On the Routineness of Ex-Special Forces Protagonists in Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

I recall running across a gripe session on a discussion board among people annoyed with the trope of a zombie apocalypse scenario where the hero just so happens to be ex-special forces.

There was more in the way of amusing cracks than genuine insights into the matter, but it still got me thinking about just why we see so much of this. One way of looking at the matter is to say that the reason there are so many such characters in these stories is that they are such natural protagonists for them--people trained for combat, survival in harsh conditions, etc. having skills that would be very useful indeed in such situations, and besides being helpful to them potentially helpful to any group of people they link up with.

But people sure have seen it a lot, so much so that it seems predictable, and "convenient," and trite.

That suggests another, larger, problem--namely that there has been so much writing in this genre for so long, so that like any genre that gets so deeply exploited for so long it is tired. The issue, then, seems less the kind of protagonist than the fact that people had seen this story so many times before.

And that in turn suggests a bigger problem still--that we are overdue for some new genres with which to amuse ourselves. Alas, pop culture is stuck in a rut—likely because everything else is too.

Social Withdrawal as Social Protest

Considering the issue of social withdrawal I have generally found myself looking at reports on the matter from or about Japan, and discussion of the issue as it may apply elsewhere in the English-speaking press (mainly though not exclusively the American press). Recently, though, I happened on an item in the French newspaper 20 Minutes discussing the topic, which caught my attention right away with the title: "Hikikomoris français: 'J’ai fui le monde car il était trop dur, trop brutal, trop insécurisant, trop injuste, trop dégoûtant.'" Translated the quotation, from one of the article's interview subjects, says "I fled the world because it was too hard, too brutal, too insecure, too unfair, too disgusting."

I have long tended to the view that there is something of this view of society in much of the social withdrawal we see (in regard to work, for example), be it the milder forms of withdrawal in which people may hold a job, etc. but do the absolute minimum to survive and keep aloof from other people at all other times, or the more severe forms we see, as with the hikikomori who refuses to even come out of their room and face their family--but the preference has long been to see it as a matter of individual pathology, etc.. However, here we have an explicit social criticism on the part of one of the sufferers, who flatly says that he found the world outside unbearable--a reaction hardly implausible given how society is structured, how people treat each other, and the rest, and especially how all this is felt at the "sharp end." The fact that the response to such criticisms so often tends to be sneering callousness ("Welcome to the real world!") only underlines the fact--and suggests that those seriously interested in where the world is going would do far better to put such phenomena in their proper context than, in line with the conventional, cowardly, mediocre norm people treat as mature and pragmatic, deny the existence of any context at all.

"I Never Rewrite!"

Read much about writers with any amount of attention and you will come across quite the number who claim that they never rewrite their own work.

Read their remarks with attention and you also note that, if true, this is because they can count on others to do it for them--because, frankly, they are prominent enough to be indulged that way.

The rest of us, alas, can only dream of ever enjoying anything like such privilege, leaving us enduring the process--and, unpleasant as it is, probably producing a better result for it a fair amount of the time.

Just What is an "'80s Jerk?"

I recall years ago happening on the Teen Titans, Go! episode "Nostalgia is Not a Substitute for an Actual Story." For the most part the episode was up to the standard of the show's very good best, but I was confused by the discussion of "'80s jerks" as a particular, distinctive, type.

That confusion did not prompt me to look into the matter--but more recently I found myself running across items that discussed '80s pop culture as featuring mean-spirited characters out to wreck the hero's effort to attain some goal, often without there being much practical gain in it for them, and wondered whether there was any substance to this at all.

Assuming that there is indeed such substance one possibility is that this truly standard storytelling element seems '80s because after the '80s the big movies that had a chance to make a significant pop cultural impression had less room for such jerks--because of the way big splashy action movies crowded out the littler comedies and light dramas where they tended to feature. Thus the bad guys were not mere jerks, but rather something grandiosely malevolent in very high-stakes situations (like a Thanos).

