#highest grossing warner bros movie

[a-hearts-a-heavy-burden]

I've not watched Barbie but this is a win for ALL trans folks. Let's hope media continues to favour inclusion.

This is a step in the right direction and I'm excited and proud to see where it takes us.

[callmeanxietygirl]

#GretaGerwig and #Barbie continue to make history! Barbie has now surpassed Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” which generated $536 million in 2008.

Globally Barbie has now grossed over $1.2 billion. In modern box office history, only 53 movies have made over $1 billion, not accounting for inflation, and “Barbie” is now the biggest to be directed by one woman. Come on Barbie, let’s go party 🎉💕

[boy-gender]

the trans movie beached-off the terf movie: barbie has officially unseated harry potter deathly hallows 2 as warner bros highest grossing movie globally

[macmanx]

Although Barbie has been smashing records left and right, it also just took on a new title as the highest-grossing movie ever for longtime film studio Warner Bros. The win dethrones a 12-year run from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 as the top spot, a move that makes many in the LGBTQ+ communities happy since Barbie is trans-inclusive and original Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has had a recent few years disappointing us all and ruining the Harry Potter legacy by displaying herself as transphobic.

[1997thebracket]

Round 2B

Note: this is our threeway matchup to even the numbers going forward! The two highest-voted films will both proceed, and the third will be eliminated.

Space Jam: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam! What happens when one of the biggest athletes in the world tries his hand at acting-- alongside the Looney Tunes, no less? A confusing but lovable cinematic treasure. In the half-animated comedy Space Jam, basketball legend (oft-cited as the Greatest of All Time) Michael Jordan and the Tune Squad face off against the dastardly Monstars for their intergalactic freedom. Space Jam was the first film produced by Warner Bros Feature Animation, and although it was first released theatrically in the US in November of 1996 it would go on to gross over $250 million during its global run into 1997, making it the highest-grossing basketball movie of all time until 2022. From the slapping soundtrack to the classic jersey designs now coming back into retro-rotation, Bugs and his crew could not feel more firmly planted in the sensibility of the decade. Space Jam also features Wayne Knight of Seinfeld fame flattened in a truly haunting use of crude CGI. Look up 'flat Newman' if you've forgotten.

Austin Powers: Let’s keep this bracket groovy, baby! Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery is a spy spoof film released in 1997, written by and starring Mike Myers and featuring Elizabeth Hurley, as well as known names in the spy movie business Michael York and Robert Wagner. It was the first introduction of the titular icon-to-be Austin Powers, a free-loving secret agent who was cryogenically frozen in the 1960s, returned to us in all his velvet-suited snaggle-toothed glory in the ‘90s to face his nemesis once more. Parodying James Bond and copycat spy films as well as '60s pop culture, the movie would spawn two sequels and novelizations all sharing a similar sense for fashion, gags, and Austin’s recognizable catchphrases. As completely goofy as the film and its legacy is, critics were mostly favorable, with the New York Times writing "The film's greatest asset is its gentle tone: rejecting the smug cynicism of Naked Gun-style parodies, it never loses the earnest naiveté of the psychedelic era." (This is presumably an embarrassing typo: it’s shagadelic, Yorkie baby!)

Men In Black: Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. Men in Black is a sci-fi comedy, starring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, which would go on to spawn a franchise after the success of the 1997 film. It centers around a secret government agency known as the Men in Black, tasked with monitoring and regulating extraterrestrial activity on Earth; these agents, notably our protagonists Agent J and Agent K, protect humanity from aliens living among us and ensure the world remains oblivious to their existence. The franchise was praised by critics and audiences alike for its unique screenplay, action sequences, and the humor and chemistry of the lead actors. Over the years, Men in Black has expanded to include multiple sequels, an animated series and spin-offs, all contributing to its enduring popularity as a cheekier take on the sci-fi genre.

[dweemeister]

Purr-Chance to Dream (1967 short; dir. Ben Washam)

Purr-Chance to Dream, directed by Ben Washam and produced by Chuck Jones, was the final Tom and Jerry theatrical short film under its original run (1940-1967, running 161 shorts).

In the wake of the financial smash success of Ben-Hur (1959, a film that remains the 14th highest-grossing movie ever adjusted for inflation), MGM pursued a disastrous policy of making fewer movies overall and pooling far more resources into a big-budget epic for each calendar year. The successive box office failures of Cimarron (1960), King of Kings (1961), Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and especially Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) could not be offset by a handful of successes such as How the West Was Won (1962) and Doctor Zhivago (1965). With these losses mounting, MGM executives consumed themselves by cutting costs, getting into the real estate industry, and fighting off hostile corporate takeovers.

