Gatsby77

At $700M theatrical, this still won't be profitable, tho. Had they sold directly to Amazon at that time, they may only have booked a loss of ~$50=$75M. Now, they may lose more on the project - at least in the short term (depends on much the product placement defrayed production costs).

Obligatory "rarest Superman book is Bradman" post.

Counterpoint: The nature of "film criticism" today isn't comparable to that of 40, let alone 70, years ago. 1) Thanks to internet, there are far more reviewers per movie; and 2) Ditto - film criticism was once the exclusive domain of newspapers - staffed by paid professional critics with academic backgrounds in literature, journalism, etc. Since 1995, the internet has enabled even consistent armchair bloggers to make a name for themselves and establish themselves as "critics," supposedly on par with the old school ones (which, to its credit, RT separates out as "Top Critics"). I largely blame Harry Knowles for this - as he was one of the first fan bloggers to cross over into semi-legitimate film criticism. Many of these glorified bloggers are not only biased towards recent films over older ones but also have every incentive to publish positive reviews to maintain/increase perceived studio access. But in no way, shape or form should a review from AICN or the Saporta Report or Butler's Cinema Scene or ShowBiz Junkies! be counted with the same weight as a review from The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The LA Times, or Rolling Stone. 3) Re. recency bias: see also IMDB's Top 250. Yes - this is different because they're user reviews - thus simply a measure of pop culture, but no way do I believe that 7 of the top 10 films (or 13 of the top 20) in all of U.S. cinema have been released since 1993. Casablanca barely makes the top 50 (at literally # 50, so a few years from now the latest Villeneuve or Nolan film will bump Casablanca out of the top 50 entirely). Oh - and on the IMDB list? Citizen Kane clocks in at # 120.

Have you watched the show? I've only seen the first episode so far, but it was surprisingly good. Judged by the first episode, it's a far better premise and product than say...Fuller House (I get those are two totally different shows, but i watched them both as a kid back in the '80s - and the first episode of Fuller House was weak sauce). God forbid they ever get that rumored Fresh Prince reboot off the ground...

I stand corrected. However, my point still stands. Unlike Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB did put an automated system in place to detect mass review bombing / fake reviews and mitigate them via removal (as it did in this case). And, psychotic Captain Marvel fan that you are, you know this. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/7/18254548/film-review-sites-captain-marvel-bombing-changes-rotten-tomatoes-letterboxd Relevant quote: "Nobody has found a perfect solution to review-bombing campaigns. Some platforms have tried to create technical systems for defusing them. IMDb uses a secret weighting formula to calculate its star ratings, so in what it calls “rare instances” of mass inauthentic reviews, it “takes into consideration numerous techniques to artificially inflate/deflate a title’s rating, and attempts to neutralize their impact.”

Bulls--t. Source? IMDB dealt with that problem years ago - because unlike Rotten Tomatoes, they sell IMDB Pro as a paid service. So reviewers are required to first show proof they actually watched the film - to ensure fidelity.

Yeah. The golden age Batman killed *all* the time. And people seem to forget how high his body count was in Batman (1989). He killed more than 75 people in that film alone.

My takeaway from the several dozen reviews I've read is that Eternals makes a common (recent) blockbuster mistake: Spending the bulk of its run time introducing characters and world-building -- setting the table for a good movie in the sequel, rather than giving us a self-contained plot / movie in its own right. That jives with what I've read all the way back to the rumors re. the first (supposed) post-credits sequence.

I’m two margaritas deep on a Friday evening but: God - D—-n do I wish I had your drugs!

I agree with all of this. I have no desire to see Shang-Chi, simply because in 30 years of collecting, I've never read a Master of Kung Fu issue. Zero connection to - or interest in - the character. I felt the same way about Eternals - never read an appearance and really don't care about Kirby's (non-FF) cosmic stuff. A coffee table book on the history of comics I received in 1990 spent an entire chapter straight mocking Kirby's '70s work (compared to his Silver Age stuff): this included The Fourth World and (especially) Eternals. But I'll go see this, because: 1) Chloe Zhao - a non-traditional director who knows how to frame a shot. 2) The cast - Intrigued to see Salma Hayek, Angelina Jolie and Kumail Nanjiani in superhero roles. I liked Richard Madden in Bodyguard but he alone wouldn't convince me to see it. Expectations are low. But - like Guardians of the Galaxy - it's truly an odd pick by Marvel. At least it won't be as bad as Inhumans (I hope).

