MikeQ

As far as nominations go, Netflix dominates this year and it is by far their biggest and broadest showing. Among all 24 categories, Netflix has scored 24 nominations (the most this year of any studio). They have several films represented in these nominations, with The Irishman (10 noms), Marriage Story (6 noms), and The Two Popes (3 noms), as well as American Factory and The Edge of Democracy (both in Best Documentary Feature), Klaus and I Lost My Body (both in Best Animated Feature), and Life Overtakes Me (Best Documentary Short Subject). They also have two nominations in the Best Picture category, one in the Best Director category, seven (!!) acting nominations, and three screenplay nominations. Last year, Netflix had 15 Oscar nominations, with 10 of those being for Roma and 3 for The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. This is a remarkable year for Netflix. Three years ago (2017), was the first time Netflix had ever won an Oscar (winning best Documentary Short Subject); two years ago (2018) was the first time Netflix had won a major Oscar (Best Documentary), and last year was the first time Netflix had a film nominated for Best Picture. Peace, Mike

This is the second year in a row that Meryl Streep hasn't been nominated, which would be the first time since before 2007 that she has gone more than a year without being nominated. Isn't that incredible? From 2007-2018, she scored 8 Oscar nominations, never going more than a year without one. It's from The Devil Wears Prada in 2007 onward, really, that Meryl became MERYL, culturally speaking. She did the same thing from her first Oscar nomination in 1979 (for The Deer Hunter) through to 1991 (Postcards from the Edge), with 9 Oscar nominations over a 13 year span, never going more than a year without one. Between those two periods was her "lull", relatively speaking, and yet she still scored another four Oscar nominations (in 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2003), which for anyone else, would not at all be considered a lull, lol. I'm not ready for Meryl to stop dominating the Oscars. I want her to win one more so she can be tied with Katharine Hepburn as most Oscar winning actor (at 4 wins each). A purist might say she should win 2 more (in the lead category), as Hepburn's 4 wins are all in the lead category (whereas Meryl's original Oscar win was for Kramer vs. Kramer in the supporting category). Please keep acting into your 80s and beyond Meryl! Peace, Mike

This doesn't really make much sense, particularly in relation to The Irishman, which Scorsese couldn't get made anywhere else. Increasingly Netflix are making films that the studio industry won't make anymore, and Netflix's lure is not "your films will win awards" but rather that they provide the space for creative freedom and the ability to make their films. Besides, with Roma winning awards last year, and The Irishman and Marriage Story winning awards this year, Netflix is on a good trajectory thus far. None of the films may have won them a Best Picture Oscar (if neither The Irishman or Marriage Story win Best Picture at the Oscars), but only one film a year can win the award. Roma still won 3 Oscars, 2 Golden Globes, and major critics awards. Likewise, The Irishman and Marriage Story have won major critics awards, and look to score a wealth of Oscar and industry nominations for Netflix (with Laura Dern looking to score SAG/Oscar wins at this point), as they did Golden Globe nominations, even if they don't prove to be eventual winners. Peace, Mike

Yeah, I could see this week being the potential turning point for 1917 emerging as the new frontrunner, if it also does well when it opens wide and everyone gets a chance to see it. And 1917 seems like a choice BAFTA would go for. The only snag is that 1917 got no representation with SAG, but those nominations were released fairly early (on Dec 11 last year). The ranked ballot method for Best Picture at the Oscars makes things somewhat less straightforward. But Oscar nominations are not even out yet (nor are PGA/DGA noms) - I need to see how all of the films fare overall when it comes to nominations. And sometimes the Globes are siloed from the industry, when it comes to their picks. For example, - In 2015, Spotlight won zilch at the Globes, but won SAG ensemble and went on to win the Best Picture Oscar. - In 2010, The King's Speech didn't win Picture, Director or Screenplay at the Globes, but went on to win PGA, DGA and SAG Ensemble, and won the Best Picture Oscar. - In 2009, The Hurt Locker won zilch at the Globes, but went on to win PGA & DGA and the Best Picture Oscar. Peace, Mike

After winning Picture and Director here, could 1917 go on to become the frontrunner? It goes wide in a week, so presuming it is nominated at PGA/DGA/Oscars, it could really develop momentum for the Oscar win. Peace, Mike

Renee is terrific in Judy - she totally captures the spirit of Judy Garland. And whatever you think of the film, Joaquin is terrific in Joker. I'm pleased with both wins. Peace, Mike

Definitely a surprise win! Maybe, but not necessarily. For the last couple of years, the Globes have given Drama, Comedy/Musical, and Director to three different films. Peace, Mike

Like I said, I am not questioning that the reception of 'Us' was mixed. I am questioning your assertion that Us's box office performance is bad, and that it can be treated purely as your usual original horror film, given it was a highly anticipated follow-up to the director's previous horror film that became a cultural phenomenon. A large opening of $70M is relevant context in this situation, and your argument is too simplistic, IMO. Peace, Mike

