Weekend Numbers | actuals | 27.75M THE FALL GUY | 8.72M SW: EP I - TPM | 7.59M CHALLENGERS | 6.50M TAROT

[excel1]

9 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Shouldn't speak for them but I can only assume they mean a creative, unexpected take on a big IP? That only really applies to Barbie and, I guess AtSV from the titles they listed. But, AtSV is a sequel. I don't think it's necessarily why either was a huge hit either. Otherwise, I'm with you. I don't understand it.

 

Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'

Edited May 4 by excel1

[JustLurking]

16 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

'Original takes on existing IP' is still original. 

 

Everyone should go back to the first days were Todd Phillips Joker film was announced. Everyone thought the concept was absurd and it would be a giant mess, especially if zero-box-office-pull nut job Joaquin Phoenix was cast as Joker. Think of ludicrous it would sound to say, at that time, that it's sequel would be a musical costarring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. Let's go a step further. Imagine the insanity of saying "we're going to do a Spider-man film where all 3 main interactions of the character show up together". The entire concept of Barbie film is utterly absurd on paper.

 

We're living in a time where outside the box takes on existing characters are not only welcomed, they feel borderline required for something to really explode. It's also translating into a lot of exciting new franchise tentpoles. 

 

Cookier cutter assembly line film-by-focus-group takes ala Marvel or obvious nostalgic cash grabs need more today than they did in 2015, which in my view is a very good thing. 

wtf is supposed to be "insane" about nwh. or even original for that matter. even theatrically the concept was ALREADY done (much better) by spiderverse.

 

nwh was huge because it unabashedly went for the nostalgia mines. "originality" lol give me a break.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

2 hours ago, AJG said:

 

I don't think I've seen Black audience share be that low for a straight up action movie - John Wick 4 had 19%. Free Guy had 13%. Even Civil War has 12%.

 

8% is just off

All the hip hop heads were pulled away by Kendrick Lamar vs Drake escalating throughout the day. Three diss tracks on Friday alone!

 

Kidding, but both full Fall Guy trailers had 80s rock blaring throughout, and the Super Bowl ad had a Taylor Swift song. Obviously, people can listen to all kinds music regardless of their background, but those tracks are more broadly appealing to some groups and ages more than others.

 

[excel1]

2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

I’m sorry but you can’t just change the definition of a word like that. Original means “not based on an existing IP or a sequel.” That’s how everyone uses the word.

 

 

Ok then go with the word "unique" instead, done.

 

2 minutes ago, Speedorito said:

The Beekeeper is original. Barbie is not. GOTG Vol 3 is definitely not.

 

Just because people haven’t seen a live-action Barbie film or a super cool animated Spider-Man film doesn’t mean they’re original. If Greta Gerwig made a film about a doll called Jessica who lived in Jessica Land with all the other Jessicas and Matts, that would be original. But she didn’t, she made a film based on the incredibly well-known Barbie brand.

 

Guardians, Maverick, Avatar, The Batman are more about audiences rewarding quality films. 

 

1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:

It’s still just IP with large built-in audiences. The brand is a requirement to have success. I find that pretty sad when looking back to earlier decades. 

 

Seeing it as sad feels 'glass half empty'. It is the next stage in the evolution of consumer demand, that's always interesting. 

[HowSway]

1 hour ago, AJG said:

 

"Look at all these memes about this thing no one cares about" 

 

Remember: NCIS, Heartland, and Virgin River are three of the most streamed TV shows in America. They don't trend or go viral but people actually watch them. 

Considering Gen Z mostly watches YouTube and Tik Tok, the memes is definitely a sign that people care about The Challengers

[JohnnyGossamer]

6 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

see my post above. Original, outside the box takes on existing IP is still original. 

What makes The Batman any more original than Burton's, Nolan's or even Snyder's take on Batman?

 

What's makes King's take on Wonka any more original than Burton's or Stuart's take? I'd say King's is actually the least original and most risk averse take... Super safe. I liked it though.

 

What makes Oppenheimer remotely close to as original as things like his own Inception, Interstellar or Tenet?

 

What makes Guardians 3 any more original than 1 and 2? 1 was the one that broke the mold.

 

What makes AtsV any more original than ItSV?

 

Barbie for sure stands out.

 

I guess my confusion is similarly original takes were already highly successful in the recent and distant past for just about every property you named. I don't think its any different now. It's not like Super Mario wasn't huge last year.

 

Did Gen X crave originality? But just crave it way, way more? Raimi, Sonnenfeld, Burton, Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Cameron, Gilliam, Miller, Coens, Tarantino, etc. were known names the late 80s, through late 90s. I'd argue they craved it more actually.

