I haven't seen the movie but that bit was written by a guy who is barely out of 'grammar school'! He is also billed as the 'senior culture writer' for a UK tabloid! I looked at his article about Kamala Harris & he refers to her as a 'he' in some parts of the piece. It might be a typo BUT damn PROOFREAD YOUR ARTICLES BEFORE THEY GO TO PRINT!

Some people just can't the stick out of their butt long enough to be able to sit down and have a good time. Movies are supposed to be entertaining first and foremost, if you can add a story and message on top of that great. However, no one will ever care about any story or message if the movie telling it is not entertaining regardless of what certain types think. Hence, why so many films of "critically acclaimed" directors fail at the box office.

@Innovator said:

Movies are supposed to be entertaining first and foremost,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. If that position works for you, terrific. This is an open discussion, opinions will vary, thanks for chipping yours into the conversation. By sharing diverse opinions, hopefully we all get to learn something along the way.

Of course, others are no less entitled to theirs, right? Some people who make movies are not doing it first and foremost to entertain, and it is their right to do it for whatever reasons they hold valuable to them. They, and their audiences, are also a part of the entire movie-making and movie-watching marketplace.

However, no one will ever care about any story or message if the movie telling it is not entertaining regardless of what certain types think.

Not true at all. There are movies people care about that had important messages while the storytelling is uncomfortable or difficult to watch. Not sure if you're throwing shade at the "certain types" of people who have a different opinion on this than you, but I don't know why you would.

Hence, why so many films of "critically acclaimed" directors fail at the box office.

Ah, the intersection of box office and critical reception. I've built a movie ROI database to further explore the history of movie profitability, and from it learned that box office is just one measure of a movie's "success", but it is neither the only, nor the best, measure. Plenty of directors , producers, and actors go into a project knowing up front that their project is not going to make lots of money, but they go ahead because they believe their story needs to be told and it's not about the money in these instances.

Lots of good movies "failed at the box office." Raging Bull, Blade Runner, The Thing, The Princess Bride, Hamburger Hill, Man on Fire are examples that_ lost money_ at the box office.

The movie industry exists in part because these movies were made and built the rich history that continues to drive the industry, box office notwithstanding. All of us who love movies should respect those who did it for other reasons besides "box office".

There are also movies that do just fine at the box office but they are really bad movies. There are audiences for that, too, and hey, it's a free country, people can choose to watch and enjoy whatever they want. Some describe this as "turn your brain off and just have fun." Movies like Michael Bay's Transformers or The Devil's Rejects or Cocaine Bear or Terrifier have their audiences. Not my cup of tea but, to those who like these kinds of movies, knock yourselves out.

Other people prefer to turn their brains ON while consuming content — if any side is worthy of criticism, I'm personally more inclined to suggest the former is more lacking than the latter, but that's just my personal opinion.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Ah, the intersection of box office and critical reception. I've built a movie ROI database to further explore the history of movie profitability, and from it learned that box office is just one measure of a movie's "success", but it is neither the only, nor the best, measure. Plenty of directors , producers, and actors go into a project knowing up front that their project is not going to make lots of money, but they go ahead because they believe their story needs to be told and it's not about the money in these instances.

I don't believe any producer is funding a movie knowing it's going to fail, hence why you have so few of them taking many risks. The general consensus right now is that most will only be willing to pay to go to the movies if they are sure they will be entertained, everything else can wait to be streamed.

@Innovator said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Ah, the intersection of box office and critical reception. I've built a movie ROI database to further explore the history of movie profitability, and from it learned that box office is just one measure of a movie's "success", but it is neither the only, nor the best, measure. Plenty of directors , producers, and actors go into a project knowing up front that their project is not going to make lots of money, but they go ahead because they believe their story needs to be told and it's not about the money in these instances.

I don't believe any producer is funding a movie knowing it's going to fail,

I don't either, and I certainly didn't write that. I wrote "plenty of directors, producers and actors go into a project knowing up front that their project is not going to make lots of money..."

"Not make lots of money" and "fail" are not the same, especially when their criteria is beyond box office, such that "success" may be more on the critical side than the financial side.

hence why you have so few of them taking many risks.

Yeah, few, but few is not zero. And those few who are taking risks understand the price to pay for those risks may or may not include poorer box office performance.

