The total numbers for John Carter aren't that far off from Battleship...$282 million vs. $303 million. They both technically exceeded their production budgets.
Ah, but the marketing budget is where John Carter really shines. It reportedly had a fucking $150M marketing campaign (est. $50M for Battleship), putting Disney's total costs in the $400M range. Studio's typically take in ~60% of gross, so the fucking thing had to take in ~$670M to break even. All on the back of a no-name actor. I'm still convinced Disney needed and wanted a massive write-off. I feel bad for the guy, the studio knowingly trashed his career.
Possibly, but I think they were more interested in roping in the director, who was a Pixar golden boy. I read an article that said he had even told Disney up front he would probably make a lot of mistakes with his first live action film. The whole thing is kind of odd.
I saw Flight with Denzel. I spent the first 15 minutes as WTF is going on. The next 15 were great. Then 15 minutes of being a little bored. Then it started to pick up and turn into a pretty good movie.
I thought the plane crash scenes were very well done. I laughed my ass off at the part where they're getting Denzel ready for his deposition...by having him get drunk and snort coke. The movie had a few slow parts, but overall it was pretty good. Actually, I think it was the fact that Denzel was drunk and high during that plane crash that saved the flight. He stayed calm and did what he needed to do to maneuver the plane while everyone else was having a meltdown.
I had a similar debate. Some people I was watching it with thought he got what he deserved. In my mind, the only reason he didn't panic like his copilot was because he was intoxicated. At the end of he day, he saved a lot of lives and I would've been lenient with the guy. Taking away his pilots license and rehab would've been good enough. Spoiler alert!
recently watched Battleship too... they got the Hawaiian accents all wrong... like Michelle Rodriguez wrong. Embarrassing to even watch. I was also wondering how the heck he got into such a dignified position in the navy anyway 9endorsement from his g/fs father... who doesn't even like him?? I find that doubtful)... but I just took that as 'oh well just move the storry along...' I did like the way they actually incorporated the coordinate aiming battleship system lol at least that part made sense.
Kristen Stewart is awful. I really hope she vanishes into obscurity now that the whole Twilight thing is over. She's like a charisma vacuum that drains all of the life out of the movies she's in.
The only time I've seen her act is during the first 30 minutes of the first twilight, I was at a friends house and he rented it for some reason. I thought she wasn't a vampire, yet she was completely wooden and emotionless. To be fair thought it might not be her. The character was deliberately written to be an empty, emotionally devoid shell for little girls and old women to project themselves onto. It's a good idea but makes the series look like shit to anyone but the target audience.
True Romance It has some elements that you would think would make for a great movie, including a script written by Quentin Tarantino, and tons of good actors in supporting roles, including Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, James Gandolfini, and Samuel L Jackson. But the whole thing gets dragged down by Patricia Arquette and Christian Slater in the lead roles, both of whom are really bad actors, and a super cheesy soundtrack that plays obnoxiously over damn near every scene. Which is unfortunate, because in typical Tarantino fashion, a lot of the dialogue is amazingly good stuff. Overall, it's a decent movie that could have been amazing if Tarantino had also directed instead of just writing the script. @Armadeadn Kristen Stewart is just wooden and emotionless. She wasn't playing a role. That's just how she is. She was perfectly cast for that part, but she's worthless for anything else.