Flop
The movie is cheap, around $15M, so about $60M should be enough to pay the bills. Right now it's $12M in the box office. With some luck, it'll eventually reach $20M, very far from breaking even.
sharelots and lots and lots of movies don't break even.
it's been a few years since i read about this, but my rough understanding is that, in the normal pre-pandemic world, about 60-70% of movies never get into the black, about 20% achieve some fuzzy line where they kinda break even, and about 10% or less actually make a good deal of money, & those money-makers are the ones that keep the lights on.
book publishing follows a somewhat similar pattern.
don't hold me to those exact percentages, but the basic premise - that a rather small number of highly profitable films are what keep studios solvent - is my understanding of what makes that industry go.
so if green knight is a flop, well...most movies are flops. being a flop is average performance in the film world.
still a great movie imo.
It's a fantastic movie, and one that probably would have done quite well in non-pandemic times. Any fans of quality films should be rooting for this movie to succeed, so studios green-light other intelligent films, rather than using its lack of success to justify funding only cookie-cutter blockbusters.
shareIt's a woke movie. Of course, there's nothing wrong with it: religious movies have their target too.
However, if you don't share that faith, probably you won't be so thrilled with the movie. Religious movies don't get much traction out of their own parish.
There's nothing "woke" about it. Have you even seen the film?
shareRace swapping a character is quite woke.
And of course someone that's woke will not accept the wokeness. For someone that's woke wokeness is the new normal.
i'll cede that. at least a little. putting an indian guy as gawain is a nod to progressive sensibilities, probably. i don't know david lowery, i don't know why he did that and i don't really care, but if you wanna call that wokeism, then fine.
is there anything else in the movie that can be viewed as woke-ism?
are the white characters oppressing the darker-skinned people? did the main character learn a lesson about patriarchy or colonialism or white supremacy?
not as far as i could tell. from what i could see, it's a story about a guy learning the meaning of living your life with honor and the need to keep your word.
& it's a movie filled with amazing sights and scenes that actually feel real and tactile, a true relief at a time when so many movies feel bland and weightless.
in conclusion, this movie is quite good imo.
Keep in mind you are arguing with Ku Kux Ku, who is openly racist. Of course he thinks any film with a non-white lead is woke.
Patel was perfectly cast, and the film was superb.
i've had a few little interactions with kukuxu over the years and i have nothing against the guy personally & don't really think he's a racist. i think he's a rabid ideologue who doesn't seem to be able to watch anything without having it warped by the prism of his beliefs.
you could even say he's as rigid in his approach as the woke scolds he drones on about constantly.
here's what he said when i posted almost 3 years ago in the 'into the spider-verse' board that i really loved that film:
"Quite interesting how modern diversity/feminist left sounds more like a new religion each and every day.
That sentence just needed some 'amen, we praise you, oh diversity' at the end to feel complete. ^^"
it's kinda impressive how he's still riding that same horse without any deviation three years later. i'd be pretty bored banging on relentlessly on the same thing for three years. i can almost admire the purity of thought. share
I don't recall where, but he posted once saying that it's woke to cast black actors in roles where they are acting intelligent, because in reality they aren't as smart as whites. I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the meaning of the statement. Elsewhere he wrote "yes, I'm racist," but again I can't tell you where. He makes no secret of the fact that he thinks blacks are less intelligent than whites.
share"I don't recall where, but he posted once saying that it's woke to cast black actors in roles where they are acting intelligent, because in reality they aren't as smart as whites. I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the meaning of the statement"
I remember reading something like that from him but don’t remember where either.
"he posted once saying that it's woke to cast black actors in roles where they are acting intelligent, because in reality they aren't as smart as whites. I don't remember the exact wording"
I remember reading something like that from him
I can imagine how that conversation was, since my position hasn't changed. I'll state again which is my position in that regard, so anybody who reads this can compare what I said and what you both are assigning to me.
My position is that movies/series should stay on average close to the reality of groups they're portraying, or to some idealized (either positively or negatively) version of them. The problem appears when they move away from it in different directions depending on the ethnic group / gender.
For example, in Nazi movies Jews were portrayed on average as much more stingy and greedy that the group was in real life. That wouldn't be a problem is that was the case for every ethnic group and stories were cynical and depressive. However, Non-Jews were represented in the opposite way, as less stingy and greedy that they were on average in real life. The intention wasn't to represent reality or some idealized reality, but to demonize Jews.
That can be equally applied to modern Hollywood. When white males are represented on average in a very negative way compared to the reality of the group, while blacks are represented on average in a much more positive way than the reality of the group, then you know that the intention is not to represent, but to demonize a group, the same Nazi movies did. The difference lies in the group: Hollywood wants to demonize white males instead of Jews. share
i basically agree with you.
i wouldn't be as specific as to say 'hollywood.'
i'd use a more vague term like 'culture.' but you could say that's one and the same. overlapping venn diagrams & so on.
i think you should be a little more cautious when discussing movies you (i'm assuming) haven't seen.
cuz spider-verse wasn't a 'woke' movie, and neither is this one.
imo.
respectfully!
i wouldn't be as specific as to say 'hollywood.' i'd use a more vague term like 'culture.'
