The least anticipated movies of 2015

And so, we’ve come to the end of the year, the time when the vast majority of movie websites are unveiling their Best of 2014 lists. Personally, I think it’s more interesting to look ahead to the movies coming out next year. But instead of listing the most anticipated films of 2015—which would be a mostly pointless exercise, because what am I going to tell you? Hey, did you guys know there’s a new Star Wars movie coming out? Pretty cool, huh?—I’ve decided instead to take a different tack, and examine the least anticipated movies of 2015.

These are the movies that almost nobody is excited about, and that almost nobody is looking forward to seeing (though, if history is any guide, people will still turn out in droves to pay to see them anyway). Here, in order of release date, are the films of 2015 that you’re probably dreading right now.

The article continues after these advertisements...
February 6: Jupiter Ascending
The least anticipated movies of 2015

It’s a bit of a mystery as to why the Wachowskis, whose two post-Matrix films did mediocre business at best, are still being allowed to direct massively budgeted epics. Case in point: Jupiter Ascending, a film that’s beginning to look like $175 million flushed down the drain.

The casting here is rather… questionable, to put it midly. First we have Channing Tatum, who the moviegoing public already has trouble taking seriously, and so what do they do? They put him in elf ears. And while pointed ears are a common sci-fi trope, with everyone from Spock to Legolas rocking the elfin look, those characters existed in futuristic/fantasy settings. Just imagine if our first glimpse of Spock was him driving a car.

The least anticipated movies of 2015

It gets worse: Tatum is some sort of wolf/human hybrid space bounty hunter who’s been assigned to protect this movie’s other miscast lead, Mila Kunis, who’s playing a maid who finds out she’s a clone of the queen of the universe or something. If Kunis were the lead in a romantic comedy opposite Tatum, I could see it (though, I probably wouldn’t); But Mila Kunis as the divine Chosen One destined to rule a galactic empire? It’s a bit of a stretch. With a cast that also features Sean Bean as a bee/human hybrid named “Stinger”, I’m thinking this one will be mostly entertaining for the trainwreck factor.

And the dumbest part is Mila Kunis actually plays the titular character: In the movie, her name is “Jupiter Jones”. Do you get the title now? Jupiter… Ascending?

Admittedly, the trailer is visually impressive, but it might be too impressive, in that there’s just way too much going on. It looks like a mega-budgeted remake of The Chronicles of Riddick, a space opera that tossed in every sci-fi/fantasy cliché ever thought of in an attempt to appear big and important. If this movie goes down in flames, can we finally admit that the first Matrix was probably a fluke?

March 20: The Divergent Series: Insurgent
The least anticipated movies of 2015

I’m still amazed that anyone was anticipating the first Divergent, but with a worldwide gross of $288 million, it seems there’s a big audience for Shailene Woodley and Theo James taking on a stock dystopian totalitarian regime led by Kate Winslet. So let’s take a look at the official synopsis for the sequel, shall we?

“Tris (Woodley) and Four (James) are now fugitives on the run, hunted by Jeanine (Winslet), the leader of the power-hungry Erudite elite. Racing against time, they must find out what Tris’s family sacrificed their lives to protect, and why the Erudite leaders will do anything to ZZzzzzZZzzzzzzz…..”

Yeah, sorry, I fell asleep just reading the plot summary. The trailer doesn’t inspire much more enthusiasm, and even hardcore Divergent fans are complaining that it bears no resemblance to the book of the same name. But, hey, Woodley has short hair in this one, so that’s different, right?

These movies were originally meant to ride the coattails of the Hunger Games quadrilogy, but now we’ve reached the point where even the Hunger Games are starting to fade from relevance. Mockingjay – Part 1 just had one of the biggest opening weekends of the year and barely anyone noticed. (Sure, the target preteen female audience is still into it, but the film saw nothing like the hoopla surrounding the premiere of the first movie.)

With interest clearly waning in futuristic teen rebellion fantasies, I can’t imagine Insurgent (sure to be as fundamentally bland as the first movie, especially since it comes from the director of equally bland films Red and R.I.P.D.) receiving a huge response next year. And now just imagine how little audiences will care about Allegiant Part 1 and Allegiant Part 2 when those movies come out in 2016 and 2017, respectively. One can only hope that along with the demise of YA dystopic adaptations, this also means the death knell of arbitrarily splitting up the last book in a series into two movies as a blatant cash grab.

June 12: Jurassic World
The least anticipated movies of 2015

I realize this will be the most contentious movie on this list, as there seem to be a significant number of people actually looking forward to a fourth Jurassic Park movie. Look, I get it. It stars the internet’s new boyfriend Chris Pratt, and the internet is taking Chris Pratt home to meet the family over the holiday break, and now the internet really thinks Chris Pratt might be the One.

But let’s get real: other than Pratt, there’s really nothing in the trailer that should cause the slightest bit of excitement. For one thing, the CGI looks weaker than the original Jurassic Park, and that came out twenty years ago (though admittedly, they may still be working on the effects and the CGI might look better in the finished film). But worse than that, it appears the movie is also rehashing the plot of the original, where the safety protocols fail at a theme park, a dinosaur goes on a rampage, and our righteous hero gets to preach to all of us about the foolishness of screwing with Mother Nature.

According to the trailer, the only new element of Jurassic World is that the park’s scientists have attempted to drum up attendance by stupidly creating a hybrid of a dinosaur and… something else. I’m guessing it’s a human/dinosaur hybrid, and not, say, a shark/dinosaur hybrid (though I’m sure the Asylum is planning a movie about the latter at this very moment). Hey, maybe it’ll be a human/dinosaur/wolf hybrid, also played by Channing Tatum.

It’s a bit lame that plain old dinosaurs are no longer considered interesting enough for the Jurassic Park franchise. I get that they had to do something new and different this time around, but instead of giving us a totally made-up creature, why not instead come up with a more original premise than “theme park dinosaurs escape and run wild” in the first place?

And let’s not forget that director Colin Trevorrow has only made one film prior to this, a low-key indie romcom with literally one special effects shot in the entire movie. It’s confounding that he’s already graduated up to taking over one of the biggest franchises in history, and all signs are pointing to this being as necessary of an addition to the series as Jurassic Park III.

July 1: Terminator Genisys
The least anticipated movies of 2015

There were troublesome signs with this movie from the very start, first and foremost with the casting of Arnold Schwarzenegger, returning to the franchise that made him famous in yet another desperate attempt to regain some semblance of his pre-gubernatorial career. Many assumed he’d be playing the guy whose likeness was used to create the original T-800, which would make a tiny smidgen of sense (and is actually supported by deleted scenes from Rise of the Machines). Instead, it turns out he’s playing a senior citizen Terminator, and per James Cameron himself, Terminators are able to age just like ordinary human beings.

