Men in Black: International - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Hellboy - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Mortal Engines - Review

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Never have I wanted to like a movie as badly as I wanted to like Mortal Engines. Movies like Kingdom of Heaven, Gods and Generals and the recent entry in the Wizarding World Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald comes to mind as movies I wanted to like but left the theater wishing they were better.   Mortal Engines is clearly further down that path. 

The first 25 minutes of the film is awe inspiring, it is as gripping as the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan.  I was sitting on the edge of my seat wanting more.  Than the movie fell off its tracks slogged along and as a viewer I felt like I was getting gut punched for the next hour and half.

Mortal Engines is an adaptation of the first in a series of Young Adult novels by Philip Reeve of the same name.  Set in a post apocalyptic world hundreds of years after a "Sixty Minute War" that decimated the world and inhabitants causing great geologic upheaval and other disasters.  The film focuses on the story of two young antagonists who attempt to expose a conspiracy in the great traction city of London.  Our two antagonists, Hester Shaw and Tom Natsworthy, are portrayed by two relativity unknown actors Hera Hilar and Robert Sheehan.  Other notable cast members include Hugo Weaving as the protagonist Thaddeus Valentine, Jihae as Anna Fang and Stephen Lang as Shrike, the undead warrior.

There will be discussion as to why this film fails, to which there are numerous culpable issues.
Produced and written by Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh with writing assistance from Phillipa Boyens the production company has a pretty spectacular resume, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay Oscars for Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and four other Oscar nominations over the years.  
Directed by Christian Rivers who is making his directorial debut after years of assisting Peter Jackson on almost everyone of his projects for three decades.   Many will question whether he was ready to be the primary voice behind the camera.
To me the biggest problem with this film was the script.  It was bad in every way that the Lord of the Rings was good.  We were given no time to appreciate our two antagonist and it turned a very good character actor, Hugo Weaving, into a boring, one trick, predictable villain.   There were no surprises and everything you expect to happen, happened. 

In the end a promising premise is left crushed in the dust by the massive weight of the bad script and poor direction/acting. 

One Star (only for the the first 25 minutes of the film) out of Five Stars.

Aquaman - Review

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Aquaman is a movie that's meant to be old fashion fun, and I understand why a segment of the people who see this movie will feel that way, I am not in that crowd however.   A wisecracking, fish out of water story, starring Jason Momoa in the title role of  Arthur Curry, the Aquaman.   Guided by Princess Mera, portrayed by Amber Heard, Arthur travels to the lost city of Atlantis to begin his journey to find the lost Trident of King Atlan in an attempt to unite the peoples of the seven Kingdoms to stop them from uniting to make war upon the surface.

It sounds like a great comic book story arc, its just not a good movie.  At two hours and twenty three minutes the film is too long for the story they are trying to tell and not long enough for the story they wanted to tell.  At least three times I was so bored and unimmersed in the film that I had to fight off the urge to look at my watch, and I wasn't the only one in the theater suffering from the same compulsion.  When you look around and people are looking at their phones attempt to gauge how much longer they need to watch the film, it is not a good sign.

I enjoyed the interactions between Arthur and Mera, the had good chemistry, but many of the characters were one trick wooden ponies and their acting is difficult to watch.  Willem Defoe as the Grand Vizier,Nuidis Vulko, counselor to King Orm (Patrick Wilson) was almost painful almost as if he was simply reading his lines for the first and only time.   Neither antagonist King Orm, who is Arthur Curry half-brother by his mother Queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidmen) nor Black Manta (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) are given the opportunity to truly appear as Aquaman "equal" or capable of defeating him.

As my son put walking out of the theater Aquaman is simply a bad retelling of the first Star Wars film, with Arthur Curry talking the place of both Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, Mera talking the place of Princess Leia and Vulko is Obiwan Kanobi.  Throw in King Orm's Elite Guards as Stormtroopers incapable of hitting any target with their blaster and I think it is a right assessment.  Except the story, acting and VX is no where near as good.

The VX looked half completed.  There are some spectacular shots, moving through the City of Atlantis is an example of beautiful work, but there are dozens of other VX shots that look half rendered, unbelievable.   The scenes depicting the violent sea were incredibly bad.   It is the same problem that has plagued many of the DC Extended Universe films.

I enjoyed the score and the soundtrack to the film.  The work of Rupert Gregson-Williams the score is a clear bright spot in the film.   Gregson-Williams also did the score Wonder Woman another DCEU film.   

In the final battle between Aquaman and King Orm, when King Orm was defeated, you could almost hear a pin drop in my theater, except for the one five year old who was clapping, I think everyone was supposed to be clapping or cheering when that happened, but no one was invested enough in the  film for that to actually happen.

I think there is a segment of people who will truly enjoy this film, even suggest that it is the rebirth of the DCEU into a better form, not that would take much after Batman v. Superman or Justice League.  As I said earlier I am not in that crowd.   I would have preferred that they either added the story to make this two films or shaved the story to make this a two hour film, both ideas would have been an improvement.   Even though I enjoyed the chemistry between Jason Momoa and Amber Heard as the protagonists, the poor script, wooden acting and seeming unfinished VX dragged this movie to the bottom.   

