2015 Is Going to Be Ridiculous

[Empedocles]

So, as far as movies go, 2015 is going to be...insane. (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2015-blockbusters/26439/the-23-and-counting-big-blockbusters-of-2015) For those of you who don't want to read through the link, basically it boils down to 2015 having an absolutely absurd number of movies with bloated budgets, almost all of which have some sort of safety line attached. There wont be another Pacific Rim type movie.

If you're counting...Star Wars Episode VII, Independence Day, Fantastic Four, Superman/Batman, Finding Dory, Terminator 5, Jurassic Park IV, The Avengers 2, Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, James Bond 24, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, The Smurfs 3 Avatar 2, Inferno, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Ant Man, Cinderella, and a slew of animated movies.

So, here are my questions: are you excited for this oncoming onslaught? You might be hyped about the new Avengers, or about the fact that this potential implosion of Hollywood could lead to daring new directions for film. Do you think that this implosion (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-2015-could-be-movie-industrys-worst-year-ever/) will actually happen? What do you think the general implications of this are? So, basically, discuss.

[Eldan]

I see one movie on that list that I think I'd watch, and that's Avengers 2. Maybe Assassin's Creed, if the reviews look good, which doesn't sound likely.

There was a longer article on Cracked about this. Average budgets are skyrocketing, even just among blockbusters. And there's more of them. And a higher percentage of them are failing.

[Traab]

Its hard to get excited about movies that wont be out for 2 years give or take. Too be honest, its been probably over a decade since I last went to the theater anyways.

[Grinner]

I probably won't see any of them.


There was a longer article on Cracked about this. Average budgets are skyrocketing, even just among blockbusters. And there's more of them. And a higher percentage of them are failing.

It's incredible how much money is tied up in Hollywood. Second only to DARPA, I'd say.

[Knaight]

If Pixar does something, I might watch that. I've never been that big on movies anyways, and what little I do watch tends to be either incidental to someone else wanting to watch it or foreign and thus non-Hollywood.

[Empedocles]

If Pixar does something, I might watch that. I've never been that big on movies anyways, and what little I do watch tends to be either incidental to someone else wanting to watch it or foreign and thus non-Hollywood.

Well, they're doing Finding Dory, a Finding Nemo sequel. I initially wasn't too excited about it, but this years Monsters Inc. prequel surprised me, so Ill probably end up watching this one too.

[MLai]

It's about time this era of Hollywood imploded and a new age of Hollywood business/creative method is ushered in. I for one will not miss the death of tentpole superhero blockbusters. It's starting to feel very formulaic, beat by precise beat.

You know that vaguely bored feeling you kept getting while you watched Green Lantern?
Expect to feel that in every single superhero movie, at the beginning of the end.

[Scowling Dragon]

It's about time this era of Hollywood imploded and a new age of Hollywood business/creative method is ushered in. I for one will not miss the death of tentpole superhero blockbusters. It's starting to feel very formulaic, beat by precise beat.

You know that vaguely bored feeling you kept getting while you watched Green Lantern?
Expect to feel that in every single superhero movie, at the beginning of the end.

Indeed. Id say this is the first time I agreed with you wholeheartedly.

This melting undead corpse of an industry best melt faster, so that I can watch all the stuff I want on the internet.

[Yora]

I'm not feeling like caring for any of the movies.

They are doing something with Star Wars? While I do love about half the Star Wars stuff out there quite a lot, I don't like the other half at all, and everything since 2003 falls into the later category.
I'll probably keep an eye out on some articles about what plans they are having story wise, but I have a hunch I will keep enjoying the stuff I already love a lot more if I don't go to see it. Couldn't really be arsed about the new Star Trek movies and the Hobbit movie as well. (Seen the first Hobbit and Into Darkness, and they were both actually rather bad.)

[warty goblin]

You know that vaguely bored feeling you kept getting while you watched Green Lantern?
Expect to feel that in every single superhero movie, at the beginning of the end.
I feel that in every superhero movie as it is, whenever they do lots of superhero stuff.

Can't say much on that list really interests me though. Skyfall was good, so the next Bond has potential. Enduring the plots of most videogames while playing them is bad enough, I don't see any need to remove all the fun bits they exist to support and condense the entire thing into two hours of pain. And now that Star Wars has transitioned entirely into prostitution fan money extraction, I feel pretty safe ignoring that.

Actually, fan money extraction kinda looks like the entire reason for being of just about everything on that list. Which is business as usual I suppose, though sometimes it's a little less obvious.

[Jayngfet]

Um... Duh?

I hate to be that guy(a lie, I love being this smug), but I told every single one of you this like a year ago. I got called stupid no matter where on the internet I said this, or else just ignored. But by now the evidence is so strong it's become undeniable to everybody else. Let this be a lesson to you all: I am always right, every single time I say anything, and you should all bow before me.:smallamused::smallcool:

This is going to be totally ridiculous. How many of those movies have just production budgets approaching or exceeding 200 million? How many of them are going to not just be vying for commercial slots and tv events, but blowing money internationally for ads? How many of these are mediocre at best, but relying entirely on the name?

How many billions of dollars are changing hands to get that years worth of movies done? Ten, twenty, thirty? Probably more, is the scary thing. That crop of movies probably makes up the full time employment for at least twenty thousand people, and maybe twenty five, with just major blockbusters. The VFX and Animation industries have been limping along as smaller studios close and cut back, and it's only big projects like these, and as well in Video Games, that've kept so many employed.

When the bulk of these inevitably tank, that'll translate into so many closures and downsizing, like ten thousand jobs in those industries will close down. Then you'll feel that in maintenance, catering, janitorial jobs. A huge chunk of the west coast is going to feel this kind hard. This kind of shoddy business is going to hurt a lot of people, many of which I've seen enough of to know they can't afford to be hurt this way, and don't get enough sympathy on their career choices to get any kind of safety net.

Hell, how many playgrounders will be hit by this? I know there's a fair few of us here who have a personal stake in this, and have our jobs or future jobs directly on the line here. Then there's the ones who live nearby and will feel the effects that way(pretty much anybody between Mexico and Alaska on the coast). This isn't a problem that's far away and will embarass a couple of dudes in business suits, this is an inevitable issue that will put some of us on the street.

[Razgriez]

You want me to give you opinions on everything listed? Oooookay, one Extra Large bucket of buttery text with overpriced cup of sarcasm and cynicism combo, being served!


Star Wars Episode VII: I'm very skeptical on this one's success. You have the criticism of the Prequels (I, II, and III), or George Lucas's messing about, oh I'm sorry, "Remastering" of the main trilogy, Episodes IV, V, and VI. I don't think there will be as much excitement when the originals were first brought back to theaters, or when Episode I was brought about. It's a hurting franchise, and starting it as VII, makes this a virtual reboot without calling it a reboot. ADD moment: If any protagonist is a spiky haired blond guy and former Imperial soldier with a Beam Buster sword, I may just watch it, just for laughs


Independence Day: Wait what? You don't mean the 1996 film do you.... hang on...

*Goes about looking up info, finds info, Reads info, reads what the director is saying so far, proceeds to repeatedly facedesk*

Really? This is really happening? :smallsigh:

Fantastic FourSo either A. another Reboot (ugh.) or B. The third movie in a series that if I recall, garnered mainly lukewarm reviews from the papers and viewers alike. And since I'm not a big Fantastic Four fan anyways... I might just wait for the Home release.

Superman/Batman Oh really? This has only taken way too many reboots to even get to this point, and aside from openly being more of a Marvel fan, I also dislike DC films because well, they tend to be worse. (I'm looking at you Green Lantern :smallannoyed: ) And I've gotten sick of the vast majority of their films being an origins story that I've read/seen already way too many times


Terminator 5 Never been a big Terminator fan, so I'm not going to say one way or the other on this.

Jurassic Park IV: Subtitled: "Because we still haven't learned not to muck with the islands/DNA" Done!,

The Avengers 2Good luck Mr. Wheadon trying to top the first... Oh and please leave the killing a popular character plot you are famous for at home this time, please? This I intend to see because well.. I'm as big a sucker for these movies as I am for overpriced soda and popcorn (and my wallet tends to be a quite a bit lighter after I watch a movie in theaters)

Pirates Of The Caribbean 5: "Blah Blah blah Johnny Depp, Blah blah blah, mythical sea creatures, blah blah blah treasures/curses/cursed treasures, blah blah blah pirates. blah blah blah Obligatory escape from capture highjinks scene, blah blah blah buy our Disney Merchandise. You may thank me latter for saving you money until the home version comes out.:smallamused:

James Bond 24: Save it for the home release. Unfortunately I find the current Bond movies to be among my least favorites, as they've become more just long advertisements and poor use of the "Idiot ball" and shock scenes for drama.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2: To be honest, I've yet to read or watch any of the Hunger Games series completely, so, shame on me for that, and as such, I can't comment on this.

Avatar 2: I didn't like the first one's plot, and as such, have no intentions to seeing this one

Inferno: no idea what this is based on so, no comment

Assassin's Creed: :smalleek: I always get nervous when I hear "Video game film" much like "Book film" or so, because some director always ends up messing around with the story for often the wrong reasons. And given Assassin's Creed's story line, this is all the much easier to mess up,

Warcraft: See above, and even less likely to go, as I'm not a big Warcraft fan,

Ant Man: Meh, not really interested,

[JoshL]

I like to like things. There are lots of things on that list that could be fun. Not intellectually challenging, but blockbusters never are. And, hey, comic book and fantasy movies are kinda in right now (though I'd rather see things weighted more in the swords and sorcery direction).