It may also be that as the "cult of the asshole" grew and grew the default level of "jerkiness" we came to take for granted meant that even where they could possibly have made an impression jerks of the old kind would scarcely be noticed--the more in as the hero themselves was now likely to qualify for "jerk" status themselves. (How else would you characterize Tony Stark, certainly in his Marvel Cinematic Universe incarnations? Or the more recent incarnations of Batman as Hollywood embraced the idea of "Batman as unhinged fascist?")

Considering all that, even granting that unlike some others I do not think film is exactly suffering from a lack of small-time villains motivated by petty or pointless meanness, it does seem to me that the way "jerk characters" have become less conspicuous reflects how film has become a good deal more limited than it used to be--all as the threshold for what constitutes insufferable behavior keeps rising.

Star Wars Was Not, and Could Never Have Been, Another MCU

The title of this post makes the point--Star Wars was not, and could never have been, the second Marvel Cinematic Universe-style hit machine that Disney was so clearly hoping for when it bought Lucasfilm. There are at least three reasons for that.

1. As one finds attending to George Lucas' creative process when he worked on the original Star Wars he was torn between making a more "adult" piece of science fiction, with complex world-building and political themes, and a fairy tale as he understood the form on the basis of Bruno Bettelheim's The Uses of Enchantment. In the end he opted for the latter--and produced Star Wars as we know it. The catch, however, is that fairy tales are simple and short, with a beginning, middle, end, and expanding them is apt to turn them into something they are not--as is evident when we look at the Expanded Universe, even at its best. (A figure like Grand Admiral Thrawn, for example, has no place in a world of fairy tale simplicities.) It is evident, too, when we look at George Lucas' own prequel trilogy (1999-2005)--in which we see something of those more complex, world-building-intensive, political ideas Lucas had but eschewed when working on the first film in the '70s. The Expanded Universe has been a success with a limited hard core of readers; the prequels alienated many. So was it likely to go with any other such effort--with, as Disney demonstrated, stretching out the Star Wars' saga's main line by three more movies leaving fans looking at it and saying "This is not my Star Wars" (and not just because of the culture war politics, even if that is what gets all the press).

2. As might be guessed from that fairy tale origin Star Wars was never a creation comparable to the Marvel or DC comic book universes--really a bunch of separate comic book characters, separate stories that over time got to be complexly interlinked into a sprawling narrative. Putting it another way the core of those universes that people attend to are those characters, each the stars of their own show, so to speak, the heroes of their own stories, who happen to live in the same world as those other stars and heroes so that they get involved in each others' lives. By contrast Star Wars was the "hero's journey" of Luke Skywalker--and if members of his supporting cast struck a chord with many fans (a Han Solo, a Lando Calrizian, a Boba Fett) they did not provide the same basis for setting up Iron Man and Thor and Captain America in their own movies, and then tying them together in the Avengers. Thus a Han Solo movie was the kind of thing more likely to appeal to Expanded Universe readers than the general audience--as was seen when that movie actually came out. It did not have to be a debacle--but the level of investment in it, reflecting the unreasonable expectations for the general-audience interest in such a movie, made it so.

3. Besides the fact that Star Wars did not provide a superhero comic universe-retinue of characters each plausibly the star of their own film, there was the significant liability of the world they inhabited. One of the principal attractions of the superhero genre as against other forms of sci-fi action spectacle--most evident in the most consistently high-performing franchises, like Batman and Spider-Man, as against the more exotic franchises like Guardians of the Galaxy--is that superheroes operate in something like the real world, presenting the audience with a minimum of what Darko Suvin would have called "alienation" effects (things that yank them out of the experience, not least by forcing them to think). We all know Gotham is basically New York--while Spider-Man actually does live in New York--and it is easier for the general audience to get into that than the story of someone on Coruscant. Alas, making a Cinematic Universe out of Star Wars required the audience to not just be willing to follow the adventures of someone on Coruscant, but to be specifically interested in that fictional world in itself. Again, the hardcore fans are happy to immerse themselves in that galaxy far, far away. But they are no basis for consistent billion-dollar hits (as, again, the results show).