Avengers 4 - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,


Captain Marvel - Trailer 2

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,


Runaways - Season 2 Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,



Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - Review

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Spider-Man is a difficult character to bring to life in any show or film.    The ability of comic book artists, like Steve Ditko, to create a sense of uniqueness and motion on the still pages of the comic books brought Spider-Man to life.  Spider-Man's movements and super abilities do not easily translate from comic book panel to film, regardless of whether it is a Animated TV show or Live Action or somewhere in between.   Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is the first show or film that captures that essence and brings it to life.  The life like animation style of the Film which is clearly neither Live Action or Old School Animation grabs hold of the comic book roots and springs Spider-Man onto the Screen.   In many ways the animation of this film is the perfect medium for Spider-Man.





Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is the origin story of Miles Morales' incarnation of Spider-Man. does an exceptional job of opening that reality to even the most casual of fans. 

Without diving in to deep, Marvel has used the idea of Alternate Universe to tell similar stories with various twists.   In one Alternative Universe the radioactive Spider bites Gwen Stacy rather Peter Parker and Spider-Gwen is born rather than Spider-Man.   Miles Morales was created by Brian Michael Bendis and Sara Pichelli for the Ultimate Marvel Universe in 2011, which was an alternative to the main line Marvel Universe, known as 616.   Alternative Universes are a bit difficult and complicated for general fans of Comic Books to follow.
Through out Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse we are introduced to alternative versions of Spider-Man and one of the accomplishments of this film is they are all different and all Spider-Man (Gwen/Pig) at the same time in vary different ways.   These characters never become the focus of the film they always are the supporting cast.   This film is clearly about Miles journey to become Spider-Man.

One of the interesting aspects of this film is how funny the film is.  Each character is the funny in their own way, but none of the jokes feel forced or scripted, it just feels natural, and flowing.   At the same time the film is very serious and characters look upon their world with all the intensity of Oscar caliber dramas.   

The actors voices for each of the characters is well chosen and truly fits the part.    

The film is rated PG, but it is meant for an older audience.  That really caught me off guard.  It is an extremely interesting story with multiple story arcs running through out the film.   There is little profanity or vulgar language but the dialogue is actually quite high set, a ten year old may not understand every word uttered.    The film is long, I am not actually sure how long it is as Sony has yet to announce the actual run time and I didn't check my watch, but for mature audiences you will not even notice the length, the younger crowd might get a little rambunctious here and there.

During my screening which had a fairly diverse audience I was amazed at how immersed into the film everyone else was.   The lady next to me actually stopped chewing her gum halfway through the film.

The Stan Lee cameo was extremely touching and there were many a damp blurry eye in the theater when it occurred.

I found Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse to be the best Spider-Man film or show, released to date, including Spectacular Spider-Man which was my favorite.  

Sony's all in moment - Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,

Last week Sony Picture Entertainment announced two dates for unannounced films in their Marvel Universe of Sony Characters; July 10th 2020 and October 2nd, 2020.   Many movie pundits began speculating on which two films would be slotted in those dates; the most common answer to that question is Morbius the Living Vampire on July 10th and the Venom sequel on October 2nd.  Assuming those two films are the correct films we have the who, the what and when, but not the why.   That is really the question I think the pundits should be focusing on.

Last Month I speculated on the future Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters suggesting that while Sony preferred outcome would be to sell the IP back to Marvel for a billion dollars if not more I figured the most like result of this gamble would be for Sony to take back control of Spider-man pulling the character out of Marvel's Cinematic Universe and going it alone.  By publicly announcing these two release dates it clearly shows that Sony is going all in with it plans for the Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters.

In poker going all in means betting all of your remaining chips (money) on a single hand as a gambit either believing you have the best hand or that your opponent will not match your bet allowing you to win the chips already in the pot.

Sony is all in on this gambit and their are two possibilities.  Possibility One: Sony believes that after years of mismanagement at the top and a series of failed tent pole films they finally have a winning formula and want to capitalize on it.   Possibility Two: Sony wants to force Marvel (Disney) to pay the highest possible price it can achieve to purchase the rights to Spider-Man and the rest of the characters under Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters back.

Taking a step back lets look at Sony Picture Entertainment place in the world at the moment.   Sony is exploring the sale of SPE and rumor has it both Paramount Pictures (Viacom) and Amazon (Prime Video) were potential buyers.   Last week both of those potential suitors announced an agreement with one another giving certain rights streaming rights of Paramount projects to Amazon Prime.  Effectively shutting out either as a potential buyer of SPE. 
Who is left to by SPE?   Comcast/Universal and Warner Bros (AT&T)?  How about STX or Eurocorp or Legendary Pictures (Wanda)?
A little more than a year ago Sony valued SPE at $40 Billion USD.   Analysts have suggested that number is slightly inflated and the real value is about $30 Billion USD.   That is a pretty heft amount regardless of whether we go with the Analysts or Sony's valuation.   In essence it leaves Comcast/Universal, Warner Bros (AT&T), Legendary Pictures (Wanda), and Netflix in the running.  I would suspect that while all four might kick the tires none of them are currently interested in buying SPE in whole from Sony.    Comcast/Universal, Warner Bros. (AT&T) and Netflix are looking to expand their digital streaming services and Legendary Pictures (Wanda) just signed an release agreement with Warner Bros.   So it doesn't make sense to these organizations to purchase SPE in whole.

If Sony Pictures Entertainment cannot be sold as a whole; who is interested in their assets? 

