• TehBamski@lemmy.worldOP
      29·
      2 months ago

      Sadly Dredd didn’t make enough money to recoup their production costs, while it was in theaters. It’s been estimated that Dredd made around $20 million in the Home Market. This means how many DVD and Blu-ray sales they made. I wasn’t able to find any info on streaming numbers unfortunately.

      I still hold out hope that a sequel is made and released before the end of the decade.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        26·
        2 months ago

        If Dredd is the movie I’m thinking of, I would assume VHS sales outpaced both Bluray and dvd sales combined! Didn’t that movie come out in 1995?

            • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
              6·
              2 months ago

              It’s probably because I was drunk when I watched Judge Dredd in the theater, but I seem to remember liking Stallone in that. I thought that Dredd was just a worse rip-off of The Raid, but then I read somewhere that they basically co-evolved to a similar thing.

              • Fondots@lemmy.world
                8·
                2 months ago

                Judge Dread was a fine movie for people who are into that sort of movie (and I am) but it was a pretty terrible adaptation of the comics.

              • Y|yukichigai@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                4·
                2 months ago

                As a Stallone movie it’s entertaining in a “brain off eat popcorn” way, same sorta feel as Demolition Man (which was fun). It’s only once you understand the material that it’s supposed to be adapting that you feel like you were cheated.

                • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
                  2·
                  2 months ago

                  That makes sense. I enjoyed the first Tom Cruz Reacher movie. Then I read a handful of the books, and was just very disappointed in the casting.

                • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  It also depends on your ability to not leave when Rob Schneider shows up and starts Rob Schneidering all over the damn screen.

    • astrsk@fedia.io
      331·
      2 months ago

      I might be in the minority but Chappie was a really good movie. It’s a real bummer Die Antword were so horrible to work with that the director kinda gave up on it.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        42·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, but before the director made several more movies that were all bad. I don’t know how he keeps getting work.

          • roofuskit@lemmy.world
            6·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, that’s another that makes no sense to me. People largely dislike all his recent works. “Let’s give him a huge budget for a two part star wars fan fic!”

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              5·
              2 months ago

              Snyder has an amazing eye for action. Sucker Punch, 300, and Watchmen were all amazing visual/auditory feasts. Everything else about his movies is just average to below average, though.

              Giving him a Star Wars makes perfect sense when you consider what Disney thinks of the Star Wars audience. “Just give them laser sword and space ships and explosions and they’ll be happy.”

              • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
                5·
                2 months ago

                Blomkamp is better in every way. I think he got blacklisted because the money guys didn’t like his social commentary.

                • MagicShel@programming.dev
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  I personally wouldn’t put him above Snyder in the visuals category, but I respect your opinion and I don’t think you’re way off or anything. I can see having that preference.

                • roofuskit@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  Blokamp is great at effects and story ideas, he’s not a good director. Even District 9 is a bit of a directorial mess but there’s enough interesting story there to overcome that. The rest of his films? Not so much.

          • BigPotato@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 months ago

            I mean, stupid teenage boys will spend what money they have to hang out with their friends… So, it’s a viable audience.

          • herrvogel@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 months ago

            His stuff at least manages to make money somehow, so that makes some kind of sense from a money worship point of view. I doubt Blomkamp’s movies raked in as much cash though.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          52·
          2 months ago

          …uhhhhhhh, I would ask your mom if she smoked while pregnant with you. There’s clearly something wrong with the development of how your brain came out.

          • PoopingCough@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            Look, I’m not saying any of them come close to the original, but imo it’s the second best of the series (including all the dogshit jurassic worlds) because it sticks to what made the first one great; small amount of people trapped on an island with dinos. The Lost World was like half that but then it turns in to some weird almost king kong-esq thing. Also i love me some Goldblum but he’s better as a foil imo and Chris Pratt has nowhere near the gravitas as Sam Neil. Like really besides the annoying parents what do you not like about the third one?

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          61·
          2 months ago

          It became a parody of Godzilla movies for no real reason. And it came out of nowhere. I call it the movies 4th act.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        41·
        2 months ago

        Jurassic World is a guilty pleasure of mine.
        It’s good enough to grip you and at the same time so predictable and full of clichés it’s also funny.
        Plus, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard are both hot as hell.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      1·
      2 months ago

      I really don’t get the hate for the second two.

      There was a bit more to the story and required paying attention. The second two had more action that’s wasn’t directly related to the story but was still good.

      As much as I tried to like 4 it was crap.

      • Yprum@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        The thing is that “excellent” is something they are not… Look I enjoyed the movies too, they can be quite fun. Some aspects are great, the action and stunt work is in my opinion flawless for the time. Some other things were great too and some others not so much. But in general, really they are not good movies if we try to be a bit neutral, and at the very least they can’t follow the complexity of the theme from the first movie while making it look so simple like that one did. It may just be the case of standing too close to the sun, the movies as part of the trilogy just can’t compare. So people have a feeling of rejection to them. And probably the one thing people find it tough to come to grips with is the fact that the first movie had great action, that helped the movie go forward, while the others just seem to have random action scenes that are just not part of the story. It’s just about how they are added into the story.

