CATS Film Adaptation Thread- Page 21

[raddersons]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 10:17am

seaweedjstubbs said: "........no, on Rotten Tomatoes “Top Critics” are film critics from majornews publications or websites. "

They're actually not -- Rotten Tomatoes hand picks "top critics" from both movie bloggers and major publications.

[Luminaire2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 10:28am

Honestly if they wanted this to be good... it should have been realistic with gorgeous sets / settings. With the music played incredibly.... and the humans in makeup and leotards dancing the most amazing new choreography. Screw this cgi hybrid. It looks terrible.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 10:35am

Cats is an old, polarizing property and an odd choice to make into a movie. I would attribute any issues with/repercussions from the movie mainly to that. I would not read too much into the long-term effect on the genre. Rent and The Producers both flopped in the same year, but numerous movie musicals came out since then, which cost a lot more money to make than those two films.

I grew up at a time when the live-action film musical was DEAD and no one thought it would come back. Since Chicago reversed that trend, we got Phantom, Rent, The Producers, Dreamgirls, Hairspray, Mamma Mia, Across the Universe, Sweeney Todd, Enchanted, Nine, Rock of Ages, Les Miserables, Into the Woods, Annie, The Greatest Showman, La La Land, Beauty and the Beast, Mama Mia Here We Go Again, Mary Poppins Returns, and Cats. I am probably forgetting a few. Some of these tanked, some did quite well. Some were loathed by critics, and some won Oscars. Such is the business. Then there were all the live television musicals—let’s not forget those. No one could predict this resurgence. I would not place bets on when, how, or if it will end. And sometimes genres do need a break because of audience fatigue, and then they come back years later.

[seaweedjstubbs]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 10:39am

Alright, then I guess I should’ve said “most” Top Critics on RT come from major publications/websites. It is true that the designation is given by RT themselves.

While there are plenty of movies that critics have loved that I’ve hated, there are very few that critics have hated that I loved, and those are usually reserved for movies that I grew up with. Same with Broadway shows. I still wanna see CATS just because it looks so batsh!t insane, but having never seen the musical, I doubt it’ll be one of my new favorites.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 11:36am

Impossible2 said: "seaweedjstubbs said: "Impossible2 said: "seaweedjstubbs said: "^Yes, but the filmed stage version only has 5 reviews, and none of them are from respected sources. The movie currently has 67 reviews, 24 from “Top Critics”.


This should’ve been an animated movie. Don’t know how/why Universal thought it could be a prestige film. It’s CATS. It ain’t that deep. Crazy to think that if things had gone differently, we’d be talking about the WICKED movie right now."

'Top critics' in this day and age are probably a few narcissistsfrom youtube that know nothing about films in the first place.

"
........no, on Rotten Tomatoes “Top Critics” are film critics from majornews publications or websites.

"

Yes but most audiences and 'critics' alwaysdisagree anyways. Some of the highest grossing films of all time did not get great reviews. In the end it's the public who decides if a movie is a hit or not."

Do you have specific examples or are you just going to make these generalized inaccurate statements? 

[George in DC]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 11:38am

The Guardians review, done in the rhyming style of T S Elliott is purrfect.

Guardians Cat Review

[hork]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:05pm

Impossible2 said: "People who care about rotten tomatoes and base their entertainment choices on it are idiots x"

Oh? Why is that?

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:22pm

hork said: "Impossible2 said: "People who care about rotten tomatoes and base their entertainment choices on it are idiots x"

Oh? Why is that?"

Why would you base what you want to see on someone else's opinion *shrug

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:25pm

Impossible2 said: "Why would you base what you want to see on someone else's opinion *shrug"

To avoid complete s-hite?

Updated On: 12/19/19 at 12:25 PM

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:31pm

Kad said: "Impossible2 said: "seaweedjstubbs said: "Impossible2 said: "seaweedjstubbs said: "^Yes, but the filmed stage version only has 5 reviews, and none of them are from respected sources. The movie currently has 67 reviews, 24 from “Top Critics”.


This should’ve been an animated movie. Don’t know how/why Universal thought it could be a prestige film. It’s CATS. It ain’t that deep. Crazy to think that if things had gone differently, we’d be talking about the WICKED movie right now."

