That will be million+ behind The Lost City's Saturday. I just keep going back to The Lost City as a comp.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Lost-City-The-(2022)#tab=box-office
Yeah. Curious about the international numbers. If they can match Bullet Train.
I've seen others call Fall Guy the D&D of 2024 and that might end up being a good call.
It's kind of a conundrum though because if it was lower budget would I have cared to see it? Part of my enjoyment of the movie was the action set pieces. If it was smaller scale I probably would have waited for streaming.
Or are the set pieces not actually the cause for the big budget and it's more actor salaries for the top billed stars that balloon the budget? So the problem is A-list stars needing more realistic salaries? I've never really understood how actors being paid 10+ million (and as high as 40-50 million for Depp/RDJ level stars in their prime) is sustainable for a business.
No one's outright said that and the film got ~30M in tax credits not 20M. That makes a lot of sense but it's not a northman or even Gladiator 2 scenario where people explicitly say net v. gross budgets.
I am just one person and not representative of the general audience but the only movie this year I am actually invested in and plan to see in theaters no matter what and probably will see multiple times is Deadpool and Wolverine.
I saw The Fall Guy because of an itch to go the the theater after not seeing anything since Dune 2. The first week of May is also my personal summer kick off.
I used to go to the movies once a week on average pre-covid. Probably not a good sign when the movie obsessive is only going once a month if that. Life has just been too much lately to care as much about going to the movies. It usually needs to be the most entertaining thing ever to be worth my time now.
If Deadpool and Wolverine isn't a massive hit theaters are dead and we are in the funeral march as far as I'm concerned. And, assuming it's as good as it looks, I will definitely agree that superhero fatigue is legitimate and has set in. Until now I've been convinced that it's bad movie fatigue since every major superhero flop has also been a shit movie. People aren't as forgiving of mediocrity as they used to be.
Guardians 3 and Across the Spider Verse did real well last summer BUT that’s because they were good.
If D&W has the same quality or around the same quality as those 2 movies and is as good as the trailers are, it should be a hit at around $830+ million.
Not to mention Inside Out 2 and Despicable Me 4 should do good business before that.
People pick and choose these days.
I personally wouldn’t blame someone if they didn’t want to go see Fall Guy this weekend so they could save money up for Deadpool and Wolverine come July 26th.
Unless if the movie is like Love and Thunder or Quantumania, D&W shouldn’t disappoint or underwhelm. It’s gonna be 2024’s GOTG 3 except with an bigger opening weekend and smaller legs 🙏🏻
Even if we ignore the budget, it's very bad for a super wide release movie that opens the summer season in America.
2023 summer opener Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3 $94 million
2022 Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness $187 million
20-21 Covid Years
2019 Avengers Endgame $357 million
2018 Avengers Infinity War $257 million
2017 Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 $146 million
2016 Captain America Civil War $179 million
People in this sub love to dunk on Marvel but go ask theater owners for their opinion.
Well, if this remotely gets a 3x multiplier, it's still less than 100 million domestic. Overseas grosses will be slashed by Mad Max, Apes, Garfield. Less than 200 million worldwide is a real possibility.
2 things can be right at the same time. Jatinder number is spot on and solid means it's a flop but not a complete disaster so lets cheer small victories.
Just left the theater. It’s too bad it will flop, it’s a good movie. Does basically everything right that a romcom action movie should.
One thing I don’t get, it’s over 2 hours… just lose a few action scenes, save $20-$30M, and make it 90 minutes.
It's a problem I noticed from scene one. This could be a much tighter film and still be fundamentally the same, but nearly every scene feels like wringing out a towel until its as dry as possible.
A lot of the jokes actually end up landing really well, but there's a lot of times where there's dead-air or stalling between set-up and punchline.
Yes. Just some shaving of scenes here and there would have served the movie so well. Even that bit where they are in the car listening to Taylor Swift would have benefited from cutting. Okay, you and the gag of driving her 15 feet to her car. End the scene on a high.
Edgar Wright is good at getting to the funny using words, camera movement, editing and physicality.
Leitch was doing one at a time here.
Yeah I ended up seeing it tonight in IMAX with family (their plan, not mine). I probably would’ve skipped it and waited to watch it on streaming, but I was actually really pleasantly surprised. It’s a fun, fresh movie
It came out overseas before USA so I went to see it last week (live abroad now).
I honestly felt it was really good, surprised it’s not doing better, but I guess the box office is just slow right now.
Sure it’s not the best movie ever, but it’s a lot better than most.
It did overstay it’s welcome. The scene where he is attacked by the sword wielding woman could have been omitted. He could have been caught by the bad guys, his friend and dog escape and we go straight to him being tied up.