        But don’t let that bother you, enjoy the movies, I still do, they are just not the masterpieces the first one was.

        And no, its not about wanting the first one again, in essence, I wish the movies would have managed to expand the story in a refreshing way like the Animatrix did. But they just fall flat instead, simple mindless fun that kinda finish the storyline quite OK for me.

        Now the fourth part… That was brilliant, a brilliant crap, but brilliant nonetheless. If my guess is not wrong, it was a great middle finger to the movie execs that wanted to squeeze more money out of the movies.

      • lugal@lemmy.world
        21·
        2 months ago

        You call it a trilogy because you reject the fourth one

        I call it trilogy because I reject the first one

        We are not the same

        Jokes aside, I would call 2&3 a long movie, which makes it a trilogy again. One mistake is to see them as separate

  • graham1@lemmy.worldEnglish
    471·
    2 months ago

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. It did quite well when it came out, and it felt like there was potential for sequels

    • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
      26·
      2 months ago

      I’m surprised nobody has done a modern TV version. All five books have been successfully adapted for radio, the scripts are done, it’s already blocked out into well-paced individual episodes. It’s just sitting there waiting to be made. You just need a good cast and a show runner who isn’t going to monkey with the source material. It’s already proven to be popular and long-lived. Seems like a no-brainer.

      • DJDarren@thelemmy.clubEnglish
        121·
        2 months ago

        All five books have been successfully adapted for radio

        As far as I’m aware, the first two radio series predate the books. So, in fact, they were successfully adapted into print.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          Which I didn’t like at all, it felt too much like an audiobook to me, reading all the guide bits, not like an adaptation. Looks like you can never satisfy all fans at once.

    • turddle@lemmy.world
      8·
      2 months ago

      Ohh that’s a good one. The other books afterwards were great too.

      Would’ve loved a sequel and would honestly not mind them artistically fudging it a bit to pick back up with an older Arthur Dent

        • Fondots@lemmy.world
          9·
          2 months ago

          And the book wasn’t living up to the original radio series

          Mostly kidding on that

          I agree that I like the book better, initially I disliked the movie, but I’ve come around on it, some things from the radio series were changed for the book, and so it just kind of feels right they’d further change things for the movie. Playing a little fast and loose with it feels very in the Douglass Adams spirit to me.

        • BigPotato@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 months ago

          I believe Adams himself considered each different medium to be “it’s own story” though just as he added and changed things from the radio play for the book, he also added and changed things in the movie screen play… When he was involved in it. I’m not going to pretend it was all his work but it was it’s own thing.

        • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
          4·
          2 months ago

          Douglas Adams writing doesn’t translate well to film I think, a bit like Pratchett’s. It can be done (Good Omens was a great adaptation of Pratchett) but it’s probably super hard to do well and keep the original feeling/spirit

          • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            The 1981 TV series did a fine job, likely in no small part thanks to having Adams himself around and involved.

            I feel like any future HHG adaptation would need to be TV rather than theatrical film. That universe is just too full to condense meaningfully into a 90-minute blockbuster meant to keep the Hollywood lowest common denominator in their seats. You need room for all the multilayered apparently-random stuff interacting with each other in the particularly bizarre ways Adams was so good at pulling off, and it needs to capture the whimsy of the source material without devolving into the unremarkable formulaic stuff the latest attempt to do Dirk Gently on TV turned out to be.

  • Hubbubbub@fedia.io
    441·
    2 months ago

    Master and Commander. It was such a great adaptation of a hugely popular series, I expected it to do better at the box office than it did.

    • azimir@lemmy.ml
      5·
      2 months ago

      It’s a phenomenal movie with lots of actually reasonable depictions of sailing in the era.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 months ago

      I would have loved a sequel, too. That movie would probably have done better if it had not have to compete to The Return of the King that year.

    • Demonmariner@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 months ago

      It was a great try, visually stunning and true to the overall feel of the book, but it didn’t have a very cohesive story. They tried to cover too much ground. It would have been better if they had just stuck to the first book.

    • ___@lemm.ee
      221·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, would have been nice to find out what happened after Neo flew away. At least Rage was playing.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            “Great” is a massive overstatement. They were passable movies that suffered from bad pacing and exposition dumping. I don’t hate reloaded or revolutions, but I’m not going to go out of my way to watch them like I do for the first one.

          • androogee (they/she)@midwest.socialEnglish
            42·
            2 months ago

            Matrix sequels underrated crew rise up!

            Say what you will about the Wachowskis, they never fail to push boundaries and try something weird and interesting with every film.

