Gatsby77

I am. I think he's one of the top 5 directors working today - and he's crafted at least four stone-cold masterpieces. But I'll admit Insomnia was merely average - and Tenet was absolute mess.

To be fair, Tenet also had *even more* exposition than Eternals. They were both garbage films but I actually enjoyed Eternals more. And that says something.

I'm confused by some of the picks listed here. Like...Alien. James Cameron is on the record that Aliens is a reimagining of Alien as a war movie. And it worked. Ditto - Die Hard was amazing -- but Die Hard: With a Vengeance was too - and it was a reimagining of the original concept (Guy stuck in X vs. terrorists), because it moved McClane outdoors. It was also an adaptation of an unrelated spec -script called Simon Says that they then turned into a Die Hard film. Even Attack of the Killer Tomatoes - nobody asked for the 10-years-later sequel, Return of the Killer Tomatoes. But it holds up as just as much of a cult classic - and features a hilarious early George Clooney. Likewise...no one, literally no one, asked for a remake of West Side Story. But Spielberg's version is already widely considered the better movie. And I stand by Baz Luhrmann's crack- 90s reimagining of Romeo & Juliet over the (arguably classic) 1968 Zeffirelli version. The point? If done well, nearly anything can be remade or "reimagined" for the better.

Disagree. I saw nothing in Eternals that negates or is inconsistent with Ego also being a Celestial in GOTG Vol. 2.

Okay...finally finished. The good: Decent cast - although folks are correct. Kumail Nanjiani was the high point. And while I *really* liked Richard Madden in Bodyguard, his performance here was more inert - underwhelming. Points for the diverse representation - especially the portrayal as one character as incidentally gay and his kiss. I'm old enough to remember when Murphy Brown was almost cancelled because its primetime portrayal of an unwed single mother was seen as subverting "family values." That Disney now includes such a kiss in a kids movie shows how far U.S. society has come. Some interesting themes presented - and twists - both obvious and not. Loved the The bad: Overly long and too boring. Specifically: 40 minutes too long for no discernible reason. Could have cut two of the characters and tightened it up. The final battle hinged on the unimind, which seemed wholesale lifted from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers - even moreso given their different color costumes Humor didn't work the way it did in the Guardians of the Galaxy films. Just seemed forced here, tonally jarring to its detriment. This summation was perfect: Granted, the only Eternals comic I've read was the first Neil Gaiman-authored issue 15 years ago. Didn't care about the characters then - and having seen the movie, don't care about them now. On the one hand, I'm impressed that we're now so deeply into the MCU that Marvel can spend $200 million on a D-list set of characters that's never lasted more than 20 issues. But it's easy to see why this film was a failure - both critically panned and ignored by theatrical moviegoers. Kudos to the studio for taking such huge risks with this film. But dang, was it mediocre. I'd sooner re-watch Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance - or even the first two episodes of The Inhumans, than this one. Even BvS has scenes so laughably bad they're at least entertaining. Not so here. Grade: C.

I'm about 60% of the way through now (just over an hour left) ... and my god, is it a slog. Beautifully shot, some nice twists (so far) and credible work by the actors. But it's got far too much exposition. It's pretentious - which, in and itself, could be okay. But worst of all, it's *boring.* Even the worst comic book films are at least entertaining - I've re-watched Green Lantern and Ghost Rider - because, for all their flaws, they're *fun.* Hell - even Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance was fun - because Nicolas Cage & Idris Elba *knew* they were making trash, and reveled in it. And that one got bonus points from some Christopher Lambert (ahem - Highlander) stunt-casting. Unless something dramatically changes in the next hour, I won't be watching this again. And I'll be seriously questioning what the point of it all was.

I am a huge Jonah Hex fan. *Huge* Saw the movie in the theater and it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Stupid bad. Like: Easily Fassbender's worst performance Malkovich was horrible Megan Fox wasn't even believable as a prostitute It wasn't even bad enough to be ridiculously enjoyable, a la Ghost Rider or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (both of which I also saw in theater)

And - per the CinemaScore - audience rating is # 26 of 26 MCU.

