'Coyote vs. Acme' Outgrosses All But 3 WB Movies This Year, Heads To Profit (screenrant.com) 142
The movie Coyote vs. Acme earned more than Warner Bros.' $30 million tax write-off in just two weeks. And last week the movie officially earned more than its production budget of $70 million. But today the movie passed the $100 million mark. "You asked for it, we delivered, and you showed up!" distributor Ketchup Entertainment posted on social media (adding "Thank you to the fans for making this a massive hit!")
With a break-even number of $120 million, the movie "will probably make up any theatrical deficit (should there be any) with its impending releases on video on demand and streaming," writes ScreenRant. Almost three years after the completed film was initially shelved for a $30 million write-off, its cumulative domestic box office has apparently even beat Warner Bros. dinosaur movie The End of Oak Street: In addition to officially joining the chart of the Top 30 movies of the year so far at the domestic box office, by surpassing The End of Oak Street, Coyote vs. Acme has outgrossed five of the eight movies that Warner Bros. has put out in domestic theaters this year.... [It's just $17.6 million behind Supergirl, and within $30 million of Mortal Kombat II and Wuthering Heights.] Their anticipated sci-fi sequel Dune: Part Three also seems guaranteed to land higher than 2026's Coyote vs. Acme on the chart (2021's Dune earned $108.9 million in domestic theaters, while Dune: Part Two earned $282.1 million).
With its a small marketing budget of just $10 million, the movie seems to be relying on oddball marketing stunts like their AMA on Reddit's r/movies. And commemorating the spirit of the movie, Crayon-maker Crayola even released a special "Coyote Secret Plan" web page for children to print and color — and partnered with the film's stars for a video on the importance of creativity:
Lana Condor: Crayola is all about encouraging kids and grown-ups to turn imagination into action.
Will Forte: Which is exactly what Coyote does in Coyote versus Acme. He sees a problem and thinks, "Could this be solved with a rocket, a catapult, or a suspiciously affordable mail order anvil?"
Lana Condor: Usually no.
Will Forte: Usually very no.
With a break-even number of $120 million, the movie "will probably make up any theatrical deficit (should there be any) with its impending releases on video on demand and streaming," writes ScreenRant. Almost three years after the completed film was initially shelved for a $30 million write-off, its cumulative domestic box office has apparently even beat Warner Bros. dinosaur movie The End of Oak Street: In addition to officially joining the chart of the Top 30 movies of the year so far at the domestic box office, by surpassing The End of Oak Street, Coyote vs. Acme has outgrossed five of the eight movies that Warner Bros. has put out in domestic theaters this year.... [It's just $17.6 million behind Supergirl, and within $30 million of Mortal Kombat II and Wuthering Heights.] Their anticipated sci-fi sequel Dune: Part Three also seems guaranteed to land higher than 2026's Coyote vs. Acme on the chart (2021's Dune earned $108.9 million in domestic theaters, while Dune: Part Two earned $282.1 million).
With its a small marketing budget of just $10 million, the movie seems to be relying on oddball marketing stunts like their AMA on Reddit's r/movies. And commemorating the spirit of the movie, Crayon-maker Crayola even released a special "Coyote Secret Plan" web page for children to print and color — and partnered with the film's stars for a video on the importance of creativity:
Lana Condor: Crayola is all about encouraging kids and grown-ups to turn imagination into action.
Will Forte: Which is exactly what Coyote does in Coyote versus Acme. He sees a problem and thinks, "Could this be solved with a rocket, a catapult, or a suspiciously affordable mail order anvil?"
Lana Condor: Usually no.
Will Forte: Usually very no.
Well then let me be the firs one to... (Score:5, Funny)
Meep, meep!
Re: (Score:3)
"There are a limited number of signs."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's "Beep beep", actually.
Or, as the captions on Youtube road runner cartoons state : "Beat me".
Re: Well then let me be the firs one to... (Score:2)
Hollywood Accounting needs to be banned,prosecuted (Score:4, Interesting)
With a break-even number of $120 million, according to the Hollywood Accounting where the WB shell companies are all paying themselves in a circle, compared to the actual production cost of $30 million as indicated by the tax writeoff stated value...