The next sign of trouble was when the studio revealed the dumb spelling of the title, which is presumably a cynical marketing ploy (take an ordinary word like “genesis”, spell it in a stupid way, and now you can trademark it! Brilliant!). I think Terminator Genisys is what happens when the same focus-tested naming rules for dot-com startups get applied to movie titles.

But what really solidified public opinion was the trailer that dropped earlier this month, which makes it obvious that Genisys is little more than a retread of the most memorable moments from both the first and second Terminator films, only done with about a quarter of the energy. Kyle Reese (now played by Jai Courtney) will again travel back to the 1980s, but due to whatever time travel shenanigans the movie plans to pull out of its ass, he’ll find Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) already protected by a senior citizen Terminator, who’s apparently raised her after her parents were killed by a different Terminator, and the movie will feature them on the run from a liquid metal-morphing T-1000 (Byung-hun Lee taking over for Robert Patrick).

The least anticipated movies of 2015

This plot synopsis achieves the impossible: it makes Terminator Salvation look better in retrospect, because while that movie was pretty dull, it at least tried to do something slightly different with the concept by setting events in the post-apocalyptic, post-Judgment Day landscape. But Salvation flopped, so they’ve now given up on the future war entirely and are basically remaking the first two films, simultaneously.

At some point, we need to accept that Cameron told all the story there is to tell in this franchise, and just let it go. The first Terminator was a great one-off Outer Limits-type story that miraculously spawned a great sequel, but by now there’s no point in keeping this series on life support and continually trying to recapture the franchise’s glory days.

August 7: The Fantastic Four
The least anticipated movies of 2015

No official images have been released, so this is the closest I could find.

Josh Trank’s found-footage superhero movie Chronicle was pretty well received a few years back. It obviously impressed Fox enough to hire Trank to direct their Fantastic Four reboot, which the internet has been dreading ever since. Initially, the casting was the source of most of the disdain. Miles Teller as Reed Richards? No knock on him as an actor, but he looks like he’s barely out of high school. The sullen-looking Kate Mara as the Invisible Woman? Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm? Billy Elliot is playing the Thing? (Obviously, they’re going the mo-cap/CGI character route this time, but it’s still a bizarre choice.)

And while the usual bigoted internet commenters have crawled out from under their rocks to complain about a black actor playing the Human Torch, Michael B. Jordan’s casting is actually the only one that makes sense. His character in Chronicle was similar in a lot of ways to Johnny Storm, and he’s a talented actor, so there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s up to the task.

Yes, having Kate Mara play his sister might give one pause, but it’ll take the movie five minutes (if even that) to establish that one of them was adopted, or that they’re in an interracial Brady Bunch scenario where their parents got remarried and now they’re step-siblings. (Although I wish people would stop claiming they could be biological children of a biracial marriage; the odds of a mixed-race couple having a kid that looks like Mara and another that looks like Jordan are so slim that it’s usually newsworthy; I call this the Jenny and Allan Willis Theory of Recessive Genes, and it really needs to die.)

What’s really concerning is that the film wrapped months ago, and Fox has nothing to show for it; not a trailer, not a teaser, not a poster, not even a picture of any of the actors on the set. Leaked green-screen shots of the Thing and Doctor Doom and an iPhone group photo of the cast posted on Twitter are all the evidence we have that this movie even exists. It suggests a certain lack of confidence on the part of the studio.

The least anticipated movies of 2015

In the absence of official details, various aspects of the plot have been dribbling out in interviews. And they’re… not good. Jordan was quoted as saying, “We aren’t looking at this as like, being superheroes. We’re more or less a bunch of kids that had an accident and we have disabilities now that we have to cope with, and try to find a life afterwards – try to be as normal as we can.” Because that’s what we all look for in a summer comic book movie: Superpowers as “disabilities”.

Also, Toby Kebbell, who plays Doctor Doom in the film, has revealed that his version of Doom is actually named “Victor Domashev”, and is a “very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites, I’m ‘Doom’.” I was certain I’d never see a worse handling of the character of Doctor Doom than whatever Julian McMahon was trying to do in the earlier Fantastic Four movies, but Doom as an anti-social blogger might just prove me wrong.

The least anticipated movies of 2015

Also, like a lot of anti-social programmers, he often wears a onesie.

The latest nail in the coffin of this film is the official synopsis, which reveals the team will be made up of “four young outsiders who teleport to an alternate and dangerous universe, which alters their physical form in shocking ways.” So, no trip to space, and no exposure to cosmic rays. Between this and the casting, it appears they’re actually adapting the Ultimate universe version of the Fantastic Four, where the group is much younger and they get their powers from being transported temporarily to a dimension called the “N-Zone”.

This is not really anything new; The Marvel Cinematic Universe borrows plenty of elements from the Ultimate continuity (see: black Nick Fury), and even Rise of the Silver Surfer used a version of Galactus that was inspired by his Ultimate version. But I said it in 2007 and I’ll say it now: what exactly is the point of adapting a recent reimagining of fictional characters, instead of the original fictional characters that have endured for fifty-plus years?

I never followed their comics that closely, but I’ve always liked the Fantastic Four for their sunnier, more family-oriented vibe. And while I enjoyed Chronicle, this version of the Fantastic Four looks like another wrongheaded attempt to Nolan-ize the source material. I’ll pass.

 

I’m sure there are many other movies that you’re not excited about, including Ted 2, Ant-Man, Fifty Shades of Grey, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, Fast and Furious 7, the fifth Mission: Impossible movie, London Has Fallen (the sequel to Olympus Has Fallen), or reboots of Poltergeist, Point Break, Friday the 13th (yes, another reboot), and National Lampoon’s Vacation. And if this list were about what I personally am not anticipating, it’d probably include The Force Awakens (do people really think the director of Super 8 and Star Trek Into Darkness has suddenly figured out how to make a great film?).

But no matter which movies you’re most not looking forward to, my sincere advice is to get as much rest as possible over the holidays. Because 2015 is going to be a long year.

You may also like...

  • Bouncy X

    is that seriously the title of the next Paranormal Activity? because if so, it sounds terrible and makes it seem like a cheesy syfy movie. but again if its the title…i guess they’re gonna be “borrowing” ideas from Insidious.

  • Hal_10000

    I have mixed feelings about Jupiter Rising. I thought their last movie — Cloud Atlas — was outstanding. And I was looking forward to this one. But the eight month delay to release in a dead month makes me worry that the movie is terrible.

    • Don’t worry, the delay was almost certainly due to the lower-than-expected opening for both Edge of Tommorow and Godzilla, and the studio expected JA to lose money and they didn’t want their 2014 financial report to look worse if it did. I’m really looking forward to JA myself, I loved Cloud Atlas, The Matrix and Bound and I can’t wait to see what the Wachowski’s do next.

  • The Matrix sequels didn’t do mediocre business, Reloaded is the highest-grossing R-rated film ever, and Revolutions made over $400m.

