krla
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by krla
-
-
59 minutes ago, The Dark Rock said:
Do you think $600m is still possibility?
The dark knight added $124m from here on out. That would put TG:M at $540m but with slightly higher numbers and better holds for around $550-560m
If you use the exact same daily holds as TDK, starting from day 19, you get $584m on day 231. You'd hit $500m on day 32, $550 on day 51, $560 day 58, and $577 on day 120.
Though if you use bom, which has more accurate percents, you get $579.59 by day 231.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Eric Lightyear said:
I don't go to IMAX/PLF shows, and everything about the Lightyear/Dominion sharing drives me bananas. Lightyear was specifically formatted for IMAX showings. The first of its kind for an animated movie...and yet it's only available in IMAX for like one 12:30 show per day on its opening weekend. It's so stupid, especially since the hardcore fans who wanted to see Dominion in IMAX already have at this point.
It still baffles me that the major chains haven't announced any IMAX/PLF expansions, since it's clear there's tons of demand from people to see it in PLFs that isn't being supplied nearly as much as it should. Two IMAX theaters in the major multiplexes (and also two theaters for the other PLFs) would mean demand for the format is satisfied and you can show more than one movie all throughout the day instead of just this unfair sharing process.
Theaters do not like showing kids films on premium screens. Remember that theaters are essentially popcorn vendors; they get 100% of the revenue from popcorn, but only 50% (or less) from tickets.
You ever notice how kids movies typically have longer legs, and seem to hold onto more screens and theaters, even when their PTA is below other films? That's because kids tickets are cheaper, so a lower PTA can still represent the same number of tickets sold (and in some cases, more). Even if there are fewer tickets sold, it doesn't really matter, since kids bring someone else's wallet with them. They get popcorn (usually a small, which has the largest profit margin in the theater), a drink (small, also a large profit margin) and then a bunch of other snacks. Look at a film like Elvis, and I'd imagine most the audience will be 40+, most will share a popcorn, they aren't going to get a bunch of other snacks. So one kid watching a kids movie is going to bring more revenue for the theater than 2 adults watching Elvis.
So ideally you want to make adult movies more expensive on the ticket price (premium seats, premium screens), while making kids movies cheaper (so that parents on a budget can direct that saved ticket money to popcorn). When kids movies start taking premium screens, theaters see popcorn revenues drop. And they also see their revenues from general audiences fall, since they are stuck watching regular screens.
Making every screen a premium screen will eat into theater revenues, because ticket revenues are split with studios.
LY being made for IMAX is probably the worst thing for a kids movie, as theaters are going to hate showing it.
If you're a theater owner right now (or executive) you're thinking how you can maximize your profits with having the most popular movie in theaters right now, which is bringing in an older audience that spends less on popcorn; having a dino movie that has a general audience, and a kids movie. Ideally you want that kids movie on the cheapest screens, you want TGM on premium screens, and you want dinos on a mix, with earlier showings being on regular (since that's when kids are more likely to go) and later showings being on premium screens.
Meanwhile all three studios were likely begging for those screens this week. Universal probably thumbing through their contract, reminding the chains of the terms; Paramount was probably asking for as many screens as possible, reminding theater executives that they'll make more with TGM on premium screens than anything else. I'd imagine if Disney wanted more screens.. they'd get them, though. Like... Disney is pretty cutthroat on these things, and they'll use other properties to leverage things.
So.. if Disney doesn't end up with a lot of premium shows, I'd imagine they didn't want them. Either they weren't willing to leverage things, or maybe it's possible that this is a result of infighting at Disney/Pixar. There was a lot of internal drama over Turning Red going to streaming.
-
3
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ringedmortality said:
I saw Little Women in theaters, I think it was the first drama I ever saw in theaters that had a full house. Never saw so many white people in one single room like that since.
Even a Klan meeting has at least one guy everyone thinks doesn't meet the 1 drop rule. "Looking a little tanned today, Sanchez."
"Si."
-
59 minutes ago, Tinalera said:
I just HAD to innocently check Thor presales....
Thor4
Southwest Ontario and Toronto combined Taken June 13
So yea after seeing the amount of seats and stuff I said nope not doing two separate sections for 2 separate days. Will prolly condense the other counts starting tomorrow save what little sanity I have left....ha....hahahahaha
I had to double check the numbers of Thurs BOFFO numbers for Thurs. I did find one major error but all else seems to check out....people must not want spoilers I guess.