The knock-on effects were evident in MGM's animation division - most visibly, the outsourcing of Tom and Jerry shorts to Czechoslovak director Gene Deitch's studio Rembrandt Films and the reduction of MGM's animation to almost solely Tom and Jerry.

With the cancellation of the Tom and Jerry series, MGM shifted Chuck Jones' Sib Tower 12 Productions (formed shortly after Jones' sacking from Warner Bros.) exclusively to television - see: How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) - while finishing up work on The Phantom Tollbooth (1970). MGM dissolved its animation division in 1970, briefly reviving it for mostly television productions from 1993-2001.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Barbie (2023)

2023’s Barbie turned out to be a pretty big deal. Not only is it Warner Bros. Studios’ highest-grossing film ever, it also received rave reviews and was directed by Greta Gerwig, who co-wrote it with Noah Baumbach. Some say it proves that art is dead, that the bad guys have won, that even the artists with the most pristine integrity can be bought and sold like plastic dolls by soulless corporations. I say it proves there are no bad premises, only bad executions. When someone talented really cares about a project, they can turn even what some might call a commercial into a great, memorable, stylish and surprisingly thoughtful piece of art.

In Barbieland, all of the Barbies, Kens, and other Mattel dolls live in harmony - playing at the beach, working at their prestigious jobs and doing everything the children in the real world have them do. When Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie as “Barbie”) suddenly develops bad breath, and flat feet, then begins thinking about death, she travels to the real world to confront the child who’s been playing with her. Along for the ride is Beach Ken (Ryan Gosling as “Ken”). While Barbie is horrified to discover that the real world is not the ideal matriarchy she imagined, Ken is fascinated.

The movie Barbie most resembles is 2014’s The Lego Movie. Like it, Barbie is a frequently goofy and surreal comedy featuring a beloved children’s brand. It is also colorful, with many stylish visual flares that prove the people in charge have a deep and loving appreciation for the property. When Barbie leaves her bedroom to eat breakfast, she doesn’t take the stairs; she floats down to the ground floor. It’s because that's the way the dolls move when little girls play with them. If you look at the movie, you’ll see many of the various Barbies Mattel has sold over the years appear in cameo roles or roles you think are cameos (but turn out to be much more). Some of the Kens and Barbies we see aren’t even official Barbies but are part of the doll’s history, such as Kate McKinnon's “Weird Barbie” - the Barbie whose hair got cut up, has broken hips and weird “makeup” applied all over her face. Like The Lego Movie, Barbie has the occasional musical number and eventually leaves the made-up play world to visit the real world - a way for it to become more than just an ultra-colorful, super stylish adventure with costumes that are sure to win it awards.

There’s a lot to unpack in this film. Some of it you might anticipate from Barbie's trip to our world. Every 10 years or so, a mob with torches and pitchforks rises up to condemn Barbie for projecting unrealistic beauty standards upon little girls but never before has the character of Barbie actually been confronted with those criticisms; it’s always been the people at Mattel who’ve been on the receiving end. Obviously, in reality, it’s because Barbie isn’t real, but this movie asks “What if she WAS real? How would she take these criticisms? What would she say about them?” I don’t know how Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach did it but they convinced Mattel to all sorts of things I would’ve never expected. The movie also makes some strong points - all while being funny and going in unexpected directions.

Barbie is one of the most memorable movies in recent years. Even if you don’t remember the exact song that played during the Beach Battle, you’ll remember what the choreography was like while it played. You’ll remember Margot Robbie’s outfits, the visuals showing how her and Ryan Gosling’s characters travel from Barbieworld to our world, what the offices at Mattel look like, the wonderfully bizarre interpretation of its board of directors, the sets, Barbie's interactions with Gloria (America Ferrera) & her daughter Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt) and the way it made you laugh. It’s got so much going on you could rewatch it several times and find something new in the visuals or the dialogue. There’s a point made about what role the Kens have in society, particularly at the end regarding how much Mattel/the rest of the world cares about them that still has me smiling long after the movie is over.

My only criticisms towards Barbie are that a) it probably could’ve been slimmed by about 10 minutes and b) it’s so successful that we’re all but guaranteed to have a sequel and I can’t imagine a follow-up being as fresh and satisfying as this original. I know there are people who will not be interested despite all the positive word of mouth. To them, I say you’re missing out. This is a great film that just happens to be about a plastic doll made by a giant corporation. It does so much with its premise, that I'm still in shock. (Theatrical version on the big screen, August 11, 2023)

[usafphantom2]

Movie "Top Gun 3" looks like it's going to take off

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 12/01/2024 - 22:28in Fun, Military

Aviation enthusiasts received great news today, when it was announced by various Hollywood media that the movie "Top Gun 3" began to be developed.

