[deleted]
[deleted]
This is not for me! Not even on streaming.
shareI'm in my late 40s, and it doesn't appeal to me. I'll probably watch it streaming though.
share
MovieChat Forums > Elvis (2022) Discussion > [deleted]
LOL what are you talking about? it's done very well at the domestic box office and international box office.
shareNo it hasn't. That would be true if it were a smaller project, but big budget movies need to double or even triple their budget just to break even. It's been out for weeks and this hasn't even broke 160 million globally, and it had a production budget pushing 90 million. They will be lucky to make their money back.
shareOk idiot.
shareWhat a well thought out response, you've really contributed a lot to this discussion. You could have just said "I didn't know that", and saved yourself the embarrassment of looking like a stupid douchebag.
shareNo. It's because you're an idiot. It's holding well at the box office and is tracking to finish with 130-140 million domestic before international numbers.
So yeah. You're wrong and an idiot.
"is tracking to finish with 130-140 million domestic"
π€£ Holy shit, that's funny. You think it's still going to earn 50% of it's existing box of receipts. Lol, you sound like a real dumbass bro. Please, I beg you, leave this post up so you can rub it in my face when this hits 140 mil. domestic. π€£π
π
131.7 and counting. And already announced that it won't go to HBO Max as early as initially expected. So, who's been the real dumbass bro? Who should've just said "I didn't know that" when someone told you about how it's tracking? Who's been "owned" left and right on this subject? Who hid his half-baked admission in a reply to someone who wasn't even part of the debate?
sharethey left it up and you look like a jackass now
shareExcept I've already acknowledged that this had unexpected legs and that it has had a better box office performance than i expected, fuckface. But look at you late to the party trying to stir the pot with ignorance, and just looking like a douchebag instead. π€£
sharenot to anyone you laughed at. too embarrassed to acknowledge to them? now you're a wimp too haha. "unexpected" just means Burk was too dumb to look up the tracking back then. only unexpected to a jackass who doesn't know shit haha.
share"not to anyone you laughed at". I don't remember that being a prerequisite? Also, that guy was an asshole from the start, sort of like you, despite me being very civil in the beginning. I don't owe assholes a goddamn thing, thank you very much. And, you fucking retard, it was absolutely underperforming when i posted this, so there goes your fuckwit comment about being too stupid to look something up blowing up in your face, since that's clearly your own personal failing.
sharelook at the title. you said it BOMBED you idiot. not "soft opening" or underperforming you weaseled out to. where do u think tracking comes from moron? the UNEXPECTED?!? from know nothings like u?? and it's not a prerequisite only if you're such a wimp who cant say he was wrong to the right posters. now go wipe rest of the egg off your face haha.
shareYour initial premise was that no one is going to see it b/c of the age range, not how well it's doing against budget. For a cradle to grave biopic, it's doing just fine, and they are rarely smashes at the box office. Elton John fans are younger than Elvis fans, but "Elvis" will pass Rocketman's domestic gross in the next few days. And yes, it's been "out for weeks" if by weeks you mean only 2.
shareIt's been out for 3 weeks, one of which was a holiday weekend. At this point in most movies, the decline is so significant, the earnings are not adding much. And yes, your market (age group) needs to account for the budget, since you assume they will be the majority of ticket buyers. So yes, the box office results have a direct correlation on whether or not your appealing to the intended market.
shareIt's been out 18 days. Most don't describe that as "out for weeks" with a normal 90 day theatrical window. It's still in 3700+ theaters, and like every movie, it declines, but it's closer to the beginning of its run than the end. And on the intl side, it still hasn't opened yet in some markets. And it has hit its intended market, the adult alternative market, for those who don't care about the latest Marvel movie or Minions. Using your logic, Rocketman should make much more b/c it's target audience is younger, and his music still everywhere, but it didn't.
And like I said, this isn't an aberration from what biopics typically draw. With Luhrmann at the helm, and Oscar bait roles for both Butler and Hanks, this was a prestige, awards season play as much as anything -- like most biopics. Zero expectations for a huge haul from the start. Bohemian Rhapsody is a rarity.
https://www.billboard.com/lists/top-grossing-music-biopics-movies/love-mercy-2014/
You have to adjust for inflation, but we can do that when it's actually finished, when we'll have a final tally. But it will undoubtedly be closer to the top than the bottom.
