BoxOfficeFangrl

Pretty sure it was day 470-something when the story resumed, so about 12 months after their child was killed-she wasn't pregnant when it happened. The story doesn't really address if the pregnancy was planned: it's not unheard of for parents who've lost a child to want to have another, but it's the worst time ever to bring an infant into the world. Obviously by the time it's a couple of weeks before her due date, they have a firm strategy in place for hiding the sound of a screaming baby, but 8+ months ago, this could have been a heck of an unwelcome shock. Well, if this was an oops thing, why continue with the pregnancy, some might say, but the family was shown saying grace before dinner, so they're probably religious to some degree, and even if they weren't, it's not a decision everyone is fine to go through with, apocalypse or not. Maybe they planned it, maybe the expired condoms were faulty. Where would they do it, anyway? Even if you don't make any audible sounds in the act...um, the act is not without noise... And I'm guessing that the "IT'S SOUND!" cover of the New York Post was the last edition before the noise from the printing presses got the staffers killed?

Didn't we see Margot on set with the "after" look? So the movie is probably playing up Elizabeth's "before" appearance a bit to show what smallpox could do to someone's appearance.

Thinking back on some of his other directing efforts...from the looks of the Madea movies, maybe 8 days isn't far off from Perry's standard shooting schedule?

He says Gone Girl inspired him to do a thriller. Forgot he was in that, and not bad. Will be interesting to see if there are any similarities. Eight days, though, now I'm going to go into it looking for the signs of a rush job.

Watched the Double Toasted review, so much fun (tho too bad this one came after Girts left, he had a special maniacal glee for terrible kids' films) and they made what it is included in the movie sound absolutely bonkers. Here's their review, they get into spoilers so it's behind a cut: Can't believe this cost $59 million, The Nut Job 2 didn't make much sense either as a release but the budget was nearly $20 million less.

Flight's theater count situation was so strange, why hedge your bets on a strong Denzel performance and a big action sequence?

True, I've heard "I Can Only Imagine" culturally but not really in church; gospel is a whole other genre, really. But I bet you could do the same sort of thing and turn one of the huge hits from that world into a movie, too, and it would make more than a lot of people would suspect. Lol, Why We Sing and Never Would Have Made It, coming to theaters in 2019!

True, maybe they thought it would win Oscars or something....

It was a movie about chess, the genre is a total box office disaster.

From the creator of This Is Us...This Is Us, The Movie?

The world is full of easily accessible content, it seems like having a strong/relentless presence on social media is the way that people trying to break through in the 2010s have to operate. Maybe they don't have to, but it's probably encouraged by agents, managers and studios, too. Ava isn't the only creative type in the public eye that I used to follow on Twitter but eventually unfollowed because your timeline just gets clogged with them retweeting every compliment or bit of positive press, 24/7. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's probably just the way things are for a creative person coming up now, unless you're very connected behind the scenes. Authors are probably worse about it, at least the director actually has to put down the phone/step away from the internet sometimes to direct. Sure, you have some critics saying that this is Jupiter Ascending for kids, but others consider it more of an ambitious failure, so that will you get an RT result more in the 40-50ish range rather than the 10-20% zone. Did absolutely no critics soft peddle their reviews, I can't say, but as a critic if I knew my words about a movie might be latched onto by the alt right or used as "proof" of what a racist I was, yeah, I'd tread carefully, too (unless Twitter controversy was part of my business model, which seems to be the case for many critics these days)...

I disagree, I think having something else to talk about, instead of just trying to impress each other while totally nervous, is an easier way to make conversation and ease into really getting to know each other. It's good to learn early on if you have similar tastes though a relationship can work even if you don't. But if she thinks, IDK, Tyler Perry is the greatest director of all time or a 90 minute movie is too long or he talks back to the screen the entire time and casually dumps his trash on the theater floor, you can either say great, you feel the same way, or some sort of deal-breaker might come up for you and you realize it early on.

You go to the movie first, then for a meal after and you automatically have something to talk about. Whatever happens in the movie can be a jumping off point for any sort of conversation, really. An early bird/matinee showing and a fast casual place if you don't want to break the bank.

One year, for their anniversary date night away from the kids, my sister and her husband went to see Wild Hogs. And they really liked it! But I know if they see a movie and their reaction is, "...it was okay," that it's not going to have the best WOM. They don't go to the movies much but I remember that reaction from Minions and thinking, uh oh.