    • TheScottCSmith

      To quote the article: “It’s a bit of a mystery as to why the Wachowskis, whose two post-Matrix films did mediocre business at best…” meaning “Speed Racer” and “Cloud Atlas.”

      • Alexa

        Speed Racer has kind of got a cult following it seems, so it wasn’t completely unsuccessful.

        • Wizkamridr

          I thought it was pretty faithful to the goofy anime. Except for the part when Speed curses someone out. I felt that was out of character. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised if he swore like a sailor in the japanese version of the anime.

    • “Two post-Matrix films” is referring to the two films they directed after the Matrix trilogy.

  • Glenn Wills

    Good news, the next Friday the 13th films isn’t supposed to be a reboot. It’s supposed to be set in the 80’s back in the woods. Well ok maybe not good news, but it’s better than a remake.

  • MichaelANovelli

    I’ve already accepted Jupiter Ascending as my new Lord and Savior, as it basically looks like a live-action Tenchi movie, if Ayeka was the main character. The plot of the movie is *literally* her backstory, plus or minus a few things…

    • Guest

      Yeah it really looks like an anime come to life, doesn’t it =)

      • MichaelANovelli

        It’s like the Marvel Manga line! Which is better than regular Marvel by virtue of being manga-style!

      • Well, it is by the directors of Speed Racer.

    • Wizkamridr

      I never even thought of that. Loved Tenchi. Or at least the female characters anyway.

      • MichaelANovelli

        Plus, Mila Kunis spoofed both this film and Twilight in the Annie movie, so you know it’s gonna be good! 🙂

    • lonestarr357

      I’ve seen Tenchi Muyo and I’ve enjoyed Tenchi Muyo and that nonsense, good sir, is not Tenchi Muyo.

      • MichaelANovelli

        “Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki”, then…

  • Stefan Ellison

    I have to be honest and say I’m looking forward to every single one of these movies. Of course, I believe movies shouldn’t be criticised sight unseen and I walk into every one with the intent of liking them and with the mindset that what I’ll watch will be great.

    But Jupiter Ascending looks like an intriguing science-fiction world (and I’m a sucker for world-building), Insurgent looks as if they will add actual stakes to a series that so far has had none, Jurassic World finally answers what some of us were wondering since the first movie which is basically “what would happen if the park opened to the public”,Terminator Genisys looks to be an interesting reinterpretation of the first two movies while still confusing me with its weird time-travel theories and I’m actually intrigued by the mystery of Fantastic Four. Fox is the same studio that had no problem returning Daredevil to Marvel after many attempts trying to reboot it, so I see this as Josh Trank wanting to do his own spin on the property rather than a studio desperate to keep the rights.

    • “I believe movies shouldn’t be criticised sight unseen and I walk into every one with the intent of liking them” …Okay, but unless you’re paying to see every single movie that comes out, you’re obviously making a judgment call at some point about which movies you think are worth seeing. Saying you find these movies “intriguing” and “interesting” based on the trailers means you’re also critiquing them sight unseen, you’ve just come to a different conclusion than I have.

      • Stefan Ellison

        But I haven’t said anything negative about them. No filmmaker sets out to make a bad movie, so I trust they do a good job. Making movies is hard work, so the least we could is wait to watch the entire thing in context before lashing out the negatives. So, until I watch the entire film from beginning to end, they all look great to them. And yes, I have seen a lot of movies each year, even ones that are maybe outside my usual radar. Even though I didn’t care for any of them, I still watched every single Transformers movie with the hope that Michael Bay will finally hit the jackpot. He hasn’t yet, but I trust he will one day make a good one. The possibility exists.

        • It’s telling that the Transformers movies are the examples you throw out to suggest you give a lot of movies a chance. The last one made a billion dollars, so going to see that doesn’t exactly make you a risk-taking maverick.

          If every movie looks great to you, then I assume you’ve seen every Tyler Perry movie, every Wayans Brothers movie, every Seltzerberg film, and every Justin Bieber/One Direction concert movie, right? After all, the Wayans put a lot of hard work into Haunted House 2, so I assume you paid to see it in a theater and watched it from beginning to end so you could form an opinion about it.

          • Stefan Ellison

            You may laugh, but I actually did see A Haunted House 2. I hated it, but I still walked in with positive expectations, despite strongly disliking Scary Movie (didn’t see the first Haunted House movie, I’m afraid). Of course, it helps that I’m an accredited film reviewer and get invited to screenings and when I got the e-mail about that movie, I thought “why not? Should be funny.” It wasn’t, but at least I gave Mr Wayans the chance to impress me.

            There are also movies I know absolutely nothing about, before going in. “Begin Again” is one of my favourites this year and outside of the two lead actors, I knew nothing about it. I just expected a great movie and I got one. In this day and age of so much plot points thrown about and constant marketing, it’s refreshing to go into a movie blind.

            It may seem absurd to expect every movie to be great, but by erasing biases, I feel that allows me to be fair to the finished product. I have such an excitement when the screen is still black, the projector hasn’t been switched on yet and the opening logo hasn’t appeared yet, that I’m going to watch somebody’s hard work up there. Whether it’s a mindless explosion fest or a documentary analysing the world we live in, I feel both deserve the same level of respect. Considering the long hours and money that go into making films, directors and other members of the crew can’t afford to be lazy. It’s almost impossible. There’s no incentive to try and make a bad movie. There’s a reason filmmakers who make disappointing movies then many years down the road say “I thought it was a good idea at the time.” Because even a movie’s flaw is born out of trying to do good. Dig out some old work you did. There’s some stuff in there that you did with the best of intentions that makes you cringe now. In the end, filmmakers whether it’s Wes Anderson or Michael Bay, are just trying to make great films. And even if I dislike the finished product, they still worked hard to put on the screen. That’s why I walk into every movie expecting a great movie, because I trust the filmmakers have done just that.

          • Yes, I’m also very open minded about the movies I see for free, but I’m asking about the movies you paid to see. Have you paid to see Tyler Perry movies, Seltzerberg movies, Justin Bieber documentaries in the theater? Hundreds of movies get released every year, are you really trying to claim you haven’t seen one trailer or ad in your life that made you think, “wow, that looks awful, I have no interest in seeing that”?

            “directors and other members of the crew can’t afford to be lazy.” Okay, I guess you haven’t seen a Seltzerberg film, after all.

          • Stefan Ellison

            There are a couple of Seltzerberg movies on Netflix. I can go watch them now, if you like?

            There was a time when I said “Ugh, what a terrible movie!” after watching a trailer, but I reached a point where I realised that was a little disrespectful to the filmmaker (and very rarely is the director involved in the film’s marketing).