# theatre #show Seats Sold Seats Rem Ttl seat Percent Thurs 18 113 3656 21586 25242 14.48 Fri 18 154 1682 32435 34117 4.93 I don't track, but I popped on to look at my local Cineplex in Medicine Hat, and was shocked at how anemic this place is. For Thor (just copying your table with my 'data' lol)
# theatre #show Seats Sold Seats Rem Ttl seat Percent Thurs 1 6 8 1204 1212 0.66 Fri 1 8 6 1610 1616 0.37 Half the shows are 3D, not a single ticket sold for them. Minions has 5 tickets sold on it's thursday, nothing else (those are all 3d since there are only 3d showings, no regular). Lightyear has 2 tickets sold on thursday, 4 friday, and 4 saturday. The only 3d tickets sold are the thursday ones, since they have no regular screenings that day.
Meanwhile Elvis is 3/12/4/2 for its opening TFSS. 21 tickets sold for its opening weekend, while Minions, Lightyear, and Thor have a COMBINED 29. lol
-
2
-
2
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Brainbug the Dinosaur said:
What gives me a bit of hope for a change of course is that Trevorrow said in a very recent interview that he would not return to the series and that also Pratt and BDH will not reprise their roles again. Sam Neill also said that Dominion would be the last movie of the original trio.
Yes, yes i know more often than not such statements dont hold that much weight, but the groundwork for a new direction for the series is certainly there.
They could make a lot of money by doing small scale films; 1 dino, 1 main character. Pump out maybe 3 of these, and then bring those characters into a larger movie packed with dinos. Have each of the three create an experience that makes the individual perceive dinos differently. One could be a movie with a dude and a dino becoming friends (sort of like Chris Pratt and his raptors? I think I only saw the first JW, and can't really remember it). One movie more of a horror/thriller, where a woman crash lands on an island with a dino (or a couple) and has to fight for her life to survive. This leaves her terrified of dinos, but since she's successful, she's a bit of a badass. And a third that's more.. sciency/bureaucratic/political. Maybe some marine biologist finding some 'dinos' in the water, but they aren't big scary things like in movies, and somehow they are beneficial to the eco system. Meanwhile Congress/UN wants to eradicate all dinos, and we get to see more of the political angle on dealing with this, and the marine biologist advocating for not running everything to extinction. I dunno. So that person would be rather neutral on dinos, because they probably don't want raptors and trexes roaming around.
Then in the big movie you combine all these elements, have these characters cross paths, butt heads, etc, while dealing with dinos. Then pump out sequels until you have dinos in space with Trump and Elon, you've jumped the shark, and then go and reboot the original JPark series, with Jeff Goldblum as a very eccentric John Hammond.
-
7 hours ago, upriser7 said:
I wish there was a poll on how much % of Republicans and how much % of Democrats go to theaters often and how that % has changed over last 15-20 years. In general, I have observed lot of negativity towards Hollywood from RW media in last decade, they use it pretty well to rile up their base. Some times there is valid criticism but most of the times, they just spout some bs and people eat it up. All I am saying is I would not be surprised if most of the audience that have stopped coming to theaters now (when compared to 20 years back) are Republican leaning.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/democrats-go-more-movies-republicans-1232066/
QuoteDemocrats go to the movies twice as much as Republicans, a new study finds.
The statistic was among many tidbits included in a seven-year survey celebrating the 1,000th movie surveyed by industry leader PostTrak, the exit-polling service founded by Rentrak (now owned by Comscore) and Screen Engine.
During that time period, Democrats frequented the movies far more than Republicans, or 12.4 percent versus 5.5 percent. Ditto for Independents (7.2 percent). The same also held true for ticket buyers who identified themselves as liberal and conservative (10.1 percent vs. 5 percent). Nearly 10 percent of moviegoers didn’t state their political affiliation.
This is probably more of an urban/rural divide, though. If you live in a decent sized city, you'll have multiple theaters that have a wide array of movies. In smaller cities, you probably have one theater with a handful of screens, and the only thing they'll show other than blockbusters is Jesus movies. Also, no IMAX, no Dolby. At best you'll have a 3D screen. Even the seats are unlikely to be comfortable, probably 30 years old at this point, lol.
Anyways, assuming Republicans and Democrats had equal access to theaters, equal spending power (and ignoring that tickets tend to be cheaper in small cities, regardless of premium screens), then a movie that brought out Republicans as much as Democrats would earn roughly 25% more. And if independents were brought out at an equal rate, then it'd be around 40% more revenue. (This rests on the assumption that all three make up roughly 1/3rd of the population).
