82 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Didn't 'The Simpsons' start in 89' and The Movie is near 2008 so...

[Righty007]

Didn't 'The Simpsons' start in 89' and The Movie is near 2008 so...

That comes out this summer.

[DamnCoffee]

as i said "Near"

[Loomis]

A mere typo, Gravmeister - I meant to write 1988, not 1998, as the release year of RAMBO III. And I freely admit to stretching the premise, as with sharpshooter's example of: "Die Hard was a 1988 film, but it is close to it with Live Free or Die Hard coming soon."

ROCKY BALBOA tanked in the States? Nope, it grossed (if memory serves) about $75 million on a miniscule budget. Can't be bothered to check the figures, but tank it most certainly did not, unless you define "to tank" as "to gross under $150 million".

Look at BASIC INSTINCT 2, which I suspect cost more than ROCKY BALBOA, yet managed a Stateside gross of a pitiful $1.5 million, or something in that region. That's tanking. By contrast, ROCKY BALBOA was a solid hit.

And the recent montage of clips from JOHN RAMBO has caused tremendous excitement on the internet, in case you hadn't noticed. It will probably not gross as much as, say, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (although it won't cost nearly as much, either), but the buzz for the return of John Rambo is much more positive than for the return of John McClane.

Like Bond, Stallone has become a critics' darling, and is also at the top of his game at the box office, or at least doing much, much better at the box office than has been the case for many, many years (if THUNDERBALL was 007's box office high, 1985 was Sly's THUNDERBALL, with RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II and ROCKY IV doing, in today's terms, SPIDER-MAN- or PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN-type business; he's not doing such spectacular business any more, of course, but he's nonetheless doing far better than in the days of DAYLIGHT, DRIVEN, GET CARTER and so on, and is in the middle of a remarkable comeback).

You don't like Stallone - fine. But it just flies in the face of reality to write:

And I don't think anyone is anymore interested in seeing Stallone play Rambo as they were seeing him play Rocky Balboa again. BALBOA tanked in the United States; Stallone is decrepit, box office poison.

[MR. BOND 93]

When TDK Trailer comes out... I think I will soil myself.

Word on the street is that it's gonna be with Harry Potter 5.

But I'm probably the only die-hard Batman fan on these boards...

[Loomis]

Secondly, I'm not sure that some of these franchises need to be revisited with the same actor 25 years onward.

I am. Because an ageing lead is the whole point. ROCKY BALBOA is a movie about ageing - that's why it's so much more than just another cookie cutter Rocky sequel. Similarly, the hero's age is the only interesting thing about INDIANA JONES 4. There are people griping that the photo released the other day of Ford in costume makes him look too old, but I don't think it makes him look old enough! JOHN RAMBO is about one last shot at redemption for an old man (albeit an old man in staggering physical condition).

All of these sequels are supposed to be final chapters that complete character arcs. It's not Moore in A VIEW TO A KILL, where an elderly lead was patently miscast (albeit very entertainingly so) as a character who was written more or less as a young man. It's because of the age thing, not in spite of it, that these movies are interesting and will (hopefully) work.

[kneelbeforezod]

For example, I have SEVERE misgivings about Indiana Jones 4 which probably means, based upon my track record, that it'll be a smash hit. LOL. Nonetheless, George Lucas is the one that held up this project for years because he didn't think the script was ready (even though Frank Darabont and Sir Steven Spielberg strongly disagreed). Because Lucas took it upon himself to rewrite the script, coupled with his completely eous and disastrous writing and directing of the Star Wars prequels, I'll take a wait and see attitude.

Although I agree entirely with you regarding Lucas's writing abilities, he has not re-written the script. The current script is by David Koepp. It is true that Spielberg loved Darabont's script, but Spielberg has always had an agreement with Lucas that if one of them wasn't happy, they would go back to the drawing board. Lucas has pretty much the same level of story input that he did in the other films. What makes me optimistic about this film is that now they have a script they are all happy with. I expect Indy 4 to show people what a real summer blockbuster is meant to feel like, because with millions flocking to garbage like Pirates 3, they've either never seen one, or they've forgotten.

