I thought the whole thing was kind of meh, sorry.

@mechajutaro said:

Had anybody turned out to see Nobody, we might be getting a sequel. Sadly, this drummed up less enthusiasm than did Roseanne Barr's centerfold in the last issue of Playboy

I did just have a butchers on the old Box Office Mojo. And I was astonished to discover that the budget for this was only $16 million! $16 million! That's less than most rom coms. Why aren't these films made more often? The skill it must take to produce those set pieces on such a low budget. And those set pieces were more thrilling than those in most massive budget CGI fests that cost over 200 million.

But anyway, the film took 27 mill domestic which is almost twice it's budget and 55 mill worldwide. Whether that's a money maker or not I don't know because they never seem to be clear with their rules for what constitutes a hit. They say x3 domestic is needed to be profitable but I see films make way less than that get classed as a success and spawn sequels. But anyway that result does sound impressive considering it was during pandemic time and I imagine it will do well on streaming. So it wouldn't surprise me if they see it as having potential.

But when this was released I do remember this popping up quite a lot online and people raving about it a fair bit. It looked like it was generating enthusiasm to me. I saw the poster everywhere.

@JustinJackFlash said:

Cool character, great action, well made. After this and Hardcore Henry director Ilya Naishuller has proven he knows action and I look forward to whatever he does next whether it's a sequel to this or not. But I can see Hutch as a character that could easily be revisited.

Yes I agree, will be keeping an eye on what the director does next. Can also see a sequel, just not sure how they could work it unless it revolves more around his dad/brother.

This was surprisingly enjoyable, although maybe the end scene was too much like Mr and Mrs Smith.

What a messed-up concept for a film, in my opinion. Everyone is somebody. No one is a "nobody."

@CelluloidFan said:

What a messed-up concept for a film, in my opinion. Everyone is somebody. No one is a "nobody." I just feel like only an empty shell of a human being would refer to his/her fellow man as a "nobody."

No one in the film refers to anyone else as a "nobody" apart from the main character...and he refers to himself as that. And even then it's not to be taken literally. Have you even seen the film?

@cpheonix said:

@CelluloidFan said:

What a messed-up concept for a film, in my opinion. Everyone is somebody. No one is a "nobody." I just feel like only an empty shell of a human being would refer to his/her fellow man as a "nobody."

No one in the film refers to anyone else as a "nobody" apart from the main character...and he refers to himself as that. And even then it's not to be taken literally. Have you even seen the film?

Look, I've written to numerous people here on these message boards about this issue before, and my position remains the same. If you're attempting to discount my statement as having no significance for the fact that I haven't seen the film under discussion, it's just stupid.

Yes, you might accuse me of digressing from the subject somewhat with my post, and you'd have a point. But when we get into this "You can't join this discussion because you haven't seen the movie/TV show/etc." crap, I feel we're going into dangerous waters. For one, that kind of argument can really promote some serious consumerist thinking.

Sorry if I irked you with my little statement there. Being a sort of longtime contributor to the site, I personally want to see these discussions joined by as many new people as possible and not the polar opposite. I just have an issue with people who refer to their fellow man (or woman) as a "nobody," that's all.

@CelluloidFan said:

Look, I've written to numerous people here on these message boards about this issue before, and my position remains the same. If you're attempting to discount my statement as having no significance for the fact that I haven't seen the film under discussion, it's just stupid.

Yes, you might accuse me of digressing from the subject somewhat with my post, and in this case, you'd have a point. But when we get into this "You can't join this discussion because you haven't seen the movie/TV show/etc." crap, I feel we're going into dangerous waters. For one, that kind of argument can really promote some serious consumerist thinking.

Sorry if I irked you with my little statement there. Being a sort of longtime contributor to the site, I personally want to see these discussions joined by as many new people as possible and not the polar opposite happen. I just have an issue with people who refer to their fellow man (or woman) as a "nobody," that's all.

