Decoding Fandom is a weekly column that dives deep into the world of fan culture and runs on Saturdays in the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter. If you want to get this column a day before we publish it, subscribe to web_crawlr, where you’ll get the daily scoop of internet culture delivered straight to your inbox. 

Is this the beginning of the end for the MCU? This question arises following the poor box office performance of The Marvels, which made only $47 million—the worst Marvel debut in history—over opening weekend.  

To be fair, The Marvels had the cards stacked against it. The film comes a lengthy four years after its prequel, Captain Marvel. It necessitated four weeks of reshoots and was mired in drama when director Nia DaCosta flew to London during post-production. (It turns out there’s more to the story.) The film’s star, Brie Larson, has received more hate than anyone else in the MCU, which isn't exactly great for PR. And none of the cast were able to promote the film due to the SAG-AFTRA strike. 

Sexist elements of the fandom aside, is The Marvels’ failure at the box office an indication that fans have become disillusioned with the studio? 

The answer is complicated. Some fans react defensively to the claim that Marvel is in its flop era. A recent article in Variety suggesting that Marvel is in crisis was met with anger and incredulity by certain fans. One Reddit user called the article a “vengeful hit piece,” and another suggested it was “written with intent to ruin Marvel's next film.” Others took issue with the critical response to The Marvels, arguing that negative reviews are part of a trend of “hating popular things.” And we can’t forget the backlash to Martin Scorsese’s comments that MCU films are more like theme parks than cinema. 

However, plenty of MCU fans agree that Marvel is going downhill. There are several theories as to why this is. “Disney+ ruined the MCU,” wrote one fan. Another Redditor suggested this recent focus on the multiverse is “unappealing” to mainstream audiences. A self-described “Marvel super fan” noted they are tired of the “deluge of content” from the MCU and are no longer excited for new productions. One user got to the heart of the problem: “The real issue is the erosion of trust with the audience.”

This may seem like a rather stark shift in opinion, especially considering the record-breaking success of Avengers: Endgame. But that was way back in Phase 3, and we’re now in Phase 5, which one fan called “the worst slate in the MCU’s history.” For viewers who really love the MCU or the comics these films and shows are based on, this strategy of quantity over quality is disappointing. Fans want Marvel movies to be good, and losing these core viewers is bad for business. 

This change in public perception is more than just anecdotal. Two different studies indicate that viewers are starting to experience superhero fatigue due in large part to Marvel’s method of flooding the market with content. According to Fandom’s study, 36% of fans feel fatigued by the amount of media released, while only 20% of DC fans feel that way. (Notably, Marvel fans are more likely than DC fans to watch anything released by the studio.) 

MCU fans and haters alike are familiar with the Marvel formula, but that predictability may no longer be a good thing. This sense of disinvestment in the studio’s constant output is becoming more and more widespread.

Why it matters

It looks like Marvel’s system of treating film and television like endlessly reiterative content is starting to backfire. But what can be done?

Fans are driven by emotion. The reason Infinity War and Endgame were so successful is that viewers were emotionally invested in the characters and their storylines, as well as in the company itself. If Marvel wants to get fans excited again, they need to capture fans’ hearts, not just their eyeballs. 

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Are fans getting tired of the MCU? appeared first on The Daily Dot.

Decoding Fandom is a weekly column that dives deep into the world of fan culture and runs on Saturdays in the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter. If you want to get this column a day before we publish it, subscribe to web_crawlr, where you’ll get the daily scoop of internet culture delivered straight to your inbox. 

After 56 years and 27 feature films, Martin Scorsese is finally having a moment. 

Well, that’s not exactly true. The acclaimed director is responsible for some of the greatest films ever made, and his impact on filmmaking cannot be overstated. But while longtime Scorsese fans have always been in his corner, the director has garnered a new type of fan base as of late. The memesters and the chronically online have claimed Scorsese as one of their own. 

The seeds of this internet fandom were planted some time ago, but most recently, Scorsese warmed the hearts of film lovers everywhere when he joined the movie-cataloging site Letterboxd. The website is a place for cinephiles to share their thoughts about films, where the opinions of movie nerds reign supreme. Scorsese joined Letterboxd to promote his 3-hour-long epic, Killers of the Flower Moon, sharing a list of films that inspired his own. 

Scorsese has been in the news a lot lately, and not just because of his new picture. He went viral for agreeing with an interviewer who asked if he was “built different” because he won’t retire like Quentin Tarantino. He sat down with heartthrob Timothée Chalamet to discuss their Bleu de Chanel ad, and walked the red carpet with Kylie Jenner. 

But the real architect of Scorsese’s online presence is his daughter, Francesca. She runs a popular TikTok account where she sometimes posts videos of her father, all of which get millions of views. A recent hit was the video where Fransesca quizzes her dad on internet slang like “slay” and “sneaky link” to see if he can guess their meanings. “He’s a certified silly goose” she says in one adorable video, using hashtags like #bestdadever and #DadsofTikTok. Francesca also let viewers know that her dad is aware of the viral Goncharov meme that captured the internet last year. 

