The Woman King (2022)

j00t said:

i mean... william wallace was a real person. but what he did in real life vs what he did in the movie is pretty different... so, technically yes? but maybe no? i don't know, man

Click to expand...

i meant how it was marketed . Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter wasnt a true story, or was it?

Rezz said:

Braveheart didn't leave behind a key factor of scottish history, and try to actively obfuscate it. The Woman King is actively trying to obfuscate part of Dahomey's history. That's the difference.

Gibson got some stuff wrong, but the general "gist" of the film matched history. The Woman King is actively just going "Yeah that didn't happen" when it 100% did.

Click to expand...

This is why I mentioned Braveheart. I almost said Gladiator too, but that's a but too departed from "history."

Braveheart is "edu-tainment," but it's at least based in reality.

Chukzombi said:

i meant how it was marketed . Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter wasnt a true story, or was it?

Click to expand...

this is getting silly just to prove a point that i agree with. that being said, braveheart was absolutely NOT marketed as alternate history. it was marketed identically to any other historical piece of entertainment, the same as the woman king, the same as curse of skinwalker ranch. the difference is that braveheart's narrative isn't pushing something that didn't happen, or at least the parts that didn't happen were things that were "plausible."

It's not like the film pretends the Dahomey didn't engage in the slave trade at all, fwiw. But it portrays then as reformers before others around them when that clearly wasn't the case. They were pressured into stopping it decades after the events in the film.

It's one thing to put out a movie about Abe Lincoln hunting vampires when everyone knows with absolute certainty that it's a bullshit story. But this trash, and even Braveheart -regardless of how "good" or "entertaining" the movie was-- is outright lying to people who have no way to know if it's bullshit or not. I'm American... the fuck I care about researching foreign politics? What should happen in these cases is just make a fucking movie in those time periods with completely made up characters. Don't have a George Washington who ninja'd into Native American camps and slaughtered them in their sleep. I look at it like a Jason Bourne or James Bond movie... while there is a sense of realism --in that spies do exist, and missions to take people out or acquire intel do actually happen-- nothing about those movies is trying to pretend the events involved, or people, are actually real or actually happened.

Rabbit_Games said:

It's one thing to put out a movie about Abe Lincoln hunting vampires when everyone knows with absolute certainty that it's a bullshit story. But this trash, and even Braveheart -regardless of how "good" or "entertaining" the movie was-- is outright lying to people who have no way to know if it's bullshit or not. I'm American... the fuck I care about researching foreign politics? What should happen in these cases is just make a fucking movie in those time periods with completely made up characters. Don't have a George Washington who ninja'd into Native American camps and slaughtered them in their sleep. I look at it like a Jason Bourne or James Bond movie... while there is a sense of realism --in that spies do exist, and missions to take people out or acquire intel do actually happen-- nothing about those movies is trying to pretend the events involved, or people, are actually real or actually happened.

Click to expand...

Yeah, overall I agree. The only reason these filmmakers want the veneer of a real life story without even hardly trying to adhere to any of the actual events is because it gives a false sense of authenticity and realness that a lot of people will just instantly believe. If it's pure fiction you have to work a little harder to stimulate the audience.

Most people don't know shit about history anyway so you could take basically the same story and change a couple names and locations to fictional ones and have it be exactly the same without shitting on genuine history.

I was trying to find this gem earlier for my prior post.

almost knocked down to third place by an old movie re-release
In anticipation of the sequel “The Way of Water,” which opens in December, Disney re-released James Cameron’s original science-fiction epic to promising results. The film generated $10 million in North America and $20.5 million internationally over the weekend — a huge turnout for movie that opened more than a decade ago, even if that movie happens to be the highest-grossing global release in history. With this weekend’s returns, “Avatar” widens its lead as the biggest movie of all time with $2.85 billion worldwide.
In North America, “Avatar” placed third on box office charts behind newer releases like Olivia Wilde’s “Don’t Worry Darling” ($19.2 million) and the Viola Davis-led “The Woman King” ($11 million). In terms of recent re-releases, ticket sales for “Avatar,” which played in 1,980 locations (mostly Imax), came in 85% ahead of the re-release for “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” The latest Spidey adventure, which returned to theaters months, not years, after its original run, collected $5.4 million from 3,835 theaters over Labor Day weekend.

Could this film be a tipping point that is the beginning of the end of identity politics in movies?

I hope so.

they need to release morbius again. i bet it'd have no problem against this

Rajaah said:

Interesting how this is getting:
6/10 on IMDB user reviews
2.6/10 on Metacritic user reviews
and yet
99% on RT user reviews

Da fuq?

And most of the positive RT user reviews are one-sentence posts from generic first names.

I've never seen big tech try so hard to prop up failing products while also trying so hard to suppress things people like, as I have in the last 2-3 years.

Click to expand...

and they're still writing this film up like its anything but a flop. it "held firm" even though it alreaady got BTFO in its second weekend.
The Woman King" held firm at the box office during its second weekend in theaters.

The Sony film is expected to generate $11.2 million in ticket sales domestically from Friday through Sunday, a 42% drop from its opening weekend. Typically, blockbuster films will drop 50% to 70% from their first weekend to their second weekend.

"Proof that ''The Woman King' is in it for the long haul is reflected in its 42% second-weekend drop," said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. "As expected, great word of mouth and awards season buzz has helped the film to become a must-see movie event."

