craziest part is the concept always goes to "outgrowing" the imaginary friend when the entire fun is the adventures you go on with them. Now it's always "you have to let them go and what happens to them after that" or "are they real and can other people see them?" ala the Happy the Unicorn one.
I liked that moment in Drop Dead Fred where it was hinted at that Imaginary Friends are the only ones who can see other imaginary friends but to their own friend they look crazy talking to absolutely nobody.
They did the issue is it feels so forgettable like you're watching a commercial for Insurance or something. It has all the impact of a Liberty Mutual or Experien ad. It doesn't help that Reynolds did corsspromotion with his cheapo phone service.
Is this actually NEW or is this one of the cases where you do something routine and sarcastic and hope the audience is to Luddite to realize that your sarcastic and new thing is and has been old hat for quite some time.
I've never seen a trailer, so I'm just going to predict the plot >something about imaginary friends being real, but can only be seen by children and this one parent because the imaginary friends need the parent's help or something
How close am I to this exciting and original idea?
Box office for If was revised to $35 million on good word of mouth, so it opened within reasonable range of estimates. It's also a much better opening than Wish.
Second week legs will tell us if it's a success.
If I had a nickel for every time an animated film about imaginary friends who don't want to be forgotten is a flop at the box office, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
Out of all of those names, Nic Cage is the only one who has actually played a wide variety of characters. It's only in recent years that he's been typecast a lot because of his meme status. The rest are just simply not actors, which means any movie they get put in is just a vanity project or some studio contract frickery.
>2019 >"Ryan Reynolds will lead a crack team of 'good' imaginary friends' to save the world from 'evil imaginary friends' >2024 >"We need to place imaginary friends with their adults and maybe kids that outgrew them."
I like to think during the pandemic Krasinsk caught up with Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends with his kids, went "oh frick wait" and then just went line by line with lawyers to see if they owed anything to Cartoon Network.
This. The reality is that no child ever wanted to have a bunch of keys jangled in their face alongside a cutesy story. Kids actually care about things like plot and characters, you can't just pay a lot of money for dreck and expect it to make money just because it is "a family film". If kids don't like what they see, they won't ask their parents to take it to it.
maybe they should have made a more marketable main character than a hairy grimace.
Something with a nose at least would be infinitely more sexually appealing.
It's just not an appealing film. It's certainly not the kind of huge hype machine that can actually get people to go to the theater.
Deadpool and Wolverine will do well because people will be willing to go to the the theater to see that, but why would people do that for IF when they know it'll be on streaming in a month or two?
If you look at the numbers in your own image this is barely a fail. If all their fails were this bad they would probably be making money because it would be easy for the successes to cover the price of the fails.
You some kind of moron, boy? Studios don't get back 100% of the box office and this cost 110mil without marketing. Even being generous and saying it just needs to double the budget looks like an unreachable target now
It takes some Avatar-level shit to get people into theaters. It's not the cultural cornerstone it once was. You don't make out with a girl to a bad movie in a theater anymore, you get your dick sucked while something is streaming. >Genie's out of the bottle, it's a streaming world
It costs between $15 and $20 to see a movie in my city. The cost has pushed me and I'm sure others to only see stuff we really want to go see, anything I'm even a little bit skeptical of enjoying I wait until I can "stream" (pirate). Back in the day when it could take 6+ months for movies to get a physical or digital release and it cost $7-$10 to see a movie (and I was only making 20% less than I am now) I was more willing to 'risk' seeing something that might just be "ok".
>new
Even ignoring the obvious parallels to Foster's, the whole setup, tone, humor, presentation, etc all feel formulaic, safe, and boring. It's a movie you feel like you've already seen before you've ever seen it. General audiences have zero interest, even if you have Ryan Reynolds phone in another generic Ryan Reynolds performance and put him on all the promotional material.
>It's a movie you feel like you've already seen before you've ever seen it. General audiences have zero interest
This
You need to put something like the latest Coppola schizokino for audiences to go to the movies
Studios need to rethink their strategy after opening the pandora's box of theater movies at-home on streaming services, and releasing subpar shit that would be originally be streaming exclusive in theaters is not the way to do it. Honestly the theater model needs to be revamped, I refuse to go anymore after having to wait in concessions for tickets, be next to some teens making out while sick, have some rattling A/C unit or faulty projector ruin the movie, etc. Instead of flailing to make a dying business work try something different.