The basis of all of this seems to me to have been fairly obvious stuff to anyone who bothered to understand Star Wars, and the cinematic market, and for that matter bothered to learn a little bit about how science fiction works. (Certainly something of this would have been obvious had they read a certain book I can name. Ahem.) But I have no idea if anyone at Disney-Lucasfilm understood it, while it seems obvious that if they did understand it they regarded it as far less important than the Star Wars brand name, which was what they paid those billions for and on which they bet so heavily, with this admittedly seeming to work out for a while Episode VII was a sensational success, financially at least (making a billion in profit by itself, according to the folks at Deadline).

But things fell apart fairly quickly, so much so that Kathleen Kennedy recently spoke of Star Wars being handled not like the MCU but the much-lower output Bond movies (read: rather than three billion-dollar movies a year, one movie that will probably fall short of a billion every three years). While the press does not seem to have made much of it this is a confession of the effort's defeat--catastrophic, war-losing defeat--which can seem the greater given how 007 himself has not been doing so well lately, with the same going for Disney's other revenue streams.

The Superhero Flops Pile Up--as the Musical Flops Did a Half Century Ago

Looking at the superhero films of this year one may note that Ant-Man 3 underperformed, but the domestic drop was actually mild (about a sixth from the prior film's gross)--the bigger factors in perceptions of the film's performance the very front-loaded holiday weekend and the exaggerated expectations for what making it the start of Phase Five of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) would do to boost the film relative to the prior Ant-Mans; and where the more serious shortfall in the international gross was at issue, the way the film fell flat in China (where Marvel generally, and Ant-Man 2 specifically, had done well). Shazam 2 really did do badly, but was also a relatively limited follow-up to an at best minor success, and so chancy from the start, with the same going for Blue Beetle--an originally straight-to-streaming project upgraded to theatrical release that failed to justify the gamble (commercially, anyway, even if there did seem to be some genuine liking for the film among those who bothered to show). Additionally Guardians of the Galaxy 3, if it opened disappointingly (by the standards of $100 million+ openers, at any rate), had the benefit of good holds that in the end will probably leave it, if a confirmation of the MCU's trend toward declining grosses, still one of the year's more profitable films.

The result is that looking at those movies one can see room for argument about how superhero films are doing. By contrast The Flash was an undeniable catastrophe, with this major, height of summer-released DCEU film about a core Justice League member performing in a way that would have been troubling even for a Shazam film--this movie that cost $300 million taking in under $300 million globally.

Now Captain Marvel 2, as of its third weekend in release, looks as if it will end up doing worse. And the first tracking data-based forecast from Boxoffice Pro for Aquaman 2 suggests the film will do no better than those two predecessors.

Considering the prospect of these three massive superhero films becoming flops on a historic scale (each perhaps registering a loss in the $100 million+ range, and perhaps much more) in just a little over six months' time puts me in mind of 1969--the year when the underperformance of three big-budget musicals (Sweet Charity, Paint Your Wagon, Hello Dolly!) proved a turning point for Hollywood, ending its fantasy of having another Sound of Music-level success. Musicals still got made, but they were no longer the mainstay of the box office they once had been--and in spite of scoring hits once a while, never truly recovered.

Again, Hollywood does not turn on a dime, the release schedule typically lagging the decision to greenlight a movie by a couple of years (more than that these days, with all the pandemic and strike-related disruptions), such that more superhero movies will be coming our way because the project is already in production, pre-production or otherwise underway; while as yet I have seen no evidence that Disney or the WBD are at all capable of shifting tracks. Quite the contrary, troubled as the MCU is it may actually be Disney's strongest earner these days (with Star Wars all but moribund, with any schemes it had for Indiana Jones fallen flat, with its animated productions doing so badly that the commercially marginal Elemental is its closest thing to a success since before the pandemic); while the WBD would seem to have little to keep it going but the fantasy that an overhauled DCEU will let it beat Disney-Marvel at its own game. Still, supertanker-slow as shifting a studio might be, and stubborn and stupid as the studios' management may be, the studios, already very badly battered at this point (by overinvestment in streaming, by the pandemic, by rising interest rates, etc.), can only take so much more in the way of losses--and eventually they will have to change their current course, however hard it may be to picture that change, or the result's appearance.

