Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   The Hobbit 2 extends its streak as the #1 film in America, with Frozen, Anchorman 2, and American Hustle trailing behind it while Wolf of Wall Street and 47 Ronin become the last big bombs of the year   (deadline.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, American Hustle, ronin, The Hobbit, hustle, wolves, hobbits, lone survivor, The Big Bang Theory  
•       •       •

1662 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 29 Dec 2013 at 1:17 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-29 04:48:16 PM  
I wouldn't recommend seeing Wolf of Wall Street with your mom.  That was fun.
 
2013-12-29 04:55:12 PM  

llort dam eht: Maybe I'm getting old but when movies push past 2 hrs my interest drops.


same here. I don't mind long movies, but it seems like more and more movies are starting to push past the 2 hour mark; comedies are especially egregious in this area. I think I would be more excited for The Hobbit if it had stayed a 3-hour (x2) film (or even if each half was slightly longer than 3 hours) rather than 3 movies x 3 hours, especially since the first film felt very padded.

out of curiosity, is there any studies that show if movie lengths are in fact increasing?
 
2013-12-29 04:56:39 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Disgruntled Goat: For anyone who still doesn't think Fark is paid to steer traffic to Deadline Hollywood, check out linked tags under the headline above these comments.

A whole lot of time and effort went into those.

I think those are automatically generated.


They're not. And look at the tags for any other comment thread to see what I'm getting at. A lot of extra admin time went into the Deadline Hollywood tags to snag as many Google searches as possible.
 
2013-12-29 05:08:04 PM  
Don't know if it was mentioned already (too lazy to read the thread), but the Wolf of Wall Street trailer is awful. Aaaaaaawful. Every time it played before a movie that I was seeing it was just met with quizzical stares and people turning to each other and saying, "what the fark was that about and why would I want to see it?" I know there's probably way more to it, but it comes off as a long movie of rich, obnoxious people doing rich, obnoxious things and no one wants to see that in the current economic climate. No amount of Scorcese can overcome terrible promotion.
 
2013-12-29 05:22:17 PM  
I thought "47 Ronin" was ok, but I liked it better when it was called "300" and set in Greece.
 
2013-12-29 05:29:41 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: out of curiosity, is there any studies that show if movie lengths are in fact increasing?


I don't think so, though I do think studios and exhibitors have come to accept that they have to let films run at least two hours or audiences don't feel like they've gotten their money's worth; when you're standing back out in the street in 80 minutes, you wonder where your $12.00 went.

Honestly, I've experienced some of the worst boredom during shorter films; a badly plotted second act can seem to last forever.

The golden age of long films was in the late 50s and early 60s, when new formats, new sound systems and attempts to better TV led to huge events films, like Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, Cleopatra and (worst of them all) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
 
2013-12-29 05:29:43 PM  
Wolf average $7,296 per theater and has made 1/3 of its budget. It will have strong legs going into Oscar seasn.. no where close to a bomb
 
2013-12-29 05:43:32 PM  
Eh,  Wolf of Wall Street looks interesting, and I got an AMC gift card this Xmas, so why not?
 
2013-12-29 05:59:38 PM  

Blues Drive Monster: Eh,  Wolf of Wall Street looks interesting, and I got an AMC gift card this Xmas, so why not?


See it.  Decaprio was frenetic.  Carried the whole movie.
 
2013-12-29 06:00:24 PM  

RatMaster999: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 382x500]
I'm curious to see 47 Ronin, but I know I have to go into with the assumption I'm viewing a movie based on someone's L5R campaign (kinda like Record of Lodoss War was for D&D), rather than a movie based on the actual story.


Record of Lodoss War is out on blu-ray by the way :D
 
2013-12-29 06:36:17 PM  
Just got back from American Hustle. It was well-acted (Bale and Adams especially so), and the twist at the end was interesting, but it was perhaps a bit over-hyped. Would have benefited from about half as much of Jennifer Lawrence's scenery-chewing.
 
2013-12-29 07:06:59 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: FeedTheCollapse: out of curiosity, is there any studies that show if movie lengths are in fact increasing?