It came out exactly 3 weeks ago tomorrow. It was released on the 23rd. It's had 3 weekends, which is when the majority of ticket sales take place. That is definitely considered "weeks". I'm not sure why your even challenging that? I do agree that most biopic aren't huge box office juggernauts, but they usually keep the budget around half of what this was. Bohemian Rhapsody is a good example. Of course, that was a huge box office draw, but it's the exception rather than the rule. They threw a ton of money at this, obviously they expected more. Breaking even isn't the goal. Incidentally, multiple entertainment outlets have recognized that this movie isn't doing that great, so it's not just my perception.
shareYou didn't have last night's numbers yet when you wrote the post about how much money it made so far. 18 days were in the books at the time, Thurs night (6/23) previews are counted as part of Friday's haul, as always.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Elvis-(2021)#tab=box-office
Since your post, Tues (day 19) numbers came in at another 2.2mil. So it will pass Rocketman tomorrow, and crack 100mil domestic before the weekend. And "isn't doing that great" sounds a bit softer than "Elvis movie bombed." The latter was your perception.
I didn't comment on time until today, which is 20 days (1 day short of 3 weeks). I'm not going to get drawn into the technicality of a single day with you, and you sound a little petty for pushing it. Regardless, This still needs roughly another 50 million, just to break even. I have serious doubts it will do that, ergo, it will have underperformed at the box office. Obviously time will tell, so we can pick this back up again in a couple weeks, because you are mistaken about theatrical runs lasting 90 days. It's usually 4 weeks these days, and only longer if it's overperforming. If it breaks 200 mil, I'll humbly admit my error.
shareAm I being petty? Or were you trying to imply that it had been out much longer that it was? But fair enough, who cares about a couple of days? But the implication is that it has used up it's juice already, whatever modest juice it had, right?
Check this out.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Elvis-(2021)#tab=box-office
See the shaded area of the graph? That's the legs spectrum. Lower you are, the worse the legs. Higher, better legs. But if that movie line falls out on either side, it means great legs (above), no legs (below). Elvis has been holding at the upper end of the shaded area, and now it's above it. Or another indicator is how many x its opening weekend haul has it reached. It made 31-32, so it's at 3x at about 3 weeks. To put it in context, Jurassic World made 145, but at 5 weeks, it's at less than 2.5x. No one would think Elvis is displaying better legs, but it has. The weekend drops have been only 41% and 39%. That's excellent.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Jurassic-World-Dominion-(2022)#tab=box-office
By contrast, this is what a bomb looks like. And also notice how quickly it gives up its number of screens to other films. Morbius gave up 800 at the same point Elvis has given up only 200.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Morbius-(2020)#tab=box-office
As far as your 4 weeks thing, even The Northman, a quasi-indie that went nowhere fast, was in theaters for 56 days. The Bad Guys got off to a slower start than Elvis, but it's at day 83 and counting. With covid being managed, and the box office working again, you have to do a lot worse than Elvis to be pulled that quickly. Things are getting back to normal now, and I'll buy you an internet beer if Elvis is gone after its 4th week.
I'm starting to think you're arguing just to argue, so you hang your hat on silly semantics. Neither the northman or bad guys are in any theaters within 80 miles of me, which would probably be about 50 theaters. They may still be at the drive in or 2 dollar theaters, but they aren't showing at most major movie theaters, as I'm sure you know. You could literally Google "how long do movies stay in theaters" and you'd see that they say 4 weeks almost in every instance, again, unless they are overperforming. It's also telling when someone ignores significant points that aren't in line with their point if few, which you've done. Let's just revisit this in a couple months and see if this made It's money back or not, which it hasn't yet.
shareI don't think you understand. Theatrical window doesn't mean it maintains its max screens from beginning to end. No film does that EVER. Are you saying less screens = no screens that contribute to box office totals?? That's not how it works now or ever. The traditional window was 90 days, it shrank to nothing during Covid, then it got bumped back up to 45 days, and now it's getting back to normal.