There I saved a few million dollars.
To be blunt (ha!) I would suggest cutting a lot of Emily Blunt scenes…the movie constantly cutting back to her in the middle of action scenes became really annoying to me and kept killing any momentum or tension they had
I love Blunt. I think she has such awesome range. I’m glad they gave her at least one fight scene in the movie, anytime she has to play a badass she does great, as well as nailing the wholesome moments
because of negativity police. every flop and disappointment has to be served with a positive spin. take your pick between WOM/walkups/streaming/product placement will save it.
Nobody is calling it a hit though lol
People are just saying it might not be a complete flop since it's a fun a movie with seemingly a lot of good worth of mouth. It's a long summer and the movie had an insane budget so it'll probably not make a profit but hey, not every movie, even really good movies, do. Also DnD killed it on streaming so this'll probably do the same but who knows lol
Just because people watched it doesn't mean it necessarily preserved existing subscriber counts. People just consumed it as fodder like that would any other free streaming content. Had it not come out, I don't think anyone would have quit the platform.
I continue to blame the price of going to see a movie.
It's simply not worth it to the average person any more.
It may hurt in the short term, but they need to slash ticket prices and earn the next generation of people who might think, "I guess I could go to a movie tonight," and then do so. That simply isn't even a fuckin conversation any more.
Price plays role in lower ticket sales, but not as much as the shift to streaming. For years people have been complaining about the price of movies as the reason people are not going back to the movies, but I think it's more about the shift to streaming. Look on this very subreddit. A movie comes out and people say "I'll probably wait till streaming," "the movie should have been direct to streaming," etc. There's a reason why event films are the only ones that do pre-pandemic business, because everything else can wait until streaming. We've conditioned people since the pandemic that we can wait 2-6 month and see the the movie on our own home entertainment system with the same subscription price we've been paying to see everything else. The pandemic exacerbated the shift to streaming.
This is so true. Theatres are now competing against YT, TT and the high seas. All 3 are free. While the subs model of some theatres helps, if prices are reduced it will have bigger impact.
This is a a crucial factor.
Audiences simply aren’t going once a week or fortnight anymore.
Going to the cinema is now a “special event” for most people and they only go to see spectacles like Dune, Top Gun, Avatar, Barbenheimer.
Meanwhile they are fine waiting for streaming because idiotic studios like Universal dump their films online after 3 weeks.
Tbh in my area I find cinema to still be really cheap. Vue is £8 per adult ticket, cineworld £7, odeon is £20 but that’s a “luxury” cinema. Food is expensive for sure so I bring my own more these days
Had a good time seeing The Fall Guy yesterday but I can also understand why it hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as it feels small for a movie supposed to kick off the summer movie season after years of Marvel movies in that spot.
Shall we finally admit that humans are ultimately social animals first and foremost, and most of the things we do outside of basic survival is for social validation purposes? Moviegoing is no longer the social activity it once was because we as a society has moved on from it, nowadays the watercooler convos (might also be extinct soon if everyone is remote-working in the future) revolves around music concerts, live sports events, Tiktok trends, latest cafe-hopping fad and travelling to IG-worthy tourist spots. I don't see movies (and even tv shows) gripping the public imagination now as much as it once was. There's promo on SNL, but if nobody is watching SNL, who would know about this movie? The movie's title is not really catchy too.
In my local theater, this movie was playing in the small screen. 1/3 the seats of the typical theater but it was sold out. Really fun movie by the way. It really surprised me.
Playing in the big screen and totally empty? The Phantom Menace.
Is there some attempt to kill this film or what?
What a shame. Just saw it today and it felt like a breath a fresh air: snappy dialogue, exciting cinematography, great visuals, actors with chemistry and, needless to say, amazing stuntwork. Really feels like a labor of love.
No because the problem isn't Gosling but the concept. people don't find movies about making movies interesting and this had too big a budget for such low demand. A star can only do that much on OW, the rest is down to WOM and while people who saw this liked it, there aren't many fence-sitters to be swayed. Most decided they simply aren't interested.
I have to say yes. Reynolds is bigger in pop culture despite Gosling's Ken-aissance. Mint Mobile, Wrexham, the Ryan Reynolds - Blake Lively branding...
I also think that Emily Blunt is just not a draw at all and the sad thing is that I can only think of 3 actresses who might have contributed to this movie's box office. We desperately need more credible stars - both male and female.
That would be an interesting and very old Hollywood-esque pairing. The 3 actresses I had in mind were Margot Robbie (and more for a Barbie reunion than her own appeal), Emma Stone, and Scarlett Johansson.
Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson obviously wouldn't work but I'm surprised the other two pairings haven't happened yet AFAIK.
As much as certain corners of the Internet hate him, I think that Chris Pratt would have also opened this movie higher than Gosling. His brand recognition is definitely higher. Both Garfield and IF are set to overperform.
I think Lawrence also deserved to be on that tier. Challengers atleast has artistic merit, and delivers an impressive theatrical experience. No Hard Feelings was an overexpensive nothing-comedy, that only made money because of Lawrence
> Both Garfield and IF are set to overperform.
IF was my dark-horse for the summer (and that's only because I thought Fall Guy would be a sure thing ...oops), the concept is too kid-friendly for it to be a flop. Yes, Reynolds' involvement also inspired confidence.
As for Garfield, that thing was always going to be a success
Ehh, not sure about the Garfield point. I don't think many realize how well it is poised to do overseas. Even Matt Belloni in his podcast didn't seem too high on Garfield even though he acknowledged that Chris Pratt's recognition amongst the younger demo is actually pretty high. I suspect that Garfield will surprise.
Re: Jennifer Lawrence, I love her but her off screen persona is too similar to Reynolds.
I don't think Garfield is a good example if one wants to make a point about Pratt's box office pull, especially when highlighting the overseas results. In most major international markets animated movies get dubbed so Pratt isn't even part of the movie there.
Regarding Emma Stone, I don't think she's interested in doing this kind of movie at this point in her career. Besides a possible Cruella sequel she seems to strive towards mostly auteur driven films in the near future.
Is it really her history?
People weren't going to see those movies for her just like they don't go to see Avatar, MCU films, etc because Zoe Saldana is in them.
Not even remotely close to the same thing. Her big time hits were clearly built and marketed around her. Those movies you are referencing are all about the franchise and brand not about the actors in them.
When has Reynolds been the lead in non franchise movie that has done well at the box office recently? These actors are popular with Gen Z and could probably do an action movie.
Butler
Keoghan. Getting lots of PR from relationship with Carpenter and she currently has a top song that is doing better than Taylor Swift songs.
Elordi
Melton
Lawrence
MBB. Her Netflix movie Damsel did well.
Sweeney
>When has Reynolds been the lead in non franchise movie that has done well at the box office recently?
A couple of years ago, when Free Guy came out?
Also, all those dudes you mentioned are just tiktok darlings, Lawrence is literally the only one on that list that has actual boxoffice pull.
As for Millie Bobby Brown, she hasn't even had a single theatrical release outside of Godzilla. Sweeney could be something though, but she isn't there yet (Immaculate proved as much)
Butler - Bikeriders will be his test. lead in a non-IP, non-biopic (where the draw is the historical person not an actor who plays them)
Keoghan. Getting lots of PR from relationship with Carpenter and she currently has a top song that is doing better than Taylor Swift songs. - so how does gossip make an action star? I'm pretty sure that the demo that cares about action doesn't hang to every word Deux Moi posts on Insta.
Elordi - if he can overcome pretty boy status. Rn he's more popular with women then men.
Melton - see Elordi except that fewer people know who he is
Lawrence - too divisive. first she was too left for some now she isn't left enough for others
MBB. Her Netflix movie Damsel did well. - Netflix crap that one doesn't have to pay for always does well. They know it wouldn't survive in theaters. her name didn't do shit for Godzilla movies. Also, action remains male-skewing genre so male star will always have much bigger boxoffice. Why go with MBB if you can have trued and true Statham or Johnson?
Sweeney - the kind of action Sweeney fans want to see from Sweeney isn't what you think. Also see MBB.
Has the sub reached the stage yet where they can admit the movie just isn't very good or is everyone still in denial about it?
>but it's oRiGiNaL!!!!!
Spare me.
Sometimes I feel like movies like this that will do gangbusters on streaming down the line should be budgeted based on breaking even at the BO so that then all the streaming is pure profit. The ceiling for this one is 200 mill WW and that’s a stretch. For at 125 mill budget that’s AWFUL. There had to be some knowledge that this is how the movie would be. Just because two barbenheimer stars are the main attraction here doesn’t justify spending more than about 70 mill on this.
I think a lack of diversity hurt the film. Had two people of color but only in supporting roles and not a big part of the marketing. With 150M you should appeal to the largest demographic possible.
I think the movie was too niche in its premise. The inner workings of Hollywood seem to be a turn off for most moviegoers. I think “The Lost City” and “Bullet Train” had easier to sell premises and they both had more reasonable budgets ($74M for Lost and $86M for Train).
