Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

BoxOfficeChica

Free Account
  • Content count

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

889 Likes

About BoxOfficeChica

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    VA all the way!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,617 profile views
  1. Interesting...but Unstoppable?! I just remember the SNL sketch and at the real movie, rolling my eyes about both of the Denzel character's daughters being Hooters waitresses. I mean, really? It just seemed like the most random way to put them in skimpy clothes. Other than that, it is a fast-paced action thriller, so...
  2. Youtubed the Harry Styles album last weekend and 100% of the ads on the channel were for this movie, WB definitely knows their demo if nothing else. Nothing wrong with that!
  3. Plus, how thrilled must they be that Mandy Moore landed in a big hit show this past year? Not that there's a big overlap in This Is Us and a thriller on the water, but Mandy will get more/better talk show bookings and Entertainment Tonight/Access Hollywood/etc. coverage in the lead up to its release, it can't hurt the movie's chances.
  4. I had to look this up...how in the world did The Change Up cost $52M?! It would be ridiculous even now after Reynolds coming off Deadpool but in 2011, WTH? Argo did downplay the role of Canada in the rescue but the person Affleck played is really American, the "controversy" was that the real guy looked like this at the time yet Ben cast himself for the role. Interesting to compare and contrast Dunkirk with the Pearl Harbor trailers, they used real WWII-era speeches in the trailers too but with PH it's mean to sound like FDR whereas Dunkirk goes for a different effect with the young guy saying Churchill's famous words:
  5. And The Circle, matches my experience in seeing it, definitely a Hanks audience, not many under 40.
  6. IDK, I really liked the graphics, it looked very good for its budget, another highlight was the
  7. Really liked Karen Gillan here, found myself wishing she had a bigger role.
  8. I've always read about D or F grades in online discussions but don't think I've ever actually seen a movie with such a horrible Cinemascore in theaters until now! But there weren't any really standout reactions, no one screaming, "That's bullshit!" at the screen or anything fun like that. My screening had about 30 people (shocked it was that many), definitely more of a Hanks than Watson crowd in terms of demographics. Judging by the book summary I think I know what the reshoots were for, but I'm not sure why it only occurred to the studio after test screenings that maybe this story might be a problem for general audiences? If ever there were a time for a loose adaptation of a book, this was it.
  9. Hidden Figures is a recent PG rated film that wasn't a "kids' movie" per se, sure there could have been more language or racial epithets and not been untrue to life either but the latter would have undercut the movie's point about how prejudice can be more covert. There is more than one approach to Civil Rights on Film than Mississippi Burning. In the 2000s, The Rookie was actually rated G, it was surprising they didn't throw in one "damn" or something bump it up to a PG for mild language. It isn't technically a lie, the movie did make a bunch of lists about spring movies, still I applaud the hustle of STX with that ad, you do what you gotta do when the studio asks you to sell a lemon. I was wondering why the ads for The Circle were so lifeless, plenty of so-so movies have managed to have good trailers, then I saw it. The final push in the last two weeks or so tried making it seem like a 2010s version of The Net, if it had been sold that way from Trailer #1, it may have gotten a mid-teens opening but an even worse Cinemascore I suspect. Is there an F-? The Net for the uninitiated: Unless The Circle comes in WAY over estimates, The Net had a higher opening weekend in 1995!
  10. Just leaving the theater now and like most non-horror movies with abysmal Cinemascores, IMO it's an issue of advertising expectations vs. onscreen reality. Reshoots weren't going to help with general audiences unless they reshot like 40 to 50 percent of the movie and did something totally different than the source material. Parts of it could have made a much better film...I get why, given a fresh/rotten vote, the RT score is so bad, but it's not a complete disaster, more of an interesting, underdevopled failure. Though it nearly lost me at the beginning with
  11. Scarlett working dat viral lookalike grandma for the movie publicity boost:
  12. Marvel is undoubtedly a well-oiled machine, but it's not like studio heads or top network execs would say much else at the moment: it would be bad publicity and everyone would be looking for the signs of the strain in the final product. I mean, they weren't promoting Quantum of Solace at the time by telling audiences that Daniel Craig and Marc Forster were scrambling to cobble together a third act—all those stories from different directors and producers about how things needed rewriting and they had to either rush it through by a deadline or hope the actors stumbled onto workable, came later on.
  13. Hermione lands a dream job at FaceGoogle but crosses paths with Finn and grows suspicious of Tom Hanks channeling L Ron Hubbard channeling Steve Jobs.
  14. Maybe the reshoots helped? Haven't seen it yet, my main issue was the quality of the ads and traliers because the premise is interesting enough. The most recent ads are an improvement but may have come too late. The budget is only $18M, with better promo all along (not more, just less boring) the OW should have easily been that high if not more.
  15. IDK...if the movie is crafted with a cause in mind it doesn't have to be made on a shoestring but there's no need to be wasteful, either. There's actually another movie that was released last month very similar to this one (including a love triangle) except funded by Turkish interests, so, extremely different (and controversial) POV being presented to say the least. But, anyway, I doubt that movie cost $90-100M. Is it shortsighted to wonder just what the budget was spent on, a massive scale in general, or, hand sewn costumes for the extras, executive producers with vanity credits paid exorbitant fees, crew members charging furniture for their homes as "miscellaneous" items on the budget? Is the feeling about the budget more that it was crazy to spend that much, or HOW could it have possibly cost that much, as in, where did all that money go? Those are two different questions.