The Bad Guys has not "overperformed" at all. Elvis has already matched its domestic gross at 19 days vs 82 days for The Bad Guys. But it was still on 3788 screens at the moment you say films are pulled (4 weeks). Still on 2416 screens after ANOTHER 4 weeks. 28mil of its modest 96mil haul came AFTER 4 weeks. That's the return of the normal for a mainstream wide release before things went haywire, and theaters were down and out. You'll see it more and more.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Bad-Guys-The#tab=box-office
WB made an agreement in '21 with AMC for a 45-day "theatrical window" in '22. Is 45 days vs 28 days just "semantics" as well?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/warner-bros-commits-to-exclusive-theatrical-release-in-2022-in-new-amc-theatre-deal-1234995035/
Everything had contracted, but now it's opening back up. And "theatrical window" has never ever meant how many days it's in all or most theaters -- or days in a theater where you happen to live. You're confusing what you're reading about averages with the industry concept itself. Just like The Bad Guys kept selling tix after 4 wks, Elvis will be selling tix after 4 wks. So it's not me who's ignoring or playing semantics games. Elvis got a wide release, and it's holding in its lane. Nothing suggests it will be pulled, or its theater count suddenly dropped to nothing at the 4 wk "average" mark that you're referring to. It doesn't work that way.
Where I live there no drive-ins or $2 theaters, but I can see The Bad Guys tomorrow at 10am at an AMC. It plays b/c tix are still being sold here.
Now your talking 45 days instead of 90, but nice backpeddling.Also, the northman is no longer in theaters and The bad guys is only in a few hundred, which is insignificant compared to the 4-5 thousand theaters of a current film, althoughit allowsyou to be technically correct in this one aspect. You don't know as much as you think and you're grasping at straws to try to say you're right rather than be right. Keep defending your position, and I'll simply let the facts prove who is right in a months time. If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it. Are you?
shareDid you even read? I'm not back peddling, the 45-day agreement happened back in '21, (and it's a MINIMUM guarantee for AMC, not capped) before things improved further, as I already said, which you completely ignored. It's opening up, get it? Getting better, longer windows. You keep projecting as though I'm the slippery one, but it's actually you who don't address my points or the support I provided for those points.
You said it only lasts longer than 4 weeks when it over performs. The Bad Guys clearly didn't over perform.
Explain
3788 at 4 weeks
2944 at 6 weeks
2416 at 8 weeks
1033 at 10 weeks
Would you really describe The Bad Guys as being gone from theaters after 4 weeks?? 6?? 8?? All those screens don't generate box office receipts for the film?? They don't count as part of its run? This isn't a 90 day "theatrical window"? It's the quintessential 90-day theatrical window, that you thought only big hits got. And you skipped right to the final week of that window, but didn't say a thing about all those screens, for all those weeks after 4, and that more than 25% of its dom box office came AFTER 4 weeks. That's not "technically correct" it's just plain old correct.
And I'm all about the facts. It's you who from the get-go has been talking from what's obviously just a dull sense of all this stuff, where everything is just a bit worse than it actually is. And if you want a real example of back peddling, just look above at how "bombed" became "isn't doing that great" in a few minutes. Those two aren't the same.
And why a month's time??? You said tomorrow marks week 3 when you were trying to defend your "out for weeks" remark, right? So it should be gone in a week and a day, right? Don't we need to revisit that assertion first? To see it disappear from theaters across the US? After all, it's "usually 4 weeks these days", right? Strange you didn't mention 4 wks again in your last reply, huh? I wonder why.
I'll be here at day 29 for a screen count and b.o. update
[deleted]
It's day 29, Wk 5 begins now. It was still in 3,305 theaters last night, but according to you, it will now drop to 0. Whatever wishy-washy way you're crab walking away from "bombed" -- your point is that it's under performing, not OVER performing, not even doing ok -- so it can't possibly remain in theaters past 4 wks, right?
"It's usually 4 weeks these days, and only longer if it's overperforming."
And since you said this last week,
"It's been out for 3 weeks, one of which was a holiday weekend. At this point in most movies, the decline is so significant, the earnings are not adding much."
...it's made another 34mil, or 18% of its gross (191mil+). That's what legs mean, as I tried to explain to you with data. This movie wasn't as front loaded, or out as long, or already running on fumes, as you suggested. I also mentioned that "on the intl side, it still hasn't opened yet in some markets." but you probably didn't bother to read that either, or just plain ignored it. It had not yet opened in Latin America or South Korea, now it has. It opened in 3 more markets on 7/21.
You went off half-cocked, and exaggerated every aspect to the downside to make a point stick, but it didn't. And you've been projecting this whole time, since these...
