Coco Creams Competition, Claims Crown (Again)

32
Coco third straight

For the third straight week, Coco proved to be a box-office monster, buzzing to No. 1 and turning its competition inside out.

Granted, Coco’s tally didn’t exactly soar to infinity and beyond. Pixar’s latest film made another brave showing, but it only collected an estimated $18.3 million—a pretty low tally for a weekend winner. Still, in an era where the economic duration of most films coincides with an average bug’s life, the three-week-old Coco feels pretty strong at this geriatric stage of its being: If it is a dinosaur, it’s a good dinosaur indeed.

Coco topped Justice League for the third straight week, leaving the superhero clique languishing in second. But Batman, Wonder Woman et al. still charmed enough moviegoers to add another $9.6 million to its cumulative domestic tally to $212.1 million. Add the whopping $400 million it has made overseas, and Justice League’s bottom line looks just fine. Superman may be able to afford to finish his Fortress of Solitude basement, after all.

Wonder finished just behind Justice League, raking in another $8.5 million to cross the $100 million mark overall ($100.3 million, if you want to know). Meanwhile, newly minted Golden Globe nominee The Disaster Artist increased its theater presence from 19 to 840, earning $6.4 million en route for fourth. The durable Thor: Ragnarok closed out the top five with $6.3 million.

What’s that, you say? No new movies in the top five again? Only too true. Just Getting Started was the weekend’s only new release, and it earned just $3.2 million and finished 10th—well outside the top five. (And, having seen the movie myself, I’m pretty sure most of those $3.2 million-worth of moviegoers will be asking for refunds.)

Next week, though, the box office could be, ahem, forced into a little shakeup.

Who wrote this?

Paul Asay has been writing for Plugged In since 2007 and loves superheroes and finding God in unexpected places. In addition, Paul has also written several books, with his newest—Burning Bush 2.0—recently published by Abingdon Press. When Paul’s not reviewing movies, he hikes with his wife, Wendy, runs marathons with his grown kids, Colin and Emily, and beats back unruly houseplants. Follow him on Twitter @AsayPaul.

Have something to say? Leave a comment.

charitysplace 3 months ago
Why did the insults / arguments get approved for this post, and not my thoughts / discussion on fairy tales and whether escapism into fantasy is negative or positive? I didn't write anything offensive to my knowledge...?
bobed 3 months ago
Just wondering. Is there anyone here who actually believes beastiality is morally wrong? Anyone whatsoever? If not, I seriously fear for our world.
Anonymous 3 months ago
Yes bobed, beastiality is wrong. However, many of us are used to the drama of Hollywood at this point. It is fantasy (which means that things are not always what they seem, hence the rumors that the female lead is also a fish-thing), it is secular, and it is from what I understand well made from a filmmaking stand point. Does that excuse it? Absolutely not. But should we be surprised that it is called art? Umm....No not at all. Art is such a debatable subject these days that something being called 'art' is as subjective as calling music performed on a cello, violin, or piano 'classical music'. I feel no surprise that Hollywood views films this way, but I don't really care. Until people start jumping into water bowls to explore relationships with guppies, then I will be concerned.
-AR
bobed 3 months ago
I'm glad you at least recognize it's wrong, but you don't care? Where is your moral compass? We Christians are meant to be the salt and light of the world.
Anonymous 3 months ago
Posted by First Comment Guy

Okay, so I just read the review for Just Getting Started, and I have to wonder, why on Earth would Morgan Freeman star in a movie like THAT?

I wish Freeman would star in better movies. He's in his 80's if I remember correctly, and it would be nice for him to finish his career by starring in movies that are actually GOOD. His last good movie, as I recall, was Dolphin Tale 2, and that was three years ago!
bobed 3 months ago
You're wondering why on earth Morgan Freeman would star in a movie about old men gone wild? Have you not noticed he's been in like 10 of them, starting with The Bucket List 10 years ago? 
Anonymous 3 months ago
Freeman was also in Ben Hur, which was a decent movie. Not great, but decent. 
bobed 3 months ago
I read the review for the new movie Shape of Water and....hoo boy. I almost laughed reading it. If a film that literally promotes and romanticized beastiality can be lauded, praised, and called "true art," and made into an Oscar contender... the world has really fallen into the deep end. You truly cannot get much more morally depraved. It's disgusting. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
Almost as bad as that that Disney film - "The Little Mermaid".  Lured countless young kids into thinking relationships with sea creatures are normal.  :p  

(It's called fantasy by the way)
bobed 3 months ago
In The Little Mermaid:

A) She turned into a human.

B) She was not shown engaged in explicit sexual relations with her handsome prince, and especially not whilst still a fish.

C) Ariel was a regular girl. As far as I can tell, the fish in Shape of Water is just that... a fish. No human intelligence. A beast. The woman not only physically has sex with a beast, but emotionally falls in love with it. But in our postmodern world, this is perfectly normal. One can "love" someone of the same gender, or an object, or a fish. Love is love!

