Jump to content
kayumanggi

US | 03.22.2019 | Universal | 13th Most Profitable Movie of 2019

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Supposed be super weird and play in Cronenberg's sandbox. Zero chance of a Best Picture nom.

 

As long as it becomes a box office hit (which seems very likely at this point), then it's well within play for it to at least be taken into consideration for awards.  But it doesn't matter now, we're still 6 months away from when awards season "officially" begins lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, That One Guy said:

 

As long as it becomes a box office hit (which seems very likely at this point), then it's well within play for it to at least be taken into consideration for awards.  But it doesn't matter now, we're still 6 months away from when awards season "officially" begins lol

If it's as weird as folks gave hinted, I say zero chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

Think boxofficerules isn't trying to paint these as flops, but movies that arguably disappointed or underperformed relative to expectations, both here on BOT and in the industry. Obviously Glass and HDD2U are both financially successful, but considering expectations, buzz, and tracking, it's arguable they should have made more.

Well he said they were both underperformers and that Blumhouse is in a slump this year... which just isn't true. I haven't seen either film so I'm not caping for them quality-wise, but this narrative that the films were in any way financial disappointments or underperformers is silly. I get that their predecessors were more profitable, but they're still having a fantastic year and Us is going to be huge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How weird is/can this be, exactly? Weird in English-language cinema with any kind of profile is something like Under the Skin, Naked Lunch, mother!, Sorry to Bother You, the work of Guy Maddin and David Lynch. Just cause a hugely hyped 3000+ theater release looks like an actual creatively made movie for once doesn't make it "weird". 

Edited by Jake Gittes
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

AMPAS should stop discriminating against weird movies. 

How weird are you if you make consensus in a giant group of over 7,000 voters, you can get in nomination in a branch with less voters at best if you are really weird.

 

Birdman/The Favourite/The Lobster/Elle were not particularly not weird, but it is probably close to the limit.

 

It is not so much discrimination, that if a group of voters is big, it need to get appreciated by a large % of people to get in and that almost by definition make any choice quite mainstream.

Edited by Barnack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe AMPAS would stop discriminating against weird movies if we lived in a movie culture that actually embraced weirdness and idiosyncratic visions, instead of in one that relegates most of them to the fringes and reinforces division between "mainstream" and "arthouse" while making the mainstream blander and hollower by the year.

Edited by Jake Gittes
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

How weird is/can this be, exactly? Weird in English-language cinema with any kind of profile is something like Under the Skin, Naked Lunch, mother!, Sorry to Bother You, the work of Guy Maddin and David Lynch. Just cause a hugely hyped 3000+ theater release looks like an actual creatively made movie for once doesn't make it "weird". 

Yes. I agree. But, those kind of movies generally don't get Best Picture consideration. I hope this thing goes to Sion Sono levels.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Spagspiria said:

The only way it can get Oscar buzz is if audiences are willing to embrace its weirdness, but I have a feeling it’ll get something like a B/B- Cinemascore.

 

My Final predict is about 45/150.

I'm expecting this to open much higher than Get Out but legs will definitely be worse. It'll play like a sequel to that movie, albeit a de facto one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Maybe AMPAS would stop discriminating against weird movies if we lived in a movie culture that actually embraced weirdness and idiosyncratic visions, instead of in one that relegates most of them to the fringes and reinforces division between "mainstream" and "arthouse" while making the mainstream blander and hollower by the year.

I doubt it's too offbeat if it's getting that wide a release, but people have super lax standards for weirdness, especially in the Academy. Really hoping this succeeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people said the third act is quite weird and nuts. Others say the ending is polarising...

 

For those who watched it, how could you define "weird" in that case?

 

Is it something polarising like Glass ending? Something weird like Sorry to Bother You ( the third act ) ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.