Sure the budgets are insane these days, but the money is coming from the audiences. I'm glad they're spending it on the films and the people working on them rather than just buying the executives another yacht. Will the industry implode? Probably not...in the short time there has been a film industry, it has cycled up and down. And the crap blockbusters are just as likely to be bad as the crap blockbusters of 60 years ago. Who knows? Some of those films might be fun to watch!

[warty goblin]

Assassin's Creed: :smalleek: I always get nervous when I hear "Video game film" much like "Book film" or so, because some director always ends up messing around with the story for often the wrong reasons. And given Assassin's Creed's story line, this is all the much easier to mess up,


I haven't exactly kept up with the Assassin's Creed games, but from what I know of them it would take significant work to actually make the plot any worse.

Which is probably exactly what will happen. Since humanity can do almost anything it sets its mind to, and can also screw up absolutely anything, any chance to do both at the same time is a pretty sure bet.

[Jayngfet]

Assassin's Creed: :smalleek: I always get nervous when I hear "Video game film" much like "Book film" or so, because some director always ends up messing around with the story for often the wrong reasons. And given Assassin's Creed's story line, this is all the much easier to mess up,


I'd say Ubisoft screwed up AssCreed way before anyone else got a crack at it. The first game was incredibly simple and if you boil it down a bit for time it's a functional movie that you don't exactly need a huge budget to pull off. Remember, Assassins Creed 1 was essentially about three people in four rooms of office space, mixed in with half a dozen other dudes in interchangeable suits wandering around the middle east. You could probably film an Assassins Creed movie in under a year for a shoestring budget and have it done well if you knew what you were doing.

Ubisoft's rushing through the franchise and not thinking through their choices is what made the idea unwatchable, ultimately. If the movie is a modestly budgeted retelling that's had as much time as I think, it could have a shot of being both good and successful.

[Razgriez]

I haven't exactly kept up with the Assassin's Creed games, but from what I know of them it would take significant work to actually make the plot any worse.

Which is probably exactly what will happen. Since humanity can do almost anything it sets its mind to, and can also screw up absolutely anything, any chance to do both at the same time is a pretty sure bet.


Reading that, I have this image of a stereotypical strawman director saying: "No no, it's confusing, doesn't make sense, and seems horribly written because I intended to do that! It's "Artistic"
Given also the series favorite use of conspiracy theories (particularly on secret organization).... I'm now even more frightened about the potential final product


Ubisoft's rushing through the franchise and not thinking through their choices is what made the idea unwatchable, ultimately. If the movie is a modestly budgeted retelling that's had as much time as I think, it could have a shot of being both good and successful.

Have to agree with that. 2 made the series better, since it gave a better representation of how an assassin goes from novice to pro, Revelations Brotherhood was alright, but BrotherhoodRevelations just beat a dead horse. As for 3, I haven't played it yet, and Blackflag, well just seems like an excuse to say "We're having PIRATES now! because we want to really stick it to that fan request of having Ninjas in Feudal Japan! What will this have to do with making Hysteria channel plot involving Ancient Aliens actually make sense, no idea... because, PIRATES!"


EDIT: Correction, as I just realized, thanks to the next reply, I got the names of two the games backwards, sorry

[Jayngfet]

Have to agree with that. 2 made the series better, since it gave a better representation of how an assassin goes from novice to pro, Revelations was alright, but Brotherhood just beat a dead horse. As for 3, I haven't played it yet, and Blackflag, well just seems like an excuse to say "We're having PIRATES now! because we want to really stick it to that fan request of having Ninjas in Feudal Japan! What will this have to do with making Hysteria channel plot involving Ancient Aliens actually make sense, no idea... because, PIRATES!"

Brotherhood was just badly thought out. I mean Machiavelli was the one who objects to the brotherhood taking on apprentices. I mean Niccolo Machiavelli, the guy who personally trained thousands of white clad fighters on how to hide in plain site at the exact same time he objected, historically. It was really the point where the series stopped working with real life history(even if omitting the inconvenient details), and ran counter to it. 3 was where it totally went off the rails and stopped pretending to care. You had historical details even the game didn't bother pretending were based on facts, a plot that takes ten hours to go nowhere through the buggiest main game ubisoft has ever released, and a central morality so childlike it was legitimately like watching a bunch of middle schoolers try to give each other indian burns.

Though honestly I'd say the French Revolution is the obvious setting they're missing. If you open up an actual history book you can pretty much slot a bunch of parkour wielding contract killers without anyone looking twice, since everyone and their grandmother was a knife wielding freerunner(up to and including the king himself).

[ShadowFireLance]

Assassins Creed? I knew the warcraft one, but what's Inferno?

[Zevox]

So, as far as movies go, 2015 is going to be...insane. (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2015-blockbusters/26439/the-23-and-counting-big-blockbusters-of-2015) For those of you who don't want to read through the link, basically it boils down to 2015 having an absolutely absurd number of movies with bloated budgets, almost all of which have some sort of safety line attached. There wont be another Pacific Rim type movie.

If you're counting...Star Wars Episode VII, Independence Day, Fantastic Four, Superman/Batman, Finding Dory, Terminator 5, Jurassic Park IV, The Avengers 2, Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, James Bond 24, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, The Smurfs 3 Avatar 2, Inferno, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Ant Man, Cinderella, and a slew of animated movies.

So, here are my questions: are you excited for this oncoming onslaught? You might be hyped about the new Avengers, or about the fact that this potential implosion of Hollywood could lead to daring new directions for film. Do you think that this implosion (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-2015-could-be-movie-industrys-worst-year-ever/) will actually happen? What do you think the general implications of this are? So, basically, discuss.
Hm. Of those, I'll certainly go see Avengers 2, because the first was great, and probably Star Wars E7, if only because I'm too big of a fan of the series not to want to see exactly what the heck they do with it. Maybe Fantastic Four if I hear good things about, off chance of Pirates 5 and Finding Dory. Which is actually a substantially higher number of movies than I normally go see in one year, so that's kind of nice I suppose.

As for implications for the movie industry on the whole, I honestly couldn't care much less. I average seeing about 2 movies a year. If they stop making movies I want to see (currently primarily Superhero films), it won't be much of a blow to me. If they start making more I want to see somehow, so much the better.

[Kitten Champion]

Star Wars Episode VII - we've seen this done twice already, sure it was called Star Trek, but it was Star Wars. Fun to watch, but meh. As I've explained, Star Wars means nothing to me now, nothing.

Independence Day 2 - Roland Emmerich.

Fantastic Four - I'll catch it on video like I unfortunately did with the previous attempts. Make the Invisible Woman not Jessica Alba and you've got a start.

Superman/Batman - No. I don't think I'm going to see Man of Steel on video at this point.

Finding Dory - From the same studio that's given up on creativity as much as the rest of Hollywood.

Terminator 5 - really? I didn't know about this one. Oh, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is there according to imdb. It's unfortunate that this has to happen, I mean, like it did with Alien.

Jurassic Park IV - because 2 and 3 were cinematic masterpieces crying out for a continuation? I don't know, couldn't they find some other vehicle to make a generic dino-horror film? Like, Dinocrisis! Video games are popular adaptation material, or so I hear.

The Avengers 2 - I'll go see this one. Mostly for Joss Whedon and presumably for the far more shallow reason of Robert Downy Jr.

Pirates Of The Caribbean 5 - I haven't seen the 2nd one. The first one is a fun movie, it's just not to my tastes. I don't like Depp's comedic acting, and that's the movie.

James Bond 24 - Assuming the reviews are good, I'll see this. I love Craig's Bond, it's one of the few reboots which was necessary if Bond was going to be at all.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 - I didn't like the first movie. I thought it was poorly edited and dull. Granted I was comparing it to Battle Royale, which is perhaps unfair. Regardless, Battle Royale is still preeminent in my consciousness being in my best movies of all time list.

The Smurfs 3 - I guess kids need movies to go to, but I can't speak to quality from never having seen the first two.

Avatar 2 - only if it's exceptionally well received critically. I liked the first Avatar, but mostly for the novelty of the experience.

Inferno - is that based on the Dan Brown novel? If so, no, I don't care to see it. I could critique his work, but more importantly I just don't like it.

Assassin's Creed - even if we assume it's done competently, is a linear narrative that's far more interesting when conveyed interactively. Your emotional investment is much greater when you're the agency behind the protagonist.

Warcraft - it's a pretty generic fantasy setting with a predictable yet enjoyable epic narrative. They could simply make that movie, the bland conventional one - and probably will - or they could use the setting to make something more interesting. Take that Tolkien-esque/Games Workshop setting and do something unique with it. It may suck, but at least it won't be excessively mediocre.

Ant Man - this could actually be very interesting. The director is good with doing the unconventional, and Ant Man is one of the most human and interesting of Marvel's superheroes regardless of how he's often written. If they aren't restrained by Hollywood's formulaic superhero concept, and just make a compelling personal story about a quirky and neurotic individual who happens to get superpowers, this could be better than the chaff.

Cinderella - This has already been done, and done again. They'll probably go all Snow White and the Huntsman and Red Riding Hood.

[Knaight]

Well, they're doing Finding Dory, a Finding Nemo sequel. I initially wasn't too excited about it, but this years Monsters Inc. prequel surprised me, so Ill probably end up watching this one too.

I actually didn't particularly like Finding Nemo - I know, it's heresy, particularly given how much I adored Ratatouille, but that's how it is. As such, it's looking like a probable year of no deliberately sought out Hollywood.

