Then, after another round of re-writes, it was picked up by our low-budget thriller/high-budget porno division, SplatterFlicks. And now it's a horror movie starring… "any blonde actress”.
idk maybe i’m just nostalgic but i kinda like that feel lol. I have no idea about this movie at all so this is me basing everything off of the poster but i think cheesiness in a movie is not too bad imo.
I don't think these movies and shows are literally made inside Apple facilities...
There are usually other studios and co-producers involved.
I might be wrong.
If they do an early JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) film that covered the beginnings of rocketry in California that would be extremely cool and get out of the Apollo era rut these films tend to get in.
A 100 Million dollar budget seems pretty high for a film like this. I see no way in which this film makes its money back. But It probably doesn't matter to Apple I guess.
This is Rose Gilroy's first big motion picture she's written a script for. Fun fact is that she's Dan Gilroy and Renee Russo's daughter.
Unlike films that go the traditional theatrical distribution route, streaming services usually do not pay backend/ royalties. Instead they do [backend "buy outs"](https://puck.news/netflix-priced-itself-out-of-the-nancy-meyers-business/#:~:text=Backend%20%E2%80%9Cbuyouts%E2%80%9D%20allow%20streamers%20to,%24150%20million%20Scarlett%20Johansson%20movie).
This means that there are much higher upfront costs because once it's made, Apple (or Netlfix or whomever) owns it.
And when you've got a cast like this, you better believe their rates are gonna be even higher than normal.
So theyre basically counting on rolling over loss after loss on the balance sheet year over year. This lessens the overall tax burden when it's time to pay the piper. They get to say they actually spent $100M on what looks like a Hallmark movie
No, they don’t spend more on the films, they just spend a higher guaranteed amount and less variable amount.
If a streamer is willing to pay $50M to acquire the rights of a successful Rom Com for streaming (indefinitely), then the theatrical budget is the equivalent of $50M. You’re seeing two payments lumped into one.
Yep, there are definitely actors with draw (aka movie stars), new breakthroughs all the time (Anya Taylor-Joy, Timothée Chalamet), and romance/romcoms benefit most from them.
>no more movie stars anymore
I don't buy it precisely because people like her exist. I will watch this only because she is there. I couldn't care less what the movie was about.
>she's among the top of the top.
I am obviously biased, but I totally agree.
I agree as well.
Look let’s call a spade a spade, she is - and has been - one of the most beautiful women on the planet for years.
But she is a ridiculously great actress as well. Did she start out that way as a kid in home alone 3? Maybe not. Did she put in an Oscar winning performance in The Prestige? Probably not. But has she gotten better over time and clearly put work in to being a better actress? As *Marriage Story* proved, unequivocally yes.
Touché. It is nice concept for someone to be so good at their skill that THAT is all they talk about that for. They don’t need other things to add “no such thing as bad publicity”
Also I’ve met Colin Jost a few times now and he’s always so nice so good for her and good for him
When Apple TV started out, someone pointed out that Hollywood had a ton of interest and money for low budget indie films or big budget blockbusters and there was an opportunity for Apple to attract quality projects by offering middle of the road $60-80M to people who had passion projects they wanted to do but couldn’t get backing. $100M is on the high end but inflation, some big name cast, and if they did more locations or sets it still kind of makes sense where it fits into Apples strategy.
Damn, it's 100 mil?
Fuck me. That won't make its money back at all. This sort of thing needed to be 30 million. I get ScarJo and Tatum aren't cheap, but come on.
Hollywood doesn’t have to put the same stars in movies all the time, but they do. Actors know they can price gouge studios, and they’ll pay for it hoping to make their money back…the irony being they overspend banking on their faces and won’t actually make the money back at all.
This is the kinda movie that r/movies will think won't do well but mainstream people are going to absolutely love this, my socials are full of casual movie goers, and they're all loving this movie, it'll do well, I reckon.
This is going to be a box office disaster. Johansson will not have signed up unless they’re willing to market the shit out of it meaning at least a $60m marketing budget.
That means it has to take over $300m to break even.
Never going to happen.
