# RIP Morbius



## Storyteller Hero (Apr 4, 2022)

So apparently Sonic the Hedgehog 2 AND Fantastic Beasts 3 are releasing this week. EDIT: Looks like Fantastic Beasts 3 got moved to next week, which may be even worse for Morbius in some ways.

This means that Morbius' box office take will be competing with not one but two popular franchises.

Morbius' production budget is reportedly $75 million.

Morbius' marketing budget should theoretically be anywhere from $25 million to $75 million, possibly more because of delays.

The theaters and the studios are not owned by the same companies, so box office gross is usually split in half for rough estimates of what a movie needs to break even on costs.

This makes $200 million a kindly conservative estimate for what Morbius needs to break even. It might be closer to $300 million to break even.

Investors don't fund movies to break even (or even close), so tack on another 10% as a bare minimum to convince investors of funding a sequel.

I am not sure that the Morbius theatrical run will even break $200 million given the circumstances.

This iteration of Morbius has a high chance of being replaced/rebooted instead of reused in the greater MCU moving forward.

RIP Morbius is my prediction.


----------



## IvyDragons (Apr 4, 2022)

I don't really see Sonic the hedgehog having the same audience. and the amount on controversy over fantastic beasts won't create a big turn out.

Regardless, Morbius doesn't really resonate with me in any meaningful way.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Apr 4, 2022)

Can you really kill a living vampire???


----------



## Storyteller Hero (Apr 4, 2022)

IvyDragons said:


> I don't really see Sonic the hedgehog having the same audience. and the amount on controversy over fantastic beasts won't create a big turn out.
> 
> Regardless, Morbius doesn't really resonate with me in any meaningful way.




Well, all action-oriented movies are going to have some overlap, so even if they don't have the same exact audience, there should be significant shared audience.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 4, 2022)

Yeah, genre geek movies. Superheroes and Wizards definitely have overlap.


----------



## Hex08 (Apr 4, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> Can you really kill a living vampire???



Re-kill? Un-kill?


----------



## Willie the Duck (Apr 4, 2022)

I would say that the #1 thing that might kill this movie is whatever forces led this to being literally the second nerd-focused media site I've been to (first one being a youtube movie reviewer) that mentioned the thing, approximately as it is being released, and otherwise I would have no idea that it was coming out. I mean, can you imagine not knowing about a Marvel comic book character movie coming out at the height of the X-Men, initial 2 Spider-Man runs, or MCU? I mean, I get it -- Covid has knocked seeing the latest movie (or even reading up on and deciding not to see it) far down my list of priorities. Still, I would have hoped to have had to scroll past a dozen reddit articles or Gizmodo reviews or something (anything)


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Marvel movies have a bigger franchise than Sega's Hedgehog with an attitude when it comes to movies.  Now the real problem is what movies the youngsters are going to want to go see.

Morbius is not a major character, so they may suffer from a Guardians of the Galaxy problem...but then again, GotG is one of their better movies to date, so you never know.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 4, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I would say that the #1 thing that might kill this movie is whatever forces led this to being literally the second nerd-focused media site I've been to (first one being a youtube movie reviewer) that mentioned the thing, approximately as it is being released, and otherwise I would have no idea that it was coming out. I mean, can you imagine not knowing about a Marvel comic book character movie coming out at the height of the X-Men, initial 2 Spider-Man runs, or MCU? I mean, I get it -- Covid has knocked seeing the latest movie (or even reading up on and deciding not to see it) far down my list of priorities. Still, I would have hoped to have had to scroll past a dozen reddit articles or Gizmodo reviews or something (anything)




One of the reasons you might not be seeing much coverage of Morbius is that it never generated any buzz in an organic way. If anything, when the first teasers showed up long, long ago (the movie's release has been repeatedly delayed) it didn't exactly catch fire, and now it's sort of limping into theaters in a perfunctory way.

Don't get me wrong, I hate it when a pre-release meta-narrative turns a promising movie into a punchline. John Carter, for example, was a completely cool movie from a super talented team of filmmakers that got framed in the laziest media corners as the next Waterworld, so no one gave it a chance. But--and I know this is totally subjective--John Carter actually looked cool, had interesting people making it, etc. With Morbius, I think the lack of buzz, or the anti-buzz, is deserved. Boring director and visuals, writers with horrendous track records, and Jared Leto clearly phoning it in. No amount of marketing could or should save this turkey.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> One of the reasons you might not be seeing much coverage of Morbius is that it never generated any buzz in an organic way. If anything, when the first teasers showed up long, long ago (the movie's release has been repeatedly delayed) it didn't exactly catch fire, and now it's sort of limping into theaters in a perfunctory way.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I hate it when a pre-release meta-narrative turns a promising movie into a punchline. John Carter, for example, was a completely cool movie from a super talented team of filmmakers that got framed in the laziest media corners as the next Waterworld, so no one gave it a chance. But--and I know this is totally subjective--John Carter actually looked cool, had interesting people making it, etc. With Morbius, I think the lack of buzz, or the anti-buzz, is deserved. Boring director and visuals, writers with horrendous track records, and Jared Leto clearly phoning it in. No amount of marketing could or should save this turkey.



Disney dropping the ball completely on the John Carter marketing made me very sad.  That should have become a franchise.  Dejah Thoris should be a Disney Princess now.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Disney dropping the ball completely on the John Carter marketing made me very sad.  That should have become a franchise.  Dejah Thoris should be a Disney Princess now.




Never forget, or forgive, the decision to call a movie about a dude teleporting to Mars to become a swashbuckling superhero.....

John Carter


----------



## payn (Apr 4, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> One of the reasons you might not be seeing much coverage of Morbius is that it never generated any buzz in an organic way. If anything, when the first teasers showed up long, long ago (the movie's release has been repeatedly delayed) it didn't exactly catch fire, and now it's sort of limping into theaters in a perfunctory way.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I hate it when a pre-release meta-narrative turns a promising movie into a punchline. John Carter, for example, was a completely cool movie from a super talented team of filmmakers that got framed in the laziest media corners as the next Waterworld, so no one gave it a chance. But--and I know this is totally subjective--John Carter actually looked cool, had interesting people making it, etc. With Morbius, I think the lack of buzz, or the anti-buzz, is deserved. Boring director and visuals, writers with horrendous track records, and Jared Leto clearly phoning it in. No amount of marketing could or should save this turkey.



I always say you shouldn't knock it until you rock it. Though, this does seem like you are giving _Morbius_ the _John Carter_ treatment.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 4, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Re-kill? Un-kill?



He's "The Living Vampire", so un-undead.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Never forget, or forgive, the decision to call a movie about a dude teleporting to Mars to become a swashbuckling superhero.....
> 
> John Carter



I mean, somehow Jack Reacher ended up getting a sequel with an equally bland name.  So it works sometimes.

That having been said "JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS" would have been the most epic title ever.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 4, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Never forget, or forgive, the decision to call a movie about a dude teleporting to Mars to become a swashbuckling superhero.....
> 
> John Carter



They needed to keep the ": Warlord of Mars" part.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> He's "The Living Vampire", so un-undead.



But since Dracula and actual vampires exist in Marvel, he could become Morbius "The Undead Living Vampire"!


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I mean, somehow Jack Reacher ended up getting a sequel with an equally bland name.  So it works sometimes.
> 
> That having been said "JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS" would have been the most epic title ever.



It would have done even better if they had 'dressed' Lynn Collins in the manner that Burroughs described Carter's first view of Dejah Thoris.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It would have done even better if they had 'dressed' Lynn Collins in the manner that Burroughs described Carter's first view of Dejah Thoris.



Now now, this *was* the Disney version.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 4, 2022)

payn said:


> I always say you shouldn't knock it until you rock it. Though, this does seem like you are giving _Morbius_ the _John Carter_ treatment.




Nope. Read what I wrote. To explain further, John Carter looked great, to me, because the pre-release visuals were awesome, the director's done some of the best movies of our lifetimes, plus he co-wrote the movie, Taylor Kitsch was excellent in Friday Night Lights, etc. Plus it was an interesting concept, not just another attempt to cash in on adjacent IP.

I gave specific reasons for why Morbius has the opposite sort of filmmaking pedigree, plus pre-release visuals that are boring. I didn't mention that it was drafting off the MCU, but there you go. Morbius hits all the reasons that a movie could be unappealing, none of which are based on the industry gossip nonsense that snowballed and ultimately killed John Carter. Morbius looks bad because there's nothing about it that looks good.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Also Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas was excellent!


----------



## payn (Apr 4, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Nope. Read what I wrote. To explain further, John Carter looked great, to me, because the pre-release visuals were awesome, the director's done some of the best movies of our lifetimes, plus he co-wrote the movie, Taylor Kitsch was excellent in Friday Night Lights, etc. Plus it was an interesting concept, not just another attempt to cash in on adjacent IP.
> 
> I gave specific reasons for why Morbius has the opposite sort of filmmaking pedigree, plus pre-release visuals that are boring. I didn't mention that it was drafting off the MCU, but there you go. Morbius hits all the reasons that a movie could be unappealing, none of which are based on the industry gossip nonsense that snowballed and ultimately killed John Carter. Morbius looks bad because there's nothing about it that looks good.



You got all that before even seeing _John Carter_? I guess its true there is no accounting for taste. _John Carter_ was an entirely forgettable experience for me. I didnt know that until I actually saw it though.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 4, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I would say that the #1 thing that might kill this movie is whatever forces led this to being literally the second nerd-focused media site I've been to (first one being a youtube movie reviewer) that mentioned the thing, approximately as it is being released, and otherwise I would have no idea that it was coming out. I mean, can you imagine not knowing about a Marvel comic book character movie coming out at the height of the X-Men, initial 2 Spider-Man runs, or MCU? I mean, I get it -- Covid has knocked seeing the latest movie (or even reading up on and deciding not to see it) far down my list of priorities. Still, I would have hoped to have had to scroll past a dozen reddit articles or Gizmodo reviews or something (anything)



Huh. I’m not even following it or particularly interested in seeing it but I’ve seen news about it everywhere.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Also Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas was excellent!



