Why Two Similar Movies Come Out Around the Same Time? + Who Won The ‘Twin’ Films Box Office Battle + The Lighthouse Movie Review

00:00:00
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Movie Mix Movie Podcast, where today I'm talking about the twin film phenomenon. So have you ever noticed that two similar movies come out around the same time and they're about pretty much the exact same thing. Well, there's a reason for that, so you're not crazy. This actually happens all the time. So you may see a trailer for one movie and then you see pretty much the identical trailer like three months later, and like, wait a minute, I'm pretty sure I've already seen that movie. So I dug in, did some research and found out exactly why studios can get away with doing this, and I was actually pretty satisfied of what I found out. And the second part of this, I'll also take to twin movies that were up against each other and find out which one did better at the box office and which one we kind of remember more and had a more of an impact on our lives because some of these I forgot were even made. Also in my movie review this week, i'll talk about The Lighthouse with Robert Pattinson, a pretty weird movie overall, and I'll get into that, and I'll round up some movie news about some sequels being made that I'm pretty excited about so all that will be covered here on this episode. Thanks for hitting play, thanks for hitting download. If you don't mind, hit that follow button so you get brand new episodes. Every single Monday is when these come out. If you also have a friend who's into movies and be like, hey, you know a movie Mike from the Bobby Bones Show. He has a podcast where all he does is talk about movies. Used to check it out. That would help me out. And also if you want, leave that five star rating in that review on Apple Podcast because that helps me kind of butt myself up there and get noticed by other people. Well maybe have no idea who I am. Well, it's pretty much assumed that nobody does, okay, And as always, you can follow me on Twitter and Instagram at Mike Destro. I usually throw out the topic on my Twitter, so if you want to go follow me on there, you can kind of give your opinion even before I record the episode. So with all that out of the way, let's get started. In a world where everyone and their mother has a podcast, one man stands to infiltrate the ears of listeners like never before in a movie podcast. A man with so much movie knowledge. He's basically like a walking aud MTV with classes from the Nashville Podcast Network. This is movie. So today I'm talking about why two similar movies can come out around the same time. They have pretty much similar plots, maybe even the title is similar, but a few key differences make it to where they're just known as something called twin films, which is something I recognized probably early on as a kid, and I didn't really know what was going on. So what I want to do in this first segment is just talk about why this happens and how people are able to do this essentially without getting sued, because I remember this as a kid when I watched A Bug's Life and that came out. It was a Pixar movie, and I was like, Okay, I love this movie. It's about bugs and they're uprising again some grasshoppers. And then another movie comes out called Ants, which is pretty much the exact same thing. You have these little insect ants and it's about which is a bit more of a darker movie, but pretty much around the same time, pretty much about the same thing. I didn't think about as much as a kid, and now I see it kind of more and more happening, and I really wanted to discuss and find out why studios can get away with this. Is it just that, hey, we found out they're doing about this, so let's get on it before there comes out, or is it there's actually some stealing going on here? Like why are people getting sued over something like this? Because in the news somewhich we see in music where people basically get sued for three notes. If you put out a song that sounds even similar to another song, that person can then sue you and say, hey, you stole my thing. So why is that a thing in music and not a thing in movies? So I kind of figured out why, and it actually kind of makes a bit of sense, and all of it actually isn't as negative as I thought. So basically what it boils down to in movies is you can't copyright an idea. You can copyright a script, but a basic idea and plot of a movie is something that you cannot physically copyright, and that is why people and studios are able to do this. So All You is one example. I'm gonna get into a bunch of different examples of two movies that were pretty much the same movie that came out, and I'll compare which one came out on top, but I do have some that just kind of work as examples to explain the situation. So the movies I'm gonna be looking at first our White House Down, an Olympuss Fall, and which are pretty much about the exact same thing. Channing Tatum's White House Down came out three months after Olympus Has Fallen, and this is why this happened. So White House Down was sold as a spec script, which is basically just somebody who wrote a movie and pitched the script to a movie studio. That's what a spec script is. And they sold that as a package to Sony with the director already attached, and everything was pretty much laid out for this movie. The budget was a hundred fifty million, all the production values and everything was they were going to build like a big replica of the White House. All this was in the deal for this movie. But then over here on the other side you have Olympuss Fall, and which wasn't a part of this movie studio as all. It was an entirely different script with a budget around