KC7

Slate: Barbenheimer … or Oppenbarbie? The debate rages on over which film you should see first.

Variety: ‘Barbenheimer’ Fever: Meet the Film Lovers Turning ‘Barbie’-‘Oppenheimer’ Double Features Into the Movie Event of the Year

‘Barbenheimer’ Fever: Meet the Film Lovers Turning ‘Barbie’-‘Oppenheimer’ Double Features Into the Movie Event of the Year

Iger is part of the cabal waiting for people to lose their homes in order the break them. DeSantis being more evil doesn't make Iger not evil.

What's changed since 2022 then? Because he certainly was a box office draw last year. Bullet Train wouldn't have opened to $30M or legged it out to $100M domestic with a non-star in the lead.

QFT. Exactly. This. So much this.

I don't know...if they were really interested in promoting it, wouldn't they air the show on a better night, instead of two Saturday nights during the summer? Considering they're obviously going to need product thanks to the strike, it seems like they could have aired it in the fall on a weeknight when more people might be watching TV. This seems bizarre.

Indiana Jones already did Picard Season 3 before Picard did in Crystal Skull.

Sorry if someone already posted this and I missed it, but this is an interesting thread. (I'm going to post all the tweets since I've been having trouble opening tweets without being logged in, so maybe others do too.)

For all the criticisms of budgets today, including Dial of Destiny's, it's interesting to remember that Disney spent at least $250 million on f***ing John Carter, a movie with no stars and no name recognition, in 2012. That would be well over $331 million today, higher than even the latest DoD numbers Deadline leaked. That's completely insane.

I'll give you the inexplicable decision to have him at Hunter College (and I disliked everything about that setup), but the supposedly annoying kid and female lead seemed to have warmed up to him by the halfway point ( ) and any such comments after that (if there were any) seemed pretty benign. In his previous adventures, Indy dealt with: a) a female lead who introduced herself by punching him in the face and telling him he was a creep b) a female lead who spent the first half of the movie screeching at him and telling him he was an idiot c) a female lead who was a Nazi who slept with him and betrayed him d) a female lead who was a crazy Russian agent It seems strange that audiences would demand Indy be treated with kid gloves by a woman in the fifth movie and be appalled that he isn't in the first half. Like...are they not familiar with this series at all?

It's because of what he's heard, whatever that is. He's said multiple times he hasn't seen the movie and refuses to (or let his family see it) because of the trailer and the reports he's heard about mean old Phoebe Waller-Bridge being disrespectful to Indiana Jones and making him look weak. Several of the people bashing the movie in this thread have been proudly proclaiming they haven't seen it and are going by trailers and what they've heard. It's strange they ever liked Indiana Jones in the first place, or maybe they hated Marion all along, because Helena is very much in the same vein of the tough, independent 1930s movie dame that inspired Marion. Marion, of course, was introduced in Raiders drinking men under the table and punching Indy in the face. Helena punches Indy in the face--not even out of anger, but desperation--and it's a crime against humanity.

Yeah, given how some people bitched about the idea of Mutt taking over the franchise back in the Crystal Skull days, it's hard to believe the idea would be considered more acceptable 15 years later just because a new actor was playing him. Lucasfilm may have made a lot of mistakes, but they were right that that was a no-go.

As someone who's here every weekend but usually sticks to lurking, thank you for everything you do.

If it hasn't yet been pointed out, much like Han Solo's death, those opposed to Waller-Bridge's presence should blame Ford. "She first heard about the project from Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy, who broached the idea at the behest of Ford, who—would you believe?—is a huge Fleabag fan." https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/06/phoebe-waller-bridge-on-her-surreal-journey-from-fleabag-to-indiana-jones

B+ for me. For most of the first half I thought it was perfectly...fine. I hated the obvious CGI that, like Crystal Skull, made the world seem faker than in the first three films, and the action scenes went on too long. The best scene in the film was the conversation on the boat where Indy tells Helena what happened to Mutt; Ford really sold that. But it got better as it went along, and everything starting at the dynamite scene worked like gangbusters for me, so it went from solid to actually pretty good. Definitely a better ending for the series than Crystal Skull.

