TOM CRUISE LOVES HIS POPCORN. MOVIES. POPCORN: THE WEEKEND THREAD | We are just waiting for Barbenheimer here

[MovieMan89]

It will be interesting to see what Disney takes from Elemental. They can look at it and see they would have ended up with a nice little hit with a modest 125m budget or something, but Pixar has basically never been asked to make movies for less than 200m this century. I’m not sure they’d know what to do with themselves. 

[TMP]

20 minutes ago, ringedmortality said:

 

Surely it should get a similar reception to Last Duel, critically.

Last Duel is one of Scott's best films in the last 20 years, and one of my favorites of 2021, so if it's close in quality then i'd be elated lol

[dudalb]

AT MI7 last night, I saw that updated Oppenheimer trailer same treailer except for the "Next week" subtitles . where it is described as "The film of the year". What makes it fun is that the treailer immdietaly following it was for Killers  of the Flower Moon, which looks as if it will be the main compettion for that title.

And Killers looks great to me.

Sadly, i suspect some people will find it boring because it will not have some huge action sequence every ten minutes.

[LegionWrex]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

It will be interesting to see what Disney takes from Elemental. They can look at it and see they would have ended up with a nice little hit with a modest 125m budget or something, but Pixar has basically never been asked to make movies for less than 200m this century. I’m not sure they’d know what to do with themselves. 

Pixar has always been insane in terms of budgets and I doubt that's going to change.

 

Little fun fact about that: A Bug's Life cost around $120M back in 1998, which in today's dollars means it would have costed around $225M. Monsters Inc. costed $115M in 2001 and would have also been $200M. They've basically had the same pricey tag on their films since 1998.

[Jiffy]

Will be interested to see how SOF drops next week. Also I'm sure there has been some audience reduction, but I think I'll still give it to 24-25 to assess how much of this is people being tired of the product served up at the moment.

[ringedmortality]

Why didn't they ever release the IMAX Oppenheimer trailer that was real cool?

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, LegionWrex said:

Pixar has always been insane in terms of budgets and I doubt that's going to change.

 

Little fun fact about that: A Bug's Life cost around $120M back in 1998, which in today's dollars means it would have costed around $225M. Monsters Inc. costed $115M in 2001 and would have also been $200M. They've basically had the same pricey tag on their films since 1998.

Yep, that’s why I say I’m not sure they’d know what to do with a “modest” budget. In all fairness to them, they have always been about pushing the quality of the animation, that is literally part of their brand name and image. So it’s hard to say, well now you’re doing more mid-level/budget animated stuff. You’re probably damaging the brand, but Disney is all about that with Pixar lately, so won’t be surprising. 

[wildphantom]

We’re almost taking for granted Oppenheimer will go over $50 million next weekend. Not that I don’t think it will, but this is still spectacular for a 3 hour adult Christopher Nolan movie in the current climate.  
 

The Barbenheimer mania has done nothing but help the build up for Oppenheimer in my eyes. Just by association the awareness level is way bigger than it would have been.  

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, LegionWrex said:

Pixar has always been insane in terms of budgets and I doubt that's going to change.

 

Little fun fact about that: A Bug's Life cost around $120M back in 1998, which in today's dollars means it would have costed around $225M. Monsters Inc. costed $115M in 2001 and would have also been $200M. They've basically had the same pricey tag on their films since 1998.

 

And usually every penny is on screen.  I enjoyed Puss In Boots 2 but more for the story than the animation which looked unfinished to the point it was sometimes an eyesore.   Still better than Illuminations bland usual though.

 

[M37]

Next weekend almost demands a Barbenheimer combined OW guessing contest, doesn’t it? 

[Ledmonkey96]

hmmmm -26% Sunday for Elemental seems high, what are the odds it stays over 9mil?

[LegionWrex]

1 minute ago, TalismanRing said:

 

And usually every penny is on screen.  I enjoyed Puss In Boots 2 but more for the story than the animation which looked unfinished to the point it was sometimes an eyesore.   Still better than Illuminations bland usual though.

 

Yep. Elemental blew me away with how impressively gorgeous it was, and most of the really "holy shit" moments of animation aren't in the trailers either.

[Hildagarde25]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

As usual in a Scott film, he seems to have been very militant in insisting on accuracy as far as production design and military detail goes.

 

This always fascinates me with Scott historical films. I agree he's great with the production design and military stuff, but he does whatever with the history story and character-wise. Gladiator is a great film, but how I would've loved to have gotten the real Commodus's story, although I still adore it and Kingdom of Heaven. 1492 and Robin Hood aren't good films or history, imo. House of Gucci was fun because of Gaga, but the real Gucci story was even better. The Last Duel had a great cast and was a great film, but I have no desire to re-watch a rape movie.  

