Eastwood47

For myself, I can accept the parameters of any universe you want to put me in, as long as you abide by the rules you establish to operate within that world. The Flash acutely fails to follow those rules throughout the entire film, while offering some incredibly daff notions of reasoning that fail the motivations offered to drive the plot. For starters, no one who can go back in time to reverse the murder of their mother is going to first examine whether having their father stay at home alters that outcome, when he too could be killed in the event. I think nearly every human being, (except for the writers and director of this film) would first seek out the ACTUAL person who murdered their mom. So for the Flash to be focused on the secondary problem of his dad makes ZERO sense, when he could seek out the core reason for the murder happening, which fixes BOTH the murder and his dad's subsequent wrongful imprisonment. Additionally, if the Flash can jump in and out of the timeline, why does he feel inclined to speak to himself in the timeline where his mother lives? If he's so obsessed with not messing up history that he focuses on a can of beans in a grocery store, then why would he go completely off the rails by talking to a different version of himself which creates the problems he gets into? He could have just as easily left that timeline and gone back to his own. So none of the reasoning or rules of engagement are ever followed, even up to and including the end of the film where Barry goes back to the can of beans for his dad's sake (even though he already sees what changing one can of beans does to the multiverse). And if I'm to accept the notion that merely moving one can of beans can set off a chain of events that alters history, how could that impact Superman since he is older than Barry and would have already resided on earth for many years before the future Barry arrives to change the direction of that timeline? Thats a big plot hole that makes no sense. The same would apply to Bruce Wayne as well because he's older too, so none of that really makes any sense. The weaknesses in the script ( or excuses to bring in cameos) are poorly explained away by this ill conceived plot device that was never thought through properly by the writers or director. And how exactly does George Clooney coming into the picture reset the DCU for James Gunn? And Jason Mamoa is still Aquaman? Its one hell of a mess that ultimately doesn't service the stated goals by the director or James Gunn who pushed for that change with Clooney. So while there were some strong performances in the acting realm by most of the cast, the failings of the writing team to offer a coherent story is what fails this picture for me. If the premise can not stay afloat to tell the story, then its characters are pretty much adrift with no safe landing to save it. I give it a D for failing to follow its own premise with sloppy reasoning and heavily flawed motivations that do not pass the sniff test even with a low bar to meet.

I'm not overly invested in box office tracking. Look at Spider-verse. They were off $40 million from their high-end predictions. In this post pandemic world, I don't think most people feel any great urgency to buy tickets early for much of anything because theaters just don't fill up like they use to for most movies. Sure there are exceptions, but the Flash has been in the public for literally years. It was originally supposed to come out last year and then all of this nonsense happened with its lead. Its not going to be an event film the way they wanted it to be. But it has allot of people curious. I have zero doubt it will pull in descent money and most likely make over $100 million just on Michael Keaton alone. He is the real draw here. The second weekend will tell us what the public thought about it. I will be happy to go see it and decide for myself. Keaton in the cowl again is very cool.

In the grand scheme of things, I think history will look back on this film and ask the question why it's director/creator chose to make so much press over a dollar amount the film needed to break even. That's a very odd position to make public prior to a film's release, especially in today's social media environment where the direction of the wind can be a polarizing topic. I don't know if its simple arrogance, or perhaps a public position he's taking now to make more expensive films later. One can only assume he feels incredibly confident his film will easily overcome this "high risk" narrative he's established . Whatever the reason, that singular statement certainly inflated expectations and changed how the industry is reporting on it's progress. When the final chapter is written on this film, I've got to think Cameron would like to take back that statement, so this film could have garnered it's own narrative without being hampered or overshadowed by grand proclamations from its creator. Great films often speak for themselves. I'm not sure this movie will ever get that opportunity and that's unfortunate.

Don't hold your breath on Christmas weekend. There's a massive winter storm sweeping the north and midwest Wednesday through Saturday. Travel in many places will be hard if not impossible just for Christmas gatherings let alone going to see a movie. The weekend to watch may be New Years to see if that picks up the crowds that weren't able to attend the previous weekend.

Lets not forget A2's next obstacle... Huge winter storms tracking to hit the midwest and east cost Christmas weekend.

Thats how I see it from reading reviews and eliminating the extreme highs and lows. "Masterpiece" and "its terrible" are not counted here because most people never agree on those opinions. If the suggestion is seeing it in 2D is not all that different to the essential experience of the film, then its bit odd that Deadline is making excuses for its box office receipts by stating there are not enough Imax and 3D screens to accommodate this film. Usually when Deadline starts laying the groundwork for why something is not bigger than they want it to be personally, this is how it reads.

So I have a question... The consensus seems to be the visuals save what the story does not deliver and most of what it saves is in the last 35 or 40 minutes visually. If this thing has to be seen in 3D or Imax to be appreciated and is a dud to see in 2D, then how long can the 3D and IMAX showings makeup for what no one wants to see in 2D? Theaters would have to drop it in 2D theaters which then raises another problem... What if other films coming in have 3D or Imax slots? Doesn't that hurt the bottom line since the story is not the selling point here?

Box Office Pro already predicting a 65% drop for WF this coming weekend. That seems a bit... early.

