MovieChat Forums > The Grinch (2018) Discussion > Quite Possibly the Most....

Quite Possibly the Most....


....unnecessary remake in history. The original is perfect and this seems like a pathetic money grab. The animation looks cheap to boot....This will bomb....

reply

Agreed.

reply

Illumination's animation is always cheap but it seems like the world can't get enough of their crap. They are easily the most profitable animation studio on the planet.

reply

It really is a shame people don't demand quality. Worse, they settle for garbage. The story and "acting" seem to be overly childish as well. Why is that the prevailing humor preference nowadays? Has "clever" humor gone the way of the dinosaur?

The original can be enjoyed by people of all ages. This seems to be geared toward 6 year olds at the bottom of the academic scale. Sadly though, the bulk of today's society will lap it up. How have we sunk so low?

reply

Great post, Underdog!

Not only will this do gonzo business, even more than this Illumination crap-factory usually does, but I'm sure it will squelch Disney's Ralph Breaks the Internet.

reply

but I'm sure it will squelch Disney's Ralph Breaks the Internet.

^^^

are you predicting Ralph to Flop.....Or Just Picking The Grinch to be more successful?

heres a hint, This is a set up....think about this answer because If you dont answer correctly I'm gonna to obliterate you with your OWN Past Trolling....

reply

The Grinch will be much more successful. It's gross will be much higher and with a budget of 80 million compared to Ralph's 200 million(!!!) much more profitable.

Only Disney would spend 200 million on A sequel to a film that didn't even crack 500 million Worldwide.

reply

Right, the sad reality is that no matter what the content of this movie or how cheaply made, it's 100% guaranteed to make heaps of cash, and then they will surely go on to [sexually violate] onward through the classic Seuss canon.

reply

Also what's the % chance that a minion will make a cameo

reply

Lol...too funny!

reply

Ralph's budget is not $200m!

reply

Yes it is!

reply

Only Disney would spend 200 million on A sequel to a film that didn't even crack 500 million Worldwide.

^^^

and WB

Superman Returns says Hello.....A Direct Sequel that WB spend 270 Million on that didnt crack 400 M

Terminator 3 says Hello....A sequel WB spent 200 M on that didnt crack 450 M

The Legend of Tarzan says Hello---WB spent between 180 to 210 Million on It and it failed to crack 400 Million(although not a sequel)

Terminator Salvation says Hello..WB spent 200 Million on It and failed to hit 380 Million

Pacific Rim says Hello..WB spent 190 to 200 Million on it...failed to crack 415 M(although Not a sequel)





Now lets just gets to some real stunners talking Budgets to grosses(and By Stunners I mean EPIC Flops by WB where they they spent Absurd Amounts on BUDGETS)

WB spent 150 Million on Blade Runner and It failed to crack 260 Million
WB spent 150 Million on Wrath of the Titans and it barely cracked 300 M
WB spent 150 Million on Dark Shadows and it failed to crack 250 M
DEAD GOD...WB spent 195 Million on Jack the Giant Slayer and it failed to crack 200 M
Oh DEAR LORD WB Spent 160 M on Poseidon and it failed to crack 185 M WW
SWEET Jesus...WB Spent 176 Million On Jupiter Ascending and it failed to crack 185 M WW

lol, WB Spent 120 Million on Speed Racer and it failed to crack 95 Million
Oh Man, Spent 100 Million on Catwoman failed to crack 85 Million
Oh DEAR LORD....WB Spent 175 Million on King Arthur LOS...failed to crack 150 <
WB Spent 80 M+ on Sucker Punch...failed to crack 90 M
Lol, WB spent 105 Million on Point Break(2015)...failed to crack 135 M
OUCH! WB spent 100 M+ on In The Heart Of The Sea...failed to crack 100 M

OUCH 2! WB spent 100 M+ on Transcendence....failed to crack 105 M
lol WB spent 80 Million on RED Planet...failed to crack 35 M
lol WB Spent 65 M on Soldier...failed to crack 15 M
WB Spent 300 M + on JL..failed to crack 660 Million
OH SHIT! WB Spent 200 Million + on Green Lantern..failed to crack 220 M


Queen Speaking Of "ONLY Disney".....

I must admit, All Studios have flops....But I dont know if Ive ever seen another Studios have such Huge Flops where The total Gross of the film barely amounts to the budget...

I mean Most flops are some thing like .....A 150 Million Budget and The film make 280 Million WW....

