Movies Talk! Talkin' about movies!

[prfsnl_gmr]

I am! And, thanks for the recommendations. I am not that familiar with Indian cinema, and I need to delve into it a bit more. I absolutely loved Pyaasa, but I have t found much else that appeals to me.

On Forrest Gump...I understand why people like it. To me, however, it is a saccharine Baby Boomer nostalgia fest that adopts an irresponsible, almost nihilistic, perspective on human accomplishment and suffering. I’m not alone in how I feel about it. Even the book’s author hated the film, and he wrote a sequel almost as a counter argument. It’s also fun read John Waters trash the film, which he does at every opportunity.

Gladiator probably isn’t best picture material, but I can’t hate it. It’s a fun sandals-and-swords action movie with some really cool fight scenes. It winning best picture was kind of a throwback to the old days when they used to nominate genre films in that category. It’s victory was also equivalent to Atomic Blonde or Blade Runner 2049 winning best picture. I’m cool with that - I really liked those movies! - but each of them is kind of a weird choice.

[RCBH928]

I was shocked when I read on BoxOfficeMojo that Sonic film budget is $85M, I thought the the producers were making a cheapo movie for a quick buck, its even more expensive than Birds of Prey. They must be nuts, either the producers are 25 years too late for the height of popularity of this mascot or Sonic just became more popular than Mario with the kids and I don't know it.(Or BoxOfficeMojo numbers are unreliable)

[marurun]

I was shocked when I read on BoxOfficeMojo that Sonic film budget is $85M, I thought the the producers were making a cheapo movie for a quick buck, its even more expensive than Birds of Prey. They must be nuts, either the producers are 25 years too late for the height of popularity of this mascot or Sonic just became more popular than Mario with the kids and I don't know it.(Or BoxOfficeMojo numbers are unreliable)

Well, the Sonic movie just made $70 million in the US over the 3-day Presidents Day holiday weekend, according to Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's doing pretty well, and that hints that the $85 million may have been well-spent, especially given that the worldwide take has been $113 million. I mean, the movie is really more of a vehicle for Jim Carrey's return to film than for the namesake Hedgehog. So no, BoxOfficeMojo isn't nuts. Everyone is.

[stickem]

not sure if there is a return possible for jim carrey. He's pretty much went off the deep end lol.

[marurun]

not sure if there is a return possible for jim carrey. He's pretty much went off the deep end lol.

According to many reviews I've read, he's the main upside to the Sonic film, and is fun to watch doing his thing.

[RCBH928]

I was shocked when I read on BoxOfficeMojo that Sonic film budget is $85M, I thought the the producers were making a cheapo movie for a quick buck, its even more expensive than Birds of Prey. They must be nuts, either the producers are 25 years too late for the height of popularity of this mascot or Sonic just became more popular than Mario with the kids and I don't know it.(Or BoxOfficeMojo numbers are unreliable)

Well, the Sonic movie just made $70 million in the US over the 3-day Presidents Day holiday weekend, according to Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's doing pretty well, and that hints that the $85 million may have been well-spent, especially given that the worldwide take has been $113 million. I mean, the movie is really more of a vehicle for Jim Carrey's return to film than for the namesake Hedgehog. So no, BoxOfficeMojo isn't nuts. Everyone is.

I am not sure how they justified the $85M and how they knew it was going to make its money, would you invest $85M of your money in a Sonic movie?
Also, Jim Carrey as Dr. Robotnik is such bad casting, I will guess there are at least 10 other actors out there that fit the character better. I doubt there is a studio willing to pay $85M as a vehicle to return Carrey to films, why should they care, unless he is paying for it himself!

[marurun]

I was shocked when I read on BoxOfficeMojo that Sonic film budget is $85M, I thought the the producers were making a cheapo movie for a quick buck, its even more expensive than Birds of Prey. They must be nuts, either the producers are 25 years too late for the height of popularity of this mascot or Sonic just became more popular than Mario with the kids and I don't know it.(Or BoxOfficeMojo numbers are unreliable)

Well, the Sonic movie just made $70 million in the US over the 3-day Presidents Day holiday weekend, according to Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's doing pretty well, and that hints that the $85 million may have been well-spent, especially given that the worldwide take has been $113 million. I mean, the movie is really more of a vehicle for Jim Carrey's return to film than for the namesake Hedgehog. So no, BoxOfficeMojo isn't nuts. Everyone is.

I am not sure how they justified the $85M and how they knew it was going to make its money, would you invest $85M of your money in a Sonic movie?
Also, Jim Carrey as Dr. Robotnik is such bad casting, I will guess there are at least 10 other actors out there that fit the character better. I doubt there is a studio willing to pay $85M as a vehicle to return Carrey to films, why should they care, unless he is paying for it himself!

That's the thing. They're not being very true to video game or animated Sonic. They took the idea of Sonic and, as one review put it, basically made him The Flash. I suspect they invested $85 million in it because 1) Sonic is a known valuable property and 2) they managed to secure Jim Carrey, who tends to sell movies pretty well when he's allowed to play weird characters and chew the scenery. I mean, Jim Carrey WAS poor casting, IF you're sticking to the idea of Dr. Robotnik as Eggman, but the movie isn't, and the way they portray Dr. Robotnik looks like a pretty good fit for Carrey, actually. Reviews have pegged Carrey's performance as, well, what carries the film. And I suspect they didn't outlay a full $85 million right up front. I'm sure Carrey didn't come cheaply, but at the same time, I imagine the budget grew as they saw how the film was shaping up. By all accounts the movie is not some great work of cinema, but neither is it a disaster. Reviews are middling, but generally positive, and the movie has the kind of easy accessibility of a family film. It's probably super easy to ship overseas to boot. I imagine they were looking at the Chinese market when allocating the film's budget, and just got lucky that it did as well as it did here in the US.

[prfsnl_gmr]

This is right. Decisions related to the movie’s financing were calculated risks made by trained professionals. Sometimes those risks pay off (e.g., Sonic) and sometimes they don’t (e.g., Birds of Prey). We can speculate regarding those risks and the wisdom of those decisions, but I can assure you we don’t have even close to all of the information upon which a movie’s financiers based their decision-making.

[Ack]

You also have to consider that some of that budget was spent redoing the cgi on a finished film to appease angry fans. It probably wouldn't have cost so much had they not needed to return to post for such an overhaul.

That said, the horror drummed up interest, even if it was hate, because now we look at the redone Sonic and praise it.

[marurun]

I read somewhere that the CG retooling cost under 5 million...