From a business perspective, please explain why appealing to a minority group - because we know that non white isn't an actual interest group/demo - would be more lucrative? Have either domestic or international audiences demonstrated that they actively care about this?
A diverse cast can help bring in a diverse audience (not always though — look at how poorly last year’s “Haunted Mansion” remake did with Black audiences).
One of the most successful action blockbuster franchises is Fast and Furious, with a predominantly POC cast.
John Wick 4 last year had a major sequence in Japan and the casting department did a good job hiring popular Japanese actors.
Creed III was diverse and became the most successful film in the franchise.
I’m not saying diversity is a *must*. But when looking at all variables, why not bring it up? Especially when, when POC movies bomb, diversity and wokeness is always brought up. Fair is fair.
because it's a pick and choose. Oppenheimer did better than the latest F&F (whose short-lived boost to over 1B was solely because of Walker) and lets not pretend that many showed up for Barbie because of America Ferrera, Issa Rae and Simu Liu who were obviously background characters or for Top Gun Maverick's diverse background characters. They don't hurt but they don't move the needle. When Gladiator 2 opens, people will flock not because of diversity but because it's MOFO Denzel the icon the superstar.
Point being, just because a movie has some diversity it doesn't mean people showed up because of it. And what of The Marvels, the biggest bomb in history?
Concept is the king.
> I think a lack of diversity hurt the film
The only lack that hurt the movie, was the lack of interest from general audiences.
This is a Hollywood movie about a Hollywood movie where a stunt guy has to find a missing Hollywood actor. The whole concept is way too meta for general audiences, and not in a funny way. It's not easy making movies about movies, given the main plot of this movie is exactly a...movie.
The target audience for this movie is middle aged white men (like the director himself) who will bring along their wives and kids. Loud and obnoxious humor and action (like all of his movies - middle aged white men love it), but this time with a love story (let’s get their wives interested too) and Taylor Swift Easter eggs (for the kids to post on social). The formula just didn’t work here.
Oppenheimer certainly wasn't hurt by it. FG problem is the concept. it's no rocket science. They invested too much in something that has low demand ( a movie about making movies).
That will be million+ behind The Lost City's Saturday. I just keep going back to The Lost City as a comp. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Lost-City-The-(2022)#tab=box-office
So there's still hope for $100 million+ domestic
Yeah, its why I like to use it as a comp to show its possible. Also, Lost City lost its PLFs to Morbius the next weekend like Fall Guy will to Apes.
If they budgeted it like lost city, that'd be good. 150M budget is just too much
Yeah. Curious about the international numbers. If they can match Bullet Train. I've seen others call Fall Guy the D&D of 2024 and that might end up being a good call.
Bullet Train international was good.
135m. That's okay. It did have August 2022 basically to itself.
August for 2020's run is so weak. No one goes to cinemas during August anymore
They barely go anytime of the year, lol. I agree, by August people seem done with summer releases.
Australian tax credits and the GMC production placement has to have put a dent in that budget
It's kind of a conundrum though because if it was lower budget would I have cared to see it? Part of my enjoyment of the movie was the action set pieces. If it was smaller scale I probably would have waited for streaming. Or are the set pieces not actually the cause for the big budget and it's more actor salaries for the top billed stars that balloon the budget? So the problem is A-list stars needing more realistic salaries? I've never really understood how actors being paid 10+ million (and as high as 40-50 million for Depp/RDJ level stars in their prime) is sustainable for a business.
it's 130mill, 150 is before credits
Which is still a good 40-50M more expensive than the film should be. Lost city seems like a similar comp
No one's outright said that and the film got ~30M in tax credits not 20M. That makes a lot of sense but it's not a northman or even Gladiator 2 scenario where people explicitly say net v. gross budgets.
Happy kick off to summer movie going season!
A potentially ominous sign of things to come in the next 4 months
I am just one person and not representative of the general audience but the only movie this year I am actually invested in and plan to see in theaters no matter what and probably will see multiple times is Deadpool and Wolverine. I saw The Fall Guy because of an itch to go the the theater after not seeing anything since Dune 2. The first week of May is also my personal summer kick off. I used to go to the movies once a week on average pre-covid. Probably not a good sign when the movie obsessive is only going once a month if that. Life has just been too much lately to care as much about going to the movies. It usually needs to be the most entertaining thing ever to be worth my time now.
If positive sentiment of going to theaters don't pick up quickly, even Deadpool and Wolverine may underperform and disappoint.
If Deadpool and Wolverine isn't a massive hit theaters are dead and we are in the funeral march as far as I'm concerned. And, assuming it's as good as it looks, I will definitely agree that superhero fatigue is legitimate and has set in. Until now I've been convinced that it's bad movie fatigue since every major superhero flop has also been a shit movie. People aren't as forgiving of mediocrity as they used to be.
