Name: Jesse Custer
JesseCuster's Recent Comments
August 28, 2013 12:04 pm Go to the site where Conor pulled the info from... Box Office Mojo has ALL kinds of data on every film, including budget. John Carter's budget was $250 million according to BOM. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/?pagenum=m50&sort=opengross&p=.htm&order=DESC
August 28, 2013 11:54 am Tracy made money because everyone was riding high on Burton's Batman still.
August 28, 2013 11:45 am Something I always wondered... why did Batman Begins debut so modestly? Back then, I was so damn excited to see it that I forced people to come with me to midnight showings, which was packed! And then I saw it a 2nd time. Were Begin's numbers actually really good for a major blockbuster back in 2005? (I don't think so? When you consider The Matrix , Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean and Pixar movies?) Was the average film-goer still reeling from Joel Schmuck-maker's horrible Bat-films, and had trust issues? I love BoxOfficeMojo BTW... I actually have it bookmarked. Also...I don't know many people who read it... but does anyone else agree that A History of Violence the movie is WAY better than the book? (of course, I saw the film first before reading the book).
August 28, 2013 11:33 am Dredd FTW.
August 28, 2013 11:31 am Ghost World and American Splendor are 'indie' films... you don't expect them to make hundreds of millions. Mask of the Phantasm didn't make bank because Warner Bros. didn't handle or promote it well. What started as a direct-to-home video film got flipped to a theatrical release. Shaq's Steel on the other hand, is not an indie film and was promoted heavily. If you're trying to say that dollars don't equate to quality, then its only partially true, it depends on other factors. What would be interesting is to see this same list ranked by critic meta-scores, and to see the same list ranked by ratio of revenue to budget.
August 26, 2013 8:50 am All I'm saying is someone make sure to save that petition, then in 2 years when people pull their thumbs out of their butts and are like "oh, that was better than expected, ok!"... then re-post all the names on that petition under the heading 'Knee-Jerk Crybabies Who Should Be Banned from the Theaters Until The Day They Die"
August 26, 2013 8:47 am While Affeck would not be my choice and never appear on my list of choices, I have to insist that for super-hero films, what matters the most is the production, from script to director. Batman & Robin would NOT be a better film if you just simply switched out George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzengger. Daredevil would not be a better film if you just switched out Affleck (and, well, the ENTIRE cast for that matter). Ghost Rider 1 & 2 would not be better movies if all you did was take out Nick Cage. The Punisher films had pretty decent Punishers (Thomas Jane, Ray Stevenson), but the movies still suck to a degree. Wolverine Origins and Xmen Last Stand have a GREAT cast and are thoroughly hated. Superman Returns they found a dude that looks like Christoper Reeve's little brother and got Kevin Spacey as Luthor and the movie is as boring as watching paint dry. Spider-man 1 and 2 are still really pretty good despite a lot of fanboy's dislike of Tobey McGuire. Also... WTF is this crap about Joe Mangiello? Ok, if we all want to hate on Affleck as Batman, then I do not get whatsover how Joe Mangiello fits the bill. What am I supposed to base this on? True Blood? Magic Mike? GTFO with that Joe Mangiello noise. Seems like to me a lot people would rather vote with their lady/man wet dream boners when suggesting Mangiello. If Aflleck is the worst choice, then Mangiello is 2nd to worst.
August 21, 2013 3:08 pm Arms of Orion... 'Bruce Wayne' duets with 'Vicki Vale'. Its so much cheese, but in a good way.
August 21, 2013 3:02 pm Pricey? Where are you looking? http://www.ebay.com/itm/STAR-TREK-NEXT-GENERATION-X-MEN-1-NEAR-MINT-1998-/360720578286?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item53fc9f36ee
August 2, 2013 8:58 am Gonna watch this tonight, but based on the review, it sounds like JL: Doom, where they had to squeeze too much into 75 minutes. I really don't get that about DC toons. Why does Warner limit them and their budget? What's wrong with a 2-hr full length cartoon? Even with The Dark Knight Returns toons, they had to split it on 2 separate retail DVDs? Why? I would rather they NOT pay actors like Bryan Cranston or whomever that agrees to do voicework, instead pay some unknown voice actor, and use the money they save to extended the length and quality of the feature. I don't know anyone who said "Oh, So-and-SO is doing a voice in that new DCU cartoon? Well I'm totally buying that now"