This reminds me of when the 2015 Vacation bombed and some (I think in Deadline's analysis) tried blaming it on Christina Applegate, and how they should have hired someone hotter, or younger, or a bigger name to play Ed Helms' wife. Somehow it's always the female lead's fault. I don't think anyone is coming to an Indiana Jones movie for the female lead (was any of the box office success of Crystal Skull attributable to Blanchett?). Also, I doubt Emily Blunt is enough of a box office draw to help this movie, but she, or anyone who's a big enough name, would probably require the character of Helena be built up more to be a co-lead with Ford. Considering how much people have bitched about Helena as played by Waller-Jones (and despite the rumors, I thought she was allowed to get her shots in and have great moments while still very much being a secondary lead to Jones), that would have given them even more to bitch about. (Even if Waller-Bridge didn't help the box office, I do think she helped the movie. The movie really lacked the character development and moments of the first three, so Helena's character leaned heavily into Waller-Bridge providing her with personality that wasn't on the page. I didn't necessarily like her through the first half, but I appreciated that she was very much doing the tough, resourceful, independent 1930 movie dame that felt like she could have stepped out of the serials that inspired this series to begin with.)

Deadline says $60M: https://deadline.com/2023/06/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-box-office-projection-1235412010/

Authentic in the sense that it's told by and from an actual gay man's perspective. Yes, the director is straight, but there are simply things in this movie that feel more true to life than you would, or have, seen in gay men's stories written by, and sanitized for, those who aren't gay men, even beyond sex. It's all in the details. And yes, romcoms are an inherently fake genre, but they can still feel more authentic within their context. For instance, "When Harry Met Sally" feels a lot more authentically New York than a lot of romcoms set there. It captures a voice and perspective that feels truer and more authentic even within its genre.

Maybe not to you, but it does mean something to plenty of people. And yes, the "they may not have been big movies" you breezed past is the entire point. There's a difference between gay stories--and gay love stories that aren't tragedies--only offered to a niche market in small arthouse theaters and home releases, and those stories being given the major push and release countless straight stories are. In other words, treated the same way and not just siloed to the LGBT audience. This movie wasn't intended to just be LGBT cinema for LGBT people. It's was an attempt at more authentic LGBT cinema for everyone. I don't particularly care for Eichner and didn't love the premise, but I was still hoping for the best, even if I had a feeling that one of its best aspects is the same thing that would hold it back. So many gay men's stories these days are written by women or filtered through a female perspective. The aforementioned "Love Simon"? Based on a book by a woman. "Fire Island"? Transposed gay characters onto "Pride and Prejudice." (and even then there was that Twitter incident where a woman complained it failed the Bechdel test, until Alison Bechdel herself shot her down). The bestselling, film-adaptation-in-the-works "Red, White & Royal Blue"? Book written by a woman (or they may identify as nonbinary now). Netflix's much-gushed-over "Heartstopper"? Woman author. That dreadful "Single All the Way" movie on Netflix? Really a Lifetime/Hallmark movie swapping a gay couple for a straight one. For better or worse, Bros is a movie with a more authentic gay sensibility and perspective than is usually offered to a wider, not-just-LGBT audience these days (even if it's one specific type of gay man's experience--but specificity can be a very good thing in storytelling). It's not at all surprising it wouldn't have appeal to an audience that's more comfortable with a safer, less authentic take on gay men's lives and relationships.

They had to buy enough champagne to fill the Nile!

Interesting. I'd forgotten about that. This piece from a few weeks ago by one of the same authors had it at 250. https://variety.com/2021/film/news/box-office-no-time-to-die-daniel-craig-james-bond-1235083653/ "The film carries a massive $250 million budget and cost more than $100 million to market and promote." I wonder which is right. (If any number can be considered accurate thanks to Hollywood accounting.)

No one watches Bond movies for plausibility, or to see things that would happen in a million years.

There's actually been a lot of coverage over the past year of younger audiences flocking to it--so it very much is mainstream now--and how the show does reflect the zeitgeist right now. NYT: Why Is Every Young Person in America Watching ‘The Sopranos’?: The show’s new audience is also seeing something different in it: a parable about a country in terminal decline. NY Mag: Why The Sopranos Has Become a Zoomer Touchstone The Guardian: The Sopranos: from enduring TV hit to the hottest show of lockdown

Yeah, I haven't seen it in years, but it was the one I immediately thought of that contradicts the idea that Brosnan had no good movies. I remember Tomorrow Never Dies being pretty good. (Would have been better if they'd kept K.D. Lang's song over the opening instead of using Sheryl Crow's though.) It's the two following that are a significant dropoff.