#hollywood movie box office collection

[mlleclaudine]

Meagan Good Reunites With ‘D.E.B.S.’ Co-Star Sara Foster & Director Angela Robinson For 20th Anniversary, Jordana Brewster Calls For Sequel

by Glenn Garner - Deadline, June 23, 2024

After 20 years MIA, the D.E.B.S. (Discipline, Energy, Beauty, Strength) are back together again and teasing a potential (not-so-secret) mission.

Meagan Good and Sara Foster, who starred together in 2004’s D.E.B.S., reunited Saturday night with writer and director Angela Robinson to celebrate the sapphic cult classic’s 20th anniversary with a Cinespia screening at Hollywood Forever Cemetery, in partnership with LA Pride.

“This film, for me, was an opportunity to do something different,” said Good as they introduced the film. “And then it became something where, now when people come up to me and they say, ‘Oh, I loved this movie’ or ‘this movie really inspired me’ or ‘made me feel seen,’ it wasn’t just an opportunity to do something different. It was an opportunity to be a part of something that’s important and fantastic.”

Foster echoed her co-star’s sentiments. “I will say that in 20 years, a lot of good things have happened to me in my life,” she said. “And to this day, one of the best things is people coming up to me and saying, ‘D.E.B.S. made me feel comfortable being who I am. D.E.B.S. made me realize who I am, who I want to be.’

“And it’s happened consistently for 20 years. So, I’ve done a lot of really shitty movies and a lot of shitty TV shows, but this is a movie that made a difference, probably the only thing I ever did that made a difference, at least in the movie business,” added Foster.

Foster starred in the action comedy — based on Robinson’s 2003 short of the same name — as Amy Bradshaw, a gifted recruit at a top-secret women’s paramilitary academy. During a mission to take down the illusive super criminal Lucy Diamond (Jordana Brewster), Amy develops an attraction to the enemy and finds her loyalties tested.

Although the movie’s marketing watered down its LGBTQ themes and it ultimately grossed less than $100,000 at the box office, D.E.B.S. has gone on to cult status among its intended fanbase.

“We made this so long ago, and my goal, our goal collectively was, I just wanted to see a teen movie that I wish I had when I was a teenager,” recalled Robinson. “And we had such a blast making the movie, and we had a great premiere at Sundance. And then the movie came out and totally flopped.

“But here’s the thing, I was so bummed out because I was like, ‘It’s not gonna get to the audience that I wanted to see this movie.’ And then you guys went and found it. Then somebody would tell me ‘yeah, I rented it in the video store.’ And I was all mad at the time … that they weren’t advertising it as a gay movie. But then it became this kind of underground thing where people would tell me they rented it at the video store or passed it or watched it on TV or something like that. And then it’s grown into this today. So, I want to say thank you so much.”

Robinson also thanked her wife of 25 years, Alexandra Kondracke, “who told me not to take the script and stick it in the drawer like I was going to,” as well Sony Screen Gems’ Clint Culpepper and Stacy Kramer, “because I can’t believe anyone gave us money to make this, but you did, and it’s amazing.”

“But mostly, I want to thank all of you for coming and being here and supporting D.E.B.S. because a bunch of people have come up to us collectively, and they said, ‘D.E.B.S. changed our lives,'” added Robinson. “And that’s incredibly gratifying to see all these years later.”

Although Brewster was in New Zealand and unable to attend the reunion, she graced her friends and fans with a video message, in which she imagined an “older, wiser Lucy Diamond. Has she learned her lesson? I don’t know… Probably not.”

“Have fun. I love you guys. I’m with you in spirit,” added Brewster. “And bug Angela about making a sequel, please.”

[octuscle]

I met this man at a bar recently and he was absolutely gorgeous. He’s here shooting a movie but otherwise wasn’t into me at all. Could you possibly make me into an even bigger hotter more muscular movie star so that he’ll notice me and want to get together?

Well… You're not particularly good-looking or charismatic now… No wonder the first contact wasn't particularly successful. But what do you expect with your baggy sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans?

After the nasty rebuff you received, you're sitting alone at the bar again, looking into your… Whiskey? When did you order a whiskey? You notice that two girls in the corner keep looking over at you, whispering, looking and giggling. One of them gets up and walks towards you. You straighten up, smile at her, she turns bright red, giggles and asks if she can take a selfie. She has an adorable Indian accent. And you reply in Hindi that it would be a pleasure and an honor. She takes the selfie, gives you a kiss on the cheek and runs to her friend, giggling. You finish your whiskey and wave the bartender over to pay. He replies that it would have been an honor to serve you and that the drink is on the house, of course. And a second one if you like. Your crush looks at you questioningly. You accept the second whiskey with thanks and toast the actor. He toasts back and frantically thinks about how he knows you.

It's getting warm in the bar. You unbutton two buttons on your shiny shirt. Like the trousers, which are made of a similar fabric, the shirt fits like it was painted on your body. The bar is getting fuller. Of course, many guests are whispering about your crush. But even more stare at you, want a selfie or ask for your autograph. Many of your fans are glowing-eyed and black-haired. Lots of Indians. Your crush asks you if you're an actor too. The Indian beauty who is taking a selfie with you, pretending to give you a kiss, almost collapses with laughter. She opens Instagram and shows your crush an Instagram account. Your Instagram account. 58 million followers! He turns pale. Very pale. Your skin turns a deep brown. You answer his question with a heavy Indian accent. Yes, you're an actor too. Bollywood is productive. And you are one of the biggest stars. Four to six films a year. And each one is a box office hit. Your fitness videos? Top sellers! Your own fashion collection? A must-have in Delhi, Mumbai and Calcutta. And now also in London and Berlin. You smile your hundred-million-rupee smile. It leaves him speechless. But the bulge in his pants speaks its own language…

For the two young men who ask for a selfie, you throw yourself back into the cool macho pose that half of India loves you for. You give the bartender a 100-pound note as a tip, put on your leather coat and tell your colleague "Savoy, Charlie Chaplin Suite. Ask for John Rolfe". You don't need to look around to know that he's rushing to pay and grab his jacket. Tonight will be a close exchange between Hollywood and Bollywood.

Pic found @maxx-magnum

[jocia92]

Dan Stevens in an exclusive interview (Google translated)

Hollywood star Dan Stevens can currently be seen in the blockbuster “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” in cinemas. The film is currently topping the box office charts and is number one worldwide. We met the charismatic actor in Los Angeles and talked to him about his current film, his next two projects and his choice of roles.

April 5, 2024 by Grace Maier

Can you share with us your first reaction when you were offered a role in Godzilla x Kong: The new empire? It's always a pleasure to work with the same people several times, but this time it was extra special as Adam Wingard, the director, is an old friend. I was also invited to play with an even older friend, Rebecca Hall, as well as Brian Tyree Henry, who I have known and admired for years. It felt like I was being asked to play with friends.

What was it like entering the universe of these iconic monsters? Did you have any ideas or expectations? It's a fun task to be asked to stretch one's imagination to the size of such cinematic titans! I've worked with CGI on an epic scale before, so it wasn't too foreign, and I was surprised at how many practical locations we had.

How did you prepare for your role in this blockbuster? Were there any unique challenges or exciting moments during filming? It was really exciting to shoot in the Australian outback, in the Daintree rainforest - this incredible ancient jungle. That sense of adventure on the way to work every day, passing crocodiles along the river banks, waiting for pythons to be removed from the set, really fueled the mood for the Hollow Earth walk in the film.