There are/were so many other, more interesting actors capable of playing Indiana Jones that I see no reason to bring Ford out of the retirement home to play in this movie. Ford is not irreplacable, and I don't see Shia LeBouf as being capable enough to carry this franchise forward, if Paramount was even indeed thinking in those terms. Joel Gretsch would've been a far more suitable replacement for Ford (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0340408/).

Now this is an interesting point. When I hear you saying that Ford can be replaced, I feel like screaming "NOOOOOOOOO!". I've often wondered why I'm OK with changing Bond actors, but the very idea of another actor playing Indy is, to me, pure blasphemy. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bond is a literary invention, and every actor that played him was interpreting the character from the books. Whereas Indiana Jones was born on screen as Harrison Ford.

The idea that Ford is too old is easily brushed aside because he's playing him as an older character. And he's still fit enough to kick the of anyone in this forum. I also do not think the intention of this film was ever to "hand the torch to a new generation ie. Shia LaBeouf... this seems to be a fan created idea with no foundation. This film will simply be the last ever Indiana Jones film.

In short, I can't really give you an intellectual argument to back this up, but with every fibre of my being I know the following to be true: Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and he cannot be replaced.

[2000man]

I think the problem with Ford passing the torch is that it has been so long since there was an Indy film. They could have given us another actor in all the years between films, but they didn't. Now it is is just too etched in our minds that Ford is Indy. I am sure they will try to replace him some how if Indy 4 is a big hit. I cannot see it though, but I would love to be wrong as I think there are plenty of tales to be told there.

As for Star Trek, I am dreading the re-boot.

[Johnboy007]

As for Star Trek, I am dreading the re-boot.

As someone that does not want to see Star Trek again, or someone who doesn't want to see "continuity" ruined?

[DLibrasnow]

I also have a nostalgic soft spot for CS Lewis' stories.

So do I... just not for the films.

Well, the 2005 version sure was better than the BBC production. And I'm looking forward to seeing what Michael Apted can do with Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Agreed on all points. Glad to see they have started on the third one because PRINCE CASPIAN isn't the most cinematic or exciting of the books.

[Loomis]

ROCKY BALBOA tanked in the States? Nope, it grossed (if memory serves) about $75 million on a miniscule budget. Can't be bothered to check the figures, but tank it most certainly did not, unless you define "to tank" as "to gross under $150 million".

Well, domestically it was the best performance he's had since 1993's Cliffhanger, but that's not saying a whole lot. It could best be defined as a modest hit.

Nothing particularly modest about it - it grossed $70,269,899 in the States, on a budget of $24 million, and $155,386,939 worldwide. Now, it is true that other movies with non-extravagant budgets have done better: BORAT, for instance, cost $18 million and took $128,505,958 in America, $260,717,783 worldwide. (All info courtesy of Box Office Mojo, naturally.) But so what? It doesn't mean that ROCKY BALBOA is the loser you seem to want to paint it as. By any reasonable definition, it did well. Not spectacularly, I grant you, but well nonetheless.

And both (JOHN RAMBO and LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD) have had to bring in twentysomething co-stars in order to attract a younger audience.

JOHN RAMBO may have twentysomething co-stars, although I think they're actually thirtysomethings (and thirtysomethings with no particular following, unlike this Justin Long creature, who I gather has a youthful fanbase of sorts thanks to his "teen comedies" or whatever), but it isn't a buddy movie like LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. Stallone had to cast younger co-stars because there are several roles for mercenaries in the film, and you don't get too many elderly soldiers (apart from, erm, Rambo).

As I understand it, JOHN RAMBO has no stars whatsoever other than Stallone. The most famous person in the cast other than the Slymeister seems to be the guy who played Father Phil in THE SOPRANOS and Ryan Chappelle in 24. So much for a supposed attempt to grab the younger audience, then.

In fact, I'd argue that JOHN RAMBO is actually aimed at an older audience - nostalgic thirtysomethings like me who stumped up to see ROCKY BALBOA. If, as seems likely, they're going for an R rating, this will be one factor why it'll make less than LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (then again, it'll cost less, too). It's chasing a different market, although there'll obviously be a lot of people drawn to seeing McClane in action who'll also be drawn to seeing Rambo in action.