Napoleon's Opening Weekend

Last month I speculated about whether Ridley Scott's Napoleon had the makings of another Oppenheimer--as another historical biopic that looks like unpromising material for a hit which surprises us all with a box office triumph. I was doubtful (Oppenheimer having had advantages in the form of Christopher Nolan's cheering section and the claims for its relevance based on the hyping of supposedly transformative breakthroughs in artificial intelligence). Going by the initial projection, and the tracking data-based estimates that Boxoffice Pro put out over the month I saw no reason to revise that opinion, while looking at the numbers this weekend it seems that the movie's actual gross has, domestically at least, almost exactly matched Boxoffice Pro's pre-weekend projection (a bit over $20 million for the 3-day period, $32 million for the 5-day period).

Still, how the film's legs hold up remains to be seen. They would seem most unlikely to carry it anywhere near the billion-dollar mark given this start, but it is possible that if the holds are decent, or the film simply enjoys a robust response in the international market that has long been more receptive toward movies like this one than the domestic one (indeed, the film has already picked up $46 million abroad, a figure apparently considered a pleasant surprise by some observers), it might at least cover its costs--which these days seems like a feat for any movie, and still more for a Scott-directed historical epic such as this.

Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes: Second Weekend Box Office Gross

A month before release the expectations for the Hunger Games prequel (Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes) were low--dismal, even--next to the grosses of the four films of the original saga, and if Boxoffice Pro's projections edged upward from there they were still a far cry from the surges seen for Oppenheimer and Barbie (the high end of the range for which shot up from a bit above $200 million to almost twice that much). And then when the film did come out last weekend its gross was nearer the low end of the range than the high, a mere $44 million at the domestic box office.

Of course, as I have said in the past, it may be that even franchise films which succeed are less front-loaded than they used to be, with audiences more hesitant to go to theaters than before the pandemic--more skeptical of the idea that they have to go and see this sequel/prequel/reboot/remake "just because it's there," instead waiting to hear that the film is actually worth their time from others, preferably others they know instead of ever-ready-for-hire claqueurs of the entertainment media. (Thus would it seem to have gone with Guardians of the Galaxy 3, for example.) So I thought I would wait and see what the second, holiday, weekend had in store for the movie.

As it happens, the Hunger Games prequel would seem to have held up a bit better than expected this weekend--the movie pulling in $28 million over the three-day Friday-to-Sunday period and $41 million over the five-day Wednesday-to-Sunday period, lifting the total domestic gross to $97 million (against the $82 million Boxoffice Pro projected on the basis of its expectation of a steeper drop). This is far from enough to make it a blockbuster on the scale of its predecessors--but, should its legs hold up the movie may at least eke out a domestic gross north of $150 million on that basis, at least keeping it from being a major money-loser, and maybe better than that on the basis of a healthy international response (which is certainly better than a good many anticipated for it).

Captain Marvel 2's Third Weekend Box Office Gross

Last week Boxoffice Pro predicted a relatively gentle drop in Captain Marvel 2's weekend gross after the collapse seen in the movie's second weekend--anticipating its taking in a bit over $6 million to raise its North American total to $77 million after seventeen days in relase.