“Godzilla x Kong: The new empire” promises to be an epic clash. Without giving too much away, can you give us a hint as to how your character fits into the plot? Trapper is initially brought in to help Kong with his toothache - he is a vet for all Titan creatures - and is then approached by Rebecca Hall's character, Dr. Andrews, invited to the mission. He's a kind of happy, carefree Han Solo type, good to have around, tirelessly optimistic and impressed by little.

The film contains a lot of CGI and visual effects. What was your experience like acting in such an environment and how did it differ from previous roles? I've worked with this type of thing before so it wasn't too scary. I actually really enjoy working with a VFX team and helping to create something using our entire collective imagination. It's truly incredible to see what they achieve long after you've left the process.

Were you a fan of the Godzilla or Kong films before joining this project? How does it feel to be part of their legacy? I feel like I've known these characters my whole life: they are such an integral part of cinema history. I've loved seeing them in all their different iterations over the years and of course being asked to perform alongside them - and even fix their teeth - is a huge honor!

The film will have some intense action scenes. Can you describe one of your most memorable moments while filming these scenes? While it's not the most intense scene, the way my character is introduced - rappelling from a floating vehicle into Kong's mouth to perform large-scale dental work - was one of the more exciting stunts I had to do!

How do you think fans of the franchise will react to Godzilla x Kong: The new empire? What can they look forward to most? I want them to enjoy the ride! You'll see things you've never seen before and meet some fantastic new creatures and characters, but also maybe some familiar fan favorites...

You also have the film "ABIGAIL" coming out in April. Can you tell us a little about filming and what audiences can expect? This is a completely different kind of thrill! Essentially, it's a vampire ballerina heist movie - you know the kind - directed by the Radio Silence guys, Tyler Gillett and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, who specialize in a particularly wacky brand of horror-comedy that I love .

“CUCKOO” will also be released in the summer. What particularly interested you about this film? Tilman Singer, the director, is a truly exciting new voice in cinema - he has a very distinctive style that is so captivating and artfully disturbing. I was also very curious to work with Hunter Schafer, the lead actress of Cuckoo, who is such a bright and brilliant artistic soul.

Your career is so dynamic. How do you go about choosing a role? I crave variety, challenge and surprise, so I'm often guided by the search for those things, but it can also be a certain quality in the writing, a desire to work with certain directors or actors. It's different every time!

[toxicnotebook]

Full list of work SAG-AFTRA members will not do during the strike:

●Principal on camera work, such as: ○ Acting ○ Singing ○ Dancing ○ Performing stunts ○ Piloting on-camera aircraft ○ Puppeteering ○ Performance capture or motion capture work;

● Principal off camera work, such as: ○ ADR/Looping ○ TV Trailers (promos) and Theatrical Trailers ○ Voice Acting ○ Singing ○ Narration, including audio descriptive services except as the services may be covered by another collective bargaining agreement referred in the Notice to Members Regarding Non-Struck Work ○ Stunt coordinating and related services

● Background work ● Stand-in work ● Photo and/or body doubles ● Fittings, wardrobe tests, and makeup tests ● Rehearsals and camera tests ● Scanning ● Interviews and auditions (including via self-tape)

● Promotion of/publicity services for work under the TV/Theatrical Contracts, such as: ○ Tours ○ Personal appearances ○ Interviews ○ Conventions ○ Fan expos ○ Festivals ○ For your consideration events ○ Panels ○ Premieres/screenings ○ Award shows ○ Junkets ○ Podcast appearances ○ Social media ○ Studio showcases

● Negotiating and/or entering into and/or consenting to: ○ An agreement to perform covered services in the future ○ Any new agreement related to merchandising connected to a covered project ○ The creation and use of digital replicas, including through the reuse of prior work

● Performing on a trailer for a struck production or other ancillary content connected to a struck production

This strike effectively stops the ENTIRE entertainment industry. No shows. No movies. No premieres. No award shows. No fun little interviews. No signings at con. Nothing. Even the tabloids are going to be affected by this.

I just CANNOT imagine how greedy and short-sighted the AMPTP must be to think a dual strike is something they can outlast when many of the major studios are already experiencing serious financial trouble. You really think you can ride this out when the 2023 box office is already weak? When the 2020-2022 box offices were even weaker? When streaming services are just not growing anymore?

Who the fuck is going to watch whatever trash you come up with when there are no real names attached and no meaningful way to promote it?

It's just baffling.

Another excellent article: ��Orange Is the New Black” Signalled the Rot Inside the Streaming Economy from The New Yorker

[mariacallous]

“Barbenheimer”—the collective celebration around the release of the Barbie and Oppenheimer movies—has collided with the wedding industrial complex. That’s not a joke. According to a Variety story this week, people are planning on taking their friends and family, prenuptials, to see the two films as a double feature. People who aren’t getting married are planning similar movie-watching marathons. It’s the kind of viral cultural moment marketing teams dream of. It also feels like a sign of the end times.

This sense of dread doesn’t stem from the public’s collective yearning to absorb stories about a Mattel doll and the development of atomic weapons at the same time. It’s because this weekend promises the kind of “let’s all go to the movies!” hype (and box office haul) that cinemas haven’t seen since before the Covid-19 pandemic shut theaters down—and it’s happening as Hollywood is going on strike.

This week, WIRED rolled out a series of stories detailing what we believe the future of entertainment might entail. The purpose was to look at how all aspects of culture, from books to video games to YouTube, could be impacted by advancements in technology. As we worked on it, though, something happened: Contract talks between Hollywood studios and the writers and actors unions began to break down. One of the major sticking points in those negotiations was the use of artificial intelligence in movie- and TV-making. Suddenly, as Madeline Ashby wrote in her essay this week, the world was in the midst of Hot Strike Summer.

Then, Hot Strike Summer slammed into the Barbenheimer moment. Once the Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or SAG-AFTRA, called for a walkout, stars could no longer smile on red carpets without looking like scabs. The stars of Oppenheimer walked out of the film’s London premiere when the strike began. The cast and filmmakers behind Barbie, which premiered before SAG called for a strike, voiced their support. Soon, “This Barbie Is Now on Strike” became the headline, transforming one of the world’s most well-known figurines into Norma Rae. The marquee at my local theater in Brooklyn listed both movies alongside the phrase “Atomic Kenergy,” while The New York Times asked, “Can I Watch ‘Barbenheimer’ Despite the Hollywood Strikes?” (Short answer: Yes.)

To that end, the strikes will not affect Oppenheimer or Barbie’s opening weekend box office numbers. Earlier this week, AMC Entertainment reported that some 40,000 people had bought tickets for both films, and together they’re estimated to make around $150-200 million domestically, with Greta Gerwig’s send-up of the Mattel doll bringing in a bigger chunk than Christopher Nolan’s historical drama about the man behind the atomic bomb.  

But what matters is what happens after this weekend. By all accounts, Hot Strike Summer seems poised to last beyond one season. Even before SAG went on strike, studio sources were telling reporters that the plan was to let the strike “drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses.” In response to that, actor Ron Perlman took to social media to say “listen to me, motherfucker—there’s a lot of ways to lose your house.” He later walked that back, but when Hellboy enters the chat, you know it’s not going to end gently.

The longer writers and actors are on strike, the bigger the hole next summer or the summer after that, when the movies that would be filming right now aren’t ready. (Deadpool 3 and the sequel to Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One, for example, are both currently on hold.) Cinemas have been bouncing back in the years since Covid restrictions were lifted and people began feeling comfortable in movie houses again. A lackluster year brought on by a dearth of films could prove detrimental.

Yesterday, Comic-Con International began in San Diego. Typically, or at least before the pandemic, the event has been full of panels with flashy stars promoting their next big movie or TV series. As long as SAG is on strike, those celebs won’t show. Some attendees will likely welcome the event’s return to its comics roots, rather than the Hollywood hype-fest it has become. But no matter what happens, it will be unlike any Comic-Con in recent memory. Maybe a little less plastic, but not fantastic.

