Gatsby77

On 7/31/2023 at 12:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

What superhero movie has won a best picture Oscar. 

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.

On 7/30/2023 at 7:48 PM, sfcityduck said:

I don't think it is at all controversial to view Westerns as a fringe genre these days.  They ruled the roost long ago, but now many other genres are far more popular. It never occurred to me there were folks who thought Westerns were still a dominant genre. 

You guys have identified one guy's Westerns as an exception to what I see as a rule. The highest grossing movie list is incredibly strong evidence that audiences aren't being drawn to Westerns the way they are to superheroes, SciFi, spy movies, war movies, adventure, fantasy, etc. \

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)

On 7/30/2023 at 2:47 PM, jdandns said:

Biggest recent westerns are Tarantino's "Django" in 2012, 450m worldwide on a 100m budget.

"True Grit" in 2010 got 250m on 30m, a nice return.

Last big tries were "Lone Ranger" (2013) which more or less broke even at 250m, Quentin's "Hateful 8" (2015) 150m on 60m, and "Dark Tower" (2017) which cost 66m and made 113m. The remake of "Magnificent Seven" that same year made 160m on a 100m cost, not enough for a sequel, it appears.

Biggest successes ever, both 30+ years ago, were "Dances With Wolves", 424m on a 22m investment, and "Unforgiven" with 159m on only 14m. "Legends of the Fall" (1994) made 160m on just 30m and "Maverick" that same year got 183m on 75m. 

 

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

On 7/30/2023 at 2:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Westerns are a backwards looking genre with not a lot to say. Kung Fu movies helped kill them by doing violence better. As a result we still more martial art movies than westerns. Science fiction drove the stake through their heart by adding social commentary relevant to the present to a space western type storytelling. When was the last successful western?  Brokeback Mountain? Are any in the top 30 highest grossing?

Barbie is more worthy of discussion because it is relevant and successful. Don’t get me wrong I like westerns of the classic peak years, pre-spaghetti, but they aren’t culturally relevant today.

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?"

On 7/26/2023 at 12:01 PM, Bosco685 said:

I guess moviegoers wanted different in a big way.

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.

On 7/26/2023 at 8:02 AM, Straw-Man said:

i'm in agreement with all but legends of the fall.  open range has to be in there.

I've not seen Open Range - will add it to the list!

Legends of the Fall's grown on me over the years. Its epic sweep, cinematography & score helps push into "Hollywood classic / why we go to the movies" territory for me.

And, of course, the penultimate scene, with Anthony Hopkins, is the highlight.

On 7/25/2023 at 7:07 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

I'm pretty sure the movie got the point across with the extent that they did cover his womanizing, though.

That's my point.

An easy way to emphasize his rampant womanizing was to amp up just 1-2 of the affairs with the gratuitous sex scenes - it's a narrative shortcut.

*Particularly* the scene in the security clearance interrogation where Kitty imagines Jean Tatlock with him -- the implication being that she's had to share her marriage to him not only with Jean Tatlock but with all the other women he's cheated on her with as well.

Apparently the film also played down the extent of Oppenheimer's womanizing. It went well beyond the three affairs noted in the movie.

Eh...it might have gotten an R-rating even without the nudity.

Example: Matt Damon's character drops two F-bombs (only one is allowed to keep to PG-13). I don't recall if RDJ's character did so later as well.

Also - it certainly had mature themes/disturbing images, including

Either way - kudos to Nolan for  keeping to his vision.

If he's truly getting 20% of first dollar gross, he could personally have made millions more by editing it to a PG-13.

On 7/24/2023 at 7:32 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

There's only 1 scene that'll standout between seeing this in theaters and at home. It's an overrated movie, albeit still good to some degree. Can't say it's as good as what Nolan did pre-Dunkirk. Too much political embellishment for me.

This is fair.

90% of it is basically a stage play - that won't lose much seeing it on the small screen.

I saw it a 2nd time last night - this time with a different set of friends.

Still think it's amazing - but a few additional minor criticisms:

• There are frustrating points where the music drowns out the dialogue -- not nearly as pervasively as in Tenet, but still disrespectful of the audience.
• Zero mention of Richard Feynman, who was still a grad student at the time, but later became one of the most renowned physicists who had worked at Los Alamos.

Apropos.

A 64% drop is pretty steep for a film with an A CinemaScore.

Would have expected more like 49-55%.

On 7/20/2023 at 8:07 PM, D84 said:

WW84, Birds of Prey, Shazam! Fury of the Gods, Suicide Squad...

Justice League Part 2, The Trench, Green Lantern Corps, New Gods, Gotham City Sirens, Deathstroke, Batgirl, The Wonder Twins...

Yeah.

Finishing week 1 domestically behind week 1 of Dial of Destiny = not a good look.

But but...it had a higher international take, an A CinemaScore, and Tom Cruise movies have legs, etc.

Doesn't change that the domestic take was well under expectations.

And costing $290+ million (before marketing) = it's got a lot of ground to make up.

On 7/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, fantastic_four said:

Fantastic Wired interview with Christopher Nolan:

https://www.wired.com/story/christopher-nolan-oppenheimer-ai-apocalypse/

I have long considered the Manhattan Project humanity's largest, most ambitious, and most impactful project, but Nolan's claim in the interview that Oppenheimer is the most significant figure in human history is bold.  I don't know a lot about the guy so maybe he's right, but I'm skeptical.  Germany was already out of the war by the time the Manhattan Project completed, and Japan would have inevitably been eliminated even without the bomb.  And if Oppenheimer had never worked on the project there were half a dozen other scientists working with all of the major nations who likely would have figured it out as well.

Certainly he saved millions of lives though given that the casualties in taking Japan down would have been in the millions without the bomb.

Japan was ready to surrender after Hiroshima - it was a communication breakdown that caused the delay.

But...the U.S. largely anticipated that. The second bomb wasn't targeted at the Japanese - but at showing Stalin we had more.

On 7/18/2023 at 12:08 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Why would you pretend that the Cavill and Heard situations are the same, despite not being remotely similar?

It goes to listening to the fans (or not).

As I understand it, the bulk of the fan base (myself included) wanted to see Cavill cameo in The Flash and don't want to see Heard in Aquaman 2.

*Particularly* because The Flash included Affleck, Gadot and Momoa. Plus, the mountain of multiverse cameos further underscored Cavill's absence.

More to the point, both decisions (Cavill's inexplicable exclusion and Heard's inexplicable inclusion) are unforced errors.

Yeah - but there's no reason to make an unforced error by keeping Heard in it.

Again, the precedent is there, via late-stage replacement actors in films like All the Money in the World and Army of the Dead -- and this isn't a situation like The Flash, where Ezra Miller (or multiple Ezra Millers) are featured in nearly every scene.

But sure - remove Cavill from The Flash but keep Heard in Aquaman 2. That's the ticket! 

On 7/18/2023 at 5:38 AM, TupennyConan said:

Deconstruction. Check.

But also "love letter to."

It can be both.