MovieChat Forums > Jamfo > Replies
Jamfo's Replies
Yikes? Why do you even try at this point?
You know a 30% drop from Tuesday still put BP at $15-million. On a WEDNESDAY, nonetheless! In its entire run, Justice League only had five days, TOTAL, where it beat $15-million, and those were all weekends.
Weak, my friend. Pathetically weak.
Ranmast... c'mon... you know Queen will now disappear into the ether until the time comes he can instigate some other troll thread. Right now, there's absolutely nothing he can say. What he'll do is wait for the eventual drop-off... we know it will happen, it has to... and then he'll post some bait thread at that time to stroke his own desire for attention.
Let's propose a scenario where BP has excellent holds next weekend... say, the same 54% of similar films like Thor: Ragnarok. At that point, there's still nothing to "pick on", so we'll probably still hear crickets.
However, with that kind of heavy viewership in the first two weeks, there just has to be a drop off. Maybe, in week three or four, we'll see a 60+% drop-off (which is natural), but that will be when Queen comes back claiming the "TLJ weak legs" are now showing up, and how this film is DOOMED.
Of course, it's all BS, but it's how he rolls and strokes his own ego.
He'll conveniently ignore how, if BP declines the typical 55% this weekend, it will still earn $91-million, which is almost what his precious Justice League earned in its OPENING weekend! Or how, even assuming a production number of $200-million with distribution and advertising costs of $150-million, this movie is already earning a profit after only FOUR days. Think of that... even if we use the 2x multiplier on a $200-million budget, this movie is already in the profit zone after the first weekend of release.
There is absolutely nothing for Queen to hang his hat on now... anything he could say would be nothing more than the most butthurt and empty of bluster!
$25.2-million just from the Thursday opening previews. That places it as the second largest MCU opening.
That means, to NOT beat your absurdly low $45-million opening weekend projection, almost no one would have to see this film Friday through Sunday. Given the great reviews and wonderful word-of-mouth... good luck with that!!
This movie will be over $45-million by end of day Friday.
Reality... of course, we can differ on our opinions! That is what makes entertainment interesting... if everyone liked the same things, or there was only one way to tell a story, things would be dreadfully boring.
One thing I am interested to see, and one things the producers are trying to point out, is how all of this plays out now that the crew is NOT under the influence of someone who has been manipulating them, and the events around them, since episode 3. As we now know, the mirror Lorca has been manipulating events for his own personal gain, and none of the other characters have realized this. They've all been put in positions that made them act in certain ways that would benefit Lorca's ends. Now that that factor has been removed, it will be interesting to see if everyone migrates back to the type of standard we are expecting. This is something that we start to see a glimmer of with Saru's speech in the last episode... this was the first time we saw the entire bridge staff brought together in a very TOS or TNG type moment. And, the way Saru stated that this was, indeed, the Discovery's "maiden voyage" hints that we are about to see changes to a more "Starfleet" type environment.
Again, this is the same Roddenberry who DID approve of a Captain who allowed the entire crew of his ship to die, broke the Prime Directive by taking sides with one of two rival factions, used his advanced technology to PERSONALLY kill thousands and thousands of the other faction, vaporized one Starfleet officer and threatened two others in order to force Kirk to send down more phasers in order to PERSONALLY kill even more thousands and thousands of other living beings, and used trickery and guile to force a fight to the death with another Starfleet captain, all to bring some "fountain of youth", which ended up not existing at all, back to the Federation?
This is from the Original Series episode "The Omega Glory"... go look it up.
What Roddenberry WAS in favor of was characters with human flaws and frailties, and how they overcame those to be better people. Burnham thought she was reacting logically, having learned information on dealing with the Klingon's from the Vulcans. How many times had we seen Kirk or Picard go directly against the orders of superiors when they thought they were right? How about Spock basically committing an act of betrayal and mutiny, all so he could kidnap his former captain and take him to a planet banned (with a death penalty, nonetheless) by the Federation? As we know from watching the series, T'Kuvma was hell-bent on starting that war, and nothing Burnham did was going to change that. So she was wrong to attack her captain (and was willing to accept that), but she did not cause the war.