[Soras Teva Gee]

2015... Year of the Hollywood Apocalypse.

Seriously 23 and counting? Do the math here folks, that's out of 52 weeks in the year. So we are approach just over a maximum time of two weeks breathing room before the next comes crashing in. Nevermind premium slot consideration.

That means we can expect a lot of dueling movies. And I damn well don't think America can support 2 mega films at the same time much less the disturbingly plausible 3. Who sees two movies in a single weekend? And who's got the money for that, especially if you're paying for a date? And Parents, forget that there bill can already hit $100 an outing.

There's only so much money in a market to be had here.

I don't even want to think about budgets. The truly terrible thing is they've probably already spent the money too.

[Brother Oni]

Bear in mind that there's already been an official live action AC short film (Assassin's Creed Lineage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed:_Lineage)) that didn't rely on having much knowledge of the franchise (Embers wouldn't have worked as well if you didn't know who Ezio was).

Lineage received generally favourable reviews, so hopefully if they don't mess the main film up too much, we should end up with something watch-able.

[Weimann]

I'm a big enough Warcraft fanboy that I'll probably be watching that. The others, I can't know in advance.

[Starwulf]

Wow, there are a lot of jaded/cynical cinema snobs on these forums, LOL. I'll probably watch at least half of those movies(NOT in the theaters, far to poor for that, I see maybe one movie every two years in the theatres), and I'm sure I"ll enjoy them just fine ^^

The Independence Day sequel I'm looking forward to the most I think, loved the original, interested in seeing how they continue it all. Fantastic Four, superman/batman, Avengers 2, PotC 5, Hunger Games, Avatar 2, Inferno(depending on what it's about, lol, it has an interesting title, but I know nothing about it), maybe AC, and maybe Finding Dory, though that will be an incidental thing, as we'll likely take the girls to that. T5 is a possible, depends on just how crappy of reviews it gets. I've watched the previous four(first two are epic, 3rd and 4th are....meh), might as well see what the 5th one is about.

Care less about Star Wars 7, Warcraft, Jurassic Park 4, James Bonds 24, whatever the hell Mockingjay 2 is, Smurfs 3, Antman(wth is that?) or Cinderella.

[erikun]

Avengers 2 and Kung Fu Panda 3 stand out as the titles that I'm interested in watching. The rest, sadly not. There is an amazing number of sequels listed there and for the most part, I wasn't interested in following any of the others.

[Hopeless]

If you're counting...Star Wars Episode VII, Independence Day, Fantastic Four, Superman/Batman, Finding Dory, Terminator 5, Jurassic Park IV, The Avengers 2, Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, James Bond 24, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, The Smurfs 3 Avatar 2, Inferno, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Ant Man, Cinderella, and a slew of animated movies.

Definitely interested in Ant Man, the Jurassic Park movie should be okay, my nephew will be definitely watching Smurfs 3 though if they do have a certain blond protagonist with a massively oversized sword in the Star Wars sequel then I'll definitely watch that!:smallbiggrin:

Don't care for what I've heard about the Avengers sequel, doubt I'll even bother picking up Iron Man 3 on dvd let alone go watch them try to explain how Tony Stark invented Ultron... don't know anything about Inferno, don't care about the rest since I actually liked the previous version of the Fantastic Four movies even the Galactus that wasn't I really hope they use the Arrow show to introduce the new Bats and Lex since I can't see how a World's Finest movie would come before Man of Steel 2 enter Lex Luthor and Brainiac or a new Batman movie introduction can come before the pair finally meet.

[Traab]

2015... Year of the Hollywood Apocalypse.

Seriously 23 and counting? Do the math here folks, that's out of 52 weeks in the year. So we are approach just over a maximum time of two weeks breathing room before the next comes crashing in. Nevermind premium slot consideration.

That means we can expect a lot of dueling movies. And I damn well don't think America can support 2 mega films at the same time much less the disturbingly plausible 3. Who sees two movies in a single weekend? And who's got the money for that, especially if you're paying for a date? And Parents, forget that there bill can already hit $100 an outing.

There's only so much money in a market to be had here.

I don't even want to think about budgets. The truly terrible thing is they've probably already spent the money too.

This is the problem as I see it too. Too many movies coming out too close together. Its like opening up 6 new dunkin donuts on the same street. Its dividing the customer pie into too many pieces for any of them to truly do well. Its possible that very few of these films will do well, and even the ones most likely to do well like the avengers movie, will still suffer from all the little fish and medium fish nibbling away at the grand prize.

[Thanqol]

That list wearies and discourages me. I could not be less excited by Sequelpocalypse.

But I'm an elitist ponce who reviews fanfiction on the internet, Hollywood is never going to make me happy.

[DigoDragon]

I'll probably see Avengers 2 and... maybe one of the animated ones if they catch my attention.
Most of the time I just rent the movie and stay home. It isn't that most of these movies are bad, the problem is that ticket prices are quite expensive for low-income folks like myself.

Oh, and only one theatre in my area actively deals with the annoying people that talk/text during the film. That's a particular sore spot for me.

[Morph Bark]

Half of them look like movies I'd want to see. About half of those actually in theaters. We'll see if I'll be able to afford it by then. :smallsmile:

[Kato]

Well, apart from the dozen or so movies on that list which I will only watch to be able to say how bad they are... I guess Avengers 2 will be good, no Idea about Superman vs Batman when it comes to Superhero movies.
I guess I'll go to Mockingjay and probably Star Wars VII, just because it is Star Wars and some friends of mine will go. (Well, one, definitely. And she'll drag me along screaming)


On a general note... I have no idea about Box Office numbers but.. Is the industry really doing so bad? I thought CGI is making stuff cheaper, not more expensive. Or are... whatever you call the guys responsible for CGI suddenly realizing they've been paid way too little?
I have o idea if there will be a big collapse. I can't quite see it coming but if it does... I don't think I'll mind? Maybe people will realize big explosions don't make great movies. Not that there aren't good movies with big explosions but yeah.

[Solse]

There wont be another Pacific Rim type movie.
So you're saying that Pacific Rim wasn't good?

[MLai]

Whatever they do with Assassin's Creed as a movie, I hope to god it doesn't involve that computer simulation angle. Man, that stupidly dissonant framing device almost completely ruined the mood for me.

[Kitten Champion]

Whatever they do with Assassin's Creed as a movie, I hope to god it doesn't involve that computer simulation angle. Man, that stupidly dissonant framing device almost completely ruined the mood for me.

I'm feeling it's pretty likely they will. That narrative style would be too tempting, and It would be an easy excuse to bring CG into it unnecessarily.

[warty goblin]

Whatever they do with Assassin's Creed as a movie, I hope to god it doesn't involve that computer simulation angle. Man, that stupidly dissonant framing device almost completely ruined the mood for me.

To be honest, I though that was the one actually clever bit of the games.

[Yora]

The whole holo deck thing was the reason I never really wanted to play any of the games.

[Morph Bark]

Considering it was never actually the same guy outside the machine and inside, I felt like I could enjoy the story of the games on two different levels (though I always wanted to get back to the old age bits for gameplay reasons). That wouldn't be possible with a movie, though. I'd rather they keep out the holodeck and use a story-within-a-story kind of approach, more like.

[Darth Credence]

If you're counting...Star Wars Episode VII, Independence Day, Fantastic Four, Superman/Batman, Finding Dory, Terminator 5, Jurassic Park IV, The Avengers 2, Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, James Bond 24, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, The Smurfs 3 Avatar 2, Inferno, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Ant Man, Cinderella, and a slew of animated movies.


I will, without question, see Star Wars at the earliest possible showing. I will almost certainly see Batman/Superman and the Avengers 2 - only really bad reviews by someone I trust will prevent me from going to those. As to everything else, I'll take it on a case by case basis, although I'd say more likely than not for a lot of them.

I want to like all of these movies. I am looking to be entertained, and I think that most of these have the potential to be entertaining. There are a few that I will never see (Smurfs 3, Inferno) because I am just not a fan of the source material or what has been done with it in the past, but I don't begrudge anyone else watching if that is their thing. I generally think that movies are a rather cheap form of entertainment, and I wouldn't have a problem seeing multiple movies in a week if there was something I really wanted to see. I don't know if Utah just has cheap tickets, or what, but when I go to a movie, it doesn't seem that expensive. Just a normal movie runs my wife and me $12 total, and a drink makes it $15. If it is in 3-D and D-Box, it ends up pushing $40 with a drink, but that has the added advantage of being a 2 hour ride.

Now, as to the question of whether Hollywood is about to implode over this, I give a qualified yes. Budgets are getting bigger while returns are getting smaller, and that has to come to an end at some point. I hope that it comes to an end before it completely destroys the ability to have any big budget shows made, because I like a lot of them. I think that they are relying too much on overseas box office for what it truly brings in. There is the idea that explosions work in any language, while humor or nuance really don't, so all of that is given up to make things viable in other markets. Well, other markets may account for around half of the gross, but the net return to the studios is so much less. I think the better idea would be to work on making a more compelling story. Take The Wolverine, for example. It has probably been my favorite big movie of the year. It had a $120 million budget, which is big but not compared to what a lot of these are talking about. It appears to at least have netted enough to pay production costs already, and should pay off the marketing budget and turn a profit. Also, the biggest complaint I have seen is that it gets away from the more character driven story and goes a bit off the rails at the end - this is also probably where a huge chunk of the budget was spent. Maybe it would have been possible to cut the budget down to $80 million or so, had a better received movie, and made the same amount of money.

