straggler

I think it was a combination of the movie being based on an extremely well known IP, the movie looking good and bright in trailers and getting good reviews, and the perfect marketing storm. But yes, Robbie was perfectly cast. Who would have thought that casting an actress that can actually pull off looking like the classic character would work? Hollywood might be onto something. . Then again, you cannot just discount the string of flops and disappointments that Robbie has been involved with, including Birds of Prey. What she has going for her is that she gets opportunity after opportunity without seemingly drawing a backlash and eventually something clicked at the box office.

Anyone else find that the way critics treated this movie was odd? NHF has a higher audience and cinemascore than Joy Ride, yet the critics gushed over that film while NHF had to struggle mightily to get to "fresh" territory its opening weekend and going into its opening Friday was still in the green zone on RT. Not rooting against any film, but it was noticeable. It has clawed its way back nicely, but one would have hoped it would at least have gotten the critical treatment of Good Boys, a film with the same cinemascore, a slightly lower audience score and by the same director. Honestly not a fan of the social media/Rotten Tomatoes era where anyone with a film blog becomes a "critic" and is able to effect the overall "grade" of a film. Some of the traditional newspaper critics were rotten, but at least they had a stake in the game. And you did not have the sense that films were getting targeted or dogpiled. I get that a film like this is not making a $100 million anymore, but I still thought it was done a bit dirty.

I think it is just the reality nowadays. The days when a movie like Bad Teacher can make a $100 million are likely gone. I think Covid and especially streaming changed people's behaviors. They know they can catch a film at home a few months down the line. There is a reason the market is now almost all established IPs and why certain types of films are now streaming films. And why the R-rated comedies disappeared. Expectations have to be judged against reality, not nostalgia. I think it did as well as could be reasonably expected. I have a feeling this film will be very popular on Netflix or Amazon. Have not figured out how that factors into a studio's calculations.

I don't think anyone goes into it wanting to make a bad film.

Someone said the fake love for BP was like people at a Stalin rally not daring to stop clapping least they be sent to a gulag.

Disney has its target audience well trained, like trained seals.

Saw the Avengers: IW. Meh. You really have to fanboy/girl the whole series to find it anything more than mediocre entertainment. The Guardians characters seemed to work best. Thanos made no sense, but whatever.

The Rock for some reason has been allowed to play the same character in the same type of films over and over and over again. He gets to sleep by sleepwalking through the same part again and again.

Skyscraper will be saved by China. That's is basically why it was made. I think a draw is someone who can make a film profitable against the odds, a film that is not a commercial genre film that does not get the reviews. I like The Rock but with one exception he has been on autopilot the last few years. But he gets the biggest free pass in the business, maybe the biggest I have ever seen. It is like a conveyor belt. He can do 3-4 films a year, all the same type, all playing basically The Rock, even wearing the same cloths, and no one calls him out. Not even Arnold or Stallone or Cruise had it this easy. No one ever says he is overexposed. Or cruising. Or creatively lazy. If Taylor Swift does not speak about politics she gets called out. But not the Rock. If Jennifer Lawrence appears in 2 films a year we are told she is in everything, but not the Rock. If virtually any other actor plays the same character over and over and over sooner or later there is a backlash. But not the Rock. You know what. The more I think about it I freaking hate the guy's guts.

The Incredibles was my favorite Pixar film. Well maybe Toy Story. And UP was really good.

Looks like this is getting the low expectation curve on its RT score.

The MCU comparisons don't really work. The Avengers films are superhero movies that bring together stand alone characters. The first Avengers film which was the first of its kind worked terrifically. The second not so much. But the third added Black Panther and Guardians and had the overarching Thanos storyline. One thing the MCU films have not done is completely screw up. Thy have a formula and stick to it.

Also this confirms that Donald Glover is box office poison.

Not sure what Disney expected Solo to do. The Force Awakens was a unique cultural event (continuation of the original trilogy, supernova levels of nostalgia and a hell of a trailer), but this is the fourth Star Wars universe film and the second one not tied to the main storyline. Was there really that much demand for a Solo film without Harrison Ford? Then you have some really sketchy advertising that made the a film seem like a spoof, and just plain bad scheduling. Plus outside of the US and UK these films do not have a huge global following.

The thing I did not understand was the advertising for Solo. It just seemed like a spoof.