I don't think so, though I do think studios and exhibitors have come to accept that they have to let films run at least two hours or audiences don't feel like they've gotten their money's worth; when you're standing back out in the street in 80 minutes, you wonder where your $12.00 went.


My guess is that certain genres have experienced increased lengths, mostly comedies. ~90 minutes seem to be the norm for comedies still, but it seems like 2 hour running times are increasingly prevalent.

The golden age of long films was in the late 50s and early 60s, when new formats, new sound systems and attempts to better TV led to huge events films, like Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, Cleopatra and (worst of them all) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.


while I don't think extreme lengths (i.e. 3 hours+) are more common, it does seem like 120 - 140 minute lengths are increasingly the norm, likely for the reasons you cited. I'm don't really think that the extra 15 - 20 minutes necessarily makes the extra $$$ for the ticket worth it, though.
 
2013-12-29 07:33:36 PM  

Jizz Master Zero: Don't know if it was mentioned already (too lazy to read the thread), but the Wolf of Wall Street trailer is awful. Aaaaaaawful. Every time it played before a movie that I was seeing it was just met with quizzical stares and people turning to each other and saying, "what the fark was that about and why would I want to see it?" I know there's probably way more to it, but it comes off as a long movie of rich, obnoxious people doing rich, obnoxious things and no one wants to see that in the current economic climate. No amount of Scorcese can overcome terrible promotion.


I thought it's implied that he doesn't get away with it. So why not indulge in the depiction of his ridiculous lifestyle while we wait for him to fall.
 
2013-12-29 08:03:39 PM  

sadbad: Was the Wolf on Wallstreet actually expected to do big numbers? I know it was released at the end of the year for maximum Oscar-Baitness - I don't think anyone was thinking, "yeah I'm sure everyone is going to load up the car full of the relatives and go watch a 3 hour sex fueled amorality tale.


Wolf of Wall Street was supposed to come out on November 15th, but was pushed back. Definitely weak Christmas content, but it may have done better in the Thanksgiving run up.
 
2013-12-29 08:26:18 PM  

Disgruntled Goat: For anyone who still doesn't think Fark is paid to steer traffic to Deadline Hollywood, check out linked tags under the headline above these comments.

A whole lot of time and effort went into those.


What linked tags?

/lel
 
2013-12-29 08:35:18 PM  
Hobbit 2 is much, much better than the first.  I would even recommend it.  I wouldn't recommend the first one, even though I own it.
 
2013-12-29 08:42:48 PM  

Funbags: Just got back from American Hustle. It was well-acted (Bale and Adams especially so), and the twist at the end was interesting, but it was perhaps a bit over-hyped. Would have benefited from about half as much of Jennifer Lawrence's scenery-chewing.


Not to sound juvenile, but was the kiss between Adams and Lawrence any good?
 
2013-12-29 08:47:06 PM  
The Desolation of Smaug was such a pointless movie. Fun, sure, a little, but completely proves expanding The Hobbit into a trilogy was a mistake. An hour to an hour and a half could have easily been cut out while the rest was moved to the first and thirds films.

It wasn't terrible but the pacing was really off. Certain scenes felt really rushed while others just wouldn't end. I don't know how it's possible in an almost three hour movie to have certain portions, like Beorn and Mirkwood Forest, feel rushed but that's Peter Jackson for you, I guess.
 
2013-12-29 08:55:42 PM  

Cheater71: Funbags: Just got back from American Hustle. It was well-acted (Bale and Adams especially so), and the twist at the end was interesting, but it was perhaps a bit over-hyped. Would have benefited from about half as much of Jennifer Lawrence's scenery-chewing.

Not to sound juvenile, but was the kiss between Adams and Lawrence any good?


Yes. Yes it was.
 
2013-12-29 10:34:42 PM  
TheSelphie * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-12-29 01:28:59 PM spman: While Wolf of Wallstreet does look good, it is very very long, which is going to hurt it's appeal to a lot of people. Yeah, it's definitely a rental. I need at least one piss break for something that long. How the fark did it have a $100 million budget? I'm guessing $90 mil was spent on the actors and Scorsese alone.
===================================================

The vast majority of nearly any movie budget these days is paying the actors.

DiCaprio probably warrants at least $20 million by himself.