            Maybe it’s the optimist in me, maybe it’s because I agree with Conan O’Brien’s philosophy on cynicism, but I do genuinely believe I don’t have the authority to say anything bad about a movie until I watch the film from start to finish. I need to see the whole thing in context with the other scenes in the movie. And if the movie ends up being disappointing, I don’t regret the experience. Because I can now give an opinion on it. I look at every film being released in 2015 and I am genuinely excited for all of them.

          • It’s been a long time since I found someone so vanilla and PC as you.
            Don’t know what’s wrong with you but I’ll simply back away from you and avoid you forever.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Skullo, I don’t think, that there is something wrong with Stefan Elison – probably it is just a different upbringing or something like that.
            Plus – I agree with him, at least in parts.
            See: Erod brought up an interesting problem, this week and three weeks ago. He was talking about bad marketing, bad trailers: It made him not watch firefly and not watch the first season of Veronica Mars, because the trailers were apparently god-awful.
            Later he watched both shows on DVD and liked them, he even went this far and said that Vernoica Mars Season 1 is perfect.
            Personally, I know the problem the other way around. The trailer was awesome, it really got me hyped for the movie and the movie was a trainwreck.

            So: You should watch a movie (or a show) from start to finish – (concerning the show: At least an episode or even a season), THEN you can really say, if it is crap or not.
            My favourite example: Birds of Prey.
            Our good Solkir made it clear, that he hates the show, thinks, that the Birds are killers and stuff like that – and from the way, he presented the scenes, they really support that fact.

            However: I’d encourage you to at least watch one or two episodes.

          • TL;DR

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Then why did you reply – other than showing, that you didn’t bother reading a short answer to your “I don’t know what’s wrong with you”-post directed at Stefan Elison?
            Did you want to show, that your opinion stands, no matter what? If so – what are you doing in a discussion-forum?

          • Because I sometimes will get interesting replies.
            Also, being concise and not too long to tell your ideas isn’t that difficult, is it?

            Because I mostly read this on my phone and it’s hell to read a bunch of text on a small screen.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Okay, then here the condensed answer: You cannot judge a movie just by its trailer. I agree partially with Stefan Elison and don’t think, that there’s something wrong with him.

        • $36060516

          “Even though I didn’t care for any of them, I still watched every single Transformers movie with the hope that Michael Bay will finally hit the jackpot. He hasn’t yet, but I trust he will one day make a good one. The possibility exists.”

          Sequels are the leftovers from a meal. They decline in quality as time passes.

          • Unless it’s the Fast and Furious movies, somehow.

        • “Even though I didn’t care for any of them, I still watched every single
          Transformers movie with the hope that Michael Bay will finally hit the
          jackpot. He hasn’t yet, but I trust he will one day make a good one. The
          possibility exists.”

          Is your name Pollyanna by any chance?

  • Thomas Stockel

    Yeah, gotta admit that not a single one of these movies it doing it for me.

  • Sebastian Villegas

    Maybe before you dismissed Jurassic World, you should have read Colin Trevorrow’s intentions first before brushing it off? Because it sounds downright promising.

  • Alexa

    Okay I think that jab at J.J. Abrams was a bit harsh and uncalled for, considering the caliber of Star Wars movies that came before Force Awakens. I mean seriously, say what you will about Abrams and Super 8 and the first Star Trek (have not seen Into Darkness), at least the actors in those films weren’t wooden as hell. Also I am totally up for Genysis because it looks HILARIOUS! It doesn’t even look like a Terminator film, but a wonderful spoof of it. Cannot wait. Also I’ll probably give Jupiter Ascending a chance (even if I find Tatum dull as toast) because it looks super creative and kind of like an anime come to life. It probably won’t be great, but it looks kind of fun.

    P.S. Am I the only one that thinks the new Dr. Doom kinda looks like Gary Oldman’s mutant spider form from the Lost in Space movie?

    • Thomas Stockel

      You haven’t seen Into Darkness?

      Oh, how I envy you…

      • Alexa

        Yeah when people said there’s was a scene where Kirk had a threesome with some cat ladies or whatever, I was all “Done!”.

        • Thomas Stockel

          Believe me, that was the least bad part of the movie.

          • Chris Palmer

            KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!! was the bit that got me enraged.

            Also the bit where they became the second movie in a row to have significant parts happen on Earth’s atmosphere.

            Also also why the hell was the ship underwater?

    • SithSmurf

      You might like Star Trek Into Darkness for it’s anti-drone-strike message. Which was, I admit, a lot of the reason I didn’t. And that’s pretty much all I want to say about that perspective.

      But otherwise, if you’re looking for an intelligent plot, well, best look elsewhere. If you’re looking for action and adventure in space, it’s probably passable. Not that different from the first Abrams Trek movie, really.

      Going by Rotten Tomatoes, most people liked it. I’ve already decided to pass on further installments by the same writer. It’s the first Trek movie I regretted watching, and I’ve seen them all.

      • Alexa

        I didn’t watch Into Darkness because it was obviously Star Trek Wrath of Kahn. And while I may not be much of a Star Trek fan, even I thought that lame. But I can’t really say Abrams is a bad director, and really it seems like the Trek movies were seen as bad (personally don’t mind the first film but understand people’s frustration) on the grounds it was written by pretty bad writers. Really I meant in my post say what you will about Abrams but he gets better performances from his actors than Lucas’s turn in the prequels.

        • SithSmurf

          I gotcha. I can’t argue with any of that.

        • Strangely, it is not “Wrath of Khan” in plot, even if it has Khan in it.

          Though the plot is a little backwards, very clunky, and surprisingly safe compared to the first one which blew up a planet and erased all that continuity.

  • Danielle Osgan

    Regarding Johnny and Sue Storm, they could be half siblings. I haven’t read a whole lot of their comics, but I don’t distinctly remember the parents being so integral that half siblings wouldn’t make sense.

    • Jonathan Campbell

      Its been said that Sue will have been adopted in this continuity. That’s the explanation.

  • R.D.

    Apparently the ‘Doom is a blogger’ thing turned out to be false. But I doubt a film essentially made for the company to sit on the rights instead of yielding them to Marvel will be made with much effort. Jupiter Ascending actually looks vaguely interesting, even if I won’t be rushing to see it.

    I actually liked the nuTrek films. So I’m cautiously optimistic for the new Star Wars. Not that I don’t think nuTrek had flaws, but those tended to come from script, which Abrams did not write (and with the looming shadow of Disney over him, if Episode 7 does somehow make Phantom Menace look like Wrath of Khan it may not entirely be his fault, hated figure of various internet people he may be).

    As for Divergent, only now do I remember that exists.

    • Stefan Ellison

      Fox did return the Daredevil rights to Marvel, after attempting to reboot him for a while. They thought it was smarter to return him than rush out a disappointing product. So, I trust with Fantastic Four, the writer or director made a good enough pitch that they thought they could make a good movie out of it. Plus, to say that there will be little effort put into it is a little insulting to Josh Trank. Big-budget movies are hard work, especially ones that have to appease a pre-existing fanbase. I doubt he’s lying in a hammock and just lazily shouting commands to his actors and cameraman.

