'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

    Originally posted by MrZero View Post
    This is possibly OT, but it just occurred to me that these sci-fi movies that promise to show you the same damn thing happening over and over have a tendency to underperform at the box office. Consider Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, and the aforementioned Deja Vu. I suspect that ideas of this sort tend to appeal to execs and filmmakers more than the general public.
    Interesting point. Can't think of one that's been a big hit. Although in the case of EOT, I know some industry analysts said that the film may have been hurt because the studio de-emphasized the Groundhog Day aspect in marketing, trying to make it look like a generic Transformers-style action pic.
    "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

      Originally posted by MrZero View Post
      This is possibly OT, but it just occurred to me that these sci-fi movies that promise to show you the same damn thing happening over and over have a tendency to underperform at the box office. Consider Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, and the aforementioned Deja Vu. I suspect that ideas of this sort tend to appeal to execs and filmmakers more than the general public.
      If they had had box office draw current stars it might have been different. Not that Cruise, Denzel and Gyllenhaal aren't good actors by any stretch but they're not "hot" right now. If Edge of tomorrow had had Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hardy for example? Forget it...

      Mind-bending concepts are always appealing to the general public but you have to do them well and pair them with trending stars not Denzel, who plays the same character in every movie, Cruise, who is a box office dud these days outside Mission Impossible, and Gyllenhaal who never really was an A-lister anyway.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

        Originally posted by dirtbottle View Post
        If they had had box office draw current stars it might have been different. Not that Cruise, Denzel and Gyllenhaal aren't good actors by any stretch but they're not "hot" right now. If Edge of tomorrow had had Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hardy for example? Forget it...

        Mind-bending concepts are always appealing to the general public but you have to do them well and pair them with trending stars not Denzel, who plays the same character in every movie, Cruise, who is a box office dud these days outside Mission Impossible, and Gyllenhaal who never really was an A-lister anyway.
        Are you kidding me? Denzel remains one of the biggest box office stars in the world. He hasn't had a movie open under $20 million in over a decade! And Tom Cruise may not have the luster he once had, but he's still able to pull in major box office overseas, which is why it doesn't matter how his films perform domestically as much anymore. So Denzel and Cruise are indeed still "hot" right now. Gyllenhaal isn't exactly A-list, but there is some interest from the public ("End of Watch" didn't open at #1 on the strength of its concept alone).

        In fact, as was discussed in another thread, there hasn't been a next generation of movie stars to replace those who blew up in the 80s and 90s (Denzel, Cruise, Hanks, Jolie, etc.). Which is why studios keep going back to them. Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy may be "trending" and popular on the Internet, but Internet stardom doesn't necessarily translate to box office success. What massively successful movies have they opened as the lead characters? Zero.

        BTW, this post isn't meant to be angry/snarky (I know it may come off that way), just kind of surprised at the statement you were making. Not interested in starting a flame war, just had to say something
        Last edited by UpandComing; 08-27-2014, 09:28 AM.
        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

          Originally posted by dirtbottle View Post
          If they had had box office draw current stars it might have been different. Not that Cruise, Denzel and Gyllenhaal aren't good actors by any stretch but they're not "hot" right now. If Edge of tomorrow had had Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hardy for example? Forget it...

          Mind-bending concepts are always appealing to the general public but you have to do them well and pair them with trending stars not Denzel, who plays the same character in every movie, Cruise, who is a box office dud these days outside Mission Impossible, and Gyllenhaal who never really was an A-lister anyway.
          Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy can open movies bigger than Tom Cruise and Denzel Washington?

          Sorry to get back on topic...

          You can find any screenwriting "don't" in any produced movie out there. It's not an excuse to be lazy and write bad dialogue. But people can do what they want I guess.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

            Originally posted by MrZero View Post
            This is possibly OT, but it just occurred to me that these sci-fi movies that promise to show you the same damn thing happening over and over have a tendency to underperform at the box office. Consider Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, and the aforementioned Deja Vu. I suspect that ideas of this sort tend to appeal to execs and filmmakers more than the general public.
            Back to reality for a second…

            At the time it was released, DEJA VU was Denzel's second highest grossing film worldwide as the lead. The highest was INSIDE MAN, which only grossed $4m more. Worldwide gross on DEJA VU was $180m. (I'm not including PELICAN BRIEF and PHILADELPHIA, because he wasn't the main star in those films.)

            EDGE OF TOMORROW, a boxoffice "disappointment" still grossed $364m worldwide. That makes it the 12th highest grossing so far this year. It's director Doug Liman's second highest grossing film of all time (after MR & MRS SMITH but ahead of JUMPER and THE BOURNE IDENTITY). If you discount the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE films, then EDGE OF TOMORROW is Tom Cruise's third highest grossing film of all time. And it's his highest grossing non-MI film since 2005. It did much better than his other recent films OBLIVION, KNIGHT & DAY, JACK REACHER, and VALKYRIE.

            And as for SOURCE CODE… This is a $30m movie that grossed over $147m worldwide. It is considered a major hit for Summit, and got director Duncan Jones a giant movie franchise as his next film.

