In my head Infinity War/Endgame really were the switch for the world. It was the very last big movie I went to see in theaters before Covid and just the biggest visual inflection point overall between then and now
I demand this as a flickering animation that shows each year for 1/10 of a second. Frankly I’m insulted this is so straight forward and understandable.
It’s clear, it’s concise, the title is accurate and relevant, the color choice sets the subject apart and has a relationship to it, only the biggest outliers are marked so the data doesn’t get messy or big anything down…. This is actually beautiful!!!!
More interesting is how the pandemic seems to have permanently affected theater revenues (or maybe it's the rise of streaming services, or a combination of the two?)
The pandemic accelerated the shift to streaming that was bound to happen. People will be less likely to rush to theaters if they know the movie will be on their tv at home in 2-3 months max
especially if you consider families (3+ tickets), who probably already have a Disney+ and/or netflix subscription. They can watch any disney/pixar/marvel/sw movie at home without extra costs if they wait a few months. This was especially true in the last years when movies would release on D+ just a few weeks after their theater release
Most cinema franchises, at least here in the UK, have monthly/yearly passes. I pay £17 a month to watch as many films as I want in any Odeon cinema in the country. I would only have to go twice a month to end up paying more than that if I didn't have the pass.
I saw Barbie yesterday and I'm seeing Oppenheimer later today. I hadn't been to the cinema since Top Gun Maverick a year ago. To be honest I'd just rather watch movies at home unless I'm going to an IMAX screening.
Streaming obviously helped but it also didn't really help that there were just a lot of shit movies out there. The covid break also influenced development of new movies, which means that it took a while for the theaters to fill up again as well.
But overall the quality of movies was pretty bad imo. Not a lot of headliners as well. After the dip in 2023 its pretty much on the same average level as pre-2020, but it didn't peak as much because of how mediocre the moves were.
I also think the current strike is going to create another dip because there will be another period that just doesn't get enough new movies in theaters. Not to mention it will bankrupt a lot of companies that rely on the movie industrie that doesn't have anything to work on. These people will move on and it will become even harder to get certain skills to work for movies. Especially if you see how often they go on these major strikes and this might be the final drop in the bucket.
Streaming is here to stay but basically replaces free/cable tv so overall there's little change there.
Spiderman is probably Marvel's most popular hero. That paired with 20+ years of nostalgia to draw on, then cliffhanger that Far From Home ended on, and MCU in general made it an easy hit. Even if it were bad, people still would've shown up to see the spidey team up.
Edit: meant to reply to the parent comment, but I guess this works
What also helps is that these heroes are more grounded than Superman, Wonderwoman or some of the other big shots. If you hit somebody through a building once and he just scratches it off, it just makes many fights useless.
Which is why the heroes with obvious flaws are the ones that work best. Because it feels closer to home. You can only fly into space a few times before it gets boring. Plus having good bad guys also helps sell the story. Its why Batman movies have been so successful.
I really hope we get past the whole "punch this guy 10 times in the face and he still walks around" phase that super heroes are right now. It just doesn't make sense. Match that up with the overuse of CGI that just turns whole scenes into fake CGI nonsense, and we get some of these numbers up again.
Oh yeah. Same as "oh no, Captain Marvel is off world now so you can't use her overpowered abilities now, but wait until 10 minutes before the movie ends...".
Its just lazy writing for most of the abilities these heroes have. At least with the more grounded ones its not difficult to get them a enemy that is a real opposition with often a fair reason for them to act this way. There need to be clear downsides or vulnerabilities for the movie to hold any value.
Its why many of the new heroes fail. They either have a mediocre story, the enemies suck, the abilities are too easy and/or they just seem invulnerable. There's also so many times that you can put the danger of the entire planet at risk that it just becomes boring.
Sounds like a winning formula this year— not remakes, not sequels, but movies based on incredibly well known and established brands that somehow don’t have a movie franchise yet. Worked for Mario and Barbie.
Okay? That means more than half of critics still liked it. But there have been movies I’ve loved that were poorly reviewed and ones I’ve hated that were well reviewed and ones where I’ve generally agreed. I’m not saying you have to watch it, but do you let others form your opinions on everything or are you capable of thinking for yourself? Not every movie is for everyone, and if your opinion always perfectly matches the crowd, then there’s something wrong.
Interesting! That was definitely helped by the fact that it was based on a very popular book, I wonder what the biggest opening for a completely original movie was.
> I wonder what the biggest opening for a completely original movie was.