There's a difference, and you know it. Stop being dishonest.
bobed 3 months ago
Oh, and one more thing. It's called fantasy? You're darn right it is. And the things a culture fantasizes about shows exactly how that culture is rotting from the inside out. Today, our fantasies are dark, brutal tales about interspecies sex. We are rotting.
bobed 3 months ago
It's MY problem that I "can't handle" beastiality? No, no, my friend, it's YOUR problem that you CAN handle it. That's disgusting and morally wrong, and if we were a healthy and normal society, no one except for a very disturbed fringe group would be able to "handle it." I'm flabbergasted that this is considered okay. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
When did he say that he could handle it? Goodness bobed, you really think that we think this is ok? We just don't see the need to trumpet widespread panic  to the masses about the portrayal of beastiality in a film. Beastiality is not right, it is disgusting. However, you are putting words in the mouths of others with your replies, which is also not right. The creature in The Shape of Water is intelligent btw, I could tell that from the review on this sites and the reviews on other sites. I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate what exactly we are arguing about, because it seems that you are taking words and assuming that we are implying something that we are not. 
-AR
bobed 3 months ago
It's called implication. His words very, very clearly implied that he not only was fine with the movie, but enjoyed it and wanted to defend it as artistically and morally neutral, at the very least. 

Perhaps someone will make a movie about an intelligent Schnauzer marrying a human woman and having coitus with her. Because the dog is intelligent, that makes it okay? That's not an argument. At least in The Little Mermaid, the mermaid had the appearance of a human and acted like a normal girl. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
Posted by First Comment Guy

Y'know, The Shape of Water and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) both have beastiality. Funny how one is loved by critics and the other is hated by critics.
bobed 3 months ago
Har, har. Very funny, but I refuse to believe you actually think video game reviewers in 2006 = movie reviewers in 2017. Also, I am not familiar with this video game. Where is the beastiality in it?
Anonymous 3 months ago
Posted by First Comment Guy

Of course I don't. I was just fooling around.

Anyway, the beastiality happens towards the end when (spoiler alert!) Sonic dies and Princess Elise (whose a human woman) kisses Sonic on the lips, bringing him back to life.

Granted, the game is also hated because of multiple bugs and glitches and numerous plot holes in the story, but the fact that they included that absurd moment at the end definitely didn't help.
bobed 3 months ago
At least they didn't have graphic sex.
Evan Weisensel 3 months ago
And at least Sonic 06 had a great soundtrack, too! ;)
Evan Weisensel 3 months ago
I read a plot synopsis of The Shape of Water recently and apparently the woman is revealed to be a "fish" thing as well (It's supposed to be the Creature from the Black Lagoon) at the end. So.... There's that, I guess.
bobed 3 months ago
Yes, that makes it okay.
Anonymous 3 months ago
Look, if you're really that opposed to The Shape of Water, don't watch it. Don't talk about it. Don't stand outside the theater and protest it. If you want it to fail, don't give it any sort of press. Ignore it and let it go away on its own. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
It will not go away on its own. Ignoring the issue never works. (This is a short summary of bobed's comment.)
bobed 3 months ago
There are many things I don't understand about this reasoning. A) I don't understand how nowadays it's somehow controversial to say that a movie where a woman and a fish have a sexual/romantic relationship is immoral and wrong. B) I don't understand why you think it's a good idea to simply "ignore it and let it go away." It doesn't WORK like that! Cultural rot begins slowly and gets worse and worse until it affects every facet of media. 

If we ignore The Shape of Water and let it pass by without any sort of controversy - which, unfortunately, it probably will - then imitators will follow in its footsteps. More blatant imitators. Perhaps a movie will follow where a woman marries her German Shepherd. Perhaps said movie will feature a "love scene" between the woman and said German Shepherd. And perhaps we will all ignore that, too, and soon it'll be legal in real life. 

You laugh and you scoff, but this is how cultural rot happens! And your spineless ignoring of it makes you nothing less than complicit in the decay that will follow. No, thank you. I will not ignore it. 
Evan Weisensel 3 months ago
What if we're all just fishy bois swimming together in this great ocean called life, just waiting for the German Shepherd of our dreams to come along and ignore us?

Really makes you think, no?
Anonymous 3 months ago
Okay, sure, go ahead. Protest, make a stink, and try to shout it down. Get rid of the thing you dislike by calling more and more attention to it, but make sure it's NEGATIVE attention. 