Most of the time, no one knows how a movie will perform at the box office, it's always about managing the perceived risk/reward tension. They all know that. It's always interesting to me that some flops were made by people who actually thought they'd have a hit on their hands (hello Battlefield: Earth!). And then there are those who had no idea their movie would be as big as it would become. Sheesh, George Lucas couldn't get much funding for Star Wars because so few people believed in it (a budget of $11M, compare that to another sci-fi movie released same year, Close Encounters of the Third Kind had a budget of almost twice SW, at $20M) but he found a way to make his movie anyway and defined a generation like few movies ever did.

The general consensus right now is that most will only be willing to pay to go to the movies if they are sure they will be entertained, everything else can wait to be streamed.

That's fine. When I went to see Killers of the Flower Moon in theatre, I was more interested in the dramatization of a sad, tragic, episode in American history, a story that needed to be told. Same with with when I saw Babylon in theatre, not the most popular, didn't do great box office, but a sprawling, remarkably insightful story that was worth telling and seeing.

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

I go to the movies 2-3 times a month with my friends, and 90% of the time in empty theaters. I love movies, as I grew up in a showbiz family who worked in movies, radio, and television (and have been in a movie, radio and a television show myself), so I get it. However, I still will get irked when high brow critic tries to decide for everyone what a movie is, when clearly the general public can vote for that themselves with their pocketbooks. And I've always said, movies don't make a billion dollars without repeat viewers.

@Innovator said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

I go to the movies 2-3 times a month with my friends, and 90% of the time in empty theaters. I love movies, as I grew up in a showbiz family who worked in movies, radio, and television (and have been in a movie, radio and a television show myself), so I get it. However, I still will get irked when high brow critic tries to decide for everyone what a movie is, when clearly the general public can vote for that themselves with their pocketbooks. And I've always said, movies don't make a billion dollars without repeat viewers.

If you don't mind me asking, which ones?

@bratface said:

@Innovator said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

I go to the movies 2-3 times a month with my friends, and 90% of the time in empty theaters. I love movies, as I grew up in a showbiz family who worked in movies, radio, and television (and have been in a movie, radio and a television show myself), so I get it. However, I still will get irked when high brow critic tries to decide for everyone what a movie is, when clearly the general public can vote for that themselves with their pocketbooks. And I've always said, movies don't make a billion dollars without repeat viewers.

If you don't mind me asking, which ones?

I was one of the kids sitting with the actor Dolphy at the end of the movie Dracula Goes to R.P., my grandmother was a makeup artist on that movie who got me in. I was also on a television show in the Philippines called the Sunday Festival, which my dad was one of the hosts, and have been on his and others radio programs and have once even sang on one. My dad used to also run a north bay tv station in the U.S. called Ugaling Pinoy which I worked as an editor at. He was also a DJ at a local San Francisco radio station which I've also been on.

@Innovator said:

@bratface said:

@Innovator said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

I go to the movies 2-3 times a month with my friends, and 90% of the time in empty theaters. I love movies, as I grew up in a showbiz family who worked in movies, radio, and television (and have been in a movie, radio and a television show myself), so I get it. However, I still will get irked when high brow critic tries to decide for everyone what a movie is, when clearly the general public can vote for that themselves with their pocketbooks. And I've always said, movies don't make a billion dollars without repeat viewers.

If you don't mind me asking, which ones?

I was one of the kids sitting with the actor Dolphy at the end of the movie Dracula Goes to R.P., my grandmother was a makeup artist on that movie who got me in. I was also on a television show in the Philippines called the Sunday Festival, which my dad was one of the hosts, and have been on his and others radio programs and have once even sang on one. My dad used to also run a north bay tv station in the U.S.called Ugaling Pinoy which I was worked as an editor at. He was also a DJ at a local San Francisco radio station which I've also been on.

Cool.

@Innovator said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

I love movies, as I grew up in a showbiz family who worked in movies, radio, and television (and have been in a movie, radio and a television show myself), so I get it.

Cool. Respect.

However, I still will get irked when high brow critic tries to decide for everyone what a movie is,

Sure... but I don't think that's what critics do. They bring some literary and experiential background to give voice to the industry, as well as help us lay people to make more informed opinions about what we consume. That shouldn't be threatening. Like the movies themselves, we can make up our own minds about what critics think of a movie – few of us always agree with every critic's critique. It's all a part of the total experience.

when clearly the general public can vote for that themselves with their pocketbooks.

And indeed they/we do.

And I've always said, movies don't make a billion dollars without repeat viewers.