      • It’s still weird the studio has shown virtually nothing of it.

    • KLLRFRST

      The very first FF film, completed in 1994 (where the screen shot came from) was also made to “sit on the rights”. A German film company bought the options to a FF film for a quarter of a million in the mid 80s, but didn’t get around to creating the film until late December 1992, just days before the option was set to lapse. Schlock-movie king Rodger Corman was hired to produce the film and given a budget of just $1 million, which even in early 90s was a pittance for a movie dependent on lots of FX and CGI.

      The movie was projected to come out on Labor Day weekend in 1993, but wasn’t finished until January 1994. The cast and crew were told that there was going to be a huge world premiere, but the film never got an official release, and was never actually intended to be anything but a way to retain the film options. In fact, Avi Arad, one of the head honchos at Marvel, paid several million for the rights and had all copies of the film burned because he felt it cheapened the brand. To this day, the only proof of the 1994 FF film are poor quality bootlegs circulated at cons, as well as an upcoming documentary on the making of the film with interviews of the cast and crew.

      I’ve seen the bootleg, and it was TERRIBAD. The costumes looked like something you can get at Party City for under $20, the special effects were half-assed at best (Mr. Fantastic’s powers were badly done with trick camera angles and a mannequin arm on a stick), and the CGI looked like something from a cut scene in an early 90s console game. The story was a horrible mess as well, involving Dr. Doom, some Mole Man – like character named “The Jeweler” kidnapping Alicia Masters, and a laser super weapon. It was on a level of badness that made The Room look like Citizen Kane.

    • GreenLuthor

      Out of curiosity, do you have a source for saying “Doom as a blogger is false”? I haven’t seen anything that says that, but I did see Fox’s denial of the supposed leaked plot synopsis a few weeks back, so I’m curious where that came from.

  • madmanoreo

    Eh, I’m okay with that terminator movie, assuming it has some practical effects and is not just a cgi wank-fest. Plus I mean the idea of all off that messing with the past has created some screwed up timeline is at least an apt metaphor for the franchise if nothing else.

  • Moppet

    Can’t agree with Jurassic World or Jupiter Ascending, I’m quite looking forward to both (despite the casting in Jupiter), and have seen nothing but excitement for Jurassic World in particular. The Internet pretty much exploded with the three strike combo of Star Wars, Jurassic World and a new Terminator movie, and it exploded loudly.

    Now whether any of them will be good or not? Not going to touch that one with a hundred foot poll.

    As for the the Wachowskis post Matrix, I know I might be in the minority here, but I think they’d actually done some legitimately good work. I don’t think a single film of theirs has lacked problems over the years, but when I saw Jupiter Ascending’s first trailer my only real thought was, “Wow, this actually looks visually fresh and interesting” and that was despite having some of the same questions about the casting. I’m hoping we see them get something out of their casting choices we haven’t seen before. It does happen sometimes.

    Still, the basic plot doesn’t seem especially new, but the music and visuals in the trailer are certainly something to behold. On paper the Matrix itself is actually a very tried and true story as well, but it worked very well despite that, and is still well regarded to this day. The story being told here may not be the newest thing around, but it’s all in the way you tell it and the characters you present. I’m not going to fall asleep just because the ground work is familiar like you, I’ll reserve judgement for when I see if the ground work is supporting something greater or not.

    As for Abrams, I actually liked Super 8. I haven’t been fond of the new Star Treks, or some of the other things he’s worked on to one extent or another, but the people that tear up Super 8 always boggle me, and that’s after reading every reason under the sun for why they like to tear it up.

    And the Fantastic 4 thing, well, yeah. I think the Doom as a blogger thing has been debunked, but yeah. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a good Fantastic 4 movie but between the last two outings and all the nonsense I’ve heard surrounding the new one? It’s hard to get excited.

    I’m actually hoping Ant-Man will be good, but sicne they’re using Tony to do the Ultron thing it’s hard to understand why they’re bothering with Ant-Man. With anything resembling luck we’ll somehow get Wasp out of that movie as one of the few positives, but as I don’t like keeping close track of movies I have no idea if they’ve even bothered to cast her.

    The Fast and the Furious movies are actually fun, not even a guilty pleasure, but I like Vin Diesel in the first place, and it’s always my hope that supporting his other projects will eventually net more of his Riddick universe stuff, or let him explore his other Fantasy/Sci-Fi interests. The most recent Riddick movie really was a lot of fun.

    Maybe I’ll be disappointed on a few fronts, who knows, but I’d rather continue to be hopeful, even dreading the Fantastic 4 reboot is draining as is, all on its own, I don’t need or want more of that in my life. I like liking things. I like being excited and hopeful about things. The climb is worth the fall, and sometimes you don’t fall at all.

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    Some of these movies will most definitely be entries on my “I’ll buy it on DVD-List”.
    I saw the “Jurassic World”-trailer and I was interested, buying the new Terminator flick is a no brainer, because I’m curious how Matt Smith will act in this – the same reason I’m definitely buying Guardians of the Galaxy, because I want to know how Karen Gillian will be in this one – I’ll DEFINITELY will buy the new Star Wars, same goes for Fanfastic Four and – although I might not be the target audience for “Insurgent”, I enjoyed the first movie, so I’ll definitely will buy the sequel.

    Concerning this line ” I get that they had to do something new and different this time around,
    but instead of giving us a totally made-up creature, why not instead
    come up with a more original premise than “theme park dinosaurs escape
    and run wild” in the first place?”
    Okay, – now I’m curious.
    The series is called “Jurassic Park” – what new premise would you inject in that, Winston?
    It is a movie series that deals with Dinosaurs, what would be the new idea to bring in there? I could imagine some christian or creationist nutjob, who would take the park hostage, because it clashes with his ideas and some people need to stop him – but then: “Hey, we want to see the dinosaurs! We PAYED to see the Dinosaurs – could you please have your little die-hard-rip-off not happening in our movie?!”

    So, the series is called Jurassic Park – it is about Dinosaurs running wild in a theme park, it is about Dinosaurs living in an abandoned theme Park and about… erm… Dinosaurs living in an abandoned theme park… What can you do after that?

    M:i 5 will land on my DVD-List, too, same goes for Ant-Man and “the Force awakens”.