'Top critics' in this day and age are probably a few narcissistsfrom youtube that know nothing about films in the first place.

"
........no, on Rotten Tomatoes “Top Critics” are film critics from majornews publications or websites.

"

Yes but most audiences and 'critics' alwaysdisagree anyways. Some of the highest grossing films of all time did not get great reviews. In the end it's the public who decides if a movie is a hit or not."

Do you have specific examples or are you just going to make these generalized inaccurate statements?"

Recently, The Lion King remake got pretty trashed and is the 2nd highest grossing film of the year world wide. Venom got trashed and did almost a billion, Batman V Superman, Suicide Squad did the same. All the Pirates sequels got trashed and nearly all of them did over a billion. Bohemian Rhapsody got pretty average reviews and did almost a billion. The entire Transformers franchise. Twilight, the list is endless. 

These are all like Cats as far as being pretty well known entities that didn't get great critical receptions and all did extremely well at the box office. There has always been a disconnect between critics and audiences. Most Oscar winners don't fare that well at the box office by comparison.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:34pm

haterobics said: "Impossible2 said: "Why would you base what you want to see on someone else's opinion *shrug"

To avoid complete s-hite?"

I think most people have their own 'automatic ****e meter' on things they don't like don't they?

Surely you've seen a film that critics raved about that you didn't love and vice versa?

If you look at the list of supposed 'best movies ever made' not many of made a lot of money. I doubt my Top 10 films combined took the same amount as a single day of Avatars receipts. 

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:41pm

Impossible2 said: "I think most people have their own 'automatic ****e meter' on things they don't like don't they?

Surely you've seen a film that critics raved about that you didn't love and vice versa?

If you look at the list of supposed 'best movies ever made' not many of made a lot of money. I doubt my Top 10 films combined took the same amount as a single day of Avatars receipts."

Yes, but I use RT as a barometer to question things I had hoped would be good but may not be, or to surface things that weren't on my radar but are getting high praise. I didn't read this whole thread, but what do grosses matter? Bad movies often make money, good movies often don't...  honestly, the hostility of these reviews has actually intrigued me to see just how bad it is, and I do already hate the show, so they can be used in lots of ways. I once read a Roger Ebert review, where he was so hostile to the manipulative end of a movie, that I felt compelled to go see what set him off so bad. I emailed him saying so, and he replied, that I got out of the review what I needed to know to make a decision.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 12:53pm

haterobics said: "Impossible2 said: "I think most people have their own 'automatic ****e meter' on things they don't like don't they?

Surely you've seen a film that critics raved about that you didn't love and vice versa?

If you look at the list of supposed 'best movies ever made' not many of made a lot of money. I doubt my Top 10 films combined took the same amount as a single day of Avatars receipts."

Yes, but I use RT as a barometer to question things I had hoped would be good but may not be, or to surface things that weren't on my radar but are getting high praise. I didn't read this whole thread, but what do grosses matter? Bad movies often make money, good movies often don't... honestly, the hostility of these reviews has actually intrigued me to see just how bad it is, and I do already hate the show, so they can be used in lots of ways. I once read a Roger Ebert review, where he was so hostile to the manipulative end of a movie, that I felt compelled to go see what set him off so bad. I emailed him saying so, and he replied, that I got out of the review what I needed to know to make a decision."

I don't read reviews anymore because they tend to give everything away. I also don't really watch trailers either as they do the same. I will read a small synopsis or rely on being a fan of the creatives involved to make my decision.

I think most reviewers these days are more interested in keeping their 'brands' alive then giving an honest review of the film. When there is a total annihilation of something like has happened here, you can see them almost battling each other for who can write the most scathing, nitpicking review they possible can in a bid to have theirs be 'the worst' and therefore the most shared review of the film. 

I hate Cats and I have no interest in seeing the film (I will watch it on Netflix in a year), but the reviews are just nasty for the sake of being nasty and there does seem to be an agenda behind ripping it apart.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 1:27pm

Impossible2 said: "I don't read reviews anymore because they tend to give everything away. I also don't really watch trailers either as they dothe same. I will read a smallsynopsis or rely on being a fan of the creatives involved to make my decision."

