Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2022

That's what they should focus on - making movies that are popular with audiences instead of trying to satisfy critics. I think critic ratings are... overrated.

 

That would make for an interesting article (critics vs audience) greatest discrepancies (both ways).

The Lion King 2019 - 52% critics / 88% audience
Venom - 30% c / 80% a
Aladdin 2019 - 57% c / 94% a
Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker - 52% c / 86% a
Godzilla King of the Monsters - 42% c / 83% a

 

Yeah, I think I agree with the critics on just about all of them, though I didn't think Venom was that bad.

I think there's a place for an informed critical opinion. Roger Ebert wrote a great essay on what constitutes good film criticism about 45 years ago, and among the things he wrote, he said:

1) the critic has to be familiar with a large number of "classic" films to have a background for good judgement on where the high bar is set

2) you can't criticize a film for not being the movie you expected; you have to criticize the movie the director made, not the movie you wish they had made

3) the movie has to take you to some place you've never been before and convince you that you were there (or at least make the setting feel completely realistic and believable)

4) the story has to have a beginning, middle, and end [although there are always exceptions]

5) you have to have some empathy for the characters, even if they're villainous; I think he used the example of Norman Bates in Hitchcock's Psycho as an example of a villain we can empathize with, even understand on some level

6) the story logic has to make sense, even in a fantasy or fantastic situation; there has to be a set of rules under which the story resolves

7) in most cases, the main characters have to go through a journey, so that by the time the film ends, they're different people than they were at the beginning [though again, there are some notable exceptions]

8) the film has to be technically competent, so at least the technical aspects (lighting, camerawork, sound, effects, and so on) don't get in the way of telling the story.

There were a bunch of additional rules, but those are the ones I remember. Ebert cites Louis Gionnetti's book Understanding Movies as a good introduction to having a good handle on all the basics. Anyway, the point is I think you can get a good sense of whether a film is objectively good or bad when you find a critic that you understand. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Siskel & Ebert were a pretty big deal, I used to say, "I don't always agree with them, but their conversations about movies are fascinating to listen to." I think the critic I agree with the most is Leonard Maltin, and it's extremely rare that he hates a movie I like, or I like a movie he hates. (Gremlins was a movie I thought was pretty good that he hates, so that's an unusual exception.)

 

That's because Godzilla is "King of the Monsters".

Monster movies have always been synonymous with the cinema. That has never gone away and never will.

That is, unless you make "monsters" that are pussycats.

 

Box Office: ‘Jurassic World Dominion’ Opening To $132M+ – Deadline

 

Long Range Box Office Forecast: Marvel Studios' Thor: Love and Thunder - Boxoffice

 

Weekend Box Office Forecast: Pixar's Lightyear - Boxoffice interesting projections

 

Likely to underperform if anything, there's a strange review bombing campaign taking place on IMDB against the movie.

 

"A film should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, but not necessarily in that order." - Jean-Luc Godard

 

On the other hand, he never shot a traditional Hollywood movie.

Meanwhile, Tom Cruise's Top Gun sequel shows no signs of slowing down, and has hit $800 million worldwide in only 3 weeks, making it the biggest film of his career in terms of box office:

'Top Gun: Maverick' Becomes Tom Cruise's Biggest Box Office Hit - Variety

Box Office: Top Gun Maverick Is Tom Cruise’s Biggest Movie Ever – The Hollywood Reporter

I would say it's got a reasonable chance of hitting $1 billion, which is something I predicted about 4-5 months ago based on early buzz. I still haven't had time to see it, but hope to get out next week once I get out from under a lot of work.

 

Because of the "controversy" about the gay couple?

 

There are parents out there that are already not on-board with Disney these days. And that is for many reasons...

 

Maybe I’m going to come across as simply “not with it”, and this isn’t to show my support or non support of including that scene, but my question is this: why take a chance and include it? Isn’t it obvious it will create controversy, and likely hurt the film? Especially in a Disney property. By the same token, does creating a same sex scene going to really help it? It just seems like it’s an awfully big chance to take on a film of this nature. Why take it?

 

Disney's problem isn't what the films are trying to say...it's what the company is trying to say through the films.

They used to be really good at telling stories through storyboards; now they're focusing more on trajectories. The difference is, now it's less about, "and then what happens?", and more about, "and then what needs to happen for the demographic to be satisfied with the overall direction of the story arc...?".

 

Perhaps it's not a big deal with the target audience? I don't think Disney would include a scene that is likely to offend a very large % of potential viewers to the point of turning them off the movie, I don't think that younger generations (under 40) blink or even care about same sex couples.

 

You could use this same rationale to never challenge audiences.

"Hey, it'll make some people unhappy if we show an interracial couple - better not do it!"

 

I'd actually hope Disney/Pixar adopted the attitude shown by Kurt Cobain's liner notes for "Incesticide" in 1992.

When Nirvana broke big, they attracted a whole new audience, and here's what Kurt said:

"If any of you in any way hate homosexuals, people of different color, or women, please do this one favor for us—leave us the f--k alone! Don't come to our shows and don't buy our records."

If people are horrified by a same-sex kiss, then good riddance to them.

Probably too much to ask a massive corporation to feel that way, but one can hope.

 

I read today that Lightyear is already banned in 14 countries over exposing kids to same sex kissing. It does seem like an odd decision for a disney film.

 

Nations that refused to allow the film to be shown include Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, Disney said. The UAE, home to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, earlier this week announced it would not allow the film to screen.

What do all of these countries have in common??

 

Sand?

 

Elvis (2022). box office prediction?

 

$30-50 million opening weekend domestic?

 

Disney is obviously including what they think they can get away with.

This is nothing new. Disney has been projecting their agendas in movies for a while now. This would include Beauty and the Beast, Captain Marvel and Star Wars (#IV being the worst offender).

All is well and good. People voice their approval and disapproval at the box office. Let them continue as they wish...

 

If you believe "their agenda" is reaching wider audiences than just die-hard fanboys with low tolerance for lifestyles outside of their own, for purposes of engaging with more customers...you may just be right...!

 

Actually, Disney's been projecting an agenda since 1937 with their first movie. But when the agenda was to promote a white, cis-gender, male-centered family with "wholesome" values there were few complaints.

JohnK