogy, and they do that around Thanksgiving just about every year. They are very long movies, but they are also beloved (the third not so much, but still) and it's something that the network can get ratings on due to rare airings and maybe not finding it on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Television shows have marathons more than movies. Ion does this a lot with various crime shows for a specific day. USA is very guilty of this with the constant marathons of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and NCIS. The way they treat other syndicated shows they have like Modern Family is downright embarrassing. But unfortunately, they get ratings, and other shows don't get the special treatment as the two. A shame, really. You don't see it with comedy shows. WGN is like this a little bit with M*A*S*H and Last Man Standing, but it's not too bad compared to dramas. Comedy Central loves The Office quite a bit, but it's usually weekends if they pick the show that they air it constantly during a part of the day.
These shows cost money to get and if costs weren't a factor, I would spice it up a bit with various shows instead of four hour airings of certain shows. For holidays, grin and bear it. It's not the worst thing in the world, even though it gets repetitive sometimes. For television shows, not much you can do. Complaining to the networks will not help you at all.
It all starts with A Christmas Story. The film started to get attraction with airings during the 90s. Then in 1997, TNT started the 24 hour marathon of the film. That gets ratings, but with that mind, the landscape has changed a bit from what it was 21 years ago. Now, it's on both TNT and TBS, as a lot of networks will lump one program onto multiple channels. Turner and Viacom do this a lot. Anyway, other networks have done marathons similar to Christmas Story. FX has done it multiple movies. So has AMC, Freeform. The list goes on.
Outside of Christmas, there might be something around Thanksgiving or July 4th for a few networks. AMC is the only one now these days that airs The Godfather trilogy, and they do that around Thanksgiving just about every year. They are very long movies, but they are also beloved (the third not so much, but still) and it's something that the network can get ratings on due to rare airings and maybe not finding it on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Television shows have marathons more than movies. Ion does this a lot with various crime shows for a specific day. USA is very guilty of this with the constant marathons of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and NCIS. The way they treat other syndicated shows they have like Modern Family is downright embarrassing. But unfortunately, they get ratings, and other shows don't get the special treatment as the two. A shame, really. You don't see it with comedy shows. WGN is like this a little bit with M*A*S*H and Last Man Standing, but it's not too bad compared to dramas. Comedy Central loves The Office quite a bit, but it's usually weekends if they pick the show that they air it constantly during a part of the day.
These shows cost money to get and if costs weren't a factor, I would spice it up a bit with various shows instead of four hour airings of certain shows. For holidays, grin and bear it. It's not the worst thing in the world, even though it gets repetitive sometimes. For television shows, not much you can do. Complaining to the networks will not help you at all.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
When Is Something Mediocre?
Everyone wants something to be at the minimum, enjoyable. At the maximum, good or great. It's all subjective because there are those that enjoy the bad stuff. However, there are the few things that even if one were to enjoy something bad, even they would admit it's not that great. When does the mediocrity occur?
One of these examples is a game that I am going through right now with Knack. It was out the same day the PlayStation 4 launched in 2013. Probably not halfway through and I noticed how mundane and monotonous it was a few chapters in. It's a by the numbers platformer. Nothing stands out other than the main character. Level designs are very linear. The difficulty is not even a good challenge. You take too much damage from enemies and it's very easy to die, leading to very cheap moments and poor checkpoint locations. It's a tech demo for the system. Maybe a rental, but not a game I would fully recommend.
When a television show is good, it can string some great episodes in a row and be given some slack for a few that are not above the standard it delivered. It's hard to judge one's inaugural debut because you don't know what to expect. If I were to judge, I would give the first two to four episodes a chance before either giving up or continuing to watch. If it's that bad of a pilot, maybe one more episode if you can stomach it. Otherwise, give up on it. It's mostly subjective since even shows considered great have its critics. Some louder for some shows than others.
Those two examples can happen at any time with a franchise or something that has been around for a very long time. Say a show has ran for eight years and that the first six were very good and the last two you found to be average or mediocre. It's a crapshoot when it boils down to movies and music. The former can easily be found on cable most of the time and the latter has so much material, you can wade through all the garbage to find what you want online. What about if you were to go to a theater or get a CD or vinyl? That's up to you. You are putting up the risk to see or listen to something you hope is at worst decent. How much you can stomach before you leave the theater is on you. Same with the music and the tracks they offer.