Wow calm down, it was just a question. Where did I mention you can't post about a film you haven't seen? You didn't irk me, I'm just challenging your view that this is a messed up concept, which you've judged purely based on the title.

What I'm saying is, if you've seen the film you'd know that this is an entirely apt name for it.

I could understand if you call "The Human Centipede" a messed up concept going by its title, but this? Come on. Plus, it's just light entertainment, no need to get offended by anything about it - especially the title.

Wow, geez, I wasn't and am not upset at all. I felt one of your statements was leading into the idea that you can't post about a film without seeing it ("Have you even seen the film?"). I guess I was wrong about that. Try to see how being confronted with variations of that discourse for so long might cause one to start to think such an idea.

I do grasp that sometimes a writer's tone can be mistaken or confused for another one by others when the writing is in a format like texts or messages on a board. You might've seen my extensive post and thought that I was angry from reading it. This is fine.

I am a liker of discursive internet discussions.

@CelluloidFan said:

Wow, geez, I wasn't and am not upset at all. I felt one of your statements was leading into the idea that you can't post about a film without seeing it ("Have you even seen the film?"). I guess I was wrong about that. Try to see how being confronted with variations of that discourse for so long might cause one to start to think such an idea.

I do grasp that sometimes a writer's tone can be mistaken or confused for another one by others when the writing is in a format like texts or messages on a board. You might've seen my extensive post and thought that I was angry from reading it. This is fine.

I am a liker of discursive internet discussions.

OK that's fine, but generally there's a connection to the film when starting a discussion from it, like the plot, actors etc. Even if its just from the trailer. But from an inoffensive word like "Nobody"? At least understand its context before slamming it!

I'm not trying to argue here, I'm all for as many film discussions on this severely underused site. I just think that any topic of discussion needs to have more of an association to the film rather than the way a word in the title makes you feel.

@cpheonix said:

@CelluloidFan said:

Wow, geez, I wasn't and am not upset at all. I felt one of your statements was leading into the idea that you can't post about a film without seeing it ("Have you even seen the film?"). I guess I was wrong about that. Try to see how being confronted with variations of that discourse for so long might cause one to start to think such an idea.

I do grasp that sometimes a writer's tone can be mistaken or confused for another one by others when the writing is in a format like texts or messages on a board. You might've seen my extensive post and thought that I was angry from reading it. This is fine.

I am a liker of discursive internet discussions.

OK that's fine, but generally there's a connection to the film when starting a discussion from it, like the plot, actors etc. Even if its just from the trailer. But from an inoffensive word like "Nobody"?

That's completely your interpretation of the title--that it's inoffensive. You must be tone-deaf if you haven't figured out by now that I take offense to the use of the word "nobody" to describe a person. And that's just it--the film's title is connected to the film. Furthermore, I didn't start the discussion; I merely replied to it.

You can't state that the word "nobody" isn't offensive in this discussion without invalidating my perspective--which would be a form of violence on your part.

My, you come off disingenuous toward me.

@CelluloidFan said:

That's completely your interpretation of the title--that it's inoffensive. You must be tone-deaf if you haven't figured out by now that I take offense to the use of the word "nobody" to describe a person. And that's just it--the film's title is connected to the film. Furthermore, I didn't start the discussion; I merely replied to it.

My, you come off disingenuous toward me.

Sounds like you're irked now. I meant inoffensive in relation to the film. But even in general I never knew this word could offend anyone. Apologies that I upset you by questioning this.

But I will say you started the discussion about the word "nobody". I didn't mean you started THIS thread. I get you like to talk off-topic, as I said, that's fine. All I wanted to know was whether you'd seen the film, because if you had, it would've sounded odd if you were offended by the title.

You're wrong. I'm cool as a cucumber.

Yeah right. For your sake let's hope the sequel isn't called "Nobodies".

@cpheonix said:

Yeah right. For your sake let's hope the sequel isn't called "Nobodies".

Well... I'm glad to see you learned something from our little discussion.