Old Guard

[Flopper]

Why would it be "Trite" coming from a woman, while it is "tender" coming from a man?

It would be trite simply because it is very common for the hero to express his love for the heroine when facing death or worse. However it the heroine is not a woman but a man, it catches the audience off guard as does the touching affirmation of eternal love. This really turns out to be a double whammy since it's very rare for two gay men to be featured in an action movie much less showing them in a scene of love and affection.

Screenwriters strive to build into their script an unexpected twist such as this because it engages audience. It doesn't always work but it does in this movie.

 

[Correll]

It would be trite simply because it is very common for the hero to express his love for the heroine when facing death or worse. However it the heroine is not a woman but a man, it catches the audience off guard as does the touching affirmation of eternal love. This really turns out to be a double whammy since it's very rare for two gay men to be featured in an action movie much less showing them in a scene of love and affection.

Screenwriters strive to build into their script an unexpected twist such as this because it engages audience. It doesn't always work but it does in this movie.

I like that you accept that the way other films do stuff, impacts the way the audience relates to the film.

I will do the same.

In this environment, using gay men to so that scene, takes the viewers out of the story, and reminds them the the hollywood writers demand that they accept and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle as blah, blah, blah. "And once we are past this political messaging, we will return to the story. Thank you for your patience. Oh, and you are a bigot that needs educated. "

 

[Flopper]

I like that you accept that the way other films do stuff, impacts the way the audience relates to the film.

I will do the same.

In this environment, using gay men to so that scene, takes the viewers out of the story, and reminds them the the hollywood writers demand that they accept and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle as blah, blah, blah. "And once we are past this political messaging, we will return to the story. Thank you for your patience. Oh, and you are a bigot that needs educated. "

The demand comes from viewers not Hollywood writers. Old Guard has been viewed by 78 million households in the first 4 weeks following the release about 6 months ago. That number is probably closer to 100 million today and a sequel is scheduled for release this summer. The cost of Old Guard was 70 million which is about average for major movies, however costs can go as high 350 million. Investors do not risk this kind money on movies that can pull large audiences.

 

[Correll]

The demand comes from viewers not Hollywood writers. Old Guard has been viewed by 78 million households in the first 4 weeks following the release about 6 months ago. That number is probably closer to 100 million today and a sequel is scheduled for release this summer. The cost of Old Guard was 70 million which is about average for major movies, however costs can go as high 350 million. Investors do not risk this kind money on movies that can pull large audiences.

The viewers do NOT demand that. Activists, both in production and media and online generate the illusion of demand.

Audiences, at best, put up with it. And try to enjoy the movie for the entertainment value while ignoring "The Message".

 

[Flopper]

The viewers do NOT demand that. Activists, both in production and media and online generate the illusion of demand.

Audiences, at best, put up with it. And try to enjoy the movie for the entertainment value while ignoring "The Message".

78 million households in 4 weeks is not an illusion

Social Justice Movies are very profitable which is why they are made. Claims of activist in production pushing movies out that people don't want to see is just nonsense. Movies get made because big business finance them expecting a big return on their money.

If audience just put up with social justice in movies, explain the following.
To Killing a Mockingbird has been watched by over 100 million people. It's total revenues are 40 times the cost.
All the Presidents Men' revenues are 9 times the cost and have been seen by or 40 million people.
Norma Rae revenues were 6 times cost and seen by over 10 million
The China Syndrome revenues were 12 times cost and seen by over 8 million viewers
Roger & Me had revenues over 70 times cost with estimates of over 5 million viewers.
Erin Brockovich had revenues 5 times cost with estimated 20 million viewers
Color Purple had revenues 7 times cost and were seen by over 15 million viewers
A Time to Kill revenues were 5 times cost
Shawshank Redemption revenues 1.5 times cost and over 20 million viewers
Dear White People, revenues 5 times cost
Moonlight revenues 40 times cost
I am Not Your Negro revenues 7 times cost
Get Out revenues 25 times cost
Just Mercy revenues 3 times cost

 

[Correll]

78 million households in 4 weeks is not an illusion

Social Justice Movies are very profitable which is why they are made. Claims of activist in production pushing movies out that people don't want to see is just nonsense. Movies get made because big business finance them expecting a big return on their money.