It was announced through The Hollywood Reporter, that Top Gun 3 is officially in development by Paramount Pictures, but not yet official by the studio that released the first two films.

Tom Cruise and Joseph Kosinski, during the release of "Top Gun: Maverick".

With the return of actors Tom Cruise, Miles Teller and Glen Powell, the production will feature Joseph Kosinski, from "Top Gun: Maverick" in the direction. The script is already being written by Ehren Kruger, co-author of the second film.

Although Tom Cruise signed a non-exclusive pact with Warner Bros earlier this week, it seems that he will remain busy with Paramount for some time. Cruise is currently filming Mission: Impossible 8 with the studio. The actor's space film with NASA is also fermenting at Universal. Doug Liman is driving this.

The original 1986 "Top Gun" introduced viewers to Cruise's bold, if not impulsive, "Maverick" as a student who tried to prove his worth in the U.S. Navy's elite fighter pilot school.

In the sequence that he hit theaters in May 2022, thirty-six years later (and some delays), he had to deal with his status as an elderly aviator while reconciling the loss of his best friend and co-pilot "Goose" (Anthony Edwards).

This time fans won't have to wait so long for the next movie, as Paramount recently announced that it has reached an agreement for "Top Gun 3". Now we have the hope that "Maverick" has been promoted to captain or will finally retire.

Actors Glen Powell and Miles Teller will return to their characters as Lieutenant Jake "Hangman" Seresin and Lieutenant Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw, respectively. Producers Jerry Bruckheimer and David Ellison are also expected to sign the sequel.

Miles Teller.

Glen Powell.

Although Bruckheimer has repeatedly pretended to be shy about the possibility, Kosinski previously suggested that there are more stories to tell about Cruise's Pete "Maverick" Mitchell.

"Is there another story that is convincing enough for us to need to come back?" Kosinski asked. "It seems to me that at the end of this movie Maverick still has a little gasoline in the tank."

"Top Gun: Maverick" was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film last year and took home the Oscar for Best Sound. In addition, its box office revenue of almost $1.5 billion shows that even after almost four decades, fans have never lost that loving feeling for the franchise. It was also the highest-grossing film of Cruise's career.

Paramount has not yet released information about the third film or its history. The production and release dates are also not clear.

Tags: Military AviationmoviesTop Gun movieTop Gun: MaverickUSN - United States Navy/U.S. Navy

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Dassault Aviation receives request for 42 Rafale fighters for the French Air Force

12/01/2024 - 18:26

MILITARY

Tanzania acquires Leonardo C-27J Spartan aircraft

12/01/2024 - 11:30

MILITARY

US and allies counter the Houthis in Yemen

12/01/2024 - 08:35

BRAZILIAN AIR FORCE

BRAZIL: Navy Military completes Hunting Squadron Leadership Course at FAB

12/01/2024 - 07:56

HELICOPTERS

After emergency landing, UN helicopter is captured by terrorist group in Somalia

11/01/2024 - 20:33

MILITARY

Mexican Air Force intends to acquire two C-130J Super Hercules

11/01/2024 - 19:44

[denimbex1986]

'Thanks to Mario, J. Robert Oppenheimer and M3GAN, Universal Pictures ranked as the highest-grossing studio at the 2023 box office.

The company’s slate — a range of 24 films that included “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Oppenheimer” and “M3GAN” — collected $4.907 billion in worldwide ticket sales. Universal’s victory is notable because it marks the first time since 2015 that Disney was not the global box office leader...

...for the first time in a long time, Disney didn’t have one of the top three movies — those spots belong to Warner Bros.’ “Barbie” ($1.4 billion) and Universal’s “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” ($1.3 billion) and “Oppenheimer” ($950 million). It’s also the first time since 2014 (except for the pandemic-stricken 2020 and 2021) that none of Disney’s movies crossed the $1 billion benchmark...'

[wonkaworldwide]

Can Wonka (2023) beat Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at the box office?

We’re about a year out from the release of Wonka.  The upcoming 2023 film, directed by Paul King and starring Timothée Chalamet as Willy Wonka, will be the third film in the Wonkaverse™, following 1971′s Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and 2005′s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I’m not here to discuss whether or not the 2023 film will be a quality movie—I’m almost certain it will be.  I’m here to discuss money.  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was obviously a huge hit in 2005, becoming the eighth-highest-grossing film worldwide in that year.  Charlie’s $474 million gross is extremely admirable, but $474 million doesn’t make it unbeatable.  It’s within striking range of what the 2023 film could do.  The question is: can Wonka beat Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at the box office?  I’ll be looking at several reasons going for it and going against it.

