odessasteps Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 One from the "Can't believe I haven't previously watched this" file: The Replacements - Keanu Reeves is Shane Falco, a former college star quarterback who washed out of football after a disastrous showing in the Sugar Bowl against Ohio State. He and a host of other misfits are recruited to be replacement players when the regular NFL guys go on strike. What follows is a completely paint-by-numbers sports movie that nevertheless remains entertaining throughout. There's the obligatory bar fight, the hot girlfriend, the miracle comebacks, the whole ball of wax. The football scenes themselves are not particularly well-done, consisting entirely of ridiculously over-the-top collisions and tackles, combined with incorrect rules (one scene shows Keanu's team advancing an onside-kick, which you can't do) and stupid timeouts (Keanu's guys call timeout after that on-side kick when the clock would already be stopped), and so on. Still, this is nice light, easy entertainment. Keanu is Keanu for 2 hours, there's some funny moments, a hot girl, and football stuff. Good enough. 6/10. I hope Shane Falco played in the Sugar Bowl vs Johnny Utah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 In all seriousness, those Sony emails are an excellent explanation of how movies have fallen so far behind TV: Movie execs are so obsessed with micro-managing, justifying big budgets and appealing to literally everyone in the world, all we're pretty much left with are bland blockbusters. Also, I think Angelina Jolie as Cleopatra would probably work as a HBO mini-series or something. But as a $180 million dollar movie directed by David Fincher? Probably not. Also, Fincher insisting on putting a Starbucks which played nothing but Trent Reznor in ancient Egypt would be more than a little odd. Well considering the first one came this close to bankrupting MGM back in the day,, it would kind of amusing to see a studio have such hubris again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Cleopatra did actually make it's money back eventually, but yeah, it's so known for being one of the most famous flops ever you have to wonder why anyone would even want to remake it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 This era remade "I Spit on Your Grave." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Cleopatra did actually make it's money back eventually, but yeah, it's so known for being one of the most famous flops ever you have to wonder why anyone would even want to remake it. Plus, there is NO ONE alive at this point who is star comparable to Elizabeth Taylor in the 1960's. Not in terms of talent, necessarily, but star power. Why remake a classic? Same goes for the Ten Commandments; they way they're going Lawrence of Arabia is next. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Hey, Day Of The Woman wasn't a failure. Cleopatra on the other hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 It's a lot easier to make money back today than it was in the 60s. It's almost impossible to not make money back now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuetsar Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 If you decided to make a historical epic, make a NEW one. How about a Julius Caesar bipoic, or Napoleon? I know why they remake shit, but godamnit, there are so many other topics to make bad epics about. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 It's a lot easier to make money back today than it was in the 60s. It's almost impossible to not make money back now. This is true. Hell, a lot of mid-budgeted films are in the black before they open now, from selling foreign distribution rights, cable rights, streaming rights, etc. Then blu-ray and dvd and digital sales and blah blah blah. But John Carter and The Lone Ranger are both fairly recent examples that "almost impossible" isn't quite the same as "completely impossible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 they way they're going Lawrence of Arabia is next. . . At least we know from Prometheus that Fassbender can do it... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 It's a lot easier to make money back today than it was in the 60s. It's almost impossible to not make money back now. This is true. Hell, a lot of mid-budgeted films are in the black before they open now, from selling foreign distribution rights, cable rights, streaming rights, etc. Then blu-ray and dvd and digital sales and blah blah blah. But John Carter and The Lone Ranger are both fairly recent examples that "almost impossible" isn't quite the same as "completely impossible." Check this article which highlights the bogus Hollywood accounting they use to make movies sound like they lose money, and brings up both of those films. http://observealot.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/will-the-lone-ranger-really-lose-150-million/ They said Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix lost $167 million. You know that didn't happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That article reads alot like the plot of The Producers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustronaut Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 OTOH, the next Bond movie is current being forecast in the mid-$300 millions. How? Just... how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 So movie studios are like Pro Sports Teams come CBA time...we're poor we're poor I tell you were poor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Gone Girl was pretty damn good. As expected, it was beautifully shot. A lot of great performances. Rosamund Pike is receiving a lot of praise but I thought Carrie Coon was just as great. Affleck was the perfect choice also. Plus, maybe the first time I've ever liked Tyler Perry. I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing perception and reality and marriage but I do have a couple questions. The dialogue from when they first meet. It was SO painful. But then I thought about it later on. She's writing this diary and everything is played up. It's like a fairytale. Was that the point? because I really couldn't buy two people meeting and then carrying on like that. Also, I'm guessing we are supposed to believe that the F.B.I. and local police just think this is an open and shut case and they want to move on? I guess I'm okay with that but if they spent more than two seconds on it they'd figure out pretty quickly that Amazing Amy is full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 OTOH, the next Bond movie is current being forecast in the mid-$300 millions. How? Just... how? Movie budgets aren't unlike budgets passed by congress. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Yeah, WB claims every HP movie lost money, but they kept making them? Hollywood accounting is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Mid-300 millions for a Bond movie is fucking ridiculous. What, is Sam Mendes intending to get the catering team to feed everyone champagne and caviar every day? I can't wait until we get to the point where they're spending $1 billion on a movie. James Cameron could probably talk some executive into giving it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Is 300 mil really that out landindish for something that's going to be as over the top as bond? That's like 100 mil for cast/crew 100 mil for location/effect 50 mil for promotion 50 mil drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Even if they spent $300M on the next Bond it would still make money. Skyfall did over a billion worldwide and that's not counting DVD sales and all that shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Announced budget usually doesn't include advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaedmc Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Even if they spent $300M on the next Bond it would still make money. Skyfall did over a billion worldwide and that's not counting DVD sales and all that shit. Exactly. If I said, hey, you could make 700 million dollars before dvd/itunes/netflix/tv sales, but all you have to do is spend 300 million- you'd spend 300 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Even if they spent $300M on the next Bond it would still make money. Skyfall did over a billion worldwide and that's not counting DVD sales and all that shit. Exactly. If I said, hey, you could make 700 million dollars before dvd/itunes/netflix/tv sales, but all you have to do is spend 300 million- you'd spend 300 million. Except you don't have to spend to that. You could spend half of that and still make a shitload. Now I don't want to accuse producers of shady accounting or just using these blockbuster gigs to get paydays for all their friends but...well, OK, that's it's exactly what I'm accusing them of. You can say "Well, what does it matter? It's not your money." But partly why so many mid-sized budget projects are dying out is because studios are putting everything they have into blockbusters. There was a good article I'll look for about how badly some careers have got fucked over because so many less movies are getting made now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Can you make a cool ass Bond movie for $150M these days? I guess but I'd rather see them spend the $300M *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 If I'm the star of a movie we can roughly estimate to make $800 million to $1 billion worldwide (which is fair for Bond), I don't even get dressed until I know I'm getting paid $50 million dollars to get out of bed. That's definitely a big part of the blockbuster budget spiral, no doubt. In other news, if anyone would like to pay me like $100 to be "tall shady man in bar thrown over table", my schedule is open. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts