General movie chitchat

[Nick1Ø66 4,875]

13 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I mean, I know you didn't like the movie, but isn't that basically what Oppenheimer accomplished? Made a bunch of young people in their 20s to watch a 3-hour biographical drama about World War II?

 

No, Barbie did that.

[Mr. Hooper 1,988]

14 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Even Scorsese called Oppenheimer the savior of movie theaters or something.

After Spielberg called Tom Cruise and 'Maverick' the saviours of theatrical distribution... Looks like they need one every year.

 

14 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

You think the solution for young people's preference to the quick gratifications of social media is (what you think are) better movies?

It's tempting to paint with a broad brush... But isn't there a twenty-something here who can speak up for his/her generation and say that, contrary to popular opinion, you aren't all TikTok zombies with attention deficit disorder...?

 

And yeah, I think movies could be better today! And, as we've seen, good movies have the power to get people off their phones and back in theatres.

 

2 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

No, Barbie did that.

 

Through the help of social media... The irony. lol

[Nick1Ø66 4,875]

1 hour ago, A24 said:

So it's not the movies but the audience that is mediocre. I see!

 

Well, both really. 

 

But Oppenheimer wasn't mediocre. I thought it was the best film of 2023.

[Edmilson 7,646]

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

No, Barbie did that.

I didn't know Barbie is a 3 hour drama about World War II. Is it a biopic on Klaus Barbie? 

 

 

[A24 4,369]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

You think the solution for young people's preference to the quick gratifications of social media is (what you think are) better movies?

 

I mean, I know you didn't like the movie, but isn't that basically what Oppenheimer accomplished? Made a bunch of young people in their 20s to watch a 3-hour biographical drama about World War II?

 

Even Scorsese called Oppenheimer the savior of movie theaters or something.

 

I was more thinking of the latest batch of Superhero movies. Was he not defending those movies while blaming the audience for not taking the time or having the patience to appreciate them?

 

OTOH, it's perfectly possible that I too suffer from TikTok-itis, even though I've never been on TikTok.

[Faleel 5,453]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I didn't know Barbie is a 3 hour drama about World War II. Is it a biopic on Klaus Barbie? 

 

I thought he was saying that Barbenheimer was a large part of why some people watched Oppenheimer.

[Nick1Ø66 4,875]

13 minutes ago, Faleel said:

I thought he was saying that Barbenheimer was a large part of why some people watched Oppenheimer.

 

I wouldn't say a large part. But the whole Barbenheimer thing certainly drove a lot of people to see Oppy who otherwise wouldn't have, so it definitely helped Oppy's box office, especially the opening. Still would have been a hit and won all those awards though (and deservedly so).

[Faleel 5,453]

26 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

I wouldn't say a large part.

I said for some people it was.

[Nick1Ø66 4,875]

1 minute ago, Faleel said:

I said for some people it was.

 

That you did. And you are quite right. Even for a lot of people, I'd say.

 

 

[mrbellamy 6,347]

I think it's probably safe to say Oppenheimer needed Barbie more than Barbie needed Oppenheimer, but yeah I think Oppenheimer would still have exceeded expectations. The whole basis for the Barbenheimer phenomenon was that they shared demographics who were legitimately excited to see both. Many of the same people who were down for a crazy Barbie comedy were also interested in an IMAX thriller about creating the atomic bomb, and that's not even considering the name recognition for the actors and directors. It was just a great example of people trusting that they were gonna get their money's worth from Hollywood for a change, and by and large walking out of both theaters feeling they did. 

[Edmilson 7,646]

The question that Hollywood would love an answer for (and may probably never get it) is: had Barbie or Oppenheimer moved dates, would they performed as great as they did?

 

I'm pretty sure Barbie would at least have a great shot at hitting $1 billion without Oppenheimer - it's more feel good and "audience-friendly" than the Nolan movie. But what about Oppenheimer? Would it have hit even $600 million without Barbie?

 

As great as Barbenheimer was for the finances of movie theaters, I think it robbed Hollywood of an answer to a very important question: would the audience in this current day and age pay a huge sum for an IMAX ticket to watch a 3 hour dark and grim drama set in WWII, where most of the scenes are serious people in suits having serious conversations in offices, if it didn't have something to boost its profile - like a social media meme or whatever?

 

Had Barbie moved its date, how many people would show up for Oppenheimer in its opening weekend, right after the premiere of a well reviewed Mission: Impossible movie? 

 

Barbie is a much safer bet than Oppie. As much as blockbuster habits changed in 2022 and 2023, movies like Barbie and Super Mario Bros are closer to what we became used to considering as typical blockbusters than Oppenheimer. So Greta Gerwig's movie would be a billionaire with or without Nolan's WWII drama. Oppenheimer, on the other hand, is a riskier bet. 

 

In the 70s, the unprecedented success of Star Wars meant that people would show up for a then unknown risky space fantasy, thus inaugurating the age of blockbuster. With Batman in 89 and Spider-Man in 2002 Hollywood learned that people would show up to big budget movie starring beloved comic book heroes. And The Avengers in 2012 showed that a cinematic universe of interconnected movies can work for audiences who never read a comic book in their lives.

 

Now, in 2023, Oppenheimer grossing almost $1 billion means what? That people want more World War II dramas about events that impact on mankind even to this day?

 

It's harder to predict what may be a blockbuster in 2024 than it was back in 2019, 2015, 2012, 2002 or 1989 for that matter.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,732]

Using the principle of Occam's Razor, could it be that the reason for both BARBIE's and OPPENHEIMER's success, is that they were the two best films of last Summer?

[A24 4,369]

Of course! And they have the box office gross to prove it! As we all know, the better the movie, the more money it makes (JWFan law n° 9).

