Top 5 Films of Winter 2014

[YmoBeThere]

Hobbit has an outside chance to make $300 mil. Hunger Games is a near-mortal lock to make $400 mil.

-Jason

I recall part of this phrase being used last summer and noting this prognostication business being tough.

[BD80]

... Hunger Games is a near-mortal lock to make $400 mil.

-Jason

On Halloween, does mortality have any real relevance?

FWIW. I agree. I just can't help believing that something good must come out of Peter Jackson bringing The Hobbit to the screen. Evidence to date would indicate he's saving up for the third installment.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Went with HG3, Hobbit, Interstellar, and I'm counting on the kids to bring me home with Big Hero 6 and Penguins.
I could see Penguins and Night at Museum fighting for 5th/6th...and I can also see NaM having a less than amazing showing. (Still one that makes money, just not enough to be a player.)

[YmoBeThere]

In other Jennifer Lawrence news: 'American Hustle' Sparks $1 Million Libel Suit Filed by Former 'New Yorker' Writer

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/america...422631012.html

Okay, so she wasn't really involved, just repeated the line...

[brevity]

Bumping up the thread as a reminder that votes are due, for some reason, at 12:57pm Saturday.

One ring to rule them all, one movie to smoke the competition. Hobbit 3 takes first place and it won't even be close.

Rather than chime in with the others about The Hunger Games, I'll point out that some prognosticators believe that Interstellar will finish in second place, bumping Hobbit 3 to third.

I'm inclined to agree. It comes down to repeat business. People will go back to see Interstellar again; Hobbit 3 will get no returning fans because they're still stuck in the theater watching it the first time.

[Highlander]

Bumping up the thread as a reminder that votes are due, for some reason, at 12:57pm Saturday.



Rather than chime in with the others about The Hunger Games, I'll point out that some prognosticators believe that Interstellar will finish in second place, bumping Hobbit 3 to third.

I'm inclined to agree. It comes down to repeat business. People will go back to see Interstellar again; Hobbit 3 will get no returning fans because they're still stuck in the theater watching it the first time.

Interstellar - 169 minutes (2 hrs, 49 min)
Hobbit 3 - 187 minutes (3 hrs, 7 min)

I doubt those 18 minutes are going to make much difference in repeat business. Both of them are entirely too long.

[JasonEvans]

Interstellar - 169 minutes (2 hrs, 49 min)
Hobbit 3 - 187 minutes (3 hrs, 7 min)

I doubt those 18 minutes are going to make much difference in repeat business. Both of them are entirely too long.

Godfather - 200 minutes (3 hours, 20 min)

Don't judge them as being "entirely too long" until you have seen them and can comment on whether the quality of the film is worth the extra time.

-Jason "after an early run of huge buzz for Interstellar, I've started hearing some so-so things in recent days... I'll let you know after I see it on Monday" Evans

[brevity]

Interstellar - 169 minutes (2 hrs, 49 min)
Hobbit 3 - 187 minutes (3 hrs, 7 min)

I doubt those 18 minutes are going to make much difference in repeat business. Both of them are entirely too long.

Thanks for the stats, but my point was not literal. Also, I had no idea Interstellar was that long.

Don't judge them as being "entirely too long" until you have seen them and can comment on whether the quality of the film is worth the extra time.

Strong disagreement. Life is short.

And when it comes to Peter Jackson, quality has nothing to do with it. As I've said in a long-ago thread, I saw Fellowship of the Ring and could appreciate the artistry while hating the indulgent video game pace. I skipped the next 4 Tolkien adaptations and will skip this one too.

While obviously not a Peter Jackson completist, I feel I can make a qualified opinion. Before Fellowship, I saw and liked Dead-Alive, Heavenly Creatures, and The Frighteners -- though not enough to revisit them. After Fellowship, I tried King Kong and The Lovely Bones on DVD, and could not get through either. He doesn't know how to hold back, and his audiences just keep enabling him.

I speak out regularly because I can't possibly be alone on this. I'm not going to convert the Tolkien fans, or moviegoers who stubbornly finish what they started. But there must be so many people who get dragged to these things, or respond blindly to the event nature of them. They can be persuaded.

[YmoBeThere]

Strong disagreement. Life is short.

I speak out regularly because I can't possibly be alone on this. I'm not going to convert the Tolkien fans, or moviegoers who stubbornly finish what they started. But there must be so many people who get dragged to these things, or respond blindly to the event nature of them. They can be persuaded.

Ahhh, thus the screenname.