Agree. But, as I maintain, most movie makers aren't aiming for a billion dollars, and that's okay, because, again, box office is neither the only, nor the best, measure of success.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Sure... but I don't think that's what critics do. They bring some literary and experiential background to give voice to the industry, as well as help us lay people to make more informed opinions about what we consume. That shouldn't be threatening. Like the movies themselves, we can make up our own minds about what critics think of a movie – few of us always agree with every critic's critique. It's all a part of the total experience.

Agreed, but they're still gonna irk me.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

The sad truth is that most studios are absolutely after that quick buck, and the quickest way to make a buck is to regurgitate a known crowd-pleasing formula. Populism sells.

The problem is that cinema, like all art forms, is a war between that pop formula and the serious artistic side. The music world has drawn clear lines; we can all grasp the difference between a symphony and a 4 minute pop song. Similarly in visual arts there's a clear line between an oil painting and the Sunday comics. All forms coexist and flourish. But cinema, being the youngest of the art forms (and the most lucrative), still hasn't made that distinction. Sure we have the extreme arthouse directors vs. the extreme eye candy directors, but in general most filmmakers are working in the compromise zone. They're trying to create something with artistic substance but keeping it dumb enough to sell.

I'd like to see filmmakers break out of that compromise zone. As with music & visual arts, I'd like to see creators stop pandering to the popular formula and start exploring their own personal artistic statement. Music blazed that trail already, and in recent decades we've seen an explosion of diverse genres, not just the 4 minute pop stuff. Even though pop music is what makes billionaires, there are enough artists following their own voice that we have lots to choose from. Not so with cinema, although it's getting there with the recent indie trends. And I'm thrilled to see big name filmmakers like Scorsese pushing the artistic envelope even at the risk of losing popular ticket sales.

It's really the money that's screwing up the balance. There were tons of successful artistic films throughout the 70s, but I think when the 80s-90s hit, that's when film budgets and sales started skyrocketing and cinema turned into an industry colossus just like Walmart, cranking out conveniently packaged, predictable goods that sell. I love a good dumb action flick just like I love a good candy bar once in a while, but the older I get the sicker I get of junk food. Maybe audiences in general will start realizing this and demand a better menu at the box office.

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, here I am, representing not the "general most", but the others, and I'm thankful there are still movie makers still making movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominators to make a buck.

The sad truth is that most studios are absolutely after that quick buck, and the quickest way is to make a buck is to regurgitate a known crowd-pleasing formula. Populism sells.

The problem is that cinema, like all art forms, is a war between that pop formula and the serious artistic side. The music world has drawn clear lines; we can all grasp the difference between a symphony and a 4 minute pop song. Similarly in visual arts there's a clear line between an oil painting and the Sunday comics. All forms coexist and flourish. But cinema, being the youngest of the art forms (and the most lucrative), still hasn't made that distinction. Sure we have the extreme arthouse directors vs. the extreme eye candy directors, but in general most filmmakers are working in the compromise zone. They're trying to create something with artistic substance but keeping it dumb enough to sell.

I'd like to see filmmakers break out of that compromise zone. As with music & visual arts, I'd like to see creators stop pandering to the popular formula and start exploring their own personal artistic statement. Music blazed that trail already, and in recent decades we've seen an explosion of diverse genres, not just the 4 minute pop stuff. Even though pop music is what makes billionaires, there are enough artists following their own voice that we have lots to choose from. Not so with cinema, although it's getting there with the recent indie trends. And I'm thrilled to see big name filmmakers like Scorsese pushing the artistic envelope even at the risk of losing popular ticket sales.

It's really the money that's screwing up the balance. There were tons of successful artistic films throughout the 70s, but I think when the 80s-90s hit, that's when film budgets and sales started skyrocketing and cinema turned into an industry colossus just like Walmart, cranking out conveniently packaged, predictable goods that sell. I love a good dumb action flick just like I love a good candy bar once in a while, but the older I get the sicker I get of junk food. Maybe audiences in general will start realizing this and demand a better menu at the box office.

Bravo! Every word.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Other people prefer to turn their brains ON while consuming content

I'd give this movie a wide pass, then.

@M.LeMarchand said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Other people prefer to turn their brains ON while consuming content

I'd give this movie a wide pass, then.

I can only take so much of Ryan Reynolds' shtick. I had to admit, he was actually pretty good in Self/less, (so much so in fact that I added that movie to my Haters Gotta Rate list.

It also worked in Red Notice, that was kinda fun...but I absolutely hated him in Blade:Trinity, and quit 6 Underground within the first 6 minutes.

I saw Deadpool, didn't love it, didn't bother with Deadpool 2. Can't see myself bothering with this. I just not his audience.