MovieChat Forums > AMovieADayKeeps > Replies
AMovieADayKeeps's Replies
Which it did in 3 days. A movie has to double its production budget to cover the marketing costs, depending on how much they spend on marketing. As I said, it made back its production budget in just 3 days even without China. Add in China and it has now successfully broke even on production AND marketing in only 3 days, which is rare, and near impossible for a sequel on its 8th incarnation. Barring Star Wars or Marvel Universe stuff, no basic movie series has ever pulled in these numbers.
Just so you don't mistake me for a fan, I only saw the first one last week and saw the new one last night. I haven't seen any of the ones in between, though I didn't feel like I missed anything!
You do realize you're wrong, right?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4284&p=.htm
Even IF you took off the 200 million it made in China over the weekend, it still made back its production budget in 3 DAYS! If you add in China it has already doubled its production budget.
Though good, this is not nearly as good, or great, like Swiss Army Man. Part of my problem with it was the misleading trailer. But it was a fun movie.
I drive a motorcycle, and at the time I was driving a Yamaha Maxim, I think it was a 1986 model. I drove 115 mph/185kph in Pennsylvania, on a really long straight road. I was planning to go faster but the road started to curve up ahead, and the last thing I wanted was to have a blind spot up ahead at that speed. The funny part was my girlfriend was on the back of the bike, carrying a suitcase in her lap, and the resistance from the wind made it feel like she was going to blow right off the back of the bike. Thankfully I didn't lose her.
I must say, I've been in a car that was going over 100, and it felt like nothing compared to being in the open on a motorcycle doing those kinds of speeds. I regularly drove 80-90 mph around then, but getting over 100 was always hard to do in NYC.
According to the IMDb alternate versions, in the TV version he explains he asks people what time it is so they know the time when they die.
I am talking about ignoring the individual who is posting offensive stuff, not the trending bar or any particular movie, unless I am misunderstanding how this site works there is an ignore button that I am pretty sure would make that member's posts invisible, therefore nothing to react to.
While I understand that a film may not be socially relevant, if I happen to see it somehow I want to be able to read about it, rate it, and read others comments on it, trolls or no trolls. Personally I have never understood what the problems with trolls are, people say offensive things all day long, why let it get to you? On top of that, what's offensive to me might be something about how Beauty And The Beast is a love story (while it is really about kidnapping a young girl) and that Disney is a good, moral company (which they are not). But if someone wants to spew racist comments to get a rise from someone, it won't be coming from me, because I know full well no troll likes being ignored, and when ignored they go find someone else to harass, just like any other bully.
I don't know exactly what the problem is, but deleting titles from a database defeats the entire idea of a database. Plus all that will do is give the troll encouragement to get titles deleted, any attention is enjoyed by trolls. People should just click the ignore button so they do not see the troll's posts, therefore making the troll invisible which will defeat YOUR urge to respond to the troll and give him attention.
I am much more interested in titles that there is little info on, than the big titles, so deleting them would be a sin.
Wow, no one even came close. Opening weekend was $175 million and almost 3 weeks later it's over $400 million domestic and $500 million worldwide, which means it's going to break a billion worldwide after this weekend. This movie has at least a couple more months of life in it as well. It is already #25 i he All Time Domestic Box Office chart and #42 on the worldwide chart. This will most likely end up in the Top 10 domestic of all time.
And I was right!
I think they were all just really big Color Me Badd fans.
In general I think she's a pretty boring actress, very bland and generic, and not very good at all. She excels when it's an action role or when it's only a voice role, like in Her. But look at Captain America Winter Soldier, anytime she is on screen and has to talk and act at the same time it is painful.
Here she gets away with it due to the fact that she is part machine, and that wooden acting can be excused.
Not tons of ethnicities, just a whole pile of black people, all seemingly dating or married to white people. When there is a movie like Loving that comes out showing how bad things were not too long ago, and then we show people, look, it wasn't THAT bad, it sets up a bad example for both kids and not too bright adults. The problems of our past represent the problems we suffer from now, and to whitewash the way blacks were treated in the past does not make up for what was done
Disney has long followed stereotypes and done great harm to minorities, women, and child actors. I am glad they are trying to even the playing field a bit by giving Belle her own backstory and personality, not showing her as a weak woman waiting for her Prince. That's a good thing. But rewriting history does not help. Think of it this way, were there gay people back then? Yes, but they were mostly in the closet. Sure we got a glimpse of it in the movie, but if there was a same sex married couple in a Disney movie at this time, people would be in shock, and complain it isn't ok. But to say it isn't ok to have an interracial relationship in the movies brands you a racist in the eyes of many people (which is stupid) so most people would never argue with the point.
Did you see any Asians in the movie? Hispanics? People from India? Nope, you didn't. And that is what the OP means by what's with all the black people. There is nothing wrong with black people in a movie, but if you are going for diversity, why focus on blacks, other than last year's protesting about not enough black roles? Once again this is Disney walking the line to appease people and look like the good guy, rather than them doing it before there are complaints.
Most movies need more diversity, but there are ways it looks and feels organic, and ways it looks like pandering. This looked like pandering.
While this was a good remake, it did not match the original. Yes, it was a much more modern film, and scarier, but the original is charming in its 1950s monster movie kind of way.
The Fly, any day, any time.
You rarely see kids die in movies, this and some Troma films are the exceptions in my mind. I'm sure there are others though.
Not good, very cookie cutter, not worth the time unless you are obssessed with seeing everything.
It's a pretty bad movie all around. She's the best part of it, but as a character she makes terrible choices. I came to this not really knowing anything about it, and hoped it would be good. Was surprised at what a mess it was.
His accent was terrible as well as his acting in this. In fact the whole movie sorta sucked except for Katherine Hepburn.