  • Quick Pause:   I want to clarify a statement, I don't expect any one to be interested in the totality of SPE at the asking price that either the Analysts or Sony has set.   If Sony were to see SPE for $15 or $20 Billion USD there are several interested parties, but $40 Billion is to high a price.

SPE is made up of the Movie Production Company and the Television Production Company.   On the Movie side of the house they have Columbia Pictures, TriStar Productions, Sony Screen Gems, Sony Classics, Sony Pictures Animation, Imageworks and several other companies.   The TV side is far more convoluted with game shows from Merv Griffin, comedies from Jerry Seinfield, current shows like S.W.A.T. and Good Doctor

Starting on TV Side:
Merv Griffen Entertainment.   The Game Shows Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.     Worth $1 to $1.5 Billion USD.   Buyer - None.   Okay CBS (Viacom) might be interested, but they have to get their house in order first.

Sony TV Animation.   Um err ahhh No One.   Literally they do Hotel Transylvania the Animated Series which airs on Disney XD,

Sony TV:  Here is Sony's problem.   The catalog of older show (Seinfield, Stargate SG-1, The King of Queens, Fantasy Island, and hundreds more) is valued at $25 to $35 Billion (not that anyone would pay that) out of the 19 shows currently in production you might have heard of the Crown or S.W.A.T. but the rest are niche programs.   One analyst suggested the current programming isn't worth what they spend on it and the catalog of older shows is past its prime.
Netflix current formula is for new content doesn't have value for them, however the IP's that SPE owns is a potential gold mine for a stream service like Netflix.   I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Dennis the Menace, Fantasy Island, Code Red, Hardcastle and McCormick and the list goes on and on.   Netflix would be the logical buyer of this catalog and studio but at the $10 to $15 Billion USD range rather that the $25 to $35 Sony wants.

On the Movie Side:
I could spend paragraphs explaining how little SPE's movie side is worth but I will let Sony's on valuation speak for itself.  Above I mentioned that Sony set the value of the totality of SPE at $40 Billion USD, I than laid out that the TV side is valued between $25 and $35 Billion by Sony themselves.    Simple math ($40 B - $25/$35B) suggests that Sony put the value of Movie Studios and their Studios and IPs at a maximum of $15 B and bottom of $5 B USD.   For comparison purposes Disney just payed $71 B for FOX with a similar catalog of TV suggesting Fox Studios was worth ~$35 B.  See the problem?

This is where Sony's all in gambit with Spider-Man comes into play.   Sony's solution has to be either to separate themselves from Marvel Studios entirely or to sell to Marvel.   There is no middle ground in terms of how this gambit plays out.   You cannot go all in and expect to get half your chips back, you either lose everything or double your chips.

Regardless of Sony's desired end-game we know a critical stage is occurring in the near future.   You don't announce the dates if you are not attempting to put pressure on your one opponent, in this case Disney.  That indicates that either discussions on currently ongoing OR will occur in the very near future, as in before the end of the year, concerning Spider-Man IP Rights. 

By putting these dates on the Calendar it is clear that Sony is attempting to Maximize the value of the IP at least on paper  Which indicates that they want Marvel to buy the IP.   If you put the dates out AFTER you come to an agreement than Sony would be looking to retain the IP.  So the question is more about how much does Sony want for the IP?

Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, recently revealed that Disney was interested in getting back the rights to their IPs they don't fully control.   Well this desire goes beyond Marvel, it seemed to be directed at Universal and Sony for the Marvel Characters.

So it seems that we have a set of Dance Partners.

IF Sony wants to sell the Spider-Man IP back to Marvel what do they want? 
For SPE it isn't just about money, not that the money we are talking about is a bad thing, it is also about having IP's that you can continue to monetize and use to support your other projects.   Up through the release of Jumanji last winter Sony has been plagued by under performing IP's.   From roughly 2003 through 2017 most of SPE Franchise IP movie releases have been duds.  It is not that they all bombed, rather a vast majority of the films greatly underperformed at the Box Office.   For every successful film you had three or four that failed to break even at the box office. 
The real problem is Sony has a distinct lack of Franchise IPs under their control.   Sony currently has between 15 and 25 active franchise IPs in their control and another 50 in the fault.   Compare that to Warner Bros who has 30 active franchise IPs and 100's of franchise IP in the fault.   

When Disney completes the purchase of 20th Century Fox assets it will have even more active and inactive Franchise IPs under its control.   Some are pretty well known others not so well known.   But here is one I am going to throw out there: Flash Gordon, currently under Fox's control.

I totally believe that Sony's all in play is to force Marvel to pay a much higher price for the Movie Rights as well as include some other IPs.

I will leave you with one last thought: today SPE announced that the Harbringer IP from Valiant Comics is in full blown active development. 
Something isn't right here. 

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - Review

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


The second film in the J.K. Rowlings Fantastic Beasts saga, Fantastics Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, is one the audience will either accept as pretty okay film or a fairly lousy movie.   I do not expect there to be much in the way middle ground or either extreme of a great cinematic feature or terrible waste of time at the theater.   

I am not a hardcore Potterhead even though I have some tendencies that lean that way. This knowledge gives me a basic understanding of the story and what is going supposedly going on.   That is an unfair advantage over any one who may have only seen a few of the movies in the Harry Potter series.

The Bad

Editing

Many critics will focus in some specific issues that in their eyes hinder the film as a whole.  The key two these other critics talk about is that there are too many characters or too many sub-plots in the movie.  In my opinion both concerns are very valid.   They may be valid but they are not actually the problem rather they are symptoms of the problem. 

