quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Portman is a good actor, but she suffers from the same affliction as most of her peer group, her choice of roles. Nobody in the Master Class wants to make just a good popular movie, it must be a meaningful movie.

So they moonlight in Marvel for the dough and then do these independent arthouse pictures, usually with a director who only works every 10 years, for the prestige. As long as they continue to be highly respected and collect endorsements from perfume companies, car manufacturers, brokerages, jewelry, watch and clothing makers, it really doesn't matter that they don't actually appear in anything you or I might call good.

She also suffers from that 40 and over curse that befalls women in Hollywood. ALL the good roles go to a handful of actresses - Blanchett right now. Julianne Moore, Helen Mirren, Viola Davis and Streep still work a lot in film. Oscars give an actor a temporary boost, but its effects fade. I can think of plenty of Oscar winners who have rarely been seen again.

That is true, about the 40 and over curse. Remember how big Anne Hathaway was circa 2006 to 2016 ? I guess the last hit she had was "Ocean's 8" in 2018. As further examples, what about Kirsten Dunst and Maggie Gyllenhaal, to name a few others.

Sadly, even actresses in their early 30s seem to be "old news." Ex: Jennifer Lawrence, Kristen Stewart, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Electrawoman Cards f/k/a jane: I can think of plenty of Oscar winners who have rarely been seen again.

Certainly true, but I think it's a combination of factors that aren't necessarily linked to age or sex, but to the individual. Portman as an example, may be in that awkward age range now, but she was only 29 and a very bankable star when she won the Oscar. She could have had her pick of roles back them, but she got selective. She also started a family, so that could also be a big factor. These days I see her in Dior ads more than anything else, but I don't look for her either.

Some Oscar winners were one-shot wonders and really had no range for other parts. You can argue about it, but Julia Roberts can only play Julia Roberts and she has aged out of it, although she still tries. She's peddling Lancome.

Others were accused of letting it go to their heads and the same industry people that voted for them turned on them. There was a backlash against Berry, Brody and Hunt, and I don't know if they did anything to deserve it either, but it happened.

You could go down a list of Oscar winners and it would still be very subjective. Don't you like the actor or is it the choice of roles? Did they have bad luck, or did they make bad mistakes?

George Clooney is pushing expresso machines, but he is still in the Master Class. De Niro and Pacino are still revered despite decades of mostly really bad movies. In that regard I think actors get to live off their reputations longer than the ladies. There really are so many you could discuss as a matter of opinion, and they are all different in their way, while being similar.

I read several articles on why Shazam 2 has underwhelmed and they are blaming it all on Black Adam and The Rock

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
I read several articles on why Shazam 2 has underwhelmed and they are blaming it all on Black Adam and The Rock

Yeah, they are all airing their grievances over in the DC world now that Shazam 2 didn't do as well as anticipated. While some of the stuff may well be true, the conclusions are usually self-serving, depending on who is doing the serving.

I can believe that Johnson tried to strong arm his way into controlling the franchise with "Black Adam". Why not, he's a mega star. Only "Black Adam" didn't exactly crush it either, so maybe it wasn't the best idea for him to try a coup now.

On the other hand, if "Shazam Fury of the Gods" didn't match the first one at the box office, is it really because a few cameos of other characters weren't there? Is it really because the crossover with the Justice Society wasn't made? Or because there wasn't the scene in the ending credits that someone wanted to see?

These Marvel and DC universe films have to be able to stand on their own, with their own stories and characters. The advantage of the franchise connection is that there is a certain automatic audience for it, but you also need a good movie to get those other viewers who don't feel the obsession to see every entry in the series, whether it stinks or not. If the Shazam sequel doesn't do as well as "Shazam", it might just be because it came out at a different time and isn't as good.

Of course that would mean that the film makers may have made some miscalculations, and nobody will admit to that when it's easier to lay the blame on someone else. Especially if there is some little truth to it.

If Shazam 2 underwhelmed, I can't imagine that DC's "Blue Beetle" in August will be a hit. And I also think that not many people are excited about "The Flash" this summer, either.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
If Shazam 2 underwhelmed, I can't imagine that DC's "Blue Beetle" in August will be a hit. And I also think that not many people are excited about "The Flash" this summer, either.

Now why would you say that? Negative vibes man! And I am joking.