He and the squealing Thark hatchlings were the best parts of the movie.


----------



## GreyLord (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Disney dropping the ball completely on the John Carter marketing made me very sad.  That should have become a franchise.  Dejah Thoris should be a Disney Princess now.




I think the profits John Carter made were fine.  The problem was in the production.  If they had stuck to the original budget or maybe a little lower, and not gone off the rails, I think it probably would have been fine.  There were so many problems in production though...that it needed to turn a profit it couldn't generate simply to be seen as a success.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

billd91 said:


> He and the squealing Thark hatchlings were the best parts of the movie.



I rather liked the "learning to walk on Mars" scene, and the ending, where John shows that, unlike many action heroes, he's as cunning as Odysseus.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 4, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> They needed to keep the ": Warlord of Mars" part.




I think just having it be "John Carter of Mars" would have been sufficient.  The film isn't really about him being a warlord, imho.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Well yeah, that's two books ahead.


----------



## Undrave (Apr 4, 2022)

I hope Sonic beats the crap of the Fantastic Beasts threequel nobody asked for.


----------



## Storyteller Hero (Apr 4, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I think the profits John Carter made were fine.  The problem was in the production.  If they had stuck to the original budget or maybe a little lower, and not gone off the rails, I think it probably would have been fine.  There were so many problems in production though...that it needed to turn a profit it couldn't generate simply to be seen as a success.




That sounds a lot like what happened with the failed Paul Feig-directed reboot of Ghostbusters (aside from the other failings). They reportedly ended up having to do expensive reshoots because Feig wouldn't listen to objective feedback on what was missing from the planned principal photography.


----------



## Rabulias (Apr 4, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I hope Sonic beats the crap of the Fantastic Beasts threequel nobody asked for.



It's not so much a threequel as Part III; the _Fantastic Beasts_ series has been planned to be a 5-movie story since the first one. I loved the first one, but I found Part II to be a bit boring, as well as having character turns come way out of left field and what look like timeline discrepancies. I will likely see Part III in the theaters next week or so, unless it gets horrible reviews.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Also Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas was excellent!




Willem Dafoe is ALWAYS excellent! 

He also pops up in the best places. I finally got around to watching _Nightmare Alley_, and guess what? That's right, Willem Dafoe.

A movie without Dafoe is like John Wick without a high fatality count. What's the point?


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

Not safe for work!


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 4, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I think just having it be "John Carter of Mars" would have been sufficient.  The film isn't really about him being a warlord, imho.



True. I think that it actually covers "A Princess of Mars" more, at any rate, but I read those books maybe 50 years ago.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 4, 2022)

It's "A Princess of Mars" but introduces the Holy Therns, who won't be a factor until the second book, "The Gods of Mars".

I'm afraid "A Princess of Mars" would have not been a good title either, something about associating princesses with things young girls like.  As if we don't have a host of badass princesses to demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> It's "A Princess of Mars" but introduces the Holy Therns, who won't be a factor until the second book, "The Gods of Mars".
> 
> I'm afraid "A Princess of Mars" would have not been a good title either, something about associating princesses with things young girls like.  As if we don't have a host of badass princesses to demonstrate otherwise.



Which is why you show Lynn Collins "dressed only in gems" in the trailers. Then "princess" becomes your selling point


----------



## Rabulias (Apr 4, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> It's "A Princess of Mars" but introduces the Holy Therns, who won't be a factor until the second book, "The Gods of Mars".
> 
> I'm afraid "A Princess of Mars" would have not been a good title either, something about associating princesses with things young girls like.  As if we don't have a host of badass princesses to demonstrate otherwise.



Maybe _John Carter and the Princess of Mars_?


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 5, 2022)

I don't know.  I actually have this friend who refused to see The Princess Bride, of all things, because the title wasn't manly enough for him.

Don't worry, the story has a happy ending.  Once I managed to get all of his friends to see it, they started pushing him, and finally he said "if it's so good, why don't they re-release it, then?".

As we all know, some years back, *they did*, we got him into the theatre, and he liked it.


----------



## ART! (Apr 5, 2022)

There was a whole book written about what went wrong with John Carter: _John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood_, by Michael D. Sellers. The Wrap's Drew Taylor did a very good and thorough article on the whole debacle, marking the film's 10th anniversary.


----------



## Retreater (Apr 5, 2022)

I guess I'm alone in enjoying John Carter. I think I've seen it three times (which is at least three times more than most people). I am a sucker for space opera/sci-fi adventure, and I thought the movie was entertaining enough.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 5, 2022)

Not at all.  The movie was flawed, but it was great.  My issue was that Disney basically said "hey let's have our own Star Wars!"  then realized they could *buy* actual Star Wars, so hung John Carter out to dry.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 5, 2022)

Is this thread about john carter or Morbius? I honestly can't tell...

Anyway, Morbius will most likely drop to number 2 or even 3 since Sonic and Ambulance comes out this week, when Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore releases it will be number one. Then on the 22nd, it will move to second because folks will go see Nic Cage go full Nic Cage lol. Also, I'm predicting The Northman to bomb along with Bad Guys.

Then all will be blown out of the water come May.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 5, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm alone in enjoying John Carter. I think I've seen it three times (which is at least three times more than most people). I am a sucker for space opera/sci-fi adventure, and I thought the movie was entertaining enough.



No, I quite enjoyed it. Saw it in a theatre the first time, when it was initially released. The books are seminal SciFi. Their DNA is in a Metric Butt Tun of later works.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> No, I quite enjoyed it. Saw it in a theatre the first time, when it was initially released. The books are seminal SciFi. Their DNA is in a Metric Butt Tun of later works.



I also enjoyed John Carter but saw it first on a streaming service.


----------



## delericho (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> The books are seminal SciFi. Their DNA is in a Metric Butt Tun of later works.



IMO, that was one of the film's problems - quite a lot of it looked derivative of other sci-fi and fantasy films, because as you say the DNA was found elsewhere. The circle of inspiration had become complete.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 5, 2022)

delericho said:


> IMO, that was one of the film's problems - quite a lot of it looked derivative of other sci-fi and fantasy films, because as you say the DNA was found elsewhere. The circle of inspiration had become complete.



Does not help that Mars is now known as a frozen wasteland and the tales of the old canals are long forgotten except by ageing nerds.


----------



## aco175 (Apr 5, 2022)

Both Fantastic Beasts and Morbius looked like something I would wait to see streaming at home rather than at the theatre.  Hedgehog is a skip all together.  Dr Strange may be one worth going to the movies for.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 5, 2022)

aco175 said:


> Both Fantastic Beasts and Morbius looked like something I would wait to see streaming at home rather than at the theatre.  Hedgehog is a skip all together.  Dr Strange may be one worth going to the movies for.



Most of May will be dominated by Dr. Strange until Memorial Day weekend then Top Gun: Maverick will FINALLY be released
EDIT: I predict that the memorial day weekend will look like the following:
1. Top Gun Maverick
2. Doctor Strange
3. Bob's Burgers


----------



## payn (Apr 5, 2022)

There is a Bob's Burgers movie coming?


----------



## ART! (Apr 5, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm alone in enjoying John Carter. I think I've seen it three times (which is at least three times more than most people). I am a sucker for space opera/sci-fi adventure, and I thought the movie was entertaining enough.



Oh, I love it, too. It's one of the few movies I own on blu-ray. I think it's a borderline classic.

I can't afford all the film scores I'd like to buy on cd, but I sprung for Michael Giacchino's _John Carter_ score on cd. It's one of my favorite film scores of all time.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 5, 2022)

payn said:


> There is a Bob's Burgers movie coming?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 5, 2022)

delericho said:


> IMO, that was one of the film's problems - quite a lot of it looked derivative of other sci-fi and fantasy films, because as you say the DNA was found elsewhere. The circle of inspiration had become complete.



That's something that I've commented on many times (a few of them here). When an original work that inspires many gets no love and then finally gets a movie deal, it looks like it's ripping off all the ones that came after it.


----------



## Hex08 (Apr 5, 2022)

Not to derail the John Carter thread  
Something I just noticed about Morbius, much like the Venom movies it's getting bad reviews from critics but, according to Rottn Tomatoes (yes, I know their rating system is heavily flawed), the audience seems to be liking it. It's currently at only a 16% from critics but a 70% from audience reviews.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 5, 2022)

That's nothing new.  Hollywood has different criteria when it comes to making movies.  They know that you get praise for groundbreaking movies, and money from blockbusters that are basically the same movie you've seen a dozen times before.

Critics don't tend to look at movies for their entertainment value, which is all the average moviegoer cares about.  Yeah yeah, acting, cinematography, story, *yawn*.  Most people want action, a couple laughs, and *awesome moments*.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> That's something that I've commented on many times (a few of them here). When an original work that inspires many gets no love and then finally gets a movie deal, it looks like it's ripping off all the ones that came after it.



I tend to think that viewer reviews are more valuable to the average person than are critics' reviews but finding a reliable source can be problematic, at best.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Something I just noticed about Morbius, much like the Venom movies it's getting bad reviews from critics but, according to Rottn Tomatoes (yes, I know their rating system is heavily flawed), the audience seem to be liking it. It's currently at only a 16% from critics but a 70% from audience reviews.




Yeah, but _Morbius_ only made about $40 million in its opening. While that's not peanuts, it isn't great, either.

_Into the Spider Verse_ only did $35 million in its opening, but it was getting 90% and more positive reviews from critics and viewers alike.  

And, by the way, Venom had 30% rating with critics, Venom 2 had 58%.  Both did about 80% with viewers.