            Two lessons to learn here. 1) Don't underestimate the international box-office for science fiction films, or really of ANY film. You aren't just making films for the market you live in. 2) Backseat studio-heading is tricky when you aren't actually looking at the data.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

              Originally posted by keithcalder View Post
              Two lessons to learn here. 1) Don't underestimate the international box-office for science fiction films, or really of ANY film. You aren't just making films for the market you live in. 2) Backseat studio-heading is tricky when you aren't actually looking at the data.
              Those are good points, but while we're at it, here are some more lessons:

              (1) A movie that performs less well than anticipated--which is arguably true of all three films, despite all their pre-release hype--can be fairly described as having underperformed. This does not necessarily mean it outright flopped or failed to turn a profit. But the fact that they're trying to rebrand Edge with a different DVD/Blu-Ray title should tell you something.

              (2) You need to adjust for inflation when discussing the box office performance of older films. Edge of Tomorrow isn't Cruise's third highest-grossing film after the (four!) MI movies. You're thinking of War of the Worlds and The Last Samurai, but there were also these older movies called Top Gun and Rain Man, and probably at least a couple others as well.

              (3) Profits are what matters, not grosses. Edge reportedly cost $178 million to make.

              (4) For all the hype that the original spec received, Source Code drew fewer ticket buyers worldwide than the critically derided Battle: Los Angeles, another sci-fi effort that came out at approximately the same time. Which may help prove my point that Joe Moviegoer would usually prefer a more or less linear storyline over one whose hook threatens to bore you to sleep by making you sit through the same scenario again and again and again.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                1) The studio was certainly unhappy with the results of EDGE OF TOMORROW, but I would argue that this is primarily because of the DOMESTIC disappointment. They are rebranding the film domestically because the original marketing didn't work in the US. I assure you they're also very happy with how the film performed internationally.

                2) You're right, but then you also need to compare Tom Cruise's relative movie star status back when TOP GUN and RAIN MAN were made. In comparison to original Tom Cruise movies of the last few years, EDGE OF TOMORROW is a huge success. How can we attack the quality of the film's concept while the film with this concept outgrosses the other original films the star has made while at his current level?

                3) You say profits are what matters. And I agree. EDGE OF TOMORROW wasn't a hugely profitable film, because it was expensive to make.

                4) And now you imply that profits are not what matters. BATTLE: LOS ANGELES was vastly more expensive to make than SOURCE CODE. It cost more than twice as much to make, and I suspect the P&A was about 50% higher than that of SOURCE CODE. SOURCE CODE is a more profitable film than BATTLE: LOS ANGELES just from theatrical, and I suspect the divide grows even bigger when you take into account home entertainment. I should also point out that I don't particularly like either of these films, I'm just arguing that if I were a studio I would be much happier with the result of SOURCE CODE than the result of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES.

                Originally posted by MrZero View Post
                Those are good points, but while we're at it, here are some more lessons:

                (1) A movie that performs less well than anticipated--which is arguably true of all three films, despite all their pre-release hype--can be fairly described as having underperformed. This does not necessarily mean it outright flopped or failed to turn a profit. But the fact that they're trying to rebrand Edge with a different DVD/Blu-Ray title should tell you something.

                (2) You need to adjust for inflation when discussing the box office performance of older films. Edge of Tomorrow isn't Cruise's third highest-grossing film after the (four!) MI movies. You're thinking of War of the Worlds and The Last Samurai, but there were also these older movies called Top Gun and Rain Man, and probably at least a couple others as well.

                (3) Profits are what matters, not grosses. Edge reportedly cost $178 million to make.

                (4) For all the hype that the original spec received, Source Code drew fewer ticket buyers worldwide than the critically derided Battle: Los Angeles, another sci-fi effort that came out at approximately the same time. Which may help prove my point that Joe Moviegoer would usually prefer a more or less linear storyline over one whose hook threatens to bore you to sleep by making you sit through the same scenario again and again and again.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                  I think it's worth pointing out that original sci-fi action movies tend to struggle across the board, not just Groundhog Day sci-fi actioners. With a few notable and obvious exceptions, most original sci-fi actioners fall into the Source Code-Elysium range, if not much lower. EOT's failure wasn't in the marketplace, it was in its budget.

                  Also, The November Man was a'ight. Relatively lame, but Brosnan's always been kinda fun to watch. He's just so damn posh.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                    Originally posted by dirtbottle View Post
                    If they had had box office draw current stars it might have been different. Not that Cruise, Denzel and Gyllenhaal aren't good actors by any stretch but they're not "hot" right now. If Edge of tomorrow had had Benedict Cumberbatch or Tom Hardy for example? Forget it...