[davekay1971]

And when it comes to Peter Jackson, quality has nothing to do with it. As I've said in a long-ago thread, I saw Fellowship of the Ring and could appreciate the artistry while hating the indulgent video game pace. I skipped the next 4 Tolkien adaptations and will skip this one too.

I speak out regularly because I can't possibly be alone on this. I'm not going to convert the Tolkien fans, or moviegoers who stubbornly finish what they started. But there must be so many people who get dragged to these things, or respond blindly to the event nature of them. They can be persuaded.

Agreed.

I love LOTR (the books) and the movies had enough truly magical moments to make them well worth watching. Part of my indulgence of Jackson's LOTR adaptations is that I was, and remain, thrilled to see a story that I love given such an obviously heartfelt cinema treatment. Another reason I like them is that, when Jackson stuck to the spirit and moments of the best parts of Tolkien's story, the movies were lifted up to a truly special place. Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, Theoden and the Rohirrim's charge at Pelennor Fields, Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King, Shelob's Lair, and several other moments stuck close to the books and were represented beautifully onscreen. And, to the credit of Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh, adapting LOTR to screen was a daunting and difficult task (especially when, at every turn, the LOTR purists were threatening to explode at any hint that Bombadil might be left offscreen). Still, as the moves went on, we saw more of Legolas skateboarding down stairs, and swinging around olyphants, etcetera.

Jackson, unchained, is a problem.

Which brings us to the Hobbit movies. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, is very, very easy to adapt to the big screen. The book moves along in a straightforward way from one adventure to another, and could make a nice, tidy two hour movie if filmed from a script that adapted fairly directly from the book. Chris Columbus had the sense to do this with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, another kids' book that was written in a way to be easily adapted to the screen. If one wanted to put in the stuff from the LOTR appendices that tells us what else was happening in the world to tie in the events from the Hobbit to the larger War of the Ring story, then you could still get the job done in 2 tight movies. Unfortunately, Jackson is very much unchained at this point, and therefore we get an inferior storyteller (Jackson) freelancing off of a core provided by a superior storyteller (Tolkien). Hence, Tuariel and Kili's love story, and much, much more of the physics defying action sequences that began to appear in Return of the King and were all over the place in King Kong, Hobbit 1, and Hobbit 2.

(Spoilers after this only if you haven't read The Hobbit)

Hobbit still has had it's moments that hit a higher level, and it's no accident these are ones found in the book. Bilbo's confrontation with Gollum was the high point of the first movie, while the battle with the spiders and Bilbo's conversation with Smaug were wonderful scenes in the second movie. That gives me some hope that Smaug's attack on Laketown, and the climactic Battle of Five Armies (complete with Bilbo stealing the Arkenstone) will be done well in the third movie. However, as I did with the first two Hobbit movies, I'll wait to find out on DVD. Jackson's jumped the shark enough to deter me from seeing his movies in theater.

[77devil]

And when it comes to Peter Jackson, quality has nothing to do with it. As I've said in a long-ago thread, I saw Fellowship of the Ring and could appreciate the artistry while hating the indulgent video game pace. I skipped the next 4 Tolkien adaptations and will skip this one too.

I speak out regularly because I can't possibly be alone on this. I'm not going to convert the Tolkien fans, or moviegoers who stubbornly finish what they started. But there must be so many people who get dragged to these things, or respond blindly to the event nature of them. They can be persuaded.

You're not alone. I enjoyed the first 45 minutes of Fellowship but was convinced by the end to avoid the rest and so I have.

[Wander]

I might be the only person in the world to like the Hobbit movies better than Lord of the Rings. To explain why, think about the other movie series in the genre.

Luke's story purpose is to show the Hero's Journey. Harry's is to have a Coming of Age tale. Katniss' is to tell kids that war sucks. These overarching themes are what makes these movies something more than mindless action, and all those stories fulfill their goal to me. The equivalent goal of Lord of the Rings is to supposed to be how "regular people," i.e. Hobbits, can make a difference in big events... But Frodo sucks. His scenes are boring. He's sort of actively unlikeable. Sam has some nice moments, but I found myself being more interested in other scenes and battles that just looked really cool, which I don't think I'm supposed to. Without the Hobbit's storyline being interesting, the movies just become a bunch of cool battles and scenery - which is fine! - but prevents the series from having a bigger picture, and keeps them from aging well in my mind.

On the other hand, Bilbo is cool. He displays courage without being a boring invincible fighter like Aragorn or Legolas, actually shows real fear, and is clever. He fulfills the entire point of LoTR to me: he shows how a civilian can impact events in an interesting way. I don't really care how many movies the series is or whatever. I'd rather watch Bilbo trick trolls and Gollum for 3 movies than Frodo falling down and being emo for 3 movies.

