Black Panther smashes box office records

Tools    





Almost a quarter-billion dollars in North America. It's been tracking high for a long time, but something in the last month until release launched it into the stratosphere. It took on a life of its own. Some good analysis here:

Debuting in 4,020 theaters, Black Panther's per theater average for the three-day weekend was a massive $50,250, the third largest ever. Even more eye-opening, Black Panther's theater count was the smallest among the top fifteen openings of all-time and second only to Furious 7 in the top 25.
And a letter from director Ryan Coogler on the overwhelming response:




Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Yet another Marvel abomination doing well financially. As long as it continues, we will be getting these cookie-cutter, soulless films every year. I await the death of superhero genre with optimism.

"Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!"
"No, unhappy is the land that needs one."
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Abomination seems strong. While I can see an argument for not liking superhero movies in general and their affects on what has become very much mainstream, I would say that this story at least has a heart. Strip away all the stylized design, and you are left with an honest (simple) story of abandonment and the seduction to fill that emptiness with blame, which I think we can all relate to in one degree or another. Additionally, the story highlights the hypocrisy of idealistic and unrealistic morality, and the potential collateral risks of national isolationism and exceptionalism. These themes fill personal, social, and global considerations that I don't think most superhero flicks bother with. Global, sure, if an alien race attacks the earth but I'm not sure that's on the same level.

Maybe Peter Parker is the next approachable tier, but even he was motivated by his own arguably selfish desire to "be" something special, as a result of... puberty and angst
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



Yet another Marvel abomination doing well financially. As long as it continues, we will be getting these cookie-cutter, soulless films every year. I await the death of superhero genre with optimism.
Why? There's no reason to think they're taking away from the films you prefer. The industry is expanding in virtually every way. If anything, you can make a strong argument that the various economies of scale from these supposedly soulless blockbusters actually make it cheaper to create lots of small-and-mid-budget films.



Yet another Marvel abomination doing well financially. As long as it continues, we will be getting these cookie-cutter, soulless films every year. I await the death of superhero genre with optimism.

"Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!"
"No, unhappy is the land that needs one."
Enjoying foie gras and enjoying big macs are not mutually exclusive. Life is better when you realize this.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



I also think there's a major lack of appreciation for the artistic talent necessary to produce works of scale, that speak to wide varieties of people across geography and culture. I'm not going to tell you popular = good, or that there's no potential dilution in creating art for a mass audience, but it's not easy, either.

If you create a story that touches a billion people, how do you even begin to measure that against something that touches tens of thousands, but each one more deeply? These are questions beyond my pay grade and, I suspect, everyone else's, too, so that any attempt to answer them is really just a statement of personal preference.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Enjoying foie gras and enjoying big macs are not mutually exclusive. Life is better when you realize this.
I'm enjoying both. Entertainment cinema is great, if it's great entertainment.

Spaghetti westerns are great entertainment. They're only for manly men and feminine women, though. Marvel fans don't really want to watch a film, but only eat some popcorn and look at trash while doing it. I just decided that.

And even if we're narrowing entertainment cinema to just superhero films, Watchmen was a great one (it's DCU, though).

I'm generally anti-Marvel, because I heard it's hip, although I secretly enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I also think there's a major lack of appreciation for the artistic talent necessary to produce works of scale
1. Money does not equal talent.
2. Talent equals craftsmanship, but...
3. Craftsmanship does not have to equal artistry.

I'd rather have a modest painter paint a beautiful flower on 20x20 cm canvas, than the best-selling painter paint a 5x2 m epic battle, that reeks. Of course, it's possible for the latter to paint an epic battle scene that's just as beautiful as the flower. Marvel is not such painter, though.

that speak to wide varieties of people across geography and culture
It's just trying to find the golden mean. They're making these films in a way, that they have a mix of genres and tropes, but never really explore anything within these. Films like Guardians of the Galaxy are not abominations, right. They're just extremely, plainly mediocre. There's nothing above the mediocre. They don't take chances. I'd rather make a film one person loves, than a film that a million people thinks was alright.