This following article (gallery) is from 2011;
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/box-office-politics-movies-stars-243817/
Apparently Democrats aren't fans of Charlton Heston, and Republicans are repelled by Sean Penn. That gallery also says "(Avatar was named by the most moviegoers as having a liberal agenda)", so either Republican moviegoers didn't realize it, or Hollywood is just fine appealing to Democrats. Though Avatar was likely the first time in decades (and the last) that most theaters in smaller cities saw an upgrade. So regardless of political leanings, it would certainly be an event many would want to check out. Anyways, it also says "During the past six months, Democrats have seen on average 5.7 movies in a theater, while Republicans have seen fewer than four." So if that's 2011, and today Democrats go to the movies twice as much as Republicans, then the divide is growing. I wonder if it is Democrats going more, Republicans less, or both.
"Among recent films, Republicans were likelier to choose Soul Surfer and Secretariat. Democrats? The Social Network, Bad Teacher and Easy A."
"Dems and Republicans say comedy is their favorite genre, popcorn is their favorite theater snack, Forrest Gump is their preferred blockbuster and Indiana Jones is their favorite action hero."
Looks like we need a new subgenre of comedies; tradcon. They'll appeal to Republicans, and though reinforcing traditional roles, they'll lack any edge that could truly offend a Democrat.
"While 62 percent of Dems say Hollywood shows America in a positive light, only 39 percent of Republicans concur. And 44 percent of Republicans think Hollywood portrays the U.S. military negatively, but only 21 percent of Democrats agree. "Typically, when you see a movie, it will reflect a Democrat's values," says Jon Penn, Penn Schoen Berland's president of media and entertainment research. "Republicans aren't getting the films they want."
Maybe that's why Top Gun is doing so good. Got the Republicans out.
"A majority of Democrats think Hollywood films are generally inspiring and morally uplifting; a majority of Republicans don't."
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:
I feel the same way about Pirates of the Caribbean and pirates. More pirates.
We totally need a Jurassic Park/Pirates of the Caribbean crossover. I need to see Jack Sparrow running from a t-rex.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, DC Rich said:
No idea. Just one of the ones that popped up.
I had clicked on it at first and saw it was posted by Mint Mobile, but didn't think it was actually their content. But it is, it's from a commercial called "Carpet Showers", which makes me want to get a carpet shower. lol
-
10 minutes ago, DC Rich said:
You did this on purpose. You gave the 8.7m number and knew everyone would freak out. Then you came back with the real number so that people would feel a little better about that number. You just wanted to watch the meltdown first.
What's the gif from?
-
1 hour ago, Hilpkioy said:
Btw, how do theaters in the US manage to balance out earnings and divide theaters according to demand when another Blockbuster comes out? Here in a theater in my city in Malaysia JWD literally has 64 showings on Saturday all of them with 60-90% of seats sold. But the weekend before this TGM had a +9% in Malaysia overall and I couldn't book any 4d showings since they were all sold out. But all they left for TGM this Saturday in that theater is 2 standard showings. And that's how much showings you get as a number 2 movie here usually esp when these blockbusters come out. So you can imagine the weirder schedules and non existent showings the rest of the movies get.
For blockbusters, the studios sign an agreement with the large chains. It's typical they get the premium screen(s) for 2 weeks (depending if another blockbuster is coming out the second weekend). For standard screens, usually they have to show it for x weeks, x times per day, and this will depend on the size of a particular theater. Studios get secret shoppers to go to theaters to make sure the movie is playing. Even if not a single ticket is sold for a viewing, theaters usually have to play the movie (apparently some will just run the sound).
If a released movie is doing really good, you want to keep showing it, and the next blockbuster comes along, you have to follow the contract, at least for that first week. The second weekend you can typically break the contract, but with a stiff penalty. If the movie bombs, the studio won't mind (too much) if you break the contract, since the penalty might bring in more revenue than empty premium seats. If the movie doesn't bomb, but just isn't performing as good as another blockbuster, then backing out of the contract will usually harm your relationship with the studio. If a movie *really* bombs, the studio will usually waive the penalties and let the theaters do what they want, at least for premium screens. Very rarely the studio will completely pull the film (which can cost the studios millions for a wide release).