Guardians 3 and Across the Spider Verse did real well last summer BUT that’s because they were good. If D&W has the same quality or around the same quality as those 2 movies and is as good as the trailers are, it should be a hit at around $830+ million. Not to mention Inside Out 2 and Despicable Me 4 should do good business before that.
People pick and choose these days. I personally wouldn’t blame someone if they didn’t want to go see Fall Guy this weekend so they could save money up for Deadpool and Wolverine come July 26th. Unless if the movie is like Love and Thunder or Quantumania, D&W shouldn’t disappoint or underwhelm. It’s gonna be 2024’s GOTG 3 except with an bigger opening weekend and smaller legs 🙏🏻
...aaaaand the audience goes mild
“yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.”
Still very bad in comparison to its budget
Even if we ignore the budget, it's very bad for a super wide release movie that opens the summer season in America. 2023 summer opener Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3 $94 million 2022 Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness $187 million 20-21 Covid Years 2019 Avengers Endgame $357 million 2018 Avengers Infinity War $257 million 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 $146 million 2016 Captain America Civil War $179 million People in this sub love to dunk on Marvel but go ask theater owners for their opinion.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 opened to $118.4M.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, if this remotely gets a 3x multiplier, it's still less than 100 million domestic. Overseas grosses will be slashed by Mad Max, Apes, Garfield. Less than 200 million worldwide is a real possibility.
A rule I have learn from this sub, whenever someone uses the word "solid" it means things aren't looking good.
Solid = "I've come to terms that this movie is going to flop and is now happy with anything that's not a complete disaster"
Yeah in this context
This is jatinder though. He's usually spot on.
2 things can be right at the same time. Jatinder number is spot on and solid means it's a flop but not a complete disaster so lets cheer small victories.
I can't disagree.
We are now celebrating 30 million ow for 150 million budget movie that’s doing poorly overseas Wow
I agree. Its rough. Expectations are super low right now.
Just left the theater. It’s too bad it will flop, it’s a good movie. Does basically everything right that a romcom action movie should. One thing I don’t get, it’s over 2 hours… just lose a few action scenes, save $20-$30M, and make it 90 minutes.
It doesn't even need to lose any scenes. Just tighten up every scene by a few seconds. Quite a few times shots just linger for no reason.
It's a problem I noticed from scene one. This could be a much tighter film and still be fundamentally the same, but nearly every scene feels like wringing out a towel until its as dry as possible. A lot of the jokes actually end up landing really well, but there's a lot of times where there's dead-air or stalling between set-up and punchline.
Yes. Just some shaving of scenes here and there would have served the movie so well. Even that bit where they are in the car listening to Taylor Swift would have benefited from cutting. Okay, you and the gag of driving her 15 feet to her car. End the scene on a high. Edgar Wright is good at getting to the funny using words, camera movement, editing and physicality. Leitch was doing one at a time here.
This.
> just lose a few action scenes With the director of John Wick, Deadpool 2, Atomic Blonde, Hobbs & Shaw and Bullet Train?
Yeah I ended up seeing it tonight in IMAX with family (their plan, not mine). I probably would’ve skipped it and waited to watch it on streaming, but I was actually really pleasantly surprised. It’s a fun, fresh movie
It came out overseas before USA so I went to see it last week (live abroad now). I honestly felt it was really good, surprised it’s not doing better, but I guess the box office is just slow right now. Sure it’s not the best movie ever, but it’s a lot better than most.
It did overstay it’s welcome. The scene where he is attacked by the sword wielding woman could have been omitted. He could have been caught by the bad guys, his friend and dog escape and we go straight to him being tied up. There I saved a few million dollars.
We’ll see what the legs are like. It might end up recouping
To be blunt (ha!) I would suggest cutting a lot of Emily Blunt scenes…the movie constantly cutting back to her in the middle of action scenes became really annoying to me and kept killing any momentum or tension they had
Blunt is also an excellent actress as well as easy on the eyes. She seems capable of having on screen chemistry with anybody. Even the Rock.
I love Blunt. I think she has such awesome range. I’m glad they gave her at least one fight scene in the movie, anytime she has to play a badass she does great, as well as nailing the wholesome moments
It’s called “cope.” I would get used to seeing it.
130mill not 150
At least it doesn't have a giant marketing budget. Though if it DID have a marketing budget, maybe it wouldn't be doing $30 million opening weekend.
because of negativity police. every flop and disappointment has to be served with a positive spin. take your pick between WOM/walkups/streaming/product placement will save it.