TL, DR version: main character of Hobbit is way better than main character of LoTR

[BD80]

I might be the only person in the world to like the Hobbit movies better than Lord of the Rings. To explain why, think about the other movie series in the genre.

Luke's story purpose is to show the Hero's Journey. Harry's is to have a Coming of Age tale. Katniss' is to tell kids that war sucks. These overarching themes are what makes these movies something more than mindless action, and all those stories fulfill their goal to me. The equivalent goal of Lord of the Rings is to supposed to be how "regular people," i.e. Hobbits, can make a difference in big events... But Frodo sucks. His scenes are boring. He's sort of actively unlikeable. Sam has some nice moments, but I found myself being more interested in other scenes and battles that just looked really cool, which I don't think I'm supposed to. Without the Hobbit's storyline being interesting, the movies just become a bunch of cool battles and scenery - which is fine! - but prevents the series from having a bigger picture, and keeps them from aging well in my mind.

On the other hand, Bilbo is cool. He displays courage without being a boring invincible fighter like Aragorn or Legolas, actually shows real fear, and is clever. He fulfills the entire point of LoTR to me: he shows how a civilian can impact events in an interesting way. I don't really care how many movies the series is or whatever. I'd rather watch Bilbo trick trolls and Gollum for 3 movies than Frodo falling down and being emo for 3 movies.

TL, DR version: main character of Hobbit is way better than main character of LoTR

I agree with Randal's assessment of LOTR films in Clerks II:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...CBBAF5A1D0C756

(Note: language NSFW or for kids)

The 3 movies were just a bunch of hobbits walking to a volcano. Even the trees walked in the movies.

[davekay1971]

I might be the only person in the world to like the Hobbit movies better than Lord of the Rings. To explain why, think about the other movie series in the genre.

Luke's story purpose is to show the Hero's Journey. Harry's is to have a Coming of Age tale. Katniss' is to tell kids that war sucks. These overarching themes are what makes these movies something more than mindless action, and all those stories fulfill their goal to me. The equivalent goal of Lord of the Rings is to supposed to be how "regular people," i.e. Hobbits, can make a difference in big events... But Frodo sucks. His scenes are boring. He's sort of actively unlikeable. Sam has some nice moments, but I found myself being more interested in other scenes and battles that just looked really cool, which I don't think I'm supposed to. Without the Hobbit's storyline being interesting, the movies just become a bunch of cool battles and scenery - which is fine! - but prevents the series from having a bigger picture, and keeps them from aging well in my mind.

On the other hand, Bilbo is cool. He displays courage without being a boring invincible fighter like Aragorn or Legolas, actually shows real fear, and is clever. He fulfills the entire point of LoTR to me: he shows how a civilian can impact events in an interesting way. I don't really care how many movies the series is or whatever. I'd rather watch Bilbo trick trolls and Gollum for 3 movies than Frodo falling down and being emo for 3 movies.

TL, DR version: main character of Hobbit is way better than main character of LoTR

Excellent points of comparison of Frodo/Sam vs. Bilbo in the movies. What's striking is that, while I have to agree (for the most part) of your take on the movie characters, the same characters in the books were the exact opposite. While Martin Freeman's Bilbo, from a fairly early point in the first movie, shows a deep inner well of moxie and grit, Bilbo in the book takes about 2/3 of the story to get it together. In the book, up until the battle with the spiders, Bilbo basically whines and bumbles along, griping incessantly about the discomforts of travel on the road, and surviving the early dangers either by getting rescued, or by sheer luck. Only when he's alone against the spiders does he get some intestinal fortitude, and, his courage bouyed by that success, he's quite cool for the remainder of the story. While that hero arc was Tolkein's intent, Bilbo started off way too whiny and useless for my taste, and it was always a negative for me.

In the LOTR books, Frodo and Sam, on the other hand, come off much better than in the movie. Frodo starts out with an obvious reserve of quiet determination. His decision to intentionally draw danger away from the Shire comes in Chapter 2 (IIRC) of Book 1, and his decision to take the Ring to Mordor, by himself if he has to, comes midway through FOTR. Tolkien makes it quite clear that Frodo is perfectly aware of the risks he's taking in making those decisions, and that he's willing to die to protect the Shire. he's terrified, but determined to go forward anyway, which, IMHO, is the definition of courage. While his story, in The Two Towers and Return of the King does bog down with the long journey, he never becomes an unlikeable character. Instead he's a quiet hero, and the grind of the journey, and the toll it takes on him physically and spiritually, only makes him more of a hero. Tolkien wrote him as a prototypical brave young British officer, and he comes across that way. Sam, meanwhile, takes the true hero journey, starting in FOTR as nothing more than a loyal servant and comic relief, but growing through Two Towers and ROTK to become the true hero of the story, developing stores of courage and strength that ultimately save the quest. Sam's character arc mirrors Bilbo's, but he never displays the whiny quality that Bilbo does at the beginning, and he has to grow far stronger than Bilbo to survive the end and see the quest through. When Sam confronts and takes down Shelob, it's stunning, but it fits with his character by that point in the story. And when Frodo, exhausted beyond his capacity to endure, is ready to lay down and die, it's no suprise at all that Sam, literally, carries him the rest of the way.