"It's also telling when someone ignores significant points that aren't in line with their point"
"You don't know as much as you think..."
more accurately describe YOU. I was the facts guy here, and I supported all I said in detail. You just glanced at a sub-3-wk worldwide total and thought that you had it all pegged.
Now we'll see if you're "man enough" to "humbly" admit your errors, when it punches thru the 200mil goalpost you erected, by the worldwide update on Mon, if not sooner. But since you didn't answer to my last post, that dismantled your notion of some nonexistent 28-day theatrical window, where theater counts evaporate on day 29, I won't hold my breath.
The screen count dropped by only 200 theaters in its 5th week.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Elvis-(2021)#box-office
3,305 to 3,105
It opened at 3906. 3105/3906 = 79.5
So, in its 5th week, it's still in nearly 80% of the screens it opened at. How can that be?? Have the facts proven anything yet? No need to wait a month!
"If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it. Are you?"
Well? Or did you make another error? This one being about your level of manliness?
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Elvis-(2021)#tab=box-office
Added another 19mil, for a new total of 210mil already, after the worldwide update -- and it will still be selling tix tomorrow, and the next day, etc. That's another 53mil or 25% of its gross since you blathered on 11 days ago. That's all the time it took for you to be wrong about everything. No need to wait a couple of months, huh?
"If it breaks 200 mil, I'll humbly admit my error."
"I'll simply let the facts prove who is right in a months time. If I'm wrong, I'm man enough to admit it. Are you?"
Well?? I see you've been posting elsewhere, so I know you've been around. Anyone home? Or will you never turn up on the Elvis board again?
Burk is a Moron. Don't argue with a moron. Onlookers may confuse you and him.
shareI'm going to interject into the thread (loved reading it) and going to say I am so happy it's doing this well. I have seen it twice now and am itching for a 3rd. I found out my 20 year old cousin went to see it, which shocked me because I didn't take her as an Elvis fan until I realized I'm old and 40 and she's 20 and was going for Austin Butler, haha. We talked about how much she loved the movie and wants to see it again and so we are going to see it this week at some point. So that's two repeat viewers to add to those numbers. I can't remember the last film I've wanted to spend money on seeing multiple times. Definitely pre-pandemic. There's something mesmerizing about this film that gets you hooked. I didn't feel it the first time around but after the second I couldn't get the film or the music out of my head. So yea...the movie did NOT bomb, lol
shareI see you replying and admitting a mistake to others elsewhere, but strangely not to me? Gee, I wonder why.
And your take was never accurate, as you claimed below. There was no "turn around" after your OP -- but rather it kept holding like it already had been. The writing was already on the wall, with legs that were already apparent over a week before you declared it a bomb, and with no way in hell it was ever leaving theaters 10 days after your dumb pronouncement at day 18 of its run. Not to mention it had not even opened yet in some intl markets. Your claim was exaggerated to the downside from the start and obviously uninformed.
https://screenrant.com/elvis-movie-baz-luhrmann-box-office-second-weekend/
https://collider.com/elvis-movie-global-box-office-113-million/
So, I wasn't "grasping at straws" -- it's just you who couldn't grasp the facts I put in front of your eyes. You probably didn't even understand the concept of legs before I brought it up. And when you finally admit the gaffe, you first do it to someone who wasn't even part of the debate. Couldn't swallow your pride and man up with a reply to me -- or to any of the others who were part of the initial debate? Your inaccurate "bombed" got its own topic, but when you're wrong you sneak your admission into a reply to someone who was an agnostic 3rd party, lol.
That's what I thought. You have nothing. Never did.
shareI just joined an Elvis site as a new fan and 50% of its members are 19-29 years old age range.
shareElvis has grossed more than $251 million worldwide. In terms of global box-office, it's No. 2, just behind Bohemian Rhapsody, the Oscar-winning 2018 biopic of Queen's Freddie Mercury.
shareWhy would a "big budget" movie need to double or triple the budget to break even?
shareBecause the theaters take 50% of the box office sales, and the extremely rough rule of thumb is to assume 50% of production cost for marketing, which can approach $100 million on the biggest movies. Here is a fairly detailed article on it. It's pretty interesting.
https://www.slashgear.com/how-much-does-a-movie-need-to-be-profitable-25607407
It did absolutely fine for a moving that came out between 3 giant summer blockbuster films. Bio pics are never going to get Thor like numbers. But there are still many fans and I believe Austin Butler drew in and made new fans as well. Tik Tok is full of Elvis songs and younger people posting about it. Yes, I had some artistic problems with it, but I enjoyed it and will be seeing it again next week. It did absolutely fine.