So, given we have plenty of examples going all the way back to TOS of Starfleet officers acting in very "un-enlightened" ways, I guess we do have to conclude that Roddenberry had a pretty callous approach to command. Or, maybe he just understood that in order to tell a good story, you had to have characters who were less than perfect and who were only too human after all. THAT is how you draw parallels to contemporary society in order tell stories that are allegories of the issues of our times.
Sunshine... this is not directed at you, per se, but to everyone who continues to use this "this is not Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future" argument against this show. While Roddenberry did envision a future where humanity had learned to control our inner natures and, more often than not, made the morally correct decisions, he did not intend to take it so far that humanity became pacifistic to the point they would lose a war rather than utilize brutal tactics if necessary. ALL of Star Trek history makes this abundantly clear:
*In at least two instances I can think of off the top of my head, Kirk's solution to a threat from an unknown life form is to kill it, as quickly as possible (The Horta in "The Devil in the Dark" and the Salt Vampire in "The Man Trap"). In the case of the Horta, Spock even pleads on the creature's behalf, and Kirk's enlightened response is that the creature is a threat to humans and must be killed. Yes, Kirk finally comes around, but that was NOT his initial, "enlightened" human reaction.
*When he believed he had found a virtual "fountain of youth", Captain Ronald Tracy (TOS "The Omega Glory") has absolutely no problem killing THOUSANDS of Yangs trying to bring that knowledge to the Federation. He even vaporizes one of Kirk's crew (the stun setting doesn't work on his phaser?) and threatens to "burn down" McCoy and Spock to protect his secret. So much for the prime directive and the value for intelligent life.
*When Kirk's tribal friends are threatened with extermination at the hands of a rival faction who are being supplied more advanced weapons by Klingons (TOS "A Private Little War"), Kirk's values and morals don't lead him to blockade the planet and use the Organians and Federation council to stop the situation... no, instead Kirk's solution is to provide identical weapons to his friend's tribe, a move that will, most likely, plunge a peaceful planet into decades of bloody conflict. The end of that episode has Kirk just beaming away... leaving the planet to fall into chaos.
*When there is actually a possibility for a lasting PEACE treaty between the Federation and the Klingons (ST:TUC), high ranking members of the Federation and Klingons conspire together to assassinate the High Chancellor of the Klingon empire and the Federation President... all so they can PREVENT peace. What does that say about those sensibilities when you're will to murder to prevent PEACE and not end a war?
*And, most similar to the situation in Discovery, when faced with the very real possibility of the fall of the Federation to the combined Dominion and Cardassian forces, Sisko conspires with Garak in a plot that leads to the assassination of a Romulan senator, all to coerce the Romulans into entering the war in order to save the Federation. While Sisko was upset that it went this far in order to achieve his objective, at the end of the episode he admits that, given the same set of circumstances he would do the same thing over again. Apparently he has no problems setting aside those "advanced ideals" if it means saving the whole of the Federation against an enemy that was very close to winning the war.
I could sit here and come up with so many more examples where this "enlightened sensibility" was put aside, but I think I've made my point. Roddenberry's actual intent was to show that humanity, on Earth, had learned to put aside our inner nature... but we, in no way, had become pacifists that would let an enemy destroy everything we had built in order to adhere to those principals. In TOS, Kirk, on many occasions, admitted as to how humanity still had that "savage core" and had learned to control it... but had no problems turning to violence himself if he believed the end justified the means.
And that's why it rankles me so much when folks want to trot that out when bemoaning this show. It really shows a lack of understanding and any kind of grasp on the true nature and history of "Star Trek" itself. The show itself, over the course of its 50+ years on movies and television has shown that, when pushed, humanity and the Federation have absolutely NO problem setting aside ideals and using any advantage they can find to win wars that will preserve the Federation in the long term.
And, not to pick on you personally, but you kind of show your lack of knowledge when you say you have to "take my word" that the Klingon's and Romulan's came together for a period... that was not a one-off thing... the Klingon-Romulan sharing of technology was mentioned in both TOS and TNG, and the betrayal of that alliance at Khitomer was part of Worf's backstory. That is a major piece of "the history of the Star Trek universe" and something that anyone familiar with Trek should know.
