May 1, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
| Friday | Screens | % Chg | Cume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Gross | Thtr | % Chgn | Cume |
| Venom | 33 | 4250 | NEW | 33 |
| A Star is Born | 15.7 | 3686 | NEW | 15.7 |
| Smallfoot | 3.5 | 4131 | -46% | 31.3 |
| Night School | 3.5 | 3019 | -63% | 37.9 |
| The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls | 1.8 | 3463 | -43% | 49.5 |
| A Simple Favor | 1 | 2408 | -50% | 46.6 |
| The Nun | 0.75 | 2264 | -52% | 111.5 |
| Hell Fest | 0.6 | 2297 | -70% | 7.4 |
| Crazy Rich Asians | 0.6 | 1466 | -51% | 167.6 |
| The Predator | 0.25 | 1643 | -77% | 49.3 |
| Also Debuting | ||||
| The Hate U Give | 0.17 | 36 | ||
| Shine | 85,600 | 609 | ||
| Exes Baggage | 75,900 | 62 | ||
| NOTA | 71,300 | 138 | ||
| 96 | 61,600 | 62 | ||
| Andhadhun | 55,000 | 54 | ||
| Afsar | 45,400 | 33 | ||
| Project Gutenberg | 36,000 | 17 | ||
| Love Yatri | 22,300 | 41 | ||
| Hello, Mrs. Money | 22,200 | 37 | ||
| Studio 54 | 5,300 | 1 | ||
| Loving Pablo | 4,200 | 15 |
| 3-Day Estimates | Weekend | % Chg | Cume |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Good Dead | 24.4 (11,230) | NEW | 24.4 |
| Dolphin Tale 2 | 16.6 (4,540) | NEW | 16.6 |
| Guardians of the Galaxy | 7.9 (2,550) | -23% | 305.8 |
| Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles | 4.8 (1,630) | -26% | 181.1 |
| The Drop | 4.4 (5,480) | NEW | 4.4 |
| Let's Be Cops | 4.3 (1,570) | -22% | 73 |
| If I Stay | 4.0 (1,320) | -28% | 44.9 |
| The November Man | 2.8 (1,030) | -36% | 22.5 |
| The Giver | 2.5 (1,120) | -26% | 41.2 |
| The Hundred-Foot Journey | 2.5 (1,270) | -21% | 49.4 |
Review: Little Women (no spoilers) - The Hot Blog
Box Office First Look - The Hot Blog
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree - The Hot Blog
It’s a strange weekend when business is up double digits from the previous year, but none of the wide releases will likely turn a profit…
Super holds for “The Town” and “Easy A” (nice to see quality rewarded for a change at the box-office).
“WS” and the owl flick both opened pretty much as I expected, but I’m a little surprised at the sub-mediocre launch for “You Again.” I remember thinking it would bank some serious bucks when I first saw the (blah) trailer last spring. Has Betty White already resigned her post as “America’s Grandma”? Or is Kristen Bell simply not a big enough box-office draw?
Could this have done better with, say, Katherine Heigl in the lead?
Typical (limited) Woody opening, neat bows for “Superman” and Gaspar Noe and inconclusive results for Lionsgate’s (huh?) platform break for “Buried.” (What do you think the chances are that LG will scuttle their original plans to go super-wide on the 8th?)
Stunningly awful figures for “The Virginity Hit” (which I actually didn’t mind: go figure).
I’m really curious to see how “Social Network” opens next weekend.
Will it perform more like “Scott Pilgrim” and “KickAss,” or “Inception”? (More than likely it’ll fall somewhere in between.) I think “So-Net” is the best American movie of the year so far, but will older audiences be turned off by the internet theme, or lured in by the rave reviews? Will younger audiences embrace it as their generation’s “Citizen Kane,” or think that it’s boring and “arty”? Should be interesting.
THIS GENERATION’S CITIZEN KANE? Good lord, you freaking critics really lack hindsight and foresight. The post above is offensive and disgusting for no other reason than comparing “Mark Zuckerberg” and his ridiculous existence to Citizen Kane. Excuse me. I have to go vomit to get that post out of my system.
I didn’t call “SN” this generation’s “Citizen Kane,” V3.
I merely wondered whether some members of the FaceBook Nation might interpret it as such. Or if they’d reject it because Fincher’s filmmaking style is too sophisticated (read: smart) for them.
Subject matter notwithstanding, this is a movie that would have been right at home in the mid-’70s. And I can’t think of a better compliment for a 2010 movie than that.
I’m not so sure that calling The Social Network this generation’s Citizen Kane is wide of the mark. Both films are about incredibly young and wealthy men. Both films examine media giants. Both employ a refracted structure. Both use the notion of something lost as the incentive to be great (even if such a notion is, as Welles himself admitted “dime store psychology”).