/Anyway, it's very very hard R rated movie that's very long. It's hard to make a lot of money with that.
//And seeing Dicaprio in a comedy of any kind is just weird. Although, I admit I want to check it out just for that reason.
 
2013-12-29 10:49:06 PM  
Keanu is part Chinese.  Close enough.
 
2013-12-29 10:56:11 PM  
Reading this thread makes me want to see a "Director's Cut" of 47 Ronin
 
2013-12-29 11:02:35 PM  

jake3988: TheSelphie * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-12-29 01:28:59 PM spman: While Wolf of Wallstreet does look good, it is very very long, which is going to hurt it's appeal to a lot of people. Yeah, it's definitely a rental. I need at least one piss break for something that long. How the fark did it have a $100 million budget? I'm guessing $90 mil was spent on the actors and Scorsese alone.
===================================================

The vast majority of nearly any movie budget these days is paying the actors.

DiCaprio probably warrants at least $20 million by himself.

/Anyway, it's very very hard R rated movie that's very long. It's hard to make a lot of money with that.
//And seeing Dicaprio in a comedy of any kind is just weird. Although, I admit I want to check it out just for that reason.


Wolf Of Wall Street is a prestige movie, not a cash grab. Studios will give Scorsese a 100-million dollar budget just to say they put out a Scorsese movie. So far, it's pulled in 35-million since Christmas, which isn't bad for a 3-hour movie playing in a third of the amount of theaters The Hobbit is playing in.

We're right at the slow season for movies, and there isn't much competition coming out. It'll probably end it's theatrical run with 70-million domestic, 50 million international, and it'll make the rest back with Blu-Ray and Red Box. However, if it lands a few Oscar nominations for the studio, they'll see it as totally worth it.
 
2013-12-29 11:43:10 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Wolf of Wall Street was good.  very Scorscesesque.   Did not like American Hustle at all.  Some pretty good acting from Bale and Lawrence, but there was nothing in the story to make us really care about what happened to the characters.   Didn't plan on watching Grudge Match, but had nothing else to do one day and it was the only thing showing when we wanted to go......was actually pretty funny.  Kevin Hart and Alan Arkin are hilarious.


Yep, wished I had just waited to rent American Hustle while Wolf of Wall Street was easily one of the most entertaining movies of the year for me. I also think I laughed more than at any comedies I saw. It's seriously funny as hell.
 
2013-12-30 12:10:58 AM  
The Hobbit... What a disappointment.
 
2013-12-30 12:44:37 AM  

SecretAgentWoman: American Hustle:

Holy crap, it was LOOONNNNGGG and there is NO WAY in hell I will ever believe that two incredibly hot women were fighting over the fat, comb-over, no appreciable charming capabilities leading man. Really. He was a complete loser and turn off.

Having said that, the individual performances were outstanding. The script and the pace, not so much.


This is what the wife and I believe
 
2013-12-30 12:47:09 AM  

Funbags: Just got back from American Hustle. It was well-acted (Bale and Adams especially so), and the twist at the end was interesting, but it was perhaps a bit over-hyped. Would have benefited from about half as much of Jennifer Lawrence's scenery-chewing.


Didn't you like her going on about her nail polish forever?
 
2013-12-30 12:49:19 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: llort dam eht: Maybe I'm getting old but when movies push past 2 hrs my interest drops.

same here. I don't mind long movies, but it seems like more and more movies are starting to push past the 2 hour mark; comedies are especially egregious in this area. I think I would be more excited for The Hobbit if it had stayed a 3-hour (x2) film (or even if each half was slightly longer than 3 hours) rather than 3 movies x 3 hours, especially since the first film felt very padded.

out of curiosity, is there any studies that show if movie lengths are in fact increasing?


I too, feel that comedies are starting to reach the 2 hour mark, where really, most of the old comedies had to pad themselves to hit 90 minutes
 
2013-12-30 04:27:23 AM  

Mad_Radhu: I'm really pleased to see Frozen continuing to have legs. It was a really fun movie, and "Let It Go" is probably a lock for best original song. It's definitely a movie that has benefited from word of mouth, because the ad campaign for the movie did a terrible job of getting across the tone and story of the movie.


