UMO1982

JUDY BOMBS

166 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

Also My Weekend with Marilyn with Michelle Williams?

Well, Marilyn wasn't "aging", "declining career", or wistfully "near the end" during Prince & the Showgirl--Now, if it'd been on the filming of "The Misfits", it'd have Fox Searchlight written all over it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variety stated the film's audience is more than 60% women over 35. So the film is HAG BAIT.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, UMO1982 said:

Variety stated the film's audience is more than 60% women over 35. So the film is HAG BAIT.

It was my understanding only women over the age of 46 years and 3 months are hags.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Are you making that stupid "Huge box office equals a good movie" mistake?  This seems to be one of those that requires individual viewing before any determination can be made.  And that will be confusing as people(by theory) have individual perspectives, but sadly it seems too many people predetermine a movie's quality based on which "word of mouth" they're exposed to, or which movie critics they allow to make up their minds for them.

Why would people want to go and see a movie about the final few weeks of a career when they have the real movies of her best times to watch? If you were an amazing artist would you want this movie made about you?

In 1969, famous singer and actress Judy Garland arrives in London for a five-week run of sell-out concerts while struggling to come to terms with depression, alcoholism and substance abuse.

Let the great artists go in peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MovieMadness said:

 If you were an amazing artist would you want this movie made about you?

In 1969, 1963 famous singer and actress Judy Garland arrives in London for a five-week run of sell-out concerts while struggling to come to terms with depression, alcoholism and substance abuse.

 

thing is, this movie WAS MADE, and GARLAND starred in it AS HERSELF, it was called I COULD GO ON SINGING (and why she didn't get a nomination is BEYOND ME because 1963 was a weak year for lead actresses and her scene with DIRK BOGARDE when she says 'I SING FOR ME' is REAL.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Perhaps then I'm the villain for clicking the LOL emoji? It's removed.

You're a gentleman and a scholar and I think most of us know it. Anyway, now the new trigger word seems to be "hag". I'll let others go to bat on that one.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MovieMadness said:

Why would people want to go and see a movie about the final few weeks of a career when they have the real movies of her best times to watch? If you were an amazing artist would you want this movie made about you?

In 1969, famous singer and actress Judy Garland arrives in London for a five-week run of sell-out concerts while struggling to come to terms with depression, alcoholism and substance abuse.

Let the great artists go in peace.

So you're calling for suppression of content?    That out of respect for great artist to 'go in peace' movies shouldn't be made about negative aspects of their lives? 

So no films about Michael Jackson or Woody Allen?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DougieB said:

You're a gentleman and a scholar and I think most of us know it. Anyway, now the new trigger word seems to be "hag". I'll let others go to bat on that one.

I appreciate the compliment, but can that truly be applied to someone like me who just finished a movie called Ninja Zombie?

Yeah, I saw that "hag" comment and thought that it would go over real well. <_<

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NONONO.

If you want to lure and catch a standard North American Hag, you gotta use rubber warts or a can of FANCY FEAST for bait.

OSCAR-SNATCHY biopics starring faded supporting actresses are more of a Western, Reticulated Hag bait.

BUT NO MATTER WHAT, MAKE SURE YOU CHECK TO MAKE SURE HAGS ARE IN SEASON AND NOT MATING before baiting!!!!

(And I, for one, am all for Hag Catch and Release)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So you're calling for suppression of content?    That out of respect for great artist to 'go in peace' movies shouldn't be made about negative aspects of their lives? 

Those comments reminded me of a couple of (in my opinion) lesser music biopics from the last several years: Miles Ahead (2015) about Miles Davis, and Nina (2016), about Nina Simone. Both films focused only on difficult latter parts of their subjects lives, and were the worse for doing so, or so I felt. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been made, but I would rather see a more comprehensive film about the duo than those films provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MovieMadness said:

Why would people want to go and see a movie about the final few weeks of a career when they have the real movies of her best times to watch? If you were an amazing artist would you want this movie made about you?

In 1969, famous singer and actress Judy Garland arrives in London for a five-week run of sell-out concerts while struggling to come to terms with depression, alcoholism and substance abuse.

Let the great artists go in peace.

There's always been a rather morbid fascination for some with the decline of a great star or stars that are just self destructive: Jeanne Eagles, Too Much Too Soon (Diana Barrymore, a wouldbe star, but also touching on John Barrymore, as well), Robin Hood's Last Days (Errol Flynn) to name just three.

Bela Lugosi is a far more interesting character to read about (or see, in the film Ed Wood) than Boris Karloff because Lugosi was the one with drug problems and dramatic career decline while Karloff had a fairly stable life and, shall we say, a gentler career decline.

Judy is hardly cutting new territory in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UMO1982 said:

Variety stated the film's audience is more than 60% women over 35. So the film is HAG BAIT.

At least that clears up the mystery of why UMO was so eager to post the screaming-headline box-office update, and not a certain other week-to-week Oscar-obsessed poster who might think it was the end of the world...

1 hour ago, DougieB said:

Anyway, now the new trigger word seems to be "hag". I'll let others go to bat on that one.