Also, even though a movie may bomb when talking about its budget or projected revenues, if they are bringing in millions, theaters don't really care. If Jurassic does $90m this weekend and $40m next, we'd likely consider it a bomb, but theaters will be happy with their cut. You look at Morbius and I imagine theaters aren't too broken up about it, since they still made money (though with the re-expansion, some theaters may not be happy about it, but I imagine the studio offered a lucrative enough deal to make them do it).
With regards to Top Gun specifically, theaters have no real interest in showing it on premium screens this weekend. Jurassic World will easily outperform it. There will be a couple chances in the next few months for Top Gun to get premium screens. So having a short window for premium formats helps shift some of the demand to quieter periods, and potentially with a better revenue split. And keeping Top Gun on premium screens wouldn't increase the audience much; people will just go to standard screens. While the theater misses out on a couple bucks per ticket, they are still selling popcorn. In fact, with more people forced into standard screens, they may spend more money on concessions, so the theaters could make more. Sort of related; this is why you'll see kids movies stay in theaters longer, even if their PTA drops, because the cost of kids tickets is lower, and they are selling a lot of popcorn and other crap.
Now, if it were Morbius opening this weekend, the theaters would probably be a bit miffed about giving it premium screens.
It's been my experience that roughly a third of the screens in larger multiplexes will have basically no audience on a given day (but I'm in Canada, maybe it's different here). They'll be showing films that nobody really wants to see. But it's part of the contract, unfortunately (studios also like the leverage their big titles in order to get smaller films into theaters). This raises the operating costs and lowers the potential revenues for theaters. With shorter windows, I imagine that may be less of an issue these days.
-
2
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, nguyenkhoi282 said:
sound like $400m by end of Sunday
Top Gun could probably make it to 400m before Doctor Strange does.
-
Does Top Gun: Maverick even meet the Academy's new diversity requirements to be nominated for an Oscar? It was filmed like 2 years before the new rules came in, so I doubt they had the foresight to stack the crew with minorities.
-
2
-
1
-
-
If Sat is 35, then a 27 Sunday will have TGM beating MoM's 10 day. Will TGM hit 400m before MoM?
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, M37 said:
Not on MCU level, no; really not much is, which is why they dominate box office. I couldn't find a diversity breakdown for Fallen Kingdom (Anthony seemed to be mailing it in a bit that weekend) but Jurassic World wasn't all that diverse.
54% of those watching JW were Caucasian, 20% Hispanic, 14% Asian and 8% African American.
But generally, monster movies - similar to horror - tend to bring out a more diverse audience. Here was Venom, for example:
Diversity demos were 40% Caucasian, a very strong 29% Hispanic and Latino turnout, 16% Black and 15% Asian/other
Does diverse just mean less white? From Top Gun, to JW, to MCU, all of those have a white audience that is smaller than the overall demographics of the US. Most just reflect the racial/ethnic breakdown of the age demographic most likely to see the film. The younger the audience, the less white the audience will tend to be.
-
33 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:
Pirates 1 got away with pigeonholing two of the worst lead actors in modern Hollywood into roles that suited them, but 2 and 3 were horrendously hamstrung by Knightly and Bloom. And Sparrow was diminishing returns the moment he became the lead and not the supporting character he was in 1
It's been years since I've seen these movies, and I don't even think I've watched them all, but are you saying that Jack Sparrow basically Urkel'd Pirates of the Caribbean?
-
5 minutes ago, Legion and Thunder said:
Hopefully this movie’s success inspires lots of Scientologists to fly to Ukraine and take up arms
If Scientology brought world peace, would we all have to join the church and become Tom's slaves?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, shachi86 said:
Where did you find this?
I made it using an old chart from the wayback machine.
-
2 hours ago, wildphantom said:
I miss mojo’s dailies where you could few four or five days worth side by side.
TG2’s side by sides would have looked beautiful.
You mean the thing like this, where they had the weekend, weekday and weekly option?