If audience just put up with social justice in movies, explain the following.
To Killing a Mockingbird has been watched by over 100 million people. It's total revenues are 40 times the cost.
......

1962 was quite a while ago. Back then the nation still had legal codes institutionalizing racism. To include that in a list about "woke" modern movies, is disingenuous.

The Old Guard had a big name star, who is quite good and quite easy on the eyes, ie Charlize Theron, it was fairly standard action flick, with a slight sdi fi twist, with high production values and good stunt work and effects. It was also a Netflix release, which meant it was "free" to subscribers. The people who have already paid, have a vested interest in finding value by watching what is offered, and just ignoring the stupid shit.


Contrast that to say, the harley quinn movie, which had many of the same benefits, but was even more woke and bombed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Years ago, I stopping paying money to see super hero movies.
The first major superhero movie Superman (1978) with Christopher Reeves was a fun movie, exiting, funny, and torching at times. From that point on super hero movies went down hill with only a few exceptions. Hollywood seem determine to resurrect every hero who dawn the pages of Marvel and Dell comics. After they had finished with every character worth using, they started creating them.

I have always wondered why audiences love superheroes so much that they would pay a hundred million dollars a year to watch them.

The Christian Bale Batman movies were great as were the Iron Man/Avengers movies with Downey Jr.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

78 million households in 4 weeks is not an illusion

Social Justice Movies are very profitable which is why they are made. Claims of activist in production pushing movies out that people don't want to see is just nonsense. Movies get made because big business finance them expecting a big return on their money.

If audience just put up with social justice in movies, explain the following.
To Killing a Mockingbird has been watched by over 100 million people. It's total revenues are 40 times the cost.
All the Presidents Men' revenues are 9 times the cost and have been seen by or 40 million people.
Norma Rae revenues were 6 times cost and seen by over 10 million
The China Syndrome revenues were 12 times cost and seen by over 8 million viewers
Roger & Me had revenues over 70 times cost with estimates of over 5 million viewers.
Erin Brockovich had revenues 5 times cost with estimated 20 million viewers
Color Purple had revenues 7 times cost and were seen by over 15 million viewers
A Time to Kill revenues were 5 times cost
Shawshank Redemption revenues 1.5 times cost and over 20 million viewers
Dear White People, revenues 5 times cost
Moonlight revenues 40 times cost
I am Not Your Negro revenues 7 times cost
Get Out revenues 25 times cost
Just Mercy revenues 3 times cost

Shawshank is a "social justice movie"??? LOL

Come on man. And you're cherry picking. 1000s of other movies were made that bombed.

 

[Flopper]

1962 was quite a while ago. Back then the nation still had legal codes institutionalizing racism. To include that in a list about "woke" modern movies, is disingenuous.

The Old Guard had a big name star, who is quite good and quite easy on the eyes, ie Charlize Theron, it was fairly standard action flick, with a slight sdi fi twist, with high production values and good stunt work and effects. It was also a Netflix release, which meant it was "free" to subscribers. The people who have already paid, have a vested interest in finding value by watching what is offered, and just ignoring the stupid shit.


Contrast that to say, the harley quinn movie, which had many of the same benefits, but was even more woke and bombed.

If you mean Bird of Prey, it had 82 million budget and 201 million box excluding streaming revenues. I know nothing about the movie except that is not a flop.

 

[Correll]

If you mean Bird of Prey, it had 82 million budget and 201 million box excluding streaming revenues. I know nothing about the movie except that is not a flop.

Birds of Prey Made Back More Than Twice Its Budget - So Why Was It Called a Flop?