The film is 2 hours 14 minutes long.   It is another film that creeps up against that time barrier of 2 hours and 17 minutes.   I am told that in most cinemas at 2 hours and 18 minutes you lose a showing per screen over the course of the day.    The lack of connective tissue between the meat of the various subplots is clearly a result of Studio mandate that the film can only be so long.  During the editing process David Yates, J.K. Rowling and Mark Day (the Film's Editor) clearly left a number of connective tie ins of the various sub-plots on the cutting room floor rather than eliminate one or more sub-plots and story lines.   

It is the difference between X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: Apocalypse.   In the former Bryan Singer and John Ottman cut the Rouge sub-plot from the film and in the latter the cut the connective tissue.   From an audience stand point the former earned 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and 75 on Metacritic; the later 48% on Rottentomatoes and 52 on Metacritic. 
  • There are at least three scenes that we the viewers saw in the trailers and or previews that have been greatly reduced and or eliminated in the final cut of the film.   From my viewing of the trailers I am not talking about scenes that I would have viewed as inconsequential.    The actors have indicated that there are several more scenes that were cut but as an audience we haven't seen them.
  • In looking at each of the sub-plots and character story arcs presented through out the film I would say we get the important aspects or the meat of each story, what is not present is the connective arcs of each story.   The audience if left to wonder how each of the sub-plots and story arcs connect with the main story.  Why is this important and why are you showing me?
  • J.K. Rowling has incredible creative control over the Fantastic Beasts (and Harry Potter) films.  Through out the Harry Potter books she had detailed stories and connection for even the most trivial characters.  J.K. Rowling commented that are very lines throughout the series that are not connected to something either previously mentioned or to be mentioned in the future.   

Newt Scamander

The other real problem for me is the lead character Newt Scamander.   In the entirety of  J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World is there a more one dimensional card board cutout of a character than Newt Scamander?  

This is not a critique of Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of the character, but rather of the character in general.  Newt is, I guess, supposed to be Autistic or on the Spectrum with the inclusion of Asperger's Syndrome. Another term used is Nerurodivergent, which means your brain does not function in the same way as others.   The symptoms for Asperger's Syndrome include social ineptitude or anxiety and and obsession on singular topics.      That's Newt.

Unlike any other developed character in the Wizarding World Newt exists in only one spot on the Moral Compass.   Eleven year old Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermine Granger have more internal turmoil and dilemma each than Newt. 

Add in Newt's dislike of his brother and other acts that lack human compassion and Newt is a jerk, an very much unlikeable one.  An unlikeable character is hard too emotionally attach yourself to throughout the course of the film.  You have no reason to cheer for them when they succeed or feel bad when they fail.   It is just a character on the screen.
It is possible that J.K. Rowling wants to clearly delineate Newt's growth as a character over the course of the films, starting Newt at stage 0 on the Kholberg Scale of morale development, but at the end of the second movie I would suggest he has regressed rather than grown. 

The Good

The bad in this movie well ultimately be more remembered than the good and drag down its box office.  That is not to say there isn't good aspects tot this film.  In many ways this is an exceptional film from a technical aspect not an artistic one.

Cinematography

Philippe Rousselot, as the Director of Photography, does an exceptional job with this film.   I would contend if the film was better edited this film would have an outside chance of being nominated for an Oscar is Cinematography.    Philippe Rousselot has previously won the Oscar for Cinematrography in 1992 for a River Runs Through It, and has several other nominations for his work in Interview with a Vampire, Henry and June, and Hope and Glory.   While the transitions can be jarring and interrupt the flow of the film, as a whole this film is beautifully shot.   The angles, lighting, and choices of lenses are exceptional.

Special Effects

Having rewatched the entire Harry Potter saga and the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them over the two weeks it was interesting to watch the maturation of the special effects, VX, used throughout the 10 films.   The VX in Crimes of Gindelwald are substeacially better than even Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Film 6, let alone looking back at Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.   The effects are simply beautiful and believable. 

Score

Another beautifully scored film in the series. 

The Opening Sequence

I will not be the only person talking about the opening sequence to the film.   It is about 5 minutes of epic film making, the Cinematography, Score, Special Effects, Acting, Script, and immersion of the audience that film makers dream about.  

Direction

This film is not going to win an Oscar for director by any means, however the Direction of this film by David Yates is without argument his best work, hands down.   Much like the VX David Yates has clearly matured as he has mastered his craft working on the Harry Potter films.   From his debut in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix through Crimes of Grindelwald it is a clear improvement.  The transgressions of this film clearly are not his fault.   Yet I fear he will be the most likely victim of the "failure" of this movie.

Johnny Depp 

He is not the actor he once was but his presence in this film is a good thing.   His ability to assume the role of Gellert Grindelwald is so amazing as he brings the character to life.   Much in the same way he brought a pirate to life in Pirates of the Carribeean saga he does so here.   Viewers have a hard time taking their eyes off him while he is on screen.