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I'm not sad when people suggest Hollywood might dry up and blow away. Good. Fuck them. They don't pay their taxes anyway and they are absolutely going to replace everyone they can with AI so those jobs are going away no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
The tax write-off can only be for part of the production cost, isn't it? You don't get to deduct the entire cost of the movie.
It's well-reported that WB sold the film below costs to Ketchup, and they paid $50 million for it.
Re: (Score:3)
The tax write-off can only be for part of the production cost, isn't it? You don't get to deduct the entire cost of the movie.
Yes, and it only counts against other profits you made during that same year. (There's no tax refund if you have negative profits for a year, although in some instances you might be able to apply those losses across multiple years.) AI says there's a $15 million limit to the deduction (maybe per year?) for movie production.
So if WB paid, say, a 20% corporate tax rate (haha, I'm sure that's much too high), a $15 million deduction from earnings only saves $3 million in tax bill ($15 x 0.2). So the execs dec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is way everyone gets rich, but a movie never makes money. Only a fool takes a cut of the gross Smart money gets a cut of the net.
Uhh.... no, you have it backwards. The gross money is the amount BEFORE the accounting shenanigans; the net is AFTER. A percentage of the net could be nothing after Hollywood accounting.
I recall Sir Alec Guinness getting about 2% of the gross for Star Wars. He made a LOT of money from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is way everyone gets rich, but a movie never makes money. Only a fool takes a cut of the gross Smart money gets a cut of the net.
Uhh.... no, you have it backwards. The gross money is the amount BEFORE the accounting shenanigans; the net is AFTER. A percentage of the net could be nothing after Hollywood accounting.
I recall Sir Alec Guinness getting about 2% of the gross for Star Wars. He made a LOT of money from that.
Yea, you are right, my bad. Should not drink and post...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many tricks to Hollywood accounting, like buying a $5 lamp at a thrift store through a shell company, the renting it to the production company for $1,000/hour for the weeks long production.
Never take a percentage of the net. But a percentage of the gross is another matter.
Sean Connery used to brag about putting a studio out of business over accounting BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Eat the rich!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Flat taxes are regressive because the poor spend more of their money on necessities, unless you then issue corrections in which case there's no benefit to doing a flat tax because it doesn't save you any effort.
If you actually wanted to fix this problem you'd eliminate loopholes and the alternate rate of capital gains tax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Eat the rich!" (Score:4, Insightful)
American taxpayers earn in the neighborhood of $28 trillion per year in income and realized capital gains. Between the feds and the states, the government brings in ~$7-8 trillion in tax. You'd need a flat tax of at least ~25% to match that. The bottom quintile of taxpayers pay ~10-15% today.
How do you make that math work?
Re: "Eat the rich!" (Score:2)
A lobotomy is the only way to make it make sense... I know I'm venturing into dangerous territory here but the jokes write themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I"m getting so tired of this perineal complaint.....
No need to tell us you don't care about anyone but yourself, because you've told us in so many words many times before. What a waste of everyone's time.
Everyone needs to have skin in the game.
Since you don't care about anyone but yourself, caring about what you think or have to say is inherently destructive to anyone who wants to have a working sockety.
pay flat tax or fair tax or whatever you want to call it.
I call it a stupid fucking idea that can't work proposed only by idiots, assholes, or assholes who are idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
So nice to see you are open to new ideas, and conversations....
I mean, Milton Friedman died 20 years ago at the age of 94 so...
Re: (Score:3)
Russia tried a 13% flat tax. And for the most part it accomplished what it set out to do; get tax evasion and the black market economy under control. Those problems are not anywhere to the severity here in the US that was seen 1990's and early 2000's Russia.
To fund the social programs, infrastructure, and military that people want, the tax is going to need to be quite high in the US. 13% won't cut it. The number is around 35% flat tax to hang onto what we have today without borrowing. And that does not answ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The top 5% of earners in the US pay 60% of the income tax collected.
Your flat tax would have to be more than the entire, gross income of the average person to break even, while the rich people you hate to much would have more net income.
Is that your intent? To literally condemn not just the poor, but the middle class, to literal starvation while the rich get richer even faster?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations pay about 1/6th of the total income tax revenue in the US.
Perhaps you should find a different propaganda site to spoon feed your fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations pay about 1/6th of the total income tax revenue in the US.
Yes, but some of the largest corporations pay nothing, so the tax landscape is unfair even to [the shareholders of] those corporations, who have to make up the difference.