Scorsese has become something of a folk hero recently, at least to a certain kind of movie fan. He went viral a few years ago for saying Marvel movies are more like theme parks than cinema, angering Marvel devotees. He became enemy #1 for these fans, including MCU directors the Russo brothers. Last month, Joe Russo responded to Scorsese’s TikTok with his dog Oscar by joking that his dog is named “Box Office.” Marvel fans claimed Russo “destroyed” Scorsese, while Scorsese fans rolled their eyes. 

Scorsese emerges as an avatar for real cinema, positioned in opposition to the Marvel box office machine. While the Russo brothers and their fans see Scorsese and his ilk as elitist, Scorsese nonetheless appears as a lovable man of the people, thanks in large part to his daughter’s intervention. For young cinephiles discouraged by the nature of today’s film industry, the 80-year-old Scorsese embodies the pro-art stance some feel is sorely lacking today. He’s someone worthy of stanning.

Why it matters

Considering his impressive resume, it’s not as if Scorsese needed a new PR campaign. But what’s unique about his current wave of internet fandom is that he's beloved not just because of his films, but because of his persona—that of an endearing grandpa—in addition to what he stands for as a creator. 

Scorsese’s hot takes on cinema may have become a lightning rod for contemporary debates about art and commodity, but it’s his love for his Gen Z daughter, his joyful passion for filmmaking, and his bushy, bushy eyebrows that make him such an iconic figure. He is the moment.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Martin Scorsese is the internet’s new It Girl appeared first on The Daily Dot.

James Franco movies date back to 1999—when he debuted in the Drew Barrymore vehicle, Never Been Kissed, the first movie from Barrymore's then-new Flower Films production company.

When you think of James Franco movies, you might think of the stoner classic Pineapple Express, the Oscar-nominated 127 Hours, his turn as Harry Osborn in the Spider-Man franchise, the celebrity spoof-slash-apocalypse movie This is the End (in which Franco, Seth Rogen, and a like coterie of stars play themselves) or even the more recent The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, which spawned the "First Time" meme of recent internet renown.

But there's a definite drop-off in the amount of work Franco has put out since 2018, and there's a reason for that. On Jan. 11, 2018, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that laid it out starkly in the headline: "Five women accuse actor James Franco of inappropriate or sexually exploitative behavior."

The story went on to document the allegations of five different women, four of them students at a school Franco started for aspiring film actors and filmmakers, and one who described Franco as her "mentor."

After settling a lawsuit brought by two of his accusers, Variety reports that Franco acknowledged via a 2021 interview on SiriuxXM's "The Jess Cagle" podcast, that he "took a pause" post-lawsuit. But there are indications that the "pause" wasn't entirely of his making.

It seemed no one wanted to work with the actor after the allegations came to light. Franco dropped out from the Critic's Choice Awards that year, despite winning best actor in a comedy film for his leading role in The Disaster Artist. He was also digitally removed from Vanity Fair's Hollywood issue. A few months later, Franco's ex-costar on Freaks and Geeks, Busy Phillips, claimed that the star had physically assaulted her while filming the TV show.

Four years passed with Franco staying out of the spotlight. Then, a July 2022 Entertainment Weekly story announced, "James Franco is set to return to the big screen ... Franco, who stepped away from acting after multiple women accused him of sexually inappropriate behavior in 2018, will star in director Bille August's coming-of-age period film Me, You."

However, the IMDb page for the movie states the movie is still in pre-production and does not list Franco among the cast members.

He may yet make a comeback with two other movies in post-production: Alina of Cuba: La Hija Rebelde, in which he stars as Fidel Castro, and "Kill the Czar," which IMDb says came out in 2020, but several 2023 articles allude to its still pending release.

Here's what he's been involved with to date.

James Franco movies (as an actor)

Brace yourself; it's a big list.

The '90s

• Never Been Kissed (1999)

2000-2010

• Whatever It Takes (2000)
• If Tomorrow Comes (2000)
• Mean People Suck (2001)
• Spider-Man (2002)
• Deuces Wild (2002)
• Mother Ghost (2002)
• Sonny (2002)
• City by the Sea (2002)
• The Company (2003)
• Spider-Man 2 (2004)
• The Ape (2005)
• The Great Raid (2005)
• Fool's Gold (2005)
• Tristan & Isolde (2006)
• Annapolis (2006)
• The Wicker Man (2006)
• Flyboys (2006)
• The Dead Girl (2006)
• The Holiday (2006)
• An American Crime (2007)
• Knocked Up (2007)
• Spider-Man 3 (2007)
• Good Time Max (2007)
• In the Valley of Elah (2007)
• Camille (2008)
• Pineapple Express (2008)
• Nights in Rodanthe (2008)
• Milk (2008)
• Oo (2009)

