I don't think Cats has ever gotten a lot of good reviews as a play (or a movie). Yet it ran for years. The movie flopped though. But musicals are not really that popular with modern audiences. Every once in awhile one becomes a hit. With movies look at the Transformers and Fast & Furious series, critics don't like them, but do make a lot of money.
I saw a couple of 4 star reviews, though. It wasn't all bad.
Well, with Michael obviously a bigger budget is needed because of extra scenography (especially when recreating any of his videos!).
Problems in London with a few cancelled shows but, basically, yeah. The Broadway show got panned by the critics, I believe, but went on to be a commercial smash. The London show did pick up some crabby reviews but, even before it opened, they had extended the run to December. It will be more intense for the film, I think, but if it's a good product it should be OK. Not sure about the lawsuit. That might complicate things, I guess. But, generally, I'm not sure that crap reviews make much difference to a film.
And sometimes a bad review isn't a bad review. The musical got a 4 star review in The Times but, bc it had a stupid, misleading headline (which would not even have been written by the journalist) lots of people assumed it was a hatchet job. It was actually glowing with praise.
It really takes a good film to make a good trailer
I don't know about you, but when I decide to go watch a movie at the movie theater, I base my decision on how good the movie looks. I've never actually bothered to check the runtime. Ever.
Nambla is this you ? Looool
Nail on the head!
Exactly.
Invincible would have been a stronger album if certain songs had been cut.I always check the runtime before watching a movie, cause I think anything above 2,5 hours is too long and I could do other things and barely have time for, unless the movie seems to be extremely great.
Cost does matter for a lot of people. If it didn't, CDs would still sell the same as they did in the 1990s. They don't. People in general are not going to pay for music that can be heard for free online. It's the same for movies. They go to streaming in a few weeks, when decades ago a movie stayed in the theater for months, even up to a year for really popular ones. The mass audience pay to see certain kinds of movies at the theater, mostly IP.
Thanks for that info, very interesting.
The average price for a movie ticket in the UK is between £8 and £10. I’m sure the average working class person who’s either a fan or has an inkling that they want to go to a movie theatre and watch it will be able to. I think this perspective of people being concerned about the cost of a night out at the movies is a bit of a reach. At the end of the day people still want social interaction and they want to go out and enjoy their lives. They want to socialize and be entertained.
Well, not quite, I would say. The director works closely with the editor - they usually would be the lead person in the editing process. Once the 'director's' cut is done that's when the producers and the suits look at it and suggest the changes they want to see.
The director shapes their vision of the film during the editing process. But, yeah, the suits and the producers (the money people) will request lots of changes, for sure.
This I do agree with. Totally underestimating people's intelligence, stamina for a longer film, interest in a complex story ...
Is the editor usually announced? I've never noticed that. I always look for the editor's name in the credits. That's usually the first I know of them being on the project, lol.
Interesting. I know she's won several Oscars.
Exactly so. People very occasionally moan about cinema costs when they go as a family and the total cost seems a bit steep. But it doesn't stop them going again. Mostly people don't complain. Cinema tickets are way cheaper than theatre tickets or football season tickets or lots of other entertainment prices. Not to mention cheaper tickets being available for daytime screenings etc.
Napster popped up in 1999, I believe. By 2001 it had been shut down, iirc.
Indeed. People are social animals, especially after all those Covid restrictions which everyone can still remember.
Oh my god, that would be amazing, they should include that one for that exact reason you named - first performance on a public event after the trial and the people really did go crazy (I can testify that, I was there). Including Beyonce in the movie would connect it to the younger audience. Besides, he looked very stylish and also the Guiness book would be an awesome moment to mention!!Roberto Cavalli has died. RIP.
Which makes me wonder if the film will recreate the WMA's 2006. I know they can't include everything. But it was only his second public appearance, afaik, after the trial ended. And the crowd went wild. Despite nonsense lies being printed in the later editions of the UK tabloids. The crowd went completely crazy for Michael. It would be a good moment to put into the film, imo.
I think it was his second appearance, after Japan, but you're right. It was a performance even though he didn't really sing (I don't think he needed to but that's just me). And the WMA's was more high profile bc of the Guinness world record thing. Tbh, I had even forgotten that bit, lol. I was so focused on the fact that the UK tabloids originally reported the story accurately and then, in the later editions of the papers, told complete lies about what happened that I forgot all about the award for Thriller sales! But, yeah, you're absolutely right. What a moment!
Wow!
And I had completely forgotten about Beyonce. I've said this before but one of my fave moments of the WMA thing is Beyonce's face when the crowd go wild for Michael. I swear she's blown away by the intensity of it. I know she's a performing artist who knows how to add drama to a moment in time but I still think her reaction is genuine. I really do. In any case, yeah, showing Beyonce as part of that moment would be great. It's a long time ago and some people in the general public - maybe even some newer fans - might not be aware of it.
I hadn't considered that. Tbh, I haven't given much thought to what I think they should include bc there is so much. But this 'Elizabeth I Love You' moment does tick a lot of boxes and it wouldn't be a very long scene.
I honestly can't see that being included even though I would love for that to happen. Show him working with Buz Kohan with so little time to go before the actual performance. It's another scene that would tick a lot of boxes. Sadly, I think it's highly unlikely. Great idea, though. Very cinematic. It has everything.
Agreed. Can't find any confirmation of the Paris casting but @iamveronica777 is usually reliable with info. Don't know anything about Peyton but the age range she usually plays, apparently, is 13 - 17 yrs. She's certainly too old to play Paris as a young child.
I was hopeful bc they put together a stellar creative team, imo. That said, film is not really my jam and Michael's story is so long, so dramatic and so complicated I thought I'd just wait and see how it unfolds. Looking good so far.
But this isn't Lawrence of Arabia. That also had intermission. This is a Michael Jackson biopic that aims to get the biggest audience it can get. It would be risky to make it too long. Maybe release a extended cut on Blu-Ray/dvd.