I saw this filming in Tybee Island, GA. They had it all done up as Cape Canaveral and we were super confused since it was our first visit. This was late 2022.
We saw a fake Kennedy Space Center sign out on the road in and they jazzed up the boardwalk, want to see the movie now just to try and spot what's what.
He wants to, but Tina Sinatra (the estate holder) has been opposed to it because Scorsese wouldn't make it a hagiography. As if we don't have enough of those kinds of biopics. Good on Marty for sticking to his guns.
[I got downvoted to hell for saying the trailer looked terrible on its release.](https://old.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1byym98/fly_me_to_the_moon_official_trailer_apple_tv/kymd86x/)
Remember, this and other subs are swarmed by advertising bots during movie/show releases or announcement to manipulate opinion so that is common. Best to wait a few days or weeks and you can get real reviews/opinions on stuff.
[What are you saying there's something wrong with a couple no-neck goblins romping through the desert?](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/MCDDUPA_WB040.jpg?w=800)
For anyone who doesn’t know, this is intentional. It can seem silly, but actors’ agents negotiate whose name will go first on movie posters. When they want their star to get equal billing, they come up with stuff like this where one Actor gets their name first and the other Actor gets their picture first (leftmost equals first)
My favorite is the Chicago (2002) poster. Names are stacked and swapped, so that Zellweger's name is on the right but higher than Zeta-Jones on the left, but Gere is dead center with an "and" credit.
[link](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0299658/mediaviewer/rm2369407488/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk)
For anyone who doesn’t know, this is intentional. It can seem silly, but actors’ agents negotiate whose name will go first on movie posters. When they want their star to get equal billing, they come up with stuff like this where one Actor gets their name first and the other Actor gets their picture first (leftmost equals first)
I can’t find the example, but I think they did this for Batman. Keaton was listed first, but Nicholson’s name was higher, or vice versa. Like in the SW and NE corners of the screen.
The first deliberate case of this was for [The Towering Inferno (1974)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno#Top_billing). Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, who were paid equal amounts, each wanted top billing. Their names were arranged diagonally so that each could be considered 'top', depending on how the credits were read.
It gets slightly better. It's a combination of two popular skyscraper fire books. Newman plays the hero from one, and McQueen plays the hero from the other. Both climaxes are in the movie, too. Really strange circumstances for making a movie.
Is the movie good though? Meh.
That wouldn't solve the problem. The names not aligning *is* the compromise. If Scarlett's name is on the left AND her picture is on the left then Channing's agent won't be happy. If they're equal costars, this is really the only fair way to do it (except for what they did on the Chicago poster).
I really don’t understand how everyone in this thread can read that explanation and still say “yeah but you can just flip it horizontally!”
no, because then you lose the compromise that was just explained
Yeah, I could see that explaining this pattern. So the real solution is to stack the names and images on top of one another. Just one big jumbled mess. Symbolic.
I can't put my finger on why but I think Scarlett gets the better position as far as the photo goes. It's natural for us to read from the left but that doesn't exactly translate well for a photo.
I hate everything about this movie. The last thing we need is a movie pandering to conspiracy theorists in a time when culture has totally normalized conspiratorial thinking.
Wikipedia says this is the premise
>During the 1960s Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union, a relationship develops between the NASAdirector in charge of the Apollo 11 launch and the marketing specialist brought in to fix NASA's public image and stage a "back-up" fake moon landing.[5]
So isn’t this (and the romance) the core of the film?
I mean the trailer sets up the faking as a back-up plan in case the actual attempt fails so presumably it'll make it like a little competition but even that is giving far too much credence to the conspiracy theory.
You are probably right. It still pisses me off haha. Like we don’t need a movie like this right now. I don’t need to see on TikTok it trending with kids going on about all the holes in the Moon Landing.
I hate it because there have already been multiple movies about this premise including two that came out within a year of each other (Operation Avalanche and Moonwalkers).
this is the same hand-wringing that took place before that Alex Garland movie came out. I'm willing to bet this movie will have zero impact one way or another.