2010-2018

• Howl (2010)
• Date Night (2010)
• Shadows and Lies (2010)
• Eat Pray Love (2010)
• 127 Hours (2010)
• Love & Distrust (2010)
• The Green Hornet (2011)
• Your Highness (2011)
• The Broken Tower (2011)
• Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
• Sal (2011)
• About Cherry (2012)
• Maladies (2012)
• The Iceman (2012)
• Spring Breakers (2012)
• The Letter (2012)
• The Color of Time (aka Tar) (2012)
• Interior. Leather Bar. (2013)
• Lovelace (2013)
• Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
• As I Lay Dying (2013)
• This Is the End (2013)
• Palo Alto (2013)
• Child of God (2013)
• Third Person (2013)
• Homefront (2013)
• Veronica Mars (2014)
• Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
• Good People (2014)
• The Sound and the Fury (2014)
• The Interview (2014)
• Don Quixote: The Ingenious Gentleman of La Mancha (2015)
• True Story (2015)
• Yosemite (2015)
• I Am Michael (2015)
• Queen of the Desert (2015)
• Every Thing Will Be Fine (2015)
• Wild Horses (2015)
• The Heyday of the Insensitive Bastards (2015)
• The Adderall Diaries (2015)
• The Little Prince (2015)
• Memoria (2015)
• The Night Before (2015)
• Goat (2016)
• Sausage Party (2016)
• King Cobra (2016)
• Burn Country (2016)
• The Caged Pillows (2016)
• In Dubious Battle (2016)
• Why Him? (2016)
• The Labyrinth (2017)
• The Institute (2017)
• Actors Anonymous (2017)
• The Show (2017)
• The Disaster Artist (2017)
• Alien: Covenant - Prologue: Last Supper (2017)
• Alien: Covenant (2017)
• Don't Come Back from the Moon (2017)
• The Vault (2017)
• The Mad Whale (2017)
• Future World (2018)
• Kin (2018)
• The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
• The Pretenders (2018)

2018-present

• Zeroville (2019)
• Arctic Dogs (2019)

And, of course, Franco's not just an actor, but a director as well. Here's what he's been up to on the other side of the camera.

James Franco movies (as a director)

• The Ape (2005)
• Fool's Gold (2005)
• Good Time Max (2007)
• The Feast of Stephen (2009)
• Saturday Night (2010)
• The Broken Tower (2011)
• Sal (2011)
• My Own Private River (2012)
• Interior. Leather Bar. (2013)
• As I Lay Dying (2013)
• Child of God (2013)
• The Sound and the Fury (2014)
• In Dubious Battle (2016)
• The Institute (2017)
• The Disaster Artist (2017)
• Future World (2018)
• The Pretenders (2018)
• Zeroville (2019)

It remains to be seen if and when more additions to the list of James Franco movies will come.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post James Franco movies: The complete list appeared first on The Daily Dot.

If you come across someone expressing outrage about something that's old hat, there's a meme that might be perfect for you—the first time meme. You know the one: The picture that looks like it's from an old-timey Western, with a rugged cowboy cool as can be, standing at a gallows with a noose around his neck, quipping via caption, "First time?"

Here's how the "first time" meme started.

First time meme: the origin story

It all began with a movie called The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a 2018 offering from the Coen Brothers described by IMDb as "six tales of life and violence in the Old West, following a singing gunslinger, a bank robber, a traveling impresario, an elderly prospector, a wagon train, and a perverse pair of bounty hunters."

The source of the "first time" meme comes around the 1:40 mark of the official trailer, showing a scene of four men at a gallows with a crowd of townspeople gathered. One appears to be verklempt over what he believes to be his final moments; the cowboy character played by James Franco looks over at him slyly, cracking, "First time?"

The video went up on Sept. 12, 2018, and five years later, was moving toward the six million view mark.

According to KnowYourMeme, a Twitter user darkly used the "first time" meme about two months after the trailer went up to address school shootings, pairing it with a caption reading, "When you're hiding from a school shooter and the foreign exchange student starts crying."

From there, the DankMemes subreddit on Reddit moved in, fashioning an anti-vaccination meme and a bleak Lion King-themed one with a caption reading, "When you're watching the new Lion King film and a six year old starts crying when Mufasa dies."

KnowYourMeme notes, from there, that the meme spread, and is still in circulation five years after first surfacing.

An early 2019 article on the movie in Slate from Movie Club editor declared Franco's section to be the best part of the movie, declaring "First time?" to be "the best joke of the year."

And what about James Franco?

The actor's been at a crossroads since early 2018, when allegations of sexually exploitive behavior surfaced in a Los Angeles Times article. That article laid out troubling accusations from four of his students and another person calling Franco her "mentor."

One of those accusers said in the story, "I feel there was an abuse of power, and there was a culture of exploiting non-celebrity women, and a culture of women being replaceable," referring to a film school Franco founded at the heart of the story.

In 2021, Franco addressed the allegations in a podcast interview covered by Variety. That story quotes Franco as saying, "In 2018, there were some complaints about me and an article about me. And at that moment I just thought, ‘I’m gonna be quiet. I’m gonna pause.’ [It] did not seem like the right time to say anything. There were people that were upset with me and I needed to listen."

The Variety article noted, in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by two accusers, "In June 2021, Franco paid $2,235,000 as a settlement, with $894,000 going to the named plaintiffs and $1,341,000 going into a common fund for the rest of the members of the lawsuit."

"The stupidest thing I did, or one of the stupidest things I did, at the school was I called one of my classes — a masterclass — ‘Sex Scenes,'" Franco said in the article. "It was not about sex scenes. I was not teaching people how to do sex scenes or intimate scenes or anything of that nature…It should have been called Contemporary Romance or something like that. It was a class where they did scenes about whatever their romance is. What they go through as young people. So meeting people on dating apps, or breakups or just a bad date — stuff like that. That’s what was being done in that class. It was not sex scenes."