Because that strategy worked SO well with Harry Potter. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
Bobed, it is not controversial to say that the movie is immoral and wrong. It is controversial on the other hand to rant about films and then to not understand the genre that they are created for. Also, the idea to 'ignore it and go away', while wrong to a certain extent, is actually good advice. Take your little feud with Inkfeather for example. If you were to ignore him, the two of you would probably not fight, because any attempt he could make to attack you would be met with silence. However, if you respond, or he responds to an attack from you, a war of words that neither of you want may occur. Will imitators follow in this movie's footsteps? Maybe, but ranting about it on a blog is not going to do anything. Also, please do not call others spineless. Its kind of mean to all the snails out there. 
-AR
Evan Weisensel 3 months ago
I agree. I'm a snail, and I find comments about whether not people have spines to be very offensive to me and my people. ;) 
bobed 3 months ago
Allow me to tear apart your post, please.

"it is not controversial to say that the movie is immoral and wrong." Then why are people coming out of the woodwork to defend it?

"It is controversial on the other hand to rant about films and then to not understand the genre that they are created for." What genre? Fantasy? What do you mean, I don't understand the genre? I don't care if the genre is art house meets mumblecore meets dramedy meets sci-fi meets Western meets romance. The portrayal of a human/animal romance is still gross, morally wrong, and points to the decay of our society. The genre is all but completely irrelevant to this conversation. 

"Take your little feud with Inkfeather for example." Ah, yes. My least favorite high school teacher used to do this: when I would ask him something like "Can you explain mitosis in more detail to me?" he could come back with a completely irrelevant response pointing to my other faults and failures, sometimes in my personal life. "Well, mitosis is a little like your relationship with your girlfriend Suzie Q." No, it's not. Stop bringing irrelevant things into the discussion, please. Inkfeather isn't even HERE. You are spouting fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. As one adult to another (I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly), please stop being irrelevant, if you can. 

"ranting about it on a blog is not going to do anything." May be your opinion that I'm ranting, but in my viewpoint, I'm trying to instigate a discussion. And I absolutely love being sarcastically shut down by everyone who responds to me! (That's sarcasm!) I remember the good old days when you could actually have a conversation with people about the moral intricacies of our culture, about the failings of the movie business, about how we're going to save our kids and grandkids from growing up in a morally bankrupt world. Oh, wait, I don't remember those days at all. 

"Also, please do not call others spineless. Its kind of mean to all the snails out there." All due respect, when someone's recommended course of action (i.e. "ignore it and it'll go away") is utterly spineless, I'm not going to keep my mouth shut about it. I'll say it again. It's spineless. The very idea is without backbone and bravery. 
Anonymous 3 months ago
Wow, tear apart my post? It seems you simply took the points that annoyed you and analyzed how they annoy you. Anyway. You do not understand the genre that that movie is created for, otherwise you would not be surprised at all that it is so twisted. That movie goes into the genre that we people in the woodwork call 'Dark Fantasy'. Is it wrong? Yes. I have said this already. Do we need to rant to others who think the same thing about said film, but simply feel no need to express it to others? Probably not. Also, no one has defended this film. We have, however, been unsurprised by its perverseness and immorality. To that point, if you want to open a discussion, why challenge those who discuss with you? Only one or two commenters on here attempt to shut you down, and the rest of us simply feel confronted. Many of your comments are worded in such a way as to make others disagree with you, you may not intend them in that way, but judging by the response that you have gotten on multiple posts it is undeniable. Also, if I may take a quick side track, you say that I am spouting fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. Well, good sir, a fallacy is a mistaken belief based off an unsound argument. I think it is a bit much for you to judge my arguments as unsound. You clearly did not understand what I was trying to say with my Inkfeather analogy (apologies Inkfeather), or if you did you simply did not care. My argument was in no way irrelevant, it was an attempt to demonstrate how the argument that you are so opposed to has merit. The only person to my knowledge who says it is irrelevant is you, and that could be because I remind you of your highschool teacher. I stand by my point about ranting, which should tell you something about how your comments come across. It is not my fault that I feel challenged and ranted at by you. I can't help that. The fact that I am explaining this is kind of humorous to be frank. We are typing in a comment section, this kind of misunderstanding is very, very common. Also, on your thoughts on my ode to snails, I would like to say that I do not believe the other Anonymous's was saying that. He wasn't simply saying that if we ignore things they will go away. Rather, he was saying that if we do not draw attention to things, they are far more likely to pass us and others by without the extra press. These things do pass with time, it is a proven fact of life and patterns. That argument is not spineless, it is actually smart. I would use an analogy, but I know you do not like those, so, to be blunt, trying to fight something when you have no ability to win is foolish. Leave that battle to God and trust him to see it through. If your call is to destroy the hateful Shape of Water and all its progeny then by all means go ahead. We won't stop you. We will simply sit in the woodwork and sympathize with the snails. (For the record, that is humor). 
Anonymous 3 months ago
I apologize, I forgot my signature! How foolish of me. 
Respectively,
-AR
Anonymous 3 months ago
Star Wars is getting my money for opening Thursday! Count that as eight dollars revenue for them!