• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

T'Chakku

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,590
Toronto
I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.

Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,652
Arizona
I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.

Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.
I mean

Does Star Wars count? lol

Most of it is CGI replacing old practical effects, but there are cases like Special Edition Jabba getting completely redone in the DVD editions.
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.

Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.
I bet the budget they would get for a re-release would be way too small and they would need to do a lot more work than the SW SE's, since they were just adding CG elements on top of what was there, instead of having to redo entire sequences like they would need to do with BP.
 

Buckle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
41,206
I imagine that some will be asking what went wrong. But Ant-Man 1's first Friday was $22.6M. Even at $80M, this is going to be a 40% bump over the opening of the first. If this wasn't an MCU film, we'd be talking about the great increase.

Deadline is saying that the budget was $162M. Break even (after home media is factored in) is probably around $350M worldwide. AMatW should be around $600M I think. Maybe higher.
That Wasp bump!
 

RolandGunner

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,532
I'd have to go back and check, but Ant-Man and the Wasp might be the first MCU film to not win a worldwide weekend. A film called Dying to Survive is blowing up in China right now.

This Dying to Survive film is up to $141M through Saturday and is expected to come in north of $450M by the end. This from a black comedy. China is a very different film market.

https://deadline.com/2018/07/dying-to-survive-china-box-office-social-impact-1202422199/
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,671
I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.

Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.
There are obviously the infamous cases of Star Wars (which kept getting changed up until their final release on blu-ray) and E.T. (where Spielberg replaces every gun with a walkie talkie...then later walked back on that fuck-up).

But there's also Blade Runner's final cut, which is a (much) more positive case.



Modern movies and/or recent releases though? I don't think so. I doubt Marvel will ever update the VFX in any of their movies.
 

Gamer @ Heart

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,656
It feels like ILM has to pump out a lot more films than they used to these days. They do yearly SW films, 3 MCU films a year, plus all the other random films they get contracted to do.

They never do 100% of the work.

If you look at the credits of almost every movie it's almost always half a dozen or more VFX studios, some of which are subcontracted out for single sequences and vary wildly in size.

Every scene with hulk aside from the sif fight in Ragnarok was ILM for instance.
 

DarkLordMalik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,626
You guys are sleeping on Ant Man and Wasp. It is giving me flashbacks of Jurassic World FK. After the OW, I expected 350M-400M and the movie is going to get to this figure with the current trajectory.

I expect Ant Man and Wasp to atleast hit 250M and just after the Friday number, it is now being compared to Solo. Come on!

Ant Man will have MUCH better legs than Solo. If it opens closer to the high-end of estimates, which means 90M, then 250M is in the play and I am confident in it. If it opens in low 80s, it will still hit 250M because of good WOM.

Sorry to say Kswis but your predictions are far too low. Saying it gets 10M closer to Solo (225M) is a result that I don't expect in the least.
 

mreddie

Member
Oct 26, 2017
44,308
latest
 
OP
OP
kswiston

kswiston

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,693
You guys are sleeping on Ant Man and Wasp. It is giving me flashbacks of Jurassic World FK. After the OW, I expected 350M-400M and the movie is going to get to this figure with the current trajectory.

I expect Ant Man and Wasp to atleast hit 250M and just after the Friday number, it is now being compared to Solo. Come on!

Ant Man will have MUCH better legs than Solo. If it opens closer to the high-end of estimates, which means 90M, then 250M is in the play and I am confident in it. If it opens in low 80s, it will still hit 250M because of good WOM.

Sorry to say Kswis but your predictions are far too low. Saying it gets 10M closer to Solo (225M) is a result that I don't expect in the least.

Spider-Man Homecoming legs off of $80M is $228M. $250M off of a low 80s finish is a >3x multiplier. None of the direct sequels have managed that.

Also $90M is dead and buried with a $33.8M Friday. Minus previews, that is $22.3M on Friday. Guardians of the Galaxy made $26.5M on its first Friday minus previews. AMatW would have to match GotG's Sat and Sun total to stay above $90M. Films released in early July don't bump the 40% over Friday proper required for that to happen.

Basically, Deadline was overpredicting with their $85-95M range yesterday, which is why they dropped it to $81M last night, despite the fact that the Friday total only decreased $1M from their first estimate.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
You guys are sleeping on Ant Man and Wasp. It is giving me flashbacks of Jurassic World FK. After the OW, I expected 350M-400M and the movie is going to get to this figure with the current trajectory.

I expect Ant Man and Wasp to atleast hit 250M and just after the Friday number, it is now being compared to Solo. Come on!

Ant Man will have MUCH better legs than Solo. If it opens closer to the high-end of estimates, which means 90M, then 250M is in the play and I am confident in it. If it opens in low 80s, it will still hit 250M because of good WOM.