But IOv3, I don’t think ANYONE is saying it is as good or as groundbreaking as Kane.
Just the material (at least on the surface) covers similar ground.
Uh… Hearst really was a world changing figure. Zuckerberg is not.
Facebook is a tool, not a media outlet. Same with MySpace. Same with The Internet.
What standard are we using for “media giant?” Current stock valuation?
Media that creates no content is not media. It’s something. It may be of value. But it’s not media. Facebook is, essentially, a tool almost as important as voicemail or Quicktime.
Remember when Yahoo! was king and Google had a funny name? Remember the browser wars? For all the Death of Media, NYT will be around a lot longer than Facebook. Just the nature of the beast. And it will assert itself in a way that Facebook is not meant to.
Perhaps the great insight of TSN is that something worth $25b can be so meaningless, petty, and become so popular so quickly (and in the end, disposably). But, probably not.
Movie, that right at home in the 70’s statement pretty much guarantees (if it’s right mind you), that the film will not get over with the kids. Seriously, have any of you ever watch a film from the 70s with kids born in the 90s? They do not get those films at all and if Fincher went with that for TSN, then I will probably like it but I am not 19 and in love with Never Say Never.
Pope, I was being mostly facetious in that post. I just love Citizen Kane and much like when someone compares someone to Michael Jordan, I love throwing something out there that is indignant, even if it’s fain indignancy!
Anecdotal, but I’ve been seeing a fair amount of movies lately and haven’t seen one trailer for YOU AGAIN. Nor TV spots.
Dave,
Point taken; Zuckerberg is not a media giant. And in light of your other point that Yahoo was once king and Google was but a funny name… it recalls to mind that image in Kane where we see the map of America and all of his pulsing news outlets quickly bleat to a stop. I haven’t seen TSN yet (but have read a version of the script), but one of things that it may touch on is the nature of the web… where everything is crucial and ephemeral at the same time and because of that, it is very difficult to place any value on anything…
But that may ultimately ties back into the point you make in your review where you said that the meaning of the film is coming from the outside? But do you not think that that is but one of the hallmarks of good movies/books/theater etc. where it can withstand many different opinions coming from OUTSIDE? Surely, TSN is one helluva a META movie.
“The post above is offensive and disgusting for no other reason than comparing “Mark Zuckerberg” and his ridiculous existence to Citizen Kane”.
IO, it’s your who luck not only hindsight, but foresight too. In fact reading you, one has to wonder if you actually have any brains to go with your subjective biases.
Nevermind the fact that you don’t understand the difference between comparing qualities of two films and the figures behind them. Just because you don’t like Mark (I bet you would believe everything you see in Social Network too) doesn’t mean you can easily deny his importance. Kane while based figure and while .
Poland, is equally stupid.
Not a media giant, you say. You are just making a false conclusion because Zuckerberg doesn’t have the biggest profile out there. He rarely willingly draws attention to himself. That’s not needed. He is not a media PERSONALITY dumbasses, he is a media figure. His power doesn’t live or die by how much shit he says on TV like Kathy Griffin. The difference clear yet?
Zuckerberg really is a giant. If you think that his facebook is just a tool you clearly lack any connection to the current generation. You must be senile, kiddies. Facebook is a lifestyle not a tool. Hearst, even at his most influential, didn’t command this much time of his readers, in THIS many countries. What is seen on facebook makes a difference. His is the single most powerful media outlet out there, bigger than any single weapon anyone’s got, including Murdoch and the like.
And it was Mark, above all who made Facebook what it is. There were dime a dozen social networking sites before it. There was a already a seemingly giant in MySpace.
He is the youngest billionaire (go ahead ask Forbes, how much of a factor income plays a role in their power ratings), he has the vision and the persistence, he HAS already succeded. Fincher/Sorking are feeding of HIM. He is a giant.
And facebook is no myspace. It’s much better build in every way. Myspace was waiting to be taken down, between all the spam and awkward HTML support.
Who cares if NYT is around longer (bullshit) if it’s never going to be any bigger? If it’s never going to even begin to approach at it’s peak what Facebook is now?
“Media that creates no content is not media. It’s something. It may be of value. But it’s not media. ”
Poland, you seem to be forgetting the simple fact that Facebook DOES create content, even if indirectly so. By being a unique media platform it acts as a springboard for content that not only isn’t availble anywhere yet but also is the primary reason it exists in the first place. Facebook is not an aggregate site like MCN is. No, the absolute majority of content on it is either by by what Facebook wants or what it allows it’s users to post. And nearly all of it is exclusive.
Oh what the fuck ever. Seriously, I explained myself to Pope and unlike you, I am not a fan of having another fucking creepy weirdo having any sort of power. Zuckerberg is a known thief and he got rich off the backs of others. If you love him so much, offer up yourself to him, and maybe he will give you a job or some shit.