The Roald Dahl curse

When Netflix acquired the Roald Dahl catalog in 2021, Forbes’ Scott Mendelson described the acquisition as a “huge risk”.  Why?  Well, Roald Dahl’s films haven’t historically done well at the box office.  With the obvious exception of Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl film adaptations are almost always a financial failure.

Not a single Roald Dahl adaptation (sans Charlie) has grossed more than double its budget.  On paper, Steven Spielberg’s The BFG may look like it made some money, but if you take into account the advertising and marketing costs, it ended up being one of Spielberg’s only “money-losing mega-flops” (see the above Forbes article).  Financial information is largely unavailable on 2020′s The Witches, but considering it went straight to HBO Max during the pandemic and received disastrous reviews from critics, I think it’s safe to say that film was not one of Dahl’s successes.

Again, financial success does not correlate to critical success, as almost all of Dahl’s adaptations have become cult classics, and the only mega-blockbuster is probably the most divisive film adaptation of the bunch.  However, I agree with Forbes that pursuing any Roald Dahl adaptation nowadays is a big risk.

However, the magic that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had is (arguably) star power.  Any Johnny Depp/Tim Burton collaboration in the mid-2000s was a license to print money.  Now, Paul King isn’t a household name, mainly because he hasn’t done much outside of those two Paddington movies.  Timothée Chalamet, however, is a household name, and his loyal army of young supporters does bear a resemblance to the following Depp had in the 2000s.

It also helps the 2023 film’s prospects that Willy Wonka is by far the most iconic and recognizable Roald Dahl property, and that the 1971′s financial underperformance could be considered a fluke since it was released more than fifty years ago when moviegoing in general was vastly different.  This was years before summer movies were considered a thing.  Wonka will be the definitive factor as to whether or not the Willy Wonka property is the one exception to the Roald Dahl curse, or if Charlie and the Chocolate Factory alone is the exception.

Releasing a candy-themed movie in Winter (and competition)

I’ll preempt this by saying that it’s entirely possible that Wonka may succumb to a shuffle in Warner Bros. release lineup.  Preferably, that would result in the movie being released sooner rather than later, but November sees the release of Dune: Part Two and two back-to-back Chamalet films seem unlikely.

Wonka (coming December 15, 2023) is the first Wonka movie to be released in December, as Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was released in June and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was released in July.  This seems like a no-brainer and will most likely help the film rather than hurt it.  There are all kinds of snowy environments (from what we’ve seen from the on-location shooting) and any movie about candy will be a perfect Christmas film.

It’s easy to look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s box office and say that it’s a safe bet to release a movie like this in summer, but the truth is that the summer of 2005 wasn't a summer populated with hits.  July 2005 saw the release of Fantastic Four... Sky High... uh... March of the Penguins... and that's it as far as movies that kids would have any interest in seeing (unless there was some awesome kid out there eagerly awaiting The Devils Rejects).  In fact, July 2005 was such an underwhelming month for kids movies that Charlie’s main competition for it’s opening weekend was considered to be the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the book, not the movie).  That’s right, there were a handful of people that just didn't go to the theaters that weekend because they were reading.

But speaking of competition, let’s look at the movies that are coming out the same weekend as Wonka...

Oh... there aren’t any...

Yeah, it’s probably because we’re still twelve months out, but Wonka is the only movie scheduled for the first nineteen days of December 2023.  Obviously, this isn’t going to stay the same, so we’ll just have to see what movies Wonka has to face against in its opening weekend.  December 20th sees the release of The Color Purple, which is also a musical.  It’s too early to say what age group it’ll be aiming for, but considering the first movie was PG-13 and the story is so profound, I’d imagine there will be families seeing it.  December 20th also sees the release of the next Ghostbusters movie, which is an odd choice because I’ve always associated Ghostbusters with autumn and halloween, but whatever. This, to me, poses the strongest competition to Wonka of all the December releases on the calendar so far.  It’s releasing only five days after Wonka, and I think once Ghostbusters hits theaters, the kids are going to dig the adventure and spookiness, and Ghostbusters will be the go-to movie for families after December 20th.  But more on what kids will be looking for in Wonka later...

Appeal to children

Or actually, more on that now!  This one may not spring to mind for most people, but as someone who was five years old when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was released, I remember the movie being sold to me on the appeal of the child characters.  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had a pretty great marketing campaign that emphasized each of the nasty children.  As a kid, I thought the kids were the highlight of the film.  Wonka wasn’t a character I appreciated until I got older.