Sorry to say Kswis but your predictions are far too low. Saying it gets 10M closer to Solo (225M) is a result that I don't expect in the least.
I mean the estimated weekend is 82 mil which is a bit lower than Solo and Solo had pretty decent legs.

I mean if the estimates are way off and it does 90 that would be different. But that estimate was thrown out after the Friday numbers I thought.
 
Oct 31, 2017
5,632
All I want for AM&W is a ~25-30% increase over Ant Man across the board. So basically

OW: 57.3 -> 72 - 75MM
Domestic: 180MM -> 225 - 234MM
WW: 520MM -> 650 - 680MM

I think OW is a lock, the rest is a question mark at this point. Would be a HUGE increase over the first. If 10 years ago someone said that Ant Man would do numbers like these they would be laughed out of the room or forum. Before I got into the MCU with Civil War I thought Ant Man would be about a dude that literally turned into an ant.
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,313
Midgar, With Love
I mean the estimated weekend is 82 mil which is a bit lower than Solo and Solo had pretty decent legs.

I mean if the estimates are way off and it does 90 that would be different. But that estimate was thrown out after the Friday numbers I thought.

Hasn't Solo's multiplier been far and away the lowest in the franchise though?

Also, I legit still think Ant-Man is about a dude who turns into an ant, and I did see the first one... eventually. I guess it's just not that memorable to me, lol.
 
OP
OP
kswiston

kswiston

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,693
Hasn't Solo's multiplier been far and away the lowest in the franchise though?

Also, I legit still think Ant-Man is about a dude who turns into an ant, and I did see the first one... eventually. I guess it's just not that memorable to me, lol.

All of the other Star Wars films came out during the December holidays, or launched in the middle of the week (decades ago in most cases). Having the lowest OW multiplier means nothing in this particular case.
 
Last edited:

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,313
Midgar, With Love
All of the other Star Wars films came out during the December holidays, or launched in the middle of the week (decades ago in most cases). Having the lowest OW multiplier means nothing in this particular case.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. It's good news as a Star Wars fan, too. Well... erm. Not-terrible news. There's no positive spin to be had on Solo's numbers... lol.
 
OP
OP
kswiston

kswiston

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,693
That makes a lot of sense, thanks. It's good news as a Star Wars fan, too. Well... erm. Not-terrible news. There's no positive spin to be had on Solo's numbers... lol.

To be less handwavy, below is a table listing what percentage of their final domestic total TLJ and Solo hit on their 1st-5th weekend, assuming a $215M finish for Solo.

Code:
			Wkd1	Wkd2	Wkd3	Wkd4	Wkd5
The Last Jedi		35.5%	59.4%	83.4%	92.4%	95.5%
Solo			39.3%	69.3%	82.2%	90.1%	94.2%

Solo had better late legs than TLJ, despite being more frontloaded at the beginning. Mostly because grosses are spread out over the winter holidays.

Solo ended up having a typical Memorial Day run for a big film, while TLJ had the most frontloaded Late December run for a big film to date.
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,313
Midgar, With Love
To be less handwavy, below is a table listing what percentage of their final domestic total TLJ and Solo hit on their 1st-5th weekend, assuming a $215M finish for Solo.

Code:
            Wkd1    Wkd2    Wkd3    Wkd4    Wkd5
The Last Jedi        35.5%    59.4%    83.4%    92.4%    95.5%
Solo            39.3%    69.3%    82.2%    90.1%    94.2%

Solo had better late legs than TLJ, despite being more frontloaded at the beginning. Mostly because grosses are spread out over the winter holidays.

Solo ended up having a typical Memorial Day run for a big film, while TLJ had the most frontloaded Late December run for a big film to date.

Fascinating. I'll be sure to cross-reference this a few times going forward.

Regardless of the end results, we were entering a very different playing field with a Star Wars film opening when it did, I see. Especially for the modern era. I see now that it was going to move along separate metrics than what I've become accustomed to with December releases whether it did poorly, terrifically, or anywhere in-between.
 

Sibersk Esto

Changed the hierarchy of thread titles
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,535
The funny thing about Panther's final fight is that it's literally two dudes fighting. Maybe the actual Panther suits made it difficult for some actual one on one fight choreography.
 

Fudgepuppy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,270
And here I thought Jurassic World wouldn't break 650.

- Terrible trailers.
- Seemingly no hype from anyone at my job or anything.
 

DarkLordMalik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,626
I mean the estimated weekend is 82 mil which is a bit lower than Solo and Solo had pretty decent legs.