I enjoy my share of good and bad things, but when it's mediocre, it's fairly forgettable. Happy hunting in the search for what you consider good. There is plenty of stuff to find.
One of these examples is a game that I am going through right now with Knack. It was out the same day the PlayStation 4 launched in 2013. Probably not halfway through and I noticed how mundane and monotonous it was a few chapters in. It's a by the numbers platformer. Nothing stands out other than the main character. Level designs are very linear. The difficulty is not even a good challenge. You take too much damage from enemies and it's very easy to die, leading to very cheap moments and poor checkpoint locations. It's a tech demo for the system. Maybe a rental, but not a game I would fully recommend.
When a television show is good, it can string some great episodes in a row and be given some slack for a few that are not above the standard it delivered. It's hard to judge one's inaugural debut because you don't know what to expect. If I were to judge, I would give the first two to four episodes a chance before either giving up or continuing to watch. If it's that bad of a pilot, maybe one more episode if you can stomach it. Otherwise, give up on it. It's mostly subjective since even shows considered great have its critics. Some louder for some shows than others.
Those two examples can happen at any time with a franchise or something that has been around for a very long time. Say a show has ran for eight years and that the first six were very good and the last two you found to be average or mediocre. It's a crapshoot when it boils down to movies and music. The former can easily be found on cable most of the time and the latter has so much material, you can wade through all the garbage to find what you want online. What about if you were to go to a theater or get a CD or vinyl? That's up to you. You are putting up the risk to see or listen to something you hope is at worst decent. How much you can stomach before you leave the theater is on you. Same with the music and the tracks they offer.
I enjoy my share of good and bad things, but when it's mediocre, it's fairly forgettable. Happy hunting in the search for what you consider good. There is plenty of stuff to find.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Lego Panic?
Although Lego has had only two films before their Ninjago movie, it could be a cause for concern regarding future projects at Warner Brothers. While there was no doubt the newest Kingsman movie would be the top grossing for this past weekend, there was the thought that Ninjago would be close to 30 million or over it. That was not the case, as it only got 21 million domestically and an additional 10 mil internationally.
The Lego Movie was a big hit for the start of 2014. It put up big numbers with 250 plus million domestically. Critics loved it. There was more to it than just being a block film with a reliance on the license. Warner Brothers took a chance and it paid off. While there was love for The Lego Batman Movie, it's numbers were a bit weaker throughout the world, making just over 300 million overall and 175 mil in the U.S. With the way Ninjago performed, it may not even reach 100 million domestically.
I could see some people not going for Batman because of the way it's looked in Lego compared to something like the ultra serious Chris Nolan movies or the direct to video releases. Especially for ones who like comic books, they could be unimpressed. For Ninjago, this is a product from its own company, which has been producing toy lines of it for the past six years. Hell, a TV show has been on the air the last six years as well. To be fair, the last episodes were back in May. With that being said, however, kids can get tired of some of the same products.
Maybe it was poor timing. I doubt anyone was expecting It to dominate for this month of September and still have strong legs against these latest newcomers. Is it cause for panic, though? A little bit. There could be a glimmer of hope with The Lego Movie 2 hitting theaters in February 2019. A bit of time off between these two could be beneficial. Until then, it's a matter of what catches on and doesn't. If nothing changes in a few years, whatever projects could be scrapped. There could also be oversaturation. How much more stuff can Warner Brothers do with Lego before low numbers cause them to worry? It goes beyond the films.
I would think with all these horror movies coming out, Ninjago could be a counteract to that and other adult oriented films. Could it hold on, though? I doubt it. Critics aren't exactly pleased with it.
It could have the same numbers as Captain Underpants domestically, but with a possibly stronger international number due to the appeal of Lego. It's all up in the air with what happens next.
