Mickey 17 || Warner || January 31, 2025 || Directed by Bong Joon Ho - Starring Robert Pattinson

[Maggie]

Quote

I think it's far more likely that the current Warner suits don't understand the movie at all,

I don't think it's about the Warner suits. DeLuca and the other one have done so many good movies in the past.

 

I think test audiences didn't like the movie and Warner panicked. You just don't throw to garbage a 150M movie with a recent Oscar winner at the helm. It doesn't make sense reading the latest article in Variety. Warner wants to attract top talent, not upset them

[ThomasNicole]

7 minutes ago, Maggie said:

People are in so much denial in this thread. I posted the 1.5 stars reaction in this thread. It makes sense that movie just isn't very good. RPats is also a nobody outside of Twilight/Batman. But those would sell with mostly anybody. He has not established himself outside these franchise movies.

 

In the end, if the movie is not very good, nobody could save it. The Cannes reports were obviously bullshit (that and test screening reports came from World of Reel). The movie is likely bad and not very commercial.

You realize when you sign an NDA you can’t go on and post a 1.5 star log on your public profile and answer that the movie is awful, right? That is bullshit, way more than the positive info about a test screening that did happened.

 

There’s no denial, we’re discussing. WB shelved Coyote despite very vocal love about it internally, they shelved Salem’s Lot that is from the genre most likely to make a profit despite Stephen King praising it on social media. 
 

The discussions that maybe the reasons for this dump is way more than simply “bad movie” is fair considering WB chaos and i really don’t know why some people are bothered by it. Variety just dropped a financial piece about WB and their hope for profits with these big budgets that does confirmed executives doesn’t believe in this movie or straight up dislike it, but also hints that the problem might be from a commercial perspective. 
 

Keep saying it’s simply bad because some dude said so in a Letterboxd post really doesn’t make sense when you follow WB recent decisions.

[Maggie]

1 minute ago, ThomasNicole said:

You realize when you sign an NDA you can’t go on and post a 1.5 star log on your public profile and answer that the movie is awful, right? That is bullshit, way more than the positive info about a test screening that did happened.

 

There’s no denial, we’re discussing. WB shelved Coyote despite very vocal love about it internally, they shelved Salem’s Lot that is from the genre most likely to make a profit despite Stephen King praising it on social media. 
 

The discussions that maybe the reasons for this dump is way more than simply “bad movie” is fair considering WB chaos and i really don’t know why some people are bothered by it. Variety just dropped a financial piece about WB and their hope for profits with these big budgets that does confirmed executives doesn’t believe in this movie or straight up dislike it, but also hints that the problem might be from a commercial perspective. 
 

Keep saying it’s simply bad because some dude said so in a Letterboxd post really doesn’t make sense when you follow WB recent decisions.

If the movie had tested well, they wouldn't have dumped it in January, so yeay, i believe that reaction. Lots of reactions on Letterboxd for movies in test screening phase, it's not that unusual.

[ThomasNicole]

1 minute ago, Maggie said:

If the movie had tested well, they wouldn't have dumped it in January, so yeay, i believe that reaction. Lots of reactions on Letterboxd for movies in test screening phase, it's not that unusual.

Batgirl tested way better than Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 according to the big trades and was completely shelved. 
 

I mean you can believe whatever but you’re trying to give reasonable sense to WB despite a lot of decisions that simply doesn’t make sense, including the same executives thinking The Flash would save them, so let’s just agreed to disagreed.
 

 

[AniNate]

It's easy to cast execs as the villains, but if they're not that confident in the movie's commercial prospects it seems most optimal for everyone involved to give it a "dumping ground" release date, so maybe it can have a better chance to save some face at the box office. No one will care about what month the movie was released if it does end up turning a profit.

[CoolioD1]

Don’t understand why Maggie is going so hard against this one Tom Cruise isn’t even in it.

[Maggie]

Just now, CoolioD1 said:

Don’t understand why Maggie is going so hard against this one Tom Cruise isn’t even in it.

I managed to insert an Oblivion dis...😁

[WittyUsername]

This is depressing news. 

[AniNate]

Heck, I mean, Parasite's biggest weekend was in the middle of February and this isn't that far off.

[JustLurking]

34 minutes ago, Maggie said:

People are in so much denial in this thread. I posted the 1.5 stars reaction in this thread. It makes sense that movie just isn't very good. RPats is also a nobody outside of Twilight/Batman. But those would sell with mostly anybody. He has not established himself outside these franchise movies.

 

In the end, if the movie is not very good, nobody could save it. The Cannes reports were obviously bullshit (that and test screening reports came from World of Reel). The movie is likely bad and not very commercial.