            I’m very glad that the people who don’t appreciate that haven’t stopped them from doing what they do. What a bunch of wet blankets.

      • smackjack@lemmy.world
        51·
        2 months ago

        The biggest problem with those two movies is that the pacing was awful. You had exhausting fight and chase scenes followed by scenes that had way too much mumbo jumbo dialogue. Every scene could have been made shorter without losing any plot points.

          • BigPotato@lemmy.world
            61·
            2 months ago

            I understood them all just fine… Still poor pacing. The first movie was basically half buildup for the second half’s continuous action. Two and three both suffered from the abrupt slow down after the action scenes that I personally feel never really got “better.”

            I mean, I’ve got them all so I’m not going to pretend they’re as bad as other movies that we pretend didn’t get sequels but they just worse than the first one.

            That said, I would regularly rewatch a cut that was just all the action scenes.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    382·
    2 months ago

    Warcraft

    Like the video game. It was actually a pretty good introduction to the lore, (which I only know surface level from playing the games and not digging real deep. So there may have been mistakes) and it was just about to get good, but, there just wasn’t enough interest to sink more money in the franchise.

    • TehBamski@lemmy.worldOP
      121·
      2 months ago

      I saw Warcraft in theaters when it came out. I left the theater thinking that it was 6/10 at best.

      Fast forward to 2021. I Saw that it had gotten better reviews since years ago, and I was thirsty for some nostalgia and was willing to give it another try. Turns out, I liked it more this time around. I believe that I had my expectations really high when I went to see it. Seconded watch, I gave it a 7.5/10.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        I really liked how neither the Orcs or Humans were the bad guys. They painted both teams as equally sympathetic.

        When we were following the Humans I was like “Yeah! Let’s crush those Orcs!” But then we start following the Orcs and I’m like “Watch out! Those asshole Humans are coming for you!”

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      61·
      2 months ago

      I recently watched this and was surprised how much I enjoyed it, I expected it to be terrible based on the reviews.

    • kratoz29@lemm.eeEnglish
      41·
      2 months ago

      I find this comment reassuring as I have said movie on my watchlist.

      (My Warcraft knowledge is about almost finishing Warcraft III, for some reason I always leave it close at the end, or at least I think I am close.)

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      2 months ago

      I think going back to warcraft 1 was ultimately a mistake. If they did a part closer to where the wow story was it would have done better.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        I thought the exact same thing after I watched it. Sadly, that same thought made me especially excited for the sequel… that never came.

        I understand why they did it, but there’s just too much to absorb. I was a fan, and although I recognized some of the names, I wasn’t familiar with any of the characters besides Gul’dan.

        The entire first movie should have been a 5-10 minute exposition. “It’s been X years since we came through the portal…” And instead we follow Thrall and Grom, and Uther while two factions battle for dominance! (and it’s been a while, so I forget what all happens in Warcraft 2)

        Now that I’ve typed it all out, I’ve decided that if they could only make one Warcraft movie, but I got to pick which era, it would definitely be Arthas and the Lich King. That’s a good story.

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      1·
      2 months ago

      I never played wow and thought the movie was pretty good. Especially for a video game adaptation

  • jBlight@lemmy.world
    35·
    2 months ago

    Kung pow! They even had a silly thing after the credits that i thought was real but it never came to fruition =(

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      2 months ago

      updates have been coming out all the way up to 2022, so who knows?

      I’d also love to see this sequel.

      It’s one of the projects I check every year or so, kung pow still makes me laugh.

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      54·
      2 months ago

      As a fan of genuine hong kong kung fu cinema growing up, this remains one of the few films I had to stop watching about 15 minutes in—was clear whoever made the movie had never actually seen a kung fu film. To add insult to injury the dvd decided to hide itself under a pile of magazines causing me and my brother to pay extra on a massive late fee because of it. I hate that movie.

      • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
        6·
        2 months ago

        Wow that’s the worst reason to hate a movie i have ever seen. “as a fan of star wars, it was clear that the makers of spaceballs have no idea how to make a scifi movie.”

        • Donebrach@lemmy.world
          13·
          2 months ago

          It was completely devoid of humor, and was clearly written by someone who had never actually watched the thing they were satirizing. I feel like that’s a pretty good reason to not like it.

          There are a million genuine articles of badly dubbed, stupid and hilariously cheap kung fu movies out there, Kung Pow was like if Coke decided to make an off-brand Mr. Pibb.

      • Rob T Firefly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        It’s a bit odd to claim the guy who reedited and remixed an entire existing kung fu film never watched a kung fu film. Like his work or not, he pretty evidently saw the thing.

  • azimir@lemmy.ml
    351·
    2 months ago

    Jumper. It was setting up an interesting world with more depth than the first movie could delve. I loved that one of the characters was so cool that the author of the original novel went out and wrote another book just about the movie’s character and it rocked.