seven million dollars. So it was supposed to be more of a like an independent movie, and they both actually knew that these movies were being made about the same time, but when the movies were coming out, they both thought that they had the better script, that they had the better movie, so they decided to go forth and both put out their movies around the same time. So Sony thought they had a better script with the better director who was roling ema Rich who was known for a bunch of big blow up action movies, and then a little bit of fault and thought they had the better movies, so they put their movie out three months after and pretty much just let audiences decide who had the better movie. So in this case, it's not all bad. While they both knew that they both had similar scripts and similar stories coming out around the same time, they kind of see also as they're able to use each other's promotions to benefit the other movie, to benefit themselves really, because they're promoting their movie about an attack on the White House and another movie is kind of doing the same thing, so it kind of has in the public's eye. You see these both movies with similar scripts, and you kind of see these both trailers and you're thinking, Okay, I've kind of seen and heard about these movies. Maybe you don't know which one is attached to which one, and you end up being just interested in the story together, and then you kind of based which one you want to go see on maybe you like the actors better, you like the director better, and then you make your pick. So these movie stagures are kind of just writing each other's coat tails on the promotion of this and really in the end letting the audience decide which one they like better. It's not really in this case them stealing the other person's idea, because another thing that happens is somebody will go to somebody with one of these spec scripts and be like, hey, I have this movie a really great idea. An executive will read it and go through it and be like, you know what, this isn't really a movie for us, And later they get wind that oh, somebody else took that script and is now making that movie. They've already seen that script, So they take somebody else and bring a writer in and be like, Okay, this is basically what this movie is about. We want to write a very similar movie without taking some key elements from their script and just making it our own. That way, when they get their movie up into production, we're right there behind them. The problem with this is that you hear about these twin films, but you rarely hear about twin hits because when they're just so similar, you're almost splitting that audience of like which one is going to go see the other. So, although they both get their movies out around the same time and they're able to still make money off of these movies, one usually ends up being better than the other almost in every single scenario. Very few instances where they're both hits. That hardly ever happens. Sometimes they pretty much split the money right down in the middle and make about the same amount of money, But rarely is it that both movies come out to be totally successful. Another reason why this happens is that there are certain scripts and certain storylines that are public domain, which is something I just found out about because you hear about songs being public domain. For example, like whenever Happy Birthday was put into the public domain, that means that restaurants can now legally sing it without having to pay any royalties to the songwriters. Because public domain means anybody can use it for free, you don't have to pay royalties to the person who wrote it. They are actually public domain in movie scripts. So going back to that idea that you can you can't steal an idea, but you can steal a movie script. You can't just take the script to Iron Man and make your own iron Man and be okay. No, you can take a storyline that's public domain and make your own adaptation of that movie. So an example I'm gonna use is Mirror, Mirror and Snow White and The Huntsman. So, first of all, everybody thinks that Disney owns snow White. Disney does not own snow White. They were the first ones to make snow White, but the actual script for snow White is public domain, which means anybody can take that initial story written by the brothers Grim and that story is public domain, meaning that nobody owns it. That as long as anybody takes that story and kind of makes it their own, they can use that no matter how they want. So Disney doesn't own snow White. They were the first ones to kind of make it their own, and they put their own elements to the story to where you find it as a Disney movie and a Disney story. But they actually don't own the rights to that movie at all. So whenever Mirror a Mirror came out and Snow White and The Huntsman, which was by Universal to not Disney companies, they were both able to make this movie because it is public domain. Anybody has the rights of that script. So this is kind of why every few years you see maybe movies about snow White because you can take that story and making your own. There's some other public domain movies too. Recently, the original Peter Pan is now a public domain movie, so maybe you'll see a new revamped story of Peter Pan coming in the next few years. And the most recent example is A Star is Born. That story is actually a public domain story. So whenever Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga did that, that was that story has actually been remade and retold several different times. And sometimes movie companies don't really like to let people know about that kind of thing because because making a remake is kind of it has like