But the accusers, responding via their lawyers to Variety for that article, released a statement reading in part, “In addition to being blind about power dynamics, Franco is completely insensitive to, and still apparently does not care about, the immense pain and suffering he put his victims through with this sham of an acting school. It is unbelievable that even after agreeing to a settlement he continues to downplay the survivors’ experiences and ignore their pain, despite acknowledging he had no business starting such a school in the first place. This wasn’t a misunderstanding over a course name, it wasn’t the result of him being overworked — it was, and is, despicable conduct."

But it's probably not the last time for the 'First Time' meme

Though Franco's enduring in a sense through the First Time meme, a quick look at his IMDb page shows that he's been much less active in the industry since the allegations his. A June 2023 article in We Got This Covered declared, "We can say, unequivocally, that Franco’s career has suffered since 2018," but then it also asserted, "In one sense, Franco’s career hasn’t been affected by the cancellation at all. He’s continued to write and direct independent films, and he’s even landed supporting roles in acclaimed dramas," citing The Ballad of Buster Scruggs as a specific example.

Both Imgflip and Imgur both have "First Time" meme templates at the ready for people who want to share a sentiment that matches that energy. So while Franco now might leave some a bit queasy, there's a little piece of his ouevre bringing joy to people who might not even be aware it's him.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post What is the ‘First Time’ meme? And how did it start? appeared first on The Daily Dot.

The Exorcist franchise, spanning over five decades, has recently introduced its sixth installment, "The Exorcist: Believer." Directed by David Gordon Green and co-written with Peter Sattler, this 2023 supernatural horror film showcases the depth of its characters while weaving a haunting narrative. Leslie Odom Jr. leads the ensemble cast that includes other talented actors like Lidya Jewett and Olivia O'Neill, making her film debut amidst familiar faces Ellen Burstyn and Linda Blair, who will reprise their roles from the 1973 classic.

With a production budget of $30 million, the film was a financial success, grossing $109 million worldwide despite receiving less-than-stellar reviews from critics. As they eagerly await the upcoming 2025 sequel, "The Exorcist: Deceiver," audiences remain divided on the film's ability to strike the right balance between staying true to its roots and introducing fresh horror elements.

Tracing the origins of "The Exorcist": The 1973 phenomenon

The original film in the series, 1973's "The Exorcist," remains an undisputed classic in the horror genre. Directed by legendary director William Friedkin and written for the screen by William Peter Blatty, the movie was based on Blatty's novel of the same name. The story of a young girl's demonic possession and harrowing exorcism by two Catholic priests became a sensation with its chilling sequences and powerful performances, especially from then-newcomers Ellen Burstyn and Linda Blair.

The film faced a myriad of challenges, from controversial casting decisions to accidents and mishaps that fueled rumors of a cursed production. Despite these hurdles, "The Exorcist" achieved both commercial success and critical acclaim upon its release, grossing an impressive $441 million. It was also nominated for 10 Academy Awards, making history as the first horror film to be recognized in the Best Picture category. Over the decades, its influence on pop culture has only grown, solidifying its place as a cinematic classic.

Themes and interpretations in "The Exorcist"

Part of the reason for the flagging success of the sequels is tied to the original's talent, and also an unrepeatable position of the film within time and place. On top it being a fundamental shift in the horror genre, the movie became a sociopolitical and cultural reference point.

The overwhelming success of "The Exorcist" at the box office was seen by many critics and scholars as a reflection of the socio-political anxieties prevalent in the aftermath of the late 1960s' cultural shifts. Amy Chambers noted the film's portrayal of a U.S. in flux, confronting its systemic evils head-on. Breaking away from the Gothic horror norm of the 1960s, the film depicted a contemporary urban society being torn apart by an ancient, unspeakable evil, as pointed out by noted British critic Mark Kermode. Stephen King regarded it as a quintessential "social horror film," with the possessed Regan symbolizing the confrontational youth protesting the Vietnam War.

The Watergate scandal, which occurred during the film's release, amplified the nation's sense of mistrust and unrest. Some, like Tom Breihan of The A.V. Club, saw parallels between the film's themes and the political crisis. Meanwhile, theologian Carl Raschke linked the film's profound impact to the desolation left by the crumbling of traditional religious and societal values. 

"The Exorcist" was also critiqued for its possible reactionary stance against the feminist movement, as the film's story of a single mother and her unruly daughter being saved by male figures was seen by some as a refutation of emerging feminist ideas. In his book, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N Roll Generation Saved Hollywood, Peter Biskind described the film as visualizing fears of female puberty, and associating emergent female sexuality with demonic possession. However, Barbara Creed presented an alternate feminist perspective, positing that Pazuzu's possession of Regan could be seen as a feminist act, challenging male dominance.

Texas State religious studies professor Joseph Laycock noted the film's resonance with a form of folk piety, suggesting that its depiction of religious beliefs outside of institutional norms might have struck a chord with audiences disillusioned with rationalized religion. The film not only tapped into deep-seated religious sentiments but also encapsulated the socio-political anxieties of a nation in transition.