Melicant said:

Click to expand...

Imagine destroying all of what remaining credibility your website had for this steaming pile of forgettable shit.

Chukzombi said:

and they're still writing this film up like its anything but a flop. it "held firm" even though it alreaady got BTFO in its second weekend.

MSN

www.msn.com

The Woman King" held firm at the box office during its second weekend in theaters.

The Sony film is expected to generate $11.2 million in ticket sales domestically from Friday through Sunday, a 42% drop from its opening weekend. Typically, blockbuster films will drop 50% to 70% from their first weekend to their second weekend.

"Proof that ''The Woman King' is in it for the long haul is reflected in its 42% second-weekend drop," said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. "As expected, great word of mouth and awards season buzz has helped the film to become a must-see movie event."

Click to expand...

Lol, this was not a blockbuster film: that guy is shilling so hard. 50 million budget for an action film in this age is barely mid level.

42% drop for a film with an A+ CinemaScore and barely any competition is not strong. There just is way too large a section of people who have zero interest.

DickTrickle said:

Lol, this was not a blockbuster film: that guy is shilling so hard. 50 million budget for an action film in this age is barely mid level.

42% drop for a film with an A+ CinemaScore and barely any competition is not strong. There just is way too large a section of people who have zero interest.

Click to expand...

I'm not gonna defend his analysis one way or another, but you're reading it wrong. He is saying theaters prefer midlevel films like this, or at least need them to really make money. I didnt fully read the article, but I dont think he mentions the economics of movie theaters which are "get dicked on the opening weekend of any blockbuster movie on ticket share, gradually increasing over time". Well if it drops off by 80%, people better be buying a lot of snacks, cause disney/WB is taking most of gate the first month, and they are gonna force you to put it on half you screens.

Whereas midlevel movies (which are fewer and fewer) that cost like 50 mil, not only start with more favorable rates, they also tend to fall of slower. Everyone sees Avengers week one or 2, that is not as true for mid level movies, which may sell a month of tickets.

I believe this is also a reason WB did not hold Wonder Woman as a great success, it made a ton of money, but it did it over a longer period than most comic movies do, meaning the theaters got a much larger cut than usual.

Angerz said:

I'm not gonna defend his analysis one way or another, but you're reading it wrong. He is saying theaters prefer midlevel films like this, or at least need them to really make money. I didnt fully read the article, but I dont think he mentions the economics of movie theaters which are "get dicked on the opening weekend of any blockbuster movie on ticket share, gradually increasing over time". Well if it drops off by 80%, people better be buying a lot of snacks, cause disney/WB is taking most of gate the first month, and they are gonna force you to put it on half you screens.

Whereas midlevel movies (which are fewer and fewer) that cost like 50 mil, not only start with more favorable rates, they also tend to fall of slower. Everyone sees Avengers week one or 2, that is not as true for mid level movies, which may sell a month of tickets.

I believe this is also a reason WB did not hold Wonder Woman as a great success, it made a ton of money, but it did it over a longer period than most comic movies do, meaning the theaters got a much larger cut than usual.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I just read the snippet posted here and took the line about blockbusters as inferring TWK was a blockbuster with a much better second weekend drop than usual. I'm still not certain it's not trying to do that, to be honest. I understand your point but it isn't even really touched on the article. The article's focus is more simply on the fact a lot less films in general have been released in theaters so anything that drives some traffic is helpful (which is a valid point).

In any case, something like an MCU movie might have a 50-65% drop off and get large initial cuts, but that's still way more ticketgoers in the second weekend than something like TWK. Not to mention more kids than something like the TWK. That's a lot of concession revenue. I'm not convinced an adult skewing film mid level film like this is actually better for a theater than a MCU film, especially when it's hardly selling out. TWK still has 3765 screens, which is only 600 less than Thor 4 did.

Additionally, a mid level movie dropping 42% isn't anything particularly noteworthy, but one with this much supposed good word of mouth dropping 42% is. I mean, it's not a flop or embarrassing, but it's pretty far from a "must see event" as the analyst said.

Angerz said:

I'm not gonna defend his analysis one way or another, but you're reading it wrong. He is saying theaters prefer midlevel films like this, or at least need them to really make money. I didnt fully read the article, but I dont think he mentions the economics of movie theaters which are "get dicked on the opening weekend of any blockbuster movie on ticket share, gradually increasing over time". Well if it drops off by 80%, people better be buying a lot of snacks, cause disney/WB is taking most of gate the first month, and they are gonna force you to put it on half you screens.

Whereas midlevel movies (which are fewer and fewer) that cost like 50 mil, not only start with more favorable rates, they also tend to fall of slower. Everyone sees Avengers week one or 2, that is not as true for mid level movies, which may sell a month of tickets.

I believe this is also a reason WB did not hold Wonder Woman as a great success, it made a ton of money, but it did it over a longer period than most comic movies do, meaning the theaters got a much larger cut than usual.

Click to expand...

yes, this movie is already a flop. its made 30 million in its first two weeks on a 50 million budget. for them to make a profit. it needs to exceed 125 million, which is never going to happen. it might make 60 million. maybe, but the studio is taking this is a major loss. the movie that kicked this off the top spot, "Don't Worry Darling" made the same amount as TWK on its first weekend but only has a 35 million budget. it probably didnt have the viral marketing as TWK either so it has a much better chance of making a profit. they expected Black Panther numbers for TWK. yeah, no.