_Morbius_ is dying with critics, and is only 70% with viewers. That doesn't bode well.


----------



## payn (Apr 5, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but _Morbius_ only made about $40 million in its opening. While that's not peanuts, it isn't great, either.
> 
> _Into the Spider Verse_ only did $35 million in its opening, but it was getting 90% and more positive reviews from critics and viewers alike.
> 
> ...



Yeah I was wondering if _Morbius _would get a _Venom_ like viewers boost. Too much seems to be against them tho. Long delay on release, lesser known character, everyone on the planet except me hates Jared Leto...


----------



## Gradine (Apr 5, 2022)

I took my daughter to see the first Sonic (it was a last pre-Covid movie) and I'll be damned if that wasn't a hell of a good time. Turns out I was nostalgic for _two _things from the 90's; Sonic the Hedgehog and Jim Carrey making me laugh. Second one is a must see.

Morbius is a pass. I don't ask why Michael Bay gets to keep on making movies, but I often wonder why Jared Leto does.

I have even less interest in lining the pockets of the world's most powerful promoter of transphobia.


----------



## GreyLord (Apr 5, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Not at all.  The movie was flawed, but it was great.  My issue was that Disney basically said "hey let's have our own Star Wars!"  then realized they could *buy* actual Star Wars, so hung John Carter out to dry.




Same with Tron (Tron: Legacy) which is the BIGGER tragedy in my mind



trappedslider said:


> Most of May will be dominated by Dr. Strange until Memorial Day weekend then Top Gun: Maverick will FINALLY be released
> EDIT: I predict that the memorial day weekend will look like the following:
> 1. Top Gun Maverick
> 2. Doctor Strange
> 3. Bob's Burgers




I may be very wrong, but I'm going to predict Top Gun Maverick bombs...


----------



## IvyDragons (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I tend to think that viewer reviews are more valuable to the average person than are critics' reviews but finding a reliable source can be problematic, at best.



Keep in mind that all the viewers that want to see the movie are the first ones to review, so that early percentage is inflated.
Critics reviews are looking at a movie from a "technical" perspective.  Technically venom was a poorly constructed movie, but it worked purely due to the 18 Charisma of Tom Hardy.  

Lastly if its 3+ weeks past opening I am always confident in a movie meeting their IMDB rating.  I find that value highly accurate once you have enough reviews.  Of course if I particularly like the genre, I will like it more than the average.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 5, 2022)

waiting to see Morbius on cable down the line. I keep waiting for Leto to make the big jump 

 paid $5 us dollars for venom 2. It wasnt very good (really the begining has some ok banter and the ending extra  scene was ok). 

the fantastic beasts movies feel like a missed opportunity.The latest without Depp has a horrible review on ign (ususually they give 7's for bad movies but this was much worse) They are making money clearly but are they memorable and loved like the originals? I like the ideas in the movies such as Newt character its just not very interesting (hes got all these cute animal friends but none capture the heart like a Grogu)


----------



## Storyteller Hero (Apr 5, 2022)

I made a correction in the original post - apparently Fantastic Beasts 3 is next week, which is still not good for Morbius' chances of making a theoretical profit on box office alone.

The total worldwide take for Morbius is around 80+ million now, but with the next two weeks about to be dominated by other action-oriented movies, the drop off on Morbius' earnings may be more than usually seen.


----------



## Undrave (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> That's something that I've commented on many times (a few of them here). When an original work that inspires many gets no love and then finally gets a movie deal, it looks like it's ripping off all the ones that came after it.



Or what happened with _Valerian_... 


Gradine said:


> I took my daughter to see the first Sonic (it was a last pre-Covid movie) and I'll be damned if that wasn't a hell of a good time. Turns out I was nostalgic for _two _things from the 90's; Sonic the Hedgehog and Jim Carrey making me laugh. Second one is a must see.



_Sonic_ was also my last pre-COVID movie! I want the sequel to be the first one I see in our 'almost but not really' post-COVID world. 


GreyLord said:


> I may be very wrong, but I'm going to predict Top Gun Maverick bombs...



Yeah I doubt it'll have much legs


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Apr 5, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm alone in enjoying John Carter. I think I've seen it three times (which is at least three times more than most people). I am a sucker for space opera/sci-fi adventure, and I thought the movie was entertaining enough.



Most people who have actually watched John Carter at least kind of liked John Carter. It just became a joke because it had an unappealing title, had production problems, and the press loves making fun of a giant Hollywood flop.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 5, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Most people who have actually watched John Carter at least kind of liked John Carter. It just became a joke because it had an unappealing title, had production problems, and the press loves making fun of a giant Hollywood flop.



"Waterworld" suffered much the same fate, though the production was farcical even by "John Carter" standards. It's not that bad a movie, though it holds few surprises for the seasoned viewer.


----------



## Hex08 (Apr 5, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> I may be very wrong, but I'm going to predict Top Gun Maverick bombs...




I might have considered seeing it three years ago when it was originally supposed to be released but now I have no interest. Maybe I will watch it when it ends up streaming.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 5, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Waterworld" suffered much the same fate, though the production was farcical even by "John Carter" standards. It's not that bad a movie, though it holds few surprises for the seasoned viewer.



Have you watched the "Ulysses" cut?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 6, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Have you watched the "Ulysses" cut?



Haven't even heard of it. Guess it's Google time.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Apr 6, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I mean, somehow Jack Reacher ended up getting a sequel with an equally bland name.  So it works sometimes.
> 
> That having been said "JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS" would have been the most epic title ever.




 As has been pointed out, the books featuring John Carter are decades old whereas Reacher as a character is a lot more prominent in the consciousness of current pop culture since new Jack Reacher novels are still being produced...

On the subject of Morbius, I think the character's just not strong enough on its own as a concept to really carry a movie in a post_ Interview with a Vampire_/_Twilight_ world. If they'd done it fifteen or twenty years ago, it might have worked better.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 6, 2022)

Mad_Jack said:


> As has been pointed out, the books featuring John Carter are decades old whereas Reacher as a character is a lot more prominent in the consciousness of current pop culture since new Jack Reacher novels are still being produced...
> 
> On the subject of Morbius, I think the character's just not strong enough on its own as a concept to really carry a movie in a post_ Interview with a Vampire_/_Twilight_ world. If they'd done it fifteen or twenty years ago, it might have worked better.



While that's true, I had never heard of Jack Reacher when the movie came out, it was a slow week at the movies and I only went to see it because of the trailer.

I wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised.

For another example, "John Wick" isn't a terrifyingly good name for a movie either, but...


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 6, 2022)

top gun appeals to the generation that group watching the original and loving it. the 3 years wont matter to them

John Carter suffers from the lead actor. hes just not that good of an actor  and its not that great of a movie. its 2 bad as the material is good for its time


----------



## ART! (Apr 6, 2022)

wicked cool said:


> John Carter suffers from the lead actor. hes just not that good of an actor



I do agree that Taylor Kitsch is a weak link in that movie. He's not overtly _bad _in it, but he just doesn't do much with the performance. It's a shame.

I might have to go see _Morbius_ just so I can have an opinion about it!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 6, 2022)

ART! said:


> I do agree that Taylor Kitsch is a weak link in that movie. He's not overtly _bad _in it, but he just doesn't do much with the performance. It's a shame.
> 
> I might have to go see _Morbius_ just so I can have an opinion about it!



Don't let that stop you, it pretty much stops nobody else.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Apr 6, 2022)

ART! said:


> I might have to go see _Morbius_ just so I can have an opinion about it!




That's actually the reason I've gone to see a _lot _of movies over the years that I wasn't originally interested in enough to bother watching in a theater... Particularly with films that are generating a lot of highly-polarized conversations about them.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 6, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> For another example, "John Wick" isn't a terrifyingly good name for a movie either, but...




Not only is the John Wick franchise constitute the greatest cinema ever known to humankind, it is, in fact, the equivalent to movies what Milton's Paradise Lost is to the epic.

That's right. Everyone else just needs to pack it up and go home. Do something else, like animated shorts or tiktok videos.


----------



## payn (Apr 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not only is the John Wick franchise constitute the greatest cinema ever known to humankind, it is, in fact, the equivalent to movies what Milton's Paradise Lost is to the epic.
> 
> That's right. Everyone else just needs to pack it up and go home. Do something else, like animated shorts or tiktok videos.



All right, now who needs a 10,000 word essay for their hawt taak?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 6, 2022)

payn said:


> All right, now who needs a 10,000 word essay for their hawt taak?


----------



## payn (Apr 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


>


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 6, 2022)

But John Wick also had really good marketing.  It's weird how things work sometimes in Hollywood.  I remember "The Matrix" had a terrible marketing campaign and a confusing trailer- but it went on to become a movie that warped how action movies were shot for years afterwards.

OTOH, the best marketing can't save a bad movie.  I'm of course referring to "Dutch Angle: The Motion Picture", also known as "Battlefield Earth".


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 6, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I guess I'm alone in enjoying John Carter. I think I've seen it three times (which is at least three times more than most people). I am a sucker for space opera/sci-fi adventure, and I thought the movie was entertaining enough.



Hey now, I'm the one who brought it up in this very thread, by saying it was hugely maligned pre-release!


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 6, 2022)

payn said:


> Yeah I was wondering if _Morbius _would get a _Venom_ like viewers boost. Too much seems to be against them tho. Long delay on release, lesser known character, everyone on the planet except me hates Jared Leto...




Leto is _fantastic_ in Blade Runner 2049, and My So-Called Life, and maybe some other things.

But he's also one of the easiest people in Hollywood to hate...


----------



## Gradine (Apr 6, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Leto is _fantastic_ in Blade Runner 2049, and My So-Called Life, and maybe some other things.
> 
> But he's also one of the easiest people in Hollywood to hate...