[positivelybeastly]

Tell me why Simon’s upcoming marvel verse tpb (releasing between xforce 49 and 50) decided to highlight that issue (the one where Hank kisses Simon) out of all the possible issues that actually like. Are meaningful for him as a character and his supporting cast not just the one where he gets gay kissed by a guy who proceedes to dress up in his clothes, his girlfriend wonders if she would be better off getting back with his brother, and the guy who kissed him calls him a chickenplucker before he dips. Like it’s not really an important Simon issue, probably not even the best Hank/simon friendship issue but it kind of feels like they’re saying getting gay kissed by Hank is at least the fourth most important thing ever to happen to Simon, possibly more so than the whole evil and robot brothers thing

I do not understand I feel like the goof kiss is something that can very easily be interpreted as homophobic since essentially it’s saying “what if two men kissed would that be wacky or what”. Why would you bring that up again. Unless…? (Bi Hank real?)

"C'maaaaaan, you aren't still dwelling on that ol' gag, are you? It was for fun! You don't think Bugs Bunny has feelings for other fellas, do you? Just a little harmless horsing around, between two old buddies who hadn't seen each other in a while, on account of one of them being dead! We all get a little excited when that happens, don't we?

. . . Okay, so maybe that doesn't happen to you guys so often, but when it happens here, that's a - very common reaction. Nothing gay about it. And it's not like there's anything wrong with being gay, or bi, or any of that, either! I'm just not. Capiche?"

So, this is one of those things where it's like - I'm 99% certain this is just a weird coincidence, or that this was picked by a staffer with a sense of humour, or something, BUT.

There's the 1%.

There's the one 1% that has to check, and, hey, what happens if you Google Wonder Man Beast?

NOW.

I WILLL ADMIT THAT PERHAPS THERE IS SOME SEARCH ENGINE SKEWING GOING ON.

BUT.

THAT IS FAN ART OF GAY HANK AND SIMON ON ROW ONE, PEOPLE.

The cover for the issue with the kiss is row two!

The kiss itself is row three!

Like, full disclosure, I have absolutely Googled 'Wonder Man Beast kiss before', to get the panel to talk about my thoughts on Hank's sexuality before, so maybe there's some stuff going on, but, friends, Google 'Wonder Man Beast' and tell me what YOU see, because I am curious.

But for real, let's talk about this TPB.

Read this product description.

"Learn more about Wonder Man, the energy-powered Avenger who doubles as a movie star, before and after the release of the Disney+ series!

Few heroes in the Marvel-Verse are more wondrous than Wonder Man and none is a bigger draw at the box office! Get to know Simon Williams, the world’s greatest Avenger-turned-movie star, beginning with his momentous debut - in which he is gifted amazing power, but must defeat Earth’s Mightiest Heroes in exchange! Will he go bad, or make a heroic sacrifice? Don’t count Wonder Man out just yet!

Soon he’s back, breaking into Hollywood and tussling with heavyweights like the Sandman and the Abomination! But who needs enemies when you can have a best friend like Hank McCoy, the bouncing, blue-furred Beast? Prepare to discover why Simon and Hank are the greatest double act in Avengers history!"

I should remind you, this is not the Beast and Wonder Man book, that is a SEPARATE collection. A separate collection with art that has been HALVED to make THIS collection's cover, I know that Nick Bradshaw art anywhere.

But let's also talk about the issue selection!

"Avengers (1963) #9" - makes sense! His very first appearance, his villain turn, his death. You HAVE to include the origin issue, it's the law. 5/5, perfect choice if you want to know what Simon is.

"Wonder Man (1986) #1" - first issue of his first solo series! Absolutely makes sense, fun little one-off thing that shows how Simon is adjusting after his hero turn, shows off his personality, self-contained, beautiful. 5/5, excellent choice.

"West Coast Avengers (1985) #25" - fun little story showing off his movie career and his up and down relationship with fame! And it doesn't rely too much on other continuity, you can just pick it up and go and have fun, even if the other Avengers parts might confuse you a bit. 4/5, good choice, a bit of a deep cut.

"Avengers (1998) #14" - awright, let's pull this one up and have a look. What is this issue actually about?

Our cover.

Hmm. Well, they seem like good friends!

Aw, cute! I love when comics break the fourth wall like this, I wonder what they have in store for us.

Oh! A . . . two page spread of, Hank . . . shouting, "Hi honey, I'm home!"

Looking a little demented, there, Hank, you okay?

. . . Hank? You . . . okay there?

. . . Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

You - got him flowers, Hank?

H-Hank, you're . . . wearing, Simon's, old . . . safari jacket . . ?

So, there IS some Simon only stuff in here, which is good, and catches you up on some of the events of his other solo series, which is good! This is good Simon content! Okay, cool!

O-Oh.

Chickenplucker?

FUCKING WHAT.

Okay, we need to check another website, there's NO WAY.

THAT is the issue you chose?

THAT ONE?

Not A+X #12?

No, wait, shit, we're trying to beat the allegations.

Um. Um. What about, what about that one Avengers Annual?

SHIT, ABORT, ABORT.

Uncanny Avengers #28! That's good, wholesome fun, right?

FUCK. FUCK, FUCK ME, GODDAMN IT.

What about - what about Wonder Man vol. 2 #6? That's safe, right?

And at this point, the poor Marvel staffer gave up and said, FUCK IT, THE GAY KISS IS LESS GAY THAN THE REST OF THIS SHIT.

Like, come the fuck on, now.

But no, that's the reason why that issue is in there.

Because it's somehow less gay than every other interaction they've had.

I have no idea if it's intentional, but how has every single writer since 1981 managed to write these two like tender hearted lovers? Why does Simon at his most asshole in Wonder Man vol. 2 act like Hank is his personal damsel in distress and smile more at him than he does his girlfriends? It's not impossible to write male friendships in a non-gay way, it really isn't, and yet.

You keep.

Managing.

To make it like this.

Hank McCoy is bisexual and in love with Simon Williams. Whether he, or the writers, have realised it, THAT is the story they have managed to tell. Maybe one day they'll catch up.

Maybe one day soon, if they're smart.

[denimbex1986]

'Next week comes the strangest pairing at the multiplex we've seen in years. We're talking, of course, about Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer — together dubbed Barbenheimer — set to go toe-to-toe for box office dominance on 21 July. The former is a hot pink franchise comedy inspired by the iconic line of Mattel dolls, the latter a stylistically austere biopic about the invention of the atomic bomb. Such is the striking contrast at play, of course the internet (read: Twitter) was going to do what the internet does and meme the shit out of it: now, all anyone can talk about online is Barbenheimer, sucking attention away from other major summer releases like Mission: Impossible 7 and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Though this clash of cinematic titans might've been elevated to event prominence by the internet's collective love of ironic memedom, it's hardly the first example of diametrically opposed movies dropping on the same day. Fifteen years ago in the US, on 18 July 2008, cinemas were similarly split into two queues: the Batman enthusiasts on one side, clamouring to get into The Dark Knight and usher in a new superhero movie age; on the other, ABBA stans awaited a trip to the sunny isles of a fictional Greek island in Mamma Mia!. Had the internet grown beyond its cringey 9gag nascency by then, it might've been the original Barbenheimer. The Dark Mamma, if you will.

