Ipickthiswhiterose

I still find the funniest aspect of the "Woke/Broke" crowd is the highest grossing movie of all time and the third highest grossing movie of all time are the most down-the-line anti-corporate, environmentalist, patriarchy-bashing, money-ruins-everything, save the natural world hippyism you could possibly design. If course it never occurs to them to bash Avatar not only because it makes gazillions, but because it doesn't have any women they can hate front and centre.

It is so gloriously Warner Brothers that their only hit this year is a movie they had no faith in and accidentally walked ass backwards into having planned to release it only on streaming.

At this point they're like a 95 Year Old Italian Great Grandmother who refuses to go anywhere that some other 95 year Old Italian Great Grandmother will be because of something that happened in 1948 and when asked what happened will just answer 'She knows what she did' and if you really drill down it ends up being something like she never returned a salad bowl after a neighbourhood picnic.

I tried my best too convey facetiousness and a certain sardonic self awareness in my post. Clearly I failed.

I am uncertain how often I'm going to check this list because I just probably can't do with this level of guaranteed anger in my life. Actually no not anger. Disappointment. Well, disappointment until The ***ing Dark Knight Rises or Harry Potter and the Bag of Chips turns up. Then it'll turn to anger.

There were plenty of female targeted movies for a while in the Twilight/Hunger Games era. Producers accepted that the YA genre was a trend. This is a manifestation of the ultra-low-risk perspective of Hollywood studios IMO. Similar to Joker cracking a billion. Is it a surprise to a degree? Yes. But it's as much a surprise that nobody's done it before because nobody had the guts to green light it. The Joker had been at the centre of just as much, in fact technically more, box office success than Batman. Of course centering him in a movie, even a lower budget one, had lots of potential. Barbie has insane levels of cultural penetration, even if it hasn't been tested in the cauldron of the movie business. Of course centring her in a movie had massive breakout potential. Especially given the BO success of another toy in Transformers - that didn't even have the same level of cultural penetration - two decades ago. It's the internalisation of the Hollywood low risk mindset that prevented folk from seeing how big those movies could be. And the fact that they needed to nail the marketing and execution, which is all stuff that's easier said than done.

This is what people took so long to get their heads round. I still think some people haven't gotten this. And add in the fact that not only have THEY owned their Barbie dolls, but that they have watched their family members do so as well. The first trailer was low key genius I think. From the off they positioned the femininity of Barbie as being inherently progressive (or at least potentially so) with that 2001 trailer: Whatever there is to say about feminine beauty standards, the shift from girls' toys being an avatar for motherhood from day one (baby dolls) to girls' toys instead being an aspirational figure is an immense culturally powerful movement. Going with a group of 14 next Saturday. Maybe 2 of them go to the cinema semi-regularly, the rest never go. Some of them are dressing up. Serious cultural penetration.

Yes, in another banal take that I'm not the first to make...if you're going to deconstruct superhero movies and the Superman myth, there's no reason that Lex Luthor and Bruce Wayne have any business being in the same movie as they can perform the same actorial function. In a deconstructed Superman follow up to MOS, the Ben Affleck character - a rich man who becomes obsessed with the inherent danger of superheroes given the immense destruction he witnessed - should have simply *been* Lex Luthor. Not that the deconstruction option was the best for your major superhero franchise rather than an elseworld as has been pointed out...but if you *were* going to do that, then you need to pick one or the other to be in the film and keep the other one completely off the screen.

I know it's rote at this point and it's a standard thing to say, but the big folly was Batman V Superman. Not the film itself (as divisive as it is) but even before that the very choice of that level of wad-blowing on the second film. Man of Steel 2 - Batman - Some kind of Palette cleanser - then BVS was an absolute minimum. It was somehow both clout chasing and defensive. As on the one hand the announcement of BVS caused ultra hype in what was always going to be *not the market you need because those are the people who would turn up anyway* but on the other I'm sure it was with one eye on the Nolan movies and thinking a standalone Affleck Batman movie would have been too close to a deeply (albeit to me rather strangely, but my opinion isn't relevant here) beloved trilogy and risked being divisive/rejected.

