- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just saw the trailer for The Running Man
Posted on 7/2/25 at 1:58 pm to Gdellinger
Posted on 7/2/25 at 1:58 pm to Gdellinger
quote:
I just can't stand that actor. Is that how action heroes are defined nowadays. Give me the 80s action heroes any day over these chocolate boy types.
I had to look up "chocolate boy types." Fortunately it didn't go south. People are funny around here about chocolate.
0
Posted on 7/2/25 at 2:19 pm to LSUbacchus81
quote:
and realized I never saw the one from 1987. Is it worth watching?
It’s phenomenal since it got the 4k treatment.
I don’t really understand why they remake movies like this. It’s not needed and it proves that we are at a cultural dead end.
Soon we won’t even have remakes. It will just straight up be the original movie but with some ridiculous 4-12k format, retrofitted to IMAX and have some Dolby Atmos slapped on for the sound. Trust me, that gimmick is coming soon.
I wouldn’t mind having some remakes done with movies that flopped but had potential. Like Maximum Overdrive but make it with an AI twist. I could stomach that. There is no need to remake movies that where either moderately successful to blockbusters.
Posted on 7/2/25 at 2:40 pm to LSUbacchus81
quote:
and realized I never saw the one from 1987. Is it worth watching?
i very much enjoy the 87 one. fun cameos and a bit over the top without being gruesome.
Posted on 7/2/25 at 4:56 pm to olemc999
quote:
I don’t really understand why they remake movies like this. It’s not needed and it proves that we are at a cultural dead end.
Soon we won’t even have remakes. It will just straight up be the original movie but with some ridiculous 4-12k format, retrofitted to IMAX and have some Dolby Atmos slapped on for the sound. Trust me, that gimmick is coming soon.
I wouldn’t mind having some remakes done with movies that flopped but had potential.
The Running Man had a loyal following at its release, I was always a fan, and has become kind of a cult classic, but if it wasn’t a flop it certainly wasn’t a hit.
It grossed 38 million on a $27 million budget, good for 30th in 1987.
Hell if it wasn’t for heavy runs on TBS/TNT it probably wouldn’t even have been seen by half the viewers that know it now, or at least the heavily edited version. It made about what Red Heat did the following year, and no one considers that some Arnold classic.
Even those of us that are fans can acknowledge it’s pretty campy. Nothing wrong with that, but also makes it a solid candidate for a reinterpretation.
Especially because the movie is almost nothing like the book. If it were released today, book readers would all be complaining that this was basically a different story with the name attached to capitalize on an existing audience.
While anything Arnold seems untouchable, Ben Richards in the book was anti-Arnold. It was a reverse Reacher, where the book character is more Tom Cruise but they cast Alan Ritchson in the role.
I’m actually very excited for this if it’s actually more of a true adaptation of the book, and not just a remake of the 87 script, which I assume is Wright’s vision.
Without getting into spoilers, in addition to the book plot differing in scope, one thing I actually preferred in the movie, the book ending is COMPLETELY different than the film. It would be one of the more shocking things we will have seen on screen in a long time if Wright actually does it.
Say what you will about King, but the dude has a wild imagination and his ending, sorry, Bachman’s ending
, was shocking then and will maybe even be more so now. Very much looking forward to this.
This post was edited on 7/2/25 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 7/2/25 at 5:14 pm to olemc999
quote:
I wouldn’t mind having some remakes done with movies that flopped but had potential.
That's how many would describe the Arnold Running Man. It was a financial bust. It had some cool sequences but was an overall disappointment.
I also don't need a remake, but they're not working with some sacred text, either in the King novel or the Arnold version.
Posted on 7/2/25 at 5:27 pm to Jay Are
quote:Nah, it did fine
It was a financial bust.
Wasn't a cash cow or anything, but it did fine
Right there with Spaceballs and The Golden Child
Made more than The Lost Boys
38 million on a 27 million budget, marketing included.
