ThePrinceIsOnFire

Yes, I've been saying this for a while, Stone is just a more versatile/gifted actor. I'm ready to bet that Lanthimos"Poor things" will be a great (if controversial) movie and a perfect leading role for her: the fact that she is signed for Lanthimos "And" already makes me really optimistic about the quality of the project. Margot is extremely beautiful (probably the most beautiful mainstream actress working right now), but I can see hollywood pushing her to the sidelines if "Barbie" doesn't end up as a huge hit, given that her streak of conseutive flops is quite impressive at the moment.

Have you seen netflix's miniseries "Maniac"? Emma is playing a variation of the same character transported into different movie genres (from noir to fantasy, to hard boiled etc...) and her acting there is SUPERB. Way better than any performance from Jennifer Lawrence. I think Emma is the most gifted actress of her generation. JLaw is also great in the right roles, and so is Scarlett Johansson (who is a bit older though); Margot is extremely gorgeous but not in the same league as these three. She is just good enough for most roles, like Anya Taylor Joy. That being said, I do expect Margot to finally get a mega hit (after her terrible streak of flops) with Barbie. I used to think Babylon would be a great hit too, but judging from what we've seen so far it will probably play poorly with the general audiences.

No it won't. It needs 2.5x the budget WW, which means it would need to gross 90 m. Right now it sits at 54 mil, and will likely end in the 70-80 milion range. It won't be a disaster and will probably breakeven once it hits streaming but theatrically it's a flop. And considering the lack of competition, Harry Styles and all of the buzz it got it is even more of a flop. Rumor has it the studio was hoping for a 150 milion WW end just like Elvis, but it won't even reach 100 milions...

So with all the buzz, the Harry Styles hype train, supposed "superstar" Florence Pugh etc, this film opened EXACTLY in the same range as all the other comps (Red Sparrow, A simple Favor,Baby driver etc, basically those used by thenumbers.com), despite having virtually no competition whatsoever this week? I like to call FLOPS what they are. Will this make its 35 milion budget back teathrically? NO. Studios can say what they like to twist the reality and hide their flops (we have come as far as studios claiming a BOMB like the Northman to be a success because it made its money back on PVOD, yet why don't they show the actual datas?) but ever since the pandemic hit we have heard milions of execuses. Yet none of those excuses mean a thing: if a movie is good, if a movie is meant to find its audience, it will find it. Everything Everywhere all at once will greatly outgross this movie, this is all that needs to be said.

Initially that was the reason, but then due to covid and stuff the whole shooting was postponed; thanks to the delays Emma was available again and rumor has it Chazelle offered her the role once again, but she had scheduling conflicts with Poor Things and decided to stick with Lanthimos.

I meant "caribbean" of course 🤣 my italian auto-correct lets me down at times if I'm writing from my phone, sorry!

Margot is so beautiful and charming that I never get tired of watching her on screen, but I do feel like this role would have been a slam dunk for Emma Stone. Emma simply has a wider range and comes off as genuinely funny without trying too hard; I see her as an heir to Cameron Diaz's comedy reign. Margot is a good actress but she needs her character to have a clear direction, as she is not really great at effortlessly switching between comedy and drama. This also makes me wonder just how good "Poor Things" will be, because Lanthimos is a genius and for Emma to choose that over Babylon must mean something. I expect Emma's role there to be a wild ride between comedy and the unsettling thriller/horror with sci-fi vibes Lanthimos is known for... imho Emma's greatest performances so far were in "The Favourite" and "Maniac", where her genre-crossing talent really got an opportunity to shine.