Conclusion

I wanted to really like this film, it has so many positives and well done attributes.  From a technical standpoint this is one of the best films in years; by technical I am talking Cinematography, Directing, Score, Special Effects, Sound Effects...  Where this film fails is in Editing and Script.   I am not sure it is the lack of oversight on the part of Warner Brothers with J.K. Rowling or its a meddling by Warner Brothers at the end forcing J.K. Rowling to pair down the film (script) by 30 minutes, but either way it has horrible consequences.  This film is a mess, and for the those who are not as deep in to the Wizarding World as say even I am, this film is unwatchable.  
I really hope there is an extended edition of this film available on Blu-Ray as the extra thirty minutes of film could transform this film into something much better than what we got in the theater.  

Once Upon a Deadpool Movie - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,


Aquaman - Final Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Alita: Battle Angel - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


The Future of the Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters - Post Venom

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Venom's Box Office - Profit


Not going into too much detail about Venom's Box Office and Profit, for purposes of this post I am going to suggest that Venom concludes its Domestic run with a $200 M dollar total Box Office and internationally at $400 M.   Sony's take of that is $100 M Domestically and $100 Internationally.   For a film that cost in the neighborhood of $166 M including Promotional Expenses that is a profit of $44 M and possible a little more.   
  • Domestically Studio's tend to receive 40 to 60% of the Domestic Box office, with the amount dependent on a Studio's standing, past history, and the movie's most likely take at the box office.  The Theater/chain, and distributor take the rest.   Internationally studio's tend to take as little as 10% in some markets and as much as 40% in others with a number about 25% for all international markets being somewhat average.  
  • For a point of comparison Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle posted a profit of $275 M and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 around $50 M.

Sony's Leadership Team

Kenichiro Yoshida

Promoted to Chief Executive Officer in February 2018 Kenichiro Yoshida  is a soft-spoken leader with the skills of a politician known for making tough choices and preaching accountability.   He has stated that Sony is an Electronic Company first and foremost and that the other sectors (Music and Movies) must be profitable and provide benefit to the core company.   While he was the Chief Financial Officer he was one of the first executives to public post the earning statements of all the divisions of the corporation making preaching the importance of accountability of each division not only to the leadership team, but shareholders as well. 
His approach is very different than the previous CEO for Sony, Kazou Harai, who was as much a cheerleader and fan of the Entertainment Sectors of Sony  as he was CEO of Sony.  As an ardent supporter of the those sectors Kazou Harai was willing for them to be not as finically successful as other sectors of the Corporation..

Tom Rothman


He recently signed a three year extension, through 2021, to continue on as Chairman of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, overseeing all of Sony Film Studios and associated businesses.    A veteran studio executive who has previously oversee Twentieth Century Fox Studios before moving to Sony Pictures, Tom is regarded in the industry as an executive willing to to take chances on limited budgets.   He is also considered a micro-manager and has made changes to scripts, shooting plans, repainted sets, and personnel without consulting a films director and producers.   He has slashed tens of millions from film budgets the day before filming began.   

Super-Hero movie fans will recall that he is personally responsible for delaying the Deadpool film while at Fox.  Also while at Fox many fans point to his decisions and actions in making X-Men: Last Stand, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and Electra as primary reasons for those films shortcoming.

Amy Pascal

The former Chairperson of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, Amy Pascal stepped down after the disastrous Hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment group exposing the internal workings of SPE and her "dark side".      After stepping down Amy Pascal formed a new film studio, Pascal Pictures who signed a four year deal with Sony to develop Film and TV projects.    Pascal Studios is currently responsible for the Marvel IPs controlled by Sony including Spider-Man: Homecoming and Venom.

Agreement with Marvel Studios

Amy Pascal, while Chairperson of Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, signed an unprecedented deal with Marvel Studios allowing Peter Parker to appear in three Marvel Cinematic Movies as a crossover character and having Marvel Studios produce two standalone Peter Parker/Spider-man films while SPE would receive all Box Office Revenue from those two Spider-Man solo films.    Those five films are Captain America: Civil War, Spider-man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers 4 and Spider-man; Far from Home.   

Sony Universe of Marvel Characters
Sony has announced the are working on a shared Universe of the more than 900 Marvel Characters whose Live Action Film Rights they control.  Films in early stages of production in Morbious the Living Vampire, Kraven the Hunter, Silk, Black Cat, and Silver Sable.

Sony's Options

1) Renew the Agreement with Marvel Studios
2) End the Agreement with Marvel Studios
3) Sell the Rights to Marvel Studios
4) Expand the agreement putting the entire IP under Marvel Studios
5) Something else.

Commentary

Silk?

One of the More interesting movies on the list of movies in early stages of production is Silk.  Why
not a more well known female character from the "Spiderverse"  like Spider-Gwen (aka Spider-Woman), or Jessica Drew (aka Spider-Woman), or Mayday Parker (Spider-Girl)?
The first two are easy:
Spider-Gwen, Gwen Stacy is not a part of the primary, 616, story line.  The character is set in an alternative universe where Peter parker is killed and Gewn is bitten by the Spider.    Sony does not have the rights for a live action version of Spider-Gwen.
Jessica Drew is technically an Spider/Alien/Mutant depending on which of the four origin stories you want to go with.   In theory her rights are currently controlled by 20th Century Fox.   There is a potential that Marvel Studios also control the IP rights

Mayday Parker is a different story.  I have a theory but its only based on snippets of the Sony Hack.  The contract updated/signed in 2011 has a number of mandatory requirements for Peter Parker.   The contract spells out that he is a straight white student in either high-school or college.   May "Mayday" Parker is the daughter of Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker.   Hard to explain where she comes from if Peter cannot be old enough to be her parents in Sony's Contract with Marvel.   

