- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
And looks objectively terrible compared to basically ANY major motion picture released this year (perhaps just short of the great film but terribly-lit “Rob Peace”).
I was flabbergasted that such horrifically flat lighting and incredibly dismal/uninspired camera work didn’t trigger any reshoots (particularly with the $150 million budget they had and, as a consequence, the equipment they had at their disposal.)
Maybe your theater didn’t illuminate it correctly? I saw it twice, both IMAX and non-IMAX and it looked incredible both times
There are articles with the cinematographer about how they deliberately made everything grey.
Bigger than “Grease”?
Grease (1978): $328 million
Wicked (2024): $634.3 million
Unadjusted for inflation, of course.
Adjusting for inflation shows this Wicked claim to be marketing bullshit.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1978?amount=1000000
When talking about box office grosses, Hollywood never adjusts for inflation unless specified otherwise.
As others have mentioned, this movie looked like
dogshit.
This is what happens when you give an inexperienced, low-budget DoP a 100 million project because of little more than gender.
Listen to her squirm: https://youtu.be/ZRL8NSOgOj8