I really wasn't impressed with Frozen. That one musical number is great, but the rest of the music feels very forced.  The storyline wasn't very engaging either.  I really wanted to like it, with two female leads and a less cliched villain, (which they included anyway with the diplomat, wtf), but I found it terribly boring.  Sisters living in the same house/palace but yet NEVER seeing one another for a decade? The setup wasn't very good either, in my opinion, with no other adults evident in the rushed montage/song of them (spoiler of first five minutes) growing up without parents in classic Disney parental tragedy. And then the snowman character. ugh... at least Jar Jar didn't have a musical number.  That's when I gave up on it.  The moose as goofy animal pal was funny, but not the human companion pretending to talk like the moose.

Now, understand I was very hesitant going into this movie BECAUSE of that atrocious snowman character, and I couldn't get past him, but the rest of the movie didn't feel very strong either.  I'm a fan of the absurd and enjoy animation and musicals, but this did not hit my buttons at all.
 
2013-12-30 05:51:38 AM  

Someothermonkey: The Desolation of Smaug was such a pointless movie. Fun, sure, a little, but completely proves expanding The Hobbit into a trilogy was a mistake. An hour to an hour and a half could have easily been cut out while the rest was moved to the first and thirds films.

It wasn't terrible but the pacing was really off. Certain scenes felt really rushed while others just wouldn't end. I don't know how it's possible in an almost three hour movie to have certain portions, like Beorn and Mirkwood Forest, feel rushed but that's Peter Jackson for you, I guess.


Yeah, too long and also rushed. A neat trick if you can pull it off. I also feel they should have spent less time with Smaug. He was cool for a few minutes, but his complete inability to catch a single dwarf in 30 mins of screen time was a bit...underwhelming.

/I also learned hobbits and dwarves are remarkably heat resistant.
 
2013-12-30 06:17:41 AM  

Ostman: Someothermonkey: The Desolation of Smaug was such a pointless movie. Fun, sure, a little, but completely proves expanding The Hobbit into a trilogy was a mistake. An hour to an hour and a half could have easily been cut out while the rest was moved to the first and thirds films.

It wasn't terrible but the pacing was really off. Certain scenes felt really rushed while others just wouldn't end. I don't know how it's possible in an almost three hour movie to have certain portions, like Beorn and Mirkwood Forest, feel rushed but that's Peter Jackson for you, I guess.

Yeah, too long and also rushed. A neat trick if you can pull it off. I also feel they should have spent less time with Smaug. He was cool for a few minutes, but his complete inability to catch a single dwarf in 30 mins of screen time was a bit...underwhelming.

/I also learned hobbits and dwarves are remarkably heat resistant.


Jackson took a lot of liberties with those scenes, which frankly after the first movie I was expecting.

Yeah, it was a disservice to make it into a trilogy, but given how much money they are making I can't say I can blame the studio.  I did enjoy the river ride scenes, and despite the pointless dwarf-chase they did very well with the Smaug scenes as well.
 
2013-12-30 06:43:59 AM  

Ed Willy: sadbad: Was the Wolf on Wallstreet actually expected to do big numbers? I know it was released at the end of the year for maximum Oscar-Baitness - I don't think anyone was thinking, "yeah I'm sure everyone is going to load up the car full of the relatives and go watch a 3 hour sex fueled amorality tale.

Wolf of Wall Street was supposed to come out on November 15th, but was pushed back. Definitely weak Christmas content, but it may have done better in the Thanksgiving run up.


The studio had to know the original date was unlikely. Scorsese has a reputation for being long in editing as he constantly sees new films within the footage he's shot and has issues making up his mind.

So I would bet they set one date and then prepare for another one later for the full court press.
 
2013-12-30 08:36:19 AM  
TH:TDOS suuuuuuuucked. Felt like they were desperate for ideas to extend the movie into three parts. That love tripod is horribly conceived, too.
 
2013-12-30 08:44:10 AM  
Dahnkster


Hobbit was great. Finally saw it last night.

It was ok for a kids film, but even they realized that the 13 stooges trying to BURN a dragon was farking stupid.

Way to make your Big baddy look like a pussy. Have a bunch of dwarves bumble around in front of him outsmarting and out doing him for 15 minutes.
 