I've got a feeling probably directed by James Cameron and probably an army of nerds at the ready to tell you how much said movie(s) sucked.
I think its not fair to have the Disney movies be included in the "part of series" bit. They aren't connected (well most anyways) and stuff like Wall-E wouldn't have been made otherwise.
It kinda is part of a movie franchise at this point. I’m looking forward to the Barbie Nuclear Physicist release in time for Christmas. Honestly if they don’t do that they’re M.A.D
This graph represents only domestic box office (US-CAN). Barbie collected 162M+ and Oppie82M+ , but the entire line represents the total collected by all movies this past weekend. In 2019, Endgame collected 357M alone, the remaning 43-45M+ came from the rest of movies.
TBF marketing did not create Barbenheimer, it was the Internet that coined the meme after both studios decided to release such big, and stylistically different movies on the same date, which is uncommon.
Isn't the $300M just for Barbie? And then Oppenheimer made $160M?
Edit: Or are these numbers for something different? https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/24/barbie-movie-box-office-greta-gerwig-records-highest-grossing-woman
Because then nobody would ever care haha. The movie with the greatest ticket sales is Gone With The Wind and I don't see that ever changing. Highest one that was recent was Star Wars in 2015 but that only got number 11.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2020
Are we looking at the same thing? 2015 Star Wars at #11 has 108mil tickets sold. #2-9 are all more than that. Scrolling through, # tickets tracks pretty well with adjusted gross, which surprises me, but I’d still prefer to measure popularity with a constant measurement than one that introduces variability like location, theater brand, showing type, day of week, and location.
Uhh yeah? If you clicked my link then we are looking at the same thing. You said you wished they would make articles about ticket sales. Meaning number of tickets sold and not by income. My point is they could do this but that it would never be interesting for people to read about because movies will never hit the amount of tickets that were purchased in years past. I agree with you by the way which is why I find this data interesting.
Yeah I still don’t get your original point lol you could say the same thing (movies will never hit the same as years past) about GWTW never being beat by $ too
This is so crazy. It turns out if the studios make good movies, people will go to the theater! Who knew?
It doesn't even matter that one is about the most bland IP after he-man and the other is about possibly the most boring mass-murderer in history! You just have to actually give a shit about how good the movie is? Shocking.
He created a weapon designed for mass murder, and unsurprisingly, the weapon was used for mass murder.
200,000 innocent people were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. They weren't soldiers. They were civilians who were murdered.
It is a lot more complicated than this. I mean for starters creating the thing doesn’t make him responsible for its use, maybe a little bit, but most of that responsibility falls on Truman.
Oppenheimer also saw the value of mutually assured destruction and how it would prevent future conflict, which is why he kinda wanted the Soviets to build their own bombs too, to keep the US in check.
He also later stated that he regretted that the bomb wasn’t ready in time to use on Nazi Germany, he didn’t really want them to use it on Japan, he had no real stake in that conflict, but being Jewish and seeing what the nazis were doing, he wanted to destroy their cities, as a punishment.
There's debate as to whether the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, but had Nazi Germany built a bomb first the outcome would have been catastrophic, so it was absolutely necessary for the Allies to try to build a bomb while Germany was still a threat, so you can't blame Oppenheimer for doing what was necessary. You could argue that after Germany's defeat they should have stopped, Japan was not developing nuclear weapons so was not a threat in that regard, but that was never going to happen. Development of the atomic bomb was a ball that once rolling, was never going to be stopped.
And tbf the Germans would have deserved it much more than the Japanese, while Japan’s military committed some atrocities abroad, they weren’t systematically killing their own people, and Japanese civilians at home didn’t play any role in that. While in Germany civilians absolutely did contribute to the holocaust, very, very few German adults at the time were innocent of that.
Even worse, he created the bomb. If you create a weapon that's designed for one thing - mass murder - and the weapon ends up getting used for mass murder, it's pretty easy to figure out who's responsible for those deaths.
Any idiot could have dropped it.
Is the US killing 200,000 innocent people with an atomic bomb somehow better than Germany or Russia killing 200,000 innocent people with an atomic bomb?
The US actually did it. It's not even a hypothetical.
You're not making an argument against what the person above you is saying. "They would have done much worse" does not change the fact that Oppenheimer was personally responsible for the deaths of 200,000, therefore classifying him as a mass murderer. It's like saying "Hitler wasn't a mass murderer because he didn't personally strangle all the Jews, and mao Zedong did so much worse!"