As it happened, the unprepossessing prediction proved accurate. The result is that, if the film's chances of defying all it has against it (a divisive reaction to the first film, the Marvel Cinematic Universe's trend of declining grosses, the declining interest in superhero films and franchise films generally, the weak promotional campaign, the uncertain response to the Ms. Marvel show with which it is so strongly tied in, the bad buzz-encouraging delay and leaks about its budget, and eventually the lackluster reviews) to be a great commercial success were probably slight from the start, the chances of Captain Marvel 2 now going from flop to hit Elemental-style now seem negligible.*

Indeed, given how badly it is lagging the earlier film (with not quite $77 million grossed after seventeen days, when Captain Marvel 2 was just short of the $100 million mark) I no longer see any reason to expect Captain Marvel 2 to beat The Flash domestically, or globally either. What interests me now is whether the movie will manage to beat Aquaman 2 to escape the dishonorable distinction of being the lowest-grossing of the really big superhero releases of the year--a race that, given Aquaman 2's weak current prospects, Captain Marvel 2 might not necessarily lose.**

* The only real rival to The Flash here would be Indiana Jones 5.
** I count as the major releases the top-tier Marvel and DCEU movies--besides the three named here, Ant-Man 3 and Guardians of the Galaxy 3. (By contrast Shazam 2 and Blue Beetle, both of which Captain Marvel 2 has admittedly beat, would be lower-tier films.)

Will Any Movie Open Above $50 Million This Season?

Captain Marvel 2, reportedly the season's most anticipated film, opened earlier this month to just $47 million domestically--and then proved to have been very front-loaded indeed (falling 78 percent in its second weekend). The Hunger Games prequel, Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, in spite of some comparative optimism about its prospects, opened to a little less, while Boxoffice Pro projected an opening of $25-$35 million for Wonka, and $50 million is likewise well ahead of what either of this week's big releases, Napoleon or Wish, is expected to make in its first three days (even if Wish might get past that over the fuller five day weekend).

All of this seemed to leave Aquaman 2 (coming out Christmas week) Hollywood's last shot at a really big hit this season--but we have just learned that $50 million is well above even the high end of the range projected for its opening by the folks at Boxoffice Pro. The result is that I have no expectation of any movie opening before New Year's Day debuting to that much--and this holiday season, just like the first half of the summer season, coming off looking week next to their counterparts in 2022, underlining just how far Hollywood still remains from its pre-pandemic performance--all as 2024, with a release slate much like 2023's but weakened by the disruption of the year's strikes, promises the box office little relief.

Aquaman 2: Boxoffice Pro Posts its First Long-Range Forecast for the Film's Domestic Gross

Considering Aquaman 2 (aka Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom) I did wonder if the movie would not defy the trend of franchise failure. After all, the first Aquaman film was relatively well-received, this only the second film in the sequence (in contrast with characters of which the public had had time to grow more weary), and the trailer looked very credible (certainly a lot more exciting than the one for Captain Marvel 2). Still, the pattern of failure has been fairly consistent (underlined even by the only comparative success of Guardians of the Galaxy 3), the always more vulnerable DC Extended Universe has done very badly indeed this year (with Shazam 2, Blue Beetle and of course The Flash), while the fact that the DCEU is not so much building to a triumphant climax as being handled like a canceled TV show "burning off" its last unaired episodes. The result is that I tried not to be overly negative, but all the same, taking up the subject back in July it seemed to me necessary to allow for a scenario of collapse at the box office in which the film fell short of not just the billion-dollar barrier the first such movie broke, but $400 million globally.

Now Boxoffice Pro (just as it did with Captain Marvel 2 back in October) is affirming the anticipation of collapse with the publication of its first tracking data-based long-range forecast for the film, specifically an opening weekend take in the range of $32-$42 million (versus The Flash's $55 million and Captain Marvel 2's $47 million), and a domestic total range of $105-$168 million (such that at the low end it could take in less than The Flash). Compared with the first film the total gross would be about 60 to 75 percent less than the movie made in real terms ($335 million in 2018-2019, equaling $410 million in today's terms), a drop comparable to what Captain Marvel 2 suffered in comparison with the first Captain Marvel film.