The sequels and their mixed reception

The success of "The Exorcist" inevitably led to sequels, though they failed to replicate the original's magic. "Exorcist II: The Heretic" (1977) saw Linda Blair reprising her role as Regan MacNeil. However, the second installment of the series was marred by negative reviews, with many considering it one of the worst films ever made. Despite its $30 million earnings against a $14 million budget, the hostile reception caused a long hiatus before the next sequel was released.

"The Exorcist III," which came out in 1990, distanced itself from its ill-fated predecessor, setting its events 15 years after the original and bypassing the events of "The Heretic." The plot followed Lieutenant William F. Kinderman investigating demonic murders, drawing inspiration from real-life serial killer cases. William Peter Blatty returned as director and writer, but last-minute changes demanded by the producers altered his vision.

"The Exorcist" legacy and franchise impact

The Exorcist media franchise, rooted in William Peter Blatty's 1971 horror novel, has evolved over the years to include various prequels, sequels, and a television series. The stories consistently revolve around the malevolent entity, Pazuzu, and the relentless efforts to combat its possession. With total earnings surpassing $661 million, the franchise remains a significant force in the horror genre.

By 2020, talks of a reboot began to circulate. Eventually, it was determined that instead of a reboot, a direct sequel to the original film would be crafted, leading to the release of "The Exorcist: Believer" in 2023. While critics like those at Time Out and Chicago Sun-Times felt that the latest installment failed to capture the original's essence, it's undeniable that The Exorcist franchise continues to captivate audiences, with the movies' box office success standing as a testament to its enduring appeal.

Conclusion

With every new addition, the world of "The Exorcist" continues to expand, eliciting a mix of nostalgia and anticipation from its global fanbase. Whether or not the recent films manage to recreate the magic of the original, the legacy of "The Exorcist" remains untouched, and is arguably a beacon in the realm of supernatural horror.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post The Exorcist, a history appeared first on The Daily Dot.

Decoding Fandom is a weekly column that dives deep into the world of fan culture and runs on Saturdays in the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter. If you want to get this column a day before we publish it, subscribe to web_crawlr, where you’ll get the daily scoop of internet culture delivered straight to your inbox. 

Will Taylor Swift fans be able to control themselves? This was the question on many minds when Swift announced her Eras Tour film back in August. To some, the concert film seemed like a recipe for pandemonium, as Swifties are a famously passionate bunch. 

Swift is not the first artist to release a concert film, but she was clear in her instructions about how this film would be different. On Instagram, she wrote “Eras attire, friendship bracelets, singing and dancing encouraged,” indicating that the film would attempt to replicate the tour experience. Swift’s initial prescription generated many questions. Concerned parties wrote theater etiquette guides, and one fan conducted a thorough investigation into what kind of behavior theaters allow. 

Now that the film is out in theaters, we can put these queries to rest. 

I attended a mostly full showing of the film on Sunday afternoon at a suburban AMC, just as God (AKA Nicole Kidman) intended. Shortly after the film started, a group of fans ran to the front of the theater to dance and jump up and down, returning to their seats when the slower sets (evermore and folklore) began. Behind me sat two young girls with glowsticks, who stood up to wave them around intermittently during the show’s 2-hour and 45-minute runtime. Others stayed seated for most of the show, save much-needed bathroom breaks. 

Despite concerns about The Eras Tour ruining the theater experience for other moviegoers, that wasn’t the case at my local AMC. Though the movie was almost ear-piercingly loud at times—thanks, Dolby Atmos—and could be heard clearly from the hallway, the sound didn’t travel from one theater to the other. As far as theater etiquette goes, a few people took out their phones to record the action on occasion, but given the bright lights and thundering noise, this wasn’t particularly distracting.

According to online accounts of screenings around the world, the climate of Eras Tour showings varied greatly from theater to theater. Some fans reported fairly subdued audiences—several people singing and dancing, but nothing extreme. Then there are the videos that depict something akin to the hysteria we expected: Swifties crying on the floor and screaming every lyric, huge circles of Swifties spinning at the front of the theater, and an especially loud crowd in Manila. 

In many ways, your Eras Tour film experience depends on how willing you and your fellow viewers are to be unabashed about your love for Taylor Swift. The film was billed as a safe space for Swifties to fully embody their love for the singer, and moviegoers took this to heart. Fans revamped the theater environment for their own purposes, epitomizing the stated rules of engagement—rules defined in collaboration with their benevolent leader. 

Swift’s relationship with fans is central to her fandom, perhaps more so than any other pop artist. Swifties love her in part because they feel close to her, and this intimacy also generates a sense of kinship among fans. Swift emphasizes this dynamic regularly. Speaking at the film’s premiere, she told fans “you absolutely are main characters in the film.” Though most audiences had to do without Swift’s physical presence, they heeded her message of empowerment, centering their own joy above all else. 

Why it matters

Swifties are reshaping the concert movie experience in their own image. Not only is this good for Swift, it’s good for theaters, who took a huge hit during the pandemic. (Swift’s deal with AMC has the potential to change things in a big way.)

With Beyoncé’s Renaissance film coming out in December, it appears we are entering a new era of moviegoing, one where music fandom takes center stage. While Ticketmaster continues its tyrannical reign, this concert movie boom means that more fans will get to participate in pop music devotion, as movie theaters become spaces of wild abandon. Are you ready for it?

