So here is the early assessment of summer 2023 films: HITS Guardians of Galaxy and Spider Man; HITS domestically but not overseas- Little Mermaid; HITS overseas but not hits domestically- Fast X and Transformers; MISSES- Flash and Elementals

I don't see how the Barbie film could possibly be a hit in July.

I saw the trailer and it was kind of cute and I think I really liked the soundtrack, but it has a bunch of problems that I'm not sure will work out.

1. It seems like Margot Robbie can't make a hit movie to save her life.

2. Ryan Gosling is not much better lately.

3. I'm not sure what audience this is aimed at. You would think kids, but the scenes seem to be going for clever in an adult way. Which is fine, but to carry the whole dolls out in the real-world idea is a 10-minute skit and not a 2-hour movie.

4. Similarly the color palate is cute at first sight. but annoying long term.

5. Grete Gerwig has had enough success to be given the green light to do what she wants and generally that leads to excess.

6. This summer has been hard on summer movies.

7. Barbie dolls have fallen out of favor.

That seems like a lot of problems, but superheroes aren't doing so good, maybe Barbie can show up at the right time and win by virtue of default.

I just have a strange feeling that it is going to be big. I have no reason for this emotion.

I think Barbie falling out of favor is too new and will not have much of an impact on generations of vested audience members. Barbie still sells well enough to create more than enough box office supporters for a hit film.

This summer has had a noticeable lack of mega hits. Fast X and Transformers have underwhelmed. Wonder how Indiana Jones will do ? Seems like the biggest hit of 2023 may very well be Super Mario Bros.

Barbie is still popular though maybe not as much as in the 60's-80's. There is an audience for the movie in the people who had the dolls as kids and those who collect Barbies down to all the little accessories now. Barbie was part of the "Toy Story" movies so the makers of this one should take a page from that. Those movies brought life to the toys making them relatable characters rather than just relying on nostalgia to sell tickets.

As for the look of the movie, this movie reminds me of "Speed Racer" which was released about 15 years ago. I thought that movie was great because it took the look of the original cartoon and made it real. It's true a movie can't be just be a triumph of art direction and set design so you need a well-written story but like "Speed Racer," there might be fans who are going to be looking at everything and probably watch it again to see what detail/in-joke they missed before.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
As for the look of the movie, this movie reminds me of "Speed Racer" which was released about 15 years ago. I thought that movie was great because it took the look of the original cartoon and made it real. It's true a movie can't be just be a triumph of art direction and set design so you need a well-written story but like "Speed Racer," there might be fans who are going to be looking at everything and probably watch it again to see what detail/in-joke they missed before.

Yeah, but that may not be a such good thing Jess. "Speed Racer" lost a ton of money, never got its sequel and kind of buried Emile Hirsch as a leading man. It's gotten more appreciated in subsequent years, but a lot of people hated its look and sound. It may have been made for Speed Racer fans, but there must not have been enough of them, and a movie screen amplifies more than a TV screen.

"Barbie" should do better than "Speed Racer" because I think more people will try it, but you're right about the look being similar.

Hey Raven,

I figured someone would bring up the fact that Speed Racer was not a hit. Those people who hated the look didn't get what it was trying to do or they simply don't like anything flashy and loud. It was flashy and loud for a reason and even though I don't always like that either, I appreciated the attempt to try to do the whole thing as a live action movie. You don't do "Speed Racer" as a tense family drama with the racing action in the background. Maybe you try that as an SNL skit.

Barbie has her own look - lots of pink - and from the look of the commercial I saw, they got that down.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
As for the look of the movie, this movie reminds me of "Speed Racer" which was released about 15 years ago. I thought that movie was great because it took the look of the original cartoon and made it real. It's true a movie can't be just be a triumph of art direction and set design so you need a well-written story but like "Speed Racer," there might be fans who are going to be looking at everything and probably watch it again to see what detail/in-joke they missed before.

Yeah, but that may not be a such good thing Jess. "Speed Racer" lost a ton of money, never got its sequel and kind of buried Emile Hirsch as a leading man. It's gotten more appreciated in subsequent years, but a lot of people hated its look and sound. It may have been made for Speed Racer fans, but there must not have been enough of them, and a movie screen amplifies more than a TV screen.

"Barbie" should do better than "Speed Racer" because I think more people will try it, but you're right about the look being similar.

This is a slow weekend for new movies, and I think it's because the studios expected "The Flash" or "Elementals" to rack up big audiences and didn't want to compete. They should have scheduled a good one as it turns out. Maybe Meg 2.

