Posts by Mark Gray3

To make sure we don't get lost in the weeds of all the different random threads on Reddit, I'm starting this master thread where we can just talk shop about upcoming movies—stuff that's being filmed, already out, or has at least dropped a first teaser.

Basically, feel free to drop trailer links, geek out over what you're hyped for, or just vent about what looks good (or bad).

We can even track things year by year, moving from one thread to the next, to see which upcoming releases actually end up grabbing everyone's attention.

And since I didn't want this to be a totally empty post, here’s the trailer for Oppenheimer.


There's still 7 months to go before it hits theaters, but we can already start chatting about everything else—it doesn't have to be just deep dives into the plot or heavy criticism.

Go ahead, drop your trailers and let's hear what you think.

Exactly. Honestly, they should be teaching this movie in film schools as a masterclass in how *not* to write a screenplay. From the dialogue to the scene development, everything is just... off. It’s all too blunt, too superficial, and the way information is shoved in the viewer's face feels incredibly forced and unnatural. It’s a mess. On top of that, the plot holes are just left wide open without even a single attempt to patch them up. I haven't seen a script this poorly handled in a long time.

Shymalan is basically becoming the next Uwe Boll. The guy somehow manages to semi-self-fund his projects, cranking out stuff like this with a cast that isn't even totally anonymous, all on an $18 million budget. Obviously, he's gonna walk away with the cash regardless of how the movie actually turns out, which just helps him bankroll whatever he does next.

Anyway, quick question about a specific detail in the movie. If anyone else caught it, because I totally missed it.

When the characters try to cross the canyon, they pass out—if I'm reading the scene right. But whenever that happens, the direction shows everyone waking up lying on the beach. It never actually shows them getting from the canyon to the shore. Or maybe I'm just blind. Did anyone catch a moment where the movie implies how their unconscious bodies actually make it from the canyon down to the beach?

Let’s be real: movie budgets are mostly just smoke and mirrors. Sometimes they're intentionally inflated—streamers pull that stunt all the time enough to make you dizzy.
And even when they aren't fake, looking at one single budget number tells you absolutely nothing about where the money actually went.
But look, we can use The Village as a case study. It’s an older flick from over 16 years ago, and back then, a detailed breakdown actually leaked out.
So, we’re talking a $71 million budget. For 2004, that was some serious cash—a solid mid-budget production.
$7 million went straight to the story rights.
$400k for the script.
$6.5 million for the producer.
Half a mil for the director.
$14 million for the cast.
$4.5 million for stunts, locations, and keeping the big shots fed.

$29 million just for the actual shoot (sets, transport, locations, gear rental, lodging, catering for the crew, etc.).
$8 million for post-production (editing, VFX, sound, subtitles, final print, etc.).

Plus another little bit under a million for insurance, promo stuff, and miscellaneous junk.

Since then, costs have gone totally nuclear. Nowadays, Hollywood considers a $100 million movie to be "mid-budget."
But here’s the kicker: those technical costs handled by the crews? They haven't spiked nearly as much. Maybe just adjusted for inflation. But the cost of rights and the massive paychecks for the A-listers? That has skyrocketed.
So, just because a movie hits the $100 million mark today doesn't mean you're actually going to see anything special on screen.
Take Netflix movies, for example. They love to brag about having $100 million-plus productions. Then you watch something like Bright or 5 Underground and realize probably half that money vanished into the pockets of big names. You look at the actual movie and can't even tell where all that cash went.

It probably isn't the absolute worst thing ever made, but man, it's weak. Honestly, the movie just feels empty. It’s totally inconsequential. It actually makes me wonder what the writer was even trying to pull off here.
I mean, sure, there are a few details and concepts that work fine on their own—mostly stuff involving George Clooney's character, his backstory, and how those emotions bubble up now—but in the grand scheme of things, it’s pretty irrelevant. The movie ends up feeling way less than the sum of its parts.

Maybe Netflix really needs to start filtering their productions a bit more instead of just throwing money at projects and greenlighting everything just because some big name wants to make a movie. Then again, you can tell from this one that the production felt cheap; they clearly cut corners on everything from the locations to the sets...

