MysteryMovieMogul

What I find even sillier is people holding Challengers up as some kind of success on par with Civil War. The latter opened to $10 million more than the former looks to open with. And the fact we're trying to spin both films as bonafide successes is wild to me when just 10 years ago, Civil War, at its current box office, would be the 69th highest grossing film of the year.

The problem is, outside of event films, there's not enough of an audience biting for theaters around the country to reliably stay open in the long term. They're losing money, and a "bomb" like Indiana Jones is better for them than than a success like Civil War.

I definitely don't feel like this film needs to be seen in theaters. It looks like it'll play just as well on a 55" screen.

I mean, a matinee ticket at my local, small town theater is $10.75. There's one reason for you. I'll just wait a few months and see it on a streaming service or rent it for $5.99.

What was the Kotaku review? I got this info from the Gamespot review.

I love how Ant Man's giant body (with skeleton) is some kind of stronghold.

I really want this to do well in theaters because it looks fun, but man, unless it's an event film, it doesn't really seem like the general audience wants to go to the theater for "fun" films.

I mean, besides this film and Fall Guy, I haven't seen many "fun" trailers where I'm grinning ear to ear by the end. They're all so self-serious these days.

Apparently, the new Knuckles series mostly focuses on Adam Pally's character, and the ending doesn't tie into Sonic 3 in any major way (ie. No keanu tease).

I think you are generously overestimating the number of kids who have played Sonic Adventure 2.

I'm guessing this film will deviate from the games more than fans want (no Maria death, no Amy, etc.), but this will also be the last film, so none of it will matter.

Has anyone seen the first two films? There's no way a child's death is going to be the impetus for the plot.

True, but then you would think, maybe the use of AI is tackled in the film and the posters are relevant as it relates to photojournalism. But neither AI or social media are topics the film broaches. These posters don't even make thematic sense.

Generative AI, in the way its being used in posters for this film, has not been with us for half a century. It's been with us for maybe two years, tops. There's nothing "practical" from a creative standpoint for a studio like A24 to be advertising a film using misleading artwork generated by AI and (possibly) cleaned-up by a human. Like, even if you're okay with AI art, what's okay about advertising a film using shots that aren't even in the film, or even relevant? The film doesn't touch on potential AI manipulation in photojournalism, so why do these posters exist?

I call bullshit, but if that's true and Garland has no say, I hope A24 crashes and burns. AI has no place in studio filmmaking, and even less of a place in independent filmmaking. I hope creates working under A24 make a stink.

You worded it better than I could!

Not really, but when people were saying this casting announcement would be amazing, I expected a little more than Keanu. He's not the most discerning actor.

That's a Kea-no from me. EDIT: There are celebrities that would make me say "Oh, the quality of this film might be higher than expected" if they were involved, but Keanu Reeves just isn't one of them. Like, sure, he was in Toy Story 4, but he was also in DC League of Super-Pets and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run. This casting makes me more worried than excited.

It seems silly to compare this film to anime films based on already established anime/manga properties and a Miyazaki film advertised as Miyazaki's last film, a man who is also basically a brand.

I mean, all of this is why The Rock is back with WWE and regrets endorsing someone for President. He needs people to love him. It's also why he showed up at CinemaCon for Moana 2.

Also, this site and Reddit wants to believe they have the power to make or break Disney.

I mean, I guess I agree with this. I more meant that what they earned at the box office didn't correspond with the quality of the films.

And I'd argue a good portion of those Phase 1-3 Marvel movies were just as average as the Phase 4 & 5 output. In fact, the only Avengers film I've thought was good was Endgame. I was very baffled by how long the Marvel train successfully chugged along without slowing down.