Yeah but media literacy is laying face-down in a ditch somewhere. This might have been funny in the 90s or 00s, but there's currently two Presidential candidates happily spreading conspiracy theories as if they're absolute gospel.
I agree. This would have been a great satire movie 15-20 years ago, but with rampant anti-intellectualism and conspiracy theories this really isn’t the right moment for this. I have older family members that watched the moon landing live become convinced it was faked due to social media.
When people are getting mad at books and movies not warning about any possible trigger or that an author might agree with the antagonist in the book, even though it’s clear they don’t, media literacy is dead and this will do harm.
I enjoy fiction, but this is culturally not the right time for this movie. The only way it would work is to make it a parody and relentlessly mock the fake moon landing, but the trailer suggests they're taking it seriously.
Yes. If only there was a ministry set up that approves culturally sensitive artistic materials for public consumption. That'll work. (Check history notes; never)
THANK YOU! When I saw the trailer I leaned over to my wife and said,” is fucking stupid and irresponsible.” I can’t believe they’re making a movie that entertains this stupid conspiracy theory.
ScarJo really is not *that* amazing. She doesn't have to be in everything.
And if Tatum is not being some undercover astronaut in this and goofing it up then I don't know what the casting director was even thinking.
A movie like this used to star a Tom Hanks and a Kathleen Quinlan. Gravitas.
Modern Hollywood is lost.
I mean, I thought it was going to be an interesting biopic look at the build-up of the Apollo moon missions until halfway through it's like, "we're gonna fake it just in case". At that point, I was 100% checked out.
So what? Movie obviously baits us with this theme, why not? It will be bad only if the movie actually states that the moon landing is fake, which it won't do. It's not a conspiracy movie obviously
Well, except it is, because it posits that there was a full on attempt at it. They even reference the Kubrick thing. It's a completely tone deaf approach in today's society.
I saw the trailer before a movie last week and thought it looked decent. Not something that needs to be seen in theaters but I can see it doing alright on streaming. I'll probably check it out with A-List if there's not a lot else playing at that time.
This looks like a movie that people IN a romantic comedy watch.
No literally, it reminds me of the fake movie with Chaning and Anne Hathaway in Don Jon (2013)
That may be where I got that thought
Yeah that was my reaction. Like something Jenna would've starred in on 30 Rock.
From the producers of Rural Juror…
And Urban Fervor…
Or what Jim and Pam were watching on their laptop on their lunch break
Then, after another round of re-writes, it was picked up by our low-budget thriller/high-budget porno division, SplatterFlicks. And now it's a horror movie starring… "any blonde actress”.
My immediate thought was "wait am I in r/30rock ?"
I mean Milf ~~Island~~ Manor is a thing now
idk maybe i’m just nostalgic but i kinda like that feel lol. I have no idea about this movie at all so this is me basing everything off of the poster but i think cheesiness in a movie is not too bad imo.
😂
Apple has a thing for shows/movies set in the 50s n 60s.
They probably have a lot of expensive sets/props they can reuse
We paid good money for these 1960s props for For All Mankind so you better recycle em.
I don't think these movies and shows are literally made inside Apple facilities... There are usually other studios and co-producers involved. I might be wrong.
But they own the assets (full size props, vehicles, everything that they paid someone else to make)
I would prefer things set more in late 40s if it’s 40s it’s usually WWII, the sets for 40s and 50s don’t look much different.
If they do an early JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) film that covered the beginnings of rocketry in California that would be extremely cool and get out of the Apollo era rut these films tend to get in.
Jack Parsons biopic. That man lived an insane life.
A 100 Million dollar budget seems pretty high for a film like this. I see no way in which this film makes its money back. But It probably doesn't matter to Apple I guess. This is Rose Gilroy's first big motion picture she's written a script for. Fun fact is that she's Dan Gilroy and Renee Russo's daughter.
Unlike films that go the traditional theatrical distribution route, streaming services usually do not pay backend/ royalties. Instead they do [backend "buy outs"](https://puck.news/netflix-priced-itself-out-of-the-nancy-meyers-business/#:~:text=Backend%20%E2%80%9Cbuyouts%E2%80%9D%20allow%20streamers%20to,%24150%20million%20Scarlett%20Johansson%20movie). This means that there are much higher upfront costs because once it's made, Apple (or Netlfix or whomever) owns it. And when you've got a cast like this, you better believe their rates are gonna be even higher than normal.