Only the Jennifer Lawrence helmed "No Hard Feelings" seems to be opening with any fanfare this week. It hasn't gotten bad reviews so far, but sounds close to being another "Risky Business", which was a fun film when Tom Cruise could still play the teenager.

Given that its Lawrence, who like Robbie can't seem to pick a good role in years, I would be surprised if it goes big. However I would think more people will go see it now with the lull and I will catch it when it hits Netflix.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Given that its Lawrence, who like Robbie can't seem to pick a good role in years, I would be surprised if it goes big. However I would think more people will go see it now with the lull and I will catch it when it hits Netflix.

I think they've been getting a bit desperate to attract an audience to this one. It was originally being promoted as a raunchy comedy but in a Buzzfeed interview with the two stars, it's all about the 'nude scene' and how she was completely naked. Now I wonder why they did that

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:
I think they've been getting a bit desperate to attract an audience to this one. It was originally being promoted as a raunchy comedy but in a Buzzfeed interview with the two stars, it's all about the 'nude scene' and how she was completely naked. Now I wonder why they did that

I didn't see that interview, I heard a couple of radio reviews that didn't hate it, the movie I mean.

Does a "nude scene" even matter anymore? There are way more actors who will than won't and the shock value is barely there. Plus the red-carpet fashions leave nothing to the imagination, so it's hardly worth the cost of a ticket.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I didn't see that interview, I heard a couple of radio reviews that didn't hate it, the movie I mean.

Does a "nude scene" even matter anymore? There are way more actors who will than won't and the shock value is barely there. Plus the red-carpet fashions leave nothing to the imagination, so it's hardly worth the cost of a ticket.

Hehe, not for 'shock value'. More about there are still quite a few male customers who will go to see the film just to catch a glimpse of Jennifer Lawrence in the buff....again

Friday daily box office shows Flash dropped to number 4 below Elemental while SpiderVerse hangs on to second place.

Will be interesting to see if those positions hold for the weekend.

Unless positive word of mouth propels it, I don't think the new Indy movie is going to do well. We pre-ordered tickets for this opening Saturday and the theater has currently pre-sold 9 total tickets for that particular showing.

"Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny" premiered at the Cannes Film Festival back in May and if you didn't hear too much about it, nobody did. The media seems reluctant to put out any negative comments on this one, but the positive comments have been meddling at best. Everyone still seems to swear that it's the last Indy movie though, so I expect a lot of people will go see it just for that reason and probably complain afterwards.

One superhero film is destroying the box office while another is trying to kill a franchise. Not to mention SpiderVerse $100M budget compared to Flash's $200+M.

Feels like WB has no heart for the source material. Movie making by the numbers and it's not connecting.

Looks like No Hard Feelings rolled in higher than expected at $15M on a $45M budget. Almost $25M world wide. This is one I would think will get some decent streaming revenue as well.

This guy makes the case that Walt Disney has lost close to a billion dollars over the last year's 8 major studio releases, and that their decision to route everything to Disney+ after theater runs, instead of licensing them to Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc., is costing them billions more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNgbuv6wVPc

My brother and I are planning to see it next weekend. I haven't been to a theater since The Rose of Skywalker, I think. After all the years between The Last Crusade and the last one, that last one should've been great with all the talent involved but it wasn't. I'm hoping the long wait this time gets us at least a good movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Dastick Jr.:
Unless positive word of mouth propels it, I don't think the new Indy movie is going to do well. We pre-ordered tickets for this opening Saturday and the theater has currently pre-sold 9 total tickets for that particular showing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
This guy makes the case that Walt Disney has lost close to a billion dollars over the last year's 8 major studio releases, and that their decision to route everything to Disney+ after theater runs, instead of licensing them to Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc., is costing them billions more.

Of course he fails to hit on a few areas such as licensing and toy/product sales. Disney is such a massive monopoly that I have often wondered how much of the promotion, advertising and distribution budget isn't Disney paying itself (Hollywood Math). I agree the exclusive Disney + model can be damaging but they do rent out many titles on Amazon often for under $5.

Then there is the lifetime of the film as it works its way down to rentals, network or cable television making money through advertising. This is how Water World actually started making money. One thing Hollywood seems to be good at is whining about how much money they are losing while still making movies. I'm sure the IRS falls for it.

Finally went to see Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and for the most part completely enjoyed it. It approached certain characters in unexpected and creative ways that made them more enjoyable to watch.

My standard complaint still stands that a 2.5 hr run time drags out the story more than it needs to.