    • Greenhornet

      Here’s your twist for Jurassic Park:
      A bunch of “Earth Firsters” are angry that people are creating dinosaurs in labs. They argue that dinos would be a hazard to modern flora and fauna and should be (Humanly) put down. When the corporation, backed by paleontologists and dinosaur fans, refuse, the environmentalists sneak onto the island to put an end to it. Hilarity ensues.
      They could have both sides put out some good arguments for their views and each side would be judged good, evil, or stupid by their actions rather than their politics and economics as in JP 2.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        Okay, what do those “Earth Firsters” do exactly? Do they sabotage the park? Reminds me of Part I, where Nedry frakked the system up for good. Or do they take the park hostage, like those people in the DS9 episode “Let he, who is without sin…” did take Risa Hostage?
        Okay, but then people will say: “Hey, don’t use the dinos just as a backdrop.”
        Sure, they could have a two sided argument etc. but – in the end, the meat of the story are the dinos running amuck.

        • Greenhornet

          OK, I haven’t worked out the details, but at least it would be different from the “Liberals good! Everybody else bad!” stuff we have had to endure in dozens of movies in the last several decades. They should have had a character POINT OUT the crimes and screw-ups of the animal rights guy in “Lost World JP”.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, I don’t think the liberals are that good. But I don’t think, that republicans are that good, either. By the way: What crimes and screw-ups are you talking about? You mean, that he set free the dinosaurs to run amuck in the camp of Ludlow? Or what else?

          • KHarn

            You forgot to add “…and caused several deaths”. ‘Nuff said.

            As I said, they should be judged on their actions rather than their politics and whatever. It wouldn’t be about dinosaurs running amuck in the park, instead my version would be set on “Site B” or some appropriate place.

            BTW, The EEEVIL! businessman who was going to exploit the dinos by bringing them to a zoo did something unbelievably stupid: he didn’t ADVERTISE the dino exhibit! He kept the whole thing SECRET until the T-Rexes arrived. Then there was John Hammond; he thought that by PHOTOGRAPHING and reviling the existence of the dinosaurs, his nephew would have been “foiled again” and had to send the T-Rexes back to the island. His actions would have invalidated the act of PAYING OFF THE SURVIVORS to keep quiet about the park AND given the ‘EEEVIL” businessman the publicity he had neglected! WTF?, right?

            I haven’t read the book, but I know for a fact that the scene of Goldblume’s character being mocked for talking about living dinosaurs was lifted directly from Connan-Doyal’s “The Lost World”.

            Too much there for a full review, but there are several to be found that discuss the errors in #w2. Knock yourself out.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Several deaths? As far as I remember correctly, the only death in that situation was AJ, and that happened, because he was eaten by the T-Rex.

            Okay, you set your story on “Site B” but – again: If a movie is called “Jurassic Park” you go in said movie with a certain “Erwartungshaltung” (Expectation): The dinos HAVE to play a vital role in that flick – or else the audience is probably gonna want their money back. You can discuss ethical and moral ramifications of cloning dinosaurs all the way you want, but – again: The dinos NEED to play a vital part.

            You know, I think, the photodocomentation would’ve worked – you show the people at home, how many dinosaurs are living on that island and how they live peacefully in a working ecosystem – a bit like Serenget darf nicht sterben. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serengeti_Shall_Not_Die)

          • Jonathan Campbell

            “Several deaths? As far as I remember correctly, the only death in that situation was AJ, and that happened, because he was eaten by the T-Rex.”

            He means that when the heroes released all the dinosaurs they wrecked the equipment and vehicles the In-Gen team brought with them and thats why everyone had to travel through the dangerous parts of the island on-foot, and therefore all the deaths that happened in that movie were indirectly caused by them.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            And if the In-Gen-Team hadn’t caught all those animals, the Dinos wouldn’t have wrecked the whole place.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            I think the complaint is that, even if In-Gen is wrong to capture the dinosaurs and bring them back to the mainland, the methods used to stop them ended up with a lot of people dead and so weren’t justified.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            What methods did Nick van Own use? He freed the dinosaurs… that they would run amuck – that’s not Nicks fault. So – if In-Gen had not captured the dinos, then the people would still be alive.

          • Jonathan Campbell

            I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate, for the record, but…a judge might disagree with you.

          • KHarn

            “I just turned off the sprinkler system in the fireworks factory, it’s not MY fault that the place caught fire and blew up!” No, not buying it.

            Nick also removed the bullets from Roland’s gun (Hard to do without a “bullet puller”). If he hadn’t it would have been BANG! BANG! threat take care of.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            “No, it is NOT my fault, that the people in the fireworks factory are idiots, juggling with burning cigarettes.”

            Yes and with the “bang!bang! threat take care off” you would’ve rendered the T-Rex extinct, TWICE.

          • Greenhornet

            Better late than never.
            They were NOT extinct, they could have made THOUSANDS in the labs and the dinos could have procreated the natural way.
            My point is that the dinos DON’T BELONG in the modern world and if environmentalists REALLY cared, they would demand their destruction to protect current flora and fauna.

          • Greenhornet

            Gen-Tec OWNED and CREATED the damn things. Don’t they have the right to use them as they see fit? It’s not like the dinosaurs were extinct (anymore), they could have made as many as they wanted.

            That’s the point of “my movie”, the dinosaurs DON’T BELONG here anymore and would cause untold damage to the modern eco system.

          • Greenhornet

            I meant “In-Gen”.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Actually, I quite disagree. It’s true, that In-Gen created the dinos – and it is true, that they (in the fictional world of this movie) patented the way of creating them. That does not change the fact, that those dinos are living beings and therefore not property.
            Even if they would not exist in this world, if they had not been created, that does not change the fact, that these creatures are living, breathing animals.

            So – actually: No, In-Gen doesn’t have the right to use them as they see fit.

          • Greenhornet

            “That does not change the fact, that those dinos are living beings and therefore not property.”
            Let me know when you’re going to the local ranch or farm to stop their use of livestock; I’d love to see you get laughed at and bodily thrown off the property.
            Bite me, hippie.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Okay, greeny, that’s your opinion – I just have to ask you this one question: Isn’t there a middleground? Are there just those two extremes (“Hippie” vs “Capitalist”, a.k.a. my view “They are living beings and shouldn’t be treated as property” vs. “let’s exploit the hell out of them, after all, we created them?”).

          • Greenhornet

            And if someone believes that they can use what they’ve created, what happens to them?

            But never mind, that’s NOT THE POINT. The point I am trying to make is that dinosaurs DON’T BELONG IN TODAY’S WORLD and if environmentalists REALLY cared, they would not want them around to DESTROY the current flora and fauna. Why can’t you see that?

            Let’s me put it this way:
            The T-Rexes are allowed to run wild. They love eating Key Deer. The Key Deer become an endangered species. What do we do now?

            Then there’s your argument of “Yes and with the “bang!bang! threat take care off” you would’ve rendered the T-Rex extinct, TWICE.”. No. They would NOT be extinct because InGen has a hundred more waiting in the wings. If I were to magically make all the cars in the world disappear without even an atom remaining, cars would not become non-existent because the factories would still be cranking out thousands more.

