It will flop
Almost everyone hated the first one.Nobody in his right mind will pay to watch this one
shareNo doubt.
share
MovieChat Forums > Fifty Shades Darker (2017) Discussion > It will flop
From the trailer, the second one looks way more interesting than the first one.
Plus now there's a new director. *thank god because the first one was awful and too awkward. Clearly the director didn't know how to handle a movie like this.*
______________________________________________________
"Mathilda: Is life always this hard, or is it just when you're a kid?
Léon: Always like this."
I totally agree with you. When I watched the trailer for the first movie the acting looked so bad, so stilted and awkward that I just choked. Didn't watch it until it was free. What were they thinking when they hired a director who had only ever directed a documentary?? I also didn't like the way Jamie and Dakota looked. They've tamed his hair and made his five o'clock shadow scruffier, and she seems sort of prettier, which makes me happy. This movie looks like it'll be more interesting, and the acting may be better because of the new director. Still looks a bit stilted, but I see an improvement.
share*beep* films like these were just to entertain people who swallow this crap and think it is called the greatest thing ever.
Did I miss something, you said you like to swallow crap? I see.
There are many different kinds of craps. You were saying this movie belongs to the ones just to entertain people who swallow this crap and think it is called the greatest thing ever and you implied whatever crap you swallow you do think it is the greatest thing ever, by the same token, right? share
Post something we don't already know. And by right mind does the state of mind in boredom count as right mind? You know, the kind of mind where you say "I'm going to the movies just for the popcorn so what to watch? eeny meeny miny moe pick fifty shades darker cause what else is there?"
share40 million people already watched the trailer...you would be surprised how many women will watch it...and 100 million books were sold....so do not count it out.
shareNo way will it be a flop.
It will do very, very well the first week and then drop. Like last time.
I know people who saw the first film but aren't going to see the second but the franchise has a lot of loyal fans so it will break the box office again, maybe,
Hi MonaJLisa,
I agree. Unless they can pull something out of the box that no one has seen before, it will do well at first then drop. It still will make a load of money and should do better in the review department, but I don't expect it to be a darling of critics.
Oh, I'm sure it will drop but there are plenty of loyal fans that are going to make it a movie that isn't a flop, box office speaking.
shareHi april_1,
There is no way this film will flop. The book made publishing history and enough people liked the first film to return to the second. Still, unless the filmmakers pull something remarkable off, I think the box office will drop the second week. Still, Darker, which has a smaller budget than Fifty Shades of Grey, will make boatloads of money. I think some critics might actually give it a pass too.
At least she attempted to thicken the plot more in the second book. The trailer makes it appear more of a romantic drama than anything. However, just because a trailer is good doesn't really mean that the movie is. I guess it's a wait and see kind of movie. I dont know how much influence James had this time around but she really should let directors do what they know best.
shareHi april_1,
She added two villains and wrote romantic suspense, a sub-genre that is getting traction.
I agree with you about a good trailer not necessarily being a predictor of a good movie, but this film has a skilled director, and despite being married to E.L. James, an experienced screenwriter, two things that would have helped the first film immensely.
I haven't read that James had any problems with this second production. She was a television producer in her old life.
[deleted]
Hi armakedong,
The 2nd and 3rd movies are completed, each made for $20 million. I have no doubt that the 2nd and 3rd will be better than the first, how could they not be? Maybe they won't make $500 million, but a $300 million box office on a $20 million investment is nothing to sneeze at. They filmed it with the two leads so I guess you and your wife won't be seeing it until it's on cable.
No one ever expected Fifty Shades of Grey to make a billion since it's R-Rating and cheap budget. Actually, that film making 570 million was a big surprise to many people.
shareSimply from an acting standpoint, I'm interested to see what Dornan does with the role this time out.
I'm not as up on things as the regulars here, but I did understabd he was late to be cast in FSOG and did not have a great deal of time to prepare.
Also, I could not fail to notice in "The Fall" series 3 that just concluded on BBC how much he has grown as an actor since he first played Paul Spector.