If you create a story that touches a billion people, how do you even begin to measure that against something that touches tens of thousands.
I agree, but I think in an attempt to answer this, one needs to take into account not just how many people are touched by each of these, but also how many people actually watch each of them.



1. Money does not equal talent.
2. Talent equals craftsmanship, but...
3. Craftsmanship does not have to equal artistry.
I think trying to parse out the artistry of filmmaking from the craftsmanship is a futile task. There is no core of filmmaking where one of these two aspects trumps the other, or can even exist without the other. Boundless creativity without craftsmanship will produce messy, incoherent films, and technical skill without a creative spark will produce pretty, vapid diversions.

It's just trying to find the golden mean. They're making these films in a way, that they have a mix of genres and tropes, but never really explore anything within these. Films like Guardians of the Galaxy are not abominations, right. They're just extremely, plainly mediocre. There's nothing above the mediocre. They don't take chances. I'd rather make a film one person loves, than a film that a million people thinks was alright.
I disagree, but rather than try to hash out subjective preferences, I'm simply trying to point out the inherent incomparability of the two. I don't see any reasonable way to judge the relative value of depth of feeling with breadth of feeling, beyond saying "this is generally what I prefer." It's a statement about the speaker, not the films.

There is obviously something beautiful about speaking to one person directly and deeply. There is also something beautiful about speaking to many people, which inevitably involves isolating enduring principles that are universal to human experience, so that people with myriad differences can both enjoy the same thing, across time and culture. That's essentially what many blockbuster films do: they speak to us not as individuals, but as a species.



Superhero films should be for kids only. After all they are originally comic book characters.



I suppose comic books may appeal to children disproportionately (though maybe only for developmental reasons), but there's nothing inherent to the combination of stories and images that make them childlike. If there were, you'd have to say the same thing about all cinema.



Keep your station clean - OR I WILL KILL YOU
Yet another Marvel abomination doing well financially. As long as it continues, we will be getting these cookie-cutter, soulless films every year. I await the death of superhero genre with optimism.

"Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!"
"No, unhappy is the land that needs one."
I never understood people boycotting films they don't enjoy Clearly, there's an audience for it, why would you hope to take away other people's enjoyment? You seem to be very mad about movies you don't care about. Have you tried, i don't know, maybe just not watching them? I think you will be happier.



Superhero films are for the child inside all of us.
Awesome way of putting it. For adults, I think you could say -- they appeal to the child in us, and then the special ones can also speak to the adult in us. That's why they can be great.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I never understood people boycotting films they don't enjoy Clearly, there's an audience for it, why would you hope to take away other people's enjoyment?
Exactly. That and the other comment that only kids should see a certain genre make me laugh. Who is going to pay for it and then supervise the kids watching it? Never mind. Just give the rug rats some dough, lighters and a packet of crayons to leave their art work on the walls of the cinemas, tear up the seats and start fires.

I love little dictators like Mousie and the other fat kid with the bad hair cut who think they can condescend to others and let them know what art they should be watching. I'm glad I live in a country where I get to choose rather than be dictated to. Hallelujah!

Looking forward to seeing this.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I generally agree with you, Yoda, but the contrarian in me has to add some remarks.

Boundless creativity without craftsmanship will produce messy, incoherent films
I saw messy, incoherent films made with love that were much superior to nicely ordered, typical movies made with no love. Marvel films are either made with no love, or I can't see the love.
That's essentially what many blockbuster films do: they speak to us not as individuals, but as a species.
But... great films... or rather great auteurs through their films, speak to us, to every Man inside of us, at the same time addressing "species" problems in a more broader sense. Tarkovsky said:
“Modern mass culture, aimed at the 'consumer', the civilisation of prosthetics, is crippling people's souls, setting up barriers between man and the crucial questions of his existence, his consciousness of himself as a spiritual being.”

But, yeah, as Marker said: “the naive American contemplates the sky; the Russian, or at least that Russian [Tarkovsky], settles in the sky, and contemplates the earth."

Superhero films should be for kids only. After all they are originally comic book characters.
Actually, many comic books (including manga) are directed at either adolescent, or adult people. But I'm pretty sure @Guaporense could give you a five-paragraph long answer to this better than me.