Not when you're a horror movie that opened to over $70 million. 'Us' was Jordan Peele's highly anticipated follow up to his leggy hit 'Get Out', and it netted a lot of comparisons. We don't really have a lot of films that fall in this category, given only 5 horror movies have ever opened to over $70M: It (2017) — 123.4 million It: Chapter 2 (2019) — 91.1 million I Am Legend (2007) — 77.2 million Halloween (2018) — 76.2 million Us (2019) — 71.1 million All of the films above are in 2.X multiplier range, with the exception of I Am Legend that opened in December and benefited from the December holiday period. The reception of 'Us' may have been mixed, but its box office performance, with a 70M+ opening and 2.5 multiplier, while not amazing, is not bad, IMO. Peace, Mike

I was so impressed with season 3. It really felt like it established its own identity as a season, and grew with the now older kids. It weaved in anti-Russian hysteria, which was a staple of American cinema during the Cold War, and a changing economy and culture around malls, in ways that felt appropriate and timely for the show. The more humorous or exaggerated tone of this season felt totally appropriate to me given the anti-Russian narrative of the season, as exaggerated comedy/drama was characteristic of the Cold War films of the 80s. And the characters of the show continue to go on interesting journeys. And that bathroom scene - so, so good. Looking forward to season 4. Peace, Mike

Looks good. I like that the focus of the second film appears to be somewhat different from the first - with greater world building and new characters (love Cillian Murphy) - and that it isn't just going to be a continuation of the exact same. The audience has already been introduced to the central horror element (re: silence) in the first film - so what journey is the second film taking us on? The challenge, then, for this film will be finding that emotional narrative core, once again. The reason why the first film works so well is exactly because it doesn't rely exclusively on its horror premise, and focuses on a family and characters experiencing crisis. It is an affecting experience. The opening sequence of the trailer is awesome. And of course, for me, Emily Blunt at the centre of the story once again elevates this film for me. Looking forward to checking this out. Peace, Mike

To be specific, technically TLJ had a 2.82 multiplier. At a $177.38M opening weekend for TROS x 2.82 = 500.2M total. (The annoying statistician in me...) Peace, Mike

This seems a little hyperbolic to me, but to be fair, I am not a Star Wars fanboy, so I'm not familiar with the minutiae of concepts like The Force. If you're a fan very invested in the Star Wars universe, I can understand having strong opinions about what it should be. That being said, while I'm not totally familiar with what kind of world building mistakes the sequel trilogy has made from your perspective, I think the core of any good movie - and perhaps especially when it comes to a good sci-fi/fantasy movie - is a story with compelling themes about characters facing conflict, internal or external. I think many compelling stories could be told within the Star Wars universe moving forward - even if you believe this sequel trilogy was unsuccessful in this regard - as a science fiction/fantasy backdrop can be such a brilliant way of telling very human stories in an accessible and entertaining way. Sci-fi/fantasy represents not just escapism or world building, but a safe way to explore genuine human problems. Peace, Mike

I have some genuine questions: What makes you think George Lucas would want to come back to run Lucasfilm? Was he not the person who sold it to Disney originally? And why is he regarded as someone who would be the saviour of Lucasfilm? He already directed and screenwrote all of the prequel trilogy which, whatever your personal opinion, was definitely divisively received overall among fans, and overall pretty mildly or poorly received critically. (Perhaps not as relevant, but I was surprised to learn that of the original trilogy, George Lucas was director and sole screenwriter of only the first film, A New Hope. As a non-fanboy when it comes to Star Wars, I totally assumed George Lucas had directed all of those films.) So, even if we accept the premise that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired, and/or that JJ & Rian were not good choices, I'm still trying to figure out why George Lucas is seen by some as the obvious solution, either as producer or director. *shrug* Peace, Mike

The new BOM makes navigating and crunching box office statistics so painful - I've barely visited their site since they "updated" (i.e. ruined) it in October. But I've finally updated some of my stats. When it comes to share of opening day and opening weekend from previews for The Rise of Skywalker, if Charlie's 50.5-51M proves accurate (going with the lower end), then TROS' share of opening day from previews is 44.2% (compared to 47.9% for TFA and 43.0% for TLJ). So, it is slightly more preview heavy than TLJ (at least for opening day). If TROS were have the same share of opening weekend from previews as TLJ, it will hit 195M for the weekend. Again, previews look to be of a somewhat higher share of opening day. If we use 50.5M as TROS' True Friday, and it follows the same Saturday increase as TLJ (from True Friday) and same Sunday decrease, it will hit 188M for the weekend. Given that next week is full force when it comes to the holidays, I could see a better Sunday drop than TLJ (which had a worse calendar configuration in terms of proximity to the holidays). So ~190M for the weekend looks reasonable to me. All of this will depend, of course, on what its actual Friday gross ends up being, and how strongly it plays over Saturday and Sunday. But TFA did drop better on the Sunday (-11.3% compared to 19.8% for TLJ), and that could be partly because it also had a more favourable calendar configuration (or maybe it was just because of high demand). Or, alternatively, how quickly does WOM kick in these days? TROS could fair better than TLJ in the WOM department. My updated lists (in spoiler tags): Estimated Top Midnight/Preview Grosses of All-Time Rank / Title / Gross / Share of Opening Day Top Opening Weekends of All-Time & Share from Previews Rank / Title / Opening Weekend Gross / Share of Opening Weekend from Previews/Midnights