2013-12-30 09:39:01 AM  

browntimmy: Pumpernickel bread: Wolf of Wall Street was good.  very Scorscesesque.   Did not like American Hustle at all.  Some pretty good acting from Bale and Lawrence, but there was nothing in the story to make us really care about what happened to the characters.   Didn't plan on watching Grudge Match, but had nothing else to do one day and it was the only thing showing when we wanted to go......was actually pretty funny.  Kevin Hart and Alan Arkin are hilarious.

Yep, wished I had just waited to rent American Hustle while Wolf of Wall Street was easily one of the most entertaining movies of the year for me. I also think I laughed more than at any comedies I saw. It's seriously funny as hell.


Agreed, the movie was hilarious coontil it went all SERIOUSFACE at the end) and the acting top-notch.  I do agree with some previous posters that it could've used a 15-20 min trim on the editing room floor, though... some of the pacing was off in the latter 1/3 of the film.

/still highly recommend it
//Leo was captivating
///and Jonah Hill was f*ing hilarious
 
2013-12-30 11:01:16 AM  
I read these Deadline box office updates because I'm a glutton for punishment or something.

The lady that's writing them now started off with a reasoned approach, but I guess her boss/editor/publisher/whatever screamed into her ear to "ACT MORE LIKE THAT FINKE BIATCH."

So now we're back to poorly written shallow snark.
 
2013-12-30 01:19:25 PM  

Benjamin Stone: I read these Deadline box office updates because I'm a glutton for punishment or something.

The lady that's writing them now started off with a reasoned approach, but I guess her boss/editor/publisher/whatever screamed into her ear to "ACT MORE LIKE THAT FINKE BIATCH."

So now we're back to poorly written shallow snark.


Damn it! I was looking forward to detailed and blissfully snark-free box office analysis in the wake of Finke's dramatic, um, "departure". Shiat.
 
2013-12-30 05:21:08 PM  
Just saw 47 Ronin. It's not a terrible movie but for $200 million it should have been a fark of a lot better.
 
2013-12-30 06:13:50 PM  

Apos: Benjamin Stone: I read these Deadline box office updates because I'm a glutton for punishment or something.

The lady that's writing them now started off with a reasoned approach, but I guess her boss/editor/publisher/whatever screamed into her ear to "ACT MORE LIKE THAT FINKE BIATCH."

So now we're back to poorly written shallow snark.

Damn it! I was looking forward to detailed and blissfully snark-free box office analysis in the wake of Finke's dramatic, um, "departure". Shiat.


Are you making fun of me???

*shakes the world's tiniest fist*
 
2013-12-30 08:20:38 PM  

Benjamin Stone: Apos: Benjamin Stone: I read these Deadline box office updates because I'm a glutton for punishment or something.

The lady that's writing them now started off with a reasoned approach, but I guess her boss/editor/publisher/whatever screamed into her ear to "ACT MORE LIKE THAT FINKE BIATCH."

So now we're back to poorly written shallow snark.

Damn it! I was looking forward to detailed and blissfully snark-free box office analysis in the wake of Finke's dramatic, um, "departure". Shiat.

Are you making fun of me???

*shakes the world's tiniest fist*


Heh....Actually, no. I agree with you. :)
 
2013-12-30 10:10:14 PM  
Holy shiat, Wolf of Wall Street was one of the worst farking movies ever.  Pointless scenes, no ending, just drugs and big titties.  I can hit pornhub for that FOR FREE.
 
2013-12-30 10:53:43 PM  

Apos: Benjamin Stone: Apos: Benjamin Stone: I read these Deadline box office updates because I'm a glutton for punishment or something.

The lady that's writing them now started off with a reasoned approach, but I guess her boss/editor/publisher/whatever screamed into her ear to "ACT MORE LIKE THAT FINKE BIATCH."

So now we're back to poorly written shallow snark.

Damn it! I was looking forward to detailed and blissfully snark-free box office analysis in the wake of Finke's dramatic, um, "departure". Shiat.

Are you making fun of me???

*shakes the world's tiniest fist*

Heh....Actually, no. I agree with you. :)


Don't test me Apos.

I still have these tiny fists.

;)
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report