got Razzies
oof
shareYou know as fan, of the original three, it wasn't that bad.
I think it's a case of let's jump on something popular and moan about it.
I saw it on the small screen and to those who saw it on the big screen, were the de-aging scenes noticably bad looking? That's the only thing I think that would have been a major distraction.
They looked fine on the big screen. Not perfect, but miles better than any other de-aging in other films.
share"I think it's a case of let's jump on something popular and moan about it."
It would have to be popular for that.
Please tell me this pile of shit wasn't popular.
You don't think the Indiana Jones franchise is popular?
"You know as fan, of the original three, it wasn't that bad."
shareIts popular with Gen X up to Millenials, but these groups are usually not going in such huge groups into the cinema to make huge bucks. Oppenheimer definitely benefit from the Barbenheimer hype to get Gen Z into the seats, but it also attracted a huge crowd of Gen X and Millenials. You have to make it an event to attract such groups. Tom Cruise is usually also good in doing so. I am still convinced that Mission Impossible mostly failed, because it released 1 week before Barbenheimer and the demographic group does not go twice to the cinema in a short time.
Indy had more the issue, that it failed in Marketing (the Cannes screening...) and the target democratic was teached well by Disney, that the movie will be in no time available at home. As they have Disney+ because of the kids, "no one" showed up.
The 380 million world wide is still good, so it still shows the movie can attract people. The issue of the movie is the 300 million budget, 100m should have been max, maybe 150 because of the extended 1944 scenes.