The best thing I could see happening is that a lot of these movies have good grosses, but not enough to justify the huge budgets. If it leads the studios to think that these movies can work, but budgets have to be brought under control, then some sanity may return to the movie business. The worst thing that can happen is that almost none of them gross really well, and we end up with no big event movies for a long period of time. While some of my favorite movies are relatively low budget dramas, I still like to get the spectacle of a big sci-fi or fantasy production.

[Empedocles]

So you're saying that Pacific Rim wasn't good?

Umm not sure if you're serious, but I just meant an original big budget film; another perfectly good example would be Oblivion, and likely the upcoming Elysium this year (in which I predict another flop, but only time will tell).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Why oh why are people talking about Assasin's Creed? While maybe more relatable thanks to the whole ancestral memory things giving us a variation from the Blank Brooding Badass rather common in video game protagonists allowing the movie to do better with a non-gaming audience....

Isn't that all a side show though? Even if it somehow doesn't suck its going to be one film begging for an audience in an oversaturated market


Umm not sure if you're serious, but I just meant an original big budget film; another perfectly good example would be Oblivion, and likely the upcoming Elysium this year (in which I predict another flop, but only time will tell).

Here predicts 35 mil. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-preview-elysium-hopes-600257) This is going to be a crowded weekend, smart money is probably on (sigh) Planes making the most.

The critical difference though is that Elysium has a very restrained budget of only 90 mil to cover.

[paddyfool]

Hollywood is going to lose a lot of money in 2015.

But I'll still see Avenger's II, and maybe one or two of the others, depending on reviews.

[Karoht]

Just due to the sheer number of blockbusters which will likely be forced into competition with one another on opening weekends, it means there will be some big winners, and some big losers. I am strictly speaking in terms of money and not necessarily film quality.

Really, sometimes a film needs time to get momentum and pull in a big box office number. Suddenly, 2 weeks later another big film with a big draw comes out? Boom, forgotten about.

The only films I would bank on doing really well are Avengers 2, Star Wars, Hunger Games, and Warcraft. Thats my 'big 4' prediction that will do "big" numbers at the box office. Ant Man comes in at number 5, if it is extremely good, and I'm skeptical that it will. Avatar 2 I'm not going to make a prediction on. Yet.

[Chen]

Just due to the sheer number of blockbusters which will likely be forced into competition with one another on opening weekends, it means there will be some big winners, and some big losers. I am strictly speaking in terms of money and not necessarily film quality.

Really, sometimes a film needs time to get momentum and pull in a big box office number. Suddenly, 2 weeks later another big film with a big draw comes out? Boom, forgotten about.

The only films I would bank on doing really well are Avengers 2, Star Wars, Hunger Games, and Warcraft. Thats my 'big 4' prediction that will do "big" numbers at the box office. Ant Man comes in at number 5, if it is extremely good, and I'm skeptical that it will. Avatar 2 I'm not going to make a prediction on. Yet.

Avatar 2 will make a ton of money just because of the first one. However, its slated for Dec 2016 not 2015 so I don't think its relevant here.

[Darth Credence]

Really, sometimes a film needs time to get momentum and pull in a big box office number. Suddenly, 2 weeks later another big film with a big draw comes out? Boom, forgotten about.

The only films I would bank on doing really well are Avengers 2, Star Wars, Hunger Games, and Warcraft. Thats my 'big 4' prediction that will do "big" numbers at the box office. Ant Man comes in at number 5, if it is extremely good, and I'm skeptical that it will. Avatar 2 I'm not going to make a prediction on. Yet.

Yeah, I agree on your momentum statement. Just look at Titanic - opening weekend was less than 5% of the total gross, 238th biggest openings, but biggest 5th through twelfth weeks. If it had been pushed out of theaters early, it would have made a fairly pitiful sum instead of being one of the biggest movies ever.

I think two of your big 4 predictions are definitely true - no way does either Star Wars or the Avengers 2 not have huge opening weekends at the very least. Hunger Games is probably a good bet, but since that will be movie number four, there is still plenty of time for it to go off the rails before then. And Warcraft seems pretty risky, actually. While there are anywhere from 7-10 million active subscribers, depending on the source, that doesn't necessarily translate to a hit movie. Firefly had 5 million viewers, and sold a whole lot of DVDs, but the movie only made $25 million in theaters. Fantasy movies, are, unfortunately, a tough sell, and I think a lot of people think that WoW is a lot bigger deal than it is. It is huge in terms of MMOs, but MMOs are really a pretty small thing.

If Antman is anything but a flop I'll be extremely surprised. I'm not even sure why I think that, other than it being called Antman, but I don't think Marvel is as bullet proof as they hope they are. I think that is going to require someone to do for that movie what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man. Is there such a person out there? I don't know.

[tomandtish]

I posted an analysis of the financial breakdown of what movies need to break even here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15740128&postcount=582).

Short version: A movie needs to make double the production AND advertising budgets domestically to break even. If it doesn't, then for every dollar of costs it didn't make domestically, it needs to gross six internationally.

With a lot of movies in the list above probably having combined production and advertising budgets in the $300 million range, I suspect quite a few will end up losing money.

[Karoht]

Films seem to cost more and more money to make lately. Even without massive amounts of special effects or A-List celebs in the cast.
Movie Theaters are costing more and more money to run as well.
Lower profits might just be the norm that movie makers have to accept for a while.

[Chen]

If Antman is anything but a flop I'll be extremely surprised. I'm not even sure why I think that, other than it being called Antman, but I don't think Marvel is as bullet proof as they hope they are. I think that is going to require someone to do for that movie what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man. Is there such a person out there? I don't know.

I feel the same way. Antman seems so out there as a popular super hero. Most non-comic readers probably haven't even heard of him, whereas they at least knew about all the other Marvel heroes that movies have been made about.

[Yora]

I somewhat remember having read that investors currently favor big budget effect movies, because those are still the most reliable investments to bring in some profits. Big bidget effects seems to be the only thing that the big studios know they can sell.

[snoopy13a]

Yeah, I agree on your momentum statement. Just look at Titanic - opening weekend was less than 5% of the total gross, 238th biggest openings, but biggest 5th through twelfth weeks. If it had been pushed out of theaters early, it would have made a fairly pitiful sum instead of being one of the biggest movies ever.

I think two of your big 4 predictions are definitely true - no way does either Star Wars or the Avengers 2 not have huge opening weekends at the very least. Hunger Games is probably a good bet, but since that will be movie number four, there is still plenty of time for it to go off the rails before then. And Warcraft seems pretty risky, actually. While there are anywhere from 7-10 million active subscribers, depending on the source, that doesn't necessarily translate to a hit movie. Firefly had 5 million viewers, and sold a whole lot of DVDs, but the movie only made $25 million in theaters. Fantasy movies, are, unfortunately, a tough sell, and I think a lot of people think that WoW is a lot bigger deal than it is. It is huge in terms of MMOs, but MMOs are really a pretty small thing.

If Antman is anything but a flop I'll be extremely surprised. I'm not even sure why I think that, other than it being called Antman, but I don't think Marvel is as bullet proof as they hope they are. I think that is going to require someone to do for that movie what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man. Is there such a person out there? I don't know.

I can't believe they are making an Antman movie.

The Hunger Games movie will do well because its target audience is different than the usual comic book and action movies (i.e., people with two X chromosomes :smalltongue: ). Star Wars and the Avengers will do well. The James Bond movie will do okay because James Bond attracts a wider audience.

Hollywood is really risking superhero fatigue. Of the mentioned movies, I'll probably see the Star Wars movie, maybe the Superman/Batman movie, and the James Bond movie once it comes out on DVD. I probably won't watch Hunger Games because I'm hesitant to watch films based on books that I've liked.

I still can't believe they are making an Antman movie.

[Karoht]

@Avatar 2-Didn't know it was 2016 release, it was on someone else's list in the thread.

@Warcraft-Note that Warcraft encompasses much more than the MMO. And from what we can tell, the storyline of the film is taking place before the MMO events. Warcraft 1 or 2, depending on who you talk to. There are plenty of fans of the franchise who don't play the MMO. Also, Blizzard is releasing a F2P game called Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft (it is a CCG) which looks like a PC and multi-console release. Which should release about 9 months to a year before the Warcraft film comes out. Granted, I might be wrong about it making the top 5 for 2015, but the film has a pretty big following before you even count the MMO players, and a fresh (related) game releasing before the film to renew some interest. It might flop, it might surprise everyone and perform well.

[Traab]

@Avatar 2-Didn't know it was 2016 release, it was on someone else's list in the thread.

@Warcraft-Note that Warcraft encompasses much more than the MMO. And from what we can tell, the storyline of the film is taking place before the MMO events. Warcraft 1 or 2, depending on who you talk to. There are plenty of fans of the franchise who don't play the MMO. Also, Blizzard is releasing a F2P game called Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft (it is a CCG) which looks like a PC and multi-console release. Which should release about 9 months to a year before the Warcraft film comes out. Granted, I might be wrong about it making the top 5 for 2015, but the film has a pretty big following before you even count the MMO players, and a fresh (related) game releasing before the film to renew some interest. It might flop, it might surprise everyone and perform well.