Such figures make a very considerable worldwide multiplier necessary to turn a domestic performance like this one into a respectable, break even-approaching earner, and alas, in contrast with that other series that Aquaman star Jason Momoa appeared in this year, Fast and Furious, this series has little such hope. Fast X made four times its domestic gross internationally ($559 million to its $146 million in North America)--but superhero movies, a particularly American passion, tend not to do so well internationally, with the first Aquaman, which made about two-and-a-half times what it did domestically abroad, as good as it gets. Moreover, one should note that this was overwhelmingly due to a very strong response from China, which is very unlikely to be forthcoming this time given the reception of more recent American films there. The result is that Aquaman 2 would be doing well to make three times its domestic gross globally, which in even the most positive current scenario detailed by Boxoffice Pro would leave it a half billion at best, as much worse becomes imaginable (such that it could end up with a lot less than $400 million).

Of course, there is still a month to go before that movie actually hits theaters--but as The Flash and Captain Marvel 2 both showed, the movie's prospects could decay rather than improve, while, even if the faintness of the competition this year should seem a point in the movie's favor, it by no means guarantees its "cleaning up." The way the box office works these days the lack of appetizing alternatives on the menu does not mean that others will order up this one--and so for now the safest guess would seem to be the DCEU's last movie concluding the franchise's run with a whimper rather than a roar of triumph, with all that implies for the fantasy of a mighty new DCEU finally satisfying the WBD's longstanding Marvel envy, to say nothing of the superhero film, the franchise film, the blockbuster as we know it more broadly and the fate of a Hollywood which, battered by events beyond its control (like the pandemic, and the geopolitical turn hurting it in China) has also inflicted plenty of wounds on itself--while showing not the least sign of behaving more intelligently in the years ahead.

Captain Marvel 2 is Actually Doing Worse Than The Flash

Initially considering Captain Marvel 2 I treated it as a regular Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) release in a time of declining prospects for Marvel (with its sequels making 20-50 percent less than their predecessors in the same series), and calculated on that basis a likely gross of $600-$700 million for the film back in May. Many franchise flops and a disappointing promotional campaign later I suggested the movie would be the Marvel Cinematic Universe's equivalent of the debacle that The Flash has been for the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), with, of course, this promptly affirmed by the tracking data-based projections from the folks at Boxoffice Pro.

So far, however, Captain Marvel 2 has actually done worse than The Flash. The Flash had a bigger opening weekend ($55 million to Captain Marvel 2's $47 million five months later), and had a better first-to-second weekend hold (falling just 73 percent, as against 78 percent in Captain Marvel 2's case) that left it with one-third more money grossed ten days into its run ($88 million to Captain Marvel 2's $65 million). Moreover, Thanksgiving weekend is not expected to narrow the gap by much. Even with Boxoffice Pro anticipating a relatively mild second-to-third weekend drop of 33 percent for The Marvels, this still works out to $77 million for Captain Marvel 2 on Sunday, against the $99 million The Flash had at the same point in its run. That enabled The Flash to break the $100 million barrier the next day--whereas that barrier seems likely to remain well outside Captain Marvel 2's reach.

Moreover, the numbers are only part of the story. In comparing the two films it is worth noting that given the state of the DCEU the release of The Flash was, from the franchise standpoint, comparable to the airing of the last episodes of a TV series canceled for low ratings after being given many, many chances to do better--in contrast with a Marvel Cinematic Universe that, if far from its Phase Three peak, recently looked as robust as any franchise around, with Guardians of the Galaxy 3's reception, if not all that could have been hoped for, implying some life still left in it (the weak opening weekend compensated for by good holds suggestive of a real measure of welcome), and even raising hopes that a bit of the associated good will would translate over to the next MCU release. One may add that Captain Marvel 2 did not suffer anything like the scandal that hung over The Flash on account of the personal life of its star. The result is that its weaker performance occurred without quite so many of the liabilities that The Flash bore, bespeaking the public's either becoming much more sour on the kind of film this is in the past few months, a much stronger rejection of this particular movie on the basis of the kind of movie it seems to be (the goofier approach, etc.), or both.