[excel1]

2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

wtf is supposed to be "insane" about nwh. or even original for that matter. even theatrically the concept was ALREADY done (much better) by spiderverse.

 

nwh was huge because it unabashedly went for the nostalgia mines. "originality" lol give me a break.

 

Is this is a serious question....?

 

Teaming up McGOAT, Garfield, and Holland in 1 film is absolutely, 100000% creative and yes, insane. The Spiderverse comp is ridiculous. That wasn't animated film. Bringing together 3 well-known actors playing the same character in a film? When was that ever done before? I would have loved to listened in on the pitch meeting for that one bc I am sure the initial reaction near every executive would be ".....how? and went this confuse people?".

[redfirebird2008]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'

Really? Inside Out is an expensive, original movie that came out in summer 2015. It was far riskier than the movies you are listing here, other than Oppenheimer. 

 

The praise you are throwing at some of these films is not much different than what people were saying about Captain America: Winter Soldier in 2014 or Captain America: Civil War in 2016. It’s all just well-made franchise material. 

[excel1]

2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

What makes The Batman any more original than Burton's, Nolan's or even Snyder's take on Batman?

 

Batman, Maverick, Guardians, Avatar were mores about quality being rewarded. 

 

2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

What's makes King's take on Wonka any more original than Burton's or Stuart's take? I'd say King's is actually the least original and most risk averse take... Super safe. I liked it though.

 

It's a new story on the character. 

 

2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

What makes Oppenheimer remotely close to as original as things like his own Inception, Interstellar or Tenet?

 

It is a unique experience for these times. I can't think of a remotely recent film of that approach that is comparable to it. 

 

2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

What makes AtsV any more original than ItSV?

 

The series is original.

 

2 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

 

Barbie for sure stands out.

 

I guess my confusion is similarly original takes were already highly successful in the recent and distant past for just about every property you named. I don't think its any different now. It's not like Super Mario wasn't huge last year.

 

Did Gen X crave originality? But just crave it way, way more? Raimi, Sonnenfeld, Burton, Verhoeven, Cronenberg, Cameron, Gilliam, Miller, Coens, Tarantino, etc. were known names the late 80s, through late 90s. I'd argue they craved it more actually.

 

Of those ones listed, Cameron is the only one who achieved true uber-blockbuster success off of his original ideas. 

[AniNate]

The definition of "original" here is so subjective and broad as to be almost meaningless. I think successful movies need to have some kind of unique hook, sure, but that's not much different from any other modern generation, and the ones before still didn't have to rely so much on established IP.

[excel1]

1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Really? Inside Out is an expensive, original movie that came out in summer 2015. It was far riskier than the movies you are listing here, other than Oppenheimer. 

 

Bro what? It wasn't risky at all, it was Pixar still in its prime, and they were a studio known for originality. Find a better example for real. 

[Mad Max007]

The Nice Guys curse continues. I sure feel this movie would have done better in 2017 compared to now.

[excel1]

1 minute ago, AniNate said:

The definition of "original" here is so subjective and broad as to be almost meaningless. I think successful movies need to have some kind of unique hook, sure, but that's not much different from any other modern generation, and the ones before still didn't have to rely so much on established IP.

 

Unique or novel may be better words than original, some are sticking to that word far too heavily. 

[redfirebird2008]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Is this is a serious question....?

 

Teaming up McGOAT, Garfield, and Holland in 1 film is absolutely, 100000% creative and yes, insane. The Spiderverse comp is ridiculous. That wasn't animated film. Bringing together 3 well-known actors playing the same character in a film? When was that ever done before? I would have loved to listened in on the pitch meeting for that one bc I am sure the initial reaction near every executive would be ".....how? and went this confuse people?".

Throwing nostalgia at the audience is not original. It’s not creative. It’s simply a cash grab. See The Force Awakens in 2015 as a perfect example of this. 

[Speedorito]

4 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Ok then go with the word "unique" instead, done.

 

 

Guardians, Maverick, Avatar, The Batman are more about audiences rewarding quality films. 

 

 

Seeing it as sad feels 'glass half empty'. It is the next stage in the evolution of consumer demand, that's always interesting.

You’re just talking around what other people have been saying: people will pay for sequels and IP-based films they think are good, they’re a lot less likely to pay sequels and IP-based films they think are bad or for original films (as in, not a sequel or IP-based film).

[JustLurking]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Is this is a serious question....?