After all, there are huge parallels between the duelling duos. The Dark Knight was the dark and dreary, terminally serious Christopher Nolan movie. Mamma Mia!, the fun-loving “chick flick”, a jukebox musical for the gays and girlies to let their hair down with campy, sun-kissed escapism. Say you did the double bill back then: you could spend two-and-a-half hours with Christian Bale growling gravely under the cape and cowl, then it'd be time for cocktails on the beach with Amanda Seyfried and Pierce Brosnan. With Barbenheimer, it's another pitch-black Nolan flick where its male lead does a lot of broody staring into the middle distance, contemplating the deep evils now ushered unto the world, paired against Barbie, where men are Just Ken. For both Mamma Mia! and Barbie, it's hard to think of more colourful chasers to stave off Post-Nolan Depression.

The Dark Mamma, alas, never took off as Barbenheimer has. Indeed most people online, anecdotally, simply forgot that the two released on the same day, such was the broad surprise when viral tweets prompted by Barbenheimer brought new attention to the OG. (Here in the UK, they came out eleven days apart.) Little media coverage at the time pointed to the contrast, the most prominent article available on Google search being a Vulture piece from the week of release, the headline of which jokingly announced Mamma Mia! and The Dark Knight as battling “for the very soul of America.” Strikingly similar contrasts were zeroed in on: “Are you a happy person, or a sad one? Do you see the glass as half-full, or half-empty? Do you prefer your toast with strawberry jam, or do you like it sprinkled with shards of broken glass?” All ring true of Barbenheimer, too, only the question now isn't which, so much as which first. Shard sarnies, nevertheless, remain ill-advised.

Hollywood studios know exactly what they're doing with such stark counter-programming: the lack of demographic crossover suggests, on paper, that the movies won't eat into each other's profits, giving audiences a variety of options. In 2003, for example, X-2 was released into US cinemas on the same day as The Lizzie McGuire Movie, and in 2015, Mad Max: Fury Road roared onto screens simultaneous to Pitch Perfect 2. Barbenheimer is distinct in that we seldom get such a major clash of two big-budget summer blockbusters, nor a meme-propelled online movement spawning Etsy merch and Twitter stan rivalries. But that's the key thing, and the true movie-loving spirit of Barbenheimer: while we might joke about Nolan nuking Barbie's Malibu Dreamhouse, these aren't warring parties battling for audience supremacy. Much like The Dark Knight and Mamma Mia! — which went on to be the first and fifth-highest grossing movies of 2008 — early projections suggest that both Barbie and Oppenheimer will both do pretty well for themselves. And there's only one winner when that happens: the movies.'

[the-odd-ducks]

Unyielding Spirit: Why The Pursuit of Happyness is a Must-Watch Masterpiece

The Pursuit of Happyness is a heartwarming and deeply inspiring film that resonates with audiences through its powerful portrayal of perseverance, determination, and the human spirit's unyielding resilience. Directed by Gabriele Muccino and released in 2006, the film is based on the true story of Chris Gardner, a struggling salesman who faces insurmountable challenges in his quest to provide a better life for himself and his young son.

Box Office Collection

The movie was a commercial success, grossing over $307 million worldwide against a modest budget of $55 million. The film's strong performance at the box office is a testament to its universal appeal, as it struck a chord with audiences across different cultures and backgrounds. Its success was also fueled by positive word-of-mouth and critical acclaim, making it one of the most memorable films of the year.

Popularity

The Pursuit of Happyness gained widespread popularity for its moving story and the exceptional performances of its cast. The film's relatability and emotional depth helped it gain a lasting place in the hearts of viewers. Over the years, it has remained a favorite for many, often cited as a must-watch for those seeking motivation or a reminder of the power of perseverance. The film's popularity also extends to television broadcasts, streaming platforms, and home video sales, where it continues to find new audiences.

Star Cast

Will Smith delivers a career-defining performance as Chris Gardner, capturing the character's struggle, determination, and love for his son. Smith's portrayal earned him an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor and solidified his reputation as one of Hollywood's most versatile and talented actors.

Jaden Smith, making his acting debut, plays Christopher Gardner Jr., Chris's young son. Despite his age, Jaden delivers a mature and heartfelt performance, perfectly complementing his real-life father's role.

Thandie Newton plays Linda, Chris's wife, who eventually leaves him due to the pressures of their financial struggles. Newton’s portrayal adds complexity to the story, highlighting the strain that economic hardship can place on relationships.

The Message

The core message of The Pursuit of Happyness is one of hope, determination, and the relentless pursuit of one's dreams, no matter the obstacles. The film emphasizes that success is not defined by wealth or status but by the effort and persistence one puts into overcoming challenges. It also sheds light on the harsh realities of poverty and homelessness, particularly in the context of the American Dream, while also offering a powerful message about the importance of family and the sacrifices parents make for their children.

Chris Gardner's journey from being homeless to becoming a successful stockbroker is a testament to the idea that no matter how bleak the circumstances, with enough determination and hard work, anything is possible. The film also encourages viewers to cherish their loved ones and to remain hopeful, even in the darkest of times.

Why Everyone Should Watch It

The Pursuit of Happyness is more than just a movie; it's an emotional and motivational experience. It teaches valuable life lessons about resilience, the importance of never giving up, and the power of a positive attitude. Will Smith's performance, coupled with the real-life story of Chris Gardner, makes the film both inspiring and relatable.

Whether you're facing personal challenges, seeking motivation, or simply looking for a movie that will move you emotionally, The Pursuit of Happyness is a must-watch. It serves as a reminder that success is not guaranteed, but the pursuit of happiness is a journey worth taking, no matter the odds. The film's emotional depth, powerful message, and stellar performances make it a timeless piece of cinema that resonates with viewers of all ages.

Read the original book from which the movie was inspired

The Pursuit of Happyness (US)

The Pursuit of Happyness (IN)

[insanityclause]

Zoe Saldana stars in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"SOURCE: MARVEL

That’s not to say Marvel — along with all studios and streamers — doesn’t face some hurdles going forward. But the nature of those obstacles for Marvel are frankly pretty obvious; it’s mostly things Marvel has overcome before; and regardless of those issues and the need to address them, Marvel is still actually doing pretty good right now even amid the problems they’ve had.

So let’s just unpack what’s really going wrong, and what it means for Marvel Studios.

The situation with actor Jonathan Majors — the star of several Marvel films and streaming shows, as the MCU’s time-traveling villain Kang the Conqueror — is that he faces multiple accusations of abuse, and is scheduled to stand trial for one recent case. After that case was initially reported, other accusations surfaced, as did previous public statements from years ago by performers who asserted accusations of abuse were already circulating about Majors.

So yes, Marvel will almost certainly recast Kang. Lucky for Marvel, the character literally exists across a near-infinite number of alternate realities where he takes different forms and changes appearance. Likewise, Marvel has had to recast characters in the past, just like lots of other franchise or TV/streaming series. This isn’t brain surgery, and the framing of this issue as something that could sink Marvel’s whole future plans is frankly nonsense.

Just one great example, Marvel could offer the role to John Boyega (who I’d argue should’ve been the top candidate for the role in the first place). Or maybe Denzel Washington as an iteration of Kang who sat out the in-fighting and collective efforts of the rest of the Kangs and grew older and wiser as he made his plans to take over. Or maybe Ray Fisher could be offered the role, if Marvel wants to poke DC and WBD while scoring a great casting option.

MORE FOR YOU

Apple Finally Kills Its Awkward MacBook Pro

Zero Punctuation Ends As The Escapist Faces Mass Resignations After EIC Firing

Ukraine’s American-Made M-1 Tanks Have Reached The Front Line

Or perhaps Marvel could offer the role to Leslie Odom Jr., Lakeith Stanfield, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Daveed Diggs, Stephan James, or any number of other fantastic casting choices to take over the role of Kang in the MCU.

Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.Sign Up

By signing up, you accept and agree to our Terms of Service (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement.

The point is, the worst part of the situation with John Majors is if the allegations are true and women suffered this abuse while Hollywood ignored it. The casting “problem” is small potatoes by comparison, and is easy to solve.

So let’s look at the financials now, since a central claim to the “Marvel is in trouble” narrative is that the studio is struggling at the box office while streaming is an unpopular mess.

At the box office, it’s true Marvel hit a high point with their back to back releases of the two-part Avengers conclusion to the Infinity Saga. The $2.79 billion from Endgame and $2 billion from Infinity War elevated the final global gross for all 22 films in that saga to more than $20 billion, for a per-film average of around $935 million.

In 2018 and 2019, the MCU put up the following numbers: Black Panther hit $1.34 billion, then Infinity War topped $2 billion, then Captain Marvel scored $1.1 billion, and then Endgame took $2.79 billion. Ant-Man and the Wasp at $622 is the only MCU film in those 24 months that failed to top $1 billion.

Since the Infinity Saga ended, Marvel’s releases have taken north of $8.1 billion across 10 movies so far, with a Multiverse Saga per film average of about $815 million. The difference between $815 million and $935 million is not insignificant, but nor is it disastrous, and it’s certainly not hard to understand why it’s happening.

The 2018 and 2019 slates for the Infinity Saga benefited from a decade of build-up, and it was those last four (out of five total) blockbusters topping $1-2 billion each that provided the final heft and resulted in an even higher per film average. We are only in the first half of the Multiverse Saga to date, and so far we haven’t had a single Avengers movie in this new saga, while as noted the Infinity Saga ended with a one-two Avengers punch good for more than $2 million per film.

And then the fact of the Covid pandemic alone accounts for most of the rest of the downturn in Marvel Studios’ average box office performance. Even during the Covid pandemic, when films were flopping or going straight to streaming/PVOD, Marvel’s three releases that performed “badly” due to the global health crisis still managed to finish between $379.7 million on the lowest end and $432 million. That’s better than the DCEU can perform even after theaters reopened and box office started its climb back toward something resembling “normal” — at least for the right films, since 2023 has been a roller coaster ride for theatrical.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania underperformed earlier this year and wound up the weakest performer of that franchise at $476 million, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 scored blockbuster results with $845.5 million.

Indeed, Vol. 3 is currently the fourth-highest grossing movie of 2023, both domestically and worldwide. And for the record, as disappointing as its box office was, 2023 has been so cruel to theatrical releases that Quantumania is still a top-10 box office performer.

We’ve seen one would-be blockbuster tentpole after another face-plant or otherwise disappoint, and often when a tentpole has managed a healthy box office performance it’s at a more moderate level than expected or typically enjoyed by the given franchise and/or its prior financial trajectory.

Other than Barbie, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Oppenheimer, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, nothing else truly put up top-tier results this year. Fast X topped $700 million, but is fourth film in a row from the series to suffer a decline from its predecessor’s box office gross, and the lowest box office for the franchise since 2011’s Fast Five, so it’s a mixed bag there.

Besides that, 2023 saw three films in the $500-600 millions range, four in $400 millions territory, and a couple of $300 millions.

The makeup of the top 10 this year looks like this: Barbie, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Oppenheimer, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Fast X, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, The Little Mermaid, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One, Elemental, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

Notice, there are three Marvel superhero movies in the top 10. Yes, one of them underperformed, but the point is that it seems silly to talk as if audience are in any widespread or large scale way turning away from superhero cinema, or that Marvel is somehow reeling from a downfall and have lost control.

The Marvels is currently tracking toward a shockingly low debut this weekend, with most projections pointing to a $130-$150 million global opening. Without at least average holds, the film could struggle to get past $300-400 million. On the other hand, I think tracking has proven pretty unreliable these days, and I believe a significant part of these disappointing numbers is the fact a lot of people are confusing this film with being another new Disney+ Marvel show, or think it is coming to Disney+ as a film soon. There’s also the general 2023 ongoing curse to consider.

But regardless, The Marvels should’ve been a home run sequel. While we can point to the unethical shenanigans and toxic behavior of fans and of certain organized hateful online voices obsessed with attacking women-driven movies or shows, if this film flops or underperforms rather than merely suffering a downward adjustment consistent with the genre overall (which would mean a box office for The Marvels in the $700 million range, I’d say), then it’s entirely fair to call it a big stumble for the studio.

The large-scale tainting of superhero cinema by the DCEU’s overarching failure the past several years (eight films in a row across five years, all failing to reach $400 million and averaging in the roughly $250 million range) coinciding with the Covid pandemic and theatrical downturn, coupled with a leveling off — not uncontrolled free-fall or any other hyperbolic situation — of Marvel’s must-see “event” status in the aftermath of their 11-year Infinity Saga’s conclusion (and lack of any Avengers team-ups for four years and counting) has no doubt reduced the dominance of the superhero genre and audience’s previous high-level anticipation.

But that sort of heightened “event” status is impossible for any franchise or genre to maintain, and no serious person expected the genre or any one studio’s piece of it to be some perpetual ever-increasing profit machine

Neither Marvel nor the genre in general need to treat the usual ebb and flow of primacy in entertainment as if it’s some major crisis threatening the existence and profitability of the studio or genre. That’s just the natural clickbait mentality driving entertainment journalism. We should be able to report on and assess such situations without resort to exaggerated portrayals for melodramatic purposes, nor parrot claims from those with obvious incentives and ulterior motives behind any of that sort of hyperbolic claims. We know better, but that doesn’t mean the profession behaves better, and so we get clickbait and studio drama delivered up like silly reality TV, and everyone pretends not to recognize it as the nonsense it usually is.

Marvel has to recast a major lead actor, something we’ve seen plenty of times by studios and projects, including literally by Marvel themselves on more than one occasion. Marvel’s first two films of 2023 grossed a combined $1.3 billion in box office. Even if The Marvels only does about half the box office of Captain Marvel — a vastly bigger drop than the Ant-Man franchise experienced, but let’s just use a 50% dramatic decrease to make the larger point — the MCU will have grossed a total of about $2.45 billion for 2023, an average of $815 million per film.

If that figure sounds familiar, it’s because I mentioned it earlier since it’s the per-film average for the MCU ever since the end of the Infinity Saga. Marvel settled back a bit from the high per-film average of $935 million, and for four years we’ve consistently seen this same new average level of performance for their films. Again, not insignificant as a drop, but in context it’s easier to understand and recognize as not a sudden emergency situation, and I suspect most studios would be happy if they could average north of $800 million per film on average every year.

And let’s face it, once the latest Avengers movies hit the radar, we’ll see the average per film gross go up during those years, just like always, and in the long run if the two scheduled Avengers movies play at the $2 billion level, that will actually result in an increase in the final average per-film gross for the Multiverse Saga, just as those huge Avengers box office grosses at the end of Infinity Saga seriously raised the saga’s per-film average.

This is all fairly predictable, within an obvious margin of error but not frankly too far of deviation. Which doesn’t negate the fact of the downturn in average performances, but rather puts it into less histrionic perspective as solvable problems for a still overwhelmingly successful studio that’s seeing per film averages still far superior to what any other studio can claim.

On streaming, where audience trends and preferences have likewise evolved during the Covid era, Marvel

First we got the ABC broadcast series: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter, and Inhumans. Want to take a moment to recall how did those all fair with audiences and critics?

Then came Netflix's slate, with Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Defenders, and The Punisher — half of those got mostly good or great reviews, a couple got mixed to negative reviews, and along the way different seasons of a given show had their ups and downs. Many fans and reviewers bemoaned the general lack of tie-in to the cinematic releases, a point that's amusing in light of how the same reviewers and fans completely reversed course a few years later to bemoan the fact the newer MCU shows often try to tie in to the MCU.