Captain Marvel 2 Flies into its Third Weekend

With Napoleon and Wish coming out these are naturally the focus of the commentary of box office-watchers--but let us also not forget the major releases of prior weeks, like Captain Marvel 2. Thus far underperforming very, very badly (with a mere $65 million taken in its first ten days it was running about one-fourth behind The Flash and tending to slip) one may wonder if the holiday weekend will not provide the film some relief.*

As it happens, Boxoffice Pro projects the movie collecting another $12 million over the week, likely helped by the holiday weekend.

Of course, past projections for the film have proven overoptimistic (as with last weekend's)--and so could this one. Yet the fact remains that the film does not have much way to fall, while the competition this weekend (given what we are hearing about the expectations for Napoleon and Wish, and holdovers like the Hunger Games prequel and Trolls 3) does not seem overwhelming. Rather the problem is that the film could do a good deal better than that and still have a very long way to go before rising above the "flop" status the press has accorded it.

* At the same point in its run The Flash, which had opened bigger and had a better first-to-second weekend hold had $88 million grossed domestically (one-third more than Captain Marvel 2).

Wish Hits Theaters: What Can We Expect?

This Thanksgiving weekend sees two big new movies hitting theaters. One is Ridley Scott's Napoleon. The other is Disney's Wish.

An "event" film marking the 100th anniversary of the Disney studio and its tradition of animated filmmaking, one might ordinarily expect the film to be a massive hit--but the picture we got a month ago was more ambiguous. And the range has slipped. Where even a week ago Boxoffice Pro suggested a range of $40-$60 million for the 3-day weekend, and $57-$87 million for the 5-day, now their range has $44 million as good as it gets for the 3-day period ($35-44 million), $66 million as good as it gets for the 5-day ($49-$66 million). The floor has not dropped much, but the ceiling has, with all that implies for the prospects of a near-$300 million gross that Boxoffice Pro has raised, and continued to entertain in its longer-range estimates down to last week. Good holds might partially compensate for this, but these are of course no sure thing--the more in as the critics have not been kind to this one. (Their score on Rotten Tomatoes is just 51 percent.)

Still, it is now the audience's turn to judge the movie for itself, and we will see what they decide in the weeks ahead.

"Can Napoleon Be Another Oppenheimer?": A Follow-Up

As I remarked in a post last month seeing the ads for Napoleon I found myself thinking of Oppenheimer--both films being biographical epics about major historical figures, a genre not known to do too well at the American box office. Oppenheimer surprised everyone on that score--and I wondered whether Napoleon might not do the same.

I saw two reasons to doubt it right away--namely that whereas Napoleon helmer Ridley Scott is a respected, veteran, director, he has no cheering section out there ready to praise to the skies anything he does the way Oppenheimer director Christopher Nolan does, which probably did a lot to help sell the movie; while if the story of Napoleon and the events of his time have undeniable meaning for the world today, there seemed little playing up of any such "relevance" in the media next to the way they compared the advent of the nuclear age to the unhinged hyping of text-spitting chatbots when talking about Nolan's film.

As it happened, the Boxoffice Pro projections for the movie, in spite of fluctuations over the past month, remain pretty much where they were four weeks ago (with a 3-day opening in the vicinity of $16-$21 merely risen to one of $17-$23 million, and even the high end of the range projected for the film's overall run still in the $70-$80 million range). Meanwhile critics are not exactly gushing about the movie, the film's Rotten Tomatoes score a mere 68 percent. By contrast the projection for Oppenheimer, reflecting the tracking data, surged some 30 percent in the month before release, from $40-$55 million to $52-$72 million in the opening weekend alone--a feat the more impressive because it came out the same weekend as the even more performing #1 hit of the year, Barbie--while critical enthusiasm was such as to produce a 93 percent score (with some of that praise won in surprising places, I might add).

Of course, with the film only coming out now it has some room to surprise us--but that room is dwindling fast, domestically at least. (The international markets, traditionally more receptive to historical films like this one, may be another matter.)