It will be interesting to see its Monday drop and overall weekday performance. But yes, I think 80% is at bare minimum a possibility. Likely? Maybe not with it being the last weekend before Halloween. Enough people may go in just for the celebration of it. But I DO expect it to beat the record drop set by Kills last year. So eclipsing 71% is absolutely on the table.

It always fascinates me how Deadline Hollywood quits following box office stats once a film they personally like shows an underperformance based on earlier expectations. Usually movies they like will have morning, afternoon and evening updates on Saturday. Halloween Ends certainly seem to be tracking that way with all the talk on Friday, but then... silence. One mention (on Saturday) of the film falling short of the $50 million expectation, (which I believe started out at $55 at one point), is met with a story about WHY and a whole range of excuses, none of which have to do with the fact audiences are hating it with a Cinema Score of C+. That's even lower than Resurrection which got a B+. Hell its the lowest the franchise has gotten since Cinema Score started tracking them. I would like to know if this is even tracking now to make $43 million. The Friday tally of $20 million is pulling in the Thursday/midnight shows so its actual take is more like $15 million for Friday. With such bad WOM and even the audience score pummeling the movie on RT, its going to be interesting whether this film gets the full benefit of a front loaded weekend with the bad news spreading so fast. I mean, who wants to see a film that only shows its star for ten minutes? I would be curious to know what impact that is having on turn out. And Baumer I am with you on your take. Whatever they were smoking in that writers meeting, I'm shocked they got Akkad on board to approve that. I'm also glad they have moved on to the Exorcist series instead of looking at Friday the 13th. Can you IMAGINE what they would have done to that franchise? Wowzers... Speaking of which, its time to get that series rolling again. Myers can be put on the back burner for six years until his 50th anniversary hits. I suspect they will reboot at H4 to celebrate those legacy characters, but we shall see. Jason needs to start swinging the axe again while this franchise takes a breather.

The real question is whether it beats the 70% drop in its sophomore weekend that Kills got. I've seen Ends and I bet it does.

I think there are allot of rules to story telling that were not only violated, but backed over repeatedly. First, when you say you're building a trilogy, there's supposed to be story arc with a narrative structure that provides a pathway for character development followed by a logical conclusion that ties up the loose ends in the final chapter. This has none of that. All three of these movies have little to no connective tissue. Their characters have motivations that come from nowhere. And plot points in these movies are just things that happen because... well they just happen. And all the characters flow in that direction even if it makes no sense for them to. Halloween Ends seems to revel in taking all the flaws in the first two films and slamming the writing gears into overdrive to show they can make even more mistakes. Instead of explaining what has happened for four years or why the town never even made a search for Michael Myers after he murdered half the town, including a town mob who beat, shot, and stabbed him, the writers decide to go back and create a new story arc for a completely different character that was not in the last two films. They not only give you a back story, they then spend more than three quarters of the film letting that character drive the narrative while the rest of the legacy characters let you know they have moved on. Thats great... Laurie Strode spends 40 years hiding in fear of Myers and building a fortress in preparation for him, KNOWING he is shackled to a concrete block in prison. But once he escapes and kills her family, including her only daughter (and is still free), she's moved on after four years. YEAH... makes total sense. If you decide to invest in this new character and new story, have no fear. The writer and director make sure you get no satisfaction there either , because at the end, they realize, "Hey we should bring Michael Myers into this right?" So they eliminate that new character and go back to Myers who is a beaten down and nearly crippled old man wearing a mask, but possessing none of the strength he has exhibited in all the other films. So you spend all your time following a dead end storyline regarding a character that has nothing to do with the franchise, only to get maybe five minutes screen time with Michael Myers, two minutes of which he fights Laurie Strode. This is a ludicrous film. If you're a fan and looking for a pay off, its not here. Its as if they meant to flip the finger at every fan of the series. The only thing I can say for the movie is the acting was actually pretty good. That saves it from getting a F. But the writing found a new low. D-

The only reason I place an asterisk next to those numbers is because theaters like AMC and Regal decided to stiff the ticket buying public and raise prices. One would expect to see an elevated return on that spike, yet the current projection is still hitting the low end of the estimates. Its definitely a consideration.

I have two college degrees, but my best teacher has always been time on the field and the experience that brings to my perspective. If you're objective is to persuade, its best not to insult the intended audience by suggesting they are stupid. That requires minimal education and perhaps a bit more humility, context to the topic, and a better understanding that movies will always be subjective at best. You brought as much emotional baggage and targeted attacks to your argument as those you chose to label with similar issues. At the end of the day, this is product and we are consumers. Buy what you like and understand the reasons why others choose differently will not always be available to you. College professors and a structured course on most disciplines are ultimately just another opinion that serves as a starting point, but absolutely not the final say on any given subject.

Yes. It won't even get close. $14 million might even be off, if thats the optimistic number for the weekend. Thats closing in on a 75% drop. I think the public have spoken on this film. Frontloaded and as dead as one of Michael's army of victims. I think Peacock will likely pick up the extra viewings for the Halloween celebration, so the box office may not get that bump as it might have traditionally received.