The Color Purple | December 25, 2023 | Warner Bros. | Based on the Broadway musical

[PrinceRico]

2 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

 

the hold is so bad they have to call Obama for helps

 

Obama has great taste. Seems like everybody is loving this. Can't wait to see it.

[vale9001]

19 minutes ago, PrinceRico said:

Obama has great taste. Seems like everybody is loving this. Can't wait to see it.

 

his Pr team do you mean.

[PrinceRico]

3 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

 

his Pr team do you mean.

Sure

[PrinceRico]

On 12/25/2023 at 4:02 PM, MovieMan89 said:

Yeah reviews for this ended up very good to most comparable award baiting musicals or even comparable subject matter, such as The Help. Definitely seems like BP nom now when you add in huge success. No idea what the Globes were on, missing their easy to get into musical/comedy cat is seeming pretty absurd at this point 

With way better reviews than most expected and great WOM this will definitely hit SAG and PGA so a Best Picture nomination seems very likely. Don't think people expected reviews to be this good. 

[JustLurking]

30 minutes ago, PrinceRico said:

With way better reviews than most expected and great WOM this will definitely hit SAG and PGA so a Best Picture nomination seems very likely. Don't think people expected reviews to be this good. 

Reviews are fine but they're not really that good (in terms of awards race contenders of course)? Out of all realistic oscar candidates this year, TCP has the lowest metacritic and average critics score on rt, and even the rt % only bests Maestro pretty much

 

Not saying it can't get nominated though

[PrinceRico]

17 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Reviews are fine but they're not really that good (in terms of awards race contenders of course)? Out of all realistic oscar candidates this year, TCP has the lowest metacritic and average critics score on rt, and even the rt % only bests Maestro pretty much

 

Not saying it can't get nominated though

True but this score are also better than expected. People was expecting Les Mis level reviews. So now if this movie makes the Sag and PGA then it's a done deal. 

Edited December 29, 2023 by PrinceRico

[baumer]

On 12/20/2023 at 2:14 PM, joselowe said:

She’s carried so many hit films at the box office, Oscar, Emmy nominated and it’s gotten her nowhere. Very sad

 

In the segment she also spoke about frustration in how studios say black films don’t translate overseas so they don’t even bother to market there

 

 

 

I am so tired of these actors crying these crocodile tears over not making what they're worth. This is not an industry that rewards you for being really really good at your craft. It rewards you by bringing butts into the seats. When Whoopi Goldberg broke out in the 80s she was incredibly well paid because they could put her name above the credits and people would flock to see her movies.

 

Henson is a phenomenal actress and it's nice when you see her show up in a film. But if you put her name about the credits it's not going to excite anyone and have him go holy shit I can't wait to see the new Taraji P. Henson movie. You don't like making 3 million dollars a year acting? Then go get a job on broadway. Go get a job at a warehouse to pay you 25 bucks an hour. You knew what you were getting into when you got into this business and if you all of a sudden think that just because you're getting praise and Oscar nominations that the money is going to come with it then you just ignorant fool. 

 

Studios need roi on their investment and if you're not doing it you're not going to get the massive bucks.

[Hatebox]

The reaction to that video was a tad OTT. Yes, it sucks that studios don’t pay you more because the film won’t do the numbers OS but, well, they’re not lying about that. It is a box office trend, albeit an unfortunate one. 
 

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Hatebox

[MovieMan89]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:03 AM, JustLurking said:

Reviews are fine but they're not really that good (in terms of awards race contenders of course)? Out of all realistic oscar candidates this year, TCP has the lowest metacritic and average critics score on rt, and even the rt % only bests Maestro pretty much

 

Not saying it can't get nominated though

I think reviews were strong enough to get it into BP if it had been the smash hit it looked like with OD and audience reception. But with it freefalling at the box office and almost certain to be a big money loser now with that budget, I’m not so sure now. The average critics rating is a bit on the low side for BP nom for a musical without the huge commercial success. 

[MovieMan89]

Ok, so it needs to be addressed… what exactly was WB thinking with the budget here? A 100m budget meant they were expecting about a 200 DOM gross out of this to be profitable, because they would know OS wasn’t dependable for much of anything here. 
 

