Ipickthiswhiterose

Last Christmas was on a Monday. It you're going to make a sassy point at least make sure you're looking at the right month.

For my part, I just started by observing that MPR seems to have been given a disproportionate amount of screens compared to all other films. Not any specific ones. I was also clear in pointing out that this, rather than having any more sinister reasoning, seemed to stem from a genuine belief from cinemas that this would be a SW/Bond level hit, which is born out from conversations I've had with a local cinema manager. I stand by that and I don't really see why it needs to be perceived as especially contentious. It mostly from stemmed from me trying to watch Bumblebee at my local and finding myself unable to.

I clicked on the link to see the streams of people calling him out for falling for the exact joke RLM were making. Nope. Full of folks genuinely taking this at face value. I despair, I really do.

Much as I am delighted by the insinuation that not posting that much on this particular forum before means that I am not capable of discussing these matters, you're arguing against yourself here. Bohemian Rhapsody didn't open to the number of screens that Poppins is doing. Your whole post is a long description and justification of why MPR shouldn't be expecting to open spectacularly highly and should simply expect to be the equivalent of a successful family movie. Mid 60s should be okayish. Over 75 would be a big success. I agree. Which is why it begs the question of why MPR has been granted the enormous amount of screens it has compared to those other movies.

"The widest ever release in the UK". I don't see how Toy Story 3 and Shrek 3 aren't acceptable comparisons. This is way below them. I will undoubtedly be one of the biggest movies of the year, and was always going to be the biggest movie of the season in the UK since Poppins was always going to be leaning into the UK market as its main one after the US/Can. But it will struggle to get to the levels of Greatest Showman or Mamma Mia, both of which weren't given anything like this kind of release. EDIT: "In the 40s and into the 50s" would put it into Peter Rabbit and Paddington 2 territory at the high end (Secret Life of Pets at the low end). Good and successful movies but there is no way on earth Disney's banner holiday release being granted the "widest ever release in the UK" is aiming for that kind of haul.

Main overseas markets opened in would include Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Aus, UK Previews Still to be released in a lot of markets including China, SK, Japan and India so that seems like.....ok? Not great by any means but could be worse? Or is this a disappointment.

I didn't mention Aquaman. The kind of description you're giving there (shows from 8-12 every 20 minutes and implying that 1-2 shows per hour isn't really that much) can only describe London or other major cities, where these issues are always going to be less pronounced because of the sheer number of screens. My local yesterday had 18 Poppins, 5 Grinch, 4 Ralph, 3 Spiderverse, 3 Zero, 3 Aquaman, 2 Beasts, and 1 each of a few including Nutcracker, Creed, Smallfoot, CBeebies et al. The Bumblebee previews have been shelved. I really can't see how that wouldn't strike anyone as being lopsided to a Star Wars type level. Again, I'm not claiming any kind of strange conspiracy - I think the movie theatres genuinely thought/think Poppins is going to be the size of those behemoths (and they may be true, only it seems reasonable to wait and see), I'm just pointing out that this is very unusually, possibly uniquely, deferent treatment to be giving a film that hasn't actually earned it yet. Edit: PS - I openly acknowledge that right now I'm feeling somewhat saltier than usual about this kind of thing as I have only recently been geography-screwed out of watching my most anticipated movie of the year (Suspiria) on the big screen because not one of the many cinemas within 30 miles of me was willing to show it even once.

The only movies I recall with this level of screen opening were: TFA - 50.6m (2nd all time) IW - 41.4m (3rd all time) TLJ - 37.4m (5th all time) The other three in the top 6: Spectre, Deathly Hallows and Order of Pheonix I don't recall having this level of screen monopoly, though in Spectre's case I may be mistaken looking at the amount it made (63.7m). I would argue that the absolute minimum to justify what we're seeing would be the Shrek 3 (7th) and Toy Story 3 (8th) figures of around 33m, since these were family friendly movies that managed to hit those weekends with high screen numbers but certainly not the percentage that MPR has been gifted. And going back to the Nativity Rocks point: it doesn't matter whether folks think it's bad or not, it was a Christmas movie made specifically for schoolchildren that was yanked before the schools went on Christmas holiday. I think that counts has having been shafted regardless of its quality.

It's not about saying it won't be successful or that it doesn't deserve the most screens. It's the sheer dominance of screens that it has been given at most cinemas. A dominance that is only ever reserved for Star Wars and IW. Not for Mamma Mia, not for HP, not for Bond, not for any other Marvel has there been this level of monopolisation of screens.