The Lego Movie was a big hit for the start of 2014. It put up big numbers with 250 plus million domestically. Critics loved it. There was more to it than just being a block film with a reliance on the license. Warner Brothers took a chance and it paid off. While there was love for The Lego Batman Movie, it's numbers were a bit weaker throughout the world, making just over 300 million overall and 175 mil in the U.S. With the way Ninjago performed, it may not even reach 100 million domestically.
I could see some people not going for Batman because of the way it's looked in Lego compared to something like the ultra serious Chris Nolan movies or the direct to video releases. Especially for ones who like comic books, they could be unimpressed. For Ninjago, this is a product from its own company, which has been producing toy lines of it for the past six years. Hell, a TV show has been on the air the last six years as well. To be fair, the last episodes were back in May. With that being said, however, kids can get tired of some of the same products.
Maybe it was poor timing. I doubt anyone was expecting It to dominate for this month of September and still have strong legs against these latest newcomers. Is it cause for panic, though? A little bit. There could be a glimmer of hope with The Lego Movie 2 hitting theaters in February 2019. A bit of time off between these two could be beneficial. Until then, it's a matter of what catches on and doesn't. If nothing changes in a few years, whatever projects could be scrapped. There could also be oversaturation. How much more stuff can Warner Brothers do with Lego before low numbers cause them to worry? It goes beyond the films.
I would think with all these horror movies coming out, Ninjago could be a counteract to that and other adult oriented films. Could it hold on, though? I doubt it. Critics aren't exactly pleased with it.
It could have the same numbers as Captain Underpants domestically, but with a possibly stronger international number due to the appeal of Lego. It's all up in the air with what happens next.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Slow Weeks at Movie Theaters
The numbers will probably be close by the time this blog is created, so don't be surprised by an update. With not much going on with the new movies hitting theaters just before the latest Marvel film, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2, The Fate of the Furious will possibly stay number one for a third straight week. What is it with movies that aren't based on comic books that don't pick up strong numbers?
Quality is always the key to many moviegoers, and looking at the new set of films for this weekend, some of the numbers can be surprising. One of these is How to Be a Latin Lover, which is in just about 1,100 theaters. That's low, but at the same time pretty strong considering some of the stars it was able to have. Some might ignore what critics say and still enjoy a movie that has a mixed reception. Just a little bigger was an Indian film, Baahubali 2. It has a strong reception and despite being in less than 500 theaters, it is something people want to see that isn't a comic book film. I would think they would expand just a little bit to put it in other cities and towns and see how it performs. This could really be something that keeps moviegoers coming to view different kinds of films.
Despite some decent promotion and a budget of 18 million dollars, The Circle performed worse than Latin Lover and Baahubali. Maybe it's the material. My impression of it looking at the commercials is that it looks very weird and possibly confusing. Whatever the reason regarding the panning, this will be a big flop and it might make its budget back or just fail to. At least it was cheap considering how big some of their stars. If this truly was Bill Paxton's last film, not a good way to showcase the late actor's talents unless his role was well received.
There will be times when a week will feel like no one is going anywhere. You see numbers for a weekend like this and wonder how the next weekend will be. May is going to be an intriguing month. Some original films are going to be in theaters everywhere. Sequels to some of the biggest movies are slated for that as well. How will people react, though, to stuff like Baywatch or Snatched? Could King Arthur have some strong legs in the wake of yet another Marvel film the week before? Does Pirates of the Caribbean put Johnny Depp back on top following a disastrous 2016 privately and publicly? That's up to moviegoers to decide. They are the ones who dictate what gets made in the future and if a risk is put on other original films and sequels they did not expect.
Quality is always the key to many moviegoers, and looking at the new set of films for this weekend, some of the numbers can be surprising. One of these is How to Be a Latin Lover, which is in just about 1,100 theaters. That's low, but at the same time pretty strong considering some of the stars it was able to have. Some might ignore what critics say and still enjoy a movie that has a mixed reception. Just a little bigger was an Indian film, Baahubali 2. It has a strong reception and despite being in less than 500 theaters, it is something people want to see that isn't a comic book film. I would think they would expand just a little bit to put it in other cities and towns and see how it performs. This could really be something that keeps moviegoers coming to view different kinds of films.