-
8
-
2
-
6
-
1
-
-
I'm excited that the long debate about whether Avatar has had a cultural impact will finally be decided this year, and with Top Gun as a great comparison point.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Felandria said:
At this point, I wouldn’t discount Top Gun doing $20m in week 5
Especially if it manages to wrestle some premium screens back from Jurassic.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, mitchellsilver said:
No and good riddance. This trial and this jury was a joke of epic preportion the NEW OJ SIMPSON verdict ! She has EXCELLENT Grounds for appeal
That Wendy Walsh ain't very bright. First, the texts she references weren't sent to Amber, nor did she read them. So how is that emotional abuse? Second, the judges instructions weren't that they had to only find one instance of abuse. Hell, in regards to the headline, she was specifically talking about sexual violence. How is a text she never saw 'sexual violence'? Also, this narrative that she only needs one instance of abuse is framing from the Heard team. In fact, that seems to paint things in favour of Depp. Think about it, when you read that article, did you think that Depp had simply sent a text to his friend complaining about Amber? Did you think that only one instance of abuse had ever happened? Did you think she was the initial aggressor? Most people were left with the impression that he was beating her regularly.
He was defamed. Because if the article was simply "Depp sent mean texts about me," she wouldn't have been seen as the domestic violence victim she was so desperate to be. If the article was "Depp emotionally abused me by yelling at me" would it have ruined his reputation, or hers?
Both sides got to put on their best case. And from Amber we saw lying, fake crying, evolving stories, her own witnesses contradicting her, using the same picture and trying to pass it off as being from multiple events, edited photos that were claimed to be separate photos taken at the exact same moment, audio of Amber gaslighting Johnny, audio of Amber abusing Johnny, video of her getting giddy after recording him for the TMZ video, and so much more. And there was plenty of audio kept out of the trial, like after Johnny getting his finger cut off and Amber balling her eyes out saying she's sorry she hurt him and hoping he doesn't leave her (audio with people other than Johnny and Amber wasn't allowed in the trial; also in that audio, we got to hear the staff discussing how Amber seems to always know what they are talking about and how manipulative she is). This is when she claims she was beaten and raped for like 3 days, dragged through glass, and yet has no injuries, doesn't claim she's hurt, doesn't claim she's afraid, nothing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, dudalb said:
Let's see how long Depp's new "Populairty" lasts. It's one thing to think he was in the right in this trial, another to pay ten bucks to see him a movie.
And as for twitter popularity, here today, gone tommorow. And, anyway, twitter likes are notriously hard to transalate into tickets sold.
His days are big box office draw are over, except for maybe Jack Sparrow. And I suspect it he does another Pirate, it will be sort of a farewell appreance with him having a supporting role then passing the torch on to another actor..Margot Robbie if the rumors are right.
I think most of the cards lay in the industry's hands. Will he get good roles in good movies with good cast, writing, and crew, that will be promoted and given wide releases? The industry loves money, so I can see that happening. I've noticed throughout the trial that 99% of people I talked to would say something like "I haven't really been following the trial" and then spend an hour talking about it.
10 hours ago, Krissykins said:The evidence has made it pretty clear though that he has a major problem with various types of hard, hard drugs. Maybe the previous studios weren’t aware.
And if someone is under the influence on set, they’re putting everyone at risk.
I imagine studios are more than aware of these things, and only turn a blind eye to it as long as it isn't too public or causing issues. Today it'd be an interesting situation, because his drug habit is so well known, he's kind of a sympathetic character in that regard (I think him talking about his opioid struggles, especially during an opioid epidemic, was pretty powerful, and humanizes drug addicts). He's not a squeaky clean Cruise type. And I think that helps alleviate some of the concerns a studio could have.
8 hours ago, Rorschach said:That literally all comes down to whether Disney even wants to work with him again, which I sincerely doubt. And until Depp himself suggests that he might be interested in coming back, which he hasn't yet and would be literally contrary to what he said on the stand about not coming back even if they offered him a truckload of money, then I'm willing to believe that neither party are interested in working with one another.
That's not to say that it won't happen at some point down the line, but for now, I'm skeptical of the notion until either side shows interest.
I think the biggest issue is that no matter what public sentiment is now, studios making a move on Amber or Johnny is going to be seen as 'taking sides' and will make people unhappy. Amber also has a bunch of media on her side, which creates another issue for studios. I'd imagine this risk will probably prevent any of them getting big roles, unless someone big puts their neck on the line; and that's where Depp has the depth in Hollywood to benefit, since I'd imagine that people like Burton will pull for him.
Also, I doubt he gets a truckload of money, even if they bring him in for something like POTC6 or a similar large role. I imagine he's more likely to get a few million and a backend deal, so the risk of a bomb is mostly on Depp.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, setna said:
Crazy!!!
Please, where can i see the Uk daily box office? i´d love to see the TGM daily numbers.