1) In this instance, Michael acted emotionally rather than logically. She could not bear to watch this person who, despite her ruthlessness, did share many traits with the Georgiou she knew, die once again. It is probably Michael's belief that if she could remove Georgiou from a universe of distrust and darkness that she could redeem and "save" her and, in doing so, redeem and save herself. Since Michael was led to believe that versions of herself had betrayed Georgiou in every universe, this was her chance to make it right and, for once, save her beloved mentor and captain.
2) I believe this is exactly where they are going to go, and it is something we have seen in history (real and fictional), time and time again. If you have an asset that has knowledge you can use, especially in a time of crisis, you take advantage of it. This Georgiou comes from a universe where humans have SUBJUGATED the entire Klingon empire. Wouldn't the knowledge of how that was done be something useful in a war with that same species? When the United States was desperately trying to win the space race against the Soviet Union in the 1960's, we had no problem granting asylum and citizenship to Nazi scientists, who just years before were building advanced weapons to lay ruin to allies cities, in order to use their knowledge to advance our objective. Klingons and Romulans joined forces for a number of years (until the betrayal at Khitomer) in order to stop the unceasing expansion and encroachment of the Federation. So it makes perfect sense that the Federation, needing to desperately turn the tide against the Klingons, would take advantage of a resource with specific knowledge on how to kick their butts! Also remember, in THIS universe, Georgiou hasn't killed a single person, so there isn't even any resentment or aggrieved survivors you'd have to appease in the process.
Of course, this is my opinion... just presenting the "other side of the coin" as it were.
No, the writers and producers have said, again and again, that this is the prime universe, the universe of Kirk and Spock, and will dovetail into that universe when all is said and done.
As to the U.S.S. Defiant's appearance, remember that there is a temporal shift between the universes, with the mirror universe being about 100 years out of sync with the prime universe. When the Defiant slipped into the mirror universe, it also traveled 100 years back in time, back to the era of Enterprise NX-01, Captain Archer, etc. Ted Sullivan, himself, confirmed this on "After Trek": The Defiant, the revered ship that allowed Hoshi to rise to Empress of the Terran Empire, was heavily modified time and time again over the 100 years between when it arrived in the mirror universe and when the events in Discovery take place.
Modifying and changing the appearance of ships is not uncommon, even in original Trek. The Enterprise of Captain Pike as seen in "The Cage" and "The Menagerie" is different than the Enterprise commanded by Kirk (spiked nacelle domes, larger bridge module, etc.). And, of course, the Enterprise was completely refit between the time of Kirk's adventures in TOS and the movies. Even though the on-screen movie Enterprise is completely different in appearance than the television version, we know it is the same ship, just refit, redesigned, and modified with new technologies. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent with assuming the Terran Empire did the same with their Defiant, modifying and refitting the ship as needed so it could continue to fulfill the required missions in their alternate universe.
It all depends on which theory of time travel you (or in this case, the particular movie you are watching) subscribe. For an excellent description of the different theories of time travel in films, check out this site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3zTfXvYZ9s
In the case of Jumanji, they are subscribing to the theory that those who do the traveling are the points of consistency, and it is their actions that cause changes in the timeline. They, themselves, do not change, but the way that history "played out" due to the changes they made, did. The time travelers, having originally passed through one history will have one set of memories that are now out of sync with the new, altered timeline. This follows the "branching time" theory and the theory of multiple worlds first postulated Hugh Everett. When Alex returned home, this created a new timeline that branched off of the original. In this branch, Alex never disappeared, and every effect of his disappearance in the original timeline was negated. The new timeline then rolled on from that point, free from any constraints of the original timeline. When the other four kids returned, they returned to the altered timeline and would need to "relearn" the "history" they knew.
You can imagine how this felt for Alex, as well... having been returned to the exact point in time he left, he would now be back in the body of a teenager, yet with 20 years of memories from a life spent in the game, and a glimpse of the future having dealt with the four other players who's parents were children in the time when Alex arrived!
This is similar to the end of "Back to the Future", when Marty returns home to find his parents are now confident and "cool". Everyone in that new timeline will have completely different memories of their history than the ones that Marty has (and, realistically, that would cause some REAL awkward and problematic moments). Marty, as the point of consistency and the initiator of the changes, retains his memories of his journey through the original timeline and everyone else has new memories and experiences of their journey through the new timeline.