I hope its warcraft 1. That would give us potential for sequels if the movie does well. And it could make for one hell of an interesting fantasy film. Demons, dragons, orcs from another world, magic and elves and trolls. And if done right, a pretty epic overall storyline if they go all the way through warcraft 3 as we watch the orcs become good guys and see who the real enemy is.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yeah, I agree on your momentum statement. Just look at Titanic - opening weekend was less than 5% of the total gross, 238th biggest openings, but biggest 5th through twelfth weeks. If it had been pushed out of theaters early, it would have made a fairly pitiful sum instead of being one of the biggest movies ever.

Well Titanic is a rare sort of event. It still hold #2 in absolute terms for the box office, and #5 adjusted for inflation. Avatar is #1 in absolute terms but plummets to #14 adjusted for inflation.

If studios could figure out how to make a movie have legs like that and get people going to see it multiple times they probably would. Instead though most movies make a huge chunk in their first weekend and then drop like stones the second onward.


I think two of your big 4 predictions are definitely true - no way does either Star Wars or the Avengers 2 not have huge opening weekends at the very least. Hunger Games is probably a good bet, but since that will be movie number four, there is still plenty of time for it to go off the rails before then. And Warcraft seems pretty risky, actually. While there are anywhere from 7-10 million active subscribers, depending on the source, that doesn't necessarily translate to a hit movie. Firefly had 5 million viewers, and sold a whole lot of DVDs, but the movie only made $25 million in theaters. Fantasy movies, are, unfortunately, a tough sell, and I think a lot of people think that WoW is a lot bigger deal than it is. It is huge in terms of MMOs, but MMOs are really a pretty small thing.

This however is completely true. It isn't nerds that are fueling say the superhero boom. They might source it, but just don't have the numbers and/or turn-out. You need mass appeal to launch a big budget movie.

Fun stuff, the highest grossing video game movies (http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=videogameadaptation.htm) have been Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, and the first Pokemon. The first had Angelina Jolie and is the only to have broken 100 mil but with wasn't as tremendous next to it 115 mil budget. Prince of Persia didn't come out profitable and failed pretty hard stateside. Pokemon is well... Pokemon and this was at its zenith of influence.


I somewhat remember having read that investors currently favor big budget effect movies, because those are still the most reliable investments to bring in some profits. Big bidget effects seems to be the only thing that the big studios know they can sell.

Yeah and most of these would be arguable sure things.... except when they have to compete out of the same paycheck.

What does Independence Day do when it has to share the 4th of July weekend with Jurassic Park. Even on that long weekend who has the time to see two much less three. Or the money.

That's the real issue.

And unfortunately while some might be able to sit on their movies and wait things out for 2016 or cram them into 2014... that same high risk high reward pattern is probably leaving them all hoping that their own films win the fight.

And if they do the winner may go home happy, presuming all their horse are the winners. Should the American movie goer instead break evenly between choices... neither of them can win because they divided and conquered themselves to death. Even if there are clear winners, depending on how the losses end up you could still have nobody making money after writing off their flops, or going bankrupt because all of them did.

Disney can survive that sort of attrition maybe, but how many others. (And heck Disney is the one with the best hand!)

[Karoht]

I hope its warcraft 1. That would give us potential for sequels if the movie does well. And it could make for one hell of an interesting fantasy film. Demons, dragons, orcs from another world, magic and elves and trolls. And if done right, a pretty epic overall storyline if they go all the way through warcraft 3 as we watch the orcs become good guys and see who the real enemy is.Khadgar and Medivh are supposedly cast, which points this at late WC1. In the clip played at SDCC recently, reports are that it featured either Lothar or Turalyon. My money is that the film is going to be late WC1.

I'll admit to being a Warcraft fan, but I want this film to succeed so that more video game films get made.

Oh, the Ratchet and Clank film should be up soon. Huge hopes for that. Is that 2015? Lemme check...
Huh. That is slated to be out early 2015. It should have a broad audience appeal, even to non-gamers. Still, if it doesn't get traction in the opening weekend, it might not do so hot.
If it doesn't open the door for a Sly Cooper film I will be sad.

[Tyndmyr]

So, as far as movies go, 2015 is going to be...insane. (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2015-blockbusters/26439/the-23-and-counting-big-blockbusters-of-2015) For those of you who don't want to read through the link, basically it boils down to 2015 having an absolutely absurd number of movies with bloated budgets, almost all of which have some sort of safety line attached. There wont be another Pacific Rim type movie.

If you're counting...Star Wars Episode VII, Independence Day, Fantastic Four, Superman/Batman, Finding Dory, Terminator 5, Jurassic Park IV, The Avengers 2, Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, James Bond 24, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, The Smurfs 3 Avatar 2, Inferno, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Ant Man, Cinderella, and a slew of animated movies.

So, here are my questions: are you excited for this oncoming onslaught? You might be hyped about the new Avengers, or about the fact that this potential implosion of Hollywood could lead to daring new directions for film. Do you think that this implosion (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-2015-could-be-movie-industrys-worst-year-ever/) will actually happen? What do you think the general implications of this are? So, basically, discuss.

Well, it depends. I expect these to start tanking, mostly. James Bond should be alright. Avengers two will be a smash hit. Hunger Games 2 will sadly, likely be a hit(I hate the books immensely). I'll give Marvel the benefit of the doubt on Ant Man, because while I would normally expect that to suck, they've been on a serious hot streak.

The rest will likely tank. Oh, they may not absolutely bomb, but there's a sort of energy around sequels...sometimes, like immediately post Matrix, everyone loved the original and cannot wait for the next expansion of that world to arrive. Sometimes, as with the last terminator movie, it's pretty clear that they're riding the coattails of a fading franchise, desperately hoping to make another buck without really adding anything all that new. This is particularly bad with movies that were obviously stand alone movies. Nobody needed a Butterfly Effect 2.

Sequels are not inherently a bad thing, but they're not inherently a good thing either. Just like original films, there's ones that should be green lit, and those that should never see the light of day. It's fine...lots of movies have tanked before, this will merely be another correction of another fad.

Keep in mind that this far out, at least a few will likely die before being made.

[Morph Bark]

Fun stuff, the highest grossing video game movies (http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=videogameadaptation.htm)

Wait, Angry Birds is getting a movie?

[Traab]

Khadgar and Medivh are supposedly cast, which points this at late WC1. In the clip played at SDCC recently, reports are that it featured either Lothar or Turalyon. My money is that the film is going to be late WC1.

I'll admit to being a Warcraft fan, but I want this film to succeed so that more video game films get made.

Oh, the Ratchet and Clank film should be up soon. Huge hopes for that. Is that 2015? Lemme check...
Huh. That is slated to be out early 2015. It should have a broad audience appeal, even to non-gamers. Still, if it doesn't get traction in the opening weekend, it might not do so hot.
If it doesn't open the door for a Sly Cooper film I will be sad.

I agree, I would like it if the games to movie franchise could take off. There are a lot of games out there with fairly awesome stories that at the very least could be used as a framework. As an example, an old playstation game, Legend of Legaia, it has an awesome and fairly unique storyline to it that has a few cool twists and turns and interesting characters like a little girl who was raised by a wolf, (sorta) a martial arts monk who has his own personal side story of revenge for a murdered master by a fellow student he thought of as a brother, and a young man swept up into the middle of the worlds biggest adventure. It has magic and machinery, it has morality, philosophy, and puppy eating evil. It has a threat against the world, and only these three can stop it. (With a little help from a mysterious source)

[Jayngfet]

Wait, Angry Birds is getting a movie?

We're staring down the barrel of an industry crash caused by gross brand mismanagement.

Everything is getting a movie. We're getting giant video game movies despite all obvious signs pointing to this being a bad idea(all of which being Brands past their prime by the time the movies come out, if not already). We're getting movies not just of first and second string superheroes, but of C listers who are riding almost totally off Marvel's popular brand(and Disney, who the hell approved a Big Hero 6 movie?), and not their own popularity or story quality. We're getting sequels to movies that came out so long ago their stars went from up and coming kids to elderly men with grown up children(and so have the characters themselves). We're getting movies base on mediocre BDSM novels.

Angry Birds getting a movie isn't surprising or questionable compared to the vast majority of other choices being made in the film industry, and that's terrifying.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Angry Birds getting a movie isn't surprising or questionable compared to the vast majority of other choices being made in the film industry, and that's terrifying.

Well Angry Birds will be animated faire and presumably modestly comedic (because y'know Angry Birds) so it will be the different sort of tentpole then the rest. And might even not cost over 100 mil to make.

Given the sort of numbers (1.7 billion downloads!) they rake in and the merchandising they already do this makes far more sense then say another Pirates movie, reviving films of the 90s, or some of these more obscure comic books ones like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ant Man in my book.

[Jayngfet]

Given the sort of numbers (1.7 billion downloads!) they rake in and the merchandising they already do this makes far more sense then say another Pirates movie, reviving films of the 90s, or some of these more obscure comic books ones like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ant Man in my book.

Again, it makes more sense than most. This fills me with an unspeakable sense of dread. Not because a film who's production and marketing will probably total more than a hundred fifty million dollars is being based on an unoriginal web game that's really, really popular. It's because those numbers are so comparatively small they seem to not mean anything anymore. We're seeing people spend hundreds of millions of dollars on tv and movie adaptations of a flash game. This looks fiscally responsible compared to the stuff we're seeing elsewhere.

That's what's terrifying. That the logic of making a video game movie based on a game played on a cell phone is probably among the most reasonable and well thought out plans we're seeing, even taking into account 3d family movies already getting diminishing returns. The system is so broken that I can look at a quickly and blatantly failing way of doing things, see an obvious low quality cash in, and say "this is good, I would rather invest in this than anything else visible to me". I don't even think Angry Birds will break even, given what I know about everything going on right now. I really don't know how much harder I can sell that this is a bad thing.


