Interesting quote from Simon Pegg about Paramount

[Leo656]

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

You know I completely disagree with you.

Neither film adheres to the tenants of the central character, and birthright is not a propper defense.

Beyond that, both are very sloppy films, no matter how you slice it.
And now that Nolan fever has subsided, his disciples are slowly sobering up.

You can seriously drive a semi side-ways through the damn plot holes.

[ProactiveMan]

Some of the best movies ever made have plot holes. I've watched the Nolan Batman films quite a few times, and if they're a total mess, they're a really consistent and well orchestrated mess.

People rarely like or dislike movies objectively, so you'll have a hard time convincing someone that they don't really like a movie they really like.

[Foombamaroom]

Nolan tried to make a good movie, that's the thing. Bay and his producers? They're just in it for the cash cow.

[AlZarkovski]

Cameo April in "Captain America-3"?

Spoiler:

(sorry, please move to another topic)

[Shark_Blade]

Lol she does look like April.

[turtlefanforever]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Actually, it works that way in reverse with me for Batman Begins and Man of Steel. Those two get better. Seriously. It's the little stuff.

Rises pretty much falls apart, though, I'll admit that. That movie is nowhere near as fun without a packed theater of nerds on opening night. It's kind of a huge mess.

The dark night rises is hands down one of the worst films i've ever seen. Almost literally everyone left before the movie was over, but i was like i paid for this ***t i'm gonna watch the whole thing.

[beeshaw]

People seem to forget that the movie business is a BUSINESS first and formost. Of course they want to make a **** tonne of money. They will try to, and continue to, appeal to the broadest of audiences. And with a franchise such as this with lucritive merchandising and tie-ins, they will do what THEY feel will make them the most money. It's not about US. We will NEVER get the 50mil budgeted arthouse version of the Mirage comic unless it's a fan-made, fan bankrolled film. There's too much money out there for the studio to make otherwise. If anything you're better off wishing the PD movies make them their crap tonne of money so they drive them into the ground and then they can get to work eventual reboot. They know for a fact that quality doesn't equate $$.

Originally Posted by turtlefanforever

The dark night rises is hands down one of the worst films i've ever seen. Almost literally everyone left before the movie was over, but i was like i paid for this ***t i'm gonna watch the whole thing.

TDKR is one of the few movies I have no desire to re-watch. I wouldn't say it's the worst movie ever made, but it definitly gets by on some the merits of the preceeding flicks.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Too Star Trekky...

#1) That sentiment is exactly why I don't allow Abrams to earn one damn penny from me for what he's done to Star Trek.
#2) Because 2009 and "Into Darkness" were SO Star Trekky.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Considering that TMNT '14 like Into Darkness grossed under half a billion do you think that Paramount is looking quite deeply about what went "wrong" with TMNT?

Probably. Which they should, but not for that reason.

IMO, this is the problem with a lot of Hollywood thinking, which is the same kind of thinking that made a mess of BayTurtles in the first place - totally refusing to see that not every "blockbuster" movie is or should be the same, they don't all have the same audience, or even the same audience size necessarily. They're so busy trying to chase and emulate the current big success story that all of their properties are becoming more generic, getting their edges shaved off to fit neatly into some made-up template they think will make them the most possible money. That's why a Ninja Turtles movie ended up with copied plot elements from The Amazing Spider-Man and a generic Secret Evil Businessman for a villain, cribbed from any number of recent blockbusters. It had no identity and no soul because it was a carbon copy of the current blockbuster landscape.

If instead they owned the strengths of their properties and just tried to make the best movies possible, they'd be way more likely to make a real impression and get some "surprise" hits that get people talking and aren't forgotten about by the general public by the end of the year. That's how you build a brand that lasts. Guardians of the Galaxy did that. Mad Max: Fury Road is doing that. And people are going to remember those movies with love and reverence for decades to come.