Because this premise is entirely wrong. Shang-Chi + Godzilla v. Kong + Bond + every other blockbuster film released since Fast 9.

Yes - and @therealsilvermane - go back to Bosco's chart. Godzilla vs. Kong did nearly as well as Shang-Chi.

Don't discount a *huge* externality here: that the primary reason AMC stock rose was its pumping by Redditors as a meme stock. This was entirely independent from any individual releases this year.

Please - argue the point in bold. Because I humbly present this counter-point: Fast & Furious 9 - released months before Shang-Chi, grossed theatrically 60%+ more than Shang-Chi. Ditto - at the same time, A Quiet Place 2 managed close to $200 million in revenue on a comparatively miniscule budget. By any objective metric, these two films - for different reasons, but released within weeks of each other - "saved the movie industry" far more than a mid-line Marvel release that's already fading from cultural memory. How many kids do you think we'll see dressed as Shang-Chi this Halloween? Vs. how many kids do you think we'll see in Squid Game costumes?

Holy F---kn S--t. Whoever your drug dealer is must be a very rich man.

Seriously, man? Folks are allowed to say they didn't like it. I really liked it, but several of my friends who are huge fans of the original books were not just underwhelmed, but disappointed.

I saw an analyst on Twitter this morning who noted the success of Dune this weekend - both re. theatrical box office and streaming - absolutely validated the decision by Warner Brothers to do simultaneous home releases for all of 2020. Why? As a loss leader. Dune - and other recent HBO Max releases - have helped make the case that HBO Max is just as necessary as Netflix or Amazon Prime. As a late entrant, HBO Max needs a consistent stream of high-quality, exclusive releases to help build its subscriber base, given that it currently is so far behind the likes of Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime. Effectively, it can (and should) sacrifice short-term theatrical profits this year for medium-term market share and platform subscriber growth. While this "market share over profits" mentality led to the dot com bubble bursting and thousands of corporate failures back in 2000-2001, it also was key to Amazon's eventual dominance. And personally, I still see no reason to pay for say...Apple TV or CBS All Access.

Ahh...correct. Still, the youngest Best Actor nominee since 1940. Not even close to Anna Paquin, who actually won Best Supporting Actress at age 11, but Chalomet's career has arguably already out-shone that of Paquin's. Just saying, the overall comparison of him to Leonardo DiCaprio isn't a stretch. Besides Dune, he also plays a supporting role in Wes Anderson's The French Dispatch, which debuted in art houses this weekend.

The upcoming Wonka movie proves my point. Chalomet's *already* an A-list actor - full-stop. He's been in the game in mostly art house and indy films for a decade already (I first remember him in season 1 of Homeland) but, Academy Award aside, both Dune and Wonka are big budget films built entirely around him. Further, his next film (due in December) is Adam McKay's Don't Look up. Teaser trailer aside (in which he's barely shown), Chalomet actually has top billing - above Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, etc. This isn't the case of Hollywood trying to force a new talent down our throats by casting them in everything before it's warranted (a la Sam Worthington, Jai Courtney, Michael B. Jordan or Taylor Kitsch) - this is a generational talent a la Jennifer Lawrence. Just because you don't realize he's already a full-blown franchise-greenlighting movie star and Oscar darling doesn't mean it's not true.

Nah - it's an Image/ABC Alan Moore project that he's already preemptively disowned. #NotAllComicBookMovies

Umm...they're both at 2 for 2. Leo was 25 years old in 1999. By that time he'd starred in remakes of Romeo & Juliet and The Man in the Iron Mask. Whereas Chalomet's got Little Women and Dune. Oh - and if you don't count Little Women or Man in the Iron Mask as "pop" - you've clearly either never read them or don't understand that's exactly what they were when they were published - ditto Romeo & Juliet while we're at it. Chalomet's 25 years old, and he's already got a (well-deserved Oscar) and has worked with: Christopher Nolan Woody Allen Jason Reitman Denis Villeneuve Wes Anderson Adam McKay Moreover, we all know that if he were announced as playing a 3rd tier Marvel character (like Richard Rider or Dan Ketch) suddenly you'd be fellating him. But okay...

In case y'all missed SNL this weekend (SPOILERS):

Are serious? Chalamet is the Leonardo DiCaprio of his generation - literally hasn't done a bad performance yet, and that includes his high school "Statistics" song.

Been waiting on that Harbinger movie for 6.5 years now. mess's slower than The Flash.