Watch out y'all, he posted ONE 1.5 star reaction!

[Mojoguy]

This movie reminds me so much of MOON with Sam Rockwell, which everyone should watch by the way.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

2 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

You realize when you sign an NDA you can’t go on and post a 1.5 star log on your public profile and answer that the movie is awful, right? That is bullshit, way more than the positive info about a test screening that did happened.

 

There’s no denial, we’re discussing. WB shelved Coyote despite very vocal love about it internally, they shelved Salem’s Lot that is from the genre most likely to make a profit despite Stephen King praising it on social media. 
 

The discussions that maybe the reasons for this dump is way more than simply “bad movie” is fair considering WB chaos and i really don’t know why some people are bothered by it. Variety just dropped a financial piece about WB and their hope for profits with these big budgets that does confirmed executives doesn’t believe in this movie or straight up dislike it, but also hints that the problem might be from a commercial perspective. 
 

Keep saying it’s simply bad because some dude said so in a Letterboxd post really doesn’t make sense when you follow WB recent decisions.

It's easy to shelve a film from directors with no clout. Bilall Fallah and Adil El Arbi, the directors of Batgirl, and Dave Green, the director of Coyote Vs. ACME, don't have the power to move the needle in regard to major names working with Warner Brothers. Didn't affect the Tom Cruise deal at all, for example. Bong Joon-Ho, on the other hand? He's an Oscar winner. Warner Brothers can't just shelve a film from an Oscar winning director. That would have moved a needle.

Edited February 21 by MysteryMovieMogul

[ThomasNicole]

2 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

It's easy to shelve a film from directors with no clout. Bilall Fallah and Adil El Arbi, the directors of Batgirl, and Dave Green, the director of Coyote Vs. ACME, don't have the power to move the needle in regard to major names working with Warner Brothers. Didn't affect the Tom Cruise deal at all, for example. Bong Joon-Ho, on the other hand? He's an Oscar winner. Warner Brothers can't just shelve a film from an Oscar winning director. That would have moved a needle.

Definitely, i think if it was the same movie but from a smaller artist, it would be shelved at this point.
 

Since it’s Bong, they’re just dumping it. 
 

Still insane behavior in all cases, WB is being controlled by a bunch of lunatics.

Edited February 22 by ThomasNicole

[Napoleon]

The Variety article implies that Zaslav intends to start negotiations about selling or merging WBD in April, and also suggests that he’s trying to have a successful 2024 at the box office so he can get a better deal. If this is true, it explains why Mickey 17 was moved, even if it isn’t terrible: at a $150m cost, they don’t believe in its commercial performance, and may think it will hurt the perception of their year at the box office. 

[TomThomas]

On 2/21/2024 at 11:18 AM, ThomasNicole said:

What damage control? The entire cinephile community is pissed. 

No, I mean Anthony's excuses to justify January release date in a positive light. He's studio's talking head who just parrots whatever they told him to parrot. You might as well say the movie was dumped to January because sky is blue and life is good.

[TomThomas]

19 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

Batgirl tested way better than Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 according to the big trades and was completely shelved. 

It didn't? It tested in Shazam 2 and Black Adam range, 60s.

[kayumanggi]

21 hours ago, AniNate said:

It's easy to cast execs as the villains, but if they're not that confident in the movie's commercial prospects it seems most optimal for everyone involved to give it a "dumping ground" release date, so maybe it can have a better chance to save some face at the box office. No one will care about what month the movie was released if it does end up turning a profit.

 

But sometimes it's difficult to trust these execs. What's not good to them might actually be great for the auds. But we'll see. I was actually thinking WB would put this in October or November 2024.

[ThomasNicole]

1 hour ago, TomThomas said:

It didn't? It tested in Shazam 2 and Black Adam range, 60s.

You’re right. Still i think the point stands, they had 3 movies with similar results but decided to shelved 1 saying it was the worst thing ever made, when we all know they just though it would flop.

 

Their decisions seems to be driven exclusively from a commercial perspective since Zaslav get in, so i think it’s the case here as well.

[Alexander]

22 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

Batgirl tested way better than Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 according to the big trades and was completely shelved. 
 

I mean you can believe whatever but you’re trying to give reasonable sense to WB despite a lot of decisions that simply doesn’t make sense, including the same executives thinking The Flash would save them, so let’s just agreed to disagreed.
 

 

Batgirls tested in 50s to 60s, those other two movies always in 60s.

 

October 25, November 15 or December 25 would have made sense but end of January don't bring any confidence and Warners know that.

[AMCTheater2000]