@DRDMovieMusings said:

@M.LeMarchand said:

• "La La Land" doesn't count as Jazz is not music.

?

To my ears, jazz is only good for two things: Keeping you awake by setting you on edge (the horrible dissonant noise flavour) or sending you to sleep (the incredibly dull "mellow" flavour).

@M.LeMarchand said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@M.LeMarchand said:

• "La La Land" doesn't count as Jazz is not music.

?

To my ears, jazz is only good for two things: Keeping you awake by setting you on edge (the horrible dissonant noise flavour) or sending you to sleep (the incredibly dull "mellow" flavour).

Okay, so, it is music, but you just don't like it (which is your prerogative).

Meanwhile, the only musician in history to win a grammy across ten different categories is Pat Metheny, a jazz musician.

Technically, jazz can be argued as the height of musicality. You don't have to like it, but to dismiss it as music at all is absurd.

@M.LeMarchand said:

Someone needs to put Gosling in a proper musical!*

• "La La Land" doesn't count as Jazz is not music.

At any rate, musicians who love music made this movie, it is highly reviewed, and also made a ton of money (paying ~$14.91 in what I call ReelROI(tm)). I get that "proper musical" means something to you, which is fine.

However, while you're waiting for that to happen (again), you moght want to reconsider giving La La Land a chance.

I have set up a list of movies that made me respect actors I usually don't like (Haters Gotta Rate). Live and learn. Maybe this movie might challenge you as they did me.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Meanwhile, the only musician in history to win a grammy across ten different categories is Pat Metheny, a jazz musician.

Technically, jazz can be argued as the height of musicality. You don't have to like it, but to dismiss it as music at all is absurd.

Awards, schmawards. Kubrick, Coppola and Scorcese are all highly feted, but I've only liked one of their films enough to buy it. (Obviously, the least popular Scorcese one - "Hugo").

I can see Jazz's historical significance and appeal, but we're not still listening to early 20th Century Music Hall numbers. Jazz seems to be a genre loved by people who love to be "musically superior" and probably insist on their interconnects having directional arrows to indicate the direction they were extruded in the factory for the purest sound.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

At any rate, musicians who love music made this movie, it is highly reviewed, and also made a ton of money (paying ~$14.91 in what I call ReelROI(tm)). I get that "proper musical" means something to you, which is fine.

However, while you're waiting for that to happen (again), you moght want to reconsider giving La La Land a chance.

I have set up a list of movies that made me respect actors I usually don't like (Haters Gotta Rate). Live and learn. Maybe this movie might challenge you as they did me.

I have actually seen LLL; as with "Oppenheimer", it was one of those movies I felt that I should watch as someone interested in cinema. I didn't like it. I didn't feel the modern "realistic" relationship worked with the bright 50's musical sensibilities and (obviously) didn't like the music. The routines in the Observatory and on the hilltop were sweet, if somewhat unpolished, and that's about the best I can say about it. Also, this was touted as a "feel good" film; I'd hate to see a "feel bad" one.

Had a look at your list, of which I've seen two though my reasons for not seeing the others are mainly down to subject matter not being of interest rather than the actor. Zodiac is kinda on the radar due to Fincher's earlier works but it's another "because I ought to". The two I've seen are "About A Boy" (on release, liked it but can't remember much more than that) and "Self/less", which was a disappointment to me as I've really enjoyed Tarsem Singh's visual sense in his previous films and "Emerald City" but he seemed to have been told to rein it in.

After 38 days "Oppenheimer (2023)" has made $777.2 million at the gross world box office. It will be in the cinema until 30 October 2023 and has another 62 days to reach one billion US dollars. It will be released on 30 August in China, where Nolan has a strong following, and it is expected to gross $50-150 million there.

... Christopher Nolan Set to Travel All of China to Push Oppenheimer Past $1B

Has not yet even hit $2 yet. Egad.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Has not yet even hit $2 yet. Egad.

It is the end of the Mission Impossible franchise. Filming had begun on the sequel "Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two", but it was shut down in July 2023 due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. With a box office of $552 million (30 August 2023), it is $-173 million, which falls in the estimated world gross of $-220-75 million.

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Has not yet even hit $2 yet. Egad.

It is the end of the Mission Impossible franchise.

It can't be. I'd be hard-pressed to believe Tom Cruise would let this franchise go out with this whisper.

Filming had begun on the sequel "Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part Two",

And this is it, right? Everyone knows Part One was never intended to stand alone, they couldn't just throw up their hands and pack it in!

but it was shut down in July 2023 due to the SAG-AFTRA strike.

So, when the strike ends and writers want to show they are worth their salt, they'll want to come back strong and write the hell out of Part Two to fix the problems that hobbled Part One.

Or, at least, so one would think.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, when the strike ends and writers want to show they are worth their salt, they'll want to come back strong and write the hell out of Part Two to fix the problems that hobbled Part One.

I'm not sure the writing was the problem with Dead Reckoning. I'm guessing that it was either the competition or "franchise fatigue". My wife and I certainly enjoyed it and look forward to Part 2.

@M.LeMarchand said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

So, when the strike ends and writers want to show they are worth their salt, they'll want to come back strong and write the hell out of Part Two to fix the problems that hobbled Part One.

I'm not sure the writing was the problem with Dead Reckoning. I'm guessing that it was either the competition or "franchise fatigue". My wife and I certainly enjoyed it and look forward to Part 2.

Between your positive review and a solid A on CinemaScore, I agree with you that writing does not appear to be the problem. But, by these same metrics, it's hard to attribute its low box office performance to franchise fatigue.

I've noticed an issue with their budget management that might tell some of the story....

MI:DRP1 has a relatively crazy budget of $291M, which is MORE THAN $100M higher than the previous high of $178M for MI:Fallout released in 2018. With some context, the curiousness of this may be easier to see, so I'll step back a bit....

I've got seven "Tom Cruise Mission Impossible" movies in my movie ROI database. Together, they have paid $3.68 which is better than the $3.01 for all movies in my database, over 5600 from 1915 to present. So, currently, vs. this benchmark, MI:DRP1 coming up at $1.90 is woeful not only for the franchise but for the entire history of movie-making as quantified across those 5600 titles over the last 108 years.

Note also that M:I3 (2006) had a budget of $150M, paying $2.65 and MI:GP (2011) had a LOWER budget of $145M paying $4.79 demonstrating that they understood clearly that budget management and budget control are critical drivers of profitability. So, if inflation was not a factor, from 2006 to 2011, allowing them to make a good movie with fewer production dollars spent, jumping from $178M in budget in 2018 to $291M in 2023 may be the biggest factor.

I mean, if they'd gotten DR into the can for, say, $190M, they could have earned $2.90 - not stellar, but likely profitable, and more profitable than MI3. And, sure, one might think a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible movie should have been able to presume a box office market worth $600M but, even if it had achieved it, it'd only be paying $2.06.

Nah, to me, budget is emerging as the likeliest factor - they went overboard this time. Question is, can they get the mix of budget and writing and stunts and special effects and story right and go out on this franchise with more of a bang than a similar whisper?

"Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)"'s high production budget is the problem at the start, but could have been overcome if "Oppenheimer (2023)" and "Barbie (2023)" hadn't premiered the following week.

"Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)" lost a lot of screens. It started with 4,327 theaters domestically and after one week it lost IMAX to "Oppenheimer (2023)"; that meant it earned ≥30% less per ticket. That might have contributed partially to its dismal 64% drop in gross from its domestic opening weekend. In its third week it lost another 1100 domestic screens. Something similar happened in the rest of the world. So, with less screens - even if it's sold out every day - it will sell less tickets and earn less per ticket than "Oppenheimer (2023)" or "Barbie (2023)".

An example of a movie that had a larger production budget with $340 million ( *WGB $719 million) is "Fast X (2023)". It shared IMAX with "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023)" - production budget $250 million ( *WGB $845.5 million) - and they didn't lose screens like "Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)".

*WGB: worldwide gross box office

@wonder2wonder said:

"Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)"'s high production budget is the problem at the start, but could have been overcome if "Oppenheimer (2023)" and "Barbie (2023)" hadn't premiered the following week.

Yes! Release timing is indeed a part of the mix. Great examples include the last Dabiel Craig Bond and Top Gun: Maverick waiting over 18 months to release their movies.

"Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)" lost a lot of screens. It started with 4,327 theaters domestically and after one week it lost IMAX to "Oppenheimer (2023)"; that meant it earned ≥30% less per ticket. That might have contributed partially to its dismal 64% drop in gross from its domestic opening weekend. In its third week it lost another 1100 domestic screens.

Keen insight there, @wonder2wonder! Learning from others is a key part of why I love these discussion boards.

An example of a movie that had a larger production budget with $340 million ( *WGB $719 million) is "Fast X (2023)". It shared IMAX with "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023)" - production budget $250 million ( *WGB $845.5 million) - and they didn't lose screens like "Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)".

*WGB: worldwide gross box office

On the face of it, this makes sense. But it's important to differentiate markets — I can't believe producers of the MI franchise expected they had as broad a market as either of these two examples you mentioned. MI has always been challengingly cerebral/intricate. I've always found them hard work to follow, almost to the point of not being enjoyable. Knowing one's markrt and producing a movie to be profitable within it is a skill that some are good at, but not all. Consider a movie like Terrifier 2: only $10M in revenue out there for it, but it paid ridiculous ROI on a paltry budget. Now, of course, I'm not saying MI can be done for under $150M (let alone under $1M!) but I am saying the producers of Terrifier 2 had keen, realistic expectations for their market, and produced a film their small audience embraced sufficiently to generate stellar ROI.

That's the challenge to movie-makers, and it takes skill to succeed financially within the limits of this reality.

In case anyone has missed this, the real "Barbenheimer" is due this Christmas: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1172037-barbenheimer

Deep within Dollsville, a group of fed-up female dolls, led by the brilliant Dr. Barbenheimer build an atomic bomb. Their mission? To bring down the patriarchy once and for all. But as the battle of the sexes swells, will Barbenheimer and her bevy of beauties end up blowing up more than they bargained for?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Nah, to me, budget is emerging as the likeliest factor - they went overboard this time. Question is, can they get the mix of budget and writing and stunts and special effects and story right and go out on this franchise with more of a bang than a similar whisper?

The budget wasn't completely their fault. It was one of the first major studio productions after 2020 and was shut down several times causing the budget to bloat.

"Oppenheimer (2023)" continues on track for the $billion. It's added another $38 million since 31 August 2023, bringing its worldwide gross box office total to almost $891 million (10 September 2023). In China alone it has made $35.9 million since its opening on 30 August 2023. Its drop rate each week has been less than 45%, and a week ago it was only just 23%, while for most movies it is usually between 50% and 70%.

"Barbie (2023)" has added $21 million, bringing its worldwide gross box office total to $1,402 billion (10 September 2023).

"Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1 (2023)" worldwide gross box office total hasn't moved much and stands at $563.7 million (10 September 2023). If the break even point is $725 million (2.5 x production budget of $290 million), then it has lost $161.3 million up to now.