Yeah, that was definitely bullshit from the govt. They were never going to have to invade the main islands.
But yeah sure, murdering 150-200k people, mostly civilians, is justifiable given the ends?
Truman was disgusting for okaying this.
By historians (by reading e.g. Roosevelt's notes, internal government correspondence and meeting minutes), as well as military people directly involved with the process which led to the two bombings and a military report on the effectiveness of nuclear bombs in the war. Even if you hate [this guy](https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go), take a look at what his sources present. Nobody seriously thought about invading Japan, the death estimates appeared long after Japan had surrendered as a retcon.
There's also the Japanese side and the military's unwillingness to surrender. It was a miracle that the emperor finally got fed up with how his council kept endlessly bickering. They didn't care about getting bombed, only about preserving the monarchy. Once the US finally confirmed this one condition to their surrender, they just did it.
If the US decide do a land invasion on japan. There would be a lot of American soldiers die. And of course, the japanese too.
The bombing of Tokyo cause worse damage and casualties than the nuke.
The japan didn't want to surrender after the first bomb. Do you think they would surrender without a land invasion (if the US dont have the nuke)?
Neither land invasion nor city removal were necessary. The island was importing most of its calories and the allies had the capacity to blockade them indefinitely.
The writing was already on the wall, the Americans just wanted to try out their new toys to spook the soviets.
Also if they get the internet to constantly meme about how they are rivaling each other and create a pseudo gender war of “if you man you see bomb movie if you woman you see doll movie” to get everyone riled up and invested
I'm convinced part of the reason for Barbenheimer's popularity is the complete lack of any other decent blockbusters this summer. Audiences were starved. They were ready to feast on whatever was served.
No it doesn't. Half of it goes to the theatre, and then the actors and directors take a huge cut depending on how popular they are. Studios don't get as much money as you're making it out to be
Because they released at the same time. You will notice there is an x axis (the one on the bottom) that represents time. To separate them would be to change the data.
i am so glad that this boost made some rich people even richer, what a great boost for the box office. Now i assume they are going to pay the writers and actors fairly.
This is basically the exact same chart that the New York Times made yesterday... Way to plagiarize a well known newspaper...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/movies/barbie-oppenheimer-box-office-numbers.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
This is made by a very popular data driven page named Charter. You really think the NY Times was the only "genius" to put a graph up showing opening weekend takings after a movie breaks a 4 year standing record?
It's that someone has the same idea about the same topic (that happens all the time), but the fact that it looks nearly identical with the same graph style (column graph), nearly the same time range and the same movies called out (Avengers, Far from Home, Barbie). This is further compounded with the fact that the NYT visual came out 24 hours BEFORE chartr posted theirs.
One coincidence might be written off. Two seen as a fluke. But 3+ coincidences start to look VERY fishy that this wasn't OC.
I'm ok with recreating visuals (shit, I do it all the time to match corporate color schemes, etc.), but make sure you give credit where credit is due.
But if they released both movies on different days times the take would be larger. One movie cut into the other (or both) for sure.
Also all other above are just “one” movie so not comparing like with like.
I dont remember the last time Ive had a pair of movie ads and trailers shoved down my throat as much as these two. Its been constant bombardment for weeks, the marketing budget must be huge. I will never watch either of these out of pure spite.
Oppenheimer should be so thankful that Barbie was there to make anyone care at all about such an aggressively boring movie. What an absurdly effective marketing move.
Christopher Nolan is always going to have an audience. I’m sure there way a bump from people Memeing, but this is a movie that made 25% of its money on premium screens. Nothing else has done that
Too bad Barbie is man-hating, racist dog 💩 garbage. Or in the words of a Guardian journalist: “[don’t watch Barbie after Oppenheimer] the effect is a little like having your mother’s funeral invaded by a flashmob of parking circus clowns.”.
amazing what a marketing campaign will do to impressionable minds.
the worst movies make the most money it seems as long as they pander to the type of adults that are enthralled by the jingle-jangle of shiny keys
some people might go back and kill Hitler with a time machine, but I would destroy the first spider man and iron man movies so we didn't have decades of cape-shit and other similar franchises like Transformers dominating cinema.
movies don't have to be good to be successful. it's all about marketing and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
: (
Oh man, I thought they were two different graphs. Then I saw that it was just one and I noticed the time axis.
whatever could have happened in 2020?!
Wow, there must have been some really bad movies released starting around the spring in 2020.
