Weekdays Thread (2/12-15) | V-Day #s: Marley 14, Web 6, ABY 1.2, Argylle 1.1

[filmlover]

57 minutes ago, Eric Web said:

Oh, I won't argue in Whitney's case, that her movie should have done way better than it actually did and that Sony fumbled the bag big time when it came to advertising and promoting the film as the event it should have been. But maybe this is my white boy background talking, and I'm more of a huge Whitney fan anyways, but it always felt like she was a bigger deal than Marley? Like The Bodyguard soundtrack is still one of the most successful music albums in history. Her numbers haven't been matched until Adele and Taylor Swift. Her death was an event on par with the death of Michael Jackson. The planned Whitney tribute was cited as one of, if not the biggest reason the Grammy Awards that year saw a ratings high the ceremony has never achieved since. Like it always felt like she was a bigger deal than Bob Marley to me, and that her movie would have a 14M OD. Guess I was wrong.

 

But I guess in hindsight, it also helps that Ziggy Marley has been an active part of the music business for decades and has kept his name alive for so many. There's a reason why the bigger biopics typically have the subject, or powerful people associated to the subject, alive to promote the movie project (BoRhap w/ Brian May and Adam Lambert, Elvis w/ Priscilla Presley, Rocketman, Compton).

It's been mentioned elsewhere already but the Whitney biopic was hurt by the fact it was only a decade after her death and the fact her estate wasted no time pumping out content related to her, to the point where most fans probably found the existence of the movie more exploitative than celebratory. That and everyone knew her life was a ultimately a total bummer (and that the tragedies didn't end with her death - her daughter ended up dying in a similar manner a few years later).

 

As @BoxOfficeFangrl said, similar issues face the Winehouse movie. What could a biopic add that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum for the past 13 years? You don't have to look very far to find actual footage of these folks in their darkest days leading up to their sadly inevitable fates (since social media was really on the rise during that time period). Biopics about famous people whose lives have a strong "trauma porn" element to them probably face an uphill battle from a marketing perspective, at least ones in which a lot of the time is spent after the Internet became fully mainstream starting in the mid 90s.

Edited February 15 by filmlover

[PlatnumRoyce]

56 minutes ago, Eric Web said:

But maybe this is my white boy background talking, and I'm more of a huge Whitney fan anyways, but it always felt like she was a bigger deal than Marley?

I really find the Houston Bio bombing to be interesting. I don't organically get how big she was, it really does seem as if she was a massive cultural force in the 1990s. The problem is more that when reading this line (without the prior context), I'd interpret it as significantly elevating Whitney up instead of an argument for being lower on Marley because his ongoing cultural relevancy just feels so self-evident.

 

[wildphantom]

3 hours ago, Eric Web said:

I was on that camp for the longest time, but reports are that this movie will go into the trial stuff. That just seems like a bad idea, because no matter what angle you take (and we know what the Jackson estate will take), you're going to lead to huge controversy that isn't worth it. But on the other hand, I guess there is the argument that controversy sells and MJ's more...passionate fans will like the "vindication". So...I guess that is the smart play? Either way, the #discourse is not going to be fun.

The estate will have approved it all, so I imagine it’ll be slight, if they do delve into that.  We’ll see. 
 

it does have the feel of being a huge hit. The cast so far is excellent, and there are some major creative and technical players behind it.  It’s going to be a top class film from a production point. Perhaps all hinges on how uncanny Jafaar Jackson is, and I’m expecting him to be amazing from the stuff I’m hearing. 

[wildphantom]

46 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I really find the Houston Bio bombing to be interesting. I don't organically get how big she was, it really does seem as if she was a massive cultural force in the 1990s. The problem is more that when reading this line (without the prior context), I'd interpret it as significantly elevating Whitney up instead of an argument for being lower on Marley because his ongoing cultural relevancy just feels so self-evident.

 

the Whitney film was tv level quality as a production.  There was nothing remotely cinematic about it.  I can see why plenty stayed at home when they saw some footage. 
 

Michael will be the polar opposite in terms of big screen beckoning for audiences. 

[Valonqar]

Movies like One Love bomb with critics cause critics are trained to think "Biopic = Oscar bait" and when a movie proves to be just entertaining with by numbers story and good music they dock it extra points cause it wasn't what they thought it should be. Happens all the time. But audience corrects it. 

[Cmasterclay]

Whitney movie lacked both a major star OR living band members/children to advocate for it. That's always a huge difference in these movies. Elvis had Hanks and the Presley family, Straight Outta Compton had Cube and Dre, BoRap had Brian May and company, One Love has Ziggy and the rest of the Marley family. Whitney doesn't have that advocacy in either the modern music scene or in terms of movie promotion. 

[Eric Lasagna]

17 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

Movies like One Love bomb with critics cause critics are trained to think "Biopic = Oscar bait" and when a movie proves to be just entertaining with by numbers story and good music they dock it extra points cause it wasn't what they thought it should be. Happens all the time. But audience corrects it. 

Or, I dunno, critics just thought the movie was bad.

[Valonqar]

Also, Sony kinda dumped Whitney biopic. I guess Paramount realized One Love was not a contender and gave it a commercial spot instead and it's working. 

 

Re: critics. I'm sure it isn't a great movie but sometims critics tend to be driven by "what I think a movie should be" bias and trash movies that end up playing well with audience. 