            My original plot twist was that the environmentalists want to DESTROY the dinosaurs because they would harm the ecosystem and the company wants to preserve them. Is that too hard to understand?

            PS: “Capitalism” really doesn’t exist. It was a fantasy created by Marx and Engels because they couldn’t imagine a system where people could better their “station” in life through their own efforts. They could only imagine a system of “workers and bosses” forever locked in their places and believed that this system encompassed all aspects of society, not just economics. Oddly enough, their “solution” was to impose a system of “bosses and workers” forever locked in their places with no way to advance (Since there was no “middle class” to advance to) and this system (Communism) would encompass every aspect of society, not just economics. The only difference was that communism added the GUNMAN class whose job was to protect the bosses from the workers. The free enterprise system was a foreign concept to the communist founders.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Okay, greenhornet – let me put it this way.
            Your plot is okay – bit cruel, but okay. It was your other comment, I took issue with.
            This one: “Gen-Tec OWNED and CREATED the damn things.Don’t they have the right to use them as they see fit?”
            to which I still answer: No – they don’t have the “right to use them as they see fit”. They have the right to work with them in a sustainable way, but not monetize them.
            And since you were so nice of bringing in the farmers – farmers have a strong connection to their livestock. They take good care of them, sure, they kill them and eat their meat, but they work with them in a sustainable way.
            What they don’t do is – see them as something just to make profit with.
            Okay, some do, but those are jackasses.

            And – just for you to think about it: If it wouldn’t have been for Ludlow and his people, the dinos on Site B wouldn’t have had any problems and there wouldn’t have been any ecological issues to be dealt with. Hammond wanted to make sure, that no one set a foot on this island – it was Ludlow, who said “Okay, if the old man doesn’t want us to go to the island, we bring the island to the people” – and therefore nearly creating the catastrophe you were fearing could be happening.
            After all – they could’ve just said “Okay – let’s declare this island as off limits and be done with it.”- just as Hammond wanted them to do.

            And those Dinos on that island? They were living a peaceful and quite live – they were not showing signs of wanting to leave the island – neither could they – so… there would not even be the problem of this being ecological problematic. Just let them stay on this island – and be done with it.

            But no – Ludlow wanted to monetize it and with that creating the problem.

            Okay – let me ask you a question: Do you own a pet? Or does anyone else you know own a pet?
            Now let’s imagine someone killed your pet – might be because he thought, he would’ve been attacked or because he’s just an asshole – would you be sad? or would you say “Eh – okay, the little St. Bernhard Puppy is dead, let’s replace him with a Puppy, that’s exactly the same?”
            take the movie “Beethoven” – the one with the St. Bernhard-Dog… there is one scene, in which Dr. Varnick convinces the Newtons, that Beethoven attacked him and saying, that the dog must be put down – humanely.
            Now, let’s imagine, just for shits and giggles, that family Newton would say “Okay, Beethoven is dead, let’s buy a new one.”
            Or – go one step beyond and imagine, the Newtons would’ve said “Let’s clone the dog.”
            Would Beethoven II still be Beethoven? Or would he be another animal – another dog, just looking the same, but not having lived through the same experiences as the original did?

            Same goes for the T-Rexes: Roland puts both of them down, they crank out another pair of T-Rexes, who might look the same, make the same noises – but they are not the same.

          • Greenhornet

            Again, I say “yes they do have the right”, at least in a FREE COUNTRY where everything DOES NOT belong to the government or some group who demands that everybody do things their way. Right now, the UN (And others) are demanding that the PRIVATLY OWNED internet be handed over to the UN. Why can’t they build their own and do what they want with THAT one?

            “Just let them stay on this island – and be done with it.”

            Have you forgotten the ends of #2 and #3? Pteranadons were LEAVING THE ISLAND. What do we do now? Shoot them down?

            I’m sure you have no problem with dinosaurs killing humans who invade their territory (I can’t argue with that, really), but shouldn’t HUMANS have the same right when dinosaurs invade OUR territory?

            “Same goes for the T-Rexes: Roland puts both of them down, they crank out another pair of T-Rexes, who might look the same, make the same noises – but they are not the same.”

            And they are NOT EXTINCT. That was my point, not that they would be the SAME dinos.

            But you still have not addressed my main point: wouldn’t the dinosaurs be such a threat to the modern eco-system (They had already taken over the island. What happened to the animals that were there originally?) that some insane eco-freak would want them destroyed to PROTECT the wildlife that was NOT created in a lab? Come on, wouldn’t that be a neat twist?

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            It is funny, how you proclaim, that you’re all for freedom, etc – yet you want that a corporation can exploit other beings as they see fit. True, there were Pteranodons leaving the island – and I think, if that would have taken place in the real world, we would need to have to look, how thinks will develop.
            I mean, we cannot just say “They don’t belong here, shoot the damn things!” – you’re right, Humans have the right, to deal with dinosaurs invading their territory… BUUUT not via “let’s just shoot them.”

            Well, what about those animals? I think, we saw some flies on that island, so I’m pretty sure, that there are bees, wasps, hornets, mosquitos, some birds and some other animals living on this island – and apparently they don’t care, if there are dinos running around.

            And I already pointed out, that that would be a neat idea – and again, I ask the question: “How do you incorporate this in this movie series? What importance would the insane eco-freak have in the movie, what would his actions cause and if those actions would cause the dinos to run amuck – congratulations, we’re still having the theme of “theme park attractions running wild”.

            Let me wrap this up:

            Winston wrote:

            “It’s a bit lame that plain old dinosaurs are no longer considered interesting enough for the Jurassic Park franchise. I get that they had to
            do something new and different this time around, but instead of giving us a
            totally made-up creature, why not instead come up with a more original premise
            than “theme park dinosaurs escape and run wild” in the first place?”

            And I ask myself:
            “What other premise can you have in a series called Jurassic Park,
            that would capture the audience?”

            Ethical debates, if the dinos should be destroyed? Sure, two to three “greens” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_%2790/The_Greens)
            would be watching the movie – but in the end, what do you think, the audience
            would say about a movie, that title is epically called “Jurassic Park V –
            Ethical debates?”.

            Probably “Did the asylum crank out that one?”

      • KLLRFRST

        They kind of did that already. There was a 4-episode JP game made by Telltale Games a few years ago for XBL and PSN that handled a similar theme.

        It revolved around a teenage girl visiting her father working as a systems manager on the island, who encounter a woman hired by a rival corporation to steal the embryos that Nedry left on the island. Part of her motivation is to get the park shut down, since it’s ruining the ecology of the island she grew on – the other part is that she needs the money to raise her daughter.

        Eventually, shit hits the fan and a pair of mercs are sent by the park owners to get any surviving crew out of there. Along the way they meet the head geneticist (a woman in her late 60s), and she discovers that the park is going to be evacuated with the dinos left behind to die, since they were genetically tweaked to be physically dependent on certain chemicals in the park environment to keep them from leaving the island. She then doses the water supply with an antidote so the dinos can live without the chemicals and escape into civilization, and locks the park down to keep the mercs from stopping her or sending in reinforcements.