Possible, but it can be difficult to distinguish between big money and smart money. Especially when it comes to marketing. And sometimes, something's time has just come.

When something flops this hard I always like to go with the first assumption that while there might be loads of noise - and there is certainly LOADS of noise with this film - the primary cause tends to be that there was a cataclysmic misjudgement from the studio (and potentially audience) of the inherent appeal of the film at concept level. Before getting to the Miller shenanigans and the state of DC or the quality of the film, then, I think it's worth just questioning whether it might not have been a massive miscalibration to think a Flash movie - ANY Flash movie that didn't feature an A-Grade established box office star - should have had that kind of price tag or expectation. From the Gustin show, to Titans to the ever-present references in Big Bang Theory, The Flash has been largely a TV-based referent. And Pixar's travails have recently shown how strong the impact can be of small-screen association. I know the finger could go to Aquaman: but Aquaman had an action-adventure style, a thirst-trap pair of leads, and a conventional old-fashioned blockbuster narrative. So even if Aquaman wasn't *Aquaman* it was doing things that have major box office potential aside from resting on the name of the lead character. I think - going into those secondary elements - that people are starting to factor in the notion that the audience perceived the *Dreg ends* of DC being after the announcement of the reboot. I completely disagree. I think the audience have perceived DC as being in *dreg end* phase ever since Justice League. Plus, again, the issue with Miller I think is as much not being any kind of proven box office draw or star-power as it is the shenanigans. It's one thing to have horrible press if you're Mel Gibson and have opened several movies single handedly. Quite another if you've just had a handful of decent indies and the fifth-credited name in established franchises.

Beloved girls' toy... = Girls ...That has been beloved for decades.. = Older women ...And attached to fundamental moments in the formative years and development of many of those girls to the point of specific attached memories that incorporate family/friends... = Not only those who played with the toys but dads, brothers, sisters and moms too. ...That also has a high camp value... = Theatre Folk and anyone culturally attached to Camp as an aesthetic. ...Is being directed by a prestige director... = Film Twitter ...And starts two heavily memed celebrities... = Memelords ...And lots of other celebrities from eras and areas tracing back to the 00s... = Fans of those celebrities. ...And has already gained traction into an attention spiral. = The Terminally online Look, I'm not saying this is going to be as big as Mario. But I AM saying that the bemused "What? Why is this movie getting attention? Huh?" responses are pretty much the equivalent of going "Lol, Mario is just a game for little boys. Why are people saying the Mario movie is going to be big?". Not sure people are picking up on the fact that *even where you have women who were never really into Barbie, or haven't thought abut it since they were 10 and certainly don't talk about it day to day; many to most of then will still have a cherished memory somewhere relating to the brand: of their grandmother buying them a Barbie, or a family Christmas where it was a point of attention, or memorise of playing with a Barbie with a long lost friend.* And this film seems to be tapping in to that.

I Think to be honest despite a noble attempt at defense this post just affirms how ridiculous the Jurassic franchise is in terms of individual moments. Editing mistakes and movie mistakes manifest as dumb moments. It doesn't matter if it was an editing mistake or what was intended - what Lost World shows is the TRex having come out, slaughtetered everyone and then electronically put itself back in the hold. I am entirely aware "Alan" is in a dream sequence. It's irrelevant. They chose to manifest a velocirapotor visibly say "Alan". The Indomitus escape isn't mere "human error" of the type that happens in human history. It implies that the dinosaur completely intuitively understands all human technology, that the humans have not paid any attention to the behaviour of the dinosaur, that the dinosaur is looked after by one single donut eating guy most of the time, that the humans will simply wander into the paddock and leave the gate open with no security failsafes. The sequence doesnt require the I-Rex to be "clever", it's omnisciently magical. Sorry boss, the indomitus escape was realms behind "human error". It was a spectacularly dumb sequence. Just as it was in the second film when a random guy hazards a guess that the dangerous dinosaur is knocked out so wanders in. And they have an auction where individual dinosaurs sell for just a few million each. And the motivation of the villain is money, despite it being canonically established he has access to the bank account of the richest man into the world. And all thsi doesnt even scratch the surface. Yeah, the Jurassic Franchise is fun and I like some of it. But boy it has more pound for pound nonsense than most mainstream franchises and certainly more than TLJ.