It would be doing fine if it had a modest budget, but they sunk a fortune into it. It's estimated around 200 million with production and marketing, and it just broke 150 million. And for blockbuster budget,
150 million globally after 3 weeks isn't really that great. Another 50 million is unlikely, and breaking even is never the goal. Agreed, this will never compete with a superhero movie and the like, but they obviously assumed it would do better than it has.
https://www.thefilmik.com/is-elvis-hit-or-flop-hows-warner-bros-biopic-drama-performed-at-box-office/
What a moron, that's a clickbait site! It will make over 2X the budget of $85m. Then streaming revenue.
shareDon't be a douche, it's well known that big budget movies need 2-3 times their production budget to break even, the source doesn't matter, and facts are facts regardless if it's a "clickbait" site. Nobody factors streaming in, because they are pretty tight lipped about the numbers. Streaming has it's own production and advertising costs too, which don't get disclosed. And, incidentally, breaking even is not the way to make monet, so even if it doubles it's budget, that is an unsuccessful movie from a financial standpoint.
shareElvis has grossed more than $251 million worldwide. In terms of global box-office, it's No. 2, just behind Bohemian Rhapsody, the Oscar-winning 2018 biopic of Queen's Freddie Mercury.
shareYup, I've admitted multiple times that it came out of it's soft opening and has had very real legs. No doubt a weak summer movie lineup has helped, but it's done well regardless.
shareI'm 54 years old and was never an Elvis fan, my 82 year old mom lives with me and she is a very big Elvis fan. I took her to see the movie tonight and she loved it. The movie managed to keep my attention for its 2.5 hour run time and was entertaining but I will probably never watch it again.
shareI'll watch it streaming, but I can't say I'm excited to watch.
shareYet here you are trolling the boards. I don't even bother visiting boards of films I'm not interested in. You clearly do.
shareTrolling the boards? Jesus, people overuse that word to a pathetic degree. I just said I was planning on seeing it. How does that indicate I'm not interested? I'd suggest your decision to suppose my intentions towards this film is much more inline with trolling than me having a legitimate discussion about it's performance. Why do I suspect you lack the mental wherewithal to understand the irony of your actions?
shareMaybe you find it overused in reference to you? You're the one here trolling on a film you have yet to see. Why do I suspect you lack the mental wherewithal to understand the irony of your actions?
Lol, your preening and blatant display of ineptness is truly pathetic to behold troll.
I'm not sure of the box office numbers, but I wasn't interested in seeing this film mainly because Austin Butler projects more of a dweeby soyboy than King Elvis. Kurt Russell he ain't. With Tom Hanks involved I assumed it would be some lame new Hollywood woke-style exercise in revisionist reimagination. Frankly, I'm surprised they bothered at all with a music biopic of a subject who wasn't gay.
shareIt's turned itself around a bit since I wrote this.This movie has had unexpected legs and it looks like me and many initial reports are mistaken about it's performance. As far as this escaping the Hollywood standard of liberalism, Elvis did start fucking his eventual wife when she was just 14, and he was 24, so pedophilia acceptance still fits their agenda a little. Evidently, this movie avoids this topic.
shareIs there any actual proof that Elvis had sex with Priscilla when she was 14? I mean, has Priscilla come out and said that's what happened or anything of the sort?
Seriously? OK, I'll humor you. How long do you think they waited before having sex? Do you feel it's appropriate for a 24 year old to be romantically involved with a 14 year old, even if you believe penetration is happening for 3 years or so? Are you ok with any physicality, even kissing, because there are photos of that.
shareKissing is somewhat controversial, but not a crime, at least not in the eyes of the law.
Would I lose any sleep over it? "no" ...
Would I approve it every time I see it? "no"... but then again most people don't think two guys butt-slamming each other is a problem nowadays either.
I can understand why under 18 and over 18 is an issue that people just have problems with, so I don't know what to think about that. But the fact is, not very many guys would turn down a girl that looked like her.
