Gatsby77

I can't speak for @paperheart, but I'm guessing he means the literal Barbie - who had a Marvel Comics series in the '90s. Thus, Barbie is technically a Marvel character. I remember when this book hit the stands. I am old.

So...$50 million worldwide after 6 days. And dropped to # 2 (after Barbie, natch) after 3 days. I still maintain that since this was originally slated as a Max release, all the theatrical gross needs to do is cover 2x P&A for it to be a win. So...$210 million worldwide and we should be good. Will it get there?

This. I think representation matters - and is important - but story matters more. And hopefully there will be a time in the not-too-distant future where Hispanic representation will be so commonplace that it will hardly be mentioned. Example: One of the *many* reasons I loved Succession is Kendall's hedge fund college buddy Stewie - who is gay. We don't find out he's gay until his 4th or 5th appearance - when he and Kendall are talking business at a nightclub while his (male) date is sitting beside him. And then I don't think it's ever mentioned again until either the last or second-to-last episode of Season 4. A generation ago it would have been a big deal for even such a supporting character to be gay. And HBO would have milked it in their advertising. Today - I'm sure there are plenty of people who watched Succession and didn't realize Stewie was gay. Because it was like 6th or 7th on the list of his most important characteristics and importance to the story.

Hispanics account for ~19% of the U.S. population - a much higher % than that of African Americans.

No. I'm saying the usual rules don't apply since this was originally slated to go to HBO Max. So the only numbers that actually count against break-even are the theatrical marketing ones. They were going to spend $125 million anyway - just to put it on Max.

Since this was initially slated as a Max-only release I am right that it only needs to cover say... double its marketing expenses to be considered profitable? So...let's say $220 million worldwide and it's good?

Beating Barbie - now on its 5th weekend of release - doesn't seem like that high a bar.

Finally saw this last night. Shockingly good. Took a concept that could have been a throwaway and made it a compelling comedy with something to say -- and kudos to Mattel for allowing that needle to be thread. Best analog I can come up with re. taking a potentially silly concept and wildly over-performing with something amazing: Pirates of the Caribbean -- Can you imagine pitching a pirate movie based on a Disney themepark ride - especially when the last big-budget pirate movie (Cutthroat Island) was one of the biggest box office bombs of all time and literally bankrupted the studio?

That's my guess. I'm old enough to remember when Amy Schumer was attached to star as Barbie.

Maybe this means Gal Gadot is free. And she can be cast as Jessica Jones in a $120 million film version of Alias.

Creative confusion is one way to put it. Per this Variety article, either Gadot lied, or Gunn did. https://variety.com/2023/film/news/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-3-not-in-development-1235693545/

So apparently Barbie was originally budgeted at $100 million - but the final budget (before P&A expenses) came in at ~$145 million. (AKA half of Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1's $290 million.) And I see that supposedly Robbie and Gosling both got paid $12.5 million - but I'm curious about: 1) What Gerwig got paid; 2) What type of gross points (if any) Robbie, Gosling and/or Gerwig received; 3) Particularly Robbie's total base comp - since she's the star & a producer.

My mom got in some *serious* trouble for taking the 14 year-old daughter of a good family friend to see Thelma & Louise back in 1990 or whatever. He was mad pissed about the supposed "feminist indoctrination" of that movie.

That's laughable hogwash. First, both Marvel & DC have been progressive for 50+ years. See the Neal Adams Green Lantern run -- overtly dealing with racial injustice, teen drug use, religious cults, political villains, and more. Subtle it was not. Second, the lower print runs today vs. 1993 has precisely zero with progressive narratives in superhero books. The primary decline in print comics since then is due to the rise of video games and smart phones - literally *nothing* to do with storylines or content.

Again - you're objectively wrong here. $780 million worldwide in just 11 days proves either 1) it's not preaching or 2) if it is, it's not alienating audiences - at least, not in any way that actually matters in the real world. And in terms of gaslighting, 1/3 of the domestic audience is men, not 1/4 as you stated. I am also not a misandrist by any stretch of the imagination. As @sfcityduck noted, you're misusing the term. Mocking a small subset of weak men who feel somehow threatened by a movie about a toy doll in no way denotes misandry. Nor does pointing out their weakness or fragility, LOL.

? Day by day, the Barbie movie is outpacing such blockbusters as Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: The Way of Water. If anything, I'd say the controversy ginned up by some fragile men on social media is only *helping* the film.

Apparently, by the box office so far, they do. Social media outrage is not reality. Ticket sales are.

Yet Barbie has made ~2x that of Oppenheimer domestically so far. Goes to women being an under-served demo. Remember, Captain Marvel did $1.1 billion worldwide.

Precisely my point. Three westerns have won Best Picture since 1990 - so it's not exactly a dead genre. And zero superhero movies have won Best Picture, despite their incredible commercial success. Cultural relevance is multi-dimensional.

As I believe I'm the "one guy" who first mentioned westerns and then provided my Top 10 list of excellent examples from the last 30 years... I didn't mean to derail the thread, but my original points stand: 1) I believe we've past the apex of superhero movies and the genre will begin to decline, as westerns did in the late 60s/early 70s. 2) That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather see two superhero movies released per year, that are good, than 5-6 that are mediocre. (As I believe we now see roughly two westerns released per year, with a really high quality one released roughly once every two years). Those few that get made today tend to be equal to (or better than) the majority of westerns released in their heyday. Whether westerns have been culturally relevant over the last 30 years? Absolutely. Four westerns have won Best Picture. Three of the four were from 1990 to present. The only other one was from the 1930s -- in terms of the Academy Awards (a proxy for both quality and "cultural relevance"), the westerns of the 1950s-1960s are entirely absent. Those four are: Cimarron (1931) Dances With Wolves (1990) Unforgiven (1992) No Country for Old Men (2007)

You missed The Revenant (2015) - $533m worldwide on a $135m budget.

I don't think any westerns are even in the top 200 highest-grossing films (not inflation-adjusted). I did a quick scan of Box Office Mojo and the top-3 highest grossing westerns worldwide I could find were: 1) The Revenant (2015) = $533 million 2) Django Unchained (2012) = $426.1 million Those two are particularly impressive, given that they're both Rated R. 3) Dances With Wolves (1990) = $424.2 million Adjusted for inflation, I think the top western domestically is Dances with Wolves - with the equivalent of a $400 million take. Adjusted for inflation, Dances with Wolves sits just outside the top 150 highest-grossing (domestic) films of all-time. In other words, no western has grossed as much domestically as Barbie.

Bumped to August 30, 2024.

Solid list. I didn't go that far back, but my pick for easily the best western of the 80s? Silverado. "Jake...fell off his horse?"

Quality matters too. Of that list, the only films with a higher Rotten Tomatoes critics score than Barbie are Spider-Man No Way Home and Top Gun: Maverick.