One of the things I do favor about the Hobbit movies is Freeman's characterization of Bilbo - he makes Bilbo into a great character, right from the beginning, something Tolkien did not do. Jackson, Woods, and Astin didn't accomplish that for Frodo and Sam in the LOTR movies - in fact, they let both characters down to some extent.

[Udaman]

Those of you who picked Interstellar...are in some trouble. It made $48M this weekend including some money on Thursday. It's really long. It's not getting great reviews. I saw it and thought it was OK but too long with an awful ending and some scenes that were way too loud and drawn out. Plus it defied logic and physics at almost ever turn. This will be lucky to make 150M. That's not going to be enough I don't think.

[El_Diablo]

Those of you who picked Interstellar...are in some trouble. It made $48M this weekend including some money on Thursday. It's really long. It's not getting great reviews. I saw it and thought it was OK but too long with an awful ending and some scenes that were way too loud and drawn out. Plus it defied logic and physics at almost ever turn. This will be lucky to make 150M. That's not going to be enough I don't think.

I waited to the last minute to vote so that I could check out the advance reviews for Interstellar. I pegged it as my #4 film (after Hunger Games 3A, Hobbit 3, and Big Hero 6), and I still see it that way. I picked Museum 3 as my #5, but only because the other options were particularly bleak this winter. I have almost zero confidence in that final pick, however, and I would not be surprised if it falls short of $120 million. But I think $140 million might actually be enough for #5 this year, so I am not too worried about Interstellar.

[luburch]

Just saw Interstellar. Amazing.

[JasonEvans]

The 7 people who failed to pick Big Hero 6 are all toast. That film, which did $56 mil in its opening weekend and scored an A Cinemascore, is going to make close to $200 million when all is said and done.

As for Interstellar, it is actually performing not altogether differently than Inception did. Both got B+ Cinemascores and tgheir openings ($50 mil vs. $62 mil) are not hugely, hugely different. I think Interstellar is still a lock to earn at least $150 mil, and probably more like $175 mil. Don't forget, it is going to dominate the IMAX screens until Lord of the Rings 9 (or whatever) comes out. Whether that will be enough to make our top 5 probably depends upon whether a couple/few of Unbroken, Penguins, Museum, Exodus, or HB2 do much better than expected.

-Jason "I still feel good about my picks -- we need to see how much Interstellar drops in week two to know what it's fate will be" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

The 7 people who failed to pick Big Hero 6 are all toast.

I'm one of the lucky 7. Children related films are my downfall. May have to have some so I can do better in this poll.

[DUKIECB]

The 7 people who failed to pick Big Hero 6 are all toast. That film, which did $56 mil in its opening weekend and scored an A Cinemascore, is going to make close to $200 million when all is said and done.

As for Interstellar, it is actually performing not altogether differently than Inception did. Both got B+ Cinemascores and tgheir openings ($50 mil vs. $62 mil) are not hugely, hugely different. I think Interstellar is still a lock to earn at least $150 mil, and probably more like $175 mil. Don't forget, it is going to dominate the IMAX screens until Lord of the Rings 9 (or whatever) comes out. Whether that will be enough to make our top 5 probably depends upon whether a couple/few of Unbroken, Penguins, Museum, Exodus, or HB2 do much better than expected.

-Jason "I still feel good about my picks -- we need to see how much Interstellar drops in week two to know what it's fate will be" Evans

For anyone who has kiddos they definitely need to take them to see Big Hero 6. I thought it was on par with some of the earlier Pixar movies and along with the success of Frozen last year proves that Disney is no longer playing second fiddle to it's cousin Pixar. My 5 year old son absolutely loved it! I thought it was really good as well. It was funny, had a good story, had a lot of heart and most of all was just a good time at the movies. All weekend after seeing it my son couldn't stop talking about it and mimicking different parts of the movie. He's already begging to see it again so I don't think there is any doubt it will have some major staying power.