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Swifties are reshaping the concert movie experience appeared first on The Daily Dot.

In honor of October 3rd, also known as “Mean Girls Day” in internet meme parlance, Paramount has uploaded the entire 2004 high school comedy to the TikTok app. 

Yup, that’s right — anyone willing to watch the film vertically, broken up into 23 chunks, can now pull up “Mean Girls” for free.

@meangirls TikTok just got a little more fetch. #MeanGirls ♬ Mean Girls is available on Digital - Mean Girls

This "Mean Girls" stunt isn’t happening in isolation. Increasingly, entertainment companies have started experimenting with new ways of releasing and sharing content, recognizing that attention on social media and cultural “buzz” may matter more, in the long run, than a hefty ad spend or platform exclusivity. 

This is a dramatic swing from the early days of streaming when studios and copyright holders more generally tended to take a sort of “zero-sum” approach to new platforms. At its core, the understanding was that rarity, even exclusivity, gives content its value. In order to get a mass of new subscribers to your streaming platform, the thinking went, you needed lots of high-profile original shows that were unavailable to view anywhere else.

This philosophy went beyond just streaming platforms as well. Exhibitors demanded lengthy exclusive theatrical windows for new movies before they could go on streaming platforms, afraid that Netflix or HBO Max might cannibalize their box office returns. The rivalry over having to share streaming rights of “South Park” between their two services got so heated, that Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount sued one another earlier this year.

Hollywood copyright holders are also notorious for striking down videos containing film and TV content on social media platforms like YouTube. For example, immediately after Twitter/X started offering posts with longer video streams, users started posting bootlegged copies of Hollywood films, requiring the app to find and shut them down individually, like a digital game of whack-a-mole. ...

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Paramount put ‘Mean Girls’ on TikTok. Here’s why it matters. appeared first on The Daily Dot.

Most people knew, even before the Cocaine Bear movie came out, that it was based on a true story in 1985 involving a drug dealer, a plane crash, and a bear that got into lots and lots of cocaine. But did the real Cocaine Bear kill anyone?

When Cocaine Bear debuted in theaters on Feb. 24, 2023, people already generally knew what it was going to be. Like Snakes on a Plane, it boldly stated what it was going to be in its title. If you like the idea of a bear high on cocaine on a rampage through a forest, the movie's 95-minute run time and R rating, along with its title, told you what you needed to know. (Note: Spoiler alerts follow.)

The title character in the movie definitely killed people, sometimes in gruesome, darkly comic ways. Moviegoers could probably assume that the real-life bear inspiring the film did not dive into a moving ambulance to wreak havoc on its pair of EMTs and its hapless patient.

They also might have guessed that the real bear did not maul a couple out on a nature hike, ironically observing how lucky they were to cross paths with such a magnificent creature right before it struck.

What is the real-life story behind 'Cocaine Bear?' And did the Cocaine Bear kill anyone?

The movie stems from a 1985 incident in which drug smuggler Andrew Thornton died trying to parachute out of a plane, in a mountainous area on the Georgia side of the state's border with Tennessee.

Investigators also happened upon the hefty black bear that became the film's namesake, also identified as dead according to a New York Times retrospective on the initial news coverage.

National Geographic's retelling of the incident said, "Two months after the smuggler’s death, a Georgia hunter found a dead bear surrounded by the remains of a duffel bag investigators would later deem to be Thornton’s. A medical examiner concluded the 200-pound bear had died of acute cocaine intoxication after ingesting about three to four grams of cocaine."

“It’s enough to kill anybody,” the investigator told reporters.

Parade's account noted, "The real-life Cocaine Bear isn't known to have harmed anyone. The poor guy just ate a really bad snack."

Several accounts of the bear's demise, including one in Entertainment Weekly, quoted Gary Garner of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. He said, upon finding the bear's remains, "There's nothing left but bones and a big hide."

So, why did the fictional Cocaine Bear kill people?

In an interview with Vulture, Cocaine Bear writer Jimmy Warden explained why he had the fictional bear go on a drug-fueled killing spree rather than keep to the real-life account. He said:

"A bear dying three minutes into the movie would make for a very short movie. And also a bummer. I thought we could tell the truth of the inciting incident, which is interesting in itself. The actual true story I figured I would leave up to true-crime documentaries and podcasts. The story that intrigued me was how this bear ended up doing all this cocaine, and I left the rest up to my imagination."

He continues, "The first decision I made was: I want the bear to live. Liz [Banks, the movie's director,] always talks about the redemptive aspects of this story. At a certain point, you’re rooting for the bear, and we gave it the story that I’m not sure the other people in the movie deserved, but it’s maybe what the bear deserved."

How did Cocaine Bear do on Rotten Tomatoes? And at the box office?

Perhaps surprisingly, audiences and critics generally liked the story of the bear who found cocaine to be juuuuuuust right. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 66% on the Tomatometer (judging more than 300 different critics' reviews) and a 71% from audience members.

Rotten Tomatoes shared how diverse critics were in their takes on the movie.