Re: "Eat the rich!" (Score:2)
Source: learn to Internet noob, nothing is better documented
Re: (Score:2)
And situations like THIS are why I want us to try a flat tax
The problem with a flat tax scheme is that it's based on consumption rather than how well the whole capitalism thing is working out for you. I usually like to mention how many iPhones Elon Musk would have to buy in order for him to have paid the same the same percentage of his income towards sales tax as someone making the average median income (it's somewhere around 10.4 million iPhones), but a more down-to-Earth example would be if you happen to know anyone who is of limited means and spends a ton of mon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But a dollar is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person. Flat taxes have greater impact on the poor than on the rich.
What we really need is a *continuous gradient* tax system that ratchets up to 100% as you cross about $50 million -- you're free to give the excess away before tax day, but one way or another, you don't get to keep enough money to swing the economy by yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the people at the bottom, any amount of tax hurts more than the people at the top, whether it is on income or on transaction. Each dollar of tax is a far higher percent of total income, so the impact is greater even when the dollar amounts are smaller. There are lots of folks in our economy for whom an extra $50 per month is huge improvement in life quality. If you can zero out the tax on fundamentals -- food, clothing, gas, utilities, road tolls -- then sales taxes are a lot more fair, placing the burd
Re: (Score:2)
Near me, the poor already get much free stuff: food, clothes, medicine, phones, and as of yesterday, mental health care house calls at t
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine anything more "fair" than a simple, mathematical percentage. This is not about righting the perceived wrongs of society, this about ending a corruptible, ridiculously complex tax system. How is it fair that those with higher incomes can seek tax avoision via their accountants? That's not possible in my system: all pay, using only a simple calculator. Near me, the poor already get much free stuff: food, clothes, medicine, phones, and as of yesterday, mental health care house calls at their homeless tents. And if the rate is something like 0.05 percent, they'll probably pay less overall, no?
Most taxes in the U.S. are already "flat taxes." Gas tax, property tax, sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax...all "flat taxes." Turning the federal (and state?) income tax into a flat tax will likely reduce overall tax revenue and will not solve the tax evasion problems you mention.
I'm all for eliminating many of the tax breaks for the wealthy, especially the mortgage deduction for high earners, the capital gains tax on investments being so low for the wealthy, and the ability to hide income in o
Re: (Score:2)
And I consider that a bonus: I think the government is made of idiot turtles all the way down and sho
Re: (Score:2)
That's not enough, I want everything to be flat. I guess I'm not interested in those ancillary things as I see the overall waste and corruption involved everywhere, and at all levels of power when it comes to taxation. After decades of doing my own taxes on paper, I've finally hired a tax accountant recently because it's too complex and requires too much time for something that should be staid by now.
Why do you want everything "flat"? It's inequitable to those who work for a living, it will reduce revenue, and there's no good evidence it will reduce waste or corruption. I'm guessing your goal is primarily #2 (reducing revenue), with the notion that if government revenue is cut it will reduce wasteful spending. This is a fallacy. Just because there's less money doesn't mean governments will spend it more wisely. In fact, rapid, thoughtless cuts, as we are seeing under Trump, has wasted a ton of money, pr
Re: (Score:2)
Don't guess at my goals, ask! I want everyone to be able to do his taxes on a calculator within 5 seconds. I want to be able to do my taxes without having to hire a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with a plan for taxation "every time money changes hands" is that if you take it too literally, two people handing a $100 bill back and forth with a 20% tax can end up owing more than $99.99 after 42 passes. Or, if you're rounding up to whole dollars at 50 cents, the whole $100 after 26 passes. You can say that example is absurd and that you didn't mean it literally, but the point is that all kinds of absurdities like that can, indeed happen. The problem is that any scheme like taxation can run
Re:Hollywood Accounting needs to be banned,prosecu (Score:5, Informative)
Once they sell the movie rights, they lose the tax write-off and owe taxes on it once again (but on the $50 million sale price, not the $30 million write-off amount).
$50 + $10 million is what Ketchup put in (they spent the marketing, not WB). They are getting roughly half of ticket proceeds (WB gets nothing). So to make back $60 million, they need $120 million in total sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes more sense if it's laid out in something like timeline order and with some more clarity on the parties involved.