There will be a big backlash for Snow White, trust me. Actually, there already is in the italian disney forums I follow. Snow White will retain her German-inspired sets, her 15th century (very loosely) inspired dress, and yet she won't be as fair as snow. Zegler might be white passing, but she looks like a southern european/mediterrean girl, which doesn't fit the german roots of the story and makes the whole "Snow White" name completely senseless. Also, the little mermaid doesn't take place entirely underwater in a fictional world: most of the story is on the land, staged in the European castle of a european Prince. The little mermaid was filmed in the Sardinia region of my country, Italy, which as far as I know is still a (mediterrean) country in Europe. Now, if they wanted to completely alter the story and set it in the caribbean, they should have abandoned the whole european castle and southern european landscape and just film in the caribbean, while also picking a poc for Eric and pheraps turn him into a governor's son or something like that. Instead, much like Ghost in the shell did, this one will retain all the original european elements (while having Triton being a white Spanish man and Eric being an English man) and simply change the ethnicity of the main protagonist in a way that does not make much sense in that specific context.

This is simply not true though. From the original tale: They were six beautiful children; but the youngest was the prettiest of them all; her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea; but, like all the others, she had no feet, and her body ended in a fish’s tail. When something like a black cloud passed between her and them, she knew that it was either a whale swimming over her head, or a ship full of human beings, who never imagined that a pretty little mermaid was standing beneath them, holding out her white hands towards the keel of their ship. He fixed his coal-black eyes upon her so earnestly that she cast down her own, and then became aware that her fish’s tail was gone, and that she had as pretty a pair of white legs and tiny feet as any little maiden could have; but she had no clothes, so she wrapped herself in her long, thick hair. Then the little mermaid raised her lovely white arms, stood on the tips of her toes, and glided over the floor, and danced as no one yet had been able to dance. Then her sisters came up on the waves, and gazed at her mournfully, wringing their white hands. The little mermaid leaned her white arms on the edge of the vessel, and looked towards the east for the first blush of morning, for that first ray of dawn that would bring her death. She saw her sisters rising out of the flood: they were as pale as herself; but their long beautiful hair waved no more in the wind, and had been cut off. https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheLittleMermaid_e.html from the official Hans Christian Andersen Center website.

The other remakes were somewhat more respectful of the culture they were vulturing from. Cinderella had a mostly european cast, (white) British leads and a British setting. It even had a european director. Beauty and the Beast had a mostly european cast, a French-born British actress playing Belle and a a French (even though it was not real locations) setting. Pinocchio is the one who has taken the most liberties from its source material and it flopped hardly, panned by critics and hated by the italians. Maleficent/Cruella/Alice don't really count as they were never meant to be faithful remakes but rather retelling/reimagining of the stories that share so little with the source material that it is hard to even expect cultural sensibility from them.

You won't go furhter yet you keep on posting, being unfair at it too. My whole message: There is definitely an issue with north american critics and their bias when it comes to african american directors...they seem to be more mellow and less inclined to sharpen their teeths the way they would do for a white director (I'm thinking about Joe Wright and the venomous reviews he often receives despite the quality of his movies being relatively high on average and pretty beloved by the general audiences). I think it would be wise to wait for the foreign press to review the movie before we call it a masterpiece or a good film even... we saw what happened with US and there is no way that film is worthy of the good reviews it got. The bolded part, which you decided to cut for some reason, is exactly what I said in my previous message, After that, In other messages I said that Nope was going to flop OS (and got much hate for it), and then I never posted about that movie again. How is "Blackwashing" (I've never said Blackfishing, you must have made a mistake) a twisted phrase? In my country there is a whole entry on wikipedia on the subject: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwashing Then again. I am tired. I won't be dragged further in this non-sense. You want to think that the whole world is happy about this movie and eager to see it? Stay delusional. I can't lie and say that the reactions I'm seeing from europeans is positive or that it will earn well at the B.O. Me saying it won't change the reality of its inevitable flop, YOU saying it won't change it either. Do you care to understand why Europeans might not be interested in this, or is "Racism" the only answer to you?

I'm not comparing them, the other user brought this up to shade me. Also, who are you to say I'm dumb? Nope had middling reviews in my country, Italy (3 out of 5 stars on average, with a 6.2/10 medium). It also had mild reviews in Spain and Germany, as far as I Know.

