filmlover Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said: This movie could hit a zeitgeist, and like Joker, could skyrocket in the legs department, even more than a Xmas movie tends to skyrocket. You might be onto something because... Controversy already! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) Clint Eastwood films are really hard to predict because he can really knock it out of the park with films like American Sniper or Sully but then makes a dud like the 15:17 to Paris. I imagine Warner Bros knows this won't be another The Mule box office wise but he's made a lot of money for the studio that he can do what he wants Edited November 22, 2019 by Jonwo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxOfficeFangrl Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 13 hours ago, filmlover said: You might be onto something because... Controversy already! Olivia is not playing a composite character in Richard Jewell, but a real person (now deceased) who cannot defend a media portrayal of herself...ironic. There's dramatic license but the story was interesting without this development, so it's an easily avoided controversy. However, I feel we are in a post-controversy era in the awards world, viewers and voters are burnt out from all the outrage and don't like being told what to do. I'm not sure Film Twitter realizes this yet, but it can be an echo chamber, and they still need their clicks either way. I can see this resonating a lot with people who dislike trials by media and the rush to condemn without facts. When the movie inevitably appeals to conservatives, non-fans of Eastwood will resent it at this moment in time and try to peg this as right-wing propaganda or something. Yet the idea of the media/law enforcement scapegoating an innocent person is also familiar to people who are more liberal, so a mini breakout for RJ wouldn't be a total shock. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 6 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said: However, I feel we are in a post-controversy era in the awards world, viewers and voters are burnt out from all the outrage and don't like being told what to do. I'm not sure Film Twitter realizes this yet, but it can be an echo chamber, and they still need their clicks either way. Yeah, this. And honestly, La La Land and Three Billboards likely would've lost even without the Internet "outrage" that surrounded them as well. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonwo Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) TBH Clint has done that before with films like Sully where NSTB are portrayed as antagonistic. Edited November 22, 2019 by Jonwo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick64 Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Honestly controversy over historical accuracy is so eyeroll-inducing. It’s a movie, not a textbook. As long as it fits with the story the filmmakers are trying to tell, the tooth fairy could show up for all I care. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 Anyone see the clip with Kathy Bates, who plays the title character's mother? I have a feeling this one is going to be gut wrenching to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfran43 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 29 minutes ago, sfran43 said: Why so low? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, John Marston said: Why so low? Last year The Mule opened on the exact same weekend in 2,558 theatres so it's not that far off. It'll gradually expand like that film did if need be. In fact, Mule was showing in as many as 3,329 theatres by mid-January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 New featurette: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 some blue check marks are against this movie it seems https://mobile.twitter.com/baddestmamajama/status/1204212464511934464 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, John Marston said: some blue check marks are against this movie it seems https://mobile.twitter.com/baddestmamajama/status/1204212464511934464 Yeah, figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Said this in the tracking thread but this is selling quite poorly around me. Even The Good Liar was selling better at this point before it opened. Even with a single digits opening of like $7-8M though that would still translate to a $35-40M total at least because of the holidays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 10 hours ago, John Marston said: some blue check marks are against this movie it seems https://mobile.twitter.com/baddestmamajama/status/1204212464511934464 8 hours ago, JB33 said: Yeah, figures. I think they've got a very legitimate point: Read the whole thread, as while it has righteous indignation, I think it's also correct. Ironic that a film that is all about attacking character defamation while fighting sensationalism engages in its own. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) I would also add that if this was just a run-of-the-mill story about a similar circumstance, then whatevas. But there's artistic license and then there's... Well, whatever this is. Just bad form and ick. I'm not suggesting boycotts or outrage clicks or anything like that. But I am expressing extreme disappointment as it's so clearly unnecessary to the whole tale. There was already enough meat here not to have to engage in this sub plot point, even if it is "only one inferred moment" as the actress portraying the character in question put it. Just completely and utterly unnecessary. And I think it's that unnecessariness which is driving at least some of this. Edited December 11, 2019 by Porthos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxOfficeFangrl Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 4 hours ago, Porthos said: I would also add that if this was just a run-of-the-mill story about a similar circumstance, then whatevas. But there's artistic license and then there's... Well, whatever this is. Just bad form and ick. I'm not suggesting boycotts or outrage clicks or anything like that. But I am expressing extreme disappointment as it's so clearly unnecessary to the whole tale. There was already enough meat here not to have to engage in this sub plot point, even if it is "only one inferred moment" as the actress portraying the character in question put it. Just completely and utterly unnecessary. And I think it's that unnecessariness which is driving at least some of this. Right? The story doesn't need this at all to be interesting, and who couldn't have foreseen that in 2019, implying that a real-life female reporter f****d for scoops would be criticized? In a movie about the Richard Jewell case! It doesn't make law enforcement look great either. Given the movie's sympathies, you almost wonder if this was thrown in there on purpose. At least with in the Sully movie, the exaggerated NTSB figures accusing him of recklessness were given fake names. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) Yeah, not seeing this after this bullshit. The reporter was a shameless person and tried to destroy a man for press, but fabricating this is utterly gross. It also shows the institutionalized sexism and misogyny that women still face across the board. Edited December 11, 2019 by PDC1987 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 19 hours ago, Porthos said: I would also add that if this was just a run-of-the-mill story about a similar circumstance, then whatevas. But there's artistic license and then there's... Well, whatever this is. Just bad form and ick. I'm not suggesting boycotts or outrage clicks or anything like that. But I am expressing extreme disappointment as it's so clearly unnecessary to the whole tale. There was already enough meat here not to have to engage in this sub plot point, even if it is "only one inferred moment" as the actress portraying the character in question put it. Just completely and utterly unnecessary. And I think it's that unnecessariness which is driving at least some of this. I take it you'll be skipping this one then, huh @Porthos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porthos Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, JB33 said: I take it you'll be skipping this one then, huh @Porthos? Wasn't planning on seeing it in the first place (was gonna wait 'till cable for it), but this isn't exactly encouraging me to change my mind and beat down the theater doors, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...