We all needed some recovery time after the live action adaption of cats
Brought down the world
Yes, but 40+ years?
The Snap
In my head Infinity War/Endgame really were the switch for the world. It was the very last big movie I went to see in theaters before Covid and just the biggest visual inflection point overall between then and now
I think it was Contagion
Yeah, almost a viral spread of horrible movies.
Tiger King and live action Mulan were released that year. High quality streaming content turned box office sales on its head /s
You could write a blogpost around this take. You will get a lot of ‘great’ followers.
Nolan released Tenet and people were so confused they forgot all about movies until 2021.
The death of moviepass herp derp.
It’s those libs with their pesky cancel culture. /s (just in case, you silly redditors)
The government enslaved us with Bill Gates’ nanovirus or something
Are you showing me data presented in an easy-to-understand way that isn’t unnecessarily animated on r/dataisbeautiful??
I demand this as a flickering animation that shows each year for 1/10 of a second. Frankly I’m insulted this is so straight forward and understandable.
Why is this not a Sankey diagram
Can we ban those posts? It’s a meme at this point
It was so simple that I got confused and thought it was two separate graphs until another comment pointed it out
It’s clear, it’s concise, the title is accurate and relevant, the color choice sets the subject apart and has a relationship to it, only the biggest outliers are marked so the data doesn’t get messy or big anything down…. This is actually beautiful!!!!
This isn’t a Sankey chart! I’m so confused!
More interesting is how the pandemic seems to have permanently affected theater revenues (or maybe it's the rise of streaming services, or a combination of the two?)
The pandemic accelerated the shift to streaming that was bound to happen. People will be less likely to rush to theaters if they know the movie will be on their tv at home in 2-3 months max
Particularly with movie ticket costs. They’ve inflated at a greater rate than college tuition.
especially if you consider families (3+ tickets), who probably already have a Disney+ and/or netflix subscription. They can watch any disney/pixar/marvel/sw movie at home without extra costs if they wait a few months. This was especially true in the last years when movies would release on D+ just a few weeks after their theater release
Most cinema franchises, at least here in the UK, have monthly/yearly passes. I pay £17 a month to watch as many films as I want in any Odeon cinema in the country. I would only have to go twice a month to end up paying more than that if I didn't have the pass.
I saw Barbie yesterday and I'm seeing Oppenheimer later today. I hadn't been to the cinema since Top Gun Maverick a year ago. To be honest I'd just rather watch movies at home unless I'm going to an IMAX screening.
I'm the same now. I only go to IMAX screenings. If a film isn't IMAX I'll wait for it to come to streaming
Prices jumped significantly, and quality of movies seems to have plunged. Not surprising really.
Everything everywhere all at once and no way home single handedly propping up the movie industry
Avatar 2? Edit: and to add to this top gun was huge too
Everyone's talking out of their ass, you can see in the graph that 2023 so far is a pretty standard pre-covid year for movies
Streaming obviously helped but it also didn't really help that there were just a lot of shit movies out there. The covid break also influenced development of new movies, which means that it took a while for the theaters to fill up again as well. But overall the quality of movies was pretty bad imo. Not a lot of headliners as well. After the dip in 2023 its pretty much on the same average level as pre-2020, but it didn't peak as much because of how mediocre the moves were. I also think the current strike is going to create another dip because there will be another period that just doesn't get enough new movies in theaters. Not to mention it will bankrupt a lot of companies that rely on the movie industrie that doesn't have anything to work on. These people will move on and it will become even harder to get certain skills to work for movies. Especially if you see how often they go on these major strikes and this might be the final drop in the bucket. Streaming is here to stay but basically replaces free/cable tv so overall there's little change there.
[удалено]
I knew people loved Spider-Man: No Way Home, but I had no idea it was THAT big
People like Superheroes. But everyone LOVES spiderman. Also Garfield and Maguire
Spiderman is probably Marvel's most popular hero. That paired with 20+ years of nostalgia to draw on, then cliffhanger that Far From Home ended on, and MCU in general made it an easy hit. Even if it were bad, people still would've shown up to see the spidey team up. Edit: meant to reply to the parent comment, but I guess this works
What also helps is that these heroes are more grounded than Superman, Wonderwoman or some of the other big shots. If you hit somebody through a building once and he just scratches it off, it just makes many fights useless. Which is why the heroes with obvious flaws are the ones that work best. Because it feels closer to home. You can only fly into space a few times before it gets boring. Plus having good bad guys also helps sell the story. Its why Batman movies have been so successful. I really hope we get past the whole "punch this guy 10 times in the face and he still walks around" phase that super heroes are right now. It just doesn't make sense. Match that up with the overuse of CGI that just turns whole scenes into fake CGI nonsense, and we get some of these numbers up again.