It isn't exclusively about Aquaman or Bumblebee by any means. Nativity Rocks, a specific family-orientated movie in direct competition in theory with MPR for the schoolchildren market - has been banished entirely from screens just as schools come out and so has been screwed even worse than those two. Ralph has been underserved. Creed 2 has been completely yanked despite doing pretty well over here. BR could clearly still be bringing in some money. There is little or no counter programming available. It is wall to wall MPR with only the other major players getting scraps.

I do think this may be something of a symptom of the UK cinemagoing audience being generally more family-orientated and perhaps also more female compared to cinema going audiences in other countries. Does anyone know if there's anything to bear this out. I don't think there's any great manipulation going on here, just perhaps a mass contrived effort to make it a cultural 'moment' given that Mamma Mia and Bohemian Rhapsody have already managed to do that this year somewhat with only half the push. Spoken to my friend who's a manager for Odeon and from the sound of things they are all just legitimately convinced Mary Poppins is going to be ginormous. Reviews have been far more generous to it over here as well in general. I think the other things with both Aquaman and Spiderverse is that I think British Joe Public has a slightly different definition of "just silly" than other places and that definition doesn't help those two films particularly. Or I may be speculating or retrofitting.

The proportion of Poppins showings at my local cinema is monopolistic enough that I'm actually feeling antagonistic to the movie and may well not go. There are literally two showings of Aquaman today. Bumblebee is not showing. Poppins is on 16 times. That's how bad it is. For a movie that hasn't got a Star Wars-esque recent history to justify such screen dominance it makes me feel very uncomfortable. I don't remember Infinity War or Incredibles 2 even being this bad.

As a humble impartial observer surfing by with little in the game, I have literally no idea what is meant to be wrong with those Hulk images. If that means anything to anyone.

Nutcracker is a fantastic movie and I won't hear any different. I haven't even heard a particularly reasonable critique of it other than it was a 'mess' - despite the fact that it had a perfectly coherent narrative, characters with specific agency and motivating factors, was tonally consistent and featured performances that aligned perfectly to the stye of movie it's aiming for - almost none of which could be said about AWIT. I swear it's just the boldness that puts people off. And that it was and is an easy target. As for Mortal Engines, I think even those who think it's terrible, which is a bit harsh, can't summon up any satisfaction in it doing this badly. It's just sad. Even more so when, whatever one thinks of the movie there's clearly actual effort on show on a level far greater than, say, The Grinch that is just rolling in it right now.

I've sadly come to the conclusion that the UK cinemagoing audience is absolute trash. Looking at our track record over the last few years as to which films have done disproportionately well and badly makes for a horror story. I'd just point out that this isn't exactly a massive shock given that Aquaman opened the day before in the UK, Bohemian Rhapsody is an absolute juggernaut midweek like Mamma Mia before it, and Creed 2s been doing pretty well. Ultimately though there just hasn't been much visible marketing for it at all, and it isn't seemingly on the radar of the average cinemagoer in the UK.

The death of Sondra Locke is now going to dominate this movie's release. There will be some nasty stuff out there in the next few days that isn't going to reflect well on pretty much anyone. Ironically (and perhaps disturbingly) could even help it, while guaranteeing it's not going to go down any kind of awards route. Might even delay some international release dates.

It's so true that winning covers everything. One of the difficult things in FB2 is that almost all of the criticisms of it could be accurately levelled at Rowling's previous work, but the good stuff and more importantly the popularity has covered it. But her flagrant preference for some of her own creations over others really got magnified here. In the same way that it was clear she never really cared about Lupin (this is just one example of many) and he was just a conduit to get to Sirius - the character she liked; here we have Leta being treated as a vaguely expendable character despite how interesting she could be, while Credence is given editorial neon lights glaring out "This character is amazing" at all turns. Equally, compared to how much time is given to the perspective of Newt, she has no interest in Queenie and just treats her character traits as permeable despite fans of the first film loving her. It's always been there, but not doing as well highlights it. I also think that the backdoor links to the main series didn't help perspectives on the film. I know I personally was sold on a non-aligned movie series set in the Harry Potter world: not a direct prequel series. I think this shift has not been remarked upon enough, perhaps because those who discuss movies all the time just assumed that was naturally where the series was going to be headed: but don't forge that essentially the marketing of the first movie has now been rendered a pretty unequivocal lie.

Christmas-themed Nutcracker is now getting single figures week-on-week drops late in its run, just like Grinch, while Ralph Breaks the Internet continues to get standard family movie drops. I'm not saying Nutcracker would have been a success, but is it time to say that Disney got the releases of these two movies completely the wrong way round? A Thanksgiving release for Nutcracker would clearly have earned it more money, and it is looking like Ralph would have made the same amount of money whenever it was released. I am very aware I might be wrong, but while Ralph is good there's just nothing about it that is a holiday movie, while it's literally the entire gig of Nutcracker which is now dropping to 500 theatres right at the time that it should be benefitting the most.