The fact that creepy ass fucking weirdo has at least one fan, demonstrates that people are really fucking weird. Really fucking weird.
NO, IT DOES NOT! People creating content on their sites are the CONTENT MAKERS, who just use the site. Good lord. Stop with the ridiculous bullshit about Facebook being important, when to billions of people it’s not.
If ignorance is bliss, Maxim must be in a permanent state of orgasm.
Yes Martin, he is covered with jizz and so is all of his stuff. That Zuckerberg apparently is a go-getter and a looker, to some people.
Jesse Eisenberg didn’t even know who Mark Zuckerberg was when he first auditioned…
Good Lord.
I can’t believe what a fuss I inadvertently started by my perfectly innocent suggestion that some youngsters might liken “The Social Network” to their generation’s “Citizen Kane” (i.e., if they’re even aware of “Kane”‘s existence). I never said that “SC” WAS this generation’s “Kane,” only that some impressionable wee bairns might conflate it with such–for many of the reasons Pope so thoughtfully pointed out.
Yes, I think the film is terrific, but I’d never make such a hyperbolic pronouncement.
Of course, if you follow this increasingly vitriolic thread, you’ll notice that the real problem began when my comment was misconstrued, misinterpreted or just plain misread by one certain Hot Blogger who habitually overreacts at any (even vaguely) perceived slight or offense to one of his sacred cows…or fatted calves.
Oh come on movieman, you have pissed people off as much as anyone else here, and I at least admit to being facetious with that post. Seriously, does one bring up vomit without being silly most of the time? Nevertheless, I did not bring any vitriol. Maxim did. Nice of you NOT TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!
Media: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media)
Facebook is media.
Zuckerberg may not be a media giant, because he doesn’t control the content on Facebook like Hearst did his newspapers, but Facebook fits the definition of media. It is a means of communication that reaches a wide degree of people.
While one could argue Zuckerberg isn’t a world changing figure (because someone else could have done it), anyone who argues Facebook isn’t “world-changing” is being naive. I’m not trolling, that’s just how I see it as the token student on this board. Facebook is an incredibly large part of the lives of people my age. To a degree that is actually quite disconcerting.
And even if Facebook is just a “tool” (which it’s not), I wouldn’t bet against it outliving the NYT. I’m not saying it will for sure, I’m saying that Facebook is more important than you seem to think, and there’s no way any of us could make that call.
Mostly agree with you loco (don’t think you’re the only student onboard), though DP makes one interesting point. Facebook may indeed be ubiquitous today but the internet user is a fickle god and I’d imagine that sooner or later Facebook will fall from grace. Having said that I do believe that social networking sites are here to stay, seeing as it would seem like people have an easier time connecting with each other through avatars than otherwise.
Facebook is not media. Facebook itself does not create anything. It’s users create everything. If anything, it is a tool used by people to create media. That’s at least where I am coming from anyway but do you know what is media? Twitter.
Now is facebook world changing? No, it’s not and the students now are only doing what people were doing with Myspace in the middle Oughts. Facebook is simply a continuation of things and one day someone will do something better than Facebook, and that will continue things.
“I am not a fan of having another fucking creepy weirdo having any sort of [imagined] power”
Then please stop bullying people with your nasty comments, you creepy weirdo.
Unlike “Mark Zuckerberg”, I have no power and do not turn off Facebook for hours, when early reviews of the movie about my life hit the net. That’s creepy weirdo shit to do and he and his crew did it more than once Thursday.
Now your whole creepy weirdo thing is just bullshit. If you seriously cannot tell the difference between what I post and something that Maxim posted which is mean, rude, and insulting to myself and David. If you cannot see the difference between myself and Maxim, then you really get hurt too damn easily. It’s just conjecture. If you get your wee little feelings hurt, too damn bad. The time of giving a shit about if you can take a joke or not is over.
Hey look, kids, there’s Big Ben again, Parliament…….
Hide your wife. Hide your kids. BIG BEN IS ROAMING THE STREETS AGAIN!
The days where you can make a European Vacation reference and have it instantly picked up are long gone…..
Damn it. Now I caught it, but my hatred for the Steelers knows no bounds!
I’m sure it doesn’t make you feel any better, but I’ve properly disposed of my Roethlisberger jersey. There is no excuse for that behavior. Ever. I’m still a Steeler fan (Have been since I was 2 and I’m not turning back now), so it’ll be a bit awkward. I’d rather they do what they’re doing now with Charlie Batch now that they’ve come down from whatever they smoked to believe Dennis Dixon was starting material. Batch always has been a prototype Steeler quarterback who manages the game, makes a play or two when needed, and doesn’t fuck it up. I would be fine with him starting the rest of the season, but that ain’t gonna’ happen. But eh, I guess I’ll live with it and the people who don’t even mention Michael VIck’s wrongdoings as long as he’s not Chris Kolb.