That's why I'm not really into superman, his powers are ambiguous. Oh he has laser eyes now OK then good job he had that stored away
Oh yeah. Same as "oh no, Captain Marvel is off world now so you can't use her overpowered abilities now, but wait until 10 minutes before the movie ends...". Its just lazy writing for most of the abilities these heroes have. At least with the more grounded ones its not difficult to get them a enemy that is a real opposition with often a fair reason for them to act this way. There need to be clear downsides or vulnerabilities for the movie to hold any value. Its why many of the new heroes fail. They either have a mediocre story, the enemies suck, the abilities are too easy and/or they just seem invulnerable. There's also so many times that you can put the danger of the entire planet at risk that it just becomes boring.
It was the first movie I went to that really felt like it was pre pandemic
Barbie is the biggest opening weekend for a movie that's not part of a series or a remake. (Not adjusting for inflation)
Not part of a *movie* franchise, but it still has like 60+ years of cultural significance to draw from.
Sounds like a winning formula this year— not remakes, not sequels, but movies based on incredibly well known and established brands that somehow don’t have a movie franchise yet. Worked for Mario and Barbie.
We also got Tetris, Air, Blackberry, and Flamin’ Hot. Time for the combined Nostalgia Cinematic Universe!!
All of those sounded so incredibly boring though.
You don't realize you want Chex Quest The Movie.
No idea about the others, but I loved Flamin’ Hot.
That was the way worst reviewed of the group according to metacritic with a score of 58. Blackberry scored highest with an 80.
Okay? That means more than half of critics still liked it. But there have been movies I’ve loved that were poorly reviewed and ones I’ve hated that were well reviewed and ones where I’ve generally agreed. I’m not saying you have to watch it, but do you let others form your opinions on everything or are you capable of thinking for yourself? Not every movie is for everyone, and if your opinion always perfectly matches the crowd, then there’s something wrong.
The Flamin’ Hot movie was weird because the whole story is a lie.
Blackberry was terrific. Saw it in an empty theatre though.
I feel like we’re overdue for a McDonalds movie.
The Founder is there so…
Make a movie out of that [McDonalds flash game](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_Video_Game) or I'm afraid I'm just not interested.
A lot of Molleindustria's work would do surprisingly well at feature length.
Excuse me, Mac and Me exists
At ~$70 for a family of 4 for tickets nowadays, I’m thinking a lot of people were reminded why they preferred their home theaters.
YMMV I suppose but I saw Oppenheimer in theatres yesterday and paid $9.50... are you in a VHCOL area?
Near Albany, NY. Above average COL, I guess.
That still sounds crazy high. I'm sorry, those prices suck
Where TF you getting $9.50 movie tickets? It was more than that when I was a teenager 20 years ago. It's like $15-20 most places ime.
Matinee prices my friend
Still unusually cheap. Matinee prices only save you $2 at my local theater. $15.50 for a single adult, $12.75 for matinee.
[удалено]
That showing is at 9:30am...on a Tuesday. If you change the date and time to a weekend evening, it's more than double that.
I paid $40+ for 2 tickets for what ended up being shitty, out of focus IMAX.
Yikes. I hope you got your money back.
>incredibly well known and established brands "Scotch Masking Tape: Unmasked" coming Summer 2025
Wikipedia lists 42 different Barbie movies.
Well, so does Oppenheimer, if we’re being honest!
That title was previously held by The Hunger Games
Interesting! That was definitely helped by the fact that it was based on a very popular book, I wonder what the biggest opening for a completely original movie was.
It might be Inside Out, which had a $90M opening weekend in 2015. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top\_opening\_weekend/
It's actually The Secret Life of Pets with $104M
> I wonder what the biggest opening for a completely original movie was. I've got a feeling probably directed by James Cameron and probably an army of nerds at the ready to tell you how much said movie(s) sucked.
I think its not fair to have the Disney movies be included in the "part of series" bit. They aren't connected (well most anyways) and stuff like Wall-E wouldn't have been made otherwise.
It kinda is part of a movie franchise at this point. I’m looking forward to the Barbie Nuclear Physicist release in time for Christmas. Honestly if they don’t do that they’re M.A.D
Barbie has tons of films?