Seconding those saying Unbroken could have used this part of the story as a third act and it would have been a better film for it. OTOH, the fact that Jolie relegated it to the post script shows that maybe she wasn't the director to handle that sort of material. Still, Pure Flix doesn't inspire confidence, but, who knows, maybe they can make the next leap someday. Unbroken was a very popular book and maybe the people who wanted to see this part of it onscreen and aren't put off by the second-rate vibe might help this make a respectable total. IMDb says Billy Graham is being played by his grandson.

I was saying the Disney Channel version of Freaky Friday coming up isn't just a remake of the Lohan version (which itself is a remake of the Jodie Foster movie) but is based on a pre-existing musical version (which is probably also based on the movie). I thought I recognized that kid! ETA, The Haunted Hathaways, yikes! Insane numbers for Black Panther, but I’m not surprised, even the people at work who brag about seeing movies through...means, were getting reserved tickets.

Looked it up and apparently it's based on a stage musical version (there was already a stage version)? And the daughter is looking like she needs to graduate to the "older sister in college" stage of her Disney Channel career. Were all the stars from Stuck in the Middle or Andi Mack too busy? The talk of Tom Hanks as Indy reminds me of how The da Vinci Code book actually described the Robert Langdon character as looking like Harrison Ford in tweed (repeatedly, the whole book is an eye roller yet strangely unputdownable). Obviously that wouldn't work when they made the first movie, so I guess Tom Hanks thought channeling Bono was a better idea?

Thanks to this movie I now know that "food allergy bullying" is a thing in real life that gets kids hospitalized (and the kids who do it, charged with felonies).

Exactly, here's a teaser of what's to come when it's released: Good luck, STX!

The first book is the most popular in the Fifty Shades series as well, it's the one the most people have heard of, it's really like the Narnia series in that way (and probably only that way, LOL). The studio was pretty smart about the budget and the expectations, which is why they didn't split the last book into two movies. The only way the movie series was ever going to sustain the general moviegoer interest from the first is if they radically departed from the books, but then you upset the book people so that might have backfired too. Also, E.L. James, who was on the set every day and given an incredible amount of veto power for an author whose book is being adapted.

Saw a Twitter Moment this morning about I Feel Pretty and let's just say it isn't only men who have a problem with this movie...

Critics bring their baggage with a director or a movie's subject matter into their reviews, more of them are trying to be woke (because that's how they are, because it gets them clicks) not to mention all the thinkpieces reacting to the critical reaction. Even before Uma's story, some questioned the taste of another movie about Manson/the murders(though to what extent he was going to feature wasn't known) and the release date on the 50th anniversary. And there's this angle, if Sharon Tate was going to be portrayed in the movie, there's a good chance Polanski would at least be mentioned, and after he's cleared as a suspect, in the context of his 8+ months pregnant wife being slaughtered, he's a very sympathetic figure. In light of his subsequent actions...some people will have a problem with that (though his sympathizers say Sharon's murder turned him down such a dark path--there's no excuse, of course). Lots of potential pitfalls in releasing this in the current climate, even before. The movie hasn't started filming yet so everyone involved has to be monitoring the public reaction and weighing all their options.

Didn't Weiner get accused of sexual harassment by one of the Mad Men writers, maybe not the best .gif to use in this situation... Tarantino isn't Harvey but Quentin's career is inextricably tied to Miramax/TWC, and it seems QT confronted Harvey about his treatment of Uma only to go on and be abusive to her himself (granted in a professional context largely, but that doesn't make it okay). It's not like the budget for Kill Bill was so shoestring that they couldn't possibly have afforded a stunt driver and the business with spitting scenes sounds incredibly personal, there's a way to go about those scenes without the underlying hostility. Would QT have treated a man the same way, maybe, but that's not the scenario here, a male actor might have decked him at some point, it's happened to other directors before when they were too much (David O. Russell), with actresses maybe some male directors think they can treat them any kind of way, feeling she can't retaliate without losing everything in a way that a male star wouldn't. And that's a conversation about gender roles in Hollywood, even if it's not strictly a sexual harassment story. Is Tarantino done forever, who can say, but in the short term no actress is going to be able to work with him without getting incredible pushback. The cast being assembled was pricey but the prospects of this movie were going to be based on the reviews which probably wouldn't be so great now, so the studio is probably going to be tabling this project in 3...2...