Jump to content

Eric Prime

C’MON BARBIE LET'S GO PARTY...AT LOS ALAMOS | BARBENHEIMER WEEKEND THREAD | We’re Thriving in our Plastic Fantastic Era | Mother Mothered with 162M | Daddy Exploded with 82.4M

Your Barbenheimer weekend plans  

175 members have voted

  1. 1. What are you going to watch this weekend specifically?



Recommended Posts



8 hours ago, wildphantom said:


This!!

I think the focus on trying to expand PLFs might do more harm than good. I know we were bemoaning that IMAX doesn't have two screens in one cinema. Barbie has proven that PLFs aren't always necessary for a huge OW.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I think the focus on trying to expand PLFs might do more harm than good. I know we were bemoaning that IMAX doesn't have two screens in one cinema. Barbie has proven that PLFs aren't always necessary for a huge OW.  

 

Standard screens being very poor quality a lot of the time is a bigger issue than the lack of PLFs, just makes the average screen ticket price seem too expensive for what you're getting

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ZattMurdock said:

That’s  precisely one of the points I’ve made about Indy and M:I on my following posts: They are aging franchises with no multimedia footprint other than the films that are more mid range blockbusters compared with the massive blockbusters, and for the kind of budget those movies had, you don’t get away with making $300m budget films from franchises with no real broader appeal outside the franchises themselves. Not even Avatar is simply James Cameron’s Avatar anymore.
 

Well aware about the Indy game, but it was too little and well, delayed, pardon the pun. 
 

M:I is around for like 20 years. John Wick is around for less than 10 iirc. That’s how you pursue adding value and new audiences to your films, how you plan ahead for the longevity of the franchise:

 

https://gamerant.com/john-wick-aaa-game/

 

You keep the franchise in the conversation, you bring him to new younger audiences. If me as a 42 year old find it kinda weird that Cruise is doing this for 20 years, I’d imagine kids and people younger than me see it kinda that way too. Now if you keep the character and the franchise cool and relevant to today’s audiences, that’s how you stay evergreen. 

I get what you are saying and I agree, marketing strategy needed to be better to attract younger people at least. It’s just that I think most people here have already agreed that the marketing was one of the issues, because the movie itself was a great action movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I think the focus on trying to expand PLFs might do more harm than good. I know we were bemoaning that IMAX doesn't have two screens in one cinema. Barbie has proven that PLFs aren't always necessary for a huge OW.  

 

And that may be another thing that hurt Mission. Telling people they should see it on the biggest screen possible , well when it loses those big screens after a week people are like might as well wait for home now. I saw it on regular 2D and was just fine. Seeing Oppenheimer today on regular and will be fine with that too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

yep. It has Japan still to open on top of what I expect to be great legs in current markets.

 

Kenbelievers like you were shamed but in the end they won cause no one could stop the ken- apocalypse. 

Edited by vale9001
Link to comment
Share on other sites



14 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

Why is WB so slow with Barbie OS? I want to confirm the Kenomenon on the way to Barbillion. 

 

Oh please already the "Barbie is no risk" spin? Than why so many OUT in various bold clubs before it became apparent that the breakout was incoming? Try harder.

 

 

 

 

This doesn't mean it was risky. I certainly doubt WB saw it that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, grim22 said:

It was supposed to be Nicholas Hoult and he had to drop out because of The Great, but I'm not sure he would have made a difference.

 

Yeah, the biggest issue is that Morales' character is very thinly drawn. Plus add to it that he's essentially a henchman to a main villain that we still don't know exactly what it wants. I'm sure that all of this will be fleshed out in the sequel, but it just convinces me more that making it a two-parter wasn't a good idea.

 

That said, I'm still very surprised at how badly it is performing. Yes, the scheduling was bad (but that's a bit of a hindsight 20/20 thing, I'm sure that a year ago people at Paramount didn't consider a female-driven comedy and a biopic about the maker of the H-bomb as competition for MI's audience), but the opening was really soft given it comes off a franchise (unadjusted) high, and Cruise had earned so much of audience's goodwill (or so I thought) after Maverick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just now, Celedhring said:

 

Yeah, the biggest issue is that Morales' character is very thinly drawn. Plus add to it that he's essentially a henchman to a main villain that we still don't know exactly what it wants. I'm sure that all of this will be fleshed out in the sequel, but it just convinces me more that making it a two-parter wasn't a good idea.

 

That said, I'm still very surprised at how badly it is performing. Yes, the scheduling was bad (but that's a bit of a hindsight 20/20 thing, I'm sure that a year ago people at Paramount didn't consider a female-driven comedy and a biopic about the maker of the H-bomb as competition for MI's audience), but the opening was really soft given it comes off a franchise (unadjusted) high, and Cruise had earned so much of audience's goodwill (or so I thought) after Maverick.

 

 

I mean Oppenheimer targets adult audiences like MI and would take away all premium screens right away so even  then they should have known

Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

This doesn't mean it was risky. I certainly doubt WB saw it that way. 

 

please it was absolutely risky when you make a 150M + marketing budget movie (must be 50-100M when a movie has that budget) not a 50M cheap barbie movie. It's particulary risky when you make a barbie movie seems a drunk tim burton from the 80s.

 

And please not again "the actors are white" ....so? history of cinema has 1900000 bombs with white leads. 

Dune is famous too but it's not easy to make a successfull movie from that, Lynch knows it.

 

WB as always is the best when it's about taking different projects from what is around and make them the zeitgeist.

 

Kudos to them to be risky and for THIS Barbie movie. 

Edited by vale9001
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I don't think there's really much of a mystery as to why Barbie is so big. Literally every single thing went right for it: perfect combination of talent both in front of and behind the camera, brilliant marketing campaign, underserved demo, and ultimately, being a quality movie. Just a perfect storm of circumstances.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I dont like seeing movies on digital. 2K resolution, mediocre picture quality and small screen. I would rather see it on my 4K OLED tv at home with great sound system. TVs are getting better and many have 77" or above tvs. So theatrical business cannot sustain on mediocre screens. Every screen should be like a PLF. Need not be an Imax. But fairly good screen size, great resolution(at least 4K) and sound system. Plus ensure seating quality (I love the seats at Dolby Cinema). 

 

I think AMC is upgrading all their screens to "Laser Cinema" by 2026. I hope others follow as well. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites







  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.