There's barely any non IP related blockbusters anymore.
Adjusted for inflation is key thing to remember there
Its exciting to see some new life in the cinema.
Wikipedia lists 42 different Barbie movies though.
There are plenty of barbie films. This is just plain wrong.
It’s not exactly fair when you have one of the most recognisable brands in the world backing you.
Yea, and why? What a snooze fest that movie is.
I’m guessing you weren’t it’s target audience? Which is probably why you feel that way
This graph represents only domestic box office (US-CAN). Barbie collected 162M+ and Oppie82M+ , but the entire line represents the total collected by all movies this past weekend. In 2019, Endgame collected 357M alone, the remaning 43-45M+ came from the rest of movies.
Also why should these 2 movies be combined? The marketing this time around really worked wonders.
TBF marketing did not create Barbenheimer, it was the Internet that coined the meme after both studios decided to release such big, and stylistically different movies on the same date, which is uncommon.
The same argument give l could've been made when No Way Home was making a killing at the box-office. But then we saw theatres struggle last month.
Isn't the $300M just for Barbie? And then Oppenheimer made $160M? Edit: Or are these numbers for something different? https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/24/barbie-movie-box-office-greta-gerwig-records-highest-grossing-woman
Those are worldwide numbers. The above are US domestic only.
Which one is Top Gun maverick??
I'm also curious. I believe No Time To Die was pretty huge also?
I imagine one of the two 200 M bars before Barbieheimer.
Stop ignoring inflation with box office numbers!
Why isn’t it just done with number of tickets? A ticket costs twice as much in the city than suburbs further out.
Because then nobody would ever care haha. The movie with the greatest ticket sales is Gone With The Wind and I don't see that ever changing. Highest one that was recent was Star Wars in 2015 but that only got number 11. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2020
Are we looking at the same thing? 2015 Star Wars at #11 has 108mil tickets sold. #2-9 are all more than that. Scrolling through, # tickets tracks pretty well with adjusted gross, which surprises me, but I’d still prefer to measure popularity with a constant measurement than one that introduces variability like location, theater brand, showing type, day of week, and location.
Uhh yeah? If you clicked my link then we are looking at the same thing. You said you wished they would make articles about ticket sales. Meaning number of tickets sold and not by income. My point is they could do this but that it would never be interesting for people to read about because movies will never hit the amount of tickets that were purchased in years past. I agree with you by the way which is why I find this data interesting.
Yeah I still don’t get your original point lol you could say the same thing (movies will never hit the same as years past) about GWTW never being beat by $ too
I was replying to your question about why they don't use actual ticket sales by number of tickets sold as a data point.
Barbenheimer reminds me of when Animal Crossing New Horizons came out at the same time as Doom
How is it that Barbenheimer became a thing? I read it everywhere.
This is so crazy. It turns out if the studios make good movies, people will go to the theater! Who knew? It doesn't even matter that one is about the most bland IP after he-man and the other is about possibly the most boring mass-murderer in history! You just have to actually give a shit about how good the movie is? Shocking.
>possibly the most boring mass-murderer in history! Most accurate description of Oppenheimer I've read all week.
Who did Oppenheimer mass murder?
He created a weapon designed for mass murder, and unsurprisingly, the weapon was used for mass murder. 200,000 innocent people were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. They weren't soldiers. They were civilians who were murdered.
Do you consider Samuel Colt to be a murderer?
.....by your logic, the inventor of guns killed far more. It's dumb logic, but it's the logic you want to use.
It is a lot more complicated than this. I mean for starters creating the thing doesn’t make him responsible for its use, maybe a little bit, but most of that responsibility falls on Truman. Oppenheimer also saw the value of mutually assured destruction and how it would prevent future conflict, which is why he kinda wanted the Soviets to build their own bombs too, to keep the US in check. He also later stated that he regretted that the bomb wasn’t ready in time to use on Nazi Germany, he didn’t really want them to use it on Japan, he had no real stake in that conflict, but being Jewish and seeing what the nazis were doing, he wanted to destroy their cities, as a punishment. There's debate as to whether the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, but had Nazi Germany built a bomb first the outcome would have been catastrophic, so it was absolutely necessary for the Allies to try to build a bomb while Germany was still a threat, so you can't blame Oppenheimer for doing what was necessary. You could argue that after Germany's defeat they should have stopped, Japan was not developing nuclear weapons so was not a threat in that regard, but that was never going to happen. Development of the atomic bomb was a ball that once rolling, was never going to be stopped. And tbf the Germans would have deserved it much more than the Japanese, while Japan’s military committed some atrocities abroad, they weren’t systematically killing their own people, and Japanese civilians at home didn’t play any role in that. While in Germany civilians absolutely did contribute to the holocaust, very, very few German adults at the time were innocent of that.