Actually, I'm the one who said that I would wait for european reviews of Nope as they would likely be not as positive, and that the movie would most likely bomb in EU. Both of those things turned out to be true. Nope is a bomb OS and the european reviews where in no ways as kind as the american ones. That being said, we are in a forum about box office predictions, this is not the place to push anyone's political beliefs. As a european I say that I'm seeing a lot of hatred and complaints coming from europeans which will translate in poor revenues for the movie in the EU markets (bar maybe the UK which shares a lot more in common with USA than the rest of EU). I'm 99% confident that this will happen and the film will indeed flop in EU (and other foreign countries, for what matters). (Does this make European racists? It's up to you to decide, but I think racism gets measured by way more important stuff, and some countries in Eu have certainly given more support and safety to their POC population than USA has ever done). @Ozymandias The Little mermaid isn't just a cartoon character made for little girls. This is what disney's cultural appropriation made her into in the 90's, but she is actually the protagonist of a Danish fairytale from one of the most important Danish writer. The little mermaid is so important for the Danes that her statue in Copenaghen is believed to be the most iconic symbol of Denmark. Needless to say, the Danes were not really keen on the 90's version of the little mermaid, nor are they excited for this new adaptation. But in all fairness, neither were the French when Hunchback of Notre Dame was downplayed into the animated movie...basically what american disney has done to the european cultural heritage has never been fully appreciated by the culture they vultured from (nor will it ever be).

Just twice, actually! But still, how would you describe this phenomenon? Race-bending is too large/vague of a term (also, is "latin" a race? there is much of a debate on that, still). Anyway, this is not the first time a white female character gets the "disney black" threatment. We've seen it recently with the Blue Fairy in Pinocchio. Mind you, this really upset many italians (Pinocchio is an italian story by an italian author set in Italy, and the blue fairy is as white and fair as she can be, as she is first disguised as a child coming from nobilty) but probably had a minor echo due to A) the character having a very small side role, B ) Pinocchio not being as anticipated/popular as TLM, C ) the movie coming out straight to disney+. I think the uproar will be more with TLM, and I don't think people will pay a theatre fee to hate-watch this. We will see how it will turn out, but I don't think that a good performance at the US box office will be enough for this to be a success or get back its hefty budget.

I think people are in for a rude awakening regarding the B.O. performance of this one. The trailer has more than 2m of dislikes, greatly outnumbering the likes. The general consensus in EU (as an Italian who just came back from some months off in France I can speak for this two main markets, at least) is negative and there is outrage at the blackwashing. People also think Bailey is quite ugly with her eyes set really wide apart, and many just comment on her with the Eye emoji - space space space space - eye emoji. Americans need to understand that their society/culture is peculiar and does not reflect the WW sentiment/taste. This will probably do well in USA and flop everywhere else much like Nope did. The diseney brand/nostalgia factor will be neutralized by the blackwashing which most non US disneyfans are not ok with. I also think that is unfair to claim racism on the european when they are the one whose culture is being appropriated over and over again (and always has been, historically) by american disney and rearranged to fit US politcal agenda. For example, Snow white is so important to German culture that it literally was compiled by the brothers Grimm in hopes of awakening a nationalist spirit in german people of the time. Folk tales and lores should be respected no matter where they come from. Just imagine the uprising that a white - non faithful- adaptation of a Japanese folk tale (aka a tale coming from a non minority- rich powerful country) would cause. As for the next remakes, I think Hercules and Hunchback have a certain room for success, but they need big stars and proper adaptations that stay true to the originals tone (comedy for Hercules, epic drama for Hunchback). Whether disney can do that, remains to be seen. So far their remakes have been horrible cash grabs, the sooner forgotten the better.

Yes Emma Stone is a good example of someone who became a star/box office pull in this day and age. She has had the perfect career trajectory so far, going from hit comedies to oscar winning dramas to big blockbusters all while landing an iconic role (LA LA LAND) which will likely stick in popular culture for a very long time, much like Kidman's Satine from Moulin Rouge. It helps that she is the most versatile young actress out there and probably one of the most talented american actresses ever. I think Margot Robbie will be the next actress to achieve worldwide stardom once Babylon and Barbie come out.