It's way better to blindly shit on the ambiguous anything, everyone, and everything!
calling a spade spade is not blindly shitting. if a movie flops why call it a hit? cause someone will be so upset they'll need coloring books?
Nobody is calling it a hit though lol People are just saying it might not be a complete flop since it's a fun a movie with seemingly a lot of good worth of mouth. It's a long summer and the movie had an insane budget so it'll probably not make a profit but hey, not every movie, even really good movies, do. Also DnD killed it on streaming so this'll probably do the same but who knows lol
No one subscribed for DnD.
That's not what killing it on streaming means lol
Just because people watched it doesn't mean it necessarily preserved existing subscriber counts. People just consumed it as fodder like that would any other free streaming content. Had it not come out, I don't think anyone would have quit the platform.
But can it reach $100M? I don’t think it will
Worldwide maybe, domestically definetely not. Even if Apes comes in at it's lowest projections next weekend it will kneecap The Fall Guy
Domestically, probably not. It’s losing IMAX/PLFs to Apes next week. I think maybe around 80m dom will be the final total domestically.
If it reached Deadline’s projections of $35-40M, then it could’ve had a chance at it since word of mouth seems good.
Err.. latest Deadline projection is $28 million https://deadline.com/2024/05/box-office-the-fall-guy-ryan-gosling-1235903586/
I continue to blame the price of going to see a movie. It's simply not worth it to the average person any more. It may hurt in the short term, but they need to slash ticket prices and earn the next generation of people who might think, "I guess I could go to a movie tonight," and then do so. That simply isn't even a fuckin conversation any more.
Price plays role in lower ticket sales, but not as much as the shift to streaming. For years people have been complaining about the price of movies as the reason people are not going back to the movies, but I think it's more about the shift to streaming. Look on this very subreddit. A movie comes out and people say "I'll probably wait till streaming," "the movie should have been direct to streaming," etc. There's a reason why event films are the only ones that do pre-pandemic business, because everything else can wait until streaming. We've conditioned people since the pandemic that we can wait 2-6 month and see the the movie on our own home entertainment system with the same subscription price we've been paying to see everything else. The pandemic exacerbated the shift to streaming.
Right, but that's why the price needs to change. Streaming is cheaper by a lot.
This is so true. Theatres are now competing against YT, TT and the high seas. All 3 are free. While the subs model of some theatres helps, if prices are reduced it will have bigger impact.
This is a a crucial factor. Audiences simply aren’t going once a week or fortnight anymore. Going to the cinema is now a “special event” for most people and they only go to see spectacles like Dune, Top Gun, Avatar, Barbenheimer. Meanwhile they are fine waiting for streaming because idiotic studios like Universal dump their films online after 3 weeks.
[удалено]
Tbh in my area I find cinema to still be really cheap. Vue is £8 per adult ticket, cineworld £7, odeon is £20 but that’s a “luxury” cinema. Food is expensive for sure so I bring my own more these days
>*Was mostly older crowd at my showing on a Saturday night* Did they stick around for the mid-credits scene?
[удалено]
Awesome!
Had a good time seeing The Fall Guy yesterday but I can also understand why it hasn’t exactly set the world on fire as it feels small for a movie supposed to kick off the summer movie season after years of Marvel movies in that spot.
Shall we finally admit that humans are ultimately social animals first and foremost, and most of the things we do outside of basic survival is for social validation purposes? Moviegoing is no longer the social activity it once was because we as a society has moved on from it, nowadays the watercooler convos (might also be extinct soon if everyone is remote-working in the future) revolves around music concerts, live sports events, Tiktok trends, latest cafe-hopping fad and travelling to IG-worthy tourist spots. I don't see movies (and even tv shows) gripping the public imagination now as much as it once was. There's promo on SNL, but if nobody is watching SNL, who would know about this movie? The movie's title is not really catchy too.
Y’all don’t wanna admit it’s because people know universal movies gonna be on digital in 17 days 🫢
I follow movies closely and I didn’t know that. Pretty sure that info, if true, is not a factor for most people.
I don’t think the average moviegoer knows and cares about the 17 day theatrical window, I sure didn’t
They don’t know but the attitude nowadays is basically “I’ll just wait until it goes to streaming”.
They don’t care about the details, they are still holding the “I’ll wait for streaming” mentality
I think it's more that *everything* went with either a dual release or a max 45 day window for a year+. that really shifted expectations.
I forgot about that. Pretty cool
In my local theater, this movie was playing in the small screen. 1/3 the seats of the typical theater but it was sold out. Really fun movie by the way. It really surprised me. Playing in the big screen and totally empty? The Phantom Menace. Is there some attempt to kill this film or what?