But with WB....They got countless Flops where they Spent 200 Million like on Green Lantern and the film ONLY grossed 220 M....Or like Jack The Giant Slayer Where The film cost 195 Million and The film didmt even make 200 Million

I mean Maybe another Studio somewhere has 1 of these FLOP....But I think ONLY WB has a half of dozen or more of these flops where The films barely even Makes it World Wide Gross what WB Spent on Its Budget....

and Then theres the almost Beyond Belief Flops WB made where The Films Literally didnt Make in WORLD WIDE grosses what they spent on the Budget....

lol WB Spent 80 Million RED Planet ....lol it made less than 35 M....
WB Spent 65 M on Soldier and It Made 15 Million
lol WB spent 100 million + on The Heart Of The Sea and Its World Wide gross didnt even match its Spent Budget
WB Spent 120 M on Speed Racer and it made 95 M....

I mean Flops are 1 thing....But WB is setting New standards....

WB is Spending Hundreds of Millions on films and forget the usual rule of Making double the budget, WBs flops arent even making what they spent on the budget....

again maybe you might find another studio with A flop like this if you really tried....

But ONLY WB is doing basically on a consistent basis....

reply

Your response is (unsuprisingly)pointless. You're in such a rush to "debunk" me that you obviously missed the "sequel" aspect.

Once again...Only Disney would spend 200 million on a sequel to a film (Wreck It Ralph) that couldn't crack 500 million worldwide.

Superman Returns was a reboot to a decades-dormant property...not a direct sequel.

reply

You're in such a rush to "debunk" me that you obviously missed the "sequel" aspect.

^^^

Oh No I didnt miss it....

You simply changed it once I provided Sequels where WB spent 200 M and didnt crack 500 M

Your original statement was......Only Disney would spend 200 million on a sequel to a film (Wreck It Ralph) that couldn't crack 500 million worldwide.

now your trying to move the goal posts....

I provided 3 concrete example of WB spending 200 M+ on films that didnt crack 500 M

hilariously though you only tried to refute 1 of them....which You disasteriously failed on by not doing research to know Superman Returns is a direct sequel to Superman 1 and 2

Superman Returns is a direct sequel to Donners Superman films

Singer specifically changed the script to make it a sequel....It continues ALL storylines and Plot details....

I'm sorry....You lose....once again you did not think or do any research before Trolling....

Superman Returns, T3 and Terminator Salvation all fit the exact criteria you specifically stated "ONLY Disney" would do....

They are all direct Sequel's that WB spent 200 Million on and they didnt crack 500 Million

also worst noting, Justice League is Worse than All ...

It is a direct sequel that WB spent 300 to 350 Million + on and failed to top 660 Million

PSS

I enjoyed your NO RESPONSE to the 20 or so horrific flops by WB where they spent absurd budgets where They Easily Lost HUNDREDS of Millions....


Lol

reply

You are an IDIOT.

Can you not understand what I am saying? I didn't "change" anything. Only Disney would spend. 200 million on a SEQUEL TO A MOVIE THAT DID NOT EVEN MAKE 500 MILLION WORLDWIDE. Why is this difficult for you to understand. You are listing all of these films that cost 200 million but didn't make 500 million...not relevant to what I am saying.

reply

Ralph Breaks the Internet tracking at $65m, same as Grinch OW. Ralph appeals to wider age range.

https://moviechat.org/tt5848272/Ralph-Breaks-the-Internet/5be8cfc9efa7ad38fee1b327/LA-premiere-last-week-Metascore-72

reply

Seuss is vomiting in his grave and I am also vomiting

reply

He's also rolled back over since the other bad CGI cartoons came out. That studio should really give the old man a break.

reply

Original 2000 or original 1966 (I was 6 wen it aired and that was what I first saw)? I like the 2000 a lot in some palces butcha can't beat the original!

reply

Yeah, I'm perfectly happy with the original cartoon and the Jim Carey version.

I was extremely uninterested in this cartoon, especially after I figured out it was made by the same people who made that awful CGI version of "Horton Hears a Who" cartoon. I mean, who cares if Benedict Cumberbatch voiced the Grinch? The adverts only used him as a name-drop to get people to come see. Doesn't mean he can truly do the job in voicing him.

reply

Not just that it's burn out w a grinch as president. I'm sure it would be different w somebody else/anybody else in office. Just not funny now. Really bad timing.

reply

Horton Hears a Who was made by Blue Sky Studios, not Illumination like this one.
Sure, Horton's not that great either, but it's by far the best of the theatrical Seuss adaptations.

reply

pretty much yeah. And so bland!

reply

Agreed, I watched it and it was straight garbage. Also, they completely destroyed the Grinch character.

reply

After the crass and garish abomination that was the Jim Carey version, I can honestly say that this remake was more than welcome!

reply