I mainly use the Tomatometer and sometimes the excerpts for that. If I like who is in a movie, the book it was based on, or whatever else, and it is trending well, then I just go. If I want to go, and it has a low score, I investigate.

[AADA81]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 2:46pm

That this film has been a disaster in the reviews is not a surprise.  The stage musical was always polarizing for audiences, John Guare was making jokes about a movie version 30 years ago in Six Degrees of Separation and film, which is a visual and literal medium, was always going to be dicey for a musical whose central stage conceit was people dressed up as cats.  There are many stage conceits accepted in the theater but film is less forgiving.  This had potential disaster written all over it; from the reviews, it also just sounds like a very bad movie.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:04pm

Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?

[SeanMartin2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:13pm

Impossible2 said: "Recently, The Lion King remake got pretty trashed and is the 2nd highest grossing film of the year world wide. Venom got trashed and did almost a billion, Batman V Superman, Suicide Squad did the same. All the Pirates sequels got trashed and nearly all of them did over a billion. Bohemian Rhapsody got pretty average reviews and did almost a billion. The entire Transformers franchise. Twilight, the list is endless."

Well, let's look at the numbers, shall we? LION KING had a quarter billion dollar budget, and its US gross was about twice that: respectable, but I imagine Disney expected better for that kind of investment. VENOM's budget was 100 mil; its US gross was 213 mil — low for a comic book film with a major star. BvS's budget was 250 mil; its gross US take was 330 mil. SUICIDE SQUAD: budget 175 mil, US gross 325 mil. In all cases, you're talking about very expensive properties that had very high hopes pinned on them. Yes, they made money — and a lot of it — but not as much as projected: in almost all the cases you cite, fully half of the US gross was on that first weekend, when curiosity was high and expectations were equally so. Then folks saw the films in question simply were not that good, and revenue sank like a rock over the following weeks.

And that's going to be the issue with CATS: yep, great first weekend, I'm sure. The buzz around how terrible this thing is will feed the same curiosity seekers who love looking at traffic accidents. Afterwards? It'll sink out of sight. Considering what's opening as well this week, its chances are even slimmer... or would you purposely open your Big Christmas Film the same weekend as a Star Wars movie, even one as not so great as Rise of Skywalker? That right there was a serious suicide move on the studio's part. No doubt people in the top floor offices know they have a Christmas turkey on their hands and are now just releasing it to get it out of the way.

As for the critics... well, I suppose they could all give this thing a Participation Award for Nicest Try.

Updated On: 12/19/19 at 03:13 PM

[bfreak]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:30pm

While in no way am I saying Cats is going to be a blockbuster, for all the titles listed, it’s the worldwide total gross that’s important, not just the domestic numbers. The Lion King and Venom especially were both huge moneymakers for their studios.

[SeanMartin2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:35pm

bfreak said: "While in no way am I saying Cats is going to be a blockbuster, for all the titles listed, it’s the worldwide total gross that’s important, not just the domestic numbers. The Lion King and Venom especially were both huge moneymakers for their studios."

Just remember that the marketing costs for a film are based on US expenditures, not worldwide ones. That cuts even deeper into the overall costs because of things like dubbing, translated ads, et al. The gross worldwides are not a reflection of the film's success, only the net income, and studios are very hesitant to release those numbers, for obvious reasons.

[Gorlois]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:49pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?

[Gorlois]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:49pm

Sorry double post. How embarrassing!

Updated On: 12/19/19 at 03:49 PM

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:54pm

Gorlois said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?"

It may have come in way under budget so there is still money to spend.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 3:55pm

Luminaire2 said: "Honestly if they wanted this to be good... it should have been realistic."

How?

 

[Keiichi2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 4:13pm

henrikegerman said: "Luminaire2 said: "Honestly if they wanted this to be good... it should have been realistic."

How?

"

Real dancing and singing cats, obviously.

[Keiichi2]

Posted: 12/19/19 at 4:22pm

For anyone interested, Cartoon Brew has an article that talks about and shows artwork for an animated Cats film that Steven Spielberg was working on back in the 90s that ultimately got canceled.  It talks about the troubles they had adapting it, and the disagreements that Spielberg and Webber had over their visions for the project.

 

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/why-steven-spielbergs-hand-drawn-adaptation-of-cats-never-made-it-past-development-178296.html