I never saw a single TV spot for it. Granted, I’m not watching all the time, but I saw plenty of commercials for the new Bad Boys.
1 Like
I was going to type the same thing out
1 Like
By the way, Charlize has said “We’re in development right now on Atomic Blonde 2. If everything goes to plan, we’ll shoot in a year.” Fingers crosses that happens.
Apart from this thread, I’d have no idea the movie even existed.
2 Likes
Probably wasn’t worth breaking the hand for.
Putting the quality of TRS aside (its probably fine but not great), this is a prime example of why people want James Bond (or insert famous character/franchise here) to be female, Black, Asian, gay etc… etc… or “crusade” for more diversity in blockbuster films - because all too often these stories are sent out to die in the market unless they have a huge franchise backing them, and then… they don’t want to make any more. So films that are driven by women, POC or LGBTQI people are either relegated to tiny budgets or not made at all.
This is why statements like BB’s “I’d prefer to make new characters for women” rings very hollow - when the producers and studios dump these films out.
Not an endorsement or otherwise of Bond being something other than he is currently, but just a thought/insight
How is she ringing hollow? She did make a new film for a female character. She can’t then be blamed for the way Paramount, as distributor, treated that film.
3 Likes
I agree! My point was that releasing in Jan reflects this and proves you correct.
Sure, it’s still possible to make money in Jan (Bad Boys), but is there a month that’s less appealing than Jan? Or even one around the same mark? If i had to rank my movie’s preferred release month Jan would come last.
A NF release of the movie may indeed have been a better plan.
September actually the new dumping month for studio releases which no one believes will hit big.
And IT, of course, was the exception that confirms the rule.
1 Like
I said statements “like hers” (not neccessarily hers specifically, though I’ve seen it criticised as such) ring hollow (to women, POC and LGBTQI particularly) because she (and they) know full well she would never give or get from the studio she works with, the same budget or attention for Rhythm Section or any “new female led film” as she would for Bond. TRS is most likely not so much worse than other films to be given the bare minimum of marketing etc… but because its a “niche, womens action film” its treated as such so it gets lower budgets across all areas.
That’s just a fact of the world and it is what it is - I think she means well and is genuine with what she says (unlike some other people who say “get your own characters” etc…), but as it is women, POC and LGBTQI are relegated to supporting and background roles unless its very clearly a “focus film” - and then it gets budget and marketing relative to that. I think the challenge is trying to change that, but I don’t think theres actually much desire to change too much (Disney is maybe doing the most with Mulan and Black Widow this year, B&TB, Aladdin etc… by making some attempt to diversify their existing IP and investing in them to allow them to succeed)
1 Like
As I argued in this thread back in August, moving it to Super Bowl weekend doomed the movie…
1 Like
You can’t compare Bad Boys 3 with TRS though, one’s a recognised brand name while the other’s a new comer.
Most of your ‘January’ movies of the scale of TRS tend to have similar marketing efforts. All in all there’s nothing surprising here.
1 Like
“‘Rhythm Section’ is also the lowest opening ever for a movie debuting at 3,000-plus theaters.”
“Currently, I hear that the overseas launch for ‘Rhythm Section’ is up in the air, with the studio pondering a direct to video release abroad after the dismal stateside results.”
1 Like
But that’s my point: brand awareness is the only thing that can push a movie to open these days.
Even worse: people think that box office equals quality.
How much of this is down to audience laziness when it comes to something new?
Are people so used to recognizing franchise films that they are no longer interested in anything else?
I wonder if it’s like drug-addicts who need something stronger over time. Maybe people don’t get excited about films unless they feel that immediate buzz that, say, news of a Joker stand-alone or another Fast & Furious can give them.
While there are cases to contrary, recent examples of original hits either had director hype built from a previous film (Jordan Peele with ‘Us’), or was stuffed to the brim with a star-studded cast (“Knives Out”), or both (“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”).
‘The Rhythm Section’ had neither, other than a tiny blurb about being from the producers of James Bond.
A female Bond may not be a good idea for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, the actress and the film(s) will be compared to previous ones in a way that a new IP wouldn’t. I know that happens with new Bond actors anyway, but why put a hurdle there when you don’t need to?
Secondly, it would hardly be a feminist victory as the brand’s success is due mainly to the male actors who have played him previously. However good the actress is, she’s there because Sean Connnery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig (to cite the most popular leads) were there before her. Not to mention the male author and two male producers who kicked it all off.
If women want women leads - and there’s no reason films shouldn’t have them - they need to get out and go to see the films such women are in.
Greg Rucka’s Queen and Country graphic/prose novels offer Tara Chace - a great character just waiting for someone to play her. Ellen Page was attached to star, and it would be cool to see. The success of Bourne has shown us how a couple of films can make a character a household name in next to no time.
(Though nobody here has mentioned it : the idea, by the way, that the failures of Catwoman (2004) and Electra (2005) caused the Jinx film, and other female-led films, to die is stupid beyond belief.)
Just my two cents.
1 Like
I’d almost say its less that and more the modern ease of watching movies has robbed of the allure of cinema going for mostly all but event films, unless word-of-mouth is particularly strong. The phrase, “I’ll watch it when it’s on Netflix,” is a common response to any movies I recommend which are still in theatres.
2 Likes
But the main problem of TRS is that it was to expensive for a franchise starter with a not very interesting lead. And the trailer did nothing for the film, it was just a couple of bad wigs and some action I have seen better in TV series…
1 Like
You make an interesting point. Perhaps people will lose the impetus to go to the cinema. I’m reminded of something Donald Sutherland said years ago, referring to the differences between TV and film. With film, he said, people actually have to leave the house and go to the cinema, and that’s a commitment, or at least takes some effort.
But Bond has been here before, in the early '90s. Before GE brought it all back, some industry insiders believed that Bond films would go to pay-per-view or cabe. Not unlike the way the two terrible Harry Palmer films did.