[Bob]

I think your belief in thinking that there’s anything in common between the two scenarios is off, TBH. The first Star Trek (2009) was met with glowing reviews and audiences seemed to like it. Paramount had high hopes for the sequel for those very reasons. They had the same director, the same writers and the same stars. The fact that it didn’t make much more than the first film is quite strange, and I’m sure raised a lot of questions. Into Darkness should have made quite a bit more than it did, it’s as simple as that. The overseas takings should have jumped a lot further than they did, although ST has traditionally struggled overseas.

TMNT was different. It was pretty much trashed by critics from the get-go, although audiences seemed to like it. However, TMNT also had a smaller budget. I doubt very much that Paramount will increase the budget for TMNT 2, unlike what they did for Into Darkness, which cost about 50 million more than the first film. Do you think they’ll give the new director, who is completely unproven, a bigger budget than Jonathan Liebesman, who had much more under his belt? So their expectations for TMNT 2’s final gross are probably just a little over the first film, especially the overseas gross. Not by much, though. If it makes pretty much the same I think Paramount will see that as a job well done. Unlike with Into Darkness, I very much doubt they’re going to be expecting a great leap in the final gross.

[TigerClaw]

With TMNT 2 having Bebop and Rocksteady, and possibly Krang, Paramount seems to be throwing more money at it this time.

[TrickOrTreater]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

With TMNT 2 having Bebop and Rocksteady, and possibly Krang, Paramount seems to be throwing more money at it this time.

There's zero proof of that, until we see a confirmed budget.

Liebesman himself said that the reason why there weren't more Turtles stuff in the first movie was because it cost too much.

Even with a Ninja Turtles movie starring Megan Fox, Paramount still made a profit.

That proved to them that the mere promise of cg Turtles being in it was enough to get people into the theater, and it made them a profit.

The budget will be either exactly the same or a little bit more either way. And we'll get more of the same. Concentration on the cheaper to film human characters with occasional cameos from the more expensive to film cg characters.

[TigerClaw]

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

[beeshaw]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Like I said, They are throwing in more money so that they can have more CGI characters on screen, Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And with that, Maybe a 2 hour runtime.

ehhhhh.... probably not, atleast no more than they 'need' to. I'd love to be proven wrong once the facts roll in. Granted, some savings will come from them already having the tech worked out for the Turtles, but I wouldn't put too much stock into 'they're adding more characters which means bigger budget/longer runtime' until we see something that proves that.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Trick, but I'm coming around to thinking that the Turtles will probably have even less screen time than the last one. Kinda like the villians in Batman overshadowing the Bat himself.

[massakre]

smh gotta love studio execs.. all they know, all they see is $$$$

the Marvel Cinematic Universe is one of a kind.. its based off of several years of comic book storytelling that established a shared universe decades ago..not everyone can just go and pull that off..

you can't just go and combine ET with Back to the Future and Bill and Ted with Waynes World and just say.. oh yeah, we meant to tell you back in 89 that they're all part of a shared universe (dont get me wrong, that'd be kind of amazing) but still..

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

Cameo April in "Captain America-3"?

Spoiler:

https://i.imgur.com/9HCxZvL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CmkobwG.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/01iEEDs.jpg

(sorry, please move to another topic)

Oh, if only. She'd be an great April, especially with the "April is the main character" approach PD have done in the first movie.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Hence why we are getting Bebop, Rocksteady and Krang.

And then the money is probably also going into them, not the Turtles. Because not only are there the costs to adding them on screen, but there's all the costs of getting them created, etc beforehand.

Add in the Turtles, Splinter, and no doubt Shreddertron... If they thought last time it was too expensive to put the Turtles on screen more, then wtf do they think they're going to do this time.

If the Turtles get more screen time and the film is actually from their perspective it will be a cinematic miracle.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

it will be a cinematic miracle.

Me, watching this POS, will be a cinematic miracle.

[TrickOrTreater]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

And then the money is probably also going into them, not the Turtles. Because not only are there the costs to adding them on screen, but there's all the costs of getting them created, etc beforehand.

Add in the Turtles, Splinter, and no doubt Shreddertron... If they thought last time it was too expensive to put the Turtles on screen more, then wtf do they think they're going to do this time.

If the Turtles get more screen time and the film is actually from their perspective it will be a cinematic miracle.

It won't be.