Clearly, there's an audience for it, why would you hope to take away other people's enjoyment?
You clearly didn't get the reference at all. Think of the whole thing in a broader sense. Marvel keeps making these films based on such and such formula, because it works. It brings profit. They milk money off people, who agree to this formula, who do not expect anything else. Now imagine all these people get fed up with it. Marvel panicks. They have to find a new formula, but in order to find it, they have to experiment. Yay! They made a messy, incoherent film (might not be best words, because they already did, in some sense, multiple times, but still...), but it's interesting. It's clumsy. But it's something else. But such revolution is pretty far away, I'm afraid, so don't worry, I will not take away your enjoyment. Yet.

You seem to be very mad about movies you don't care about. Have you tried, i don't know, maybe just not watching them? I think you will be happier.
Yes. I hardly watch them, and I don't support them. Why shouldn't I watch a film, and express my opinion about it, though?



Keep your station clean - OR I WILL KILL YOU

You clearly didn't get the reference at all. Think of the whole thing in a broader sense. Marvel keeps making these films based on such and such formula, because it works. It brings profit. They milk money off people, who agree to this formula, who do not expect anything else. Now imagine all these people get fed up with it. Marvel panicks. They have to find a new formula, but in order to find it, they have to experiment. Yay! They made a messy, incoherent film (might not be best words, because they already did, in some sense, multiple times, but still...), but it's interesting. It's clumsy. But it's something else. But such revolution is pretty far away, I'm afraid, so don't worry, I will not take away your enjoyment. Yet.
I get where you're coming from, and people like you and me, who love film, usually demand more thematic substance in our visual experiences. But look at the general audience, they are going to these films, and generally loving them, some people LIVE for Marvel, and at the same time Marvel and DIsney are making tons of money, and with that money, they can make more Marvel films, yes, but they can also use it to invest in original, and meaningful ideas, like they have in the past. I think it's a win-win.


Yes. I hardly watch them, and I don't support them. Why shouldn't I watch a film, and express my opinion about it, though?
You definitely can and should watch whatever you watch, and you should definitely give your thoughts on it, I love reading. My comment was more directed at the "I await the death of superhero films with optimism". I'm not frustrated, and the last thing I want to do is end in bad terms with another member. Just giving my thoughts.



Yeah, I think we're probably 95% in agreement here: it's mostly just a difference in emphasis or priority. I assume we both agree that both types of films can be valuable in different ways, you just place a (relatively) greater value than I do on more focused films that speak deeply to fewer people. No worries.

I'm not even trying to change people's minds about which is better; just trying to change the way people evaluate them a little. It obviously wouldn't be fair to say that a focused, niche art house film wasn't good because it didn't speak to enough people, so I think the same is true in reverse, with criticizing a blockbuster simply for trying to reach more people (albeit usually on a shallower level). I would no sooner judge either of these by the other's standard than I would expect a political campaign to resemble my personal friendships.

Only thing I need to clarify:

But... great films... or rather great auteurs through their films, speak to us, to every Man inside of us, at the same time addressing "species" problems in a more broader sense. Tarkovsky said:
“Modern mass culture, aimed at the 'consumer', the civilisation of prosthetics, is crippling people's souls, setting up barriers between man and the crucial questions of his existence, his consciousness of himself as a spiritual being.”

But, yeah, as Marker said: “the naive American contemplates the sky; the Russian, or at least that Russian [Tarkovsky], settles in the sky, and contemplates the earth."
I'm definitely not saying that only blockbusters can speak to species-level problems. When I say they speak to us as a species, I mean it quite literally: they are designed to be understood and applicable to as many people as possible. This is a separate claim from anything having to do with the content of what they're saying.



How about this:

MOVIES ARE AWESOME!

Honestly at this point in my life I would rather watch a movie, regardless of what it is, over doing something I hate like watch the Superbowl or work on a car (no offense to people who like that stuff). 15:17 to Paris, for example, was terrible by my estimation - but I was happy to see it because I love the art of cinema so much that it just doesn't matter. Seeing moving images captured and spliced to other moving images, with audio design put against it... it's f*cking amazing.