I have muddled through the last few pages on here as a movie fan - not as someone who has a particular dog in the fight when it comes to these properties. I will point out the following though as they seem to pertain to the Disney argument: - Rotten Tomatoes has for better or worse become the go-to indication for how critics feel about movies. - Rotten Tomatoes works on a binary system of fresh and rotten. That's it. - Any nuance a critic has worked into their material is removed. This means that, to give a hyperbolic example, movies that a hundred critics consider 6/10 is rated 100% Fresh, while a movie that 50 critics rated 10/10 and 50 critics rated 1/10 is rated rotten. This is where arguably-falsely high results for movies such as (to use one I've heard bandied around on here and elsewhere) Ant Man and the Wasp. Because nobody considers AM&TW a 10/10, or even 8 or 9/10 movie. But almost everyone being objective would call it a 6 or 7/10 movie because it knows what it is, has a clear rationale, executes that rationale and does so in an efficient manner. That is what a 6-7/10 movie is. And MOST movies Disney makes are like this. Disney operates on low risk. You can like that, you can not like it. But it isn't about the critics favouritising Disney as it is Disney working the way the system currently works to get maximum apparent critical favour on their side. Because the final score on their AM&TW is high, and ignores that many of the critics rating it 'fresh' do indeed mark the safeness/lack of ambition and flair in the movie - they just rate it as pretty decent because it really understands what it wants to be (which is what almost all the MCU has going in its favour) and works towards this. Only occasionally does Disney go against this, with the Nutcracker being a great example. That movie DOES take risks, has a rationale but not an obvious one (because it is sensory and visceral rather than aiming for a precise genre), and is incredibly bold in everything it does. As a result it allows for the possibility that some critics might really love it, but it removes the barrier of that 6/10 for those who find flaws. And mixed bags/high ups and low downs are far more prone to being negatively felt upon than something that it safe - and certainly for the critics who DO look around and want to make sure their opinion doesn't stand out (and there aren't loads of those but there are enough) they will almost always go with the negative overall route when it comes to the risk-taking film unless there's a strong reason not to. That isn't a Disney thing, it's a critics thing. And it always has been. It has just been hugely exacerbated by the Rotten Tomatoes Fresh/Rotten binary prioritising safer films that are incredibly firm in their rationale, over risk-taking, potentially self-contradictory films that may have much better ideas than the first batch but in doing so probably have problems as well. I hope I've communicated that clearly.

I just popped onto here to mention that I think that even though delayed sequels have recently done well, this one just feels like it's coming out at the wrong time. It seems I'm not alone and this seems like it's actually the general sentiment, rather than the hot take I thought it might be. It does at least seem to have a bit of real estate to work with in terms of release date, though.

I was surprised by how few there were there and there were less there on the same day than for Mortal Engines. I wouldn't say it was quite 'near empty', but there weren't many there for either the screening I saw or the one I accidentally walked into when I was meant to be going to ME. But that's only two screenings in a minor UK City at the end of the day. I will say there hasn't been much advertising here in the UK from what I've seen, and even less for the pre-screenings that are open this week. From what I can tell lots of UK cinemagoers now just assume similar release dates to the US - Aquaman has previews this Wednesday at the same cinema for instance and there was nothing up about that either bar the schedule.

Sorry, I should perhaps have been clearer as to what I meant by 'overwhelming' visually: I don't really mean that it's confusing plot-wise or that the story moves too quickly, rather that there will be some for whom the literal visual information presented in terms of colour and light will be a little nausea inducing for those who are prone to that. I should also add that while I was on the cusp of this response, I was generally ok, and everything other than this about the movie was absolutely fantastic.

Saw it this afternoon (UK-Based previews) Lots and lots of people will absolutely love it and it will make money, but perhaps not the 'breakout' money the biggest fans will say it deserves. The speed and tone of the visuals will put off some of the older crowd (it was bordering on too busy/noisy for me and I'm 36) and indeed some niche others who are visually oversensitive (it feels like you're watching a 3-d movie in 2-d at times) will struggle with it. Basically it will mop up some casual audience but not loads while getting all the major superhero loving demos, I'd say maybe 110-130 US Domestic.

Just come back from seeing this. Loads of really, really good things about it, hampered by the fact that it was one film trying to do the job of at least two. That's the issue with these Properties that are less known to the public: they need time to tell the story, but they can't say it will be two films when there's no guarantee the second one would get green lit. Mostly everyone did well given the circumstance, though the male lead is a bit bland. No chance box office wise in the US, but thought it would have had a chance WW. Seems like it isn't the case.

In the UK - much more people in this afternoon than I was expecting: more in this than the screen for Into The Spiderverse, which was a real surprise.