The movie feels a little too self-indulgent for its own good. It’s solid enough by the end, but I got the vibe it was mostly made just to see if they could pull off that old-school cinematic feel. And yeah, they totally nailed it—technically, it’s spot on. It isn't just the lighting or the direction; even the script and the dialogue have that period-accurate flavor. Everything hits the mark there. It’s a smooth ride, too; the pacing stays tight without much filler, which keeps things interesting. But honestly? It feels a bit hollow. Plus, the fact that it plays fast and loose with actual history—giving it a biased spin that isn't exactly accurate—doesn't really help the overall experience.

Anyone know which channel is airing the Golden Globes tonight around here?

Honestly, the movie felt pretty mid to me. There are definitely some bright spots—the makeup was solid, the casting worked, and the acting was on point—plus a few decent jokes here and there. But overall? It just felt thin. The subject matter they were trying to tackle didn't feel big enough to carry a full feature like this. You could’ve easily turned the core story into a tight 60-minute documentary that would've hit way harder without all the filler. Plus, it felt a bit too much like propaganda. Like, okay, the thesis is "Dick did this and that," but then what? The script didn't really do the heavy lifting to make that argument stick. I'm not saying it wasn't true, but if you're making a film like this, the whole thing relies on being truthful. If you start stretching the truth or pushing an agenda too hard, the whole concept falls apart. And honestly, it's nearly impossible to tell when the movie is just making stuff up or mocking people versus when it's actually shedding light on something the public doesn't know.

Personally, I'm really hoping McKay doesn't take that same chaotic, messy approach with his next project, Bad Blood, about that Holmes woman who scammed everyone with her company, Theranos.

It’s such a bummer when they opt for cheap production values that force a movie into this strict horror box. Honestly, I would’ve been way more into seeing an evil Superman played out as an action drama instead of leaning so hard into the horror tropes. I was picturing something with the vibe of Chronicle, just with a massive Hollywood budget behind it.

Bale's makeup is honestly one of the best I've seen in cinema. I absolutely loved The Big Short, so I'm secretly hoping this turns out just as good. That said, I don't think this movie would work with that pseudo-documentary vibe, especially if they try to play it for laughs like Adam McKay did in The Big Short. Having Steve Carell playing Rumsfeld might actually be overkill... Sam Rockwell seems totally solid as G. W. B. based on the trailer, though (regardless of how much of a disaster Bush actually was)

northerncobra31 said:Honestly, this was just plain dumb and poorly made. Ayer really let me down here.

How does Ayer even have the nerve to disappoint anyone after how bad Fury and Suicide Squad were?

This doesn't happen often—apparently, Christopher Plummer is stepping in to take over Getty's role from Kevin Spacey. They’re going to have to reshoot all the necessary scenes from scratch, effectively kicking Kevin out of the movie entirely. (They might just simplify some scenes or find other ways to fix it.) All this is happening after the film was basically finished and was originally scheduled to hit theaters in just a month and a half. Theoretically, they might still make the deadline since Spacey's role was supposedly pretty minor, with him only being on set for about 10 days.

Based on anything we know from history, can anyone guess when we might actually see some AM4 motherboards hitting the shelves here for around $100?

My bad, I totally misread that Ruble vs. Yuan chart. So we're good there—it actually dropped against all three currencies.
But I’ve still got this hypothetical stuck in my head: is it actually possible for Currency A to strengthen against B, then B gains on C, while C somehow ends up stronger than A? Since currencies aren't hard-linked, theory says it should work. But would that ever actually play out in the real world? And if it does, what's the logic behind it?

So, practically speaking, if anyone actually knows how this works, hit me with an answer:

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/RUB-...e-history.html

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/USD-...e-history.html

http://www.exchangerates.org.uk/USD-...e-history.html

If I'm reading these charts right, the Dollar is getting stronger against the Ruble, the Ruble is gaining on the Yuan, and the Yuan is strengthening against the Dollar.

If that’s actually what's happening, I'm stumped—why? How can A be stronger than B, B be stronger than C, and C be stronger than A all at once?