a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, like, oh, that's just a remake, very uncreative. Even when that movie came out, they never said it was a remake because it really wasn't. It was just the reinterpretation of that script that is public domain. So the other thing I kind of think about is why don't these movies just pull out of an idea once they see somebody else is making that movie. And there are a couple of reasons for this. Mainly, once a film is in production, there's so much money already sunk into the movie that you can't really recoup that money because you've already put so much money into it. By hopping out of that movie just because somebody else is doing it would end up losing you way more money, so you kind of just have to commit to it at that point, no matter how bad that sucks. The other reason this happens is because sometimes people are just reacting to what's happening in the world at that time. So, you know, around twelve, there was a big thing about the end of the world. Everybody thought the world was gonna end around twelve for some reason, So naturally writers are gonna start writing scripts and making movies about the end of the world. So you're gonna have all these kind of ideas floating around, and eventually the scripts get made and somebody just tries to beat somebody to the punch to make that same movie, so well, nobody's really stealing ideas here. It's the same kind of thing in comedy. Just because somebody finds something funny and makes a joke about it, somebody else probably found that same similar situation funny and writes a joke about it too, and then later they both did the joke, and then there's a big debate and like, oh, you stole my joke. Well, really, it's just because people will react to the same situations in life just like anybody else would, So the same thing kind of happens when they're making these movies. Like when Steve Jobs died, for example, there were two movies made about Steve Jobs that were pretty similar. One had Ashton Kutcher, one had Michael Fastbender. And it wasn't that like, oh, they're making a Steve Jobs movie, I'm gonna make that. It's just because it's just because his dad was a big deal at the time, and somebody was going to own the rights to the movie, and somebody else was just gonna make a movie based on his biography. And maybe sometimes they actually you end up stealing stories from another movie company and they're like, Oh, I had no idea you were making that movie. Oh wow, this is quite the coincidence here. Well, I guess we'll see who does better. That happens to Let's not be blind to that that generally people will rip off other people ideas that they think are good, and they're also instances where they even work together. There was one instance in a movie I'll bring up here in a bit where they're like, oh, wait, we have two pretty much similar scripts. They're different in tone, but we kind of want to work together a bit so to make them not exactly the same for audiences. I think overall, Hollywood doesn't like it when they end up having to put out twin films, because, like I said, one's gonna do better was probably gonna be a lot less memorable, and they often go to really great links to make sure this doesn't happen. And it kind of sucks when sometimes there is a really great script out there but it's too similar to another one and one that ends up not being made just because someone else beat them to the punch on it. But I guess that's just the way it is. I think the main thing that I just find pretty crazy is that the way they shop scripts of like, you can take your script that you've been working on to one company and they say no to you, and you take it to someone else and they end up making the movie. But just because that person remembers your story and remembers that it was good, they just couldn't really make it at the time, or they didn't want to invest in you, and they go and make their own script. That's just some shady stuff that really sucks for the writer who invested in this script and maybe put so much effort in time to making the script and someone else just steals it. That part of it sucks. But what I want to get into exis movies that actually went head to head against each other that were very similar. These twin films, which one one at the box office? Which one we remember more. There are some of these that I'm like, I had no idea that that was even a thing. They were just so bad. So let's look at these next right after this. All right, So now we're gonna look at twin films. I'm gonna give you two movies that were very similar came out around the same time. I'll to kind of tell you what they were about, and the two movie studios involved, and which one ended up coming out on top. Where I want to start is the one I remember as a kid, which were Ants in A Bug's Life. Both came out in and pretty much just followed the life of one ants point of view, very similar stories, and I think the kids, maybe you don't really notice the difference. They're like, Okay, kids aren't really going to pay attention to this. They just want to see animated movie about ants and they won't mind, and a few other months that another movie will come out about ants. I just thought these were ardly similar. I was a bigger fan of A Bug's Life because I just like Pixar movies more as a kid, and even Aunts had a bit of a darker tone. It was Servester Stallone, and I remember from that movie was the first time I think in an animated movie where I heard people curse. I think they dropped hell, maybe even s ob in that movie, and I was just like, WHOA, this is a way darker movie than A Bug Life. Um But Ants came from DreamWorks Animation and A Bug's Life came from Disney Pixar. At the box office, Ants brought