Stallone has hard become a critics darling, and Casino Royale got reviews that Stallone would never dream possible.

Remember all those Oscars for ROCKY? Best Picture? Even CASINO ROYALE couldn't manage that! Okay, it's true that CR got better reviews, on the whole, but the reviews for ROCKY BALBOA were also pretty darn glowing, by and large.

As far as his box office goes....it ain't been much. Here's Stallone's box office break down and it's kind of embarassing and paltry:

I'm sure it is. Look, I've conceded already that Stallone's career has been in the doldrums, and that despite his recent success he still hasn't recaptured his incredible '80s form. But, again, so what? I'm not trying to argue that he's still a box office giant, merely that he isn't "box office poison" either (he used to be, but it looks as though he's finally climbed out of that rut now), and that ROCKY BALBOA hasn't been the flop you make it out to be.

(I'm curious as to what Stallone will do after JOHN RAMBO. Will he capitalise on his recent Rocky and Rambo hits and try to revive his career as an A-list leading man action hero? Will he concentrate on awards-chasing "character" roles, a la COP LAND? Will he focus on directing? I think this last option is the most likely. I reckon he'll finally get to do his long-planned Poe biopic, and that JOHN RAMBO will be one of the last films he stars in, if not the last. An eventual appearance in a Tarantino film seems on the cards, though: Tarantino is a fan and considered him for the Bruce Willis role in PULP FICTION, the De Niro role in JACKIE BROWN and the Kurt Russell role in GRINDHOUSE.)

I don't know. Next you'll be claiming that American audiences have rejected Daniel Craig as Bond.

[JackWade]

I can't wait.

I'm equally excited for Bond 22 and The Dark Knight. I'm also pretty excited for Indiana Jones 4.

Should be a great year.

[Andrew]

But I'm probably the only die-hard Batman fan on these boards...

Nope; I'm one and so is Harmsway.

[stamper]

Lundgren stars in and direct low budget movies, which are quite good for what they are.

Actually, I think Bond 22 could use Lundgren in some baddie role, or even better, a good guy role. His really is under-estimated as an actor. His Punisher version was like 800% better than the 2004 version with the brother of Christophe Lambert and directed by Stevie Wonder.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Lundgren stars in and direct low budget movies, which are quite good for what they are.

Actually, I think Bond 22 could use Lundgren in some baddie role, or even better, a good guy role. His really is under-estimated as an actor. His Punisher version was like 800% better than the 2004 version with the brother of Christophe Lambert and directed by Stevie Wonder.

I liked Thomas Jane as the Punisher but I agree that Dolph's Punisher can confidently say I own you Laruso! to the aggressively mediocre 2004 version.

[Mr Twilight]

sliding one year ...Bourne Identity (1988 Richard Chamberlain) and Bourne Ultimatum (2007 Damon)...

[Righty007]

Looks like all four 2008 versions will be better than their 1989 counterpart.

[Felix Heavier]

But I'm probably the only die-hard Batman fan on these boards...

Nope; I'm one and so is Harmsway.

Me, too.

Also, with '89 rising again, here's hoping Hollywood fast-tracks a sequel to one of my favorite 1989 movies...

BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE!

[Glenn]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

[Righty007]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

I thought it was '88 or did it carry over into '89?

[Napoleon Solo]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

I thought it was '88 or did it carry over into '89?

The strike was in 1988. It affected projects released as late as 1989. Besides LTK, the strike delayed the debut of a new version of Columbo from fall 1988 to January 1989.

[LadySylvia]

I don't agree. I don't think that the strike really affected LTK's story. My problem with LTK was the fact that it wasn't really a spy story. It felt more like a crime melodrama about revenge. And I suspect that this particular story would have remained the same if there had not been a strike. But despite this, I still believe that LTK was a good, solid story.

Also, the movie went splat in the U.S. Even worse, not only did it have strong competition from other summer movies in 1989, it was released in late July. And from what I had learned, the publicity campaign for it - especially in the U.S. - was very ineffective.