There is another interesting tidbit, a Chinese American actress named Tiffany Espensen has portrayed Cindy Moon in both Spider-Man: Homecoming and Avengers: Infinity War.

Over 900 Marvel Characters


Sounds impressive, 900 Marvel Characters.   Sony's contract for Live Action Films includes many characters created for the main line Marvel Comic Book Universe, known as Universe 616.    

Most of these characters are secondary or tertiary characters.  This list of characters includes Peter Parker, Aunt May, Uncle Ben, and Peter's parents Mary and Richard Parker.  Mary Jane Watson, her parents Phillip and Madelaine Watson.   It also includes Peter and Mary Jane's daughter May "Mayday" Parker (aka Spider-Girl) and the thirty to forty supporting characters in her Story Arc.  It also includes Gwen Stacy, her two brothers Phillip and George, her parents George and Helen, her uncle Arthur.  Peter's thirty-five Classmates and thirteen named teachers and five staff members at Midtown High School.   Fifty some named employees of Oscorp.   The named Symbiotes; Venom, Carnage, Riot, Phage, Lasher, Scream amongst others.    It also include secret identities and their public identities separately; for example Green Goblin and Norman Osbourne, Harry Osbourne and Bart Hamilton and Phil Urich.   Lets not forget the Clones...


Is $50 Million in profit enough?

That is the multi-million dollar question in this whole situation.  If Sony's Venom made less than $10M in profit or more than $100M the answer to Sony's decision would be very easy.   It is what happens when the financial result falls right in the middle makes it a difficult question.

There is no clear answer.   If you look at CEO's of Sony Corporation and his stance that all sections of the Corporation must make a meaningful return on investment is sub 30% good enough.   Will Tom Rothman be willing to invest $175 on Silver and Black or Silk

The answers two those questions are not as complicated as they seem.   
I asked an Accounting Auditor for major Accounting firm what large Corporations and the answer was 30% to 38% pre-tax.  
Tom Rothman has a history of slashing film budgets, some in the days leading up to shooting the film.   Big Budgets diminish the return on investment.   I cannot see him okaying a production and promotional budget of $175 M for a film like Silver and Black or Silk.   Not even Kraven the Hunter or Morbious: The Living Vampire would get that level of financial commitment.   

To fit the mold I would expect - $50 M return on investment at 38% you are looking at only spending $120 M on film for Production and Promotion.   I spend time at the-numbers.com looking for current films (2016 and newer) and there are only a handful of movies in that range, The Predator, is a recent release - $88 Production Budget - $40 Million Promotional Budget - Loss of $35 Million at the moment.

What I think Sony should do

The best solution for all parties involved would be for Sony to sell their IP rights for live action films based upon the Spider-Man universe to Marvel Studios.   
It is a problem of price.  Marvel and the deep pockets of their owner Disney offered to by the rights back from Spider-Man back in the time frame of 2013 and 2015 with a rumored price tag of $500 to $750 M, the rumor suggests that Sony wanted $1 Billion with a capital B.    Marvel Studios said no and put SPE in an awkward situation.   They had a struggling franchise that with the right leadership could be profitable but after what seemed to be a failed reboot they we in no position to reboot, even a soft reboot, again and did not see light at the end of the tunnel with the current Amazing Spider-Man path.   
The $1 B is not all that bad of price for the Spider-Man IP, it might seem high to you and me, but with three Spider-Man Movies and three secondary movies and a big partner up film, $1 B is in the ball park of the potential profit Sony could make IF they handled the IP properly.  
The flip side of that coin is Marvel no longer needs the Spider-Man IP in the same way it did in 2013/2015 time frame.    With the Disney purchase of Fox about to go through Marvel Studios has a large number of different IP rights to work with, specifically on the villain side where Galactus, Doctor Doom, Kang the Conqueror and dozens of others getting added to the mix.

I just don't believe that Sony will accept the $350 to $500 M Marvel would be willing to offer.

What I think Sony will do

Right now, as hard as it might seem to us as audiences, Sony is kicking themselves for not making the Amazing Spider-Man 3.   Honestly!  With a budget conscious micro-manager like Tom Rothman as CEO I am sure the accountants and executives have suggested a film with a total budget of $225 would have made them MORE money than what they made with Spider-Man: Homecoming.   As strange as it seems thats not out of the question.  

Sony than would have an entire Spider-Man IP working for them, yes Peter Parker would have made appearances in Venom and would appear in the likes of Silver and Black.  That makes those films more valuable and potentially more profitable.   

With that in mind I expect to end the agreement with Marvel Studios and bring Peter Parker / Spider-Man back into their total control and expand the Sony Universe of Marvel Characters.   Just don't expect Tom Holland to reprise his role as Peter Parker/Spider-Man

Ant-Man and the Wasp - How it should have ended.

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Ant-Man and the Wasp - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Mortal Engines - Concept Art Work

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Venom - Tell me again when the Wheels fall off the Bus?

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,

Last week I predicted a pretty low opening for Venom, $52 Million open weekend and $135 Million total domestic take.   Simply put I was wrong.