I mention this because Wonka most likely won’t have child characters as iconic as the previous two iterations, and part of me wonders if a kid is going to see the promotional material for Wonka and beg their parents to see it.

The chocolate factory was also an appealing aspect to 5-year-old me.  A chocolate waterfall with a pink boat, a room with squirrels, the glass elevator passing by room after room of dream-like gadgetry...  Obviously, because this is a prequel, there will most likely be very little of the chocolate factory in the movie, and they won’t be used in the marketing because they wouldn’t want to spoil the end.  Now because it is a Willy Wonka movie, there’s going to be some kind of magic-like candy environments (we know they are going to Loompaland), even though it won’t be the factory itself.  We don’t know anything about what the movie has shot on soundstages, but one can imagine it’s absolutely more magical than the on-location shooting they were doing in dour Londontown.

How much it appeals to children is one aspect of the project that I can’t really judge it on because there hasn’t been a trailer yet.  I will say that, beyond the child characters and the factory, the trailers need to have a tone that looks fun.  Wonka so far looks smart and it looks sentimental, which means it’s skewing close to the 70s film.  There needs to be some wackiness, some adventure and some pure childish fun—all things that the Tim Burton movie got across very well in it’s advertising—to make Wonka a movie that kids will drag their parents to, and not the other way around.

What?  A Willy Wonka prequel?  Can’t Hollywood get some new ideas blah blah blah

Even though there have only been two Willy Wonka movies over the last fifty years, people somehow have it in their minds that the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory franchise is one that Hollywood continually pillages.  I mean, there have been 25 James Bond movies in roughly the same amount of time.

However, a major hurdle that Wonka will have to deal with is perception.  Most people are going to say to themselves “Why are they making a Willy Wonka prequel?  Who asked for this?”  Admit it, you were saying this yourself before you learned about the movie’s exceptional cast and crew (heck, you may still be saying it).  The public nowadays is very keen to the notion that Hollywood pillages every franchise it can lay it’s hands on, with Disney’s endless barrage of remakes, prequels, and legacy sequels being the most prominent example.  The advertisers of Wonka are going to have a challenge convincing the public that this a story worth telling and worth seeing, and not just a soulless studio attempt at making a buck off the Willy Wonka name.

Of course, the film’s marketing hasn’t even begun.  Once people see some images and hear some songs, things may change, but if I were to gauge public sentiment towards Wonka right now, I would say it looks pretty unfavorable for the movie.  Critics seem more optimistic than the general public, but that’s mainly because Paul King is well known among critics but not so much among Joe Public.

However, Wonka can overcome this because Charlie and the Chocolate Factory overcame this.  Charlie faced a great deal of hostility prior to its release, from people refusing to give the movie a chance because they held the 1971 film in high regard.  Tim Burton himself commented on this in June 2005: “The way people talk, it’s like we’re taking copies of the cold movie and burning them so no one can ever see them again.”  And despite the die-hard 1971 fans who refused to watch any Willy Wonka that wasn’t Gene Wilder, Charlie went on to become the 58th highest-grossing-film of all time at it’s time of release, and a whole generation of children grew up with it and consider it their preferred version of the tale.  I’ve never been so proud.

Wonka has the ability to do just this, become a hit and become the preferred version of story for a generation of children, and piss a bunch of people who grew up on the previous two adaptations (although I hope 2005 fans are more keen to welcome it into the Wonka family).

The quality of the movie itself

Yeah, my final point is that Wonka’s box office performance will be impacted by just how good it is.  The public isn’t particularly looking forward to another Willy Wonka movie, but if they hear it’s really good, like really good, then people will flock towards it.  This is comparable to Top Gun earlier this year.  To me, it seemed like there was absolutely no hype for this movie whatsoever, but it gained popularity just because of how good it was (haven't seen it so I can’t confirm this).  I knew people who went and saw it without seeing the first Top Gun.

Paul King obviously has a great track record with family films, with his Paddington movies averaging at 98% on Rotten Tomatoes—compare this to Willy Wonka’s 91% and Charlie’s 83%.  This alone shows that King is capable of making a Willy Wonka film is not only good, but that could unseat both versions as being the definitive Willy Wonka film, as both Charlie and Willy Wonka have their own problems: the 1971 film being dated in several areas and having some serious pacing issues, and the 2005 film exploring Wonka’s upbringing in a polarizing way.

However, it’s also possible that the movie FUCKING SUCKS!!!1!!!  I’ll use Tim Burton as an example: he had a nearly flawless filmography in the 1980s and 1990s.  Honestly, try to find a bad film among the following: Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Batman Returns, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Mars Attacks!, Sleepy Hollow.  And then in 2001 he did Planet of the Apes, which was not only his worst movie at the time, but a frequent contender for worst movie of the year and won the Razzie for Worst Remake.  Thankfully, Burton redeemed himself immediately after with four consecutive bangers: Big Fish, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride, and Sweeney Todd.