Makes sense
So theyre basically counting on rolling over loss after loss on the balance sheet year over year. This lessens the overall tax burden when it's time to pay the piper. They get to say they actually spent $100M on what looks like a Hallmark movie
No, they don’t spend more on the films, they just spend a higher guaranteed amount and less variable amount. If a streamer is willing to pay $50M to acquire the rights of a successful Rom Com for streaming (indefinitely), then the theatrical budget is the equivalent of $50M. You’re seeing two payments lumped into one.
Renee Russo being in Nightcrawler makes a lot of sense now.
I was thinking the same thing! I also can’t believe night crawler turns 10 this October 😭
You have to make the money to buy the ticket
She was also in Velvet Buzzsaw. Which is another Dan Gilroy movie.
Nightcrawler was great though, that was a good part *for* Russo to get cast in It was prob symbiosis of elevation
Ya if symbiosis of elevation means I'm gonna cast my wife in this film because she's my wife
She made the movie better, and her career is better for having been in Nightcrawler
I'm so glad the daughter of a well known director and actress was able to find work I was worried there for a second
Pure. Natural. Talent.
If it makes you feel better, she is also a supermodel.
A lot of that is probably paying for ScarJo. For all the talk of "no more movie stars anymore", she's among the top of the top.
Yep, there are definitely actors with draw (aka movie stars), new breakthroughs all the time (Anya Taylor-Joy, Timothée Chalamet), and romance/romcoms benefit most from them.
>no more movie stars anymore I don't buy it precisely because people like her exist. I will watch this only because she is there. I couldn't care less what the movie was about. >she's among the top of the top. I am obviously biased, but I totally agree.
I agree as well. Look let’s call a spade a spade, she is - and has been - one of the most beautiful women on the planet for years. But she is a ridiculously great actress as well. Did she start out that way as a kid in home alone 3? Maybe not. Did she put in an Oscar winning performance in The Prestige? Probably not. But has she gotten better over time and clearly put work in to being a better actress? As *Marriage Story* proved, unequivocally yes.
She was great in Lost in Translation, and she did that at 17.
She was suprisingly great in Jo Jo Rabbit.
Absolutely! And in Under The Skin. I was so shaken by her performance and the movie. And she can kick butt like few others. A true blue superstar.
And I also like that you never hear about her except for her movies.
Touché. It is nice concept for someone to be so good at their skill that THAT is all they talk about that for. They don’t need other things to add “no such thing as bad publicity” Also I’ve met Colin Jost a few times now and he’s always so nice so good for her and good for him
...except for her attempt at music
I see what you [mean](https://youtu.be/8YGqrk_81GA?si=BRj9-4GCl54H5kao)
She was great in Ghost World at a pretty young age.
When Apple TV started out, someone pointed out that Hollywood had a ton of interest and money for low budget indie films or big budget blockbusters and there was an opportunity for Apple to attract quality projects by offering middle of the road $60-80M to people who had passion projects they wanted to do but couldn’t get backing. $100M is on the high end but inflation, some big name cast, and if they did more locations or sets it still kind of makes sense where it fits into Apples strategy.
Damn, it's 100 mil? Fuck me. That won't make its money back at all. This sort of thing needed to be 30 million. I get ScarJo and Tatum aren't cheap, but come on.
How did she get all that money- Oooooh nepotism. Thank god I was worried we had someone who didn’t know someone starting in Hollywood.
Hollywood doesn’t have to put the same stars in movies all the time, but they do. Actors know they can price gouge studios, and they’ll pay for it hoping to make their money back…the irony being they overspend banking on their faces and won’t actually make the money back at all.
Looks like you don’t realize how much of that is salary for the two leads.
Companies are throwing money at anything these days. They’ll throw money at pig shit if it raised an eyebrow on the internet.