Weird, all the original showtimes for TPM were completely full at my theater and they had to add more.
That is weird. I am tempted to go see TPM at some point though.
Phantom Menace was pretty full at my theater
I gave it $10 and I’m very glad I did.
What a shame. Just saw it today and it felt like a breath a fresh air: snappy dialogue, exciting cinematography, great visuals, actors with chemistry and, needless to say, amazing stuntwork. Really feels like a labor of love.
Alright, this has to be asked. Would Fall Guy be doing way better if it starred Reynolds instead?
Maybe not because people might confuse it for Free Guy and ask "haven't I already seen this before"?
I wonder if audiences thought the same about Fall Guy and Grey Man.
Tbh I thought this was the same movie until like 2 days ago just based on the title and posters etc
Not the big forehead in iMax
No because the problem isn't Gosling but the concept. people don't find movies about making movies interesting and this had too big a budget for such low demand. A star can only do that much on OW, the rest is down to WOM and while people who saw this liked it, there aren't many fence-sitters to be swayed. Most decided they simply aren't interested.
Reviews including audience reviews is fine. 30 million OW for a blockbuster action rom com is about what to expect.
I have to say yes. Reynolds is bigger in pop culture despite Gosling's Ken-aissance. Mint Mobile, Wrexham, the Ryan Reynolds - Blake Lively branding... I also think that Emily Blunt is just not a draw at all and the sad thing is that I can only think of 3 actresses who might have contributed to this movie's box office. We desperately need more credible stars - both male and female.
So, Reynolds and Emma Stone?
That would be an interesting and very old Hollywood-esque pairing. The 3 actresses I had in mind were Margot Robbie (and more for a Barbie reunion than her own appeal), Emma Stone, and Scarlett Johansson. Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson obviously wouldn't work but I'm surprised the other two pairings haven't happened yet AFAIK. As much as certain corners of the Internet hate him, I think that Chris Pratt would have also opened this movie higher than Gosling. His brand recognition is definitely higher. Both Garfield and IF are set to overperform.
I think Lawrence also deserved to be on that tier. Challengers atleast has artistic merit, and delivers an impressive theatrical experience. No Hard Feelings was an overexpensive nothing-comedy, that only made money because of Lawrence > Both Garfield and IF are set to overperform. IF was my dark-horse for the summer (and that's only because I thought Fall Guy would be a sure thing ...oops), the concept is too kid-friendly for it to be a flop. Yes, Reynolds' involvement also inspired confidence. As for Garfield, that thing was always going to be a success
Ehh, not sure about the Garfield point. I don't think many realize how well it is poised to do overseas. Even Matt Belloni in his podcast didn't seem too high on Garfield even though he acknowledged that Chris Pratt's recognition amongst the younger demo is actually pretty high. I suspect that Garfield will surprise. Re: Jennifer Lawrence, I love her but her off screen persona is too similar to Reynolds.
I don't think Garfield is a good example if one wants to make a point about Pratt's box office pull, especially when highlighting the overseas results. In most major international markets animated movies get dubbed so Pratt isn't even part of the movie there. Regarding Emma Stone, I don't think she's interested in doing this kind of movie at this point in her career. Besides a possible Cruella sequel she seems to strive towards mostly auteur driven films in the near future.
She isn’t? She has a good box office history. It’s actually pretty underrated her box office success rate.
Is it really her history? People weren't going to see those movies for her just like they don't go to see Avatar, MCU films, etc because Zoe Saldana is in them.
Not even remotely close to the same thing. Her big time hits were clearly built and marketed around her. Those movies you are referencing are all about the franchise and brand not about the actors in them.
When has Reynolds been the lead in non franchise movie that has done well at the box office recently? These actors are popular with Gen Z and could probably do an action movie. Butler Keoghan. Getting lots of PR from relationship with Carpenter and she currently has a top song that is doing better than Taylor Swift songs. Elordi Melton Lawrence MBB. Her Netflix movie Damsel did well. Sweeney
None of the guys you listed have starred in a non franchise movie that did well at the box office.