(This may be a bad example because Planet of the Apes was still the ninth-highest-grossing film of 2001, and therefore it’s negative reception didn’t affect it’s box office gross...)

It’s difficult to assess Paul King overall as a director, because while he’s done arguably the two most acclaimed family films of the 21st century, he hasn’t really done anything outside of the Paddington films to further prove his filmmaking prowess.  He did a movie in 2009 called Bunny and the Bull, which has a 6.6 on IMDB, a 3.3/5 on Letterboxd, a 67% critics score and a 65% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes—every metric indicating that it’s pretty decent but nowhere near Paddington.

The soundtrack alone could be enough to boost Wonka to become a hit, considering the previous two films have fantastic soundtracks.  The (Academy Award-nominated) 1971 soundtrack has since become ingrained into pop culture, and the (Grammy-nominated) 2005 soundtrack has some of Danny Elfman’s best compositions.  The 2023 film’s music will be composed by Neil Hannon of The Divine Comedy.  I’d be lying if I said I’ve ever heard any of his stuff, but he’s a more inspired choice than your usual Hans Zimmer or Alexandre Desplat or whoever (I don’t know who the go-to-guy for musicals would be).

So will Wonka beat Charlie at the box office?

Looking at all the facts, Wonka faces an uphill challenge.  Ultimately, no, I do not believe that Wonka will make more money than Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  I expect Wonka to have a lower budget, so there’s a good chance that it will be more profitable than Charlie, but I’m anticipating that Wonka ends up somewhere in the $300–$400 million range.

I do think that Wonka will be the second-highest grossing Roald Dahl film and the second exception to the Roald Dahl curse.  And I just think to myself, if Mary Poppins Returns (a movie truly no-one was asking for) could make $350 million in 2019, then Wonka could do just as much.  And the Willy Wonka property is far more relevant and in-demand than Mary Poppins.  So here it is:

Wonka (2023): Prediction as of December 4, 2022

Worldwide gross: $350 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 84% critics, 68% audience

Trust me, I want this movie to do well.  Peter Ostrum, the original Charlie Bucket, said something absolutely true, that any Wonka project reignites interest in all the other Wonka projects.  So yeah, I’d love to see Wonka do well and there be a huge surge in popularity for the other two movies.

Anyway, thank you so much for reading!  I realize I’ve kinda abandoned my Tumblr in favor of posting more frequently on my Twitter, but I want to begin using my Tumblr for more editorial style posts like this, offering my thoughts on any aspect on the Wonka world in general.

[virgoevenus]

‘Barbie’ Will Become Warner Bros. Highest-Grossing Movie Of All Time Monday, Company Says

[lightscamerafilm]

Barbie' Outshines 'The Dark Knight' as Warner Bros.' Top Domestic Earner of All Time.

Greta Gerwig's enchanting comedy "Barbie" has garnered $537.5 million at the domestic box office, edging out Christopher Nolan's 2008 masterpiece "The Dark Knight" ($536 million) to claim the title of Warner Bros.' highest-grossing domestic release ever.

The film's box office momentum shows no signs of slowing down. In the imminent future, "Barbie" is projected to overtake Universal's animation "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" ($574 million) to become the leading domestic release of 2023. Given its current trajectory, with a global tally already at $1.2 billion, "Barbie" is poised to potentially surpass "Mario" ($1.35 billion) for the title of the year's top-grossing global release.

The journey of "Barbie" at the box office has been nothing short of spectacular. For four straight weekends, it has clinched the No. 1 spot. Within just 17 days of its release, it raced to join the elite $1 billion club, becoming the fastest Warner Bros. film and the eighth in the studio's centennial history to do so. There is speculation that it might even surpass 2011's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" ($1.34 billion) as Warner Bros.' all-time highest worldwide earner. Earlier in its release cycle, "Barbie" achieved the year's biggest opening with $162 million, outperforming "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" ($146 million). Notably, it also set a new record for the largest debut for a female-directed film, besting Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck’s 2019 hit “Captain Marvel” ($153 million).

Margot Robbie, the film's luminary portraying the emblematic Barbie, is reaping significant rewards for her pivotal contribution to the movie's monumental success. As the leading actor and producer of this summer sensation, she's poised to earn an estimated $50 million, comprising both her salary and box office bonuses, as per a previous report by Variety. Gerwig is also anticipated to earn substantial bonuses, a testament to the film's outstanding achievements.