 

Teaming up McGOAT, Garfield, and Holland in 1 film is absolutely, 100000% creative and yes, insane. The Spiderverse comp is ridiculous. That wasn't animated film. Bringing together 3 well-known actors playing the same character in a film? When was that ever done before? I would have loved to listened in on the pitch meeting for that one bc I am sure the initial reaction near every executive would be ".....how? and went this confuse people?".

Yeah in the era of movies that are trying to slip in cameos and references literally everywhere a plot that is literally a half-baked excuse to fit the film with as many nostalgia characters as possible seems like a very hard pitch

 

even harder a pitch if it's using a plot device already successfully utilised by another film a few years prior

 

truly a super risky move right here

[excel1]

1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Throwing nostalgia at the audience is not original. It’s not creative. It’s simply a cash grab. See The Force Awakens in 2015 as a perfect example of this. 

 

No way, DA FORCE AWAKENS is a very straight forward, easily understood. NWH is totally different level.

 

Imagine saying "Bond 26 will feature Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, and AI Sean Connery all teaming up". Everybody would look at it like 🤨

[JohnnyGossamer]

30 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'

You'd referenced Gen Z earlier.

 

Joker was 5 years ago. It was absolutely aimed at Millennials and older not Gen Z.

 

ItSV was 6 years ago. Aimed at Gen Z and Millennials.

 

Wonka was easily the least original, most risk averse Wonka movie yet. Super, super safe. Burton also provided an origin take for Wonka which wasn't at all in the Wilder's Wonka.

 

I don't know what NWH is... No Way Home? I mean, X Men did the same thing before it, no? Regardless,  that movie is aimed at everyone Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X. Not a Gen Z thing.

 

Oppenheimer is less of a risk than older Nolan summer tent poles.

 

Summer of 2015? You mean when Fury Road and Inside Out were hits? Wouldn't they fit your criteria of original? Doesn't Jurassic World fit your criteria too of new take on the Jurassic series? That was 2015 too.

Edited May 4 by JohnnyGossamer

[Kon]

34 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

Joker, Barbie, ATSV, Wonka, NWH, Oppenheimer would be the big examples. All of those were concepts that, in one way or another, were radically, radically different and inherently risky as a result. My litmus test would be "would this film have felt out of place in the summer 2015 line up?". Those are all resounding 'yes'

NWH wasn't especially risky. The idea of three Spidermem (Tobey, Andrew and Tobey) working together was the fantasy of many fans. In fact, three Tom Holland would be more risky.

 

Wonka was a pretty safe movie for Christmas. I know some fans of Wonka complaint about Wonka losing his "edge", but that's exactly the safe decision for a Christmas movie.

 

Also, I think Barbie would be pretty succesful even if the story wasn't so out of the box. I mean, Mario makes 1B even if it didn't take big risks.

 

 

PS: I feel Into the Spiderverse was more risky that Across the Spiderverse. ITDV is the movie introducing Miles as protagonist (instead of Peter), while ATSV has the good reception of ITDV as a support.

Edited May 4 by Kon

[excel1]

33 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Yeah in the era of movies that are trying to slip in cameos and references literally everywhere a plot that is literally a half-baked excuse to fit the film with as many nostalgia characters as possible seems like a very hard pitch

 

even harder a pitch if it's using a plot device already successfully utilised by another film a few years prior

 

truly a super risky move right here

 

 

True, that explains why everyone lined up to see Harrison Ford return in BLADE RUNNER 49, Shwarzenegger - and later Linda Hamilton - return to Terminator, Keanu in MATRIX and BILL AND TED, the OGs in GHOSTBUSTERS 3 and 4, Keaton's Batman in FLASH, Ellen Burstyn in EXORCIST, Channing Tatum in MAGIC MIKE 3, Stallone in RAMBO 5, Vin Diesel in XXX 2, Damon in JASON BOURNE, Stiller in ZOOLANDER 2. How could we forget the giant success that was INDEPENDENCE DAY 2? Fans of course are still elated at Palpatines iconic return in Star Wars 9.

 

Reality is that "NOSTALGIA!!!" as the reasoning for success has a pretty shitty track record outside oof a few GIANT successes. Hard nostalgia pulls with certain actors in certain roles worked for DA FORCE AWAKENS and HALLOWEEN, but did little to nothing in pretty much every other attempt. Nostalgias track record with concepts-only is even worse, for every JURASSIC WORLD, there are 6 or 7 films like MIB: International, CHIPS, Charlies Angels, etc.

 

See things through the eyes of a normal fan. New major tentpole film had ever done anything like what occurred in NWH. It is inherently risky to take that approach. 

Edited May 4 by excel1