Upon release, Cathy Yan's Birds of Prey was met with criticism. But it's far more difficult to pinpoint why many have considered the film a flop.

www.cbr.com

"Regarding the film's budget, an article from Variety goes into the finances leading to Birds of Prey failing to break even at the box office. The movie was budgeted at around $82 million to $100 million, with a breakeven number of $250 million worldwide, factoring in marketing and distribution. Birds of Prey pulled in $33 million on its opening weekend, which was a dismal turnout from the expected $45 million the film was projected to make in its first three days. The movie earned $201.8 million globally in its theatrical run, meaning that while it still made back more than twice its budget, Birds of Prey was still a financial disappointment for Warner Bros."

 

[Flopper]

Birds of Prey Made Back More Than Twice Its Budget - So Why Was It Called a Flop?

Upon release, Cathy Yan's Birds of Prey was met with criticism. But it's far more difficult to pinpoint why many have considered the film a flop.

www.cbr.com

"Regarding the film's budget, an article from Variety goes into the finances leading to Birds of Prey failing to break even at the box office. The movie was budgeted at around $82 million to $100 million, with a breakeven number of $250 million worldwide, factoring in marketing and distribution. Birds of Prey pulled in $33 million on its opening weekend, which was a dismal turnout from the expected $45 million the film was projected to make in its first three days. The movie earned $201.8 million globally in its theatrical run, meaning that while it still made back more than twice its budget, Birds of Prey was still a financial disappointment for Warner Bros."

You're right. I didn't figure in distribution costs.

 

[Correll]

You're right. I didn't figure in distribution costs.

Which do you really think action flick fans would like to see, an eternal love story between a man and an attractive woman, or two gross dudes?

 

[Flopper]

Which do you really think action flick fans would like to see, an eternal love story between a man and an attractive woman, or two gross dudes?

I suspect it depends on the audience. Younger people, are generally more accepting of love and sex between mixed races and sexes. It's just isn't icky anymore. Audiences no longer storm out the door in horror.

Polls show that streaming services such as Netflix are more popular among democrats and left-leaning democrats than republicans or right-leaning republicans. Also Democrats go to the movies twice as much as Republicans. So as always, investors finance movies that meets the desires of audience.

To answer your question, the scene would lose it's impact with a man and women because that is what audiences would expect. I think if you poll viewers, and ask the if the scene should have been between a man and women, you would get a resounding, no. The best lines in movie would not work with man and women "He’s not my boyfriend. This man is more to me than you can dream. He’s the moon when I’m lost in darkness and warmth when I shiver in cold. And his kiss still thrills me even after millennia. His heart overflows with the kindness of which this world is not worthy of. I love this man beyond measure and reason. He’s not my boyfriend. He’s all and he’s more."

What I don't understand is why are you watching movies like this which are obviously not made for you. There are a lot of alternative such a Pureflix, Christian Movies on Demand, cable channels like Hallmark. They would censor the movies and this objection material would be filtered out.

 

[Correll]

I suspect it depends on the audience. Younger people, are generally more accepting of love and sex between mixed races and sexes. It's just isn't icky anymore. Audiences no longer storm out the door in horror.

"More accepting" doesn't mean that they WANT it, or want to watch it. It means, as you say, they "don't storm out of the door". The vast majority of the audience is hetro, and would relate better to a man and a woman, AND, to most, two guy is still gross. It's a natural response.

Polls show that streaming services such as Netflix are more popular among democrats and left-leaning democrats than republicans or right-leaning republicans. Also Democrats go to the movies twice as much as Republicans. So as always, investors finance movies that meets the desires of audience.

Which makes sense because these services insist on peppering or stuffing their product with leftist propaganda. That is liberals putting their politics ahead of their responsibilities to their investors, and leaving money on the table. And even dem viewers, don't WANT to see this shit.

To answer your question, the scene would lose it's impact with a man and women because that is what audiences would expect. I think if you poll viewers, and ask the if the scene should have been between a man and women, you would get a resounding, no. The best lines in movie would not work with man and women "He’s not my boyfriend. This man is more to me than you can dream. He’s the moon when I’m lost in darkness and warmth when I shiver in cold. And his kiss still thrills me even after millennia. His heart overflows with the kindness of which this world is not worthy of. I love this man beyond measure and reason. He’s not my boyfriend. He’s all and he’s more."

Sure it would. A merc questioning a love affair between two immortal warriors, and the woman or man responds with open and sincere Love.