Thanks!!-
1
-
-
IMO, they need to pull a Logan with Jack Sparrow. Smaller budget, like ~$50M. Keep the runtime low so you can get this thing many showings on fewer screens, increasing its legs. Title the film Jack, or Jack Sparrow, or Sparrow, or Captain Jack Sparrow or w/e.
Anyways, you open with him in 'normal' clothing for the era (not pirate, no pirate hat, no eyeliner or anything). He's at a bar, drinking his sorrows, looking old. Someone recognizes him and mockingly comes up and says "If ain't ol' CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow", and he replies "It's just Jack," very solemnly. Guy tries shooting the shit or w/e, and Jack just gets up, grabs a bottle of scotch (not rum, as the taste brings back painful memories of when he felt like he was someone important) and walks out. Stumbles drunkenly down the street, falls over and passes out in a ditch.
In the morning something happens. He's awoken to some guys coming through town and robbing people, beating them up, maybe even some killing. He tries to hide in the ditch, when they come over and rob him. You think he's going to fight back, or at least try to fight back, but he just hands over his few coins, maybe some important memento, and resigns himself to defeat. You see the guys rough up a woman, and he just puts his head down and walks away. He's dismissed as a fool by the townspeople.
Then you go through his life, basically a loner. He has nobody in his life, no kids, no wife, no friends, no ship. He doesn't even live near the ocean breeze, he's far from the Isle of Tortuga. You see him in a cramped tenement, struggling to pay room and board, working some really crappy job (maybe delivering stuff with a hand pulled cart?). From pauper of the surf to just pauper.
One night he's passed out in the ditch when water starts to puddle around him. Then the flow increases. He starts to wake up and it's a flood coming in. The village he's in is getting wiped out. He's basically given up and just lets the water take him. Until he notices a child in distress, and instinctively goes to save her. We see him struggling to even swim, because he's drunk, but also old as hell. He barely saves the girl, and manages to get to her in a large tree. We see the absolute exhaustion on Jack's face and we hear people screaming and drowning in the background. The little girl is crying out for her parents, and you hear them reply, some dialogue that pulls at the heart. Jack heroically goes back in to try and save them, big hero theme music. The parents are clinging to a pole, and Jack finds a way towards them. In trying to help them, it becomes clear they both can't be saved, and the husband intentionally let's go so he won't be a burden, shouting out to save his wife. Jack holds onto her. Again, big hero music. We see him struggling to get the mother to safety, but she's lost strength and can barely stay above water. And right at the last moment, when you think they are going to make it, we see Jack lose his grip on the mother.
He eventually clings to the same pole that he found them at, and he survives until morning. A stark example that if he'd just left them be, they may have survived. Most of the village is gone, there's just endless water, and then a large, mostly submerged tree where the girl is stowed safely. The waters are relatively calm and Jack reluctantly begins swimming over there. She doesn't know that her parents are dead. Jack tries sneaking away, but feels too much guilt. He goes back, and when the girl is upset because she thinks he abandoned her, he lies and says he just went to find a boat for them, so they can go find her parents. Throughout he constantly lies to her about how they are going to find her parents, while really just trying to figure out what to do with the kid (probably pawn her off on Kiera Knightly or something).
They go through a series of ups and downs, losing and gaining trust in one another. We slowly see the Jester of Tortuga come back to life. Pepper in either cameos, or having old characters join along the adventure. They all think they are out to find this little girl's parents. Towards the end he ends up having to admit to her, and everyone else, that the parents died. Everyone thinks he's a real big jerk, but then the girl says "I know." She knew all along that her parents had died, and this adventure was how she coped (or something like that).
Anyways, the end depends on what you want to do with his character. Sequel or a big POTC film? Then you have a happy ending where they end up on a big ship, Captained by the Disney marauder, sailing into the sunset (or sunrise) as the start a new adventure (and someone calls him Jack Sparrow, and he corrects them by saying *CAPTAIN* Jack Sparrow). Retiring his character? Then you hand the girl over to the new franchise character, and have the true Pirate Lord die. Could also have the girl grow up and become the lead in the next film. You have some memento Jack gives her, and at the end of the film you see her wearing it (though it's too large). At the beginning of the next film, the first shot is a close behind with mostly just that item on screen, visibly on a grown woman. Retiring the franchise? Both the Crustacean King and the girl die. Regardless of his end, he needs to be hailed as a hero.