Edited February 15 by Valonqar

[grim22]

I feel like the Michael Jackson movie just has too much baggage and is also just a bit too early. Jackson led a genuinely crazy life which can easily be made into 2 movies - one with the screwed up childhood, Motown, the rise, Thriller and ending with the Superbowl and the second with the fall, the mental health issues, the legal battles and his death. The 2 phases are so different to each other that mashing them into one movie feels like whiplash. 

 

The movie will be a test of whether the music or the legal issues are the enduring Jackson legacy 

[solaris]

Certain artists' stories feel far more suited to a documentary format. Whitney and Amy's stories, both exploited by the industry to tragic ends, were both covered in two excellent documentaries.

 

Biopics where tragedy is mixed with noble redemption or absolution are far more appealing to audiences and suitable for dramatisation (see Elvis, BR, Marley etc)

[filmlover]

I think ultimately Paramount made the right call re: One Love. They clearly knew the movie wasn't an awards player (they never even gave it a qualifying run when it was dated for January, though this awards season was already so crowded it wouldn't have stood a chance even with more positive reviews), and this summer is quite competitive, so they gave it a good launching pad with Valentine's Day and landed a huge opening day out of it.

 

How it fares for the rest of the run, we shall see. I've been looking at sales near me for today and it's not selling much better than Madame Web is when it was crushing the latter yesterday even in the afternoon. Though yesterday was obviously no ordinary day for moviegoing.

[vafrow]

26 minutes ago, solaris said:

Certain artists' stories feel far more suited to a documentary format. Whitney and Amy's stories, both exploited by the industry to tragic ends, were both covered in two excellent documentaries.

 

Biopics where tragedy is mixed with noble redemption or absolution are far more appealing to audiences and suitable for dramatisation (see Elvis, BR, Marley etc)

 

This is a good take.

 

It also makes you realize that MJ would make a better documentary, but a film is more lucrative, so that's what we'll get.

 

Watching the We Are the World documentary recently, you remember just how compelling Michael Jackson is to watch. Just him messing around in studio is captivating.

 

But I don't know how you tell his story without getting into the allegations.

 

That said, I'm also more and more convinced that this is going to be a massiv film, where I was skeptical before.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, Valonqar said:

Movies like One Love bomb with critics cause critics are trained to think "Biopic = Oscar bait" and when a movie proves to be just entertaining with by numbers story and good music they dock it extra points cause it wasn't what they thought it should be. Happens all the time. But audience corrects it. 

Critics love Walk Hard and have grown to hate conventional musician biopics, especially after Bohemian Rhapsody made $900 million and won 4 Oscars. They want a "reinvention" of the genre, like Rocketman being an actual proper musical, or at least the actors doing their own singing because that's not the dreaded "mimicry". If the Bob Marley movie was entirely set in a recording studio for the making of one specific album, critics would probably rave about how "refreshing" it was not to be a cradle-to-grave biopic.

 

But general audiences actually like that sort of thing for movies about musicians. They want a live-action PG-13 Wikipedia summary set to well-known music, starring someone with a decent-to-strong resemblance to the real celebrity. Unless it's "too soon" after a star's tragic death, then the biopic will get shunned at the box office.

[Valonqar]

1 minute ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Critics love Walk Hard and have grown to hate conventional musician biopics, especially after Bohemian Rhapsody made $900 million and won 4 Oscars. They want a "reinvention" of the genre, like Rocketman being an actual proper musical, or at least the actors doing their own singing because that's not the dreaded "mimicry". If the Bob Marley movie was entirely set in a recording studio for the making of one specific album, critics would probably rave about how "refreshing" it was not to be a cradle-to-grave biopic.

 

But general audiences actually like that sort of thing for movies about musicians. They want a live-action PG-13 Wikipedia summary set to well-known music, starring someone with a decent-to-strong resemblance to the real celebrity. Unless it's "too soon" after a star's tragic death, then the biopic will get shunned at the box office.

 

well said! 

[JustWatching]

Wednesday OS numbers from Variety for OL:

 

Quote

Paramount’s “Bob Marley: One Love” stirred things up at the Valentine’s Day box office. The biopic about the reggae legend is outpacing estimates after opening to $14 million domestically. It added $4.9 million to its haul from 10 overseas markets, including the U.K., France and Spain. Its global gross stands at $19.4 million.

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[Eric Lasagna]

2 hours ago, vafrow said:

 

This is a good take.

 

It also makes you realize that MJ would make a better documentary, but a film is more lucrative, so that's what we'll get.

 

Watching the We Are the World documentary recently, you remember just how compelling Michael Jackson is to watch. Just him messing around in studio is captivating.

 

But I don't know how you tell his story without getting into the allegations.

 

That said, I'm also more and more convinced that this is going to be a massiv film, where I was skeptical before.

MJ The Musical is currently a smash success on Broadway, and they don't bring up his allegations at all. You still have an easy and strong story about a kid dealing with abuse and rising above it, working with Motown, making Thriller with Quincy, etc. and the story ends right when he goes into his Dangerous World Tour. That's a pretty solid framework for a story that can ignore the more controversial aspects of him. Whether that's a good thing to do or not is up to you, but it wasn't impossible.

[Krissykins]

1 hour ago, Eric Web said:

MJ The Musical is currently a smash success on Broadway, and they don't bring up his allegations at all. You still have an easy and strong story about a kid dealing with abuse and rising above it, working with Motown, making Thriller with Quincy, etc. and the story ends right when he goes into his Dangerous World Tour. That's a pretty solid framework for a story that can ignore the more controversial aspects of him. Whether that's a good thing to do or not is up to you, but it wasn't impossible.

That would be in really bad taste if they did that. But his family are involved, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried this.