[Naïve Old Fart 9,732]

Hmm. Just a hint of sarcasm there, Alex?

[Sweeping Strings 2,410]

When it comes to this summer ... The Fall Guy's current RT score is 89%, with many of the reviews saying that Gosling and Blunt's chemistry is excellent.  

[A24 4,369]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Hmm. Just a hint of sarcasm there, Alex?

 

If Star Wars was a flop in 1977, nobody today would be talking about it. It just would have been another Zardoz. 

 

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,732]

Alex, now, that's enough of your sass.

I like ZARDOZ. It introduced me to the music of Beethoven. For that, I am grateful.

[Sweeping Strings 2,410]

It also brought us James Bond dressed like this, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD - 

[mrbellamy 6,347]

4 hours ago, A24 said:

If Star Wars was a flop in 1977, nobody today would be talking about it. It just would have been another Zardoz. 

 

This is sort of a weird thought experiment, though, because under what conditions do we believe that Star Wars would have gone unnoticed and been a flop in 1977?

[mstrox 6,682]

If they had released the exact same movie except they called it Fartzilla’s Delight

[Edmilson 7,646]

10 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Using the principle of Occam's Razor, could it be that the reason for both BARBIE's and OPPENHEIMER's success, is that they were the two best films of last Summer?

I think your on to something here. The Barbenheimer phenomenon only worked for the movies' opening weekend. Had people and/or critics didn't like them, they wouldn't have had their amazingly leggy careers. Oppenheimer started with a $82 million opening and finished with over $330 million. Barbie began with $160 million and finished with over $630 million.

 

This shows a huge staying power and amazing word-of-mouth. Had these movies been "bad" (in terms of people didn't liking them) they would've fell down after the opening.

 

So I guess Barbenheimer put people inside a movie theater to watch a 3 hour grim WWII drama for the opening, but the fact that people liked the movie made it "survive" the first weekend.

 

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

under what conditions do we believe that Star Wars would have gone unnoticed and been a flop in 1977?

If it had only classical music for its score like Lucas originally wanted but not the iconic John Williams score.

[mrbellamy 6,347]

2 hours ago, mstrox said:

If they had released the exact same movie except they called it Fartzilla’s Delight

 

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

If it had only classical music for its score like Lucas originally wanted but not the iconic John Williams score.

 

Idk about that first one, it's attention grabbing! To reverse the point, if Zardoz was renamed Star Wars, I think we still just have a weird cult movie with Sean Connery called Star Wars...

 

The second one is changing something about the movie. Replace Harrison Ford or James Earl Jones, it might not be as good either. I'm taking issue with the hypothesis that "If Star Wars was a flop in 1977, it wouldn't be talked about" because it is impossible to wrap my head around the circumstances in which Star Wars exactly as it existed comes out in 1977 with a fair release and doesn't do business. To me this is like the "If my grandma had wheels, she would have been a bike" joke. Star Wars had plenty going against it at the time and still nobody anticipated the appetite for it. I'm not actually sure if bad marketing would have even been enough to change its fortune. I think it would have to have been actively buried by Fox, virtually no release and never made available in any home format, withheld from the public. In which case it's not a flop, it's a legendary Hollywood injustice, and would still definitely be talked about today. 

[Schilkeman 1,015]

Any movie can make money. The good stuff sticks around.

[Sweeping Strings 2,410]

On 30/04/2024 at 5:30 PM, Edmilson said:

I think your on to something here. The Barbenheimer phenomenon only worked for the movies' opening weekend. Had people and/or critics didn't like them, they wouldn't have had their amazingly leggy careers. Oppenheimer started with a $82 million opening and finished with over $330 million. Barbie began with $160 million and finished with over $630 million.

 

This shows a huge staying power and amazing word-of-mouth. Had these movies been "bad" (in terms of people didn't liking them) they would've fell down after the opening.

 

So I guess Barbenheimer put people inside a movie theater to watch a 3 hour grim WWII drama for the opening, but the fact that people liked the movie made it "survive" the first weekend.

 

If it had only classical music for its score like Lucas originally wanted but not the iconic John Williams score.

Careful Edmilson, I don't think you're allowed to call Barbie 'leggy' anymore. lol. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,732]

#She's got legs. She knows how to use 'em#

[Faleel 5,453]

8 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

#She's got legs. She knows how to use 'em#

I should hope so.

[Schilkeman 1,015]

Good, because it's a good movie.

 

https://movieweb.com/mortal-engines-panned-netflix-top-10/

 

That article is stupid, but I'm glad to see Mortal Engines getting some notice.

[Jurassic Shark 12,241]

Even the title of the movie is stupid.

[A24 4,369]

On 02/05/2024 at 9:38 AM, Schilkeman said:

Any movie can make money. The good stuff sticks around.

 

The good stuff or endless sequels.

[Schilkeman 1,015]

44 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Even the title of the movie is stupid.

Another profound insight from Jurassic Shark.

 

37 minutes ago, A24 said:

The good stuff or endless sequels.

I meant it more in the general "they" consciousness of the movie-loving public.

[Jurassic Shark 12,241]

3 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Another profound insight from Jurassic Shark.

 

It doesn't take much in this thread.

[JTN 2,255]

5 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

That article is stupid, but I'm glad to see Mortal Engines getting some notice.

I bought it on Blu-ray but I wish I hadn’t. I watched it once, thought it was boring, haven’t watched it since.

[Thor 7,668]

MORTAL ENGINES really grew on me the second time I watched it. Steampunk isn't easy to do; it can often come off as goofy (WILD WILD WEST, for example), but there's enough richness in the world of MORTAL ENGINES, I needed two attempts to get into it. But when I did, I really liked it. Underrated film.

[JTN 2,255]

I might give it a second chance, when there’s nothing else I’m interested in seeing.