Except your description ignores that it was a suicide move, indicating why nobody does it and Holdo was being portrayed as brave/self-sacrificing rather than smart. As for obviously dumber things in major movie franchises, the Jurassic franchise has you covered with at least 5 stupider moments than anything that happens even in the worst Star Wars films just on its own. - Both dinosaur escape sequences in the first and second Jurassic World films. (JW1 and 2) - The dinosaur gun plot from the second Jurassic World film (point at gun at someone you want to kill so that you....can send a dinosaur at them). (JW2) - "Alan". (JP3) - The T-Rex who can kill the ship's crew and then shut itself in the ship's cargo hold. (LW) - Raising the dinosaurs and having the original dinosaur park on an active volcano. (JW2) - Magical cliff that wasn't there seconds ago (JP) - Clone that isn't a clone that is a clone that isn't a clone (JW3)

My thoughts exactly. See the Progressiveness in a massive corporation holding back healthy paychecks and worldwide exposure for 7 actors in a demographic who get very few leading roles. Reminiscent of the ballyhoo surrounding the musical Company when it changed the male lead to female and added a gay relationship....meaning that a show that was a 60% female cast was instead 65% dudes. And the Brit Awards having a Gender Neutral best artist....and consequently only men being nominated. I work I'm the experience realm including Santa experiences and so know several little people who work in entertainment. Every one of them would have treated this as an amazing opportunity. Its insane.

My butcher's was sold out at 2 in the afternoon yesterday. Half the country is barbecuing this weekend. No reason to headscratch about low numbers this weekend. Will see whether next week catches up, otherwise disappinting for TLM.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...the fatal blows for the DCEU were before Snyder even cried Action for the first time. The seeds of DC's disaster were in its greatest success. Christopher Nolan captured zeitgeist lightning in a bottle. He did it via a distinct and unique sleight of hand that he got away with ONCE. For one glorious moment he framed a movie and positioned it as it if was as gritty as a crime drama (with all the levity in genre that comes with) while maintaining all the tropes and blows of a superhero movie. It wasn't...it (ie the crime drama element/supposed realism) was all a cheat and the logic of The Dark Knight is as cartoonish as any superhero movie. But in that moment, and because of the Joker who everyone has good charity towards at he worst of times - never mind when he's performed by a loved actor who has just passed away. It was massive. It was perfect for that moment. And being done once. Even its own sequel didn't really get away with it anything like as much. BUT WB in their setup for the DCEU was absolutely convinced that they could keep lightning in that bottle. That it could be replicated. They even convinced themselves it could be replicated when their Lord and Master Christopher Nolan made it abundantly clear that he was absolutely done with superhero movies. They convinced him to put his name as a sort of producer and/or creative consultant, even though he'd obviously be neither. And they got a guy who if you squinted *sort of* had similar sensibilities to Nolan. DCEU was broken from the start because it was never the original "DCEU", nor was it even "Zach Snyder presents the DCEU". It was "Warner Brothers Presents CHRISTOPHER NOLAN'S DCEU!!! (((as interpreted by Zach Snyder because we can't convince Nolan to have anything to do with it)))" THE DCEU was haunted by Christopher Nolan the entire time. It's preposterously ignored now how much Nolan was used in marketing in the early phrases of the DCEU and when Man of Steel came out. Warner Brothers were absolutely convinced that "gritty, serious, po-faced and seemingly grounded in reality" could work in an extended franchise whose world is one of the most fantastical imaginable. Because it worked once.

This can fire back in the other direction, though, in an era where filmmakers don't use extras and insane real structure sets to the extent of previous iterations due to the prohibitive costs. I watched Carry on Cleo the other day and some of the Roman sets in that look more tactile and atmospheric than anything we get now. Never mind something like Quo Vadis or Ben Hur or Cleopatra.