It excerpted Noah Berlatsky of the awesomely-named Everything is Horrible, who remarked, "Elizabeth Banks tosses in all the gratuitous severed legs and dripping blood you could ask for in a horror movie, but it’s not really a horror movie. It's the kind of deftly-timed physical comedy you don’t see that much on the big screen any more."

Sean P. Means of The Movie Cricket countered, "Cocaine Bear reaches a point of diminishing returns, where everyone involved—onscreen, behind the camera and in the audience—realizes there’s not as much material here as was needed to fill 90-or-so minutes."

Why was Cocaine Bear rated R?

In short, because it had to be. As producer Chris Miller told Syfy, "It was never in question, just because of the things that happen in the movie—even in the first act—whether it was going to be an R-rating or a PG-13. You don’t want to see a movie called Cocaine Bear that has to hold back. That seems no fun. We wanted to revel in the naughtiness of the film."

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Did the real Cocaine Bear kill anyone? appeared first on The Daily Dot.

With Thursday’s announcement that Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour would get its own concert film, many moviegoers already have their plans for October 13 (or later, depending on when you got your ticket) set. But it’s not the only movie coming out that day, prompting the creation of a new portmanteau-fueled double feature, the latest attempt to recreate a true cinematic phenomenon.

Because, as Swifties descend into movie theaters on the 13th of October, Blumhouse is also releasing The Exorcist: Believer, a direct sequel to William Friedkin’s The Exorcist. Soon enough, we had a new double feature on our hands: Enter Exorswift.

In a sense, Exorswift fits within a similar mold to the summer’s top phenomenon, Barbenheimer: The movies are essentially polar opposites with seemingly no natural crossover among audiences (although there are certainly Swifties who like horror and vice versa). The memes of people dressed for Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour heading into a horror movie about demonic possession practically make themselves.

It’s not the first time since Barbenheimer—the Barbie and Oppenheimer double feature made possible through the films’ shared July 21 release date—that some entity has tried to create a new Barbenheimer. Studios have tried it and are leaning into it, press outlets are using it to entice people to click on articles, and regular people on the internet are hopping on the trend to combine any two movies released on the same day, no matter the size of the releases, how well the films pair together as a double feature, or how widely available they might be.

Maybe you remember seeing Saw Patrol, the proposed Saw X and Paw Patrol double feature, becoming a whole thing because both films will be released on Sept. 29, a movie largely rejected because it came off feeling like a forced marketing stunt. (Saw X’s social media managers are still leaning into it, while Paw Patrol’s are less amused.)

Or, upon the release of the trailer for the sci-fi drama Foe, which had the same opening day as Killers of the Flower Moon, the idea that those two movies might pair together when they were set to both come out on Oct. 6. (KOTFM has since ditched its gradual rollout for a wide release on Oct. 20, effectively canceling “Killers of the Flower Foe.”)

Even the exact same date is seemingly no longer required for suggesting a new Barbenheimer, as the aggregation Twitter account @FilmUpdates put KOTFM and The Eras Tour side-by-side after the latter's announcement.

We don’t doubt that some viewers might try pulling off some of these double features in theaters. But so far, the effort to manufacture a new Barbenheimer isn’t working in part because it’s blatantly obvious enough that the efforts to make Barbenheimer happen are being met with an insistence of the opposite: Stop trying to make fetch happen.

“It's so strange that the success of Barbenheimer has somehow led to people just suddenly forgetting that two movies opening on the same day is a normal thing that happens literally every single week,” Alex Burley wrote.

Barbenheimer was a collision of several factors—including one that many imitators might be forgetting

Yes, Barbie and Oppenheimer had the same release date, but it wasn’t the only thing that led to their tango with box office glory.

The shared release date wasn’t a scheduling quirk. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer secured the date first, but Warner Bros. later placed Barbie’s debut on the same date. At the time, it was viewed as a petty dig by Warner Bros. because Nolan was unhappy with Warner Bros. (which distributed several of Nolan’s films) releasing its 2021 slate simultaneously in theaters and streaming. Film Twitter helped to fuel the competitive nature of box office matchups in the early months of Barbenheimer, but it was also its champion once people decided to embrace both.

Another factor? Nolan and Greta Gerwig are beloved directors in their own right, and while their careers might look different, they’ve both made critically acclaimed and financially successful films. They each have their fans who will see any movie with their name attached to it no matter who it stars or what it’s about.

And even though it was far too early to know how much each movie would resonate or fuel weeks of discourse—we barely even knew what Barbie was about until closer to its release—it was probably somewhat fair to assume that cinephiles would generally find something to like about them on some level. But the fact that both movies were great turned a meme-fueled opening weekend into two genuine word-of-mouth hits resulting in sold-out shows for weeks and people who don’t normally go to the movie theater venturing out; Oppenheimer was in such high demand that AMC extended its 70mm IMAX run by two weeks.

Saw Patrol can’t manufacture that.

Barbenheimer didn’t happen because it was planned that way. It happened in spite of it.

Two movies in limited release do not a Barbenheimer make

The Venice Film Festival is underway, Telluride begins today, and TIFF starts in a couple of weeks, kicking off a packed and stacked fall film festival season that will launch many top contenders into awards season. For many of those films, that includes a gradual rollout in major cities or qualifying runs for awards consideration. They might only be in theaters for a couple of weeks, if that.

