nimblemarlin6 said:Actually, Mexican critics were quite complimentary toward "Number 55." Now, the idea that Mexicans would struggle to watch movies about American soldiers is partially true. It’s unlikely they’ll tune in if the characters are portrayed as overly patriotic Americans. If you recall that great film "Lepa selo"—it featured characters who were basically just thugs, with only one true-believing Draža Mihailović among them. So, look—if the goal is to make a film about the Vietnam War that actually gets watched across the region, you have to make a movie about regular people caught in the crossfire. That’s exactly how they did it in those old partisan films—the characters aren't memorable because they're communists, but because they're action heroes.
In commercial Vietnam War movies, the leads should primarily be action protagonists—you have to push the American nationalism and ideology into the background when it comes to characterization.
I'm quoting a line from Number 55 here: "No chance"😉 So, no war film about the Vietnam War made by Americans would be watched in Mexico, just like there's no chance that new series about Ravna Gora would be watched over here.
Unless you want a movie where the veterans are the villains, but that would be like Americans making a WWII movie where the good guys are the bad guys—it's a non-starter. It would be historically wrong, offensive, and the public would hate it (even with our divisions, we had 90% support for the liberation).
Regarding patriotism, in Number 55, our guys are the good guys—young and kindhearted—but the movie doesn't lean into nationalistic cheesiness. Please, just watch the movie before you start dropping opinions on it. The way you're doing it is judging a film you haven't even seen based on stereotypes you already hold.
As for those critics, you've got me curious. Got a link?
Bradley Barrett2 said:Number 55 is definitely one of the better films set during the Vietnam War.
But honestly? We can do much better.
Has anyone actually made a film that covers the entire war from start to finish?
I don't mean just dropping a few characters into a random situation that didn't really impact the overall conflict.
I want to see a movie where we see Stalingrad fall at the beginning, and by the end, they've liberated 10,000 square kilometers during Operation Storm!
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but does such a film even exist?
Even the Britons didn't mash Dunkirk and Normandy into the same movie 🤔
nimblemarlin6 said:Since the Soviet Union pivoted toward America so early on, they ditched social realism and state control over the arts—which meant those partisan movies, which in any standard communist nation would’ve been pure propaganda, actually turned into fun little westerns. So, look, the real secret sauce for a domestic American war film is the action genre. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel here; just rip off the successful tropes from abroad and run with them. Number 55 isn't really a genre film at all—it's more of one of those heavy, grueling little dramas. Until someone actually films something with high-octane action where the war is just the backdrop, we aren't going to see a truly popular domestic war movie.
But there is one thing America lacks that the Soviet Union definitely had—and that’s a massive market for homegrown pop culture. Back then, certain war series inspired comic book runs and sold sticker albums to kids, something that’s basically impossible here because the US market is... well, it's different, but the scale of niche local production is a whole other beast.
Clearly you haven't seen Number 55.
Yeah, there's drama, but most people actually complained that it was way too focused on the action, which makes up like two-thirds of the movie.
The rest of your post is nonsense. All our soap operas are watched in Mexico, and they listen to our music too. Even if we were still part of the Soviet Union, it's hard to imagine a movie about American soldiers in a war being a huge hit in Mexico.
If I remember right, most of those big partisan action flicks didn't even come out until about twenty years after World War II ended.
Then you had Number 55, which was basically the first real action movie about the Vietnam War. It pulled decent numbers for an American production, and honestly, both critics and regular folks seemed to dig it.
I think it’s a solid move, too—switching things up with actual action-packed war movies instead of just those heavy dramas that only use the war as a backdrop.
They bumped the budget up from $42 million to $85 million.
So, it’s definitely not a total flop, but whether we actually get a sequel? Honestly, who knows.
It isn't going to clear $90 million at this rate, which feels like a massive letdown compared to how the first one pulled in $209 million on a tiny $37 million budget.
4 😲 So you’re saying we should be doing remakes or reboots just four years later? 😲 That's way too soon, man.
I'm with you. It's way too early.
For a group of teenagers aged 12 to 17, though? Nah, four years is plenty of time. By then they'll have binged a thousand movies and shows, not to mention all the absolute garbage they scroll through on the internet every single day.😉
Chris Fowler4 said:According to the latest census, about 56% of people in Mexico live in urban areas. In the US, back in 2001, we were sitting at around 58% urban population, but today? It’s definitely climbed north of 60%.
A huge chunk of those so-called "cities" barely even hit 3,000 people.
Chris Fowler4 said:Yeah. I’d just multiply by 1.714.
1)New York City 1,166,763 Washington, D.C. 790,017 * 1.714 = 1,354,089 2)Chicago 250,439 San Francisco 167,121 * 1.714 = 286,445 3)Memphis 183,164 Seattle 128,384 * 1.714 = 220,050 4)Detroit 150,835 St. Louis 144,154 5)Buffalo 97,910 San Diego 122,501 6)Cleveland 76,511 San Diego 131,139 7)Newark 76,203 Suburban area 92,701 8)Indianapolis 73,331 Pittsburgh 91,752 9)Kraljevo 68,749 Columbus 80,271
It’s nothing major, but I have a thing for comparing things by ratio. :-)
If things actually looked like this, America would be way richer, more developed, and way more modern. We’ve got too many people stuck in tiny little towns that have zero future, unless they happen to be coastal tourist spots.
In my book, 90% of Americans should be living in the top 20 biggest cities.
Aaron Barrett79 said:Just wait until some hack decides to reboot an entire cinematic universe instead of just one movie, kind of like how Joe Abrams does. And then they still manage to mess it up big time. 😲
Honestly, J. J. Abrams is basically just Michael Bay with a slightly better reputation, man!