Article by: A. Iqbal

[comicweek]

The drama is being rehashed at a time when DC Entertainment toppers James Gunn and Peter Safran are poised to close the book on the previous regime’s superhero slate with the Dec. 20 release of “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” Since Warner Bros. chiefs Pam Abdy and Mike De Luca joined the studio in June 2022, followed by Gunn and Safran’s entrance four months later, the four have been saddled with DC duds they inherited, including this year’s “The Flash” ($271 million worldwide) and “Blue Beetle” ($128 million worldwide).

Still, the “Aquaman” sequel held promise considering that the character’s first outing earned $1.15 billion worldwide, becoming the highest-grossing DC movie ever. But sources say the sequel has endured challenges outside of the Heard saga and was testing in the 60s before being recut in the summer of 2022. Despite the overhaul, the film continued to test in the 60s, prompting a new cut. “The movie is like this echo of regimes,” says one insider. “It’s the last remnant of the Snyderverse, and no one really wants to take ownership of it.” Reshoots took place right up until this year’s WGA strike in May. The on-set source disputes the idea that “Aquaman 2” is troubled, noting that the film was on time, under budget and needed only about a week of reshoots.

Like “Flash,” “Aquaman” can’t shake its lame duck trappings, with the DC universe getting overhauled under new leadership, marking Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav’s top priority.

In fact, none of the stars cast by Zack Snyder for 2016’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” and 2017’s “Justice League” — including Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller and Momoa — will reprise their roles in the new DC universe in character. Momoa may return, just not as Aquaman. Sources say the actor has engaged in talks to play Lobo, either in the 2025 reboot “Superman: Legacy,” written and directed by Gunn, or in a standalone film. In a confusing twist, Viola Davis, who played Amanda Waller in both of the recent “Suicide Squad” movies, will remain as that character in the Gunn-Safran DC universe in next year’s Max series “Waller” and possibly in the new “Superman” tentpole. Another outlier is Gunn’s Max series “Peacemaker,” which will be back for a second season with John Cena in the lead.

Meanwhile, there has been some confusion on the series front about who is the ultimate gatekeeper. Unlike the Marvel-Disney relationship in which Marvel controls the creative process and Disney+ merely releases the content, Max is creatively involved with the DC slate. Gunn and Safran don’t enjoy the same autonomy as Marvel’s Kevin Feige. (A Max source says the collaboration between the DC team and Max executives Sarah Aubrey and Casey Bloys has been seamless, including on the upcoming series “The Penguin,” which was forced to shut down production after the WGA strike began but is expected resume shooting as soon as the SAG-AFTRA strike ends.)

Regardless, some on the lot are convinced that another company, most likely Universal, will buy Warner Bros. within two years, making recent DC subplots and upheavals feel quaint.

“The bottom line is they need to get DC to work whether Zaslav owns it, whether Brian Roberts owns it, whether somebody else owns it,” says LightShed’s Rich Greenfield, a Wall Street analyst and venture capitalist.

[mediamixs]

The Nun II is already the highest-grossing horror film of the year

For the third consecutive week The Nun II leads the American box office, earning another 8.4 million dollars in a very weak weekend at the box office in the United States. In this way, the film has already achieved $69.2 million in the United States and a total of $204 million worldwide. A figure that makes this title the highest-grossing horror film of the year, surpassing the 188 million earned by Insidious: The Red Door or the 168 million earned by Scream VI.

The Nun II is a horror movie that was released in 2023 and is a sequel to the 2018 movie The Nun. The movie is part of "The Conjuring" universe and is directed by Michael Chavez, who has directed other movies in the same universe. The movie has received mixed reviews from critics and audiences. Some reviewers have praised the movie for being a fun and entertaining sequel, while others have criticized it for being boring and inconsistent. Overall, it seems that opinions on the movie are divided, and viewers may have different experiences depending on their preferences for horror movies and their familiarity with The Conjuring universe.

The Nun II is a supernatural horror movie that follows Sister Irene, the protagonist from the first movie, as she investigates the murder of a priest in France in 1956. The plot of the movie is centered around the demon nun Valak, who Sister Irene once again confronts. The movie is set four years after the events of the first movie. The film may also connect The Nun universe back to the main chronology of The Conjuring universe, establishing what happens prior to Valak's appearance in the second Conjuring film. The movie is directed by Michael Chaves and written by Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing. The film also features new characters, including Antoinette, the 14-year-old leader of the group of bullies at St. Mary’s School who torments Sophie and others. The movie was released on September 8, 2023, and is produced by Warner Bros. Pictures and New Line Cinema.