So next up are The Runaways and Cloak and Dagger, shows with younger casts and less direct connection to the rest of the MCU, but both were short lived and appeared on two different streaming services.

Which brings us to the MCU shows on Disney+, overseen by Marvel Studios itself and consisting of WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Loki, What If...?, Hawkeye, Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, and Secret Invasion.

While The Falcon and the Winter Soldier and What If...? received mixed reactions, WandaVision and Loki got generally good to great reviews, as did Hawkeye and Moon Knight.

Ms. Marvel likewise received strong positive reviews, aside from resentful fans mostly motivated by racism or sexism who bashed the show (the same way angry bigoted fans harassed Brie Larson and tried to manipulate online reviews for Captain Marvel, and to this day engage in bizarre conspiracy theories pretending movies with women leads are secretly propped up by studios buying up tickets), and the same mob of boys and men perpetually upset that everything isn’t just a mirror reflecting themselves were incensed that She-Hulk dared make fun of them for being immature, bigoted, and all-around goofy.

Granted, She-Hulk did often have what looked like rushed and unfinished CGI, but it was also still miles ahead of most TV CGI and it didn’t detract from the entertainment value of the show and was generally fine. (Yes, plenty of folks just didn’t enjoy these shows, and I’m sure it’s entirely a coincidence that for many of them it always happens to be women-led shows that bother them or are declared “meh”).

Secret Wars is the most recent new MCU show (besides a new season of Loki), and it got mixed reviews that lean mostly positive but still point to trouble in the decision-making to develop the series, questions about

The point of all of this is, Marvel’s had a lot of superhero shows for a long time during the reign of the MCU, and the shows have tended to mostly get good or great reviews, while often suffering complaints of inconsistency in tie-ins vs stand-alone abilities, or iffy VFX, or questions about who is in charge and why certain decisions were made. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s a broken record of reality at this point, the sort that gets mentioned as if it’s a new development any time someone is pushing the latest version of the “sky is falling” narrative.

Not that there aren’t issues needing solutions. The budgets are too high, and Marvel — like many streamers — is discovering it’s simply not sustainable to spend $20 million or more per episode with rushed production schedules and increasingly unreasonable demands on VFX workers.

But the shows themselves are so far working and working pretty well, if you aren’t focused entirely on social media debates and media exaggerations. Most every MCU show on Disney+ has enjoyed positive reception from critics and viewers, enjoying good (and sometimes record-setting) viewership. Fixing the problems for the Marvel streaming plans is not really any more difficult than fixing the theatrical issues, because it’s easy to identify the problems, easy to see where the problems arose, and easy to see what is necessary to end those problems.

Nobody foresaw the Covid pandemic (or at least the extent of it) or the utterly shameful, failed public health response it elicited from governments and organizations that are paid and entrusted to prevent or deal with such crises. Marvel was caught off guard like every studio, Marvel suffered the same box office downturn as every studio, Marvel leaned into streaming like every studio, and Marvel is now having to make adjustments to adapt to the still-evolving environment theatrically and in streaming.

So media and fans and others in Hollywood pretending this is some shocking, Marvel-specific situation are making disingenuous claims, and they should know better. Most probably do, but the truth is more boring than doomsaying — and with everything else in the world falling apart, clickbait and hyperbole are the best way to get attention for entertainment news during a drought (caused by few new films/shows releasing, and the likelihood of strikes dragging into next year because studios put money toward bonuses, yachts, and private jets rather than pay artists, writers, and performers living wages from a fair share of the revenue they generate).

Marvel will recast Kang, they’ll reduce the number of shows and films in production at a given time, they’ll get budgets under control and allow more time for VFX work, and they’ll refocus on the approaches and measures that worked so well in the past to determine which projects to greenlight and how to return to the sense of a big shared world the Avengers have to team up to save.

Luckily, with the X-Men and Fantastic Four reboots around the corner, Marvel has a couple of big teams with lots of potential for precisely the sort of storytelling Marvel does best at the blockbuster level. They could even simply move toward a post-Secret Wars setup that lets Fantastic Four, X-Men, and a handful of other existing popular franchises carry the Marvel brand forward for a while.

We will also probably see the temporary return of Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Scarlett Johansson reprise their popular MCU roles for Avengers: The Kang Dynasty and/or Avengers: Secret Wars.

And looking at the upcoming slate, it’s not hard to see there’s plenty of reason to feel confident Marvel will continue to enjoy success, even if it’s at a slightly moderated level due to the myriad factors we’ve discussed, including the idea that superhero genre films are settling into a more consistent long-term level of popularity and performance from now on.

The next four years brings Deadpool 3, Captain America: Brave New World, Thunderbolts, Blade, Fantastic Four, Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, and Avengers: Secret Wars, and at some point thereafter Armor Wars and the X-Men. Of these films, the two Avengers movies are likely to be blockbuster hits, as is Deadpool 3. Captain America: Brave New World is an established franchise, lacking the original series lead but with a continuing cast and brand that I think are enough to avoid any significant downturn in box office, even if we see some drop from the peak levels of the Infinity Saga.

Blade and Thunderbolts are the riskier properties here, but the former is a previously successful cinematic brand and the latter is a team-up movie including some recognizable characters and stars. Still, this is where we might see more underperformances. Fantastic Four could likewise either perform at a blockbuster levels, or might wind up in the $700 million range, but as a key property getting lots of attention and must-work oversight, I think it’ll avoid being a problem.

Armor Wars as an extension of the Iron Man movies — and possibly/probably coming after we see Robert Downey Jr. again in some Avengers action — should perform well, and X-Men is a known successful brand getting an MCU reboot and polish as a big team franchise including younger cast members, so I think it’ll at least be capable of playing at the Guardians of the Galaxy level, if done right.

This isn’t a debacle, it’s not doomsday, and Marvel isn’t in disarray. The internal difficulties they’ve faced are frankly typical and easy to identify and solve, as much as everything else we’ve discussed here. The bottom line is this: we’ve seen Marvel Studios kick off with a big hit in Iron Man and an outright flop with The Incredible Hulk, after which Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor performed at okay levels but didn’t set the box office on fire by any stretch.

We got the original Avengers movie off the strength of Iron Man and Iron Man 2, and to really help put this into perspective I’ll point out the average per film box office of Phase One was $634 million. Phase Two’s per film average was $876 million.

Marvel worked hard to build what they created, and it’s a tremendous historic success full of ups and downs that so far have ultimately maintained an impressive level of successful across a large slate of films and series. To look at this history, this math, and think Marvel Studios is in deep trouble, struggling, or never really was very good to begin with, is unreasonable and contrary to the data and any serious considerations.

[film-classics]

Joan Crawford - The Hollywood Glamor Girl

Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur in San Antonio, Texas on March 23, 1906) was an American actress remembered today as the quintessential "Hollywood Glamor Girl."

Of French-Huguenot and English ancestry, she joined several dance contests, one of which landed her in a chorus line. Before long, she was in Broadway.

By 1925, she was on her way to Hollywood for a contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Her first role came soon after - as the body double for Norma Shearer, MGM's most popular female star. The studio saw her potential, but disliked her name, so they ran a contest, "Name the Star," in Movie Weekly.

Crawford made several silent films and had continued success in talkies after working very hard to remove her Southern accent. Even though she remained a respected and profitable actress at MGM, her popularity declined in the 1940s. In 1943, she requested to be released from MGM and immediately signed with Warner Brothers.