The show is tonally inconsistent and doesn't always hit the mark, but I couldn't stop watching it. It has a quality about it, and there are some moments where it really does deal with its subject matter in an interesting way that we've never seen before. I am critical of some aspects, but the show ended on a high note with the final three episodes, where it shifted its focus to the real consequences of sexual assault, which put the superficiality of the morning show (and its high powered actors and careerists) that we had previously witnessed into focus. There's something interesting about juxtaposing all of that with the ways in which sexual assault creates real problems for those who have experienced it, and thus in turn showing how that culture (of a morning show or of society more broadly) makes invisible those who are least powerful and vulnerable. Therefore, while it has its issues, the show came together in the finale in a way that felt purposeful, and on some level, impactful. I'm prepared to stick around for season 2, to see what direction they go in next. Peace, Mike

Agreed. I've always thought an easy fix, that still maintains the classic RT % format, would be to make between 50-59% a yellow tomato, so that visually films that are on that cusp are identified as mixed, as opposed to rotten. Peace, Mike

I'm not sure that if Thursday previews didn't exist, that all of the gross would simply transfer to Fri-Sat-Sun, particularly as previews grow in size and start earlier (at 4:00 or 5:00pm sometimes now). So, I'm not sure that you could take Endgame's massive $60M previews, or The Force Awakens $57M in previews, and add it all to Fri-Sat-Sun, if Thursday previews didn't exist. At this level, capacity is often being filled, but I don't believe that cinemas need to be literally 100% packed either, and that other factors (quality of showtime, seats, format, etc) will play a role. I would say $60M worth of previews relieves some of the high demand on the weekend so more general audiences can attend on the weekend (as opposed to during the week, say). We've seen some of these high performing films have really strong first Mondays/Tuesdays as well following the weekend, which I think suggests some overspill. But this is all just my impression. Peace, Mike

Yes, thereabouts. In 1983, Return of the Jedi's $23M opening represented a 60% increase from the previous record holder (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). In 1989, Batman's $40.5M opening represented a 37.4% increase from the previous record holder (Ghostbusters II). In 1997, The Lost World: Jurassic Park's $72.1M opening was a 36.6% increase from the previous record holder (Batman Forever). On a related note, the longest period of time an opening weekend record has stood (going back to 1975) is essentially 4 years. So, the longest opening weekend record holders since 1975 have been from: 1997 to 2001 — record set by The Lost World: Jurassic Park in 1997 held until 4 years later in 2001 when Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone set the new record 2002 to 2006 — record set by Spider-Man in 2002 held until 4 years later in 2006 when Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest set the new record At this point, I have to imagine that Endgame's opening weekend record will persist for many years to come, and easily be the longest serving record holder. But it will be surpassed eventually, through inflation and other factors we may not be able to predict (e.g. Thursday "previews" may start earlier and earlier, as they have been doing somewhat already, so that we basically have a full-fledged four day weekend). And we can't always predict what will become the next big thing, and spawn a highly anticipated sequel, etc. Peace, Mike

This film made the Oscar shortlist (of 10 films) for Best Visual Effects. On the other hand, its original song 'Beautiful Ghosts' did not even make the 15-film shortlist for Best Song. I didn't expect either of these results. Peace, Mike

Peace, Mike

I saw this last night and it is fantastic: thematically rich; superbly crafted, weaving between genres effortlessly; excellent acting that feels grounded and real even as things quickly shift; great comedy and tension; visually interesting. The film just gives and gives. Like others here, highly recommended! Peace, Mike

It could just be the trailer, but this looks too serious. Where is the comedy? Or else why are they hiding it? I'm not sure how well the film will work, or attract audiences, if it takes itself too seriously. An essential element of the original is the comedy. To be fair, that's probably going to be more difficult to attain with a story that centres around a group of kids vs comedy legends like Bill Murray. Peace, Mike

Jenkins asked "Will Cheetah's look be all practical or include some CGI? Jenkins: "We tried to do as much as we could on this film practical, but Kristen Wiig's character... you have to go a little further." [...] "Minerva character has a little help" with CGI. Peace, Mike

Patty Jenkins emphasized going all out for the second film... "real wire work, real locations" [...] "real people doing real stunts on real locations" etc. Character posters just revealed for Wiig, Pascal, and Pine. Jenkins raved about Wiig. Jenkins wouldn't reveal how Steve Trevor returns in the second film, but says that his return is important to the story and assures audience it is "not a gimmick". Peace, Mike