Despite some decent promotion and a budget of 18 million dollars, The Circle performed worse than Latin Lover and Baahubali. Maybe it's the material. My impression of it looking at the commercials is that it looks very weird and possibly confusing. Whatever the reason regarding the panning, this will be a big flop and it might make its budget back or just fail to. At least it was cheap considering how big some of their stars. If this truly was Bill Paxton's last film, not a good way to showcase the late actor's talents unless his role was well received.
There will be times when a week will feel like no one is going anywhere. You see numbers for a weekend like this and wonder how the next weekend will be. May is going to be an intriguing month. Some original films are going to be in theaters everywhere. Sequels to some of the biggest movies are slated for that as well. How will people react, though, to stuff like Baywatch or Snatched? Could King Arthur have some strong legs in the wake of yet another Marvel film the week before? Does Pirates of the Caribbean put Johnny Depp back on top following a disastrous 2016 privately and publicly? That's up to moviegoers to decide. They are the ones who dictate what gets made in the future and if a risk is put on other original films and sequels they did not expect.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Disney Remakes and It's 2010s Resurgance.
Another weekend, another top three performance by Disney yet again. In it's fourth weekend in theaters, their live action remake of Beauty and the Beast was number two at the box office, beaten barely by The Boss Baby, which entered its second weekend. Worldwide, it has made almost a billion dollars with impressive runs domestically and internationally. It is unbelievable that it's able to make that much very quickly. How and why do these films garner so much success at the box office?
For the 2010s, Disney has lit up the decade. It has had a big resurgence and has had a big era since at least the mid 90s. Their animated films on their own have picked up quite a bit. I see them as a lot more confident in putting them in theaters compared to the decade prior where direct-to-video was one of their big moneymakers. Stuff like Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, and Zootopia shows that they can do well if they have the right people involved. Especially if you have people who worked on other project, whether from Disney or not. Of course, their Pixar library has done well despite a few bumps with things like Cars 2. The live action material still has its hits and misses.
With the remakes, it goes back to when Alice in Wonderland hit theaters at the start of 2010. I think what helps with these films is the curiosity of what could possibly happen if you were to see it. In the case of Alice, when it's headed by Tim Burton, you know there will be a style that he has done since the days of Beetlejuice and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Not to mention how it is different from the animated film. It didn't have the strongest reception, which is the case with most of these live action adaptations, but made it to over a billion dollars. Disney had this and Toy Story 3 that year as the top two films that with over a billion each. Woody and the gang made just a little more.
While these next two weren't remakes, they caught some attention. The first was Oz: The Great and Powerful in early 2013. I should say these movies had very expensive budgets. We're talking at least 200 plus million with a few of these films. It made big money, but did not make it to half a billion worldwide and had a mixed reception. The next one was Maleficent in the summer of 2014. From what I understand, this is the villain from Sleeping Beauty. The star power helps when you have Angelina Jolie as the title character. I'm not saying that's the only reason it did well, but it gives a little edge when you make hit after hit. At the same time, you do get to see Maleficent's origins and what she would become. If the idea of a live action Sleeping Beauty does come into fruition, it could be bigger. Once again, there wasn't a hugely positive reception but made over 750 million worldwide.
The last two years prior to 2017, Disney has gotten back into doing remakes. Two years ago, they did Cinderella, which made over 500 million worldwide, and had the cheapest budget of the remakes at 95 million. However, its reception was a bit stronger as it was well received. Last year saw The Jungle Book hit theaters and it was very huge, critically and commercially. Prior to Beauty and the Beast, it was the biggest remake of these films. It's an intriguing thing because you wouldn't think of these necessarily translating well into live action. Cinderella is an odd choice out of the films Disney has done to be put into live action. The Jungle Book would be a lot more demanding due to the many characters and set pieces that are seen. Whatever they did with these two, it worked. The company must be feeling very confident considering they got the same director for Jungle Book, Jon Favreau (Elf, Iron Man 1-2) to direct the live action Lion King film.