Agreed. Hollywood is only one particular case. This is far more widespread.
i think you should be a little more cautious when discussing movies you (i'm assuming) haven't seen.
OK, fair point. Even though, the racewashing is a big red flag.
I read an interview with an screenwriter some time ago. He told how producers would condition buying some script to the screenwriter making specific changes (usually blackwashing or femwashing some positive characters and similar woke checkboxes). I guess producers want that "fixed" in the script, to avoid some backlash in case the script leaked.
Out of curiosity, I googled the writer/director, David Lowery, and he has no twitter and zero references to political statements that I could find on internet. I guess he just wrote a normal movie and the Morgana/Gawayn "diversity" cast was a producer's command.
Anyway, I'm watching less western movies every day. Given the quantity and quality of Anime last years, I'm not missing them.
share
fwiw, lowery's 'a ghost story' is one of my favourite films of this century, and his other recent films (old man & the gun & his remake of pete's dragon) are both quite good as well imo.
the only film of his i wouldn't recommend is 'ain't them bodies saints' which goes just a bit too far into atmosphere and is a little too short on anything happening.
i think he's one of the most interesting, distinctive film-makers going, not that i'm any kind of authority on such matters.
Haven't seen them. I'll check it. Thanks for the rec.
shareYou've really toned down your message compared to your other post.
Do you believe that blacks are as intelligent as whites? If you took a black and white American at random, is it just as likely for the black to be smarter than the white as the opposite to be true?
If one was to judge the situation by observing American media and advertising of the last few years, one would conclude that black Americans are universally smarter, nobler, more sensitive, more capable and better at everything than white Americans.
shareYou've really toned down your message compared to your other post.
Then link that conversation.
I have stated my position, which hasn't changed. I'm a bit sick of that habit that some people have of putting words in somebody else's mouth. share
Nope, he doesn't. And yes, I'm speaking for him because he apparently evaded your question.
He still thinks blacks are less intelligent than whites and Asians. I had a brief conversation with him recently, I think in regards to Foundation or something. He believes because of IQ disparities between white and black populations, black populations are less intelligent, on average. And thus, it isn't appropriate to have a disproportionate amount of black people in a particular sample of people that is mean to represent best and brightest.
I claimed that IQ isn't regarded as a valid measure of intelligence among anyone who would even use an IQ test in their line of work, or who studies in a field of research where it would be relevant.
(He claimed it was valid on average, which is a nonsensical statement to make.)
I've since concluded that I think he may be an actual racist. A lot of people on movie chat or just vitriolic because they're trolling or just being immature. But I think he's the real deal.
That said, I haven't blocked him or anything, and I still engage at times because he still thinks through what he's writing.
Could be wrong of course. We can't know that about anyone. Maybe he, along with a lot of people, just harp on about numbers and scientific facts that they don't really fully understand.
I can’t speak for the other poster, but MOONLIGHT is one of my favorite films so obviously I don’t hate movies with nonwhite leads. But I don’t like the casting here. A movie about medieval England should use actors who, with the right costumes and hair, can make us believe they are medieval Britons.
shareI never for a moment felt that the Patel was not a medieval knight.
shareHow do you feel about Scarlett Johanssen and Tilda Swinton playing Asian characters? I don’t like that either. And I feel like it’s a blatant double standard if you say one is okay and the other is not.
shareIt depends on what you mean by playing Asian characters. I think two important things to point out are that Patel isn't playing a "white" character. He's playing Sir Gawain, and in the film Gawain is portrayed as being of Indian ancestry, based on the actress playing his mother. I know Swinton played "The Ancient One" in Dr. Strange, a character that was an old, Asian man in the comics, but it never seemed she was playing an Asian character. She was playing a white character. That's commonplace, and I see no problem with it. Changes are always made between source material and films, including altering the gender, nationality, ethnicity, age, etc. of a character.
Also worth noting is that Patel looks fairly white, while the actresses you named don't look remotely Asian. Had I not known going into the film that Patel was of Indian ancestry, I don't think I would have noticed, especially with the rugged, unkempt look they gave him. If they tried to pass Scarlett Johanssen off as a Korean woman, it would be strange and jarring.
His mother is the real problem, that’s true. She in no way looks like King Arthur’s sister.
I don’t believe Patel looks white at all. But then I live in northern Minnesota, where right this moment I see blue eyes and red beards all around me.
Thanks. I will anyway watch the movie, if that's the only woke element it wouldn't bother me too much, at least I like Patel as an actor.
shareThere's nothing inherently woke about casting an actor in a role that is not an exact match to his ethnic ancestry. Factor in that Gawain didn't exist, and the notion that it's somehow woke is ludicrous. The actor playing Gawain looks and acts the part. That his ancestors came from India is of no consequence.