Could also have some story about how he had a wife and son, and how they died and he wasn't there to save them, and that's what took the spark out of his life. The memento he carries was his son's. It's stolen at the beginning of the film by those robbers, on the adventure with the girl he ends up finding the robbers and beating them, taking back the memento. Later he explains it to the girl, sad moment. There's a point where she asks if she could have the memento, and he says it's a man's item, it had been his and he gave it to his son, it's not for girls. Near the end we see him give her the memento, and this signifies the breaking of gender norms, or that we're all equal, or maybe that he just used the boy thing as an excuse to hold onto it, and that now he sees the girl as kin and doesn't feel like giving it to her is him losing it. That way he can live on.
If he dies, then the film must end with this song, performed in the movie by Mike himself;
Film breaks even opening weekend.
-
2
-
WEEKEND THREAD: Lightyear implodes with 51M DOM, 85.6M WW. THE LAST PIXAR MOVIE EVER?????😱😱😱 | Dominion #1 with 58.66M, Top Gun 44M
in Numbers and Data
Posted
Turning Red seemed a lot more controversial than LY, at least with parts of the US.
I can't remember any Disney films where kissing scenes were highlighted in the media (maybe older ones like Snow White). I'd imagine many parents are going to think the movie is more sexual than it is, and most parents and children don't want to watch sexual movies together.
The problem with female 'protagonists' these days are that they are written like villains. Your average protagonist has certain paths; they will fail at things, they will overcome them, they have some moral system that places an internal barrier on their strength. Many of these things are stereotypically associated with feminine traits; compassion, empathy, emotions, weakness, dependence on others, etc. Stereotypical male traits, like strength, violence, independence, confidence, are seen as 'good'. So crappy writers think "huh, if I want a strong, independent female character, I'll just erase ALL those stereotypical female traits, and give them ALL those stereotypical male traits". But what makes a hero in modern cinema is a character with both. Even greatly written villains, like the Joker, have traits of both. But poorly written villains just have those 'male' traits. They have strength, independence, aren't emotional, no empathy.
So a lot a female protagonists today are poorly written villains, and we're expected to celebrate them. But there's no real connection when you can't identify at all with a character. There's no struggle, there's no growth, there's no moral lesson. It's just a woman smashing stuff, which is basically what poorly written heroes 50+ years ago were like. But the softer traits that humanize heroes are what have made characters popular.
You don't see people hating Ripley from Alien the same way they do with many female leads today. And the primary difference is that female characters are poorly written.
I
Toy Story films brought in billions in merch for each film. I think number 3 brought in over $10 billion. Slapping this film in theaters helps to raise its profile, and when it goes to Disney+, it'll hopefully work as a toy ad for Disney. Though it may not be quite the toy ad as the Toy Story films. But if it brings in a couple billion from merch, I won't be surprised if we see sequels, and potentially an expansion into Woody and other character films.
A few years back when Last Man Standing was cancelled (despite it being like the number one show on w/e network) I remember a lot of people being surprised by this, and then thinking it must be because of Tim's politics (I think this happened right around the Roseanne cancellation, too?). Which is funny, because Roseanne and LMS have always seemed like shows that have conservative characters who become a little more progressive each week. I've always been surprised conservatives love these shows and liberals hate them.
But anyways, I think the knowledge of Tim's politics and him not jiving with Hollywood is well known. Throw in the recent kerfuffle with Disney getting a bit more politic (and the drama over them saying they are inserting LGBTQ+ stuff in films) and I can imagine that the average conservative is aware of this.
Disney gets the left by default. They have to work to get the right. And it seems they have little interest in pursuing the right, especially with the explicit statements from employees saying they are putting LGBTQ+ stuff in everything. But I suspect their box office will suffer. Conservatives are more likely to have kids, and more kids, than liberals. So they've made it clear they aren't targeting families anymore. And another little thing that many people don't talk about; minorities are far more socially conservative than white conservatives. They go to church more, they are against gay marriage, they are against LGBTQ+, at the highest rates. Though they tend to be more pro-choice. Young families are half minorities these days, with much of the rest being white conservatives. Anyways, I suspect we'll see Lightyear's demos being predominantly white, and not as many families. This could be the new reality for Disney. For films targeting teen audiences and above, they don't really have to worry about what parents think. But for films where parents are the ones deciding the movie, they are going to have a larger hill to climb.
If Disney wants to keep pushing LGBTQ so blatantly (and I don't mind), I think they need a complete shift towards adult audiences and more mature content. Start making darker versions of the fairytale films. Grow up with the audience.