I mean if the estimates are way off and it does 90 that would be different. But that estimate was thrown out after the Friday numbers I thought.
Solo opened to $84M and had a Memorial Weekend, so it is not apples to oranges comparison for Ant Man. The numbers are inflated for it due to this reason. It is actually on the lower end of Memorial Weekend opening multiplier.

Solo percentage drops were worse than TLG in the initial weeks as shared by Kswiss. It recovered a bit but just being better, and that too slightly, for the worse legs Star Wars is not a result that I would call decent.

Spider-Man Homecoming legs off of $80M is $228M. $250M off of a low 80s finish is a >3x multiplier. None of the direct sequels have managed that.

Also $90M is dead and buried with a $33.8M Friday. Minus previews, that is $22.3M on Friday. Guardians of the Galaxy made $26.5M on its first Friday minus previews. AMatW would have to match GotG's Sat and Sun total to stay above $90M. Films released in early July don't bump the 40% over Friday proper required for that to happen.

Basically, Deadline was overpredicting with their $85-95M range yesterday, which is why they dropped it to $81M last night, despite the fact that the Friday total only decreased $1M from their first estimate.
The issue here is that you should compare it to an MCU movie in 2018. Did we not see better than expected results with Black Panther and even Infinity War just recently? So why is it hard to see that Ant Man and Wasp will repeat the same, by which I mean it will do better than expected.

Why do I believe it? MCU hype is at all time peak now. We are just coming off from Avengers and Black Panther both making >650M. They all shattered the initial expectations and not just for their OW. I remember how everyone was skeptical of Avengers IW coming closer to $650M even after that huge opening weekend. It is going to end up with 2.65x multiplayer, which is amazing for a movie that opened to such a huge number and faced so much competition ahead.

Just saying it is too early to call the LTD for Ant Man. My multiplier predictions at the minimum are 2.65x to maximum of 2.8x for Ant Man. I might be just overpredicting it but I do believe the film has a chance at $250M if it hits 90M. It will then need just a 2.8x multiplayer to hit that number. You already said it is hard to get to that number but I guess we will see. If it ends up in the middle with 85M, then yeh, I won't be that sure. I do still think it can hit 240M.

Anyways, it will end up doing far better than the first movie so any result that is an improvement is good. But it is fun to argue numbers so I am just clarifying that it won't be a disappointment in any case :)

And here I thought Jurassic World wouldn't break 650.

- Terrible trailers.
- Seemingly no hype from anyone at my job or anything.
DOM or INT?

Domestically, it had no chance of hitting that number. Internationally, the brand is HUGE and the movie has already made $700M from INT markets.
 

Ashhong

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,673
Is there any big movie coming out next Friday? I'm trying to guess whether or not Ant Man will still be in Dolby Theaters next Tuesday..
 

Ashhong

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,673
And then it's Mission Impossible! I hope nothing kicks that out of Imax for a few weeks. Don't movies usually have a contract to stay on IMAX screens for a designated amount of time?
 

Benji

Self Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,114
People working themselves into a frenzy that every MCU movie has to be ultra insanely massive always messes up the discussion. It's why we had people saying Guardians 2, Spiderman Homecoming, etc. underperformed back when they release because they didnt hit a Billion at the box office.

Same is gonna happen with Ant-Man. Instead of the discussion being around how big of an increase it is from the original it will instead be why it "underperformed" because it's not going to hit some of the crazy 750-800m predictions that were being thrown around
 

Ashhong

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,673
The week after is Christopher Robin and I get the feeling Disney will kick that out.
No way will that kick MI out of Imax...I hope. I only say that because MI has always been a big hit in IMAX and they even film scenes with IMAX cameras. To kick that out for Christopher Robin is crazy
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,313
Midgar, With Love
People working themselves into a frenzy that every MCU movie has to be ultra insanely massive always messes up the discussion. It's why we had people saying Guardians 2, Spiderman Homecoming, etc. underperformed back when they release because they didnt hit a Billion at the box office.

Same is gonna happen with Ant-Man. Instead of the discussion being around how big of an increase it is from the original it will instead be why it "underperformed" because it's not going to hit some of the crazy 750-800m predictions that were being thrown around

Yeah, as much as anecdotal evidence has me thinking somewhat less impressively of AM&TW's potential this weekend (and even then, I just walked into work and we're doing brisk overall business based on the number of cars in the lot right now) I firmly agree with you that folks skew ridiculously high sometimes. Oftentimes. The MCU seems to be a billion-and-up club with no room for anything less among certain eyes, including some professional journalists. It blows my mind every time.
 

hodayathink

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,056
I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.

Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.