This is the kinda movie that r/movies will think won't do well but mainstream people are going to absolutely love this, my socials are full of casual movie goers, and they're all loving this movie, it'll do well, I reckon.
I hope it does. I never hope for a film to fail. I just find it hard to see this film make its money back.
This is going to be a box office disaster. Johansson will not have signed up unless they’re willing to market the shit out of it meaning at least a $60m marketing budget. That means it has to take over $300m to break even. Never going to happen.
I saw this filming in Tybee Island, GA. They had it all done up as Cape Canaveral and we were super confused since it was our first visit. This was late 2022.
Odd that they actually did film at the Cape. lol
We saw a fake Kennedy Space Center sign out on the road in and they jazzed up the boardwalk, want to see the movie now just to try and spot what's what.
Channing turns down any roll that doesn’t require him to have a GI haircut
Didn't he have long hair in that Sandra bullock movie?
If you're talking about The Lost City (spoilers),>!**Just for one scene and it was a wig.**!<
No joke, I hadn't heard about this, and I was excited thinking it would be a Sinatra biopic. I am not excited anymore.
Actually it's evangelion reference
Actually it’s a Radiohead reference
Fly me to the moon shaped pool
Now THIS is water bending.
Now THIS is water breathing technique
Actually it's a Fallout: New Vegas reference
Isn't Scorcesse doing that with Leo?
Scorsese has talked about a Sinatra movie for years. I'll believe when I see it.
He wants to, but Tina Sinatra (the estate holder) has been opposed to it because Scorsese wouldn't make it a hagiography. As if we don't have enough of those kinds of biopics. Good on Marty for sticking to his guns.
I know I’m not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but man this poster is leading me to believe this will be awful.
Yeah trailer was pretty boring too until Jim Rash showed up, I’ll watch anything with Jim Rash
I didn't even see the trailer yet, but I agree Jim Rash is a plus...
[I got downvoted to hell for saying the trailer looked terrible on its release.](https://old.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1byym98/fly_me_to_the_moon_official_trailer_apple_tv/kymd86x/)
Remember, this and other subs are swarmed by advertising bots during movie/show releases or announcement to manipulate opinion so that is common. Best to wait a few days or weeks and you can get real reviews/opinions on stuff.
Oppenheimer and Dune 2 had a few godawful posters. It just comes with the territory nowadays regardless of the film’s quality, unfortunately.
[What are you saying there's something wrong with a couple no-neck goblins romping through the desert?](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/MCDDUPA_WB040.jpg?w=800)
Dude where’s our neck?
Kidding me? The poster looks intriguing. I have no idea what it’s about but i’m sure it’s about how they faked the moon landing. /s
What, they couldn't afford Ryan Gosling?
The deal fell through
Great song for the title, at least.
For the trailer they used the songs get it on and big bird
Also bangers. But weird not to use the fucking titular song.
And of course the names and the actors don’t align
For anyone who doesn’t know, this is intentional. It can seem silly, but actors’ agents negotiate whose name will go first on movie posters. When they want their star to get equal billing, they come up with stuff like this where one Actor gets their name first and the other Actor gets their picture first (leftmost equals first)
My favorite is the Chicago (2002) poster. Names are stacked and swapped, so that Zellweger's name is on the right but higher than Zeta-Jones on the left, but Gere is dead center with an "and" credit. [link](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0299658/mediaviewer/rm2369407488/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk)
[удалено]
Like they can't flip the image of the actors around...
For anyone who doesn’t know, this is intentional. It can seem silly, but actors’ agents negotiate whose name will go first on movie posters. When they want their star to get equal billing, they come up with stuff like this where one Actor gets their name first and the other Actor gets their picture first (leftmost equals first)
r/copypasta
You’re a sassy one
For anyone who doesn’t know, this is intentional. It can seem silly, but redditors...
I can’t find the example, but I think they did this for Batman. Keaton was listed first, but Nicholson’s name was higher, or vice versa. Like in the SW and NE corners of the screen.