Of course, this is an oversimplification of how things would, most likely, really happen if people were able to travel through time in this fashion. The differences that would occur in the timelines with Alex missing versus Alex remaining at home would have spread further than just Alex remaining home and his house not changing. The return of his presence would have affected dozens and dozens of other people (from those that investigate the crime to school friends, family members, etc.) Just the fact that Alex was married... in the original timeline, the woman Alex was married to may have been married to someone else, so the children to come from that union would no longer exist. Heck, since they are all from the same town, how do we know that Alex didn't accidentally marry one of the mothers of four players? If that were the case, one of the four players may have had no home to return to!
Time travel is always hard to pin down, because the paradoxes and alternate timelines can go just about anywhere the writer's ideas want to go. In the particular universe of Jumanji, however, it appears that they are taking the branching multiverse theory... Alex returning causes a second branch in the timeline to form, and a new history plays out from that point. The other four kinds return to this branch and will get to live in this new reality. Not really a paradox, more a quirk in the application of parallel timelines.
Because Alex was returned to the exact moment he initially entered the game, in 1992, it “rewrote” history.
The first time through, with Alex in the game, his father fell into depression due to Alex’s disappearance. The house fell into disrepair and the father developed the “freak” reputation.
After Alex was sent back when they beat the game, all of that changed. Because Alex did not disappear in the altered timeline, his father never fell into depression, the house never fell into disrepair, and Alex and his father lived normal, happy lives for the next 20 years.
After those 20 years, restored Alex finally “caught up” with the other four kids, who went in during our time.
Centuries? Heck, the term was used to refer to people as recently as the 1950's. You can see an example of that in "Hidden Figures".
And, as this movie points out, the first non-living "computers", your electronic and mechanical devices, were originally referred to as "Turing Machines".
So, we don't have to go back all that far to find a time when that term was assigned to people.
It’s inconceivable that no one would guess “The Princess Bride”!
Iocane laced drink, anyone?
There's a HUGE difference between The Sopranos, The Wire, The Larry Sanders Show, and Veep and Game of Thrones. The first four shows are all Earth-based and occur during our era. That means lots of "routine" type sets (restaurants, office spaces, homes) that can be decorated with off-the-shelf furniture. That means lots of location shooting, so existing locations can be used so things do not have to be build from scratch. And, it means very little in the way of CGI and post-production processing.
Contrast that to Game of Thrones, which happens on some mythical worlds, full of period pieces, exotic locations, and even furniture, clothing, and settings that have to be entirely built from scratch. The location shooting that they do do is located well outside of the United States, meaning you've got to get cast and crew to Iceland and goodness only knows where else. And with the plot revolving around what will be epic battles, hundreds of extras, and heavy use of CGI, each episode of GoT probably spends as much time in post-production as the entire SEASON of any of those other shows.
As someone who loves GoT, I would MUCH rather have them take the time so I can fully immerse myself in an environment that feels real and solid, than have them rush for the sake of maintaining a yearly schedule and receiving a poor product.
Just my humble two cents... but I would bet every, single episode of GoT poses as many production problems as entire seasons of those other shows.
Just so it's easy to find for everyone, here is the actual order of those results from the past two years:
$655 million - Justice League
$680 million - Doctor Strange
$750 million - Suicide Squad
$825 million - Wonder Woman
$850 million - Thor: Ragnarok
$865 million - Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2
$875 million - Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice
$880 million - Spider-Man: Homecoming
$1.15 billion - Captain America: Civil War
Of the nine DCCU and MCU movies released in the past two years, only BvS cracks the top five, and not by a lot. Two years ago, if I had told you that a movie featuring the very first on-screen meeting of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman would be beaten out by teenage Spider-Man, I think I would have been lynched for that, as well. Or that a baby talking tree and squirrel would beat out Wonder Woman...
But, of all those results, the fact that Justice League is still at the VERY bottom of the list is absolutely shocking.