Jennifer Lawrence is at 91% in acting, very high in the chart. Ditto Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, Emma Stone and even the likes of Zack Efron, Pattinson, Stewart. Taylor Swift is third in music ("fame" sub-filter) at 96%, behind Gaga and Beyoncé. Ariana grande at 90%, n°17. They aren't stuck in the 80's they simply ask people over 18, so the teens who are very loud on the web are mostly left out of the data. Yet, someone like Zendaya scores a very good 71%, which is obviously very good when compared to the scores of Pugh, Chalamet, Butler. Yougov is active worldwide and is one of the most serious and reliable corp. working with polls.

I'm talking with actual datas (movie performances and Yougov stats) while you're being pressed for no reason. Are you Chalamet, Pugh etc. agent? They are not stars that is a fact, not an opinion. They are up and comers, well liked by some circles, earning a lot of money...which is all good for them. But stars? Hell no. Also, I'm never the one who is bringing this stars arguement first. But if others write their opinion on this subject, I'm free to give mine which, accidentally, is also based on actual datas and not only my own impression. If you don't like reading me just skip my (very few, like 50 in 2 years) messages.

90 M in 40+ countries, at a time where inflaction is at a record high in most of the big markets (Eu above all), with ticket prices at the absolute highest. Yes, no one saw the film internationally (hyperbole for : very few people know who the heck Austin Butler is). Do you know how many spectators the movie had in Italy (60 M population?) 380K, which is basically nothing. Other EU countries have similiar stats, some better, some worse. As for Pugh, yes sure people online talking about midsommer definetely make her a star 🤣 Yet according to YouGov USA, only 47% of the people know her name, and only 30% actually has a positive opinion on her. The delusion on this board is something to behold.

LOL What? None of these are stars. Chalamet has not been a draw in any of the movies he starred as a lead in. On the contrary, his "Beautiful boy" flopped earning 15 M on a 20 M budget, "A rainy day in New York" was one of the poorest performing Woody Allen's movie in Europe and Worldwide, "The French dispatch" was an unusual misfire for Wes Anderson's standard, while "The King" performed badly even on streaming. His only "success" as a lead post- CMBYN so far has been Dune, and I'm sure that it has more to do with the built-in fanbase than with his star appeal. Florence Pugh is another master of the quiet flops. None of the movies she has been the lead of were successful at the B.O., bar "Little Women", and I'm pretty sure that was Saoirse Ronan doing the heavy lifting. Austin butler is a nobody and Elvis is only performing well in USA, no one saw this movie internationally. Zendaya is actually well-known because of Spider-man and Euphoria, but her fanbase is mostly teenagers, it's unlikely anyone over 40 know who she is. Being popular on film twitter or reddit/movies does not make anyone a star.

Yes he has no competition in his age-group (20-30). So far he isn't really a "star" though... Yougov data show that only about 54% of Americans know who he is; for comparison, Kaluuya is at 50%, Elgort at 41%, while Zac Efron is at 83% 🤣 Real stars like Jennifer Lawrence and Johansson both at around 90%, Watson 88%, Stone at 85%, Zendaya and Knightley at 71%. Needless to say, older stars like Pitt and Dicaprio both sit at 96%, while Cruise is at an impressive 98%!

