Glass | Jan 18, 2019 | The 22nd Most Profitable Movie of 2019

[The Futurist]

There you have it :

 

ambition

[TimmyRiggins]

Polarizing films are often more interesting honestly. As a filmmaker, you want your movie to stick with people in some way, you don't want people to see your film, say out loud "OH MY GOD THIS FILM IS AMAZING OH MA GOD" and then poof, they forget about it a couple of days later (MCU anyone?). There's nothing worse, well, what would be worse is "that film is dogshit", but notice how many people still talk about certain films (that I won't name so we don't get into another insufferable debate, but I'm a big fan of those films) and still say how much they dislike this or that and yet can't stop talking about it while the other half is still talking with love about the same films, years after, still rewatching it, discovering new things, new references, etc.

 

You want your film to provoke something in the viewer, I see so many films that I very much enjoy in the moment and then I forget about them soon after. The really great ones linger for weeks, sometimes months, beyond that is rare obviously as you need to make space for other films and other content, but yet you still think back on it "gosh, such a great film",  and you revisit those over and over throughout the years. Several directors mean it when they say something like "can you truly determine that a film is great or a masterpiece now, maybe in a few years". 

Edited January 14, 2019 by TimmyRiggins

[The Futurist]

1 hour ago, TimmyRiggins said:

Polarizing films are often more interesting honestly. As a filmmaker, you want your movie to stick with people in some way, you don't want people to see your film, say out loud "OH MY GOD THIS FILM IS AMAZING OH MA GOD" and then poof, they forget about it a couple of days later (MCU anyone?). There's nothing worse, well, what would be worse is "that film is dogshit", but notice how many people still talk about certain films (that I won't name so we don't get into another insufferable debate, but I'm a big fan of those films) and still say how much they dislike this or that and yet can't stop talking about it while the other half is still talking with love about the same films, years after, still rewatching it, discovering new things, new references, etc.

 

You want your film to provoke something in the viewer, I see so many films that I very much enjoy in the moment and then I forget about them soon after. The really great ones linger for weeks, sometimes months, beyond that is rare obviously as you need to make space for other films and other content, but yet you still think back on it "gosh, such a great film",  and you revisit those over and over throughout the years. Several directors mean it when they say something like "can you truly determine that a film is great or a masterpiece now, maybe in a few years". 

No, not in the least.

You want your movie to be seen by as much people as possible.

Edited January 14, 2019 by The Futurist

[Crainy]

54 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

No, not in the least.

You want your movie to be seen by as much people as possible.

As a filmmaker myself, this is not true. Having a large audience is a great feeling, but whats more important is that your movie is watched by the right audience, because only they will be able to properly appreciate it.

 

If you make a movie purely to generate money your statement might hold true (and even then its debatable), but artists hold other things in higher regard. Though money is great to have, too.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

No, not in the least.

You want your movie to be seen by as much people as possible.

All others things being equal yes, but considering that a random porn movie can be easily seen by over 2-3, 20-30M people and video clip of popular artist by hundreds of millions on youtube same for any big TV ads campaign, there is much more going on motivation/ambition wise if you are not doing those (making ton of money and/or prestige for example being one common).

Edited January 14, 2019 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

23 minutes ago, Crainy said:

As a filmmaker myself, this is not true. Having a large audience is a great feeling, but whats more important is that your movie is watched by the right audience, because only they will be able to properly appreciate it.

 

If you make a movie purely to generate money your statement might hold true (and even then its debatable), but artists hold other things in higher regard. Though money is great to have, too.

Some directors who take that

 

" I am an artiste ( say it with a french accent, even better) pose"

 

live in the Hills (nothing under 5m there) and do music videos and commericals.

 

Ask Spike Lee, he ll explain it to you.

Edited January 14, 2019 by The Futurist

[TimmyRiggins]

15 minutes ago, Crainy said:

As a filmmaker myself, this is not true. Having a large audience is a great feeling, but whats more important is that your movie is watched by the right audience, because only they will be able to properly appreciate it.

 

If you make a movie purely to generate money your statement might hold true (and even then its debatable), but artists hold other things in higher regard. Though money is great to have, too.

Filmmaker here and same thing. And that's not even what I was talking about lol, I was talking about the impact you want the film to have, not how many people see it. 

 

Thanks The Futurist for your very silly comment and for missing the point

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

I was talking about the impact you want the film to have, not how many people see it. 

And that impact talk was implying that the movie is seen anyway.

 

Listen to interview to people that worked on GoodFellas how fun it is to a movie that live on even if it failed at the box office.... it does sound legitimate.

[TalismanRing]

Mixed reviews usually require 50 or so %.  This is sitting at 38% and 22% with top critics. 

 

It doesn't mean there won't be those that really like or even love it, but so far it's not what I would call mixed reviews.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by TalismanRing

[MrGlass2]

12 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Mixed reviews usually require 50 or so %.  This is sitting at 38% and 22% with top critics.  

 

It doesn't mean there won't be those that really like or even love it, but so far it's not what I would call mixed reviews.   

And that is why just reading a score on RT is misleading.

 

Glass is at 45 on Metacritic, literally 'Mixed'.

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

And that is why just reading a score on RT is misleading.

 

Glass is at 45 on Metacritic, literally 'Mixed'.

If it get 45 because everyone rate it between 30 and 60 that not really mixed.

 

Ideally you need some close to 0, close to 100, standard deviation number being maybe the best measure of mixed than the average.

[TombRaider]

movie critics: glass is a boring mess

 

fanboys who haven't even seen it:

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by TombRaider

[That One Girl]

Imagine caring about a Rotten Tomatoes score in the year 2019

[TMP]

52 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

movie critics: glass is a boring mess

 

fanboys who haven't even seen it:

 

You sure do care an awful lot for a film that you said looked like an X-Men parody

[Deep Wang]

Damn, Glass is gonna have Far From Home and John Wick 3.

[MrGlass2]

6 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

Damn, Glass is gonna have Far From Home and John Wick 3.

$80M OW locked.

[TombRaider]

16 minutes ago, TMP said:

You sure do care an awful lot for a film that you said looked like an X-Men parody

You sure care a lot about me, freak

[Eric Duncan]

13 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

Damn, Glass is gonna have Far From Home and John Wick 3.

Do you know anything about Glass having a new Shazam trailer

[Deep Wang]

4 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

Do you know anything about Glass having a new Shazam trailer

Nope, sorry

[Hunch]

This is looking like a major underperformance. A lot going against it:

 

1) Marketing seems to be relying on the memory of Unbreakable...the problem is no1curr about that film anymore. It has its niche fans but they wouldn't move the B.O. needle. It's forgotten. They should've focused on McAvoy since people like + remember Split (but that film got overshadowed by Get Out and didn't make as big of an impact as initially thought. It's not iconic like Sixth Sense or Signs).

 

2) The trailer views are low, and they're also bad trailers. They make the movie look like a mess.

 

3) Bad reviews will hurt it. Shyamalan's image isn't completely rehabilitated. And this is an ambitious sequel 20 years late, critical support would've helped sway those on the fence (like myself, I will probably stream it for free later instead of going to the theatre because I'm not spending $13 on a mediocre film).

 

Wouldn't be shocked at sub $30m.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Hunch