With some movies, you can just tell right away that they have no sauce. IF is one of them. Money laundering schemes that aren't actually made for human consumption.
They destroyed all good will people had on Hollywood
If this was made by Japan it would have costed half as much, looked twice as good and it would have already made most of the money back
>new
no one tell him
craziest part is the concept always goes to "outgrowing" the imaginary friend when the entire fun is the adventures you go on with them. Now it's always "you have to let them go and what happens to them after that" or "are they real and can other people see them?" ala the Happy the Unicorn one.
I liked that moment in Drop Dead Fred where it was hinted at that Imaginary Friends are the only ones who can see other imaginary friends but to their own friend they look crazy talking to absolutely nobody.
Movies just aren't exciting anymore.
I don't think they marketed this at all
I kept seeing commercials, snacks, and icee flavors advertising it.
>I kept seeing commercials
The frick?
Why/how?
They did the issue is it feels so forgettable like you're watching a commercial for Insurance or something. It has all the impact of a Liberty Mutual or Experien ad. It doesn't help that Reynolds did corsspromotion with his cheapo phone service.
Is this actually NEW or is this one of the cases where you do something routine and sarcastic and hope the audience is to Luddite to realize that your sarcastic and new thing is and has been old hat for quite some time.
Are you Krasinski, OP? What are you trying to guilt is into going to watch this?
Also "new" is really stretching it.
I've never seen a trailer, so I'm just going to predict the plot
>something about imaginary friends being real, but can only be seen by children and this one parent because the imaginary friends need the parent's help or something
How close am I to this exciting and original idea?
I saw one trailer and I think that is at least the majority of it.
CHEATER we don't know whether or not you looked at tbe synopsis!
Well, I didn't. I just saw the poster and that it had a bunch of random monsters.
you ever watch Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends?
its Fosters
deserved for the moronic name a la Disney
maybe it was bad
It was dull. Too sentimental and not enough of the imaginary friends.
but this is just foster’s home without the mccracken SOVL
Is this so'vl'el'llel~ enough for you?
Box office for If was revised to $35 million on good word of mouth, so it opened within reasonable range of estimates. It's also a much better opening than Wish.
Second week legs will tell us if it's a success.
lol frick off anon. With a 110mil budget it needs at least 275 to break even. This shit isn't going to make 5x it's opening. Nobody cares about it
>new
A TV show was made with the same premise 20 years ago. Main friend's name is also Bloo/Blue
If I had a nickel for every time an animated film about imaginary friends who don't want to be forgotten is a flop at the box office, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
That was almost the plot of inside out too
I was interested in seeing this but John Krasinski gives me massive fake nice guy vibes like the Rock did.
>John Krasinski gives me massive fake nice guy vibes like the Rock did
good call, anon.
>but John Krasinski gives me massive fake nice guy vibes
Same. So does Ryan Reynolds
How dare you?
He does. I don't know why people like him. He's a shit actor with no range
He's been playing the same character, himself, in every movie for his entire career.
Same as Nicholas Cage, Awkafina, The Rock, etc.
Out of all of those names, Nic Cage is the only one who has actually played a wide variety of characters. It's only in recent years that he's been typecast a lot because of his meme status. The rest are just simply not actors, which means any movie they get put in is just a vanity project or some studio contract frickery.
Yeah and the Rock sucks shit.
>2019
>"Ryan Reynolds will lead a crack team of 'good' imaginary friends' to save the world from 'evil imaginary friends'
>2024
>"We need to place imaginary friends with their adults and maybe kids that outgrew them."
I like to think during the pandemic Krasinsk caught up with Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends with his kids, went "oh frick wait" and then just went line by line with lawyers to see if they owed anything to Cartoon Network.
It is not a good movie.
Kids don't watch shit like this anymore.
This. The reality is that no child ever wanted to have a bunch of keys jangled in their face alongside a cutesy story. Kids actually care about things like plot and characters, you can't just pay a lot of money for dreck and expect it to make money just because it is "a family film". If kids don't like what they see, they won't ask their parents to take it to it.
