Considering he had to finance everything himself, there wasn't a ton of marketing and it's a very controversial movie (in the sense that no one wanted to help him with financing/releasing it)

Oppenheimer had the advantage of people knowing basically what the story was about. The poster for Megalopolis doesn't really tell me what it's about beyond Adam Driver apparently being an architect.

It's the same reason everything is a reboot or remake: A lot of the marketing cost has already been taken care of with the first movie.

Yeah I never heard of this.

This is the second time I have heard about this film, the last time being the release of the first teaser trailer. Studios love to spend 70 million marketing budgets on broadcast TV advertising and completely missing their target audience. In the case of sci-fi, most of us are more responsive to online marketing campaigns and this film has the online presence of an Amish priest.

Really? I've been hearing about it for months. It was having trouble finding a distributor for theaters, despite the budget and the star power, which was seen as a bad sign. It's being marketed as Francis Ford Coppola's last big budget movie.

Having said all that I would like to see it, just don’t need to go to the theater for this one.

From what little I've heard, there's a 4th-wall-breaking scene that involves one of the characters interacting with an audience member (the theater apparently has someone come in and participate). So if nothing else, I guess you could see it in theaters for the novelty?

Also, if your paraphrasing is accurate and we’re not playing a game of telephone here, regardless of how past experiences were later treated that’s kinda like saying “you’ll probably hate this unless you’re the kind of person who’ll still only appreciate it once a few critics tell you to in a few years.”

Every second or third post on Lemmy is about privacy or ad-blocking or piracy or pi-holes or bitching about ad injection.

Not that any of that is a bad thing. (The bitching isn't bad, the things are.)

But you can't be surprised when you don't hear about shit. When you reclaim your eye-holes from Madison avenue you need to seek things out.

I wonder if it's any good, all I hear is how little money it made like that means anything to anyone but the producers.

He sexually harassed extras on set. I'm glad this pretentious asshole loses his money.

It's bad. It's bad and we've been knowing this for months, as it premiered in some festival.

It's so bad no distributors wanted any piece of the cake (because the necessary costs are astronomical).

From what I'm hearing, one of the antagonists is a thinly veiled Rupert Murdoch. Sounds like $120 million to pretentiously explain that Fox News is bad to an audience who figured that out two decades ago.

I think its firmly both. There are a lot of great ideas in the movie, and they come across really well when you discuss it. But its also a mess of a film that cares more about allegory and metaphor than narrative.

Something something new Rome something something super powers that are useless something something the end

I also have zero idea what the movie poster is. It looks like Adam Driver is holding a Pizza Hut logo on a stick in front of the world's most generic mess of golden polygons. I guess that's some sort of construction tool?