Posted on 7/2/25 at 5:55 pm to Roaad
quote:
38 million on a 27 million budget, marketing included.
The number one movie of 1987, Beverly Hills Cop II, also cost 27 million to make and made over 300 million.
Again, Running Man made the same as Red Heat the following year. It was not a hit and I doubt the studio felt it “did fine”.
It had the 12th highest opening weekend of the year and finished 30th in gross, showing there was an audience for it, but didn’t have box office legs.
Again, the extended run on TBS/TNT is where the audience exposure really made it feel more like a “hit” than it was.
1987 Box Office
This post was edited on 7/2/25 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 7/2/25 at 6:08 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:Again, because it wasn't as successful as the most successful movie that year, doesn't mean it wasn't successful
The number one movie of 1987, Beverly Hills Cop II, also cost 27 million to make and made over 300 million.
I mean what?
Also Beverly Hills Cop was a MEGA sequel to a popular film with the biggest star of that time.
The Princess and the Frog made a decent profit in 2009.
Is it a failure because Avatar almost made 3 billion dollars?
I asked Grok:
quote:Exactly what I said. Not a major blockbuster, but it did fine
was 1987's running man considered a flop
The 1987 film The Running Man, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, was not considered a flop, but its performance was mixed depending on the metric. It grossed about $38.1 million at the U.S. box office against a $27 million budget, which suggests it made a profit, especially when factoring in international earnings and home video sales. However, it fell short of expectations for a Schwarzenegger action vehicle at the height of his stardom, particularly when compared to blockbusters like Predator (1987), which earned over $59 million domestically. Critically, it received lukewarm reviews, with a 66% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, praised for its action and satirical concept but criticized for uneven execution and straying from Stephen King’s novel. Audience reception was decent but not overwhelming, with a 61% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a B+ CinemaScore.
Posts found on X reflect varied sentiment: some fans praise its dystopian themes and call it a cult classic, while others note it underperformed compared to Schwarzenegger’s bigger hits. Web sources like IMDb and Box Office Mojo confirm it wasn’t a financial disaster but didn’t reach the blockbuster status hoped for, partly due to competition and mixed word-of-mouth. So, not a flop, but more of a moderate success that gained a stronger following over time.
Underperformed relative to Arnold's other films
This post was edited on 7/2/25 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 7/3/25 at 8:00 am to LSUbacchus81
I loved the book and completely forgot that it as set in 2025.
The Running Man and The Long Walk both coming out in the same year...
In an introduction of the book in a later edition, King described Ben Richards as "scrawny" and "pre-tubercular". So, while this is closer than Arnold...it is still a bit off the mark. So, physically...I pictured something closer to Timothee Chalemet (in frame) or Jeremy Allen White (in height). Regardless, they are still going to take my money on this one.
The Running Man and The Long Walk both coming out in the same year...
In an introduction of the book in a later edition, King described Ben Richards as "scrawny" and "pre-tubercular". So, while this is closer than Arnold...it is still a bit off the mark. So, physically...I pictured something closer to Timothee Chalemet (in frame) or Jeremy Allen White (in height). Regardless, they are still going to take my money on this one.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 8:18 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
I like the enclosed area of the original.
that's actually a change from the book. the book was open world.
Posted on 7/3/25 at 10:19 am to LSUbacchus81
It's worth watching, but don't expect anything serious. They turned Grossberger from Stir Crazy (1980) into Dom Deliese.
Yep, that's one of the villains.
Yep, that's one of the villains.
This post was edited on 7/3/25 at 10:23 am
Posted on 7/3/25 at 11:45 am to Roaad
quote:
Nah, it did fine
To my point about its eligibility for a remake, how bout this?
The 30th most successful film of a year with a very mixed critical and audience reception, but with a cult of fans who will defend its initial success even though it needed decades of licensing and home video sales to be considered modestly profitable, is probably an acceptable candidate for an almost-40-years-later remake.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News