Closest I can think of is Days of Future Past: The Rogue Cut, where they took Rogue's subplot, which I think didn't get its CGI finished before they cut it, and finished it up and inserted it into the movie for a disc/digital release.
 

berzeli

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,384
I still dont get how that train scene came out of ILM. Just months before ILM did incredible cgi in IW and Solo.
Maybe a sign of how overworked and stretched out ILM is. I got nothing but unconditional respect for the VFX companies that are still surviving right now.
There's a very good chance it didn't come out of ILM. Almost no major studio blockbuster has only the one VFX studio on it. Not even Star Wars has ILM alone on it.

The people you have "to blame" for the rhinos is:
Method. a.k.a the studio responsible for Okja (i.e. they're actually really rather good)

I'm not 100% sure who's "to blame" for the train sequence; there's some not great CG featured at DNEG's page for it:
E_vmb0240_comp_v070_PR_v002.1001-copy-1750x731.jpg


But like DNEG is like the biggest (and occasionally best) VFX studio around.


90% of the time a VFX shot looks bad in a major motion picture it's down to production schedule rather than the prowess of the VFX house involved.

I read somewhere that Coogler did some last minute changes to the final act and that's why the CGI wasnt up to par.
shocked face
No, a director making massive changes to a VFX heavy shot late in production would never happen. No producer would allow that big a disruption to happen and no VFX house would have to redo that shot with massive overtimes since as we all know they get paid by the hour and not a fixed sum per shot even if said shot gets changed late in production.
Has there ever been a movie that got a re-release with updated CGI? I know yhe incentive isnt really there for the studio, but that would be a cool thing to do for certain movies.
Aside from much later revisionist takes like Blade Runner, some episodes Doctor Who and Star Wars there isn't much.

I think that the extended versions of the LOTR films had some VFX enhancements?
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,671
Anime is the only medium I can think of that consistently gets technical improvements in their retail releases compared to the original broadcast.

6b53e64391840f2da3916688ef1c8429.jpg
 

doinkies

Member
Jun 20, 2018
160
I found this interview with the VFX supervisor who worked on the BP final battle and mine train scene. In it he says:

What was the most difficult part for this sequence?
The sheer volume of work to put this sequence together was the most daunting factor. But there was also a severe time constraint. This is always the case in visual effects, and has been since the dawn of film. But the faster and more efficient we get, the more is thrown at us to get done in a shorter amount of time. In this particular case, much of the final battle was shot in late October during a reshoot – which only allowed for a couple months to get everything together. We had some tracking and roto work coming to us in late December.

So yeah...that's why.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,315
Nutcracker looks like 2 different movies. A whimsical kid's adventure, and a gothic horror movie.
 

berzeli

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,384
Nutcracker looks like 2 different movies. A whimsical kid's adventure, and a gothic horror movie.
No it's fine.
Lasse Hallstrom, Joe Johnston to Share Directing Credit on Disney's 'Nutcracker'
Hallstrom was the first director on the movie. Johnston was hired for a month of re-shoots, requiring extensive special effects, when Hallstrom was not available to film the additional footage.
Everything is fine.
 

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
I want AatW to break 100 OW just because my boy Scott and Hope deserve it.

Movie was awesome.
 

doinkies

Member
Jun 20, 2018
160
People laughed after that Nutcracker trailer at my showing of AMATW.

It looks like Burton!Alice in Wonderland: Nutcracker Edition.
 

OrangeAtlas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,112

Why can't the DGA be consistent?

The standard ruling is a director needs to shoot 51% of the movie in order to be credited as director, and pairing is only really allowed when you're an established team (Ethan Coen was credited as a producer on a lot of their early movies despite actually co-directing), or sometimes if they have no clue then they just chuck the ball in the studio's court for them to figure out (*cough* *cough* Solo).

Literally the exact same thing is happening right now with Dexter Fletcher taking over Bohemian Rhapsody after Bryan Singer Singer'd himself, but Fletcher doesn't get squat. Is this movie so bad that the moment Disney realized they could shift blame to the director of Jurassic Park 3 they happily told him it was his movie?
 

hendersonhank

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,390
I can see how BP could had a bigger budget than CW. The set and costume design in BP was amazing, and I can't see that being made on the cheap.

It had sets? I thought it had CG backdrops. And costume designers don't exactly rake in the big bucks.

I agree with the other dude, Civil War had a million megastars, Black Panther had exactly zero stars and what looked like bargain basement CG for the most part.
 

OrangeAtlas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,112
It had sets? I thought it had CG backdrops. And costume designers don't exactly rake in the big bucks.

I agree with the other dude, Civil War had a million megastars, Black Panther had exactly zero stars and what looked like bargain basement CG for the most part.

The fact that people only focus on the CGI at the end is a testament to how much effort was put in to the visuals, production design, worldbuilding, and CGI in the other 90% of the movie.

That don't come cheap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.