Warner Brothers gave her a chance to show her range and revived her career with movies like Mildred Pierce (1945), which won her the Academy Award for Best Actress. Like before, she asked to be released from her contract in 1952.

She continued to work freelance and became actively involved with Pepsi-Cola Co. through her marriage tot he company's president. Her career came to a lull again mostly because of the lack of roles for older women in Hollywood. By the 1960s, she again had a transformation and became her own PR machine, with a new script, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). It was a hit and led to a string of roles until she retired in 1970.

At 69, she died from a heart attack in her apartment in Lenox Hill. Manhattan. Shortly after, it was revealed she paid for the medical care of hundreds of people, many of whom were from the film industry. She never publicized these nor wanted the public or patients to know.

Legacy:

Won the Academy Award for Best Actress for Mildred Pierce (1945) and nominated twice more: Possessed (1948) and Sudden Fear (1953)

Won the National Board Review Best Actress for Mildred Pierce (1945)

Nominated for a Golden Globe Best Actress for Sudden Fear (1953)

Nominated for the 1964 BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Actress

Named as one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars in 1926

Won the Photoplay Awards - Best Performance of the Month in August and September 1928, the 1951 and 1953 Most Popular Female Star

Honored with a block in the forecourt of Grauman's Chinese Theatre in 1929

Listed by the Motion Picture Herald as one of America’s top-10 box office draws from 1930 to 1936

Was the vice president of the Motion Picture Relief Fund in the 1930s

Proclaimed the first "Queen of the Movies" by Life in 1937

Donated her entire salary from donated her entire $112,500 salary from They All Kissed The Bride (1942) to charities in memory of Carole Lombard

Won the Golden Apple Award twice as Most Cooperative Actress in 1945 and 1946

Won the Golden Laurel for Top Female Performance for Sudden Fear (1953) and Torch Song (1954)

Received the first Golden Shutter Award in 1955 from the LA Press Photographers Association

Served in the Board of Directors of Pepsi-Cola Co. from 1959 to 1973

Given the Variety Club of Philadelphia's Variety Club Award in 1960

Co-wrote two autobiographies, A Portrait of Joan (1962) and My Way of Life (1971)

Honored with City of Hope Award in 1963 and the Heart of the World Award in 1965 by City of Hope Hospital

Named by the United Service Organizations as the first "Woman of The Year" in 1965

Sponsored the Joan Crawford Dance Studio in 1965 and the Joan Crawford Awards Collection in 1966 at Brandeis University

Became a Brandeis University Fellow in 1967

Presented with the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 1970 Golden Globe Awards

Was the national chairwoman of the American Cancer Society in 1972

Appeared in the "Legendary Ladies" series at The Town Hall in 1973

inducted in the Photoplay Awards Hall of Fame in 1977

Depicted in her daughter's memoir, Mommie Dearest (1978), which was turned to a film in 1981

Is the namesake of a 1981 song by Blue Öyster Cult

Featured in the 1989 book Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud, the basis for the 2017 show Feud: Bette and Joan

Named the 10th-greatest female star of classic Hollywood cinema in 1999 by the American Film Institute

Inducted in the Online Film and Television Association Hall of Fame in 2005

Ranked #93 in Premiere magazine’s 100 Greatest Performances of All Time in 2006 for Mildred Pierce (1945)

Ranked 84 in Playboy's "100 Sexiest Women of the 20th Century" in 2012

Honored as Turner Classic Movies Star of the Month for January 2014

Has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1752 Vine Street for motion picture

[destinyc1020]

I may not the biggest fan of glenn powell But I was saying this to my friend the other day hes got such movie star vibes b/c he understands the game and not ashamed of the pageantry add in the fact that he got natural charisma and has great smile. Tom cruise really showed this man how to sell a movie.

LOL yea girl....I peeped Glen's game long time ago.😅 It started with that "Anyone But You" press lol.

But yea, he knows how to play the Hollywood game, and isn't ashamed of doing it. He knows he'll never be a Daniel Day Lewis lol, and maybe he doesn't even really want to be hahaha... 😅 He's just here to have fun, make some blockbuster films, and collect a paycheck ROTFL. 😅

I'm telling you all...he might become the new "Box Office King" lol. He's def on his way to becoming a Movie Star. I've been peeping Glen for years though. Ever since he was in "Hidden Figures", then "Top Gun: Maverick"... He's always been someone who has stood out to me.

I didn't even realize he was in "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Great Debaters" until recently! It seems I've been seeing him in a lot of films over the years, but he's just had small parts lol. 😅

His star is definitely rising. Keep an eye on him. He will be a movie star soon if he keeps playing his cards right lol. 😅

Speaking of Tom Cruise, he recently surprised Glen at one of the "Twisters" screenings! 😊

[placegrenette]

Joanna Lillis (who wrote Dark Shadows, a book I drew from heavily when writing my Ninety One Series) saw Dastur and says it's a hit!

Dastur, which means tradition in Kazakh, was directed by Kuanish Beisekov, and grossed 1 billion tenge, around $2.2 million, in the first week after its December 28 release. That is a record by Kazakh movie industry standards. In the first four days after its release, up to New Year’s Eve, the Kazakh-language film was easily outgrossing Hollywood blockbusters showing at the same time, such as Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom or Ferrari.

Kuka got a hit! I'm so happy!

(Note that Kuka told the Zamandas guys that he's changed his last name from Beisekov to Beisek, but apparently word hasn't reached Joanna Lillis yet. Kuka, go talk to Joanna Lillis! She's great!)

I'm not sure I have the stomach for the film, but fortunately Joanna Lillis has also provided us with some bits of the delicious satire within:

In Dastur, the lead character happens to be called Nursultan – a common enough name in Kazakhstan, but inextricably associated with a president whose rule is perceived as being characterized by the corruption and social injustice that the movie exposes. His son, the rapist, is called Bolat, which, in what may or may not be another coincidence, is the name of Nazarbayev’s late brother. Those are not the only monikers with connotations. The village is given the ironic name of Bolashak, Kazakh for future. The restaurant where the wedding party is held is called Khan Shatyr, the same as a flashy shopping mall in Astana. The mosque where the unhappy couple take their religious vows is called Nurly, meaning light, but also a sly nod to Nazarbayev’s first name.

I hope the substantial portion of Pop Almaty involved in the making of this movie, if they're not already busy celebrating Alem and Veronika getting officially married (aww!), are busy celebrating slash teasing Kuka and planning the next fun collective project.

[alovelywaytospendanevening]