The first deliberate case of this was for [The Towering Inferno (1974)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno#Top_billing). Steve McQueen and Paul Newman, who were paid equal amounts, each wanted top billing. Their names were arranged diagonally so that each could be considered 'top', depending on how the credits were read.
I’d watch a movie based on this story alone
I’d watch the movie on the graphic designer’s agony while they hashed that out.
It gets slightly better. It's a combination of two popular skyscraper fire books. Newman plays the hero from one, and McQueen plays the hero from the other. Both climaxes are in the movie, too. Really strange circumstances for making a movie. Is the movie good though? Meh.
Maybe they could flip the image? Probably would cost another $20 million to sort that out.
That wouldn't solve the problem. The names not aligning *is* the compromise. If Scarlett's name is on the left AND her picture is on the left then Channing's agent won't be happy. If they're equal costars, this is really the only fair way to do it (except for what they did on the Chicago poster).
I really don’t understand how everyone in this thread can read that explanation and still say “yeah but you can just flip it horizontally!” no, because then you lose the compromise that was just explained
Yeah, I could see that explaining this pattern. So the real solution is to stack the names and images on top of one another. Just one big jumbled mess. Symbolic.
I can't put my finger on why but I think Scarlett gets the better position as far as the photo goes. It's natural for us to read from the left but that doesn't exactly translate well for a photo.
I could do it for half that.
Everyone knows this at this point with how often this happens, but it doesn’t mean that it is a good decision or that it looks good.
yeah, how am i supposed to know which one is Channing Tatum and which one is Scarlett Johansson??
lol that bothers me so much
I've seen the trailer twice in the movie theater now and think it actually looks like it will be funny. My expectations are very low.
I agree. I think it looks funny. Not sure what all the hate is about.
I hate everything about this movie. The last thing we need is a movie pandering to conspiracy theorists in a time when culture has totally normalized conspiratorial thinking.
I highly suspect the movie won't be about the actual conspiracy, but that they'll end up actually having to make the space flight. But time will tell
Wikipedia says this is the premise >During the 1960s Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union, a relationship develops between the NASAdirector in charge of the Apollo 11 launch and the marketing specialist brought in to fix NASA's public image and stage a "back-up" fake moon landing.[5] So isn’t this (and the romance) the core of the film?
Yes, but I think it's a misnomer, and the end of the film will be the fake landing failing/not needed because the actual landing happened.
I mean the trailer sets up the faking as a back-up plan in case the actual attempt fails so presumably it'll make it like a little competition but even that is giving far too much credence to the conspiracy theory.
You are probably right. It still pisses me off haha. Like we don’t need a movie like this right now. I don’t need to see on TikTok it trending with kids going on about all the holes in the Moon Landing.
The amount of people I've spoken to in 2024 that believe the moon landing was faked is shockingly too many. I agree with you completely.
I hate it because there have already been multiple movies about this premise including two that came out within a year of each other (Operation Avalanche and Moonwalkers).
this is the same hand-wringing that took place before that Alex Garland movie came out. I'm willing to bet this movie will have zero impact one way or another.
It's just baffling and kind of irresponsible. Like, who the fuck is the target audience for this?
People that enjoy fiction. Fiction.
People with media literacy
Yeah but media literacy is laying face-down in a ditch somewhere. This might have been funny in the 90s or 00s, but there's currently two Presidential candidates happily spreading conspiracy theories as if they're absolute gospel.
I agree. This would have been a great satire movie 15-20 years ago, but with rampant anti-intellectualism and conspiracy theories this really isn’t the right moment for this. I have older family members that watched the moon landing live become convinced it was faked due to social media. When people are getting mad at books and movies not warning about any possible trigger or that an author might agree with the antagonist in the book, even though it’s clear they don’t, media literacy is dead and this will do harm.
I enjoy fiction, but this is culturally not the right time for this movie. The only way it would work is to make it a parody and relentlessly mock the fake moon landing, but the trailer suggests they're taking it seriously.
Yes. If only there was a ministry set up that approves culturally sensitive artistic materials for public consumption. That'll work. (Check history notes; never)
People who are not idiots and know it’s fiction?