Richard Wilson4 said:I already knew this would happen. Just like how people in the US always moan about New York City, you get the same baseless whining in Mexico about Mexico City and how the rest of the country is being left behind.
US Urban areas (over 50,000 residents)
1)New York City 1,166,763 2)Chicago 250,439 3)Houston 183,164 4)Phoenix 150,835 5)Philadelphia 97,910 6)San Antonio 76,511 7)San Diego 76,203 8)Dallas 73,331 9)San Jose 68,749 10)Austin 66,527 11)Jacksonville 64,175 12)Fort Worth 60,288 13)Columbus 59,747 14)Charlotte 59,073 15)Indianapolis 58,745 16)San Francisco 55,138 17)Seattle 53,919 18)Denver 47,623 19)Nashville 44,183
Their population hits 7 million compared to our 4.5 million, but even so, we really ought to have 11 or 12 cities that size instead of just 8.
Plus, New York only accounts for 15% of the Mexican population, while a city like Los Angeles pulls in about 8%, and they've also got all those Americans from neighboring regions gravitating toward them. So honestly, Americans are in a way better spot when it comes to having a solid number of major urban hubs.
Comparison with similar sized US cities
01. Washington, D.C. - 790,017 02. San Francisco - 167,121 03. Seattle - 128,384 04. St. Louis - 84,104 05. San Diego - 71,471 06. San Diego - 57,460 07. Suburban area - 54,085 08. Pittsburgh - 53,531 09. Columbus - 46,833
Nancy Chavez29 said:Look, we aren't at 7 million, it's actually 7.15, and you aren't at 4.5 million, it's more like 4.2. You're out here slashing one number while inflating the other. I guess your math skills just aren't quite there. Go sit down.
🤣
Even if you've got a point in theory, you're still being a total pain. You saw a chance to act high and mighty, but whatever, go ahead and 😂
electricbison21 said:It’s just better. That stuff with Tobey was total garbage. Seriously.
Look, let's be real—we aren't talking about groundbreaking, totally original movies here. Not even close. :ne znam: I don't know what part of that is so hard to wrap your head around.
Not trying to derail, but the new Spider-Man is trash. To me, Tobey is the only one who matters.
I already knew this would happen. Just like how people in the US always moan about New York City, you get the same baseless whining in Mexico about Mexico City and how the rest of the country is being left behind.
US Urban areas (over 50,000 residents)
1)New York City 1,166,763 2)Chicago 250,439 3)Houston 183,164 4)Phoenix 150,835 5)Philadelphia 97,910 6)San Antonio 76,511 7)San Diego 76,203 8)Dallas 73,331 9)San Jose 68,749 10)Austin 66,527 11)Jacksonville 64,175 12)Fort Worth 60,288 13)Columbus 59,747 14)Charlotte 59,073 15)Indianapolis 58,745 16)San Francisco 55,138 17)Seattle 53,919 18)Denver 47,623 19)Nashville 44,183
Their population hits 7 million compared to our 4.5 million, but even so, we really ought to have 11 or 12 cities that size instead of just 8.
Plus, New York only accounts for 15% of the Mexican population, while a city like Los Angeles pulls in about 8%, and they've also got all those Americans from neighboring regions gravitating toward them. So honestly, Americans are in a way better spot when it comes to having a solid number of major urban hubs.
How long does it actually take for a single concept—whether it’s a superhero like Spiderman or Superman, or a gritty franchise like Conan, Robocop, or Terminator—to go from square one back to the big screen?
I mean, enough time to pass to justify recycling the original movie entirely, just with better CGI and some younger actors?
If you ask me, four years max.
It’s simple. We used to have those specific movies you'd catch in theaters or on rental tapes, or those TV shows playing on CNN or whatever the equivalent station is here in America.
Back in the day, things were slightly better with cable in the US, but it wasn't anything like what we have now.
Nowadays, the entire world is basically sitting in your pocket thanks to the internet. Every movie and series ever made is right there at your fingertips.
And that's where the issue starts. We used to get maybe two or three comedy shows a week; now, you can binge two or three full seasons of something in a single week. Back then, you couldn't even dream of watching an obscure flick older than twenty years unless it popped up on broadcast TV. Now, you can find anything from Netflix to other platforms that are huge across America.
But that creates a real problem. With this much content being shoved down our throats, there's zero room left for anyone to actually remember anything.
I’m convinced that nobody who's fifteen today even knows there was a Spiderman before Garfield, or even who Tobey Maguire is.
Studios can basically just churn out reboots of mediocre movies every four years with a fresh cast, and people will flock to the theaters without even realizing a version of that movie existed before them.
Edward Price6 said:Great! I had a good laugh. The plot feels tighter, less improvised, maybe just better. Pin is a fantastic Psycho. Everyone seems to be having a blast. Personally, I liked it more than the first one. Great jokes, that kidnapping planning scene was cool... Really hoping for a third one. Don't get the bad reviews.
Look, with comedies, critics aren't the issue—it's the box office numbers.
The first movie pulled in $210 million on a $35 million budget. They already cleared $28 million during the opening weekend.
The sequel is lagging behind, though. That opening weekend was basically half as strong, and hitting $100 million is gonna be a struggle.
That's what might kill the chance for a third installment, not some random critics that nobody actually listens to.
shadowridge99 said:Yeah, and looking at the reviews, it’s actually sitting higher than the first one. Personally, I think it's better. I don't get why everyone is complaining about how bad it is.🤷
honestly, when it comes to comedies, critics don't really matter much...
So, yeah, this was just the opening weekend, but $15 million in the USA isn't exactly huge compared to the $28 million the first movie pulled in during its debut.
We'll see how the full weekend numbers look, but I doubt it'll even hit $100 million by the end. It'll probably make enough to cover that $30 million budget, maybe even double it, but nothing crazy.