So, I'm not up on the lingo:  What offensive, contemptuously-dismissive passive-aggressive terms are straight guys supposed to use as a bigoted personal-issue social coverall term when we don't want to go see buff males in the new Rambo movie?
(Well, you know we're all sitting there thinking "Eww, somebody drown Stallone in his own sweat; die, beefsteak, die!...They should have made the whole movie about his hot daughter, I'd shoot a cartel for her, any day!"  😉 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are 35+ year old men called? Geezers?

no right. They’re probably called “distinguished” or “mature.”

Sincerely,

A 35-year old “hag”

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 9:16 AM, UMO1982 said:

Zellweger's preening biopic opened Friday. Estimates called for $1.3 to $1.4M but it made only $900K, less then 70% of best guesses.

You really should clarify your posts. It only opened on 461 screens. And per screen average, it was second for the weekend. Hardly a bomb.

(I couldn't get the screenshot to work)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Those comments reminded me of a couple of (in my opinion) lesser music biopics from the last several years: Miles Ahead (2015) about Miles Davis, and Nina (2016), about Nina Simone. Both films focused only on difficult latter parts of their subjects lives, and were the worse for doing so, or so I felt. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been made, but I would rather see a more comprehensive film about the duo than those films provided.

A bio film that focused only on the difficult latter parts of a person's live would be less interesting to me.   I kind of hinted at this when I said in my initial post that Judy wasn't a 'fun' film.     Yea,  I also would rather see a more comprehensive film.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

A bio film that focused only on the difficult latter parts of a person's live would be less interesting to me.   I kind of hinted at this when I said in my initial post that Judy wasn't a 'fun' film.     Yea,  I also would rather see a more comprehensive film.  

Would an Elvis biopic be interesting if it was JUST about a fat Las Vegas guy in tight pants eating peanut butter sandwiches and shooting TV sets?

(Although there is actually an interesting backstory to that incident that makes complete sense, which might make a revealing scene in such a movie--Just not a particularly fun or groundbreaking one, and fruit so low-hanging it's practically trampled on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Would an Elvis biopic be interesting if it was JUST about a fat Las Vegas guy in tight pants eating peanut butter sandwiches and shooting TV sets?

(Although there is actually an interesting backstory to that incident that makes complete sense, which might make a revealing scene in such a movie--Just not a particularly fun or groundbreaking one, and fruit so low-hanging it's practically trampled on.)

It seems the popular trend is to dump on successful people and emphasize their bad moments. I guess it makes some people feel better to see others down on their luck.

If that film were made, people would watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EricJ said:

JUST about a fat Las Vegas guy in tight pants eating peanut butter sandwiches

Correction: Fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 3:48 PM, Princess of Tap said:

 

Feyda, who's your favorite singer?

I listen mostly to classical music, so I don't have a favorite singer.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Why would people want to go and see a movie about the final few weeks of a career when they have the real movies of her best times to watch?

It'll never get made because too many of the principals are still around to sue, but I think quite a few movie buffs around here would be intrigued by a movie about the death of Natalie Wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had done this dreck about Whitney Houston, I think there would have been quite a backlash. But this movie will go off into the sunset and be forgotten, rather quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fedya said:

It'll never get made because too many of the principals are still around to sue, but I think quite a few movie buffs around here would be intrigued by a movie about the death of Natalie Wood.

The principals in such a case wouldn't be allowed to go forward if the film was made in CA,  due to the special law CA has that protects film makers.

This is the same law Olivia DeHavilland tried to challenge and where she lost suing the producers of Feud (the Joan and Bette AMC special.     Olivia's case did go forward due to a Judge being sympathetic to a over 100 year old women,  but the next level Judge dismissed the case saying it should have never gone forward due to the existing CA law.   

As long as any dirt is based on a factual basis one can't sue over such dirt.    Note the leeway given with factual basis;  This was at the center of the DeHavilland case;   The Feud script had Olivia calling her sister Joan the b-word.   Olivia said she never called her sister that and never would have.   Since Olivia was on record for calling Joan other names (I believe the one mentioned by Feud lawyers was  dragon lady),   the Judge found that use of the b-word, even if never said, was close-enough to what Olivia had said about her sister to form a factual basis.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

The principals in such a case wouldn't be allowed to go forward in CA due to the special law they have that protects film makers.

This is the same law Olivia DeHavilland tried to challenge and where she lost suing the producers of Feud (the Joan and Bette AMC special.     Olivia's case did go forward due to a Judge being sympathetic to a over 100 year old women,  but the next level Judge dismissed the case saying it should have never gone forward due to the existing CA law.   

As long as any dirt is based on a factual basis one can't sue over such dirt.    Note the leeway given with factual basis;  This was at the center of the DeHavilland case;   The Feud script had Olivia calling her sister Joan the b-word.   Olivia said she never called her sister that and never would have.   Since Olivia was on record for calling Joan other names (I believe the one mentioned by Feud lawyers was  dragon lady),   the Judge found that use of the b-word, even if never said, was close-enough to what Olivia had said about her sister to form a factual basis.

 

Sadly only made about $4m. to date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us