It doesn't help when you do a bunch of ty things and blame it on "method acting".

Other tips: don't play prominent trans characters when you're cis.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 6, 2022)

Gradine said:


> It doesn't help when you do a bunch of ty things and blame it on "method acting".
> 
> Other tips: don't play prominent trans characters when you're cis.




Yeah, just realized I should have clarified--by easy to hate, I mean I definitely hate him. (And his dumb band)


----------



## payn (Apr 6, 2022)

lol, I forgot about the band.


----------



## ART! (Apr 6, 2022)

payn said:


> lol, I forgot about the band.



Yeah - Leto's whole thing is all starting to make sense now.


----------



## Hex08 (Apr 6, 2022)

wicked cool said:


> top gun appeals to the generation that group watching the original and loving it. the 3 years wont matter to them



I'm part of the original Top Gun generation and the three year delay has affected my enthusiasm. Part of the problem is I've had time to think about the movie. Things like Maverick avoiding advancement for 30 years stretches disbelief. My understanding from friends who have served is that either you advance or are eventually pointed towards the door.


----------



## payn (Apr 6, 2022)

Is Top Gun supposed to be a military procedural?


----------



## Gradine (Apr 6, 2022)

I expect the Top Gun sequel to go about as well as the Independence Day sequel.

Probably worse, if I'm being honest


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 6, 2022)

payn said:


> Is Top Gun supposed to be a military procedural?




Top Gun is military pornography masquerading as military documentary.


Also?







Hey ... How YOOOO doin'?

ETA-


Spoiler



If you didn't already know this, Top Gun is the gayest movie in the 80s. It makes Torch Song Trilogy look like an ad for Dockers khakis.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 6, 2022)

I think Top Gun Maverick is going to do just fine, probably even great. Really good screenwriter, visually impressive director (Tron: Legacy and Oblivion look great, if nothing else), lots of jingoistic whatever. But if they really do an AI-generated voice for Val Kilmer, that could be...not so great.


----------



## payn (Apr 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Top Gun is military pornography masquerading as military documentary.
> 
> 
> Also?
> ...



Oh, I was thinking of_ Iron Eagle_ with Lou Gosset Jr.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Apr 7, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Waterworld" suffered much the same fate, though the production was farcical even by "John Carter" standards. It's not that bad a movie, though it holds few surprises for the seasoned viewer.




It was basically "Mad Max on the water".  It wasn't a _bad_ Mad Max style movie, but it wasn't so good that it could be viewed as a big ticket movie, and gods above was it expensive (as is anything filmed in and above water usually).


----------



## payn (Apr 7, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It was basically "Mad Max on the water".  It wasn't a _bad_ Mad Max style movie, but it wasn't so good that it could be viewed as a big ticket movie, and gods above was it expensive (as is anything filmed in and above water usually).



It ended up being hella expensive because a hurricane destroyed the set. So, it wasn't just an overindulgent pet project as often touted.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Apr 7, 2022)

payn said:


> Yeah I was wondering if _Morbius _would get a _Venom_ like viewers boost. Too much seems to be against them tho. Long delay on release, lesser known character, everyone on the planet except me hates Jared Leto...




I don't hate him, though I understand why others do.  I'm apparently one of the few people who thought his take on the Joker in Suicide Squad was a pretty legit take on a version of the character who has just been out of public view for a long time (the Dick Tracy-style theme gangster).  But I also get why his rock-star attitude and method-acting hijinks don't endear him to a lot of people.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Apr 7, 2022)

payn said:


> It ended up being hella expensive because a hurricane destroyed the set. So, it wasn't just an overindulgent pet project as often touted.




That's part of the intrinsic risk with that kind of filming.

But costs are always a thing.  Though the marketing was handled for crap, and as has been noted the lead wasn't strong, John Carter would probably have not been viewed as big a failure if the new (to live action) director hadn't allowed retakes to get away from him and balloon the costs.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 7, 2022)

payn said:


> It ended up being hella expensive because a hurricane destroyed the set. So, it wasn't just an overindulgent pet project as often touted.



It also didn't help that they lost a day of filming to chasing down their lead, who was lashed to a runaway sailboat.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 7, 2022)

I just find it weird when public opinion about a movie gets so wrapped up in the business of it. Unless you're a producer, a studio exec, or some outside investor, who cares if there were budget overruns? Or when a movie flops, does that mean it's bad? When it does insane box office numbers, does that mean it's great? As trivia this stuff can certainly be interesting, but, imo, none of that should have anything to do with someone's assessment of how good or not-good it is.

In the cases of Waterworld and John Carter, gossipy gossip preceded their release and gave people a tidy, seemingly insider-ish opinion to have about them, and that was that. Oh, that movie? Heard it was expensive, and it flopped. Must be terrible!

But mention Blade Runner's budget overruns, disastrous test audience reactions, and bad box office numbers, and that's just studios and mainstream audiences not knowing a great movie when it's in front of their faces!

Again, the trivia and the production details can be really entertaining (I definitely eat it all up). But it can also provide easy, knee-jerk meta-narratives that have nothing to do with film criticism or analysis, particularly before the damn thing even comes out.

(Also, not really defending Waterworld here, but at the very least it's a supremely weird movie and a huge swing, which is more than I can say for some MCU movies)


----------



## payn (Apr 7, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I just find it weird when public opinion about a movie gets so wrapped up in the business of it. Unless you're a producer, a studio exec, or some outside investor, who cares if there were budget overruns? Or when a movie flops, does that mean it's bad? When it does insane box office numbers, does that mean it's great? As trivia this stuff can certainly be interesting, but, imo, none of that should have anything to do with someone's assessment of how good or not-good it is.
> 
> In the cases of Waterworld and John Carter, gossipy gossip preceded their release and gave people a tidy, seemingly insider-ish opinion to have about them, and that was that. Oh, that movie? Heard it was expensive, and it flopped. Must be terrible!
> 
> ...



I think it is an indication that things are going pear shape for the movie. People love to rubberneck a disaster. Occasionally, a really good movie comes from it, but often, its a predictable flop. 

I think its a relatively new phenomena around people actually taking joy in watching something crash in burn, as opposed to, simple morbid curiosity and celebrity gossip.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 7, 2022)

payn said:


> I think it is an indication that things are going pear shape for the movie. People love to rubberneck a disaster. Occasionally, a really good movie comes from it, but often, its a predictable flop.
> 
> I think its a relatively new phenomena around people actually taking joy in watching something crash in burn, as opposed to, simple morbid curiosity and celebrity gossip.




Right, but, again, something being a flop doesn't seem relevant to its quality, to me. Some of my favorite movies were flops, and arguably some of the most beloved books were commercial failures during the writers' lifetimes.

But I don't think I agree about cheering a movie's failure being new. Waterworld's going on 27-years-old now. And critics, at least, were rather psyched about Heaven's Gate disastrous release back in 1980. We just all have more access to more info now, so we have more opportunities for schadenfreude.


----------



## payn (Apr 7, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Right, but, again, something being a flop doesn't seem relevant to its quality, to me. Some of my favorite movies were flops, and arguably some of the most beloved books were commercial failures during the writers' lifetimes.
> 
> But I don't think I agree about cheering a movie's failure being new. Waterworld's going on 27-years-old now. And critics, at least, were rather psyched about Heaven's Gate disastrous release back in 1980. We just all have more access to more info now, so we have more opportunities for schadenfreude.



My memory could certainly be fuzzy. I recall people being amazed at the gossip and story around Waterworld. Folks seem giddy about flops these days but maybe its always been that way?

*I meant both financial flop and poor quality indication.


----------



## Storyteller Hero (Apr 7, 2022)

It's worth noting that a movie becoming a flop is not unrelated to its quality, since word of mouth from people who actually watch the movie is a big driver of ticket sales.

Different people will have different points of view and different preferences for what they want from the movie-going experience.

No movie will ever please everyone, but the ones that hit enough buttons to reach critical mass with audiences tend to be objectively better overall.

In the modern era of media, people can just wait for movies to show up on their streaming services now, so movie productions need to do better, hire better people, learn from past mistakes, etc. --- it's a good thing for the movie-goer if a movie that isn't up to par for its budget tier flops at the box office since that'll hopefully pressure studio execs to hire based on actual skill and talent over favors and political agendas.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 7, 2022)

Storyteller Hero said:


> It's worth noting that a movie becoming a flop is not unrelated to its quality, since word of mouth from people who actually watch the movie is a big driver of ticket sales.
> 
> Different people will have different points of view and different preferences for what they want from the movie-going experience.
> 
> ...



However, by the same token, there are a lot of "cult classics" that did terribly in the box office, but have since become highly acclaimed in their own right.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 7, 2022)

Storyteller Hero said:


> It's worth noting that a movie becoming a flop is not unrelated to its quality, since word of mouth from people who actually watch the movie is a big driver of ticket sales.
> 
> Different people will have different points of view and different preferences for what they want from the movie-going experience.
> 
> ...




I wish I agreed, because that would mean box office numbers (or ratings, or whatever else indicates financial success) are the result of a meritocracy, and that word of mouth is as powerful as we'd like it to be. But in the same year that Blade Runner 2049 flopped, the live-action Beauty and the Beast made half a billion dollars in the U.S. alone. Whatever one thinks about BR2049, at least it still gets discussed, and audiences are still reevaluating it. Meanwhile, the live action Beauty and the Beast was a cultural fart in the wind. I keep forgetting it ever happened.

That same year there _was_ a massive word-of-mouth success story: Get Out. But that movie was lightning in a bottle, that no one predicted, and its $176M made it a smash success no matter how low its budget was. Meanwhile, word of mouth and critical acclaim didn't pull Atomic Blonde or Lady Bird or tons of other well-received movies to anywhere near the same dizzying heights as Get Out. Are those movies worse than the better-performing Sully or Daddy's Home 2, or even less-talked-about at the time?