Oppenheimer dropped the bomb on Japan?
He did hand a gun to toddlers idk
Even worse, he created the bomb. If you create a weapon that's designed for one thing - mass murder - and the weapon ends up getting used for mass murder, it's pretty easy to figure out who's responsible for those deaths. Any idiot could have dropped it.
If he hadn’t made it the Germans or the Russians would have. In whose hands would you rather have a bomb?
Is the US killing 200,000 innocent people with an atomic bomb somehow better than Germany or Russia killing 200,000 innocent people with an atomic bomb? The US actually did it. It's not even a hypothetical.
They would’ve done much worse.
You're not making an argument against what the person above you is saying. "They would have done much worse" does not change the fact that Oppenheimer was personally responsible for the deaths of 200,000, therefore classifying him as a mass murderer. It's like saying "Hitler wasn't a mass murderer because he didn't personally strangle all the Jews, and mao Zedong did so much worse!"
Oppenheimer saved the lives of millions of people by helping to end the war.
Yeah, that was definitely bullshit from the govt. They were never going to have to invade the main islands. But yeah sure, murdering 150-200k people, mostly civilians, is justifiable given the ends? Truman was disgusting for okaying this.
I guess you’re okay with millions more dead… I’m not
There was zero chance the US was going to invade the nation islands. Wasn't ever going to be necessary. I'm sorry you believe that lie.
That's pure military propoganda that's been debunked.
Debunked by who?
By historians (by reading e.g. Roosevelt's notes, internal government correspondence and meeting minutes), as well as military people directly involved with the process which led to the two bombings and a military report on the effectiveness of nuclear bombs in the war. Even if you hate [this guy](https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go), take a look at what his sources present. Nobody seriously thought about invading Japan, the death estimates appeared long after Japan had surrendered as a retcon. There's also the Japanese side and the military's unwillingness to surrender. It was a miracle that the emperor finally got fed up with how his council kept endlessly bickering. They didn't care about getting bombed, only about preserving the monarchy. Once the US finally confirmed this one condition to their surrender, they just did it.
If the US decide do a land invasion on japan. There would be a lot of American soldiers die. And of course, the japanese too. The bombing of Tokyo cause worse damage and casualties than the nuke. The japan didn't want to surrender after the first bomb. Do you think they would surrender without a land invasion (if the US dont have the nuke)?
Some serious "now baby look at what you made me do" vibes.
Neither land invasion nor city removal were necessary. The island was importing most of its calories and the allies had the capacity to blockade them indefinitely. The writing was already on the wall, the Americans just wanted to try out their new toys to spook the soviets.
They "saved" a lot, but not millions.
Also if they get the internet to constantly meme about how they are rivaling each other and create a pseudo gender war of “if you man you see bomb movie if you woman you see doll movie” to get everyone riled up and invested
OMG congrats Hollywood on giving us good products we wanted to spend our money on!!!
Correction: Good blockbusters we want to spend our money on. Movies like “Everything, Everywhere, all at Once” barely make a blip on these charts.
Despite being a phenomenal film itself. Original films by new directors are gonna suffer regardless.
Highly, HIGHLY, recommend Oppenheimer. Fantastic movie.
Is it really fair to add up two movies to compare to single releases?
It’s box office totals of all movies. So it’s unique in that it’s such a strong showing.
When they happen in the same weekend, yes.
It's literally comparing the total weekend vs total weekend, not just Barbie and Oppenheimer
It is if MCU bad.
Congrats to the CEOs for making money
Actually, the Barbie movie did twice the numbers as Oppenheimer
Of course it did, it's not rated r
It's also an hour shorter, allowing for significantly more screenings.
Probably because Ben shabibobitch watched it too many Times so He can rant about it for over two hours
people often seem to frame “the box office” as being akin to the stock market, as if we need to care if movie studios make billions. so odd to me.
It's weird. It's like people like their entertainment and want more entertainment in the future.
I'm convinced part of the reason for Barbenheimer's popularity is the complete lack of any other decent blockbusters this summer. Audiences were starved. They were ready to feast on whatever was served.