Oops, but I’m derailing things. I’m all for seeing Social Network, even if I would’ve rather seen a full-length music video of that choir rendition of Radiohead’s “Creep” that made up the first 40 seconds of the teaser than a full-length movie about the founder of Facebook. That was something truly thoughtful and chilling with a real feel of the emptiness of social networking (Though to be truthful, I use Facebook quite a lot. My friends are all over the damn universe and I can’t keep track of them all by myself, and no matter how tightly I lock down my MySpace account, I keep getting porn spam). But I’ll watch whatever the hell David Fincher comes up with, because that man can be consistently, constantly brilliant. Whether people want to compare it to Citizen Kane or not matters not to me. I’m actually mad at people that call anything that tries to be a thriller for adults “HItchcockian” when maybe about 5% of them actually are.
Unlike you, I don’t bend over backwards to deliberately piss people off, IOX2.
Your (willful) misreading of my original post just to pick a fight was just the latest in a seemingly endless series of Hot Blog tirades/hissy fits.
Gee, you’d almost think that Jim Cameron had invented Facebook.
Hey, IO: Are you ready for “Hatchet II” this weekend?
I’m ready! Freddy Rumsen is back. Perfect midnight show if only I could stay up that late.
Media doesn’t have to create content, IO, it has to communicate it.
The internet (in general) doesn’t create it’s own content, but it is one of the most (if not THE most) relevant mediums of communication, hence, media.
Facebook gives news websites, corporations and special interest organizations a medium for communication, hence, media.
Maxim sounds like my college roomate explaing how Phish was GOING TO CHANGE ROCK MUSIC FOREVER.
Yes, Zuckerberg is a rich man, but he is an innovater not a pioneer like Hearst. As far as media titans go his accomplishments place him on the list somewhere below Ted Turner.
I don’t have to like Rupert Murdoch, watch Fox News, or read the Wall Street Journal to recognize that he has achieved some success and influence in his career. Zuckerberg probably is a self-centered jerk and I’m certainly no fan of his site (I love that the NJ governor repeatedly calls him “Zuckerberg” in a recent article about the Newark donation), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant and a major part of the way people communicate today. Maybe Facebook itself isn’t revolutionary, but the fact is millions of people use it and talk about it on a daily basis. That has to count for something.
No, you poor posting sod, I was being facetious. It’s not my fault that the rest of you are so DEADLY SERIOUS on the internet. Seriously, who mentions THROW UP on the net without it being a facetious comment? Get a grip MM. Get a freaking grip.
No Loco, that’s twitter. Facebook is for PR. Twitter is for real media. Again, it’s all semantics and what not and no big deal, but Facebook is a tool that’s there for it’s users to do whatever they want with it outside of inflammatory stuff. Nevertheless, Facebook right now is just Myspace back then, and sometime in the future something with replace Facebook. It’s the natural progression of the net.
Paul, millions of people use AIM as well but those poor AOL people never got a movie. THEY NEVER GOT A MOVIE! WHY OH WHY DIDN’T AOL GET A MOVIE! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
I don’t know IO. You and your tough questions.
You know who also could have used a movie? THE SKYPE PEOPLE! WHY DIDN’T THEY GET A MOVIE? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?
Why don’t you simmer down. The Y doesn’t deserve to be abused that way.
Funny Paul 🙂
@ DP, would it be possible to switch back to chronological order for the posts rather than individual replies? It was alot easier to follow
@ IO: Challenge. For the rest of the work week refrain from getting into a fight with anyone on the blog, no matter how provoked you feel. I’m only asking because I genuinely wonder if you’ve got it in you. And also I can’t remember the last time the comments weren’t laid to waste by flame wars. I do so miss reading about you know… movies.
The nested replies are an improvement in theory– they allow people to get into pissing matches without derailing the entire thread forever– but the style sheet for the site makes it a bit difficult to tell when you’re reading a reply vs. an original thread. I think if there were clearer visual cues for the reply system more people would take advantage of it too.
AE: stop being oblivious. I have had no problem not bringing down the house, but this thing went bad because of MAXIM. The fact that you divert your attention to me and give me shit about this thread going BAD, is again oblivious.
ERIC: if anything, the replies to specific post should be collapsed and expanded once read, so it makes it clear those comments are attached to a specific post. The way things are now, it’s confusing, but David seemingly let some person make this site for him, and just accepted what they gave him. That sort of think is just fundamentally broken and someone needs to override him and fix this freaking site.
Yeah, in some sites you can see when comments are made to a specific comment and when they are for the OP. It’d be nice if the format could change to do that. But I like, in theory, the ability to comment per post as it appears.