I don't think so, but it's all subjective, if you want it to be.


----------



## trappedslider (Apr 7, 2022)

so, how about episodes 7-9 of Star Wars?


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 7, 2022)

Objectively terrible if you're a "true fan".  Entertaining if you're a "normal fan".  Very entertaining if you're a "mild fan" or "someone who went to see it because it's part 7-9 so it must be good".

Doesn't matter how good or bad it was, it still made Disney money.  Just...not *all* the money, which is the only metric for success in corporate land.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 7, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> so, how about episodes 7-9 of Star Wars?




I like the one with the Ewoks and the photon torpedoes!


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 7, 2022)

Battle for Endor?  Nobody likes Battle for Endor, I call foul!


----------



## Bolares (Apr 7, 2022)

The only good Star wars film is the Han Solo one!


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 7, 2022)

I don't know, how could it be better than Caravan of Courage?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 7, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I don't know, how could it be better than Caravan of Courage?




HOLIDAY SPECIAL ....






FTW!


_when they said, "Let it snow," they weren't talking 'bout no precipitation. _


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> HOLIDAY SPECIAL ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There was a time when Lucasfilm lawyers would have crashed through your window the moment you posted that.

Wait...I just realized it still isn't on Disney+. 

Look out!!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 7, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> There was a time when Lucasfilm lawyers would have crashed through your window the moment you posted that.
> 
> Wait...I just realized it still isn't on Disney+.
> 
> Look out!!




Oh, I'm not worried. Disney is known for being warm and cuddly and not being overly protective of their IP!


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, I'm not worried. Disney is known for being warm and cuddly and not being overly protective of their IP!




Tell me about it. And I love that mouse-shaped laser-dot inching toward your forehead! Very fetch.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 7, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Tell me about it. And I love that mouse-shaped laser-dot inching toward your forehead! Very fetch.




There can be only one IP in charge at Disney. And he lets you know.


----------



## payn (Apr 7, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I wish I agreed, because that would mean box office numbers (or ratings, or whatever else indicates financial success) are the result of a meritocracy, and that word of mouth is as powerful as we'd like it to be. But in the same year that Blade Runner 2049 flopped, the live-action Beauty and the Beast made half a billion dollars in the U.S. alone. Whatever one thinks about BR2049, at least it still gets discussed, and audiences are still reevaluating it. Meanwhile, the live action Beauty and the Beast was a cultural fart in the wind. I keep forgetting it ever happened.
> 
> That same year there _was_ a massive word-of-mouth success story: Get Out. But that movie was lightning in a bottle, that no one predicted, and its $176M made it a smash success no matter how low its budget was. Meanwhile, word of mouth and critical acclaim didn't pull Atomic Blonde or Lady Bird or tons of other well-received movies to anywhere near the same dizzying heights as Get Out. Are those movies worse than the better-performing Sully or Daddy's Home 2, or even less-talked-about at the time?
> 
> I don't think so, but it's all subjective, if you want it to be.



There are a lot of dimensions at play when evaluating a film. Financial success, cultural success, artistic success, etc... You may not think much of_ Get Out, _but it hit more of these dimensions than _Atomic Blonde_ did.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 7, 2022)

payn said:


> There are a lot of dimensions at play when evaluating a film. Financial success, cultural success, artistic success, etc... You may not think much of_ Get Out, _but it hit more of these dimensions than _Atomic Blonde_ did.



"Get Out" was a racial and cultural touchstone.
"Atomic Blonde" was another in a long line of hot woman action movies.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 7, 2022)

What's wrong with hot women action movies again?


----------



## payn (Apr 7, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> What's wrong with hot women action movies again?



Nothing. They rarely if ever push the critical boundaries of film, impact our culture, and make beau coup bucks though. (Same with beefcake men action movies)


----------



## ART! (Apr 8, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Objectively terrible if you're a "true fan".  Entertaining if you're a "normal fan".  Very entertaining if you're a "mild fan" or "someone who went to see it because it's part 7-9 so it must be good".



[assumes this is a joke and moves on]


----------



## LongTimeLurker (Apr 8, 2022)

Well, I agree Morbius is DOA. But I think it's  because it's  an awful movie as opposed to it being buried by Sonic or whatever.

Edit: Also, it wouldn't  surprise me that when this movie is finished bombing, that's IT for the Shared Spiderman Universe or whatever Sony's calling their MCU adjacent ripoff.


----------



## LongTimeLurker (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Willem Dafoe is ALWAYS excellent!
> 
> A movie without Dafoe is like John Wick without a high fatality count. What's the point?



Throw Momma From the Train begs to disagree


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

LongTimeLurker said:


> Well, I agree Morbius is DOA. But I think it's  because it's  an awful movie as opposed to it being buried by Sonic or whatever.
> 
> Edit: Also, it wouldn't  surprise me that when this movie is finished bombing, that's IT for the Shared Spiderman Universe or whatever Sony's calling their MCU adjacent ripoff.



Oh I'm sure more Venom is on the way.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> What's wrong with hot women action movies again?



Nothing, but they neither break new ground, nor generally make any sort of momentous cultural impact.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

payn said:


> There are a lot of dimensions at play when evaluating a film. Financial success, cultural success, artistic success, etc... You may not think much of_ Get Out, _but it hit more of these dimensions than _Atomic Blonde_ did.




There's no multiverse in which I'm saying I like Atomic Blonde more or as much as Get Out. My point is that word of mouth is mostly a non-factor now, and in any given year it's really only helped maybe one or two movies. For example, The Others famously opened weak but became a box office hit over an incredibly long period, solely because of word of mouth. But word of mouth didn't appear to play a major part in other movies that year, and more often makes something a cult classic long after audiences blinked and missed it.

So it's not some ever-present element. It's once in a while, and seems to usually matter more for lower-budget movies than for blockbusters.

But to get out of the weeds here, my point is really that there's just no quantifying quality based on box office. That doesn't work. The only thing you can maybe associate box office with is mass appeal, but even then the marketing is a non-quality-related factor, so are the competing movies in the same opening weekend, whether it's R-rated (keeping a lot of the younger, walk-in "let's just go to any movie" audience out), etc.

Or, put another way

The Last Temptation of Christ made $33.8M when it opened in 1988.

The Passion of the Christ made $612M in 2004.

Adjusting for inflation, Last Temptation still only made about $54M in 2004 dollars.

If you want to argue that box office is an indicator of _quality_, not a whole slew of other business decisions and random factors, I'd love to hear how the numbers show that Mel Gibson's blatantly anti-semitic and ultraviolent vanity project--whose marketing efforts included helping evangelical communities organize bus trips for parishioners to see the movie en masse--is clearly a better movie than Scorsese's.


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> There's no multiverse in which I'm saying I like Atomic Blonde more or as much as Get Out. My point is that word of mouth is mostly a non-factor now, and in any given year it's really only helped maybe one or two movies. For example, The Others famously opened weak but became a box office hit over an incredibly long period, solely because of word of mouth. But word of mouth didn't appear to play a major part in other movies that year, and more often makes something a cult classic long after audiences blinked and missed it.
> 
> So it's not some ever-present element. It's once in a while, and seems to usually matter more for lower-budget movies than for blockbusters.
> 
> ...



Im not saying, nor have said, that box office is an indicator of quality. I said its one of many factors that can help evaluate quality.  I'd point to old Mel's example there as a cultural impact that gave the film some legs. I cant really speak to either film's quality because I haven't seen them. Though, I would consider seeing them because they both hit financially, and culturally. I may not like the content, but I can expect that these films were executed well. I dont expect them to be good just because they made money alone.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

payn said:


> Im not saying, nor have said, that box office is an indicator of quality. I said its one of many factors that can help evaluate quality.  I'd point to old Mel's example there as a cultural impact that gave the film some legs. I cant really speak to either film's quality because I haven't seen them. Though, I would consider seeing them because they both hit financially, and culturally. I may not like the content, but I can expect that these films were executed well. I dont expect them to be good just because they made money alone.




Despite its small budget, Last Temptation is not considered to have "hit financially." It's considered a flop, especially given how much press it got from high-publicity protests by religious groups, which didn't translate to the sort of success that other "banned" art sometimes receives.

So does that mean it loses a key factor that would appear to elevate its quality? Or is box office just box office, running parallel to quality, but inexplicably tied to our sense that whatever or whoever makes a bunch of money probably deserved to?

Maybe you'd make an exception and see Last Temptation anyway, based purely on cultural impact. But now it's another exception to the rule, yet another flop that somehow beat the odds and is widely considered high quality, same as Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, Fight Club, It's a Wonderful Life, Shawshank Redeption, and so on. So at what point does financial success reasonably fall out of the discussion of quality entirely?


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Despite its small budget, Last Temptation is not considered to have "hit financially." It's considered a flop, especially given how much press it got from high-publicity protests by religious groups, which didn't translate to the sort of success that other "banned" art sometimes receives.
> 
> So does that mean it loses a key factor that would appear to elevate its quality? Or is box office just box office, running parallel to quality, but inexplicably tied to our sense that whatever or whoever makes a bunch of money probably deserved to?
> 
> Maybe you'd make an exception and see Last Temptation anyway, based purely on cultural impact. But now it's another exception to the rule, yet another flop that somehow beat the odds and is widely considered high quality, same as Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, Fight Club, It's a Wonderful Life, Shawshank Redeption, and so on. So at what point does financial success reasonably fall out of the discussion of quality entirely?



Hard to say. I suppose after you have actually seen for yourself the product? The financial piece is just the tip of the iceberg and thus has the most visibility and gets a disproportionate amount of attention.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

payn said:


> Hard to say. I suppose after you have actually seen for yourself the product? The financial piece is just the tip of the iceberg and thus has the most visibility and gets a disproportionate amount of attention.