Oh, here's one! What happens when thousands of middle class jobs dissapear overnight, and don't reappear anywhere else in the world? What happens when this burns the moviegoers out and the theaters potentially empty out come 2016-17, forcing closures and cutbacks? What happens when schools that rely on the education used to enter these fields get that much less money? When those people need that much more financially help to stay on their feet? When those densely populated areas lose all that money flowing through them(especially the ones that are already not in top shape)?

I don't think those of you who think your entertainment is all that's at stake are comprehending the tens of billions of dollars being thrown around and how they affect you, personally. That is to say, you are affected personally and you will feel this, personally.

[Gamerlord]

Well ,let's see, the only things I'm particularly interested on seeing in that list are Bond 24, Avengers 2, and maaaaaaaaybe Kung Fu Panda 3. I'll probably end up seeing Star Wars VII just because everyone else will probably be talking about nothing but it during it's release though.

As for the Theoretical Hollywood Implosion....eh, I can sort of see it happening, but my brain automatically turns to "It ain't happening" whenever I see people talking about something like this in a manner as apocalyptic as this thread.

[Jayngfet]

As for the Theoretical Hollywood Implosion....eh, I can sort of see it happening, but my brain automatically turns to "It ain't happening" whenever I see people talking about something like this in a manner as apocalyptic as this thread.

Which is all well and good, provided you have evidence to the contrary. Hell, this is one case where I'd love to be proven wrong.

The only thing is though, whenever someone says "it isn't happening" it's usually a kind of head-in-the-sand mentality. The movies they're excited for are from "safe" brands like Marvel or Disney Animation or are Sequels, so they must turn a profit. Or else, those billions of dollars paying tens of thousands of people directly won't affect anybody not directly involved. Or that the problems with the movie industry only affect the movie industry, despite obvious evidence that it really doesn't.

If you can put my fears to bed, I'm begging you to do so, because everything is lining up with my predictions way too close for comfort.

[MLai]

When that kind of money is being tossed around, and the stupidity underlying all of it is as plain as day... it's happening.

It's called a bubble. It happens with dot coms, it happens with houses, it can happen with movies.

The difference with houses vs movies, is that with the former I didn't understand a single thing about it until after it happened and newspapers explained it to me, because I'm not a business or finance major. But with movies, I'm casually familiar enough with it that the stupidity being displayed is obvious.

[Scowling Dragon]

Wasn't this what the writers strike was about? A warning about the internet or something?

[MLai]

Wasn't this what the writers strike was about? A warning about the internet or something?
Really? I thought the strike was just about writers being paid ****, despite everybody else (less important to the actual quality of the damned thing) being paid bigger and bigger bonuses. :smallconfused:

Was there more to the story of the strike?

[Jayngfet]

Really? I thought the strike was just about writers being paid ****, despite everybody else (less important to the actual quality of the damned thing) being paid bigger and bigger bonuses. :smallconfused:


That should have been a bigger thing. I mean the piece of the pie is shrinking for more than just writers. Costuming, Animation, VFX, Storyboarding, and Camera work should all be striking along with the writers.

The entire industry should have ground to a halt long before this point. By now it's probably too late though, sadly.

[Scowling Dragon]

Wasn't the industry hit BECAUSE of the internet? BECAUSE of a Industry not adjusting fast enough too a HYPER fast increase in Technology?

If I remember, half the cash in Hollywood came from DVDs, which are now mostly obsolete thanks to the internet.

[Kitten Champion]

If it must collapse, please do so before Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Incidently, these are the same problems facing video games. Which leads us to a good idea, Free-To-Watch movies. You can see the first half hour free, but if you want to see the of the movie? Pay up.

You could pay extra to have the actors re-skinned in a different costume, pay 5 dollars to have Bruce Willis in a panda suit for A Good Day To Die Hard, replace Gypsy Danger with Mazinkaiser for 7.99.

You could remove all human actors from the next Transformers for 11.99.

[Jayngfet]

Wasn't the industry hit BECAUSE of the internet? BECAUSE of a Industry not adjusting fast enough too a HYPER fast increase in Technology?

If I remember, half the cash in Hollywood came from DVDs, which are now mostly obsolete thanks to the internet.

Yeah, but counterpoint: Netflix and Redbox are pretty much easier than pirating at this point. The home video market may not be quite so price gouging, but it's finding a new spot to rest in. Hell, Crackle has proven that we're even willing to watch commercials if it means not paying anything to see Godzilla blow stuff up without hassle.

In any case, the industry could easily have survived that hit with a bit of price redistribution. It is absolutely not a good thing that so many people can make such a decreasing wage while the people on top keep numbers that big.


If it must collapse, please do so before Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Incidently, these are the same problems facing video games. Which leads us to a good idea, Free-To-Watch movies. You can see the first half hour free, but if you want to see the of the movie? Pay up.

You could pay extra to have the actors re-skinned in a different costume, pay 5 dollars to have Bruce Willis in a panda suit for A Good Day To Die Hard, replace Gypsy Danger with Mazinkaiser for 7.99.

You could remove all human actors from the next Transformers for 11.99.

That's only work if the Mazinkairser reskin comes years after we got the Grendaizer reskins for free. Or say, if we tapped our remotes around a bit and got the panda suit for free in the pre-3D era.

[Soras Teva Gee]

As for the Theoretical Hollywood Implosion....eh, I can sort of see it happening, but my brain automatically turns to "It ain't happening" whenever I see people talking about something like this in a manner as apocalyptic as this thread.

Well its not like suddenly movies aren't going to be made or anything. But your going to see a lot of movies failing, you maybe already have.

Think about it how many high profile, high budget, films have done well this year against floundering. You need look no further then the Lone Ranger, but you can go back to maybe John Carter or Battleship to see perhaps early warnings that America is just not going to eat up anything Hollywood serves.

Heck look at the yearly box office (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/) here. 4 of the last 5 years have seen 10 billion dollar years. Now look at 2013 and where is it. At 6 billion. But the year isn't over right? Well it kinda is actually, were in August and unless I'm missing something the only "tentpole" type films we "know" will make big money are Thor and the Hobbit. I'm not sure there's 4 billion left and I don't know where it comes from. Maybe bunch of Oscar bait adds up or something I don't know.

But let's talk about the big money films. In 2012 (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm) there were 11 films that broke 200 million in domestic returns. Of them only 2 cost less then 100 million to make, Ted and that abomination to all things Seuss.

In 2013 (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm), only 7 movies have cleared 200 million of which only 1 cost less then 100 mil. Maybe Elysium catches a late wind or something unexpected I'm not computing but we can only the Hobbit and maybe Thor to that total. Those last two certainly are above 100 mil in budget.

Why do I keep using those numbers. Well because after all the fingers in the pie take their pounds of flesh a studio gets around 50% of the domestic gross, and potentially as little as 15% of overseas. (http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable). This has to pay for the movie to start with, so if your budget is over a 100 mil you have to take in 200 mil to turn a profit. Then there's the marketing, easily 50+ mil for something in this range, horror stories report market can exceed the budget in some cases.

Oh and from a business perspective you have to pay off all the movies that don't make money you might also be putting out before you have a profit to say "shareholders keep investing in us!" with so you can turn around and do it again.

So even something like Man of Steel's (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman2012.htm) world wide 647 million gross can almost evaporate by the time all the middle men have been paid and the final profit is calculated. Given that return is still millions but its margins are perilously low.

And this high risk gamble has become the standard for all these "tentpole" movies.

Now Hollywood wants to double the amount of blockbuster 200 mil required films from 2012 mere 11 in 3 years time for 2015 and they've already seen diminished returns.

Where the heck is the American economy supposed to get that kind of cash from? They all can't win, and worse they may end up dividing just enough for nobody to do as well as they need to cover their debts in financing these films

And that's all presuming the American consumer doesn't just decide its sick of this **** and stays home to fire up some Netflix instead.

Lord knows I'm pretty fatigued on movies myself. I can commit to seeing Bond without question... and that's literally it. I'm not even sure I'll have enthusiasm for Avengers.

[tomandtish]

Really? I thought the strike was just about writers being paid ****, despite everybody else (less important to the actual quality of the damned thing) being paid bigger and bigger bonuses. :smallconfused:

Was there more to the story of the strike?

The 2007 writer's strike was in large part (but not entirely) about pay AND new technology (or rather, how writers were paid residuals on new technology). Writers felt they were losing a lot of money relative to others because old methods of payment weren't taking into account new technologies and the popularity of those new technologies. (Note: I'm not going to preach the right or wrong of any side here).

DVDs: Writers had originally had their residual rate for hardcopy video set in 1985 based on VCR tapes. With the massive upsurge in DVD sales they were arguing for an increase in the rate to double (from 0.3% to 0.6%).

Streaming/Downloading: There was (at that time) no language in the contracts regarding either of these formats, so they actually received no residuals on any of them. So if you streamed a TV show through Netflix or purchased and downloaded a show through I-Tunes, the writers got 0%.

There was also conflict on whether Reality TV shows and Animated shows fell under the jurisdiction of the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) or not. For reality TV, many producers of reality programming argued that since these shows are mostly, if not entirely, unscripted, there is no writer. The WGA countered that the process of creating interesting scenarios, culling raw material, and shaping it into a narrative with conflict, character arc, and storyline constitutes writing and should fall under its contract.

