http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/stealth.html

Saw it before Constantine Monday night. Isn't anyone else sick of movies in the future where a Robot is created for good but goes bad? Terminator, Matrix, I Robot, havn't we seen this already?

Can't say I think that looks good. I'll probably skip that one. Plus it's from Rob Cohen, who I think sucks.

So its Short Circuit meets I Robot.... wow...

Jessica Biel + a bikini? I'm there.

Foxx obviously signed for this before getting rcognition for Ray.

I remember when I saw the trailer and they brought up the aspect of an AI weapon, I thought:"IT's going to go haywire and blow up shit." Sure enough, it does!

Well, I liked it. I'll be watching for sure.

Fast and the Furious meets TopbunkGun

Yeah, this was filmed last february 2004. Still, back then, the lead role in a big budget major production was a great thing for him, along with all the other roles he was doing. I'm sure whomever is behind this movie must be ecstatic that their lead star is just blowing up as this film's release comes closer.

Muwahahahaha, this has all the makings of another Waterworld!!! The budget looks HUGE, but the plot sure sounds cheeserific. Plus, the manned jet vs. UAV debate is a decade old now at least, sheesh.

Another Waterworld? You mean an expensive movie that did pretty well in theaters and ended up turning a profit?

Of course, I've no doubt this doesn't cost nearly as much as Waterworld, so if it does numebrs like that film, I'm sure the studio will be satisfied.

If it wasn't for the decent effects and Jamie Foxx I would of expected to see the Sci-Fi channel logo at the end.

It looks like a rental to me and while I don't see this making a huge amount of money it will probably make enough that it isn't a total bomb.

I can see the DVDTalk reviews right now.

advice: skip it

Well yes, and no... from IMDB:

"Widely considered to be one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, although it grossed $255 million from a $175 million budget."

"Because the movie didn't make as much money as planned, it was nicknamed "Fishtar", after the 1987 box office bomb Ishtar (1987)."

Must've seen a different trailer.

It looked like a good time to me. Derivative? Maybe...but looks good nonetheless. I predict marginal reviews and respectable grosses (based largely on Foxx's demographic-crossing appeal). I'll see it at the dollar theater or rent it.

Macross Plus meets War Games?

As far as Waterworld goes, I don't see the comparison here. Plus Waterworld made $75 million before video release!

I'm thinking he LITERALLY will in the final film.

Well, that quote is kind of inaccurate. Waterworld got the label "Fishtar" long before it was released. The industry had pre labeled this film a box office disaster, and had given it that nickname, well before its July 1995 opening. Given industry speculation about the film, that it made 255 million worldwide, and subsequently more revenue on video to the point of turning a profit, that Waterworld far exceeded industry expectations. I don't think anyone outside of Universal thought (or maybe wanted) that film to ever turn a profit. It just so happens that many people mistakenly believe the film to be a financial disaster, due to that prerelease frenzy, that they do not know the actual reality. So basically, it didn't get the name Fishtar because of its disapointing box office returns. It got it because everyone expected this film to be the bomb of the decade.

If you want to make a better comparison, talk about The Postman, which though costing half as much as Waterworld, made jack shit at the box office and truly was a bomb. But I doubt Stealth will perform that badly. Action films in general can make a decent amount of change.

I just want to add to this the length of time WATERWORLD took to make its fortunes. People rarely bring this up.

By the time the film started raking in the dough (around a 6 months to a year after release), the media had moved on to the latest film they decided to declare a "disaster," leaving the true outcome of the WATERWORLD nightmare a distant memory. It's a shame, and you can still see the effects of this misinformation today.

Today, you can see results right away, but WATERWORLD took its time with its success. I think that hurt it the most.

Of course, that was what the film grossed, not what the studio netted from the theatrical exhibitions. It's not know how much it actually made, but it certainly didn't make a $75 million profit from theatrical (100% return on gross?), and was still in the red before video.

The standard layperson's calculations are that a studio nets half the domestic gross, with the money from domestic, worldwide and video each roughly equal to each other. Given that Waterworld grossed $88 million domestic, the studio would've netted $44 million. Figuring worldwide and video being equal, that would've been a net of $132 million total. Of course, like Troy, Waterworld did much better worldwide than domestically, which means the studio probably netted a bit more than that. Still, by even the most generous accounts, the film at best broke even, which is not a good ROI for a $175 million dollar film. And that's not even counting the cost of marketing and promoting the film. While not the colossal failure it is sometimes hyped to be, no studio in its right mind is hoping for another Waterworld.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1995/0WTRW.html

Oh, and Steath looks like crap.

But that defeats the purpose of arguing things most people know nothing about in the movie forum! Have you learned nothing from being here? You could make your post a sticky, and nobody is going to listen. Budgets/grosses get argued every week.

And I can't argue your second point.

Well, budgets and grosses are argued every week, but in truth even knowing what he states above doesn't paint a clear picture. Those numbers are purely estimates. 50% is jsut a roughshot guess at what the studio pulls in from those printed numbers. But some films, especially the big ones, will see as much as 80% of the gross on opening weekend, falling to 50% later on, or an enormous amount of variation from here and there. One can only really estimate as the studios aren't printing their accounting sheets for us so we never can really know. And when some films have budgets that no one can really identify (let's take Batman and Robin...which has been stated as costing anywhere from 110 million to 180 million), we're all just playing a guessing game.

But it seems pretty safe to say Waterworld did break even. Hardly a huge success, hardly a bomb. And if Stealth pulled in those numbers, with what surely is a lower budget than Waterworld, I'm guessing as low as half of what WW cost, I'm sure the studio would be happy, especially since DVD is now a much bigger part of the equation then 10 years ago, and those theatrical grosses would just lead into DVD sales which would add even more to the coffers assuming a quarter billion gross. Granted, you know they want a bigger film than that, but considering the star power when this was greenlit I doubt they were expecting a film that could gross 400 million plus worldwide.

But, I'll third the assessment on this film...it looks like crap.

Ha!

Remember when Titanic was the "next Waterworld"?

Josh Lucas is in it -

I think the reason people latched on to Waterworld in the first place is because it was that strange prediliction the media have for pulling stars down when they are at the top of their game.

So, after a few box office successes and at the point when it appeared Costner could do no wrong, reports about his success begin to lose their appeal - scandal always does better.

So they went looking.

And they found him out in the middle of nowhere, playing a "fishman", building a huge, floating metal set off the coast and filming on it - here, they thought, was folly.

I like the film. I appreciate what went into the making of it, I admired Costner and Reynolds commitment to realism and filming it on the water instead of in a studio. OK, it is not very deep, and plays like Mad Max on water, but that's not a bad thing to aspire to. It did have some great scenes, It was good to see Costner playing an unlikeable character, and Dennis Hopper was obviously having a ball.

Waterworld wasn't torn down because of Costner's success. It was ripped a new one because the budget for it careened out of control. If it had stayed on budget it would've been a best a minor blip on the radar instead of the massive myth it became.