Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really enjoyed it.

Planning to see if wallet allows it. Unfoutunately, closing down PC shop takes priority.

 Doctadeth wrote:
Saw it today, and I was like "OOOOH GLADOS AI". It was well received by the audience, and I'll probably be going to see it with my other mates etc.

Oh, and wait til after the "pre-credits".

Worst Scene ever. That character and whole story thread with the scientist was totaly dumb and a waste of movie.

I liked that thread. It provided some nice worldbuilding and a bit of comic relief.

 Frazzled wrote:
There won't be a sequel. This movie came in 3rd behind a low grade comedy. As a big budget film its a dissapointment. As a B movie it would have been awesome.

As is often the case when we're discussing popular films. I have to concur. It's very unlikely this movie is going to get beaten by Adam Sandler and get a sequel.

Which is a shame; because I thought it was a terrific movie. I think I'm going to go see it a second time at some point, perhaps in 3D. Normally I eschew 3D movies that weren't natively filmed as such, but in the case the fact I've already seen it should even out the negative effect the process has on fast motion sequences.

Best movie I've seen this year, I think.

It will probably do really well in the long run internationally, so the studios will still recognize that these ideas work and make them money, they just won't be flagships any time soon.

I have no doubt it will be a big success when you add in the tremendous overseas markets - China alone - but I don't think those numbers get you a franchise. Yet.

It is doing very well internationally, but I don't know if 'making your money back' (and maybe a bit more?) is enough to get us a sequel.

Sadly...

 Ouze wrote:
I have no doubt it will be a big success when you add in the tremendous overseas markets - China alone - but I don't think those numbers get you a franchise. Yet.

Yeah. They won't get big budget sequels. Maybe direct to dvd or animated or something, but no real films.

But what I'm saying is that the studios will still recognize it as a "success" in the sense that they will be more willing to greenlight things LIKE this in the future.

nkelsch wrote:
How about having swords which slice through the level 4 monsters with extreme ease, but never using them and getting into a 30 minute futile wrestling match instead which lead to the direct destruction of multiple robots and death of tens of thousands people.

Why would you need to beat a monster to death with a boat when a simple slice of the sword equipped into both arms of the robot could have done it in seconds? And why are all the robots not equipped with effective CCWs? I mean, the people 'train' to fight with weapons, and then get in the robots and fight like they are professional wrestlers.

And they were constantly 'throwing' the monsters... If robot punches and missiles and such barley hurt them, throwing them to the ground in a flashy wrestling move is going to do ZERO damage to the monster except maybe skin his knee.

Ha, yes - I forgot about the sword suddenly appearing. Good point. At least they remembered the sword was available during the undesea fight.

Re: effective CCWs - what about massive rocket-powered fists, arm-blades on the Australian model, the hand-blades of the Chinese model, and the "powered fist w/ grinder palms" of the Russian model? Seems like there were plenty in the movie I viewed. It also seemed like the monsters were quite proficient at grappling, being grown for the purpose, and possessing speed which would require grappling in turn from the Jaegers at least until an opening could be made.

nkelsch wrote:
When the robot punched a building to hit a desk toy on an office cubicle's desk, I wanted to walk out.

You mad, bro. Sorry you had a bad time....

 Alpharius wrote:
It is doing very well internationally, but I don't know if 'making your money back' (and maybe a bit more?) is enough to get us a sequel.

Sadly...

it cost $180mm per IMDB, plus marketing. It made $90mm including internationally. Technically thats a bomb vs. the investment.

It's a bit early to declare the film a flop isnt it? It's only been out 4 days. Chances are it will run in the Cinema for another 3-4 weeks and even then will still generate money in other ways.

Are all films expected to break even on their opening weekend?

 LuciusAR wrote:
Are all films expected to break even on their opening weekend?

Only the ones that expect to have 2 more sequels.

 LuciusAR wrote:
It's a bit early to declare the film a flop isnt it? It's only been out 4 days. Chances are it will run in the Cinema for another 3-4 weeks and even then will still generate money in other ways.

Are all films expected to break even on their opening weekend?

They almost need to these days given how quickly audiences move on to the next summer film. Man of Steel was one of the summer's biggest movies, and yet look at what happened to the box office after the opening weekend.

It's why it's hard to fairly compare box office receipts from the '70s and earlier with those of today. When Star Wars, Superman, Jaws, etc. were released, they didn't have a crush of other summer films to compete with, and films stayed in theaters for months. There also wasn't the "wait to see it on VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray" option back then.

Basically if a movie doesn't make it back in the first weekend, it can still be a "success" as far as the studio is concerned with longterm sales and DVD and foreign markets and stuff, but they won't be very excited to make sequels unless it's a big well known IP already.

Like, a star wars or a batman or something can bomb and still get a sequel. A new IP can't.

What RT said.

The problem with many of these blockbusters is not that they don't make money, but they don't make money vs. the gazillions spent on it (using Hollywood accounting, who knows how much was actually spent of course).

Saw the movie in 3D with my 12 year old son last night. He loved it. I thought it was great pop corn fare. I can see why the acting and dialogue were getting panned. While I like Ron Perlmen, that whole sub plot felt like filler. If they needed filler, some past battle featuring the Russian and Chinese Jaegers would of been nice.