What it would lose in shock value it would more than make up with, with greater relatability from the massively straight audience.

What I don't understand is why are you watching movies like this which are obviously not made for you. There are a lot of alternative such a Pureflix, Christian Movies on Demand, cable channels like Hallmark. They would censor the movies and this objection material would be filtered out.

Same reason everyone does. I have time to watch entertainment. and I had a limited selection of high production shit. Like everyone else, I put up with the retarded political propaganda of the Left to try to have some enjoyment from a nice action flick. What a monster I am. I ask for so little. And those assholes can't give it to me.


Some day the investors will realize how badly fucked they have let themselves be. I hope they are vindictive when that times comes. Those libs will deserve it.

 

[Flopper]

"More accepting" doesn't mean that they WANT it, or want to watch it. It means, as you say, they "don't storm out of the door". The vast majority of the audience is hetro, and would relate better to a man and a woman, AND, to most, two guy is still gross. It's a natural response.





Which makes sense because these services insist on peppering or stuffing their product with leftist propaganda. That is liberals putting their politics ahead of their responsibilities to their investors, and leaving money on the table. And even dem viewers, don't WANT to see this shit.






Sure it would. A merc questioning a love affair between two immortal warriors, and the woman or man responds with open and sincere Love.

What it would lose in shock value it would more than make up with, with greater relatability from the massively straight audience.










Same reason everyone does. I have time to watch entertainment. and I had a limited selection of high production shit. Like everyone else, I put up with the retarded political propaganda of the Left to try to have some enjoyment from a nice action flick. What a monster I am. I ask for so little. And those assholes can't give it to me.


Some day the investors will realize how badly fucked they have let themselves be. I hope they are vindictive when that times comes. Those libs will deserve it.

In general, the industry is not loyal to liberalism, or any ideology, for that matter. It is loyal to creating popular stories that make money. These stories tend to be “liberal,” in the shallowest sense of the word, because realism, sex, drugs and partying sells. It has much more to do with profiting from human nature rather than a scheme to change America. They do not have any real ideology; They are skin deep. They will make any movie they believe will sell either to the broad audience or a targeted group.

In regard to this film, Joe and Nicky were gay in the comic Old Guard which the movie is based. Gregory Rucka, the screen writer who wrote the comics refused to make them straight. Gina Maria Prince-Bythewood, the director thought it was needed to help distinguish the movie from all other the superhero movies. Of more than 100 superhero movies, Joe and Nicky will be the first to be gay. Apparently it worked as Old Guard has proven to be a money maker and the sequel is schedule for late summer. I doubt Joe and Nicky will undergo Christian Gay Conversion Therapy so we continue this discussion next summer.

 

[Correll]

In general, the industry is not loyal to liberalism, or any ideology, for that matter. It is loyal to creating popular stories that make money. These stories tend to be “liberal,” in the shallowest sense of the word, because sex, drugs and partying sell. It has much more to do with profiting from human nature rather than a scheme to change America. They do not have any real ideology; They are skin deep. They will make any movie they believe will sell either to the broad audience or a targeted group.

That is the claim. It is not borne out by their behavior.

In regard to this film, Joe and Nicky were gay in the comic Old Guard which the movie is based.

Hollywood is notorious for NOT respecting cannon.

Gregory Rucka, the screen writer who wrote the comics refused to make them straight.

Why? Would it effect his pay? Cause your position is this is all about money.

Gina Maria Prince-Bythewood, the director thought it was needed to help distinguish the movie from all other the superhero movies.

All the other superhero movies that made billions and billions of dollars? They DON'T want to follow that normal and incredibly profitable model? MMMM.

mmm. mmm. mmm.

Of more than 100 superhero movies, Joe and Nicky will be the first to be gay. Apparently it worked as Old Guard has proven to be a money maker and the sequel is schedule for late summer. I doubt Joe and Nicky will undergo Christian Gay Conversion Therapy.

Nope. What worked was the high production values, the good actions scenes and Charlize Theron. The gays were a minus that did not manage to drag down the whole movie.