Shortly before Solo: A Star Wars Story opened we heard from multiple sources that Advanced Sale tickets we setting records.  According to Fandango.com:

“Solo” had the second-best first day of presales of the year, behind only “Avengers: Infinity War.” “Infinity War” also doubled the numbers set by “Black Panther,” in addition to outpacing the last seven Marvel movies combined, including massive titles like “Thor: Ragnarok,” “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” and “Captain America: Civil War.” 
So when Atom.com suggested virtually the same story:
The movie’s [Venom] pre-ticket sales are outpacing recent Marvel Cinematic Universe hits such as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 , Spider-Man: Homecoming and Ant-Man and the Wasp. In fact, Venom sits third behind Avengers: Infinity War and Black Panther in terms of Marvel’s pre-sales numbers.
Let's just say I didn't buy it, already been burned by that, not going anywhere near that.

Here's the deal, Solo: A Star Wars Story opened at $84 Million, Venom opened at $80 Million and they supposedly were near neck and neck in terms of presale tickets.

I spoke with a local Movie Account guy (no that's not their real title) about the box office and I think he was as surprised as I was at how well the movie did.   What they are quick to point out though is the Movie did well box office ways in specific markets and not across the board.    In the First Tier of Chicago Suburbs multiple screenings of the movie were sold out, a couple hundred miles west on I-94 saw virtually empty screenings. 

The second take away from our talk is that Venom had either great pre-sales or awful walk-up sales, depending on how you want to spin it.  In terms of pre-sales Venom had very strong ticket sales in the five days leading up to its release.

I'll be interested in watching where Venom tracks.  With a poor critical review and cinemascore as well as poor audience review on several web-site (it has a good score on RottenTomatoes.com) it is expected the movie will have a pretty big fall in Box Office for its second weekend.   Superhero movies that follow that pattern drop between 65 and 69 percent; or $24 to $28 Million. 

My accounting friend has even suggested the film could drop 72% which would put the film just over $22 Million domestically in its second frame. 

Doctor Who - Honest Trailer - Classic

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Doctor Who - Honest Trailer - Modern

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Mortal Engines - NYCC Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Aquaman - Trailer - Extended

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Venom - It is simply not a good movie

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,

I tried to go into my screening of Venom with an open mind.  Early social media comments and reviews of the film suggested it wasn't a good but it had its moments.  A couple of reviewers I normally agree with have even suggested they liked the film.   My optimism didn't last long once the lights dimmed and the show started.  In the end I left the screening utterly disappointed.  

I liked Tom Hardy's portrayal of Eddie Brock, but I didn't like Eddie Brock as a character.   There were too many inconsistencies in Eddie Brock's "back story" that just didn't add up.  An example of these inconsistencies is demonstrated as new breed of a no holds barred investigative reporter who you'd expect to have a well followed web presence, instead Eddie Brock holds a job with the local media.      It could have been an interesting twist, but it failed to connect.

Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed are completely wasted in their roles as one dimension and cliché.  It is even questionable why they have a reason(s) to even be in some scenes in the film.   There is one scene were Anne Weyling (Michelle Williams) is simply just pushing buttons in the background.  I don't remember her saying anything, but I guess she might of had a line in that scene.

The editing and tone of this film is all over the place.  In first part of a scene the film is buddy comedy, along the lines of Dumb and Dumber, as Venom and Eddie interact.   The next portion of the scene the films tries to be Stanley Ipkiss from the Mask with its physical comedy.  The scene ends with Tom Hardy playing both Murtah and Riggs from Lethal Weapon.   It is jarring as well as disconcerting as these transitions occur without reason in the middle of scenes.      

I spent some time trying to decide what film Venom reminded me of.   There are some comparisons that others have quickly suggested, The Mummy (2018), Green Lantern (2011), Catwoman (2004) and The Mask (1994); but those don't quite hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.    To me the comparison is more along the lines of the Theatrical Release of Daredevil (2003).   
When Daredevil was released by Fox it was meant to launch a gritty Superhero Universe for a number of Marvel Characters.   The final version of the film was cut from 145 minutes in length to 103 minutes by Fox Executives.   The executives from Fox at the time said the material was extraneous and distracted from the films primary story arc. If you were to watch Daredevil on Disc or TV today you would most likely see the Director's Cut which was released in late 2004.  The additional material in the Director's Cut fills in the primary story arc with added detail that provides the audience a better path towards following the story, provides greater character development and improves the action sequences.     It can be argued that if Fox had released the Director's Cut instead of the Theatrical cut when the film was originally released Ben Affleck still might be playing Matt Murdock. 

Tom Hardy is on the record stating that 30 to 40 minutes of Venom was left on the cutting room floor and that added detail would improve the movie.
"Things that aren't in this movie. There are like 30 to 40 minutes worth of scenes that aren't in this movie... all of them. Mad puppeteering scenes, dark comedy scenes. You know what I mean? They just never made it in."


Venom - Did the wheels just fall off the bus?

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , , , , ,

As of this morning, Wednesday October 3rd, the score on rottentomatoes.com for Venom was 27%.  The first thought that came to mind, why so high?   Honestly that's what popped into my head.
I have heard from people inside the industry that Sony was anticipating the movie to make just under $60 Million Domestically on opening weekend with a total domestic take of $120 to $130 Million. Which until yesterday is below what the box office predictors were suggesting.   The individual I talked with this morning however is worried that with such a negative score, coupled with confirmation of several rumors, the movie will have a hard time attracting non-core audience members to the theater, and that the core audience will only see the film once.