Storm Reid is the actress who plays Sister Debra in The Nun II. She is a new addition to the cast of the movie and portrays a nun-in-training who gets caught up in Valak's evil plans. Storm Reid is an Emmy-nominated actress known for her roles in movies such as A Wrinkle in Time and The Suicide Squad.

Sister Debra is a significant character in The Nun II for several reasons. She is a nun-in-training who struggles with her faith, which is a central theme of the movie. Sister Irene helps her to find her faith and embrace her role as a nun. She witnesses Irene's confrontation with Valak and survives the ordeal, which strengthens her faith and resolve. She plays a key role in the movie's ending, which involves a twist that sets up the future of The Conjuring universe. Overall, Sister Debra's character serves as a foil to Sister Irene, highlighting the importance of faith and the struggle to maintain it in the face of evil. Her character also helps to expand the world of "The Conjuring" universe and set up future movies in the franchise.

[kylesvariouslistsandstuff]

Who's To Say They Can't

Concerns and worrywarting continues to swirl after the not-so-great opening weekend of ELEMENTAL...

The talk of the town is largely "Pixar will become a sequel factory from here on out", but I'm also seeing such alarmist takes as "Pixar will be forced to make a live-action remake of one of their movies."

Meanwhile, a pal of mine and a critic who goes by Mr. Coat suggested...

Believe it or not, Pixar had considered at least one book adaptation at some point in their existence...

Remember the movie EPIC? The one about the shrunken human and all the bug warriors and such? That film, made at the sadly-defunct Blue Sky Studios, was based on the William Joyce book THE LEAF MEN AND THE BRAVE GOOD BUGS. Director Chris Wedge started the project at Fox, who was Blue Sky's home, and of course - Disney bought Fox AND Blue Sky. However, for a brief bit, Wedge was able to shop it over to Pixar... And Wedge was good friends with John Lasseter, so this book adaptation was actually going to go full-speed ahead there... Until Fox wanted it back, so the production moved back there and began around 2009, with the movie releasing in spring 2013.

Interestingly, Joyce himself was at Pixar during production of TOY STORY and A BUG'S LIFE. You can see a lot of his concept art for the former on all the film's home video release bonus features. Another one of his books, DINOSAUR BOB, was in consideration for a feature at one point, too... But someone else had the rights at the time. Several other Joyce stories became animated movies and shows, one of which was A DAY WITH WILBUR ROBINSON, which became Disney Animation's MEET THE ROBINSONS, which Lasseter heavily oversaw and had retooled during production.

So it all shows that Pixar wasn't entirely against doing movies that were based on a pre-existing source material, and not their own material. LIGHTYEAR is interestingly in that it's a spin-off of their own movie series, inspired by a character by said series. Everything else is either a homespun original story or a sequel to one of those original stories...

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they finally - after making over 27 movies - tackled a book or a comic. Something dynamic that would be brought to the screen spectacularly through animation. And it'd be something a little familiar, too, if they had trouble trying to crack the next original idea nut. I don't see why that's a bad thing, either... The big, beloved new animated movie out right now is the umpteenth cinematic adaptation of a Marvel character. The animated movie based on those Italian plumbers fighting bad turtles became the 4th highest-grossing animated film of all-time, and most folks are super-duper-pumped for webcomic adaptation NIMONA. The beloved PUSS IN BOOTS Dos from last year is a fairy tale adaptation.

So... Why not? Every other big-time animation studio in the West has adapted pre-existing works. Disney Animation has a WHOLE history of that, right down to their first ever animated feature. DreamWorks? A good chunk of their beloved movies are book adaptations, SHREK included. They even took on something biblical. Sony Animation has done it all from comics (SPIDER-VERSE, SMURFS) to children's picture books (CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS) to - also - the Bible (THE STAR). Illumination has two Dr. Seuss movies and Super Mario in their library.

Honestly, I'd love to see a filmmaker at Pixar take a crack at a fantasy novel or a really weird and wacky comic, or a sci-fi novel. And if the thing does well, they already have the sequel work built for them, and it'd be a nice way to bypass sequels to their legacy favorites like TOY STORY and THE INCREDIBLES.

HECK! Any of you remember when Pixar was supposed to join forces with Walt Disney Pictures (live-action division) and Warner Bros. to make a Brad Bird-directed adaptation of the novel 1906? Or when FINDING NEMO/WALL-E director Andrew Stanton's live-action/CG JOHN CARTER OF MARS project was initially thought to be the studio's foray into live-action? JOHN CARTER OF MARS (I often refuse to call it by the title Disney ended up giving it) had plenty of animation in it, so if Pixar were to ever do some live-action, they could do something like that.

Just a few thoughts, ya know...