This is nothing new that we didn't hear a week ago. In fact, it's almost the same quote. They're admitting it will lose money theatrically, but *eventually* make money via PVOD and lifetime (i.e., future) DVD sales, streaming licensing, etc.

? Nothing passive aggressive about it, my man. Just stating a fact: Suicide Squad made nearly as much its opening weekend - five years ago - as Eternals made in its first three weeks - in 2021 dollars.

Huh. So...in its first three weeks of release, Eternals did $10 million more than Suicide Squad did in just its opening weekend.

Fair point. But it's funny that for often you accuse others of "moving the goal posts" here you're doing the same - ignoring your longstanding apples-to-apples comparison of simply theatrical production costs to worldwide revenue to suddenly (when it suits your thesis) introducing things like marketing costs, DVD sales and product placements. So here, you're comparing apples to hand grenades. On the one hand, 1) This Bond film didn't need to make money. 16-month delay enabled Amazon to buy MGM - they're looking at the long-term profitability of the franchise, not No Time to Die alone 2) Yes - product placement revenue is likely significant (reports were $45 million for Skyfall). 3) The thrust of the Variety article is that - despite being the biggest global earner of the pandemic, the film will fail to break-even theatrically - no one's disputing it may eventually make a profit. On the other, 1) Like PVOD / DVD sales and merchandising revenue, in traditional shorthand break-even / profitability analysis, product placement is counted as off-set against marketing expense. So it's irrelevant vs. the production cost vs. theatrical take equation. 2) Nearly every film has significant product placement revenue - yet you yourself don't subtract that from your production multiples in your charts. Hell - I went to Audi's premiere party for Spider-Man: Far From Home. 3 weeks pre-release, open bar, goodie bags, etc. It was fun. Even personally knowing the product marketing team at VW and watching the film with them, I couldn't tell you how much they paid for product placements in Far From Home, Endgame, etc. 3) Not only were there reports of potential re-shoots because the original Nokia phones featured in the film were then 2+ years old by release, but much of the product placement revenue here was likely cancelled out by: 1) the interest cost on the 16-month delay and 2) The uncomfortable truth that the marketing campaign likely cost over $100 million - given that it started nearly two years before release - yes, the hard cost of trailers, posters, etc. don't change, but the bulk of marketing spend goes to distribution (TV air time, etc.). $100M would have been standard marketing spend for this film had it never been delayed. As it was, the multiple delays meant far more distribution spend than normal, as it was spread over years, particularly as the release date kept shifting.

The Hollywood Reporter quoted an (unnamed) source as saying interest expense was ~$1 million per month.

I'm confused. Are you arguing the film doesn't need to have hit ~$900M to break even theatrically? Or that production costs + interest delays didn't push the cost to $300M+ before marketing expenses? The Hollywood Reporter isn't a random internet tabloid - moreover, nothing in the (nearly year later) Variety piece contradicts it. "However, the movie cost more than $250 million to produce, at least $100 million to promote and tens of millions more to postpone over 16 months." When the best an unnamed MGM spokesperson can say is that PVOD sales and residuals will eventually push the film into the black, it definitionally means it didn't break even theatrically.

Ahh...that makes sense. I agree - I'd rather see a return to the standalone films that are closer in tone to From Russia With Love and Casino Royale than the weaker Craig entries you cited. Also - fun fact, per the novels the mandatory retirement age for a 00 is 45 years old.

Not the point. It cost - after interest expense due to repeated delays - more than $300M - plus marketing. - meaning it needed ~$900M to break even *theatrically* - which it won’t hit. Admitting you need to add in PVOD, DVD, or future streaming licensing to actually turn a profit = admitting you lost money theatrically.

Saw it, liked it. Exactly what you’d expect from the trailers and the personalities involved. Better than Bright, probably not as good as The Old Guard. I was impressed to see the writer/director was the same as Easy A.