Puck: Apple’s Come-to-Jesus Moment for Movies

Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht, the stewards of Apple’s 5-year-old foray into Hollywood, were summoned to Cupertino last month for a curious sit-down. Tim Cook was there, I’m told, as was services V.P. Eddy Cue, the overseer of the content initiative and the Apple TV+ streaming platform. Budgets were on the agenda, of course, as was the breakdown in content spend between series and films. And notably, Cook and Cue are said to have asked some very tough questions about the company’s recent experiment with movie theaters. Apple, in particular, has become a savior of sorts for big-name actors and their agents’ kids’ private school fundraiser auctions. Van Amburg and Erlicht, who previously ran Sony Pictures TV, are still regularly paying their series stars $750,000 or more per episode. You don’t even want to know what Reese and Jen are making for Season 4 of The Morning Show after their recent renegotiation. Ben Stiller is said to have gone tens of millions of dollars overbudget on the still-not-dated Season 2 of Severance. And in film, they’re still champions of the massive buyout, although Apple, like the other streamers, is trying to figure out how to share that risk—and pay less upfront—in new deals. All of that persists despite the monthly evidence that barely anyone is watching Apple TV+, at least not in this country. According to Nielsen, the service still generates less than 0.5 percent of total viewership of connected TVs. That’s far below Peacock and Paramount+, long considered the also-rans of the streaming wars. For Apple, original film and TV has meant very little bang for those very big bucks. I’m pleased to report, however, that Cook and Cue didn’t pull the plug on theaters in that meeting, and Cook was clear in his continued support for Apple TV+ in general—or at least, that’s what Van Amburg and Erlicht have been telling people, both internally and externally. (An Apple rep declined to comment on their behalf.) I’m told the Apple leaders did prod Zack and Jamie to explain how the company can become smarter in its theatrical endeavors—which, at least by traditional metrics, haven’t gone great. Lessons were learned, the duo promised, data was collected, and it’s early—the two career TV guys will figure this theater thing out. The biggie, a $300 million-plus Formula One movie with Joseph Kosinski directing and Brad Pitt starring, still doesn’t have a release date or a distributor attached, even though Apple has begun reaching out to Imax about booking screens. (Sony and Warner Bros. are considered the favorites; reps for both said it wasn’t theirs but that they are still talking and interested.) That F1 package was so big, and everyone involved wanted so much money up front, that no traditional studio could touch it. And now, in an ironic twist, Apple has been calling around asking potential studio distributors when they would release the movie if they were chosen as the distributor. If. At least one declined to offer that free advice, for obvious reasons. What is the strategy? is a phrase you hear a lot when talking about Apple TV+, particularly its movie initiative. If putting films in theaters is merely to boost engagement on the service, it does seem to be working a bit. Killers of the Flower Moon and Argylle have both popped up on the ratings charts of original movies, thanks to all that marketing and press. Do viewers then stick around for other Apple TV+ movies and shows? Less clear. To that end, I’ve heard the basic barometer for success at Apple is that the box office should at least pay for the P&A cost, thus making the theatrical release a cost-neutral marketing effort for the streamer. (Full article)

I'm struggling to identify Apple's goal here. Do they want to have a successful streaming service, become a prestigious film producer or create major IP franchises? It seems like they're trying to achieve all of these things at once, and are failing on all fronts. Imagine wasting such a large amount of money due to a simple lack of focus.

[dynared]

The Transformers Slag podcast, fresh off their analysis of the Q4 2023 Hasbro report where they concluded Earthspark and Rise of the Beasts were both flops, Earthspark more so (pointed out by the big hole in their in-house Entertainment profits), they pivot to discussing the potential future of the brand outside of collectors material.

It’s important to note that at no point do they declare the brand dead, RUINED FOREVER, or any other sort of hyperbolic issues. However, they do declare Earthspark a total wash between the Q4 report and conversations with supposed insiders while also noting Earthspark merch is following Cyberverse merch straight to the Ollie’s and Lot Less’s of the world, discount retailers that obtain secondhand merchandise from big box retailers when they don’t sell there, at which point they are liquidated at discount prices.

They also mention a rather notable issue with lines being out of synch with media, such as when BotBots the Netflix show debuted well after most of the BotBots toys were long gone from toy shelves (the podcast uses the example of Burgertron).

Transformers One and a complete lack of news and hype are also mentioned, and as many comments pointed out, Sonic 3, despite premiering after, has gotten significantly more hype, promotion, and behind the scenes content. It also doesn’t help that Paramount had a platform to promote One (and Earthspark for that matter) in the Super Bowl, but their Super Bowl ad had neither property, while the one ad during the NFL playoffs with them was a (very funny) ad with ROTB Prime and Scourge.

Rise of the Beasts’s box office underperformance is attributed to a muddled direction for the franchise, since producer of Madame Web Lorenzo Dibonaventura (which should su it all, but Hollywood producers) continues to insist all the live-action movies and even One are all connected to the Bayverse despite Michael Bay having bounced years ago and last year sold his collection of cars from the film. So the theater goers are confused and don’t watch the (admittedly overstuffed) film.

So what’s the solution to all this? The podcasters again note that in an absolute worst case scenario, nothing would stop Hasbro from just handing the reins off to their Japanese partners Takara and allowing them to produce a Transformers anime in the vein of the Unicron Trilogy. Hell, with most action focused cartoons these days either being anime or desperately pretending to be, having a Transformers anime, either as a ground-up toyline or an adaptation of Robert Kirkman’s Energon Universe, would be more than feasible. Allegedly Studio Trigger have all been begging for an opportunity at the Robots in Disguise.

So long story short, Earthspark is a flop and short term media does not look good, but the brand itself will keep trucking as it clearly is a bright spot thanks to Legacy and Studio Series toys.

[anhed-nia]

I finally watched ISHTAR because Criterion was perverse enough to put it on their Channel, and I suspected I might feel this way but now I really believe that both the people who claim it's The Worst Movie of All Time, and the people who say it's a treasure only geniuses understand, are both exaggerating just to mess with each other. It's surprisingly entertaining for about a half hour or something, then it runs out of gas just like many other things that hinge on the idea of being trapped in the desert forever. It's also racist in kind of a dull way, and speaking of racism it is affected by that principle...is there a name for this? that's like, "If you 'jokingly' make racist comments often enough, it stops being a joke and you're just being racist." In the case of ISHTAR the problem is that most of the jokes are about shitty entertainers, which is funny for a little while, but at a certain point you've just been subjected to so much shitty entertainment that it's no longer a joke, etc. Also I don't know whose idea it was to cast Isabelle Adjani in a comedy. It's like putting Klaus Kinski in AIRPLANE!...which maybe would be awesome, I dunno, but I would be scared to do a long unfunny gag where I'm constantly juggling Isabelle Adjani's tits, I'd be seriously afraid of what she might do to me. But anyway ISHTAR is not remarkable in the history of bad movies; it's really middling actually, and if it were made by unknowns you'd never have heard of it--it isn't like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, which was perceived as so radically bad that it made unknowns into household names. The only obviously remarkable thing about ISHTAR is its proportion of star power to box office failure, and this is actually the entire point of the Golden Raspberry.

I think many of the people who don't like the Razzies just don't understand that they're not about punching down on underdogs who just wanted to make a nice movie, which is an extremely hard thing to do in any case. They're practically never about the ACTUAL worst movie made in a certain year, which will be something most people never even hear of; they're about movies that are startlingly bad in spite of the fact that you've heard of them anyway, due to the stars involved and the money machine behind them. The Razzies are about Hollywood and the Oscars. At best a Razzie award actually draws attention and controversy to movies that would otherwise be swept away by the sands of time. Razzies are also a helpful way to thumb our collective noses at movies that are made by people with way too much money and power, with way too little respect for the ticket-buying public. Sure, sometimes they're dead wrong, or even mean, like I don't know if *a child* should really be nominated for a Razzie...however, at the same time, I have to admit that I found that really funny. I mean I acknowledge the problem, that a child usually does not have a well-enough developed sense of irony to participate in its own roast the way Halle Berry did with her CATWOMAN "win". But the Razzies should be a playful attack on how precious the mainstream film industry is about itself, and the more precious something is, the more vulnerable it should be to criticism.

[Incidentally I just watched The Year of the Rabbit and while it's far from my favorite Matt Berry show, I think it might be the first thing to just mercilessly roast the Elephant Man--one of the few things most of humanity has been squeamish enough to lay off of. I'd like to think that Joseph Merrick is looking down from heaven or wherever thinking, Yes, FINALLY someone is doing jokes about me! It's about time for people to lighten the fuck up already, I wanna have fun too!]

Anyway, whatever side of history you're on re: ISHTAR, the best thing about it is probably this piece of trivia about Gary Larson, which bears repeating. Apparently there's a documentary about this movie from not too long ago, I should check it out.