What helps a bit is that there are people who obviously grew up on some Disney films as kids, whether seeing them in the theater or seeing them on VHS, DVD or TV. As some have kids of their own, there might still be that love for Disney and you want to show your child some of the stuff you grew up with if they weren't very stubborn in protecting the films. When you look at the company's output since the 1930s, a lot of these animated films have that timeless appeal. Even if you don't have a kid, you could be very excited or concerned and have a certain emotion when you do see the final product in theaters. As I said, it's curiosity for the most part.
I think as long as they don't deviate too much from the source material if it is that and the animated versions, Disney could wind up doing more versions of their animated films in live action. Whenever The Lion King comes out, it's going to be very huge. When it came out in 1994, it was nearly a billion dollars worldwide. It could possibly reach that mark very quickly in live action. If the reception is still good, who knows what it will take at the end of the 2010s and into the new decade. People will always be intrigued and Disney will find a way to put butts in seats.
For the 2010s, Disney has lit up the decade. It has had a big resurgence and has had a big era since at least the mid 90s. Their animated films on their own have picked up quite a bit. I see them as a lot more confident in putting them in theaters compared to the decade prior where direct-to-video was one of their big moneymakers. Stuff like Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6, and Zootopia shows that they can do well if they have the right people involved. Especially if you have people who worked on other project, whether from Disney or not. Of course, their Pixar library has done well despite a few bumps with things like Cars 2. The live action material still has its hits and misses.
With the remakes, it goes back to when Alice in Wonderland hit theaters at the start of 2010. I think what helps with these films is the curiosity of what could possibly happen if you were to see it. In the case of Alice, when it's headed by Tim Burton, you know there will be a style that he has done since the days of Beetlejuice and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Not to mention how it is different from the animated film. It didn't have the strongest reception, which is the case with most of these live action adaptations, but made it to over a billion dollars. Disney had this and Toy Story 3 that year as the top two films that with over a billion each. Woody and the gang made just a little more.
While these next two weren't remakes, they caught some attention. The first was Oz: The Great and Powerful in early 2013. I should say these movies had very expensive budgets. We're talking at least 200 plus million with a few of these films. It made big money, but did not make it to half a billion worldwide and had a mixed reception. The next one was Maleficent in the summer of 2014. From what I understand, this is the villain from Sleeping Beauty. The star power helps when you have Angelina Jolie as the title character. I'm not saying that's the only reason it did well, but it gives a little edge when you make hit after hit. At the same time, you do get to see Maleficent's origins and what she would become. If the idea of a live action Sleeping Beauty does come into fruition, it could be bigger. Once again, there wasn't a hugely positive reception but made over 750 million worldwide.
The last two years prior to 2017, Disney has gotten back into doing remakes. Two years ago, they did Cinderella, which made over 500 million worldwide, and had the cheapest budget of the remakes at 95 million. However, its reception was a bit stronger as it was well received. Last year saw The Jungle Book hit theaters and it was very huge, critically and commercially. Prior to Beauty and the Beast, it was the biggest remake of these films. It's an intriguing thing because you wouldn't think of these necessarily translating well into live action. Cinderella is an odd choice out of the films Disney has done to be put into live action. The Jungle Book would be a lot more demanding due to the many characters and set pieces that are seen. Whatever they did with these two, it worked. The company must be feeling very confident considering they got the same director for Jungle Book, Jon Favreau (Elf, Iron Man 1-2) to direct the live action Lion King film.
What helps a bit is that there are people who obviously grew up on some Disney films as kids, whether seeing them in the theater or seeing them on VHS, DVD or TV. As some have kids of their own, there might still be that love for Disney and you want to show your child some of the stuff you grew up with if they weren't very stubborn in protecting the films. When you look at the company's output since the 1930s, a lot of these animated films have that timeless appeal. Even if you don't have a kid, you could be very excited or concerned and have a certain emotion when you do see the final product in theaters. As I said, it's curiosity for the most part.
I think as long as they don't deviate too much from the source material if it is that and the animated versions, Disney could wind up doing more versions of their animated films in live action. Whenever The Lion King comes out, it's going to be very huge. When it came out in 1994, it was nearly a billion dollars worldwide. It could possibly reach that mark very quickly in live action. If the reception is still good, who knows what it will take at the end of the 2010s and into the new decade. People will always be intrigued and Disney will find a way to put butts in seats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)