Definitely agree about the disproportionate part. But I also don't think that every movie is a complete mystery. To me that's like thinking you're as likely to find a book you'll like by blindly grabbing something off the bookstore shelf, rather than going with a writer you're already into, or someone they recommend. Likewise, if you love a director they probably aren't going to make a movie you find completely terrible. A screenwriter whose movies you've liked is another signal (if maybe a weaker one, since their contributions can be overridden by virtually anyone on or off set). Apologies if this is coming across as condescending--just giving examples of things I think are much better (but still not perfect) indicators of quality.

But I also put a lot of stock in certain film critics, especially when it comes to movies from filmmakers without a track record. And if there's one pretty consistent through-line on this forum when it comes to movies and TV, it's that critics are a bunch of fun-hating eggheads who are out of touch with the rest of us. Never mind when those same critics champion stuff that's totally low-brow and bonkers, because how dare they give a Marvel movie a B instead of an A++++++++++!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> But I also put a lot of stock in certain film critics, especially when it comes to movies from filmmakers without a track record. And if there's one pretty consistent through-line on this forum when it comes to movies and TV, it's that critics are a bunch of fun-hating eggheads who are out of touch with the rest of us. Never mind when those same critics champion stuff that's totally low-brow and bonkers, because how dare they give a Marvel movie a B instead of an A++++++++++!




There is a weird undercurrent of anti-intellectualism when it comes to certain topics (like cinema) on the forum.

Which, given the forum's organizing purpose, seems .... interesting.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 8, 2022)

We're fantasy gamers!  Critics have almost always despised any movie we like!  It should come as no surprise that we don't particularly care for their opinions.


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Definitely agree about the disproportionate part. But I also don't think that every movie is a complete mystery. To me that's like thinking you're as likely to find a book you'll like by blindly grabbing something off the bookstore shelf, rather than going with a writer you're already into, or someone they recommend. Likewise, if you love a director they probably aren't going to make a movie you find completely terrible. A screenwriter whose movies you've liked is another signal (if maybe a weaker one, since their contributions can be overridden by virtually anyone on or off set). Apologies if this is coming across as condescending--just giving examples of things I think are much better (but still not perfect) indicators of quality.



I am talking in generalities, not specifically myself. Questions posed earlier were asked why_ people_ recognize certain movies over others and why they care about financial info and such. I think you keep focusing on the financial piece and disregard my comments about critical review, cultural impact, etc..


Grendel_Khan said:


> But I also put a lot of stock in certain film critics, especially when it comes to movies from filmmakers without a track record. And if there's one pretty consistent through-line on this forum when it comes to movies and TV, it's that critics are a bunch of fun-hating eggheads who are out of touch with the rest of us. Never mind when those same critics champion stuff that's totally low-brow and bonkers, because how dare they give a Marvel movie a B instead of an A++++++++++!



I agree with this. Folks get pissed because popular movies that are not good get the appropriate critical response. For them, the cultural impact and experience overrides the critical response. They are also likely to point to financial numbers as support for their position. Ultimately, its a matter of taste and method of evaluating a film. Critics understand the nuances of creating the work and have the experience and background to critique. Fans often have their own criteria and an emotional component that can lead to entirely different conclusions.


----------



## Gradine (Apr 8, 2022)

I will still always appreciate Roger Ebert's review of The Mummy ('99):
"There is hardly a thing I can say in its favor, except that I was cheered by nearly every minute of it. I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting or even the mummy, but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased. There is a little immaturity stuck away in the crannies of even the most judicious of us, and we should treasure it."


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is a weird undercurrent of anti-intellectualism when it comes to certain topics (like cinema) on the forum.
> 
> Which, given the forum's organizing purpose, seems .... interesting.



I dont think its any different than the culture at large. Unless I go specifically to a cinephile site, most film talk these days has been engulfed with populist screw the critic takes.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 8, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I will still always appreciate Roger Ebert's review of The Mummy ('99):
> "There is hardly a thing I can say in its favor, except that I was cheered by nearly every minute of it. I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting or even the mummy, but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased. There is a little immaturity stuck away in the crannies of even the most judicious of us, and we should treasure it."



I do miss Roger Ebert's perspective and voice sometimes. And this is an excellent example of one of those times.


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I will still always appreciate Roger Ebert's review of The Mummy ('99):
> "There is hardly a thing I can say in its favor, except that I was cheered by nearly every minute of it. I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting or even the mummy, but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased. There is a little immaturity stuck away in the crannies of even the most judicious of us, and we should treasure it."



That was about the time film started heading into what I call the amusement park ride experience. It doesn't matter if its well written or executed finely, what matters is that its a fun way to kill a few hours and keeps folks attention. I think thats just fine for the purpose of a movie, though it still has to be fun to watch.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 8, 2022)

payn said:


> I dont think its any different than the culture at large. Unless I go specifically to a cinephile site, most film talk these days has been engulfed with populist screw the critic takes.




Interesting in that, for the most part, the TTRPG community has been different than the culture at large ... and certainly not populist nor anti-intellectual.

We have met the enemy and he is us.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> But I also put a lot of stock in certain film critics, especially when it comes to movies from filmmakers without a track record. And if there's one pretty consistent through-line on this forum when it comes to movies and TV, it's that critics are a bunch of fun-hating eggheads who are out of touch with the rest of us. Never mind when those same critics champion stuff that's totally low-brow and bonkers, because how dare they give a Marvel movie a B instead of an A++++++++++!




Honestly, I'm at least consistent: critics as a set don't really tell me a thing about whether I'll like a given movie (neither do the populace as a set).  The best I've been able to determine is if both the critics and the viewers as a set think something is bad, its best to stay away; but I like plenty of movies a majority of critics hate, and at least some movies that the critics liked and the viewers as a whole were "meh" about.


----------



## Gradine (Apr 8, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I do miss Roger Ebert's perspective and voice sometimes. And this is an excellent example of one of those times.



Man was an excellent film critic, even when I disagreed with him. Shame about his massive blind spot for interactive storytelling as art


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 8, 2022)

Ebert was a critic who 'got' why people go to see movies, even if they were bad from a critical perspective.  The man loved Star Wars, how can you go wrong?





__





						Star Wars movie review & film summary (1977) | Roger Ebert
					

Every once in a while I have what I think of as an out-of-the-body experience at a movie. When the ESP people use a phrase like that, they're referring to the sensation of the mind actually leaving the body and spiriting itself off to China or Peoria or a galaxy far, far away. When I use the...




					www.rogerebert.com


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

payn said:


> That was about the time film started heading into what I call the amusement park ride experience. It doesn't matter if its well written or executed finely, what matters is that its a fun way to kill a few hours and keeps folks attention. I think thats just fine for the purpose of a movie, though it still has to be fun to watch.



Careful, you're steering right into Scorsese's blasphemous MCU-as-amusement-park-ride comment, which is probably the most accurate thing anyone's ever said about the MCU, from someone who's about as far from being a snob as any well-known director could be.

And I'm sorry for minimizing your take on non-financial factors in movies. I was just trying to tear that one bit to shreds, to be honest, since I personally don't think it belongs in the movie-quality calculus, and feeds into the exact kind of anti-intellectual takes we're now talking about.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There is a weird undercurrent of anti-intellectualism when it comes to certain topics (like cinema) on the forum.
> 
> Which, given the forum's organizing purpose, seems .... interesting.



Well there's anti-intellectualism, and then there's dislike for movies that treat the audience as beneath the auteur. I like amovie that makes me think, but ultimately they are a form of entertainment. I'm not5 looking for something that will require a 10,000 word essay to unpack.

As an example in college I took a couple of film courses. Despite being an introvert I seemed to be the only person who would speak up in class, without being singled out by the instructor. As a result he started turning to me for commentary immediately after films had finished running. After "La Strada" finished he turned up the lights, asked, "So what did you think of it?", then looked directly at me. My response: "I thought it was <insert word for excrement>."

We also watched all 17 episodes of "The Prisoner" for that class, so it wasn't a complete loss.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Interesting in that, for the most part, the TTRPG community has been different than the culture at large ... and certainly not populist nor anti-intellectual.
> 
> We have met the enemy and he is us.




It seems like the sense that there's a mini culture war between film critics and nerd culture isn't going anywhere. Definitely a bummer for lots of reasons, but now that nerd culture is the dominant strain in all pop culture there are a lot of opportunities for us nerds to be aggrieved. And again, when nerd culture properties get critical acclaim, apparently that doesn't factor in. But when the critics come for Snyder? Let's kick some ass in super slo mo!

I also kind of love it, though. Very exciting to see people beclown themselves talking about Scorsese only doing gangster movies.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Well there's anti-intellectualism, and then there's dislike for movies that treat the audience as beneath the auteur. I like amovie that makes me think, but ultimately they are a form of entertainment. I'm not5 looking for something that will require a 10,000 word essay to unpack.










There's nothing wrong with watching something for entertainment; there is something distinctly wrong with characterizing film that is "going for more" as treating the audience poorly.

Look, like what you like. But if someone tells me that paintings are just purty decorations, and anyone who doesn't love them all the Thomas Kinkade, because all those difficult artists don't care about the audience ... eh. That's anti-intellectual. You don't have to partake in something. You don't have to like it. But to disparage because it's trying for more isn't my cup of tea.


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Careful, you're steering right into Scorsese's blasphemous MCU-as-amusement-park-ride comment, which is probably the most accurate thing anyone's ever said about the MCU, from someone who's about as far from being a snob as any well-known director could be.
> 
> And I'm sorry for minimizing your take on non-financial factors in movies. I was just trying to tear that one bit to shreds, to be honest, since I personally don't think it belongs in the movie-quality calculus, and feeds into the exact kind of anti-intellectual takes we're now talking about.