IndieWire’s pairing of Foe and Killers of the Flower Moon is an example of a double feature that doesn’t work because of access. Tickets aren’t available for Foe yet, but it’s probably not getting the kind of wide release that Barbie or Oppenheimer did. 

If you’re in major cities like New York or Los Angeles, you’ll have more than enough movies to create your own opening weekend double features. But the rest of the country will have to wait until a streaming movie like Foe is released on Prime Video to watch it all. The same goes for Netflix movies and Oscar hopefuls like Bradley Cooper’s Maestro or David Fincher’s The Killer, which will spend several weeks in select theaters before landing on Netflix.

Half the fun of Barbenheimer, apart from the quality of the movies themselves, was the community feeling that we were all going out in our best pink and semi-formal attire to do the same thing together. When movies are restricted to a handful of cities or a rollout that takes several weeks before it goes nationwide, it’s dead on arrival.

And the opposite, trying to coordinate a viral double feature on two different weekends, doesn’t work, either.

We’re not gonna get the next Barbenheimer as long as studios keep self-sabotaging

There are a lot of lessons to glean from Barbenheimer, including the fact that people will go to the movies if there are good movies available instead of mere slop. But whatever goodwill studios might’ve garnered by letting Nolan and Gerwig make the movies they wanted is getting sabotaged by the fact that they’re holding back several major releases by several months that people would pay money to see, like Dune: Part Two.

It’s been interpreted by some as a response to the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes—and the AMPTP’s unwillingness to come to the negotiating table—because actors are not allowed to promote their work and productions have almost completely come to a standstill. With no new projects being written or filmed, studios are preparing for the possibility that 2024 might be sparse. But as they do that, whatever momentum they might’ve gained with Barbenheimer is about to come to a halt.

And you can’t make a new Barbenheimer—organic or manufactured—if there aren’t really any movies to fuel it.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Your attempt to make Barbenheimer happen again won’t work appeared first on The Daily Dot.

Having already boosted the U.S. economy with the Eras Tour, Taylor Swift is gearing up to save cinema as well by turning the Eras Tour into a concert film.

Swift announced on social media Thursday morning that a filmed version of the Eras Tour—which is directed by Sam Wrench and runs for two hours and 45 minutes—would debut exclusively in movie theaters in North America starting Oct. 13. According to Variety, no songs have been cut from the concert’s setlist.

“The Eras Tour has been the most meaningful, electric experience of my life so far and I’m overjoyed to tell you that it’ll be coming to the big screen soon 😆,” she tweeted. “Starting Oct 13th you’ll be able to experience the concert film in theaters in North America!” 

She encouraged people who see Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour to wear Eras Tour attire, bring and share friendship bracelets (a reference in the song “You’re On Your Own Kid” that Swifties have taken to heart), and sing and dance along to the music. She shared a link that allows people to purchase tickets from four major movie ticket chains and retailers (AMC, Regal, Cinemark, and Fandango). Alamo Drafthouse is also planning to screen the concert film in theaters.

Tickets for the film will cost $19.89 for adults and $13.13 for children and seniors. If you see the movie in a premium format like Dolby or IMAX, tickets will be more expensive.

The Eras Tour is the hottest concert ticket of the year and one of the most difficult to obtain. Tickets for the Eras Tour were so in demand that the initial pre-sale crashed Ticketmaster, and many of the tickets were scooped up by bots that immediately posted them on resale sites for tens of thousands of dollars. The efforts were so disastrous that it led to a congressional hearing in which members of Congress criticized how Ticketmaster handled the situation and described the site as a monopoly.

AMC Theatres, the largest movie theater chain in the world, announced it upgraded the site’s capacity to handle what it expected to be much higher ticket demand than normal.

“In anticipation of this announcement, AMC has upgraded its website and ticketing engines to handle more than five times the largest influx of ticket-buying traffic the Company has ever experienced before,” a press release stated. “But AMC is also aware that no ticketing system in history seems to have been able to accommodate the soaring demand from Taylor Swift fans when tickets are first placed on sale. Guests wanting to be the first to buy their tickets online may experience delays, longer-than-usual ticket-purchase waiting-room times, and possible outages. AMC is committed to ensuring any delays or outages are addressed as quickly as possible.”

Now, Swift fans can get the full concert experience while purchasing tickets. There are virtual queues, a brief window to buy tickets once you get out of the queue, no refunds or exchanges once you purchase tickets, and even some glitches during the process. (You also can’t use movie theater perks like AMC Stubs points or the AMC A-List to buy the tickets.) But compared to Ticketmaster, it was largely smooth sailing. Enough so that at least one person illustrated Ticketmaster raging over movie ticket sales mostly going off without a hitch.

People quickly imagined their pop culture faves wanting to purchase tickets to the Eras Tour movie. Others 

And with the film only being released in North American theaters, it made international fans feel especially left out of the spectacle. It’s unclear if and when they’ll get the chance to watch Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour in theaters.

Her last tour, the Reputation Stadium Tour, was also transformed into a concert film. It’s streaming on Netflix, which is also home to the Taylor Swift documentary Miss Americana.

Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online.

The post Taylor Swift is giving fans the full Eras Tour experience (including ticket queues) with concert film appeared first on The Daily Dot.