[MattW]

1 hour ago, TwoMisfits said:

I'm just thinking a weekend with...

Barbie $112M, Oppy $51M, and the rest at $70M is gonna cause some folks to look for the nearest bridge as I see numbers go higher and higher.

 

Note, I'm not saying these are the numbers - giving final numbers before final sets tends to be a fool's errand...but right now...there's a lot of optimism, where outside of SoF, we haven't had any since Spidey...

I'm in a club for both Openers next weekend to be higher but that's a stretch goal, this is a pretty reasonable expectation for both

[ThomasNicole]

I was more worried about DIS doing hard cut costs on Pixar before 

 

If Elemental ended up with 500M it would be an undeniable success story, they just needs Elio to do well and lucky for them, teaser for that was 10x more well received than any Elemental marketing piece. 
 

IO2 seems like a sure hit so yeah, i think the more aggressive change Pixar will face it just keep away from D+ like Iger already said. In a year from now is very likely the discourse around Pixar will be very different.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by ThomasNicole

[Killimano3]

21 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

We’re almost taking for granted Oppenheimer will go over $50 million next weekend. Not that I don’t think it will, but this is still spectacular for a 3 hour adult Christopher Nolan movie in the current climate.  
 

The Barbenheimer mania has done nothing but help the build up for Oppenheimer in my eyes. Just by association the awareness level is way bigger than it would have been.  

 

I feel like both Barbie and Oppenheimer are benefitting a lot from the fact they are opening together. The memes about how different they are as films has definitely been hyping them both for months and keeping them in the public discussion. It's probably helped Oppenheimer even more since it would have otherwise been mostly watched by the hardcore Nolan fans and fans of the genre, but I think the memes have helped Barbie too more then people think.

 

I for one am going to double feature them with friends this Saturday lol

[MovieMan89]

7 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

I was more worried about DIS doing hard cut costs on Pixar before 

 

If Elemental ended up with 500M it would be an undeniable success story, they just needs Elio to do well and lucky for them, teaser for that was 10x more well received than any Elemental marketing piece. 
 

IO2 seems like a sure hit so yeah, i think the more aggressive change Pixar will face it just keep away from D+ like Iger already said. In a year from now is very likely the discourse around Pixar will be very different.

 

 

I disagree Elemental helps Pixar avoid getting budget slashed. I can absolutely see Iger being irate that the movie had this spectacularly leggy run and still potentially ends up a loser for them because of budget. Easy ammo for him to say “see, quality is irrelevant, the films are too expensive.” Vs if it bombed outright like OW suggested, maybe execs would view it more as a lack of appeal problem than budget one. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

51 minutes ago, Hildagarde25 said:

 

Vanessa Kirby is playing Josephine and is 13 years younger than Joaquin Phoenix, who looks an old 48 (I say this as a Phoenix fan). That Napoleon was younger than Josephine is significant to their personal and political dynamic. There's just no way Kirby looks like the more "world weary" of the two. She's age appropriate in her 30s, but Napoleon is supposed to be a 20-something when they meet and marry. Phoenix can't pass for someone in his 30s let alone 20s. I'm trying to figure out how the movie will handle the concerns around his marriage to an "older woman" along with their struggle for an heir - I suppose they'll sidestep the age issue and make it "oh she can't conceive". 

 

As much as I love Phoenix, I think he's too old for the part. That Scott originally had Jodie Comer as Josephine (who's 18 years younger than Phoenix!) is ridiculous. Normally, I'd let the age casting go, but in this instance, Napoleon and Josephine's ages really matter to the story and their characters.

 

Still, curious to see what Scott does.   

Too bad Paul Mescal just wasn't prominent enough back when Napoleon was in pre-production, Scott could have cast him there instead of as the lead in the Gladiator sequel. But if they'd actually cast a twentysomething Napoleon--especially a guy who was short--there would have been a lot of freaking out and complaining that he was just too young. They'd argue that people matured earlier in the past, so to capture Napoleon's gravitas in a modern movie you "have to" cast a much older actor. Perhaps it's just reflecting society, where there are daily arguments on Twitter that anyone under 25 is a literal baby because brain development, or something...

[ringedmortality]

3 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Perhaps it's just reflecting society, where there are daily arguments on Twitter that anyone under 25 is a literal baby because brain development, or something...

 

I is baby

[baumer]

1 hour ago, Deep Wang said:

I don’t know why I made this joke, I’m so old and like 5 people will get it 😂

 

Here I was just scrolling through everything today in a Dead Calm kind of way, then I read your post and I started giggling like a schoolgirl.