[Daddy Bond]

2008 is the year to beat for big blockbuster movies. We have IRON MAN, INDIANA JONES IV, THE DARK KNIGHT, WATCHMEN, and BOND 22. I couldn't be happier.

I'm personally looking forward to Prince Caspian as well. (Not that it has anything to do with 1989.)

I know you wrote this several months ago, but, yes, I agree. Many said they did not like Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe - I thought it was fantastic.

[RivenWinner]

As everyone's already said, next year is going to be pretty awesome as far as blockbusters go.

I've waiting and keeping track of Indy IV for like over ten years, lol, and as a huge fan of the series, the character, the star, the filmakers, etc....I canot wait for May to come!

The Dark Knight will be awesome as well.

On the subject of "Rocky Balboa"---it in no way "tanked." "Rocky Balboa" was modest hit, especially when compared to its production cost. It was a good film, and brought that series full circle...as well as erasing bad memories of "Rocky V."


As for "Star Trek"---with every news bit that comes out everday, I like the project less and less. I agree that Trek needs some fresh air, but this is not the direction I feel that it should be taking.

[Glenn]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

I thought it was '88 or did it carry over into '89?

I just remember William Shatner blaming Star Trek V on the writers strike......and the low budget....and a lot of other things!

[JimmyBond]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

I thought it was '88 or did it carry over into '89?

I just remember William Shatner blaming Star Trek V on the writers strike......and the low budget....and a lot of other things!

For what it's worth, Shatner's right on the money when it comes to his complaints. He wanted Nick Meyer to write his film (writer of Star Trek II, part's of IV and VI. Due to the strike however Meyer could not be invovled. And yeah, the low budget (not to mention the hack they got to do the effects) really sunk the film visually.

[RazorBlade]

Don't forget that there was also a writers strike in 1989!

I thought it was '88 or did it carry over into '89?

I just remember William Shatner blaming Star Trek V on the writers strike......and the low budget....and a lot of other things!

For what it's worth, Shatner's right on the money when it comes to his complaints. He wanted Nick Meyer to write his film (writer of Star Trek II, part's of IV and VI. Due to the strike however Meyer could not be invovled. And yeah, the low budget (not to mention the hack they got to do the effects) really sunk the film visually.

Then why not complain that the studio didn't wait until they could get Nick Meyer and put some good effects in too?

[Napoleon Solo]

I don't agree. I don't think that the strike really affected LTK's story. My problem with LTK was the fact that it wasn't really a spy story. It felt more like a crime melodrama about revenge. And I suspect that this particular story would have remained the same if there had not been a strike. But despite this, I still believe that LTK was a good, solid story.

Also, the movie went splat in the U.S. Even worse, not only did it have strong competition from other summer movies in 1989, it was released in late July. And from what I had learned, the publicity campaign for it - especially in the U.S. - was very ineffective.

I think the strike did affect LTK, but more at the margins. I think if Maibaum had been available for the entire writing process the script might have been more polished. But we'll never really know. And it's debatable whether that would have really affected LTK's overall box-office performance.

[Forward Look]

I don't agree. I don't think that the strike really affected LTK's story. My problem with LTK was the fact that it wasn't really a spy story. It felt more like a crime melodrama about revenge. And I suspect that this particular story would have remained the same if there had not been a strike. But despite this, I still believe that LTK was a good, solid story.

Also, the movie went splat in the U.S. Even worse, not only did it have strong competition from other summer movies in 1989, it was released in late July. And from what I had learned, the publicity campaign for it - especially in the U.S. - was very ineffective.

I think the strike did affect LTK, but more at the margins. I think if Maibaum had been available for the entire writing process the script might have been more polished. But we'll never really know. And it's debatable whether that would have really affected LTK's overall box-office performance.

MGW seemed to do pretty well finishing Maibaum's LTK script. But Batman just blew everything else away, due to both the critics and Time-Warner's marketing efforts. Saw both repeatedly, loved Bond, still think that nobody does Batman better than Adam West. Sorry about that, Michael Keaton.

[LadySylvia]

Perhaps "STAR TREK V" was simply a badly written movie. Who knows? And since Shatner had directed the movie, it seemed only natural that he would refuse to accept any blame for the film's failure.