The only thing I know about "Blue Beetle" is that he is being called the first Latinx superhero. As far as I can recall, I never heard of the character any place, but I could have been in the wrong places.

As for the Flash, Ezra Miller has been keeping a low profile lately, so that's a big plus. He could blow it up all by himself if not careful. I do think that the Flash TV show may well have cheapened the character though, so that the movie's success may rest more with the 2 Batmans and Supergirl, than with the Flash. There is a lot of nostalgia in seeing Michael Keaton as Batman again, but I have no idea how that will work.

Blue Beetle was originally a Golden Age superhero who appeared in FOX comics in the 1940s. He returned in the mid-1960s by Charlton Comics and in 1966 the second version (Ted Kord) debuted. DC Comics started publishing the second version's comics in 1986 and he was around through the 1990s. I believe that the third character, who has a Hispanic background, debuted in the mid-2000s and that is who the movie is about.

Most of the Blue Beetle characters involve a mystic Egyptian or alien scarab which somehow gives the Beetle his powers.

Regarding The Flash, without getting into details, I think the film will be dogged with alot of baggage and controversy which will hurt it in the long run.

The Top 5 (Domestically) of 2023 so far


ANT MAN 3
CREED 3
M3GAN
SCREAM 6
COCAINE BEAR

One other thought that I had about what is now the assumed poorer performance of "Shazam Fury of the Gods" is something that applies to all superhero movies. The best of them are made good not so much by the hero, but by the villain. The hero has to be tested. When the villain doesn't stand out, the hero has nothing worthy to battle and the audience cares less.

Now I'm no Shazam reader, but I understand that the trio of villains in this film although known characters, don't actually have any history with him in the comics. While that could be a good thing, I'm betting avid fans would prefer someone else more traditional to the lore.

The thing I do know just in my own opinion is that slugging it out with Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu is not the best look. Regardless of powers and great acting, mixing it up with Mirren at this point is like fighting with your grandmother. Liu is more menacing, but still not on a grand scale. The rest is kind of a spoiler, so I won't mention it. My point is, if the great villain or villains aren't here, the hero gets diminished as well and the story can fall flat just because of it. That's something all superhero movies have in common.

John Wick 4 a hit obviously.

After learning that Cocaine Bear has been cranking out $20 VOD since its second week while attached to an $80M box office I'm gonna call it a hit as well.

Still plenty of life in that title.

Just got back from Ant-Man, it was good but much of the charm and humor from the first two films were casted out.

I guess the rebellious teen formula is the go to for out of original idea script writers.

Dungeons and Dragons was a hit this weekend. Came in at # 1.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Dungeons and Dragons was a hit this weekend. Came in at # 1.

On a $150M budget I think it still has a way to go. Crazy to see so many great reviews from all sides and yet only pull in $38M. Think I will try to see it this week.

Sleeper hit of the weekend was His Only Son. On a $250K budget and $1.25M distribution it pulled in $5.5M on about half the screens of a wide release.

It looks like 2023 may have a surprise hit on its hands. Super Mario Brothers has broken a bunch of records at the box office this weekend. I have only seen the trailer, so have no idea why anyone would pay to watch this thing in the cinema but clearly a lot of people have a different opinion

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ent...inment-arts-65230431

Yeah earned it's budget back domestically in the first weekend. Major hit with nothing but profit ahead.

Really curious to see what Barbie is going to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:
I have only seen the trailer, so have no idea why anyone would pay to watch this thing in the cinema but clearly a lot of people have a different opinion

Yeah, looks like punishment to sit through that thing, right?

Well all the kids were home, they all know Super Mario Brothers, and it would be inappropriate to take them to see John Wick. Can't wait for the sequel.

The biggest hits (domestically) of 2023 are now:

1) SUPER MARIO BROS.
2) ANT MAN 3
3) JOHN WICK 4
4) CREED 3
5) SCREAM 6

These are the only films which have grossed more than 100 M each so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
The biggest hits (domestically) of 2023 are now:

1) SUPER MARIO BROS.
2) ANT MAN 3
3) JOHN WICK 4
4) CREED 3
5) SCREAM 6

These are the only films which have grossed more than 100 M each so far.

Haha..of course we are back at this debate. Avatar has made more than 250M this year. For the life of me I can't figure out why.

We saw Super Mario Bros today and really enjoyed it. They had the preview for Blue Beetle and while it looks well intended I don't think it will be a major hit.