It's all good. I might agree (partially) with Marty on his MCU take, but I also think he is quite overrated himself. There are two sides to the critical coin, movies are an experience and they can just be fun. I think the Ebert quotes are pointing to that and wish more critics weighed the experience with the critical eye. Everything doesn't have to be so divisive, but as they say, misery loves company.    



> It seems like the sense that there's a mini culture war between film critics and nerd culture isn't going anywhere. Definitely a bummer for lots of reasons, but now that nerd culture is the dominant strain in all pop culture there are a lot of opportunities for us nerds to be aggrieved. And again, when nerd culture properties get critical acclaim, apparently that doesn't factor in. But when the critics come for Snyder? Let's kick some ass in super slo mo!
> 
> I also kind of love it, though. Very exciting to see people beclown themselves talking about Scorsese only doing gangster movies.



I think Marty and a lot of film folks are missing the forest for the trees here. That old cultural cinematic experience that sets the standards and pushes the boundaries has moved onto the little screen. Cinema is not dead, it's a live and well in the series today!


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> There's nothing wrong with watching something for entertainment; there is something distinctly wrong with characterizing film that is "going for more" as treating the audience poorly.
> 
> Look, like what you like. But if someone tells me that paintings are just purty decorations, and anyone who doesn't love them all the Thomas Kinkade, because all those difficult artists don't care about the audience ... eh. That's anti-intellectual. You don't have to partake in something. You don't have to like it. But to disparage because it's trying for more isn't my cup of tea.



You seem to be creating a rather sharp line of demarcation. There's a huge palate between "mindless fun" and "intellectually engaging." I watch a movie to be entertained and to be made to think, to varying degrees, at various times. What I don't like is when a movie seems to be looking down its nose at me, telling me that I'm not smart enough for it. Maybe I'm not? Maybe it's just pseudo-intellectual crap?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> You seem to be creating a rather sharp line of demarcation. There's a huge palate between "mindless fun" and "intellectually engaging." I watch a movie to be entertained and to be made to think, to varying degrees, at various times. What I don't like is when a movie seems to be looking down its nose at me, telling me that I'm not smart enough for it. Maybe I'm not? Maybe it's just pseudo-intellectual crap?




Ugh. No. I'm not trying to be argumentative or dismissive, but that's the rallying cry of anti-intellectualism.

_It's not my fault I'm not engaged with that. It's because of those snobby smarty pants that are looking down on me!_

I just watched _Drive My Car _last night. It was a great film. It was based off of a Murakami short story. It has a very strong through-line to Chekhov and Uncle Vanya. It's three hours long. But it's not "pseudo-intellectual crap." 

Making movies ... it's hard. You know that (I know you do). The people that do that aren't doing it because they are "looking down" on an audience- it's because they are trying to communicate something. Sure, maybe it's, "Look at all these 'sposions! Pay me some money!" But sometimes it's personal. It's meaningful. 

It's not pseudo-intellectual crap to them. If you don't want to engage with it, because you want to watch the gladiators off each other, cool for you! Really. Sometimes that's all I want in life, too. But sometimes I do want to be challenged. I do want to be forced to think. I do want to engage beyond the surface level. And that's good too.


----------



## James Gasik (Apr 8, 2022)

Well yeah, even if we go into the summer blockbuster knowing we'll be entertained by the same old same old for the thousandth time, we can still agree that Michael Bay is the worst thing ever.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Ugh. No. I'm not trying to be argumentative or dismissive, but that's the rallying cry of anti-intellectualism.
> 
> _It's not my fault I'm not engaged with that. It's because of those snobby smarty pants that are looking down on me!_
> 
> ...



As do I. I enjoy films that engage my intellect. I enjoy films that discuss the nature of being. I don't need action in order to enjoy a film and am the only person I know who enjoyed the film "GATTACA." Many of my friends jokingly ask me, "Which Kurosawa film did _THIS_ movie rip off?" To me, there just seems to be a class of film makers who are making their movies for a very specific and narrow audience of navel gazers, though. That's not me.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well yeah, even if we go into the summer blockbuster knowing we'll be entertained by the same old same old for the thousandth time, we can still agree that Michael Bay is the worst thing ever.



"OK, which robot's foot was _THAT?_"


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> You seem to be creating a rather sharp line of demarcation. There's a huge palate between "mindless fun" and "intellectually engaging." I watch a movie to be entertained and to be made to think, to varying degrees, at various times. What I don't like is when a movie seems to be looking down its nose at me, telling me that I'm not smart enough for it. Maybe I'm not? Maybe it's just pseudo-intellectual crap?




This really reads to me like the textbook definition of anti-intellectualism, which is a term that's needlessly charged--sure sounds like being called dumb. But I don't think that's what anti-intellectualism is about. It's more complex, but it some ways it comes down to a pretty simple question: Why would any piece of art make you feel defensive, or attacked? If you don't like it, you don't like it. No one's required to like a French New Wave movie because critics have written a million books about it, just like you aren't required to like James Joyce novels. Literally no art is telling you that, if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it. 

Take David Lynch, for example. A lot of people find his movies awful, just try-hard nonsense arthouse puzzles that are missing most of the pieces. But he's said himself that his work isn't really supposed to make sense. It's abstract. It's expressionistic. It's weird as hell. And there's usually nothing to "get," except the associations you bring to it. You like it or you don't.

But here's my main issue feeling defensive or attacked by so-called intellectual art: All it does is risk limiting the art you consume. Because the people who are digging into those high-fallutin' movies are also watching The Real Housewives or Daredevil or Jackass Forever. Now imagine if those pointy-headed arthouse enjoyers felt looked down on by popular entertainment, that anytime they weren't into a mainstream show or movie it's because the people making it despised them? They'd be missing out.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Well yeah, even if we go into the summer blockbuster knowing we'll be entertained by the same old same old for the thousandth time, we can still agree that Michael Bay is the worst thing ever.




Don't sleep on Pain & Gain though. That movie rocks.


----------



## Hex08 (Apr 8, 2022)

I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.

Anti-intellectualism, as I understand it and simply put, is the distrust or denigration of facts and experts. Yes, anti-intellectualism is common in the U.S. (I won't give examples because we can start treading on politically or religiously sensitive topics even though they should not be) and elsewhere. Are movie critics generally experts in the field they are engaging in? One of my interests is science and if you want science news that is trustworthy and accurate you have to avoid traditional media and visit sites (or listen to/watch programing) dedicated to the topic. This is because traditional media no longer, generally, employs science reporters. Instead, regular reporters who don't have the background or education to understand what they are reporting on are tasked with a story and they tend to be really bad at it.

Critics can be found all across different forms of media, how do I know that if I'm not reading a cinephile website that the critic knows his job? How many of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes only got their job because the local paper they started out at needed someone to fill the role regardless of qualifications? If the critics that are being railed against are truly experts, then maybe accusations of anti-intellectualism are appropriate (although probably not an effective way of winning people to your point of view), if they are not....

_"I don't know if it's art, but I know I like it." Walt Disney_


----------



## Thomas Shey (Apr 8, 2022)

My own feeling is, honestly, that I judge a movie (like most other things) on two grounds:
1. Does it speak to me in some fashion?  That doesn't actually say whether its thoughtful or thoughtless, because of the appeal of some movies isn't the same as others; but I can have both emotion-grabbing (whether by be an action movie or by playing to my softer emotions) and intellectually stimulating movies that do or don't work for me, and it isn't always about the quality of the film.
2. Does it do what it seems to want to do?  To some extent I'll judge a movie by how well it seems to meet its own expectations, even if those expectations aren't mine.  This can sometimes be tricky, of course, as subversive movie making is a thing, and its possible to be oblivious to the other side of a movie doing two things at once (though I know there's distinctly mixed feelings about it, Besson's _Lucy_ is a movie you have to really look at from both ends at once or it will absolutely be disappointing).  I'm prone to looking far more negatively at a film that seems to fail at what its trying to do, more than a film that succeeds (as best I can tell) at doing something I'm not interested in.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Yeah, just realized I should have clarified--by easy to hate, I mean I definitely hate him. (And his dumb band)



What!? You hate “What If Five Finger Death Punch Was Really Pretentious” The Band!?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.
> 
> Anti-intellectualism, as I understand it and simply put, is the distrust or denigration of facts and experts. Yes, anti-intellectualism is common in the U.S. (I won't give examples because we can start treading on politically or religiously sensitive topics even though they should not be) and elsewhere. Are movie critics generally experts in the field they are engaging in? One of my interests is science and if you want science news that is trustworthy and accurate you have to avoid traditional media and visit sites (or listen to/watch programing) dedicated to the topic. This is because traditional media no longer, generally, employs science reporters. Instead, regular reporters who don't have the background or education to understand what they are reporting on are tasked with a story and they tend to be really bad at it.
> 
> ...



I’ve read a lot of HL Mencken, and it seems to me that critics have always tended toward the casual snobbery of expertise and self importance, but not quite as much as thier general reputation would suggest.  

But in a lot of cases, critics are “wrong” simply because they are judging a work as much for its adherence to a technical and methodological “canon” as for its efficacy.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.




Just like there are no credentials for making a movie, there aren't any for critiquing them. In practice it's really just--are you a good writer? And even that's debatable--IGN or Screenrant want someone who's fast, and maybe deft at clickbaity takes, not necessarily a wordsmith.

To me, a good critic is anyone whose perspective and writing you find interesting. That's it. Doesn't have to be someone you always agree with, or who's at a fancy outlet, and definitely shouldn't be someone whose university transcript you've scrutinized. I mentioned Matt Zoller Seitz upthread, who's definitely one of my favorites. I credit him with getting me to watch Annihilation during its tragically short, studio-hobbled theatrical run. MZS was a fanatic for that movie from his first screening, would write and tweet about it constantly, organized random groups to go watch it in NYC and get together afterward at a restaurant to discuss. I saw it in an empty theater the last week it was out, and it just about changed my life. I would have seen it and loved it on the small screen, but I would have absolutely kicked myself forever for missing out on watching it in that environment.