Was it worth seeing in a theater.....yes. Is it a great movie? No, but it is an okay movie. It's just a shame for someone like Guillermo del Toro to neglect the dialogue and acting like he did when you know what he is capable of. I think the movie might have benefitted from an earlier or later summer opening. Also, going up againist Despicable Me 2 doesn't help.

Hmm... this thread needs more Mako Mori

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
It is doing very well internationally, but I don't know if 'making your money back' (and maybe a bit more?) is enough to get us a sequel.

Sadly...

it cost $180mm per IMDB, plus marketing. It made $90mm including internationally. Technically thats a bomb vs. the investment.

Wha...?!?

So, it is being pulled after one week and won't get a DVD release?

No they'll actually RELY on the DVD release to make up for it, but if you want money for a sequel, you have to have a better opening weekend.

It will get a dvd release, but thats not a winner vs. the sunk costs and marketing.

Hollywood seems to have forgotten that B Movies should have B movie budgets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
No they'll actually RELY on the DVD release to make up for it, but if you want money for a sequel, you have to have a better opening weekend.

This.

The films budget was just under 200 million US. I'm guessing that it'll probably break even at the end of its DVD release.

Now, it is worth noting, however, that hellboy 1 got a great sequel despite only making 1/3 of its budget in opening weekend, so it's not all lost.

IF there's a pacific rim sequel, it will have a lower budget than the first one, but it might still happen.

 LordofHats wrote:
The films budget was just under 200 million US. I'm guessing that it'll probably break even at the end of its DVD release.

You're forgetting the international market. I think it will easily break even globally during its theatrical release. It will be huge in Japan and will do ok in China. Heck, if they'd given Crimson Typhoon a decent fight scene, it would have made a profit in China alone.

It made $90 with the international market. The US market was craptacular for an A movie. I just don't think there is a major market for giant monster movies.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hollywood seems to have forgotten that B Movies should have B movie budgets.

Spielberg and Lucas changed that. The idea of high concept films they pioneered with Jaws and Star Wars basically established the idea that you can make a hell of a lot of money by taking a solid b-movie concept and making it really, really well. It's basically what Hollywood has been trying to do ever since then.

But I agree that Pacific Rim looks to be underperforming a fair bit. I think it follows the pattern of films targeted a little too much at the geek market - they get great internet buzz before hand and even excellent reviews, but the content just doesn't appeal to a broad enough market.

It kind of pains me to say, because I hate that films have to do it, but ultimately if you want to get a decent return on a budget around $200 million, you need big name stars on the poster to draw in the audience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flashman wrote:
You're forgetting the international market. I think it will easily break even globally during its theatrical release. It will be huge in Japan and will do ok in China. Heck, if they'd given Crimson Typhoon a decent fight scene, it would have made a profit in China alone.

The international market matters, and good results can turn a modest US performance in to a good overall return.

But simply breaking even is an overall money loser for a studio. Remember that not all of that box office flows to the studio. About a third of it stays with the cinema complex, and after opening weekend that portion increases.

And if the international market saves a movie, it isn't because of the Chinese market. China matters, but not enough that it can save a movie by itself. I mean sure, there's lots of people who go to see a movie, but they pay like 9 cents for a ticket.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There won't be a sequel. This movie came in 3rd behind a low grade comedy. As a big budget film its a dissapointment. As a B movie it would have been awesome.

As is often the case when we're discussing popular films. I have to concur. It's very unlikely this movie is going to get beaten by Adam Sandler and get a sequel.

Which is a shame; because I thought it was a terrific movie. I think I'm going to go see it a second time at some point, perhaps in 3D. Normally I eschew 3D movies that weren't natively filmed as such, but in the case the fact I've already seen it should even out the negative effect the process has on fast motion sequences.

Best movie I've seen this year, I think.

It didn't really get beaten by the Grownups 2, though. In fact, it made over double the box office money that the Grownups did, just not in America. Granted, Grownups 2 had a much lower budgert, it has only made about half it's budget back so far as well.

I'm hoping word of mouth and the international market carry this movie though.

I may go see it again, just in IMAX this time.

It's pointless to pick this movie apart. I mean, you can ruin the entire thing just by wondering why the monsters are attacking the only place with Jaegers remaining, and not the thousands of other undefended population centers along the Pacific coasts. But that's not the point.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It's pointless to pick this movie apart. I mean, you can ruin the entire thing just by wondering why the monsters are attacking the only place with Jaegers remaining, and not the thousands of other undefended population centers along the Pacific coasts.

The answer is obvious. We like seeing giant robots beat up monsters and they like seeing monsters beat up giant robots. It's all just mutual entertainment Both sides have sneakers to sell after all.

 Sasori wrote:
I'm hoping word of mouth and the international market carry this movie though.

Yeah, and that does happen from time to time. I mean, first weekend there was speculation that Avatar might be in trouble, because box office was high, but not high enough given the money spent on it. But then the box office numbers didn't just hold, they actually grew, and then held for a bizarrely long time. Word of mouth didn't just save that film, it turned it in to a monster hit.

But that was an exception, and like with everything, while it can happen, you don't want to be left hoping for the unlikely to happen. As a result, the rule of thumb is that when you see people saying that hopefully word of mouth or the international market will save the film, well there's trouble.