Similarly, while animated works nominally fell under the Animation Guild, by 2007 most animated works were at least initially scripted by screen writers and then sent to storyboard. The WGA therefore argued that Animation writers ought to fall under their auspices as well.

So technology did play a big part in it. Namely, we have new ways of getting these shows to people (especially after broadcast), so who gets the money from these new ways?

[Scowling Dragon]

Also lets not forget to add the double grand slamwich which is the game industry. Its like watching the T-1000 smash into pieces whilst it was frozen.

[thubby]

the only movies I'm aware of that look promising are the continued marvel ones.
as little as I think of sequels, each of these heroes has enough material to draw on that it would take significant ineptitude to be able to make something not worth the price of admission.

there has never been a worthwhile videogame movie in the history of the industry, I can't imagine they're going to start with assassin's creed.

[Hopeless]

So you're saying that Pacific Rim wasn't good?

Well I intend to buy the dvd and go watch a sequel if they ever get over their attempts to claim it was a flop when it certainly wasn't!

[Chen]

Heck look at the yearly box office (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/) here. 4 of the last 5 years have seen 10 billion dollar years. Now look at 2013 and where is it. At 6 billion. But the year isn't over right? Well it kinda is actually, were in August and unless I'm missing something the only "tentpole" type films we "know" will make big money are Thor and the Hobbit. I'm not sure there's 4 billion left and I don't know where it comes from. Maybe bunch of Oscar bait adds up or something I don't know.

We have Elysium, Planes, Thor, The Hobbit and the second Hunger Games movie as bigger names. Smaller or untested things like the new Riddick movie, Kick Ass 2, that Mortal Instruments movie (which could be big since I hear its a popular book series) and Ender's Game (again a very popular book) could also bring in some money too.

[Yora]

Also lets not forget to add the double grand slamwich which is the game industry. Its like watching the T-1000 smash into pieces whilst it was frozen.

The difference is that people have by now shown several times that two guys can make great games part time from home, and get them out to the people with digital distribution.
With really good movies, the amount of work and costs, as well as the whole distribution thing, is a lot more complicated.

For good movies, you pretty much need the movie industry. For good games not so much.

[Scowling Dragon]

I meant in the sense that allot of people are going too loose their Jobs.

[Yora]

Yeah, that's probably true.

[IronFist]

I'll watch Avengers 2, Ant Man and James Bond in the theater. The rest will have to wait.

[Kato]

For good movies, you pretty much need the movie industry. For good games not so much.

Why? :smallconfused: I guess it depends on what you consider "good movies" but I'd argue you can easily make a good movie (not all kinds of good movies, mind you) with a small budget and a small staff. You can make a great movie with one person if you know what you are doing but admittedly that takes quite a lot of talent.

[Karoht]

Just an opinion, but there aren't many 'good' movies coming out lately with 'small' budgets.

Then again, it is difficult to nail down what constitutes a small or large budget these days. Terminator 2 was made on 72 million, and that was considered huge in 1994.

I think the last low budget films I've seen that I thought were worth watching were Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (made back when Jason Statham was a nobody) and Memento.
Not sure if Equilibrium counts (back when Christian Bale was also more or less a nobody), but there it is.


To clarify, in no way am I suggesting that expensive = good or that large sums of money are a requirement of a good film, but low budget tends not to be synonymous with good either.

[Darth Credence]

Much Ado about Nothing, Before Midnight, Fruitvale Station, Mud - all have been very well reviewed, and all have had very small budgets. And it is not a question of whether these can be considered small budget or not - they are small by any definition. These are just movies that have come out within the last year and are likely to have been heard of by most people - open it up to movies fewer people know about and the list gets much larger, as it does if you go back a little ways. And while they don't all make a ton of money, they are generally profitable, and some can make ridiculous profits - Paranormal Activity made $107 million on a budget of about $78k. While it was not something I really liked, it was also pretty well reviewed.

[Knaight]

I'd point to Ink - it's somewhat similar to Inception in concept, is better in execution, and had a budget of $25,000, which is absolutely tiny.

[tomandtish]

Well I intend to buy the dvd and go watch a sequel if they ever get over their attempts to claim it was a flop when it certainly wasn't!

Flop is a relative term with different meanings. Do you mean in terms of quality? I certainly enjoyed the movie and would see a sequel, so no, not a flop as far as I’m concerned.

However, the thing most of the bigwigs who are making the decisions are going to look at is: Did it make enough money to be considered financially a success, minor failure, or flop?

As of 8/6 it has grossed 94 million domestically and 200 million internationally. Studio received 47 million (50%) and 30 million (15%) of that respectively. So the studio has recouped 77 million. Given a 190 million production cost and assuming 50 million in advertising (which is probably low) means 240 million in costs.

In short, it’s only made back about a third of expenses. Financially, those making the decisions will probably consider that a flop.

Note: I’m researching the formulas they use to determine when a move does well enough that they think DVD/streaming sales will help it break even after the fact.

[t209]

Warcraft - it's a pretty generic fantasy setting with a predictable yet enjoyable epic narrative. They could simply make that movie, the bland conventional one - and probably will - or they could use the setting to make something more interesting. Take that Tolkien-esque/Games Workshop setting and do something unique with it. It may suck, but at least it won't be excessively mediocre.

Ant Man - this could actually be very interesting. The director is good with doing the unconventional, and Ant Man is one of the most human and interesting of Marvel's superheroes regardless of how he's often written. If they aren't restrained by Hollywood's formulaic superhero concept, and just make a compelling personal story about a quirky and neurotic individual who happens to get superpowers, this could be better than the chaff.

For Warcraft, the current settings is too goofy (Sorry but I enjoyed Warcraft II and III). or Battle Report version of Warcraft Online or some thing like that.
Antman, isn't he the old who hit his own wife?
Edit: I hope the film execs didn't turn Ender's game into action film, which the trailer is showing signs of.
For those who didn't know Ender's Game, It's like critique on alien war and strategy game like how Evangelion did to Mecha and Spec Ops did to FPS.
P.S- I think they need to make Silver Age film, goofy and silly like hollywood's creativity.

[Darth Credence]

Antman, isn't he the old who hit his own wife?

This right here is a huge part of why I think Antman will fail. People who are fans will argue that he gets a bum rap for this, but that is probably what is most known about the character beyond real fans. If you type "antman wi" into Google, like if you wanted "antman wiki", it will recommend "antman wife beater". There are numerous articles out there that point it out, too - I know I've read one on Cracked.com and comicbookmovie.com. That is going to be such a tough sell.


P.S- I think they need to make Silver Age film, goofy and silly like hollywood's creativity.

I would love to see a throwback to the Silver Age. The other big advantage is you could probably do one pretty cheap.

[Tyndmyr]

For those going over the top with the doomsaying...keep in mind that a lot of movies that are announced for a couple of years out never actually get made. This is normal. We're not actually going to see every one of those.

Also, flops happen. They pretty much always have. Movies are a risky business, in which the majority of attempts lose money. Sure, the money being poured into each of them is rising, and at some point, that trend has got to slow or reverse, but it's not quite the film apocalpyse some seem to believe it will be.

[Eldan]

Actually, I've never even heard the name Ant Man before. I now hope that he can summon giant ants, because that would be badass. Though my first thought was Spider-Man rip off, before I realized that ants don't even have webs, so he wouldn't have any of spider-man's powers.

[Soras Teva Gee]

For those going over the top with the doomsaying...keep in mind that a lot of movies that are announced for a couple of years out never actually get made. This is normal. We're not actually going to see every one of those.

Also, flops happen. They pretty much always have. Movies are a risky business, in which the majority of attempts lose money. Sure, the money being poured into each of them is rising, and at some point, that trend has got to slow or reverse, but it's not quite the film apocalpyse some seem to believe it will be.

Well yeah that's the way out of course. Don't even have to cancel just hold on starting production for release in a 2016 release.

That's presuming that the money hasn't already been committed and the words "contractually obligated" don't rear their heads.

And that Hollywood see's the writing on the wall now not after they've gone over the edge.

If half the stuff about CGI production I've heard is true then even early 2014 will start to be too late.

[tomandtish]

Antman, isn't he the old who hit his own wife?



Part of the reason for the bad rap is that what was drawn was not what the writer intended. There's a pretty good break down here (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/04/01/jim-shooter-never-intended-ant-man-to-be-a-wasp-beater/).

Short version, it was intended that Pym is throwing his hands up in frustration and accidentally hits her.

Now whether that is still wife beating is anoter debate and probably could easily get too political for this forum. But the writer did intend that the blow be accidental, not deliberate.

However, what was drawn was clearly intentional and thus began Pym's rep as a wife beater. Perhaps because of this unshakable rep (possibly following a "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality) Pym grandually becomes viewed as more abusive in some formats, especially Ultimates where he's unredemably abusive.

[Axolotl]

Pym grandually becomes viewed as more abusive in some formats, especially Ultimates where he's unredemably abusive.I thought he was redeemed over the course of Ultimates 2 and 3? You know before Ultimatum ruined everything.


Edgar Wright's supposed to be directing it so I assume it'll be pretty good.

[Jayngfet]

For those going over the top with the doomsaying...keep in mind that a lot of movies that are announced for a couple of years out never actually get made. This is normal. We're not actually going to see every one of those.

Also, flops happen. They pretty much always have. Movies are a risky business, in which the majority of attempts lose money. Sure, the money being poured into each of them is rising, and at some point, that trend has got to slow or reverse, but it's not quite the film apocalpyse some seem to believe it will be.