Now even when it looked like this could set the CD OD record and open to mid 20s and even when we thought WOM would carry its legs, 200 STILL would have been extremely hard and downright amazing for it to do.
 

It just feels like they very much set this up to fail with that budget, and that seems rather unfair. I know a big musical production isn’t going to be cheap, but I feel like you can certainly get away with half of that number (though sadly this would still probably be a money loser on 50m)

[AniNate]

I'm sure Oprah was willing to chip in a considerable sum if Warner had any pause about it. $100mil is pocket change for her.

[Mojoguy]

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ok, so it needs to be addressed… what exactly was WB thinking with the budget here? A 100m budget meant they were expecting about a 200 DOM gross out of this to be profitable, because they would know OS wasn’t dependable for much of anything here. 
 

Now even when it looked like this could set the CD OD record and open to mid 20s and even when we thought WOM would carry its legs, 200 STILL would have been extremely hard and downright amazing for it to do.
 

It just feels like they very much set this up to fail with that budget, and that seems rather unfair. I know a big musical production isn’t going to be cheap, but I feel like you can certainly get away with half of that number (though sadly this would still probably be a money loser on 50m)

[Scubasteve716]

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ok, so it needs to be addressed… what exactly was WB thinking with the budget here? A 100m budget meant they were expecting about a 200 DOM gross out of this to be profitable, because they would know OS wasn’t dependable for much of anything here. 
 

Now even when it looked like this could set the CD OD record and open to mid 20s and even when we thought WOM would carry its legs, 200 STILL would have been extremely hard and downright amazing for it to do.
 

It just feels like they very much set this up to fail with that budget, and that seems rather unfair. I know a big musical production isn’t going to be cheap, but I feel like you can certainly get away with half of that number (though sadly this would still probably be a money loser on 50m)

The 100 mil comes from Oprah - read what Nolan and Gerwig said about their movie’s budget. I wouldn’t take her comments as 100% fact.
 

They could have also been fine with a loss if it meant Spielberg would prioritize Bullitt.

[MovieMan89]

I’m just saying it sends a bad message to the industry about a movie like this not being commercially viable when in reality it had no business with that kind of budget if they wanted a hit. Also, Taraji now speaking up about poor working conditions for the cast, certainly something that shouldn’t be going on with a 100m budget 

[Eric Prime]

It cost 100M because that's what the producers needed to make the movie happen. I know people want movies to have lower budgets, but that typically means you have to take out characters or setpieces or just have the movie in general look and feel cheaper, which in turn hurts these movies creatively and financially. And shouldn't we just want these movies to cost what they need to be as good as they are? It's not our money, and it's not like Color Purple is designed as something to make sequels out of anyways.

[MovieMan89]

2 minutes ago, Eric Owns Mickey Mouse said:

It cost 100M because that's what the producers needed to make the movie happen. I know people want movies to have lower budgets, but that typically means you have to take out characters or setpieces or just have the movie in general look and feel cheaper, which in turn hurts these movies creatively and financially. And shouldn't we just want these movies to cost what they need to be as good as they are? It's not our money, and it's not like Color Purple is designed as something to make sequels out of anyways.

On one hand, yes of course it’s great to have it look like it needs to and not cheap. On the other, it’s one of WBs bigger box office bombs of the year, so again I don’t love the message that could send… 

[Becker]

Has anybody here actually seen the movie? If so, Is it worth going to the theaters for it? 

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

Has anybody here actually seen the movie? If so, Is it worth going to the theaters for it? 

I will be seeing it soon, but I would say yes to theaters for a musical. Worth it for the sound element alone 

[Becker]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

I will be seeing it soon, but I would say yes to theaters for a musical. Worth it for the sound element alone 

it's a wholesome story, right? Haven't seen any trailers, so I plan to go in blind. 

[MovieMan89]

5 minutes ago, Becker said:

it's a wholesome story, right? Haven't seen any trailers, so I plan to go in blind. 

I mean… the original story deals with lots of trauma so idk about “wholesome”, but yes it’s meant to be an inspirational message