Weekend Thread (11/18-20) | Black Panther 67.3, The Menu 9, The Chosen 8.2, Black Adam 4.5, Ticket 3.2

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

 

 

[ringedmortality]

I thought actors took pay cuts for these types of movies... because they wanted to make the movie. Not because of back-end deals.

[ThomasNicole]

12 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

 

 

I would bet the ""big"" budget have way more to do with Covid protocols for shooting 

 

[John Marston]

 

 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

36 minutes ago, ringedmortality said:

I thought actors took pay cuts for these types of movies... because they wanted to make the movie. Not because of back-end deals.

That's when they think the movie will get them nominated for awards... The Menu is on the cusp of it but still a dark comedy with horror elements, not an obvious Oscar bait genre like biopics, historical/family dramas. So, the agents here probably wanted to get their money.

 

 

27 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

I would bet the ""big"" budget have way more to do with Covid protocols for shooting 

 

A bit of Column A, a bit of Column B? A "Covid Tax" alone shouldn't double the budget of this thing (viewers saying it looks like a $10-15 million budget movie). The Menu costs 5x more than Ready or Not, the difference can't all be inflation and Covid protocols.

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

3 hours ago, ringedmortality said:

 

 

Yeah, I think the biggest problem with The Menu is it’s large budget. Which I assume a healthy portion went to COVID protocols. If it was 15-20 million, then this would be pretty great.

 

Still don't believe The Menu's supposed budget. As in - literally don't believe it, not that I find it surprising. 

 

Not sure how robust the sources are on it.

 

COVID protocols or not, I cannot possibly gather how the movie cost more than 12-15m without Solo level complete reshoots and rebuilding of set. These are good and fairly well known actors, but they are not megastars.

 

The overwhelming majority of the film is set in one damn room, for goodness sake.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Ipickthiswhiterose

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

36 minutes ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 

Still don't believe The Menu's supposed budget. As in - literally don't believe it, not that I find it surprising. 

 

Not sure how robust the sources are on it.

 

COVID protocols or not, I cannot possibly gather how the movie cost more than 12-15m without Solo level complete reshoots and rebuilding of set. These are good and fairly well known actors, but they are not megastars.

 

The overwhelming majority of the film is set in one damn room, for goodness sake.

If the budget wasn't $30 million, wouldn't Searchlight have told Deadline/Variety/etc by now? With a $15m budget, The Menu is a box office win, and what studio these days isn't taking that, or trying to spin a so-so result into a total triumph?

 

Back when mother! was released, people didn't believe the initial budget reports from reputable sources, either. It was set in one place, and even with JLaw, it was very edgy territory: surely she was taking a pay cut/discount to be in an awards hopeful? Surely, a studio wasn't giving Aronofsky over 2x the budget of Black Swan for something so out of the mainstream? But no, Paramount read that script and really handed over $30 million. Wild decision, even by pre-pandemic standards...

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[Ozymandias]

2 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

lol maybe nobody wants to see a movie about Harvey Weinstein

[raegr]

not a bad drop. after this weekend, things should stabilize a lot more and the legs should bring it to 450-475M I think 

Edited November 21, 2022 by raegr

[Cap]

3 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Thesis: because they are disposable, so-called art films, that have no real cultural significance or long, lasting impact. Their sole purpose is to compete on a festival circuit for the year, and then be replaced with a new shiny object once we need to repeat the cycle all over again. Their just exchangeable content in a larger industrial complex. 

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

2 minutes ago, Cap said:

Thesis: because they are disposable, so-called art films, that have no real cultural significance or long, lasting impact. Their sole purpose is to compete on a festival circuit for the year, and then be replaced with a new shiny object once we need to repeat the cycle all over again. Their just exchangeable content in a larger industrial complex. 

?

[XXRDJisDoctorDoom]

9 minutes ago, Cap said:

Thesis: because they are disposable, so-called art films, that have no real cultural significance or long, lasting impact. Their sole purpose is to compete on a festival circuit for the year, and then be replaced with a new shiny object once we need to repeat the cycle all over again. Their just exchangeable content in a larger industrial complex. 

 

Accurate. 

[grim22]

4 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

[filmlover]

@Eric Killmonger you won

 

 

‘Bones And All’ With Timothée Chalamet Draws Women, Younger Demos In Limited Opening – Specialty Box Office https://t.co/Ae29wZZkkI

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) November 20, 2022

[The Wild Eric]

20 minutes ago, filmlover said:

@Eric Killmonger you won

 

 

I always do.

[interiorgatordecorator]

1 hour ago, Cap said:

Thesis: because they are disposable, so-called art films, that have no real cultural significance or long, lasting impact. Their sole purpose is to compete on a festival circuit for the year, and then be replaced with a new shiny object once we need to repeat the cycle all over again. Their just exchangeable content in a larger industrial complex. 

 

True for many, but Tar isnt like that (will watch banshees neext week)

[raegr]

I think too that most ppl just wait for these movies to stream. They aren't gonna want to drive 2 hours to see a movie in a small theater 

[Cap]

31 minutes ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

 

True for many, but Tar isnt like that (will watch banshees neext week)

Tar was an overly long film with nothing interesting to say on its various subject matters anchored by a perfectly fine, yet certainly not remarkable, Cate B performance. She was great it in, because she is always great in everything

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

 

She Said has been put into the same category as Spotlight and All the President's Men, but the average American moviegoer probably has more interest in reliving takedowns of the Catholic Church or POTUS, vs a Hollywood producer, even a very famous one. A Netflix/Hulu documentary/limited series, OTOH, that's way less investment for people: longer, but you're already at home, plus

you can bail quickly if you hate it and watch something else.

 

You could say sexual harassment/abuse is broadly familiar to many, but it's also unpleasant/upsetting or worse for some to see. Outside of horror, 2022 moviegoing audiences have shown little interest in coming out for movies along those lines.

 

There's also the specific issue with She Said, that even people who like prestige fare were rolling their eyes at the idea of Hollywood making a film about the Harvey Weinstein investigation as an awards grab. The same Hollywood that until 5 years ago, ignored the rumors about his sleazy, bullying, abusive ways and kept showering his movies with nominations/wins anyway? Come on, now. He was not an outlier and the whole moviemaking culture still seems to condone abusive practices on a broad level, if the IATSE and VFX worker grievances are any indication.

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

6 minutes ago, Cap said:

Tar was an overly long film with nothing interesting to say on its various subject matters anchored by a perfectly fine, yet certainly not remarkable, Cate B performance. She was great it in, because she is always great in everything

You say this as if it's factual