                    Mind-bending concepts are always appealing to the general public but you have to do them well and pair them with trending stars not Denzel, who plays the same character in every movie, Cruise, who is a box office dud these days outside Mission Impossible, and Gyllenhaal who never really was an A-lister anyway.
                    Not sure I agree that hot-at-the-moment actors are stars in the usual sense. Speaking for my own money, I'll see Denzel in anything, Cruise in almost anything, and Gyllenhaal in any non-Persian role. For me, screen presence goes a long way in forgiving some of the flaws in a film.

                    As for Tom Hardy, I loved him in Locke, which is getting horrible reviews at Redbox and Amazon VOD. I'm guessing many of the Dark Knight fans are not sitting well through a smart, contained drama without heavy effects.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                      It seems there's definitely a generation gap with the A-List-That-Can-Open-a Movie actors. A bunch of dudes and dudettes who are pushing 50 or who are well into their 40s are still at the top of their game and making bank and headlining the biggest flicks out there.

                      Sure there are the Twilight type stars and the younger Appatow type stars, but it seems like nobody's really replaced the mega, mega A-listers of the 90's, or if they did, it sort of skipped a generation or half a generation.

                      Why is that? Is it just that movies today are less talent driven as opposed to content driven (read: comic books, novels and video games), or was there actually a gap in talent, for some reason?

                      Is it also possible that movie stars these days keep themselves looking younger and fitter, whether naturally or not, and therefore avoid being replaced as rapidly as they might have in the past? I mean holy shiyat, some of these peeps look better now than they did in their 20s.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                        Originally posted by Rantanplan View Post
                        It seems there's definitely a generation gap with the A-List-That-Can-Open-a Movie actors. A bunch of dudes and dudettes who are pushing 50 or who are well into their 40s are still at the top of their game and making bank and headlining the biggest flicks out there.

                        Sure there are the Twilight type stars and the younger Appatow type stars, but it seems like nobody's really replaced the mega, mega A-listers of the 90's, or if they did, it sort of skipped a generation or half a generation.

                        Why is that? Is it just that movies today are less talent driven as opposed to content driven (read: comic books, novels and video games), or was there actually a gap in talent, for some reason?

                        Is it also possible that movie stars these days keep themselves looking younger and fitter, whether naturally or not, and therefore avoid being replaced as rapidly as they might have in the past? I mean holy shiyat, some of these peeps look better now than they did in their 20s.
                        This has been a thing I've watched, too. Each generation had their "new" stars get notice and rise up thru ages 30, 40 to 50 then the next generation came in. But the 2000s seem to be suffering a drought. I think part of the problem is that previous generations could show their chops and skills early on in different types of roles in modest budget movies. These were generations in which more films were made each year creating more opportunities for new talent. But as the yearly inventory of tentpoles increases, while the number of smaller films decreases, there are fewer opportunities for new actors.
                        Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                          Originally posted by canela View Post
                          Gyllenhaal in any non-Persian role.
                          LOL! Well-played.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                            November man off to a blistering start with 2 million.

                            I'm safe from having to become a monk methinks.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                              Originally posted by Rantanplan View Post
                              It seems there's definitely a generation gap with the A-List-That-Can-Open-a Movie actors. A bunch of dudes and dudettes who are pushing 50 or who are well into their 40s are still at the top of their game and making bank and headlining the biggest flicks out there.

                              Sure there are the Twilight type stars and the younger Appatow type stars, but it seems like nobody's really replaced the mega, mega A-listers of the 90's, or if they did, it sort of skipped a generation or half a generation.

                              Why is that? Is it just that movies today are less talent driven as opposed to content driven (read: comic books, novels and video games), or was there actually a gap in talent, for some reason?

                              Is it also possible that movie stars these days keep themselves looking younger and fitter, whether naturally or not, and therefore avoid being replaced as rapidly as they might have in the past? I mean holy shiyat, some of these peeps look better now than they did in their 20s.
                              +1
                              #writinginaStarbucks #re-thinkingmyexistence #notanotherweaklogline #thinkingwhatwouldWilldo

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 'Don't write dialogue we've all heard before' vs The November Man

                                Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                                Are you kidding me? Denzel remains one of the biggest box office stars in the world. He hasn't had a movie open under $20 million in over a decade! And Tom Cruise may not have the luster he once had, but he's still able to pull in major box office overseas, which is why it doesn't matter how his films perform domestically as much anymore. So Denzel and Cruise are indeed still "hot" right now. Gyllenhaal isn't exactly A-list, but there is some interest from the public ("End of Watch" didn't open at #1 on the strength of its concept alone).
                                The Equalizer will flop. And while Denzel is a big A-List star, no doubt, his movies since 2000 going back to Remember the titans are not juggernauts. In fact, he's only had three movies break 100 million domestically and there have been five of them that failed to even make back their budget domestically.. American Gangster, Safehouse (miraculously I know), and Remember the Titans are his only 100mm plus movies in the last 14 years according to IMDB.

                                He's no RDJ.

                                Worldwide I'm sure the numbers are bigger for Denzel but my point is that these guys are fading stars and there remains room for a new, hotter crop of talent to take over, especially since movies don't rely as much on acting now as they do on supporting properties like the comic book character or what have you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X