This makes me want to cry. Jason and the Argonauts is calibrated perfectly for storytelling. The creatures have the exact texture they should and the tone is consistent across all the creatures and effects. When the robots fight in Transformers movies, I don't care what you lot say about "good CGI"....I literally don't have a clue what's happening. Good special effect augment the storytelling, bad special effects undermine the storytelling. Jason and the Argonauts doesn't look real. Transformers, like 99% of all CGI, doesn't look real. They have equal status therefore in looking not-real. One augments the story, one impedes it. I know which I prefer.

A niche Christian Evangelical trilogy of Miracles from Heaven, I Can Only Imagine and God's Not Dead would consist entirely of films that outgrossed Shazam 2 domestically. Jesus Revolution would miss out, having fallen only $4m short.

I have not seen any of the Fast and the Furious movies other than the first one so I have no personal viewership stakes in the game. But it does beg the question even more of whether COVID has allowed for paradigm shifts to occur where people are fairly comfortable closing their viewership books on certain franchises. It's easy to think of being in a new era, and that can suddenly make particular franchises look very dated very quickly. Does Fast and Furious look/feel like something that now represents a different time? Certainly Transformers feels like it does and that more than anything else seemed to be what did for Pirates in the end. I don't totally know though as these franchises are not my wheelhouse. Do Gen Zers and Alphas like the Fast series or does it seem passe to them. I know that when I was in my times anyone in Vin Diesels age range would be very hard to sell to me as any kind of leading man, never mind as a badass. Also, in the midst of all this...why hasn't a Jumanji 3 been fast tracked? Is there even development on it? Of all the films that would seem to be an easy win these days.

$200m second weekend confirmed

I'd come back at this with the point that Captain America as a brand has a rather different pull outside of North America. Not that he isn't popular or anything but....he's Captain America. Although yes I think there is a point here that the Snyder tone was less off-putting to the European sensibility especially. Certainly DC with Superman, Joker and Batman - characters that easily were as recognisable abroad as at home - had a much greater inherent advantage internationally of Marvel in terms of brand awareness than they did domestically. Makes the eventual triumph of the MCU over the DCEU even more impressive really.

I don't think Eternals was the one that did the most damage. Obviously it wasn't super popular but I think it's obvious aspect of difference and, in relative terms, experimentation - mean that I don't think the hit on the MCU perceptually was that strong. Vibes were more "Ah, tried something different. Didn't work." than "Well I won't be watching any more MCU." I think in hindsight there were two real big hits to the brand that override the others. Sure MOM having mixed to negative reception didn't help. Sure, Quantumania getting Rotten reviews didn't help. But I think the two big ones are: 1. Love and Thunder. Because it wasn't just a bad film. It was a bad film that festers: the kind that gets worse the longer time goes on and the more you think about it. The smugness of TW and by extension the whole film projects the kind of air of superiority and better-than-the-material dynamic that JG (for all he sometimes has similar issues to TW) never has due to the obvious love of the material. The MCU - Feige- the franchise previously almost defined by it's good control of project - actually allowed a director's self-insert joke cartoon character to eat up screen time and have agency that the other actual main characters needed to have. On their watch. 2. The Disney Plus shows' prevalence. I think at this point it's not really the quality of any of them. Most people like some and dislike others and I don't want to get into that as it's a matter of taste. But what is common to the discussions is that as with Pixar the very presence and prevalence of MCU content on Disney Plus is a signifier to the audience that the MCU has lower stakes. I think discussions of quality are actually a distraction here to the bigger issue of just the creation of household/family dynamics: "We Watch the MCU On TV"

Jurassic Park had 6 weeks at number one and 4 at number two in its year of release. It was in the top 5 for the entirety of the summer months (14 weeks) and then got reexpanded in November and went back to the top. It had 23 weekends of over $1m. Do we even need to give the ET stats? Over a dozen weeks of number 1 and in the Top 5 from June to December. Endgame had 3 weeks at number one and 1 at number two. It was out of the top 5 in 6 weeks. 14 weekends over $1m. Infinity War had the same stats as Endgame except it was 7 weeks in the top 5. It's not culturally equivalent and it couldn't be. It does the numbers, but the longevity of cultural dominance is simply not on offer any more. And, again, I think that's a good thing - we are in a much less culturally homogenous world.