Millie Bobby Brown had a streaming success with Enola Holmes, too, but her power as a box office draw is yet to be tested (Godzillas did alright but she wasn't the main pull). Chalamet is, much like Florence Pugh, the "It" young actor who can alternate prestige projects with big budgeted movies, playing the main lead or, more rarely, a side character. Neither of the two have a defining box office success that can prove them to be real box office phenomenos (Dune did fairly well but just how much of it was due to the popularity of the book or to the rest of the star-studded cast is hard to know). Personally, I think that very few young actors (under 40) have proven themselves to be worthy of a 10+ M investement. Who are those? Out of the actresses, first and foremost Scarlett Johansson in the right role (see Lucy), then Keira Knightley in period pieces (though the last decade has not been very kind to her career) pheraps Soairse Ronan in mid-budget movies. Jennifer Lawrence used to be a big draw but it seems like things are not great for her right now; Emma Stone is a draw but she is going for very artsy projects (her collabs with Lanthimos, who is a real genious but not exactly a box office hero). Then there is Emma Watson who is de facto retired and Kristen Stewart who always generates buzz around her films but usually has flops at the B.O. Zendaya is the most popular with teens right now, but can she make an impression on the older moviegoers? who knows. Last but not least, there is Margot Robbie, who has been box office poison so far but will likely get two big wins with Babylon and Barbie. As for the men... Tom Holland has a nice resumé and seems to have a huge appeal when in action roles; Andrew Garfield can be a draw for middle-budget high profile movies, and Robert Pattinson is having some nice results as of late; then there is Zac Efron (who is in an endless list of flop, but still very well known internationally)....and that's about it. None of those listed are comparable to Dicaprio, Cruise etc... nor will they ever be, probably. Scarlett Johansson is an international superstar and the best known young actor out of America, mainly due to having starred in a couple of Woody Allen's movies that were insanely popular in Europe even before she got to become Black Widow, which literally made her a living icon. Emma Watson is probably a close second.

Once again, Variety actually follows the path most of the users on this forum are taking, using the very same logic. Basically, 44 M can't be disappointing because it's an original R-rated movie that opened in pandemic times without a major star. Yet, what really is relevant here is the big budget which is: A) 3.5 x higher than US, B ) WAYYY higher than what every other horror movie gets. Variety does mention this briefly, but really the budget/total gross ratio is all that matters when analyzing the financial performance of a movie to call it a success. Yes, some nice encouraging datas are coming from this opening (i.e., Peele is a draw for american audiences) but this is more relevant for financing the future projects than it is for judging this one's performance. I'll die on this hill, but the same goes for Elvis. Ok, we shouldn't compare it to Bohemian Rapsody because that was a complete exception, but still how does this fare BETTER than "Rocketman" when it has MORE THAN DOUBLE its budget? If I'm putting 40 M on a movie, I will be happy to get 200 M back, but if I pay 85 M, how can it be more succesful if I get 250 M? I feel like people here don't really look at the mathematics and get distracted by all the collateral circumstances. If I'm freaking paying Tom Hanks and a total of 85M, I don't want to have a result that's only slightly better than a movie with no names which costs less than half of that money... Yet, if we follow this forum's logic on budget, wheter you spend 20 or 200 M, if it's an R-rated movie that earns 200 M it's a success. Wheter you pay 20 o 200 M for a biopic aimed at adults and you gain 200 M, it's still the same success. I think this is nothing but bogus.

I mean... even Quentin Tarantino is having financing problems lately (he said so himself in an italian tv interview this year), and his movies earn very well, especially in the international markets. Why would anyone give anything close to100 M to Peele when his returns are diminishing despite the inflated budgets, and his movies have no international appeal? He is a good investment with a 20-40 M budget, which is what I'm ready to bet he will get from now on. As for Baz, who knows? 85 M dollars for Elvis is still way less than what he was given for "Great Gatsby"; what he gets next will strongly depend on the project itself, IMHO.

No one said that. The Studios will likely regret having given them a large budget before the pandemic hit, thinking they could make a profit out of it. This doesn't mean that they aren't happy that they actually made them (in Elvis's case, it might also bring big awards to the Studio, which is always good)or that there won't be another Musical biopic (infact, Madonna's is expected to start production soon) nor that Peele won't ever get to make another film with Universal, but the studios will certainly give these type of projects way smaller budgets in the future. Likewise, The Northman is a bomb but I'm pretty sure Eggers will get other movies financed, he just won't ever see 70 M again.