in one hundred and seventy one million, and A Bug's Life just crushed them with three hundred and sixty three million dollars, so pretty much not a real big competition for Disney and Pixar were just a much bigger brand at the time. And really what kind of stepping into this animation collaborations with Pixar around this time, like with the success of Toy Story and all that, So they were really no match here. You left one ants stand up to us than they all might stand up. Let's move into one of my favorite genres, the disaster movie. I'm a sucker for a good disaster movie. I think Twister is probably one of my favorite movies of all time. I just really like the overall concept of a disaster movie. Actually, next week, I think I'm gonna get a chance to meet Dennis Quaid, and I really want to ask him about The Day after Tomorrow, one of my favorite disaster movies. But I'm looking right now. When you had Dante's Peak against the Volcano, which both revolved around the cast trying to outrun volcanic eruptions. So you got Pierce Brosen and Dante's Peak, and you got Tommy Lee Jones and Volcano pretty much about the same thing. One is in a small town up north, the other one is centered in Los Angeles, and at the box office, Dante's Peak put in one hundred and seventy eight million, which Volcano brought in a hundred and twenty two millions, so not too far off. I remember being a bigger fan of Volcano, and I think it was just for me at the time. The title Volcano, I kind of knew what I was going into watching the movie. It gave me everything I wanted. And Dante's I just remember not really knowing what it was about at the time. I actually rewatched them both pretty recently, and yeah, I still think Volcano holds up a little bit more than dante Speak. Although I think you really can't go wrong in disaster movie for some reason. I know they're not the greatest movies as far as the acting and the plot, but man put on a good disaster movie, and that is a solid Friday Night Do anybody feel that staying in the disaster space you have Armageddon versus Deep Impact one, You've got Robert Duval, one, you have Bruce Willis both pretty much trying to save the world from a big asteroid or comment pretty much about the same thing. At the box office, Armageddon brought in five hundred and fifty three million dollars and Deep Impact brought in three hundred and forty nine million dollars, both pretty big blockbusters, but I think just on pop culture, Armageddon had a way bigger impact. No pun intended, but I think with the song Aerosmith, I Don't want to miss a Thing was just a big thing that's tied to that movie. And when you bring up these kind of disaster movies and I think you just forget about Deep Impact a little bit, And really Armageddon is the one that stands out, maybe because of Bruce Willis Captain America. Here Blue the Landing by twenty six miles. How the hell do you know that? Because I'm a genius. This next one I thought was interesting. I've seen one of them and actually never took time to watch the other one. A n have The Truman Show and ed TV, which would both follow men whose lives are pretty much being filmed twenty four seven. The difference in this one is and ed TV he agrees to it, and in The Truman Show he has no idea that this is happening, and I think looking at box office numbers, you know which one we remember more because ed TV brought in thirty five point two million dollars and The Truman Show two hundred and sixty four million dollars, and it was nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Director. And The Truman Show is just one of my favorite Jim Carrey movies. I like the more serious side of Jim Carrey, and I just remember the ending on this movie just really hitting me in the heart. I thought overall, his acting was just really great in this where it kind of goes from borderline comedic and just really dramatic of like Jim Carey going through his character finding out that he is being filmed throughout the entire movie, the idea that he didn't know. I think it was just a better concept about this movie, unlike the a TV version with Matthew McConaughey, where he just kind of agrees to it. There's really nowhere else to go in the movie after that, and quite frankly, as a movie that we probably forgot was made. In case I don't see you, Good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight. Yeah, next one's pretty interesting. We got Disney Pixar back in the mix, which pretty much we find when you go up against Disney, you're probably not gonna win. So in two thousand three they put out Finding Nemo hit theaters big success, and then about one year later, Will Smith came out with another fish tale called Shark Tale. The plots are pretty different in this one. The real concept is just that it's a fish movie, because Finding Nemo is about Nemo he gets lost and his dad goes to find him. In Shark Tale, it's Will Smith and the shark, but we're all. Finding Nemo just crushed Shark Tales the box office, bringing in nine hundred and twenty one million dollars compared to Shark Tales three hundred and sixty seven million. Also spawned off Finding Dory, and it's really just the movie that we remember more. So, you go against Disney and you pretty much get rocked every time, except in two thousand five, when Disney and DreamWorks were added again. DreamWorks put out Madagascar and Disney put out a movie called The Wild, which is actually a movie I don't really remember at all, but both movies had similar plots about animals getting loose from the Zoo, and in this case, Madagascar crushed Disney with five and thirty two million dollars compared to The Wild, which is a hundred and two million, which the most surprising thing to me is that I don't