The difference between comparing Suicide Squad and Doctor Strange is the level of expectation the studios set for each movie going in to production. With Doctor Strange, Marvel knew they had a third-tier hero, and produced a film with a smaller budget ($165 million) and lower expectations. With both Suicide Squad and, especially, JL, DC went in with higher budgets and higher expectations. This is why both Suicide Squad and Doctor Strange are considered financial successes, while JL is not.
To illustrate that, let's play a little game... and play this one honestly, if you can. I am going to list all of the DCCU and MCU movies produced in 2016 and 2017, followed by WW box office totals. Now, pretend you are back in January of 2016, before any of these movies came out. If I were to give you this list in January of 2016 (and you knew nothing of the "future"), and asked you to match the PREDICTED box office with each movie, how would you have answered?
Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Captain America: Civil War
Doctor Strange
Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2
Justice League
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Suicide Squad
Thor: Ragnarok
Wonder Woman
$655 million
$680 million
$750 million
$825 million
$850 million
$865 million
$875 million
$880 million
$1.15 billion
If you can be honest and objective, most people, two years ago would have answered like this:
$655 million - Doctor Strange
$680 million - Thor: Ragnarok
$750 million - Spider-Man: Homecoming
$825 million - Wonder Woman
$850 million - Suicide Squad
$865 million - Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2
$875 million - Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice
$880 million - Captain America: Civil War
$1.15 billion - Justice League
And, to be honest, I believe if I had made this game two years ago, before anything was known, I would have been ripped to shreds because the $1.15 billion for Justice League would have been deemed "too low".
This is why Doctor Strange NOT beating Suicide Squad is not seen as a failure, while Justice League not beating Doctor Strange is: it's all about expectations. This affects how future films will be financed, and what kind of repercussions will be felt in the board rooms of these studios.
Again, if you can be honest, if, two years ago, I had started a thread and proclaimed that, of the nine DCCU and MCU movies to be released in 2016 and 2017, that Justice League would be the POOREST performer and not the biggest winner, I would have been berated, insulted, and laughed off of the board.
And that is the sole reason why your point is invalid. IF Doctor Strange had been expected to be a billion-dollar movie and finished behind Suicide Squad, then your claim would be valid. But the fact that Doctor Strange actually exceeded its expectations and performed a bit better than expected, but still finished behind a film with massive expectations is not something you can knock. A HUGE film, one that people were bragging would be a $2-billion movie two years ago, that winds up LAST on the list of the DCCU and Marvel movies of the past two years, finishing behind Doctor Strange IS something you can knock!
I know it labels me as a male chauvinist pig... but I think I would have paid to see that movie!
Not just behind, at this point... WAY behind at this given stage. For the past few weeks, T:R was nipping at the heels of JL, off by a few tens of thousands for weekends, and see-sawing back and forth on week days. The bottom truly fell out for JL this weekend, however, dropping under $300,000, while T:R continued to show just how strong its legs are, even with a two week head start.
Good call, NorrinRad!
I'm sure you're right... JL has probably made the migration between the full-price "First Run" screens and is now mostly limited to those cheap, second run theaters; the dollar bins of the movie world. Most of those second run theaters are not huge chains, and I'm sure they don't report in the same way your huge theater conglomerates do.
It was obvious from week 2 how poorly this film was performing at the box office, but even the most conservative numbers were projecting in the $675-million range. For this to stall this early, to the point where in will not even reach the $660-million dollar mark, is not just a failure, but an epic failure.
A multi-character flagship that (supposedly) featured the Joker (one of the most recognizable comic book villains of all time), Batman, Harley Quinn, and Will Smith, none-the-less!
I disagree that it couldn't have done another $300,000 over the long weekend. For the past three to four weeks, the numbers for JL and T:R were tracking very close to one another, with JL usually maintaining a very moderate lead. I agree, that's not saying much when JL was a full two weeks newer than T:R, but that has been the pattern. Last weekend, JL did about $560,000 domestic and T:R $520,000 domestic.
This weekend (not counting the Monday holiday), T:R pulled in another $385,000. If the pattern had held from the previous few weeks, with JL tracking near T:R's numbers, I would have expected a low end of about $300,000.
Again... I agree with you that JL was an unmitigated disaster given the production and marketing costs, which is why, if I were WB, I would milk every dime out of the theaters that I could.