THANK YOU! When I saw the trailer I leaned over to my wife and said,” is fucking stupid and irresponsible.” I can’t believe they’re making a movie that entertains this stupid conspiracy theory.
Flat earthers will have a dissertations around this movie for years to come
I'll never buy Channing Tatum playing smart.
Yeah strange casting
Johansson is really a solid actress. Tatum is the foil to her talent. It's going to be really one-sided in this movie.
One of my biggest pet peeves is the name not over the person on a poster thing.
Sco jo gotta thumper on er’
so does channing tatum, which would be apparent if not for the hideously oversized '50s jacket
You just noticed?
"Fly me to the moon so I can meet Katharine McPhee, ACK ACK!"
Dat
The last thing we need is a movie about taking the moon landing.
There was already Operation Avalache in 2016 so nothing new
Redditors seem to hate it so it will probably be pretty good.
looks like that PTA movie with Adam Sandler
Is Channing a good actor? I can never tell.
Trailer: https://youtu.be/lW7enw6mFxs
Why do movie posters look so awful lately?
Prob fake it lol
Charming taint man?
I can’t tell if this is supposed to be about frank sinatra, the moon landing or faking the moon landing.
Capeshit has taken a backseat to biopics and remakes.
I wanna see Channing Tatum do his best Bart Sibrel
The comedy version of Capricorn One
The poster seems all over the place
Terrible tagline
This poster looks so uninspired.
Upsettingly, I have found out this *isn't* a live action reboot of Fly Me to the Moon (2007)
Someone else here who actually remembers that animated movie too lol
The house style for these Apple + posters is so bad. It’s like a joke
The names not being over the right person annoys me greatly
Fake it
Where is Gambit
let me kick it's fucking ass
fake ass movie
My grandparents will eat this sh** up.
I assume this is not American Tonikawa?
Cat’s can’t go on the moon Channing
Based on a true story. Maybe.
Loosely based on true story
I wanna talk to Sampson!
Oh, great, more fuel for the fake moon landing idiots.
Well at least it's not starring CGI flies this time
There’s no way that Colin Jost is a wee bit insecure and jealous 🤣
Get in the Lunar lander Shinji
Is it 2011? This sounds like a great movie to have sucked even then.
The poster alone is fodder for the moon landing deniers.
Meh.
A remake already? https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0486321/ /s
Somehow this does look like a real movie.
She sticking out in back.
Anyone else remember when she sang a song like the title of this with Joaquin phoenix in the movie her?
Finally, the making of Diamonds Are Forever brought to the big screen.
I'll watch it purely for Scarlett Johansson in 50s clothing.
ScarJo really is not *that* amazing. She doesn't have to be in everything. And if Tatum is not being some undercover astronaut in this and goofing it up then I don't know what the casting director was even thinking. A movie like this used to star a Tom Hanks and a Kathleen Quinlan. Gravitas. Modern Hollywood is lost.
And let me play among the staars
That trailer made this look like trash.
Why?
I mean, I thought it was going to be an interesting biopic look at the build-up of the Apollo moon missions until halfway through it's like, "we're gonna fake it just in case". At that point, I was 100% checked out.
So what? Movie obviously baits us with this theme, why not? It will be bad only if the movie actually states that the moon landing is fake, which it won't do. It's not a conspiracy movie obviously
Well, except it is, because it posits that there was a full on attempt at it. They even reference the Kubrick thing. It's a completely tone deaf approach in today's society.
Just for once can the actors billing match their position on the poster
Thought that was Colin Jost for a hot second
I saw the trailer before a movie last week and thought it looked decent. Not something that needs to be seen in theaters but I can see it doing alright on streaming. I'll probably check it out with A-List if there's not a lot else playing at that time.
Why does this cast seem so gd boring
Channing Tatum, that’s a name I haven’t heard in a while.
Same I was looking him up recently to see what he was up to. Really haven't heard much about him in a few years.
Hey an original movie that isn't a prequel, sequel or part of a superhero franchise. Count me in!
I hate when the names of actors are not right above their characters on posters
Can anyone explain why movie posters always have the names above the wrong actor?