even remember The Wild. I remember Madagascar being such a big thing, but this other Disney movie it's not even brought up into conversation anymore. And overall, the Madagascar franchises grows two point two billion dollars worldwide. So this is just a very rare instance where another studio went up against Disney, and actually one on over time, I let go movement moment, I leck go movement movement like to moment. These two movies that came out in two thousand six. I was actually a fan of both for some reason. I was in The Magic at the time, and The Prestige and The Illusionists are pretty much both about magicians. One has Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman and the other one has Edward Norton, which I think are both pretty solid movies. One is a little more developed than the other, and and also you have two better actors. Maybe, so when The Prestige you have Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman, which are two magicians competing against each other, and then Edward Norton is about his character using magic solely for love. Both I think pretty good movies. Both I thought were fairly enjoyable, and at the box office did pretty much about the same. The Prestige brought in one hundred and nine million dollars compared to The Illusion bringing in eighty seven million, And I think overall, we just like a good magician movie. Even though they came out her at the same time, I don't think they suffered from it. That's why a free Magic Trick. That's a third act nos Paul the Prestige. Now, this next one has two very similar plots. It's the one I was talking about where they actually helped out each other because they knew that they were both making movies about the same subject. So you have Sony making Paul Blarts mall Cop, and then you have Warner Brothers making observing report. Seth Rogan said that they actually both knew that they were making ball cop movies, and they even worked together and sent each other pictures of their wardrobe just to make sure they weren't stepping on each other's toes. Now, these are both really different movies, which I think compared to the other ones I've talked about. Paul Blart Mall Cop is a family comedy with Kevin James, often a movie that just kind of gets ridiculed a bit Kevin James being a lovable mall cop but takes his job a little too seriously. And then you have Observing Report, which is also about a mall cop taking his job very seriously, but it's more of a dark comedy, especially with the scenario that he's dealing with. There's a flasher in the movie that he's trying to take down and he goes to really great links to enforce his duties as a mall cop. He's also trying to land his dream girl in the movie, and eventually he tries to make it as a police officer. But overall just a very dark comedy. So for that reason, I kind of see why there's such a big difference in the movie numbers, because Paul Blart Mallcopp made a hundred and eighty three million dollars, which is surprising to me because that's kind of viewed as a generally bad movie with Kevin James. And then Observing Report brought in twenty seven million dollars, which is hard for me to see just because I liked Observing Report. I like a good dark comedy, and I really like Seth Rogan in this movie, it wasn't so much of one of his really funny kind of comedic roles. It was just seeing him more serious. I just think maybe audiences didn't really get the movie, or maybe just thought the plot was kind of dumb because Paul mallcopp was around the same time placing your right hand on your away hip, thus really giving the illusion that you have a gun, which, of course we both know. This one was pretty much the sect same movie being made, except for two different A list stars as the lead. So you have Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached, which are both about pretty much having friends with benefits. One just straight up says that in the movie title. The other one takes that title and kind of makes it a little bit different. Friends with Benefits actually had the working title first called f Buddies, So just to explain what this movie was about. So you have two movies pretty much about the exact same thing. Audiences a torn but you have to A list actors in each of the movies as the leads, and it pretty much came down to what audiences want to go see. Do you want to see this situation with Justin Timberlake and me Lacunas, or do you want to see this situation with Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher. Both went to the box office at the same time, and the winner is well, they pretty much made about the same amount of money. Friends with Benefits made a hundred and forty nine point five million and No Strings Attached made one forty seven point eight million. So you take a mediocre script, you put some A list actors in it, and you make about the same amount of money. Real shocker there. You know, why don't they have to make a movie about what happens after the big kiss? So there are a lot of other movies that this has happened to these twin movies, everything from like Babe and Gordy, Chasing Liberty and First Daughter, Girl's Trip and Rough Night and even Batman Versus Superman and Captain America Civil War, and pretty much you get one that does way better at the box office and one that we remember more, and the other one turns into kind of a cash grab to ride the coattails of the other movie. I think also what we may see more of this is documentaries. That's a really big thing right now. And like in two thousand nineteen where Hula released Fire Fraud and Netflix dropped another fire documentary, I think people are just reacting to what's going on right now. I just thought it was really interesting