Kissing is somewhat controversial, but not a crime, at least not in the eyes of the law.
I'd much prefer to live in a society that ostracizes and subjects to public humiliation anyone who "only" kisses children for whom they obviously have romantic feelings and intend to be with more intimately when they're of age. It's better than, for example, losing sleep over whether men can have babies or destroying the lives of people who refuse to use suddenly incorrect pronouns.
I suppose that depends on what you would consider a "child". I don't even think the law can really determine this either, at 18 you can die in a war but you can't buy an alcoholic beverage. You can drive a car at 15 and risk your life on the interstate but you can't sign a contract until you're 18. So, I don't know if anybody can really determine what's the "right age" for sexual activity.
In fact, the marriageable age laws haven't changed in decades. In a lot of states, someone that's under 18 can get married to someone that's over 18, as long as they have parental and/or judicial consent.
I wouldn't want to see a society where there's a bunch of 40 year olds dating 13 year olds. I certainly would not recommend that but then again there's quite a few sexual things I would not recommend and there's several I would consider downright depraved and much worse than just kissing someone that's underage.
But I'm probably a product of my own time, back then nobody really cared who people were sleeping with.
But I'm probably a product of my own time, back then nobody really cared who people were sleeping with.
I'd wager I'm approximately a product of your time as well. I like the older days when who's sleeping with who was used far less often as a political or social bludgeon (e.g. the recent news that Elon Musk banged Sergey Brin's ex wife). But I take a mostly uncompromising stance on anything hinting of pedophilia. I see enough attempts from academics and others to normalize an adult's sexual attraction to children. Combined with the covering up of crimes by Jeffrey Epstein and some of the appalling shows on Netflix like Bigmouth and Cuties, I'm more concerned about it than I was 25 years ago. Overall, I don't find too much tragedy in an adult having to wait a couple years before the 14 year old love of their life is of legal age.
A lot of people do draw the line at pedophile tendencies but I do think "pedophile" has become a buzz word to some extent. It shocks people and gives them some odd reason to look into sexual behavior they might not approve of, it's sensationalism at it's worst. The word doesn't even have it's original definition anymore. Now it's anyone over 18, that sleeps with someone under 18 is a pedophile. Even if that person is 19 and the other is 17, it's now considered pedophilia.
Now, that's not to say that there aren't any hardcore pedos out there that want to do serious harm to little kids, which people like this should be thrown in jail for a very long time, but do I really need to worry about some guy in his late teens or early 20s maybe even in his early 30s having a little summer fling with an underage girl? Probably not... I know I won't lose any sleep over it. I've seen it too many times to really care.
If you were once a teenager, then you know its common place for some of them to actually want to experiment with their sexuality with someone that's older than they are. It's really not that unusual.
I mean, this subject of discussion has been in our books, movies, TV shows, art etc.. for decades. But when it actually happens we panic like it's some kind of horrible thing. I still say there are sexual things that are way more screwed-up than just sexual attraction to a minor.
And speaking of TV shows, one TV show I watched recently on HBOMAX called 'Euphoria' touches on this topic. However, it makes old classic coming of age/teen comedy films like Fast Times At Ridgemont High and Porkys look like a Disney film in comparison. Its VERY graphic. I would almost be willing to give it an X-rating.
LOL. Academics? You mean the catholic church and Boy Scouts of America?
shareLOL. Academics? You mean the catholic church and Boy Scouts of America?
The BSA and the Catholic Church had representatives at some point who publicly stated that a sexual attraction to children should be viewed as perfectly natural? Who exactly was that? When and where?
No. Priscilla, to this day, still defends and loves Elvis. Even after everything they had been through. She has spoken about him for years and never admitted to anything like this, as far as I am aware of. She was never groomed, never forced into anything, and when she felt it was time to leave the marriage, she did. She was a fan and her Parent's were there to support her. They married when she was 21/22. You wanna say it's weird, sure, say it's weird; I feel the same way but by many/if not all accounts, Elvis didn't do anything and once they were married at a legal age as two consenting adults, there's nothing more to say about it. This is just another instance of modern 'Me Too' nonsense trying to use and cancel someone they didn't care less about 2 years ago to push their narrative. You wanna go after/cancel someone, go after Jerry Lee Lewis. But he's not as popular as Elvis right now so doesn't help their cause.
shareJerry Lee Lewis took a lot of heat shortly after it was revealed that he married Myra when she was 13 years old, she was also his cousin. A lot of radio stations stopped playing his music and he was booed off the stage almost everywhere he went.