Priscilla Page is another great critic, and one that totally dismantles the straw man of critics as populist-hating snobs. She writes brilliant essays about John Wick and Michael Mann and car chases in general but also Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. After the 20th time she called the straight-to-video movie Avengement her favorite action movie (or something like that ) I finally watched it, and it's incredible! It's also the least "deep" or snobby, most gleefully pulp-trashy movie I've seen in years. 

Great critics are worth their weight in gold, if nothing else because of the stuff they champion, in part because they do approach lots of films with intellectualism, including and especially the ones that aren't embraced by mainstream audiences or the arthouse crowd.

(Seriously, though, Avengement is great)


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Apr 8, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve read a lot of HL Mencken, and it seems to me that critics have always tended toward the casual snobbery of expertise and self importance, but not quite as much as thier general reputation would suggest.
> 
> But in a lot of cases, critics are “wrong” simply because they are judging a work as much for its adherence to a technical and methodological “canon” as for its efficacy.




I think this was true at some point, but film and TV criticism has aged out of that kind of default stodginess. When you have critics writing lovingly about video nasties and sticking movies like Peter Jackson's Dead Alive on Best Of lists, the bow ties and cuff links have largely come undone.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 8, 2022)

There's a funny meme that talks about Jered Leto being in both Marvel AND DC's "worst movie".

I have no idea how bad Morbius is, but I would argue that Suicide Squad is no where near DC's worst movie. C'mon, there's Catwoman (among many others).

Also... are they counting Elektra when they talk about Marvel? 

How far back are they going?


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> This really reads to me like the textbook definition of anti-intellectualism, which is a term that's needlessly charged--sure sounds like being called dumb. But I don't think that's what anti-intellectualism is about. It's more complex, but it some ways it comes down to a pretty simple question: Why would any piece of art make you feel defensive, or attacked? If you don't like it, you don't like it. No one's required to like a French New Wave movie because critics have written a million books about it, just like you aren't required to like James Joyce novels. Literally no art is telling you that, if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it.
> 
> Take David Lynch, for example. A lot of people find his movies awful, just try-hard nonsense arthouse puzzles that are missing most of the pieces. But he's said himself that his work isn't really supposed to make sense. It's abstract. It's expressionistic. It's weird as hell. And there's usually nothing to "get," except the associations you bring to it. You like it or you don't.
> 
> But here's my main issue feeling defensive or attacked by so-called intellectual art: All it does is risk limiting the art you consume. Because the people who are digging into those high-fallutin' movies are also watching The Real Housewives or Daredevil or Jackass Forever. Now imagine if those pointy-headed arthouse enjoyers felt looked down on by popular entertainment, that anytime they weren't into a mainstream show or movie it's because the people making it despised them? They'd be missing out.



OK, call it whatever you like then. I like some Lynch. For example I really enjoyed "Twin Peaks." Hell, I've even been to where it was shot. "Mulholland Drive"? "Eraserhead"? "Lost Highway"? Sure. Some of it, yeah, I guess "I just don't get." (Code for I didn't like it.) There's "Arthouse" and then there's "Pretentious." At least to me.


----------



## payn (Apr 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> OK, call it whatever you like then. I like some Lynch. For example I really enjoyed "Twin Peaks." Hell, I've even been to where it was shot. "Mulholland Drive"? "Eraserhead"? "Lost Highway"? Sure. Some of it, yeah, I guess "I just don't get." (Code for I didn't like it.) There's "Arthouse" and then there's "Pretentious." At least to me.


----------



## GreyLord (Apr 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> We also watched all 17 episodes of "The Prisoner" for that class, so it wasn't a complete loss.




People talk about shows that leave them regretting watching it or raging over how it treated them (ala...game of thrones, lost).

Some stick with you for DECADES after, the horror is real.

The Prisoner (if it is the one I am thinking of) was great at first...but that end...that end...oh gosh...that end.  Nothing has made one want to rage at the uselessness of the writing at the end...

I'd consider it the biggest loss of the class if you watched the last episode...because...no rage is like the rage of the unrequited lover.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 8, 2022)

Moved to "General Movie Discussion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I think this was true at some point, but film and TV criticism has aged out of that kind of default stodginess. When you have critics writing lovingly about video nasties and sticking movies like Peter Jackson's Dead Alive on Best Of lists, the bow ties and cuff links have largely come undone.



Snobbery and stodginess are often overlapping, but they are distinct and separate traits. A lot of snobbery in the year 2022 is not at all related to bow ties and cuff links. I would say that it's been at least a solid 20 years since art snobs were primarily particularly "stodgy" types. 

The snobs of today grew up listing to Nirvana, as much as Bach, but they're no less elitist snobs. They've just changed the definitions and aesthetics to fit their own nostalgia. But it's just as much about adherence to technical and aesthetic canon, and subjective preference presented as if objective analysis.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Apr 8, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Literally no art is telling you that, if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it.



No art is telling anyone that, maybe. (and that's a big maybe, because there absolutely is pretentious garbage out there that talks down to it's audience and is intentionally needlessly complex or technical in order to keep out the riff raff. Especially in music and film.) 

Plenty of people in discussions about art do. Hell, I've seen teachers of various types of creative work do it. 

Read 100 reddit discussions about art of any kind, and you'll see it in at least half of them.


----------



## wicked cool (Sep 14, 2022)

Just saw this on Netflix. Wasn’t horrible

Not sure why Leto gets so much hate? Did I miss something he did

Matt smith was a good bad guy

Jared Harris was in the movie but it felt like a wasted opportunity 

Al madrigal-wanted more of him in the movie. Never heard of him before

This should have been a direct to video/streaming movie. Other than the fancy purple/red slowmo it was a typical vampire tv/movie and nothing special. 200 million for what?


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 14, 2022)

wicked cool said:


> Just saw this on Netflix. Wasn’t horrible
> 
> Not sure why Leto gets so much hate? Did I miss something he did
> 
> ...



I don't really like the guy, as an actor, but much of the hate probably comes from how well publicize of a nightmare he is on-set. Sending dead rats to his co-stars on "Suicide Squad" for example.


----------



## Aeson (Sep 14, 2022)

I saw it on Netflix also. Seems like it would fit right in as a Netflix movie. Most of them were not very good either. I try to put my finger on why it was disappointing. I think the short run time is one. At the end I thought; This is it? I thought it was well acted with what little they had to work with. Matt Smith was good as the villain. Too bad there wasn't more for him to do. The Vulture showing up in the post credits, I guess that was to link it to Spiderman No Way Home? 

A thread 9 pages long, I skipped to the end and only read what was posted today. Some of what I say may have been discussed already.


----------



## Janx (Sep 14, 2022)

saw it on the 'flix the other night.

meh. The whole "need a ship in international waters with mafia guards" seemed contrived. Yes, they wanted to avoid legal consequences for doing human experimentation. But surely something less awkwardly done.

And Dr. Who turns evil. No way. totally didn't see that coming.

The whole whipity flippity movement was just weird. Bat's don't do that. Why would bat DNA do that? It's like they needed to borrow Spawn CGI because the studio said so.

Even the cutscene with Vulture was lame. Now he wants to be a good guy? And why him? It's like they latched onto MCU's thing and badly executed it.


----------



## Hex08 (Sep 15, 2022)

wicked cool said:


> Not sure why Leto gets so much hate? Did I miss something he did



I think it's because some "method" actors like Leto are often a pain to work with and their unwillingness to break character while on set is nightmare for everyone else.









						Why Jared Leto's Pee Breaks Caused Major Delays on Morbius Set
					

The director also tries to clear up confusion about THOSE post-credit scenes.




					toofab.com


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Sep 15, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I think it's because some "method" actors like Leto are often a pain to work with and their unwillingness to break character while on set is nightmare for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not sure sending used condoms to co-stars is considered method, especially since he did that when he wasn't even on set. Between those awful shenanigans and his culty weirdness and general dumb-guy vibe, I think he's about as hateable as it gets (without tipping into criminal territory).

And yet, I think he can be great at times, like in Blade Runner 2049, or even back in My So-Called Life. Actors are weirdos, sometimes for good, often for bad.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Sep 15, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Not sure sending used condoms to co-stars is considered method, especially since he did that when he wasn't even on set. Between those awful shenanigans and his culty weirdness and general dumb-guy vibe, I think he's about as hateable as it gets (without tipping into criminal territory).
> 
> And yet, I think he can be great at times, like in Blade Runner 2049, or even back in My So-Called Life. Actors are weirdos, sometimes for good, often for bad.




Honestly, I thought even his Joker was pretty good, just a version that we haven't seen for some time now (the malevolent theme gangster rather than the complete psycho).


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Sep 15, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Honestly, I thought even his Joker was pretty good, just a version that we haven't seen for some time now (the malevolent theme gangster rather than the complete psycho).




I really wanted to like his Joker in Suicide Squad, and I bet he could have done something interesting with better material. But what was there seemed pretty flat to me. What even were his distinctive traits? Just seemed as unhinged as any random meth-head.

And then those scenes in the Justice League Snyder Cut. Oh man. I genuinely liked that movie until those extra stinger scenes, especially his.


----------



## payn (Sep 15, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> And then those scenes in the Justice League Snyder Cut. Oh man. I genuinely liked that movie until those extra stinger scenes, especially his.



Those were the only scenes I really liked in the movie. I was hoping to get _that _movie at some point!


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 18, 2022)

Finally broke down and watched it, as it's basically available for pocket change. Pretty much met my expectations of a Jared Leto movie. Any emotion from his character was conveyed via the CGI, rather than his acting.


----------