WB makes the movie for $70 million, but shelves for whatever reason and treat the $70 million as a loss. On that loss, they get a $30 million tax writeoff.
Movie sits in "vault" for a while.
Ketchup, a distinct entity, not a WB shell company, buys the movie and distribution rights entirely from WB for $50 million. This forces WB to give back the $30 million tax writeoff, meaning that for
Re: Hollywood Accounting needs to be banned,prosec (Score:2)
You mean the theater gets to keep 5% of the popcorn sales?
Re: Hollywood Accounting needs to be banned,prose (Score:2)
That was a joke in reference to venues getting squeezed. Yes, studios and distributors never succeeded in getting a share of concessions, but they have tried, and by all accounts it's miserable to be in the venue business compared to the studios/distributors business.
FYI, it's also a bad idea to throw "conspiracy theory" around to describe garden-variety private profit maximizing schemes. Reserve it for grand conspiracy theories, those that would actually require superhuman levels of coordination and secrec
Ketchup Entertainment (Score:3)
Ketchup bought the distribution rights from WB for around $50M. I suspect most of the $100M goes to the box office and actors, I'm not sure what percentage WB gets. Likely not much given the large up front payout. That puts WB around $20M in the red on this film (they probably spend around $70-80M making it).
I would define what went down as a major cock up for WB. And no matter how well the film does they will have trouble doing much better than breaking even.
Re:Ketchup Entertainment (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty sure WB gets nothing. Except for the fact that they can create new merchandise for their characters. They sold worldwide distribution rights in total with no revenue sharing as far as I can tell.
Kinda? (Score:3)
Ketchup bought the distribution rights from WB for around $50M. I suspect most of the $100M goes to the box office and actors, I'm not sure what percentage WB gets.
Everybody thought the film would be a total loss, so I'd expect that $50M is all up-front money, and they aren't getting any points. My understanding of how actor's contracts work is that their points were most likely bought out too, so I don't think anyone is getting any profit the film will make except the distributor. Keep in mind the actors have all already been paid at this point, that's what the film's budget was for. The question is, if their points were already bought out by having WB shelve the mov
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, WB might not make money from this release but they still own the Loony Toons IP and characters and this is turning into a nice case of putting some life into that IP again after the failure of Space Jam 2.
They can put another movie or a sequel or a new TV series into production off the back of this films success, plus as you said, all that merch. House always wins type situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would people think it was going to be a total loss? Presumably those with a stake in it had seen it, or at least talked to people who had seen it, and knew it was pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
When acquiring a completed film for distribution, it is standard practice to keep the underlying financial frameworks and contracts intact. So the actor "points" (backend profit participation) payout structure is likely preserved rather than wiped out.
As far as I can tell this was an all-rights sale to Ketchup, but WB still has all the IP rights for the characters. So t-shirts and those sort of things are going to either go to WB or be split depending on the details of whatever secret contract they have. No
Re: (Score:2)
So at least now we know what Coyote will look like after impact with the canyon floor.
Re: (Score:2)
The current CEO of WB is the same guy who enshittified Discovery Channel
With the pending change in top management, he may be unemployed.
Or promoted, who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Or he may be promoted to a higher position.
Re: (Score:2)
Zaslav was hired with the specific task of getting WBD sold off and he did that, for tons of cash. Mission accomplished per the board that put him there.
I can't help but Wonder (Score:2)
The reason most movies lose money is that the advertising budget is as much or more than the cost of making the movie even with all the Hollywood math involved. And the advertising budget is real it's harder to do Hollywood math when you're reporting on that stuff since the studio is paying another company instead of companies that kind of sort of owns...
I'm happy to see the movie released but it didn't need much of an advertising budge
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't take much. All I needed to know was that it exists and that WB shelved it. That told me it didn't fit the standard movie success formula so it was probably good.
And I still haven't watched the 2021 Space Jam movie that WB actually released.
Saw it yesterday, enjoyed it a lot (Score:3)
Given the pitance we pay in Venezuela for the tickets (something like U$D 6 for 2 tickets), this wil barely register in the "profitability" part, but, at least, is two more butts on seats for the stats.
Could have seen it in streaming later on (is not like this needs a big screen, or has some art-sy quality), but I wanted to show support in the only way I could.