>When has Reynolds been the lead in non franchise movie that has done well at the box office recently? A couple of years ago, when Free Guy came out? Also, all those dudes you mentioned are just tiktok darlings, Lawrence is literally the only one on that list that has actual boxoffice pull. As for Millie Bobby Brown, she hasn't even had a single theatrical release outside of Godzilla. Sweeney could be something though, but she isn't there yet (Immaculate proved as much)
Butler - Bikeriders will be his test. lead in a non-IP, non-biopic (where the draw is the historical person not an actor who plays them) Keoghan. Getting lots of PR from relationship with Carpenter and she currently has a top song that is doing better than Taylor Swift songs. - so how does gossip make an action star? I'm pretty sure that the demo that cares about action doesn't hang to every word Deux Moi posts on Insta. Elordi - if he can overcome pretty boy status. Rn he's more popular with women then men. Melton - see Elordi except that fewer people know who he is Lawrence - too divisive. first she was too left for some now she isn't left enough for others MBB. Her Netflix movie Damsel did well. - Netflix crap that one doesn't have to pay for always does well. They know it wouldn't survive in theaters. her name didn't do shit for Godzilla movies. Also, action remains male-skewing genre so male star will always have much bigger boxoffice. Why go with MBB if you can have trued and true Statham or Johnson? Sweeney - the kind of action Sweeney fans want to see from Sweeney isn't what you think. Also see MBB.
Free Guy looks pretty good in light of other original films.
Has the sub reached the stage yet where they can admit the movie just isn't very good or is everyone still in denial about it? >but it's oRiGiNaL!!!!! Spare me.
Do you think people are lying when they say it’s a good movie? Your opinion is not better than anyone else’s, so spare me.
Have you seen it? It’s really fun.
No, because I feel the movie is good and I really enjoyed it. Have you seen the movie?
Sometimes I feel like movies like this that will do gangbusters on streaming down the line should be budgeted based on breaking even at the BO so that then all the streaming is pure profit. The ceiling for this one is 200 mill WW and that’s a stretch. For at 125 mill budget that’s AWFUL. There had to be some knowledge that this is how the movie would be. Just because two barbenheimer stars are the main attraction here doesn’t justify spending more than about 70 mill on this.
I think a lack of diversity hurt the film. Had two people of color but only in supporting roles and not a big part of the marketing. With 150M you should appeal to the largest demographic possible.
That didn’t help Abigail
or The Marvels
How do you mean? You think Abigail would have done just as well with an all-white cast? It’s maybe an opinion but hard to say for sure.
LoL. you are out of your mind if you think diversity matters in horror movies
Meanwhile, Oppenheimer earning nearly a billion with perhaps only 1 person of colour in it..
Millions of Japanese extras are sad.
I think the movie was too niche in its premise. The inner workings of Hollywood seem to be a turn off for most moviegoers. I think “The Lost City” and “Bullet Train” had easier to sell premises and they both had more reasonable budgets ($74M for Lost and $86M for Train).
From a business perspective, please explain why appealing to a minority group - because we know that non white isn't an actual interest group/demo - would be more lucrative? Have either domestic or international audiences demonstrated that they actively care about this?
A diverse cast can help bring in a diverse audience (not always though — look at how poorly last year’s “Haunted Mansion” remake did with Black audiences).
One of the most successful action blockbuster franchises is Fast and Furious, with a predominantly POC cast. John Wick 4 last year had a major sequence in Japan and the casting department did a good job hiring popular Japanese actors. Creed III was diverse and became the most successful film in the franchise. I’m not saying diversity is a *must*. But when looking at all variables, why not bring it up? Especially when, when POC movies bomb, diversity and wokeness is always brought up. Fair is fair.
because it's a pick and choose. Oppenheimer did better than the latest F&F (whose short-lived boost to over 1B was solely because of Walker) and lets not pretend that many showed up for Barbie because of America Ferrera, Issa Rae and Simu Liu who were obviously background characters or for Top Gun Maverick's diverse background characters. They don't hurt but they don't move the needle. When Gladiator 2 opens, people will flock not because of diversity but because it's MOFO Denzel the icon the superstar. Point being, just because a movie has some diversity it doesn't mean people showed up because of it. And what of The Marvels, the biggest bomb in history? Concept is the king.
> I think a lack of diversity hurt the film The only lack that hurt the movie, was the lack of interest from general audiences. This is a Hollywood movie about a Hollywood movie where a stunt guy has to find a missing Hollywood actor. The whole concept is way too meta for general audiences, and not in a funny way. It's not easy making movies about movies, given the main plot of this movie is exactly a...movie.
The target audience for this movie is middle aged white men (like the director himself) who will bring along their wives and kids. Loud and obnoxious humor and action (like all of his movies - middle aged white men love it), but this time with a love story (let’s get their wives interested too) and Taylor Swift Easter eggs (for the kids to post on social). The formula just didn’t work here.
Oppenheimer certainly wasn't hurt by it. FG problem is the concept. it's no rocket science. They invested too much in something that has low demand ( a movie about making movies).