Oh - hey. It's just Variety noting that the latest James Bond film was so expensive it needed ~$900 million for a theatrical break-even and won't hit that. May lose the studio close to $100 million, despite being the highest theatrical grosser of the year so far. Hmm... https://variety.com/2021/film/news/no-time-to-die-highest-grossing-movie-losing-money-blockbusters-1235111919/

? To me, the Craig Bonds were absolutely a return to the Connery/Dalton style -- a welcome breather after the constant comedy and camp of the Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan runs. What changes would you like to see?

? Where did you address my BvS statements (at least from today)? I only saw that you responded with a defense of Joker. Oh - and re. your above list of forthcoming projects - if history is any guide, 2 of them will be cancelled. 'Cause that's how Warner Bros. do.

Oh wow... I forgot Birds of Prey even existed. I watched it via HBO Max and basically forgot about it by the next day - it made about as much impact as New Mutants. Best thing I can say about it? Mary Elizabeth Winstead looked insanely hot - and Ewen McGregor got the joke - and hammed it up accordingly. Worst thing? The 2002 TV series was better (seriously).

? Pretty sure I've never bashed Wonder Woman, given that it's among my top 5 superhero films. Ditto Aquaman - it was a far better film - and treatment of the character - than I think nearly anyone expected. But absolutely - BvS (theatrical) was garbage. And the market bore that out: A record 69+% drop-off from first to second weekend (indicates negative word-of-mouth). Legs so bad its final domestic total was less than 2x its opening weekend alone. B Cinemascore. If it were good, or (ahem!) liked by American audiences, it would have held better. Full stop. It wasn't, so it didn't. Oh - and the 29% positive critical score? Certainly didn't help. But...as many have posited here, critics are corrupt (blah blah blah) - it's that the negative audience response - and record drop-off after opening weekend, that spoke far more clearly about how badly the film sucked than anything the critics said.

But...they haven't. Eternals, Shang-Chi and Black Widow have all been aggressively mediocre - and the issue is they didn't need to be - these were unforced errors. We deserved better. It's one thing to incessantly sing the praises of amazing superhero films (Winter Soldier, Endgame, Wonder Woman, The Dark Knight), but to relentlessly defend films that objectively aren't good (judged by critical, fan and - importantly, box office) success - is just...dumb. On the other hand, I'm glad you're here - because Bosco has accused me of being a similar diehard Disney fan, to the exclusion of all else. I'm not - I think he's just sore that I've aggressively called out that execrable garbage that DC produced by way of BvS, Suicide Squad and Justice League. To be fair, he's all but admitted the theatrical versions of each of those were , given how he's now moved on to defending the Directors cuts/Snyder Cut versions and/or posted innumerable articles about studio interference with those films. Whatever the reason, it doesn't change the fact the theatrical versions were really bad. Overall, though? We're all superhero fans. And we're living in a golden age of cinema, where even the B- and C-list comic characters of the '70s and '80s are now getting $100M+ projects. That doesn't mean we can't demand excellence in those products. I'd rather not see a superhero film done at all than see one that's so poorly done that it's an affront to the characters and the original storylines (cough! Dark Phoenix). I'm terrified that the forthcoming Moon Knight project is going to suck. He's an amazing character, but one that's difficult to properly do justice, even in the comics. I'm hoping that we get something that's closer to Daredevil or Jessica Jones than to Iron Fist. ...You're absolutely entitled to your opinion re. the latest MCU films (as are well all). But man...claiming mess like "Shang-Chi saved theaters" isn't just laughably (and provably) wrong, but it helps undermine even your good well-reasoned points.

Thanks - I'll check it out on HBO Max. Didn't realize he also directed (as well as wrote) Wind River. I liked it when I watched it but it's not in the same league as Hell or High Water or Sicario. And Wind River's especially inferior to Thunderheart, the Val Kilmer film of the same ilk back from the mid-90s.

Love Sicario - but primary credit goes to the screenwriter, Taylor Sheridan. Dude seemingly came out of nowhere - from acting in a supporting role on Sons on Anarchy to then writing: Sicario Hell or High Water Wind River Yellowstone Best new screenwriter of the decade.