Comic movies now suck. (Score:2)
Was this original? No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner and similar cartoons every Saturday morning. But relative to other movies with their comic of the month, it is new material and has that nostalgia that modern comic movies absolutely fail to deliver because they keep remaking and rebooting the same material like the beating of a dead horse.
Re: (Score:2)
"No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner"
The connotation that the roadrunner in the 80s was original is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
They were still mostly airing the shorts from the 40s-60s even then. So I would say they were original. New audiences, but original. While this new movie relied a lot on referencing old material, it wasn't nearly as bad as other recent nostalgia fueled movies.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the Roadrunner cartoons were pretty much all the same, with differing details. Retreads aren't necessarily bad. Formulas exist because they work.
I just don't like the things I've seen in the last 40 years. (OTOH, I didn't like the movie version of "The Wizard of Oz" when I was a kid...I much preferred the book version.)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many remakes, too many reboots, too many. Was this original? No, I grew up in the 80s watching the roadrunner and similar cartoons every Saturday morning. But relative to other movies with their comic of the month, it is new material and has that nostalgia that modern comic movies absolutely fail to deliver because they keep remaking and rebooting the same material like the beating of a dead horse.
Sometimes, nostalgia bait works, especially when it's nostalgia that hasn't been strip-mined to near death over the last forty plus years. I got a real kick out of all the references to old looney toons tropes and even the specific references to Coyote's particular ACME purchases over the run of his cartoons. Lots of background references to the old production teams too, like the name of the law firm being the old creators' names. It's just a ton of fun and made good on a lot of the old cartoon vibes.
You guys Team Coyote (Score:2)
Or Roadrunner?
Re: (Score:2)
RR is a dick, and Coyote is a failure. Team Acme FTW.
Re: You guys Team Coyote (Score:2)
Once again the MIC wins
Re: (Score:2)
Or Roadrunner?
Did you even watch the movie? THEY'RE THE SAME TEAM!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to inject real life into cartoons. (In the real world, coyotes can run nearly twice as fast a roadrunners.)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to inject real life into cartoons. (In the real world, coyotes can run nearly twice as fast a roadrunners.)
Yep. https://www.msn.com/en-us/pets... [msn.com]
I haven't seen the movie (Score:2)
The concept/idea is great, but I am like 90% sure they will F it up with bad writing and production. The trailers weren't great.
Re:I haven't seen the movie (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually very funny. There's a reason word of mouth has been doing the heavy lifting for this.
Re: (Score:2)
It was enjoyable. It gets bogged down a bit in the middle but there are enough clever gags to keep it moving along. Forte and Cena do a good job of hamming it up with the characters as well.
Plus (spoiler?) I appreciated that the plot kinda revolves around cartoon Peter Lorre.
Re: (Score:2)
It was made by people who were fans of the cartoons, and they were true to the characters. It's not an all time classic, but it was worth the time to watch.
21st Century (Score:4, Funny)
I ordered my anvil from Amazon.
sad it doesn't say ACME.
Re: (Score:3)
So did I, and I paid extra for 'Amazon Instant' delivery. Not making that mistake again.
(typing this from an anvil-shaped hole in the ground. ow.)
Re: (Score:2)
So did I, and I paid extra for 'Amazon Instant' delivery. Not making that mistake again.
(typing this from an anvil-shaped hole in the ground. ow.)
+1 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Consumer Merchandise Expediter
Re: (Score:2)
I ordered my anvil from Amazon.
sad it doesn't say ACME.
There must be an "ACME" stencil somewhere on Amazon? :-)
Cheap Chinese copy
Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case
Re: (Score:3)
We kinda have that already, it's called Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd.
Also it's better that way to get the impression the next day of a film, most people don't realize a film is quite bad until a couple hours afterwards. God knows back in the day I actually thought The Phantom Menace was good until I got home and started thinking about how none of it made any sense.
Re: Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
No we don't. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Universal. IMDB by Amazon. They have no interest in being honest and only use it to further their marketing causes snd build hype based on lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence of that? There are a lot of big budget movies with some downright nasty IMDB or RT or Letterboxd reviews that many a large studio would rather not have there.
Your system isn't any less susceptible to mass conspiracy manipulation either.