I am not sure if my brain was tuned out but alarm bells should have been going off way back in July when Studio estimates appeared with $60 and $130 million.     

When you look at a movie box office two numbers are important, the Opening Weekend (which is where studios make the most of their money) and multiplier (a movies legs).    A domestic movie opening at $65 Million and ends with a total domestic take of $176 it has a multiplier of 2.7.   That is considered a good Multiplier, not great, but close.   A movie that opens at $65 million and ends at $181 has a multiplier of 2.8 is almost great as 3.0 is consider great.   
A domestic box office of $60 million and a total domestic take of $120 Million has a multiplier of 2 and would be considered abysmal or bad.   The first two movies are Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor both of which opened with roughly a $65 million opening and multiplier of 2.7 to 2.8.  
For Marvel Films, not just films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but all Marvel films on Punisher Warzone ($4 M / $8 M), Elektra ($12 / $24) and Fantastic Four (2015) ($25 / $56) have the kind of multiplier we are seeing predicted by Sony.     Most Marvel films are in the 2.6 to 2.8 range.

What's more of an issue is that this film is being release in a very non-competitive time slot (early October) where it should have little competition for viewers over the next three weekends.  I was asleep at the wheel.

The other challenge for Venom is it's score on rottentomatoes.com, metacrtic, and other aggregate score web-sites.       On rottentomatos.com this morning it has a score of 27%, which means that only 27% of the reviewers scored the movie as a C+ (2.5 out 5 stars) or better.   Metacritic score, currently at 35, is a measure of how well the film scored with critics.   Scores of 81 or better are considered great, 61 to 80 are considered favorable, 41 to 60 mixed, and 20 to 40 unfavorable and below 20 just plan bad.   The people I talked to suggested that Sony was expecting a rottentomates.com score in the neighborhood of 55 to 60 and metacritic score in the 50 to 60 range.   Neither score is looking like it is possible today.

Where do studios get their estimates, test screenings.   You show the film to 300 random viewers and gauge their results.   In recent years Movie Studio test screening scores and Critical Reviews have become more aligned or in tune to one another.  Occasionally a movie with high test scores will get poor critical responses, The Mummy, and even more rarely a movie that does poorly with the test audience, School of Rock, will get a solid or good critical reception.   In general these scores now-a-days are fairly well aligned.  Venom scored in the mixed to positive range with test audiences and is now getting lower scores from critics.

During the spring of 2017 executives Universal Studios were cautiously optimistic about The Mummy, a reboot starring Tom Cruise the hoped to launch their Dark Universe.    The movie had done fairly well at test screenings they had an expectation of $50 to $60 million in the opening frame and multiplier of 2.7.     The movie had "momentum" in early May 2017 before a the first box-office web-site lowered their estimate based upon the negative reception of the final trailer.   The movies momentum and hype crashed and the movie project was only projected to take $39 Million in the final estimates, before taking a actual of of only $31 M.

This year the momentum for Venom has been building, even last week movie box-office predictors were seeing high social media numbers and excitement for the film before the breaks were applied right before the launch.  So Venom is not following the exact same path as The Mummy; its path is more aligned with The Amazing Spider-Man, another Sony Marvel film, where the wheels fell off basically as the movie launched.   It was projected to be in the $75 to $85 million range for its opening weekend and slid in at just $62 Million a 20% drop.

If Venom plays out like The Amazing Spider-Man in terms of box office it should see a 20% drop from the box office predictions of last week, or $52 million.   And if continues to score in its current range the legs of 2.5 it should have a final domestic take of $135.

While those final numbers are in line with Studio Estimates they are clearly not as high as some prognosticators have suggested.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,


X-Men: Dark Phoenix - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Fantastic Beasts - Crimes of Grindelwald

Posted by Jeff Labels: , , ,


Han Solo - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Captain Marvel - Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Deadpool 2 - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Avengers: Infinity War - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Mortal Engines - A Closer Look

Posted by Jeff Labels: ,


Black Panther - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff


Ant Man and the Wasp - Trailer #2

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Deadpool 2 - Final Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Honest Trailers - Star Wars the Last Jedi

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Thor: Ragnarok - Honest Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Marvel Studios - The First 10 years

Posted by Jeff Labels:



1 Robert Downey Jr. | 2 Kevin Fiege | 3 Sean Gunn | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Jeremy Renner | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Angela Bassett | 12 Jon Favreau | 13 Chris Hemsworth | 14 | 15 Chris Evans | 16 Stan Lee | 17 Scarlett Johansson | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Karen Gillan | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 Don Cheadle | 32 Tom Holland | 33 James Gunn | 34 Dave Bautista | 35 Michael Peña | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 Chris Pratt | 40 Chadwick Boseman | 41 Benedict Wong | 42 | 43 Josh Whedon | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 Laurence Fishburne | 48 Hannah John-Kamen | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 Anthony Mackie | 53 | 54 | 55 Michael Douglas | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 Benedict Wong | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 Michael Rooker | 70 Vin Diesel | 71 Cobie Smulders | 72 Samuel L. Jackson | 73 | 74 Jeff Goldblum | 75 | 76 | 77

Source E Online  

Okay I might need some help identifying everyone.  Let me know what who I have't identified and who is misidentified.   

Venom - Teaser Trailer

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Meet Cable

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,


Ant Man and the Wasp - Trailer #1

Posted by Jeff Labels: , ,