that why this happens and how they pretty much can't get sued for stealing an idea. But al right, next, I'm gonna hop into my review of the Lighthouse with Robert Pattinson. I also asked some movie news in the Ultra all do today, so some sequels being made that I'm pretty excited about. Get into that next. Alright, So I watched The Lighthouse with Robert Pattinson and William Dafoe. It's about two lighthouse keepers who are on this four week maintenance shift in an isolated part New England back in like the eighteen nineties. Robert Pattinson plays this guy who's a newcomer to help him out with the maintenance, and William Dafoe is basically this old, crazy guy who's been working there for a long time and he's kind of making him do all this stuff around the lighthouse, and it's pretty much them trying to keep themselves from going insane for being so isolated and holding having the other person to talk to. They basically argue and yell each other throughout the whole movie and then get drunk and forget about it. A really interesting movie and one that's really open for a bunch of interpretations. So here's just a little bit of The Lighthouse Left. It was a movie. Robert Pattinson's character is kind of doing all the grunt work and he's just being pushed around by William Dafoe. Um, what I like him about up with the movie. First of all, is it's just shots so differently. It's black and white, and it's in it's a square, so pretty much like you would see an Instagram picture. That's how the whole movie is. I think that takes a it getting used to just because it looks different right away. So maybe like the first ten minutes, I was just getting used to that. And it kind of has a feel like a really old like fifties movie and even like a like a Twilight Zone episode a bit. It's very like campy in a way where there's very big expressions and just weird things happening that come out of nowhere, really, and it's something you kind of got to get used to. So it's it's it's weird. It's a bit of a weird movie. So Robert Pattinson kind of starts going crazy at the beginning of the movie, and like there's the seagulls that just kind of start getting on his nerves, and the midth around the lighthouse is that if you kill a seagull, it's very bad luck. Well, Robert Pattinson gets really mad and kills the seagull and everything kind of goes downhill from there. So basically they're fighting throughout the entire movie and just really just getting more and more insane. They're seeing stuff out at sea, and the only way they're kind of able to numb the pain is by getting drunk at night and then dancing and laughing at each other. But then at the end there's at each other's throats again, so a bunch of really crazy stuff happens. Um it's it's rated are so there's some sexual content and it very out there nudity and I'm pretty hardcore violence. Like this movie goes there. I think overall, it's a bit of a different wash. It's not a movie that really kept my attention all the way through. I like what it did. I like that it was different, but at times it lost me a bit just because it's kind of weird and out there. I think overall, what I really took away from the movie is that the acting in this is just really great. I like movies that have a really limited cast because it pretty much puts those actors acting chops just on a higher level because it's just these two guys and a lighthouse and the acting, and this is really what makes it. I think Robert Pattinson really kind of shows how much he's how far he's come since Twilight, which I was explaining in the last episode that I think he'd be a great Batman for this reason alone, is that he's a really great actor outside of those Twilight movies that I think a bunch of people haven't seen yet. So if you watch him in this, I think you get a different side of him and kind of realize, oh man, he can actually act pretty well. He can get violent and get angry, and it's believable. I think William to Foe plays a really good, cranky old At times, it's hard for me to understand what he's saying, and I wish I could have put on subtitles just because they're speaking in a bit of a different accent, just because it's back in the day. But I really like how his character looked in the movie and overall how he was just kind of making Robert Patton's life a living hill. So it's pretty much just a mix of kind of comedy in a way and horror and just this old school black and white vibe. And it's even just kind of a little bit unsettling at times what happens in it. So it's not all overall horror movie, but it's just kind of creepy and just old school like that. So I'd say if maybe if you're into older horror movies just kind of want to see the acting chops of Robert Pattinson, maybe this movie is worth you checking out. You can stream it right now or rent it for like five bucks. Probably not something I would have enjoyed more in theaters, with the fact that I just got to put it on at home and watch it. I liked it for that reason, but probably not for everybody, I give it three out of five Seagulls. I think overall is just very head scratching and you're wondering, like what am I watching at this moment um. So I like the fact that it is a novel movie, something I haven't seen done like this before, a story I had no idea where it was going to go, but just didn't really keep me there the entire time. So that's why I give it three out of five. All right, that's gonna do it for this episode. But before I hop out of your ab some movie news that I wanted to share with you guys. Three stories that I just thought were interesting to me because some movies are being made and now we have some more details about them. So at the end of last year, it was announced that Jackass