Re: Performance or nostalgia? (Score:2)
It's not a conspiracy.
https://www.vulture.com/articl... [vulture.com]
https://collider.com/rotten-to... [collider.com]
Plus, I've confirmed it myself numerous times by using their ratings and being deeply disappointed, the "wtf is this" level of disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Critics score getting games, sure I can give you that (First article paywalled and the second is referencing the first) but the audience scores? IMDB reviews? Letterboxd reviews?
Audiences have a lot of ways to voice their opinions about movies. [youtube.com]
Re:Performance or nostalgia? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case with lots of PC and guilt-trippiny Coyote, sprinkled with the most prominent lines served at random.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 96% reviews and 95% audience, which are really high scores. Is it Oscar material? Obviously not. It is nostalgic? Absolutely. But we shouldn't discount nostalgia. For food, nostalgia is often most of the enjoyment for "authentic" or "comfort" food and far exceeds any technical merits of the food. Enjoyment from nostalgia has a far stronger effect than technical merits. Same thing for movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good. If anything, it's either viewers' nostalgia and big hopes or the success of the marketing department.
What I'd like to know is how many people though it was good after the screening. There should be a mandatory exit survey after every film you watch, or those yay/neutral/nay buttons you find in toilets asking you to rate your service today.
To me, from the trailer alone, it looks like they turned an epic cartoon into a boring legal case with lots of PC and guilt-trippiny Coyote, sprinkled with the most prominent lines served at random.
I went to it opening day and loved it. Nostalgia bait, sure. But it's FUN nostalgia bait. I do think it's a good movie if you were ever a fan of Looney Toons. I couldn't say what anyone would think if they weren't, because that shit was essential viewing when I was a kid and is basically embedded in my DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it with a group of four people.
Three of us enjoyed it quite a bit.
I didn't mind it but nothing was surprising to me.
I saw several scenes that could have been more cleverly written but I was glad to support the group that saved a creative work from the burn pile. The idea of killing a movie for accounting losses seems sinful.
The motion-control photography, practical effects, and integration of animation were at least as good as Roger Rabbit.
If you enjoy the craft of filmmaking it's at least worth seein
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was legitimately a decent movie though. Not going to change the world or anything, but it was funny and well executed.
Re: (Score:2)
It was legitimately a decent movie though. Not going to change the world or anything, but it was funny and well executed.
Good to know. I'll probably catch it when it comes out on streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the funniest film I have seen in a long time and (IMO) the best animated film of 2026 (yes I know about those other lesser films starring plumbers, cowboys, puppies, beavers, sheep etc)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good.
Except in this case, the movie is good.
That's part of the reason word-of-mouth is giving this movie traction. I told my friends how much I enjoyed it, they went, enjoyed it as well, told their friends... etc.
Word-of-mouth doesn't work if a movie is bad.
Anvils (Score:3)
I was invited to attend the movie with a group. Before the movie started I handed out tiny umbrellas to everyone. You know, just in case someone tried to drop an anvil on their head.
Wow (Score:2)
I'm glad my name backwards isn't rod knock anal
coyote outgasses (Score:2)
I read that as outgasses and thought Coyote must have finally eaten Roadrunner.
Movies are *never* profitable. (Score:2)
Have you not heard of Hollywood accounting?
Up Series (Score:3)
Perhaps slightly tangential to topic, but while we are discussing the merits of what could be summarised as a quick - but sucessful - movie project using an old idea, the UK has just shown 70 Up [imdb.com], which is the latest and final release of a documentary following the lives of 14 people from age 7 to 70.
In an age where we tend to quickly make goods that are often used for a short time then discarded, this is a sort of cathedral of documentaries. The first release, "7 Up", was in 1964. I suppose it is a kind of reality show, but one that has spanned the lifetimes of its participants. The mix of happiness and sadness that comes with life, and the way we can look at these people in their youth, and, to some extent, see the risks in their future, is unique.
If you want a break from the latest blockbuster, this is a TV series of depth and quality that I can recommend.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps slightly tangential to topic, but while we are discussing the merits of what could be summarised as a quick - but sucessful - movie project using an old idea, the UK has just shown 70 Up [imdb.com], which is the latest and final release of a documentary following the lives of 14 people from age 7 to 70.
Simpsons already did it.
Saw the movie - wonderful! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're giving fucks about how much it makes as compared to whether you like it or not?