Some of the pictures of them together on the internet are kinda funny though. She looks so damn young. Lol
But I believe you are correct, Priscilla has never said anything against Elvis.
When I wrote that, I decided to go do a quick Wiki on Lewis. I only really know a couple of his songs but not a lot about his personal life. He was married a crazy amount of times and, if I recall, twice before marrying his cousin. Very crazy stuff. I don't like sounding like I defend stuff as, yea, it's weird to me, but I try and put things in a perspective of time, of personal choice, and the fact that these kind of people (celebrities) live a completely different life than we could ever dream of. We can't begin to even try and put our morals onto them when they are just in another world.
I'm 40 so born way after the Lewis stuff and never thought anything of it outside of just a crazy point in history. I just don't like this weird trend now of people who know nothing about these artists trying to come in and put their 2022 morals on them. It's the same as calling Elvis racist...they have no idea what they are talking about so it's frustrating to hear.
I may go look at the photos you mention.
The kissing is pretty tepid, but I assume more happens when cameras aren't around. As far as installing a sense of morality in a situation that's 60 years past, I agree that today's standard shouldn't apply. However, if they were sexually involved, that would have been heavily frowned upon even at the time.
shareOne thing we might be missing is the laws regarding sex and the underage at that time. I'm not sure what the age of consent laws were back in the 50's but I know it wasn't that uncommon for young girls to marry a guy a little older than they were. I don't think you saw a girl marrying some guy that was in his 40s or 50s that often, but in his 20s, yeah, I think that did happen quite a bit back then.
Different time in history I suppose. But maybe times haven't changed that much, it's really not that uncommon for underage girls to post nude pics of themselves on the internet and laugh about like it was some kind of cheap thrill. Anyone remember when Vanessa Hudgens did that? I think she was 16 at the time if I remember correctly. She never got in trouble for it. celebrities don't seem to get in trouble for this kind of behavior. I remember when Anna Kournikova was dating that hockey player that was in his late 20s and she was 16. nothing happened.
And when I was in high school, which was back in the 80s, I knew at least five or six girls that were dating guys that were in their twenties and I knew one girl that was dating a guy that was in his 30s. so take it as you will, but some girls are into older guys.
I think it's safe to say your statement that it bombed was premature. It's now the second-highest grossing musician bio-pic of all time, and has turned a nice profit for Warner Bros. Not bad for a film about a guy who has been dead for 45 years. Apparently Elvis is still relevant to many people.
shareYeah, I've acknowledged that in another reply. It started slow, but seems have legs.
shareAlready grossed over $200 million. OP is very stupid
shareHow am I stupid? It was underperforming when I posted this, and I've since acknowledged I was wrong. Based on your inability to assess facts and comprehend what's actually written, I think you're missing the irony in calling someone else stupid.
shareIt was never underperforming. It performed as I predicted what i told you. you are very stupid
shareπ€£ here you go dumbass, keep running your fool mouth and keep looking like an asshat.π
Go on, convince us how people that write about entertainment for a living don't know a much as you. Moron. I've just owned you, you may fuckoff now.π
π
https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/analysis-why-did-elvis-underperform-205612420.html
Dude, just stop now. That article was from it's release and was wrong. Maybe it didn't open to what the big wigs expect of a movie but it grew legs and is now the 2nd highest grossing bio pic under Bohemian Rhapsody. People underestimated the word of mouth and underestimated both Austin Butler's appeal as well as Elvis' charm to capture the kids that wouldn't have expected to like him. It's more than doubled it's production costs. People are going back for repeat viewings. It's all over Tik Tok, people LOVE this film. Numbers and estimates aren't everything. Get. over. it.
shareDude, read what I wrote before you bitch about something. I clearly conceded that I was mistaken and this movie has legit legs. I wrote this a couple weeks ago and it was accurate at the time. Facts have changed, and so has my stance. Get over it.
shareIt's a movie I will skip forever. I don't care if his ex wife and daughter both cried and thought it was amazing. No thanks. I will stick with my memories and not someone's flashy retelling...with Tom Hanks as Col. Parker. Ew.
share