Richard Jewell | December 13 2019 | Clint Eastwood's highly anticipated follow-up to The Mule | Now a WB movie | Premiering at AFI Festival

[filmlover]

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!

[Jonwo]

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

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

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.

[filmlover]

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.

[Jonwo]

TBH Clint has done that before with films like Sully where NSTB are portrayed as antagonistic. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Jonwo

[nick64]

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.

[JB33]

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.

[sfran43]

 

[John Marston]

29 minutes ago, sfran43 said:

 

Why so low?

[JB33]

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.

[JB33]

New featurette:

 

 

 

[John Marston]

some blue check marks are against this movie it seems 

 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/baddestmamajama/status/1204212464511934464

[JB33]

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. 

[filmlover]

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.

[Porthos]

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.

 

[Porthos]

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

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

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. 

[PDC1987]

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

[JB33]

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?

[Porthos]

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.