        So basically, one main character is an environmentalist who helps a corporation get their hands on dino embryos for a big payout, and another one is a left-wing reactionary (not making that up – she talks at length about participating in protests and demonstrations in the 70s) who tries to kill everyone so killer reptiles can go free into the wild.

        • Greenhornet

          Thanks, that sounds something like I was trying to do.

          I’ve always liked “lost world” adventures, the idea that there are still hidden places to discover kind of thrills me.

  • Toby Clark

    “(do people really think the director of Super 8 and Star Trek Into Darkness has suddenly figured out how to make a great film?)”
    Considering that Super 8 was one of my top five of 2011 and both Star Treks are still in my top ten of their respective years, I don’t need any convincing.

  • $36060516

    “The first Terminator was a great one-off Outer Limits-type story”

    Would I be correct in assuming that this description was an intentional reference to the fact that Harlan Ellison successfully negotiated a legal settlement with the studio over his claim that the first “Terminator” copied the script to an “Outer Limits” episode he wrote? Or just coincidence?

  • Bryan McNamara

    You’re not looking forward to Star Wars 7?!?! >:-( That’s fine. It’s your opinion, glad you have one.

    • MichaelANovelli

      I dunno, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the new Star Wars movie that a talking raccoon or a dog with attitude couldn’t fix! 🙂

      • Moppet

        So the twist is that the new star wars movie already came out? :O

        • MichaelANovelli

          Personally, I’m still waiting for the Star Wars movie that focuses exclusively on the Gungans. Maybe Jar Jar travels back in time and has to get his parents together at the Enchantment Under The Sea Dance?

  • The reason the Wachowskis are still being given $175m budgets is because when a studio hits it really big with a director, they keep throwing money at them for years in the hope of recreating that success. It’s why Zach Snyder was given Man of Steel after the triple financial failures of Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians and Sucker Punch.

    • Agreed.
      The Wachowskis still have one or two more bombs before WB drops them for good, I believe.

    • Thomas Stockel

      That certainly explains why M. Night keeps getting work.

      • Well, M. Night’s last film was a Will Smith vanity project (that Smith himself pretty much directed) and his next is self-financed, so I’d say Hollywood’s finally given up on him.

    • KLLRFRST

      Watchmen cost 130 million, and made 185 million.
      Legend cost 80 million, and made 180 million
      Sucker Punch cost 82 million, and made 89 million
      (All budgets and box office tallies are from Wikipedia)

      The first 2 films on that list made a tidy profit, and even the universally panned Sucker Punch recouped its cost. I’d hardly call them “financial failures”. Honestly, if Snyder had made 3 stinkers in a row, he wouldn’t have been handed the reins to DC’s upcoming flagship movies. His films range from “pretty good” to “meh”, but every single one he directed has made a profit – even the 300 prequel, which he only produced instead of directed, made a 200% profit. So this means he’s going to keep getting work for the foreseeable future.

      • You’re listing production budgets, which are just the cost to make the film. After that you have advertising ($100m+ for movies this big), distribution, cost of film prints (when you still use those) and the cuts taken by the foreign distributors (up to 70% of that country’s gross).

        Generally to break even a Hollywood blockbuster has to make twice it’s production budget worldwide, with the budget itself at least covered by the US gross (though exceptional foreign grosses can make up for that like with Noah). This assumes DVD sales will be good though.

        A quick formula industry analysts use for estimating box office profit/losses (taken from Wikipedia’s box office bomb list page) is the worldwide gross divided by two, minus the production budget. So Watchmen lost approximately $37m, Legend (which grossed $140m, not $180m) lost $10m (DVD sales could make that break even though) and Sucker Punch lost approximately $45m.

        I wouldn’t get exited over the 300 prequel either, due to its budget being almost double that of its predecessor it was only a modest success rather than its predecessor’s massive one. I think Snyder is just generally bad at making money. Man of Steel, while profitable, fell far short of DC’s predictions (they expected a billion dollars and got two thirds of that) and with its divided reception (which usually guarantees smaller grosses for a sequel), even Batman will be unlikely to get BvS to that billion dollar goal.

  • Good article.
    The only one from this list I’ll probably watch with some friends will be the new Jurassic Park, though.
    The rest of them can burn.

  • SithSmurf

    I just had a brilliant idea…

    There should be a movie. The Wachowskis and M. Night Shyamalan can all co-direct….

    It should be a Star Trek movie, and Roberto Orci can write it. He should make sure to get in both time travel and Trek’s deep, deep thoughts on evolution….

    Josh Trank as casting director….

    Then we provide the movie, free for download….

    To North Korea.

  • NixEclips

    The problem with Jurassic World is too much CGI. The original used mostly practical fx. RIP Stan Winston.

  • Gallen_Dugall

    I’ll say this in defense of JJ, those scripts were awful but at least you can tell what’s happening from scene to scene. If we get a decent Wars script, unlikely, we’ll get a decent Wars movie.

  • KeithJF82

    Personally, I’m really interested to see how Jupiter Rising turns out. Its setting sounds like a throwback to old-school sci-fi/space opera (like Flash Gordon, Dune, and other things that inspired Star Wars and its imitators): royalty in space, animal-people, etc. So it could turn out to be a fun, quirky, retro sci-fantasy epic (the kind of thing John Carter should have been, and which Guardians of the Galaxy apparently succeeded at being to some extent)…or it could be laughably silly. The trailers give me mixed feeling as well; they seem to be heavily emphasizing the romance between Kunis and Tatum’s characters (which has strong overtones of Twilight and other fantasy/sci-fi romance fiction, with a human girl who’s in some way “special” being protected by a good-looking supernatural guy who likes to take his shirt off a lot) and every clip of the main antagonist seems to show him chewing planets worth of scenery. The most likely scenario, I think, is a movie with nice visuals but a poor script with bad dialogue, predictable character interaction and ideas recycled from better science fiction…but I’m not 100% sure that’ll happen. This Cracked article discusses reasons to hope for the best:

    http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-the-matrix-directors-next-film-wont-be-10025-crap/

    (Final thought: bet Sean Bean’s character dies. 😛 )

  • CaptainCalvinCat

    Okay, i watched Terminator – Genisys today on Blu-Ray and… it’s great. It’s a great combination of action, bit horror, bit humour – they could’ve shown more Matt Smith, but besides that I liked it.

    • Gallen_Dugall

      Apparently you didn’t get the memo that everyone is supposed to hate Arnold ever since he put that R next to his name.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        Sorry, I think I missed a joke here. Nevertheless – Terminator 5 is miles better than T4…

        • Gallen_Dugall

          Politics.