James Bond was half Scottish and half Swiss, according to his creator, Ian Fleming. Would you consider replacing Connery, who wasn't even half Swiss, with Roger Moore who was neither Scottish nor Swiss, to have been race-swapping?
No because if you are Scottish Swiss or English then you are the same race.
shareAnd if you are Indian Swiss or Egyptian, you're the same race as well. We're all of the human race.
share"human race" was invented by Marxists to confuse people. The rest of us know what "race" means.
shareAgreed. Wokes keep redefining terms in the way it serves them best, but this particular redefinition was ludicrous.
Humans are the same species. Races are the different genetic clusters inside a species. There's no such a thing as "human race".
Doesn't have to be a perfect match. But it does have to NOT be too different. Patel is.
I would be pissed if some idiot would decide to make a movie after my country myths and race swap important characters. I WOULD find it quite offensive and disrespectful ..
Fully agreed. The key is that as an actor, you should be able to pass for the character. That requires some proximity in terms of ethnic looking, age, gender and such. Patel can't pass for a 30 years old medieval England knight, neither could Brie Larson or Harrison Ford right now. It is what it is.
shareWell, from a historical perspective, there were no Indians in Great Britain during the middle ages. Any viewer with some knowledge of history is going to pick up on that.
Comments like yours are so depressing. I signed up just to find a place to discuss this movie but people like you keep taking over every thread. The skin colour of the character bears no importance either to the character or to the story, literally nothing is lost from either of these facets of the movie by the brown pigmentation of the actor's skin. It's broadly about the acquisition of glory/greatness/status/importance (whatever you want to call it) and its conflict with one's integrity. This is a story. Stories are made up events that tend to convey some kind of meaning to the audience. It is not a history lesson. No-one watching it is going to develop any misconceptions regarding the racial make-up of medieval Britain just like no-one began to believe Ares was involved in the instigation of WW1 after the release of Wonder Woman.
Either your imagination really doesn't exist or you are just very sad and very scared. I'm not sure what's worse, someone watching a film and feeling uncomfortable and unsettled because they're no longer able to suspend disbelief because of the colour they're seeing on someone's skin (guy, there were no giants, witches, ghosts or talking foxes in medieval Britain either) or someone feeling threatened by that colour and only feeling calm again by invoking the word "woke".
I hope it's the latter because then at least there's hope. It's okay, you're okay. You've got to believe me when I say brown people are not the reason you're unhappy and scared.
No my man, I’m not scared and my imagination is ok.
But I want to see stories in their context.
So I guess it would be ok if we swap MLK in a movie with a white guy? If we make a Mandela movie with a white guy?
And say … it’s just a story …
No one watching it’s going to develop misconceptions about the racial composition of medieval England, correct, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong and offensive.
As I was saying: “the dead don’t know that they are dead, the same with the woke”
Lol so you won’t watch a potentially excellent movie just because the lead isn’t white?
shareNope. The reasons are not as simple as you facetiously claim.
I won't watch it because I know that the traditionally white mythological protagonist was played by an Indian actor in a deliberate move to strike a blow against white Western culture.
I might watch it at some time in the future if I can do so without giving any profit whatsoever to the filmmakers, but any enjoyment I get from it will be purely on an ironic level thanks to the ridiculous casting.
So basically you’re an idiot?
shareI guess as much of an idiot as people who get upset about white actors playing characters of other races. But far less of an idiot than someone who posts comments like yours.
shareBy simplifying it to "just because the lead isn't white" YOU are the idiot ...
shareThis year, probably somewhere around 85-90% of the movies released are losing money. More importantly, the big budget tentpoles which usually float the whole industry (e.g. Black Widow, Cruella, Jungle Cruise, The Suicide Squad, Space Jam 2) are losing hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps the only movie of the summer that performed somewhat well was F9.
Even with it's small budget, this movie almost certainly going to lose money. Hollywood is in a tailspin right now.
Reality is most movies do breakeven, if they didn't movies studios would not exist for long. What you are ignoring is the Hollywood accounting which makes movies like The Lord of the Rings appear to lose money. I can't recall if it was Return of the Jedi or The Empire Strikes back, but with one of those movies David Prowse was contracted to receive a percent of the net profit and to this day never received anything beyond an annual letter explaining that the movie had still failed to make a profit. The biggest problem in trying to determine whether a movie breaks even isn't determining how much revenue the film generates for the studio, that number is pretty much a standard 70% of the gross ticket prices... the problem is the cost of movies and cost of marketing is always inflated by studios that are hellbent on making the movies appear to always lose money to avoid taxes and having to payout money to people foolish enough to fall for the percent of net income that many naive actors and actresses fall for in their contracts.
share