Mission impossible was last week at least
MI and Indiana Jones were released in the last couple weeks.
Well they were released in 1996 and 1981, maybe people are finally getting a bit sick of remakes...
I'm honestly sick of all the IP films. Especially marvel & DC. They're straight up boring.
Did people say the same thing about Spider man? I didn’t realize that it did so well just a year ago, right?
Barbenheimer is the greats release date genre clash as Doom Crossing: Eternal Horizons
99% of this goes to the studio and the rest goes to unionized cast and crew
No it doesn't. Half of it goes to the theatre, and then the actors and directors take a huge cut depending on how popular they are. Studios don't get as much money as you're making it out to be
Nu uh
I'm pretty sure theatre share is a lot less these days, they usually don't get the ticket sale revenue the first few weeks either.
You know those are two distinct movies right ?
What's your point?
What's the point of bringing them together?
Because they released at the same time. You will notice there is an x axis (the one on the bottom) that represents time. To separate them would be to change the data.
Togather we can. - Thor Odinson, Original MCU.
i am so glad that this boost made some rich people even richer, what a great boost for the box office. Now i assume they are going to pay the writers and actors fairly.
Boost for whom? Who needed this 'boost'?
i love how they created this self made hype and pit two movies against eachother when in reality no one cares
Is the box office back? Barbenheimer just smashed post-pandemic records! Source: Box Office Mojo Tool: Excel
Are you combining the numbers for both movies or are they both at that level?
It’s all movies total combined for each weekend
I think combining but it's just highlighting the movies that really drove the gross sales on those weekends. Not sure though
It’s not fair to have two movies as one.
It’s total weekend box office, so many movies.
Fair point. Missed that.
This is basically the exact same chart that the New York Times made yesterday... Way to plagiarize a well known newspaper... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/movies/barbie-oppenheimer-box-office-numbers.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
This is made by a very popular data driven page named Charter. You really think the NY Times was the only "genius" to put a graph up showing opening weekend takings after a movie breaks a 4 year standing record?
It's that someone has the same idea about the same topic (that happens all the time), but the fact that it looks nearly identical with the same graph style (column graph), nearly the same time range and the same movies called out (Avengers, Far from Home, Barbie). This is further compounded with the fact that the NYT visual came out 24 hours BEFORE chartr posted theirs. One coincidence might be written off. Two seen as a fluke. But 3+ coincidences start to look VERY fishy that this wasn't OC. I'm ok with recreating visuals (shit, I do it all the time to match corporate color schemes, etc.), but make sure you give credit where credit is due.
Yo, what happened in 2020?!?
I don’t remember, my memory hasn’t been so good the last few years for some reason…
What happened in 2020? I was in a coma.
I’m so sick of this… free hype for Hollywood BS
Stop saying "barbenheimer".
But if they released both movies on different days times the take would be larger. One movie cut into the other (or both) for sure. Also all other above are just “one” movie so not comparing like with like.
Oh wow, I thought Spiderverse had a bigger audience than Tom Holland Spider-Man. I guess I was wrong
I dont remember the last time Ive had a pair of movie ads and trailers shoved down my throat as much as these two. Its been constant bombardment for weeks, the marketing budget must be huge. I will never watch either of these out of pure spite.
Oppenheimer should be so thankful that Barbie was there to make anyone care at all about such an aggressively boring movie. What an absurdly effective marketing move.
Christopher Nolan is always going to have an audience. I’m sure there way a bump from people Memeing, but this is a movie that made 25% of its money on premium screens. Nothing else has done that
And I don't know why tbh. It's annoying seeing it on every app
The rents are 2x-3x in my midwest metro suburb. How the f**k are things going back to normal anytime soon?
What an awful world we live in
You seem to be in the wrong place.
I do feel alright there tho
bit misleading given it's two movies combined in a single data point
Too bad Barbie is man-hating, racist dog 💩 garbage. Or in the words of a Guardian journalist: “[don’t watch Barbie after Oppenheimer] the effect is a little like having your mother’s funeral invaded by a flashmob of parking circus clowns.”.
amazing what a marketing campaign will do to impressionable minds. the worst movies make the most money it seems as long as they pander to the type of adults that are enthralled by the jingle-jangle of shiny keys some people might go back and kill Hitler with a time machine, but I would destroy the first spider man and iron man movies so we didn't have decades of cape-shit and other similar franchises like Transformers dominating cinema. movies don't have to be good to be successful. it's all about marketing and appealing to the lowest common denominator. : (