four was going into production with Paramount. Johnny Knoxville made the announcement and they even had a release date for March. The thing was, we don't really know who's all going to be in it. They're all older now, approaching fifty by the time this movie comes out, Johnny Knoxville, the star will be fifty, and it wasn't really said who's going to be in Jackass four, which they haven't put went out in a really long time. But overall, the Jackass franchise has been really profitable. They've made three thirty five million dollars worldwide. But over the weekend, Stevell made a post on Instagram with him and a Jackass hoodie and said probably wearing this tonight. Count me in, folks. So we know now that Stevo will be a part of this movie. Nowhere yet. On the other people, Johnny Knoxville made some posts that's saying that he'll probably get some newer, younger people in not from the other movies, into this one, just to have some fresh blood. I think that's merely because of the fact that they're all older now and maybe can't take on some of the harder stunts. But what I'm kind of wondering about is bamar Jero, who was in all the other movies and who has recently just been through some really tough times in and out of rehab and had some really bad problems with the law and his personal life. I don't know if he'll be able to get it together for this one. But the movie is still confirmed to come out next year, and now Stevo is in. I also saw that the Simpsons to movie could be in the work, so the first one came out in two thousand seven. I'm a really big Simpsons fan, my all time favorite show. Mainly the reason I'm even somewhat funny is because of things I learned from the Simpsons, and I like the first Simpsons movie. And another thing I just loved about the Simpsons movie is with all the promotion around it, they turned like seven elevens into Quickie marks. There's all kinds of cool Simpsons merched around that time, and I like the idea of going to the movie theater again to watch another Simpsons movie. But this movie has been talking about for a very long time, and Simpsons producer Al Jean recently came out in an interview over the Weekend that said that if the Simpsons movie Too does happen, it will be a standalone film, so it will in no way be a sequel to the first one, which I think is great. I think it's been a really long time since that one came out. To make a sequel to that probably wouldn't work. And they're going in now of their thirty first season of The Simpsons and I've just really thought that a Simpsons movie would be a really great way just to end the entire series. Like I love the Simpsons, I'm hardcore about maybe the first season one through fifteen. I'll now go watch the Simpsons whenever they have a pretty big episode, when they're trying something new or something different or a cool guest star, I'll go watch it now. But I can pretty much recite every single early Simpsons episode from heart like to the point where I know every single episode title. That's how big of a Simpsons fan I am. So the different thing now is that twentieth Century Fox has now been bought out by Disney, and Disney has all the streaming rights, so those all the seasons of The Simpsons, and now they have changed twentieth Century Fox to just be twentieth Century Studios. So if they made The Simpsons to sequel, I'm curious to see whether it will be like a straight Disney plus release or they'll actually put it out in theaters under twentieth Century Studios. And that's even if Disney wants to make it, which I think them owning them now has a really big factor to play into it, because Disney's remaking all their movies, right, how live action. I think if you have such a big property as the Simpsons and now people that are reintroduced to it on the Disney Plus streaming platform, that there's a really big opportunity there to make a new Simpsons movie that I think they'll hop on and I hope they do, and I hope they do it. Justice Screamville, No Screenville. And the last thing in movie news is that the Batman suit has leaked. I was talking about this all last episode. If you missed that, go back and listen to that episode. But I thought the suit looked pretty good. It looks pretty bulky, but not like ben Affleck bulky, and I like kind of the ruggedness of the Batman logo on the chest, and overall I thought it kind of reminded me of like Shredder suit from Teenage Musion Ninja Turtles, just because of the arms kind of had like these blade things on them, and then on like the four arms are like these really kind of shredder like things on them, the ears are very pointy. But I think overall, from these first initial looks at it, you also just have to remember that these are set photos, so what this is actually in the movies and on film, it will look a lot more different and probably a lot more cooler. The main thing I took away from it is there are no nipples, so that's a good sign. All right, that's it for movie news. I gotta give my Instagram shot out of the week now to shell Bell one thirteen, who posted a picture of their car dashboard that they were listening to the episode. So that's always awesome for me to see. If you want Instagram shadow, it's really easy to do. Just take a picture if you're listening on your car of the dashboard of the episode you're listening to, or just screenshot a in the I Heart Radio app and tag me on Instagram at Mike Destro and I give you a shout out next week. I hope you enjoyed this week's episode. If you don't mind, leave me that five star rating over on Apple Podcast, or just follow the show on I Heart Radio so you get brand new episodes here every single week. I will talk to you next Monday on a brand new episode. Until then, later