Yeah, but even the "announced" list is crazy huge. Even accounting for the ones that will likley burn off between now and then, there's the ones that won't.

Worlds Finest, Star Wars 7, and at least two marvel movies are a guarantee. Disney and pixar combined have probably got three movies between them to release on top of that. Dreamworks has got a couple coming out, provided that Turbo doesn't fail so spectacularly that they're forced to make cutbacks. That's just stuff on the regular schedule, and the "regular schedule" has more than doubled between now and five years ago, with the money being sunk into each rising dramatically. These are movies that can't be moved around without causing an internal trainwreck and throwing schedules off even worse.

Then you have the stuff that'll probably come out then or in the area, that is to say, stuff like Fantastic Four, which needs to come out by a certain day to fulfill contracts. This'll give a very small amount of wiggle room.

That list alone is at a record high, and it's structure means that pushing stuff back to 2016 may not work because it'll be almost as bad then, and will probably get worse after the announcements in 2014.

The money being thrown around is again, also at record highs. One flop like this may mean hundreds of thousands lost now even if the production budget is made back.

There will be blood in the water. If Star Wars doesn't have the franchise's biggest opening ever expect hundreds of jobs to be lost, since that'll mean massive cutbacks at Disney/Lucas considering the expectations they no doubt have. If Worlds Finest doesn't make at least a billion, expect WB to tailspin out of control. Hell, so many of these movies feed back into so few hands there will be cutbacks and restructurings no matter what happens. I mean if Star Wars doesn't make it's budget back expect Disney to lean on Marvel for support. If Pirates fails, expect even worse damage done to Disney. That's just one example but if applies to other companies.


The money being thrown around, in the structure that exists now, means that a flop of this magnitude will have shockwaves travelling farther than ever before. If Lucasarts goes under, it'll mean that Marvel will be affected directly. If Expendables 3 fails, expect it to affect The Hunger Games.

We can't afford to do things the way they've been done in this manner, and there's no alternative that can be taken.

[Kitten Champion]

Actually, I've never even heard the name Ant Man before. I now hope that he can summon giant ants, because that would be badass. Though my first thought was Spider-Man rip off, before I realized that ants don't even have webs, so he wouldn't have any of spider-man's powers.

He can shrink himself enough to ride flying ants, and can command swarms of them using his helmet. Alternatively, he can grow to 40 storeys and smoosh people. He's sort of like Tony Stark except without the charisma or money. but with a more idealistic nature and a maudlin sense of humour.

Since he's not exactly a well-known or well-liked hero as far as I'm aware, and his characterization pretty inconsistent comic wise, Wright can get away with making Ant Man as zany and awesome as he wants.

[snoopy13a]

Why? :smallconfused: I guess it depends on what you consider "good movies" but I'd argue you can easily make a good movie (not all kinds of good movies, mind you) with a small budget and a small staff. You can make a great movie with one person if you know what you are doing but admittedly that takes quite a lot of talent.

You can but the chances of pulling it off are slim. I suppose Clerks would be exhibit A of this and The Blair Witch Project would be exhibit B (Blair Witch was also a mega-hit).

Of course, there are many quality indy movies which had larger budgets).

As for good major movies on a smallish budget, Silver Linings Playbook had a $21 million budget and grossed $132 million domestically and $104 million international. Argo, last year's Academy Award winner, had a $44.5 million budget and grossed $136 million domestically and $96.5 million international. Lincoln had a $66.5 million budget from which they hired Spielberg to direct, Day-Lewis to star, and John Williams to compose the music. Lincoln grossed $182 million domestically and $93 million international.

So, why not make more Oscar-bait dramas instead of risky blockbusters? SLP had DeNiro, Bradley Cooper, and Jennifer Lawrence while Argo had Ben Affleck and John Goodman. And Lincoln had the cream of the Hollywood crop in it. As long as you don't go heavy in the special effects and other expensive crap, you can assemble a production with A-list actors and an A-list directs for a $50 million production budget (or less).

So I guess my question is: where is all of this money going? Why did Disney have to spend $225 million on The Lone Ranger when Paramount spent $38 million in 2010 dollars to remake True Grit (and a better cast and crew: Matt Damon, The Dude, and the Coen Brothers vs. Johnny Depp, Gore Verbinski, and whomever that guy was who played the Lone Ranger). Oh, and True Grit earned $251 million worldwide while The Lone Ranger has earned $175 million to date.

Are special effects really that much? Or are the bloated budgets a kind of accounting trick in which studios shift money for tax reasons?

[Soras Teva Gee]

So I guess my question is: where is all of this money going? Why did Disney have to spend $225 million on The Lone Ranger when Paramount spent $38 million in 2010 dollars to remake True Grit (and a better cast and crew: Matt Damon, The Dude, and the Coen Brothers vs. Johnny Depp, Gore Verbinski, and whomever that guy was who played the Lone Ranger). Oh, and True Grit earned $251 million worldwide while The Lone Ranger has earned $175 million to date.

Are special effects really that much? Or are the bloated budgets a kind of accounting trick in which studios shift money for tax reasons?

Your question has lots of parts too it.

Simplest first. Lone Ranger was green-lit by the same (now fired) idiot that spent more on John Carter then it cost to make Avatar.

Where does the money go? Well in theory it shouldn't, but a budget will expand to what is provided. Things like letting the Na'vi climb out of the Uncanny Valley are demanding a high price... and getting it. They really probably shouldn't hence the problem however....

It keeps paying off.

Avatar cost 250 million but made 750 million at the box office and 2,700 million worldwide. Even at the ratios that determine final return it made something like 700+ million dollars profit. And while not quite as good there are other cases (you should know them) so it suddenly doesn't seem like that much of a gamble.

Why make a "safe" 100 million when you can make a "safe" 500+ million? Heck that 500 mil can pay off a failure with still plenty, and you might strike gold twice and make a billion.

...


That is the "logic" that has driven things to this point.

(Note its not like its not going to keep doing it either. Some of these films will clear several hundred million dollars. Just not all of them)

[Hopeless]

He can shrink himself enough to ride flying ants, and can command swarms of them using his helmet. Alternatively, he can grow to 40 storeys and smoosh people. He's sort of like Tony Stark except without the charisma or money. but with a more idealistic nature and a maudlin sense of humour.

Since he's not exactly a well-known or well-liked hero as far as I'm aware, and his characterization pretty inconsistent comic wise, Wright can get away with making Ant Man as zany and awesome as he wants.

Now if only they could tempt Nathan Fillion into this role and allow him to make it his own it might actually be worth wondering who could play the role of Janet Van Dyne aka the Wasp and maybe they can save Avengers 2 when Tony Stark messes about with a Pym design creating Ultron... (Now that would be an interesting way to explain that Tony screwed up even worse than Hank Pym!:smallbiggrin:)

Of course it doesn't necessarily have to be Hank Pym there was someone else who used his Ant Man identity, was it Adam Lang or something like that?

[Kitten Champion]

Now if only they could tempt Nathan Fillion into this role and allow him to make it his own it might actually be worth wondering who could play the role of Janet Van Dyne aka the Wasp and maybe they can save Avengers 2 when Tony Stark messes about with a Pym design creating Ultron... (Now that would be an interesting way to explain that Tony screwed up even worse than Hank Pym!:smallbiggrin:)

Of course it doesn't necessarily have to be Hank Pym there was someone else who used his Ant Man identity, was it Adam Lang or something like that?

Scott Lang.

I'd be fine with either of them, but they'll probably use Hank + Janet.

I've heard a couple of suggestions for Ant Man, Nathan Fillion is as good as any - but I expect Wright to pick a lovable loser-type, since that's pretty much his oeuvre.

[Chen]

I've heard a couple of suggestions for Ant Man, Nathan Fillion is as good as any - but I expect Wright to pick a lovable loser-type, since that's pretty much his oeuvre.

I think they NEED a big name in the role to get people to come see the movie. I'm sure, given the chance, you could make a pretty decent Ant Man movie. But getting people to go see it when the name and premise is pretty stupid is going to be tougher. A popular actor would definitely help here.

[t209]

Actually, I've never even heard the name Ant Man before. I now hope that he can summon giant ants, because that would be badass. Though my first thought was Spider-Man rip off, before I realized that ants don't even have webs, so he wouldn't have any of spider-man's powers.
I think you would be disappointed that he can only shrink down to the size of an ant. On the other hand, he can mind control ants too.
Edit: I think season have to do with the movies too. Summer= CGI Blockbusters (Then again my dad grew up with bollywood and action film, along with Commando comics in Burma + "It's just entertainment, enjoy it" mindset), Fall (or Autumn)= Oscar Bait.
All we need is female Super heroes film, Deadpool (not the stupid one from Wolverine), and some Silver Age heroes (Animal Man, Super Friends, or Legion of Super Heroes).

[thubby]

i would like to see deadpool as the satire movie once the superhero movies are on their way out.

[Logic]

Forget movies! 2015 is also when the New Horizons spacecraft finally makes it to Pluto, and the Dawn spaceprobe gets to the dwarf planet Ceres.

I am officially dubbing 2015 as the year of the dwarf planet.

[Karoht]

Forget movies! 2015 is also when the New Horizons spacecraft finally makes it to Pluto, and the Dawn spaceprobe gets to the dwarf planet Ceres.

I am officially dubbing 2015 as the year of the dwarf planet.
Seconded!
Lots of other cool things in 2015 I'm sure.