If your movie isn't a big budget production with a big name director attached to it then people won't to to watch it.
maybe they should have made a more marketable main character than a hairy grimace.
Something with a nose at least would be infinitely more sexually appealing.
don't care
post blossom
frick off bugfricker
frick you
post blossom
I'll post a pic of my dick if you behave
frick you
i wanna stick it in blossom's blossom and lay a bunch of eggs
post blossom
Boringgay
You only have one peni?
Let me see it
Ignoring for a moment the obvious
>new
It's just not an appealing film. It's certainly not the kind of huge hype machine that can actually get people to go to the theater.
Deadpool and Wolverine will do well because people will be willing to go to the the theater to see that, but why would people do that for IF when they know it'll be on streaming in a month or two?
Looks like something AI generated you would see on Chinese website.
Movie poster sucks and name sucks.
The whole point of having a poster or cover is to make people want to watch or read it.
This does neither.
>poster sucks
>name sucks
But the consultants said this was the way to go! They can't just make a film that's actually unique, that would be crazy.
If you look at the numbers in your own image this is barely a fail. If all their fails were this bad they would probably be making money because it would be easy for the successes to cover the price of the fails.
You some kind of moron, boy? Studios don't get back 100% of the box office and this cost 110mil without marketing. Even being generous and saying it just needs to double the budget looks like an unreachable target now
>New
So let me guess. Reddit Reynolds is also an imaginary friend ?
It takes some Avatar-level shit to get people into theaters. It's not the cultural cornerstone it once was. You don't make out with a girl to a bad movie in a theater anymore, you get your dick sucked while something is streaming.
>Genie's out of the bottle, it's a streaming world
>Objectifying women like that
Rude virgin
Go back to twitter
Redditor
It costs between $15 and $20 to see a movie in my city. The cost has pushed me and I'm sure others to only see stuff we really want to go see, anything I'm even a little bit skeptical of enjoying I wait until I can "stream" (pirate). Back in the day when it could take 6+ months for movies to get a physical or digital release and it cost $7-$10 to see a movie (and I was only making 20% less than I am now) I was more willing to 'risk' seeing something that might just be "ok".
This. Though even if films cost $2 I wouldn't take my kids to see this. It looks like something you would scroll past on Netflix
Looks soulless.
>new
Even ignoring the obvious parallels to Foster's, the whole setup, tone, humor, presentation, etc all feel formulaic, safe, and boring. It's a movie you feel like you've already seen before you've ever seen it. General audiences have zero interest, even if you have Ryan Reynolds phone in another generic Ryan Reynolds performance and put him on all the promotional material.
>It's a movie you feel like you've already seen before you've ever seen it. General audiences have zero interest
This
You need to put something like the latest Coppola schizokino for audiences to go to the movies
Studios need to rethink their strategy after opening the pandora's box of theater movies at-home on streaming services, and releasing subpar shit that would be originally be streaming exclusive in theaters is not the way to do it. Honestly the theater model needs to be revamped, I refuse to go anymore after having to wait in concessions for tickets, be next to some teens making out while sick, have some rattling A/C unit or faulty projector ruin the movie, etc. Instead of flailing to make a dying business work try something different.
>two white movies about white people failing in a row
Man.
Good thing we have all those black led films saving cinema
With some movies, you can just tell right away that they have no sauce. IF is one of them. Money laundering schemes that aren't actually made for human consumption.
New? The big fluffy colorful monster movie is a trope as old as winnie pooh
Foster's home for imaginary friends did it better
the imaginary friends are uninspired
too many israelite woke bait and switch movies. We dont trust them anymore to be good.
What about IF is woke?
>Phoebe Waller-Bridge
the kiss of death
It was never going to succeed
I bet Adam Sandler could have pulled this off.
Terry Crews would have saved it.
>Terry Crews as Eduardo
lole are ppl still actually excited for new movies?
This is me being excited.
>that's foreverial delitized
They destroyed all good will people had on Hollywood
If this was made by Japan it would have costed half as much, looked twice as good and it would have already made most of the money back
It would also have incompetent acting, because the Japanese film industry is a joke compared to its television industry.
How is this Cinemaphile?
Cartoon Network show rip-off.
Still not Cinemaphile
I've seen ads for this at bus stops I think.