He wasn't bad in the first series and got "uber creepy" across; but he was still fairly new to large roles and I have to admit while he did a fine job as Spector in the first series, he at times did not seem to have all that "internal" work coming through that great actors do and can convey. He was sometimes a bit wooden and didn't have the depth yet.
Yet, after several more years of big film roles, even FSOG and "Anthropoid" and the Irish film that just came out, his Paul Spector was SO different in Series 3 in terms of intensity and conveying massive thought and energy using his body and face.
It kept striking me watching the 6 episodes just how he has matured as an actor through these years since the "The Fall" series 1--and yes, even after coming in late to the game in FSOG and doing a pretty good job.
Ergo, I'm wondering if this same growth as an actor that was SO evident in "The Fall" series 3 will infuse Christian's character in FSD.
He's been working non-stop in very intense and big roles!
For that reason, I'm interested in seeing what he does with Christian this time out.
Hi CobblersAwls. No one could have done anything with the lousy script and lackluster direction of the first film. While I think Jamie Dornan was miscast as was Dakota Johnson, I don't blame either for the weakness of Fifty Shades of Grey.
The new film has an experienced director and screenwriter, three interesting antagonists played by strong actors. Though there is still lip biting and eye rolling, it should be better.
I realize Dakota was a big controversy and people were not approving of her being cast.
But in the end, she did convey the gamine like quality and innocence of Ana pretty well. I ended up "buying" that she was Ana. Mostly because I went in just hoping they wouldn't choose somebody who had gone all Hollywood overkill on looks and skeletal remains just to fit the fashion. Dakota still maintained a natural appearance.
Like her mom, she's a good actress even at a youngish age. And has a way of playing certain lines with just the right light touch--she reminded me a bit of her mom in "Working Girl." That air of innocence that has a strong will behind it.
And Dakota is pretty without being "glam" and all Hollywood fakey and Scouse browed up with eyebrows drawn on with a black Sharpie pen, the overly done hair extensions, etc. She looked natural like I'd expect Ana to look with her closet of college togs and her bathroom filled with drugstore toiletries. haha
Hi CobblerAwls,
Dakota's looks were not a huge issue for me. She's attractive enough, had an appealing sweetness and is a decent actress. The fact that the character was underwritten didn't help although Dakota did the best she could with the material. I can't think of an actress working today who could have done much more with that crappy dialogue. The issue, in my opinion, was that she and Dornan didn't have chemistry together, something essential to romance.
Funny you should say that about what she did with crappy dialogue. I concur! ha
When watching the film, I rather often thought, oh dear, that line in the mouth of a less agile actress would have been even worse, but she did what she could with that bit of dialogue and it was okay.
And I agree--the chemistry between the two leads was not so great. At times, they appeared in the dialogue to have a good back and forth with an actor's kind of working chemistry on the give and take of verbal scenes.
But sexual chemistry--zilch. ha I remember watching "L.A. Confidential" in the scenes with Bassinger and Crowe, as a good example of actors achieving that. Like the famous judge who said he'd know pornography when he sees it...sexual chemistry between two leads is kind of like that. You know it when you see it.
In the very few interviews I've seen with Dornan and Dakota, they banter and laugh like fond siblings. So, guess that connection couldn't transfer all too well to a sexual on screen chemistry. I also found Dornan a bit wooden at times.
Hi CobblersAwis,
I think both are talented actors and they certainly appear to like each other, but they had so much to overcome, an inexperienced director who was basically a photographer and a weak script.
While I like the actors and have enjoyed them in other projects, in my humble opinion they weren't for the leads. Still, given the director's icy hand, the slow pacing, and E.L. James's weak dialogue, they did the best they could.
I also found Dornan a bit wooden at times.
That's an understatement. The David has more emotional range, and he's a hunk of granite. share
It won't flop. It'll suck, but the movie will make a lot of money. Maybe even more than the first one's half a billion dollars. You're underestimating the franchise's fanbase.
share