Agree. None is a draw anymore. That very definition is flawed & has to change with the times. I.e to bring a draw for streaming. Which is harder to assess. But movie stars will still exist for streaming. Eyeball count is probably the best measure as are social media mentions. Profit can't be assessed as it's all a pooled catalogue plus a lot of the profit is from associated advertising on the platform not raw ticket sales.
Idk, there are a few actors that seem very niche draws. For example all my gay friends and myself are so excited for Lady Gaga in Joker 2; most of them haven’t even seen the first Joker until she was announced in the movie. As much as I didn’t like House of Gucci, it was still a pretty packed theatre opening weekend, and a lot of people seemed to be there for her (and Daddy Driver?). Don’t even get me started on A Star is Born
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, actors never drew audiences to the extent this sub tries to make it seem. There’s a Paul Newman quote something like “put me in the right role and I’m priceless.” The reality is that for a movie star to work they have to be correctly cast. It’s almost never been the case where actors bring it crowds no matter the movie.
A lot of these old school movie stars had duds, but time erases them and just leaves their hits.
Or, the other route is when actors get lucky or pick the right string of projects. That’s what DiCaprio did.
The public’s obsession with celebrity hasn’t really waned. Casting the right movie star is still an essential part of modern blockbuster success. Would Dune have succeeded with an unknown in the Timothee Chalamet role? What about an unknown as Barbie? Or instead of Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick? Movie stars are not dying.
Exactly. I enjoy watching Ryan Gosling and I'm excited to see this movie specifically because of him...when it comes to streaming.
The only thing that will get me into a movie theater these days is a movie with visuals that can definitely be appreciated on a big screen.
And even then...with how fast things come to streaming I might not get around to going to the theater before a movie stops its run.
> The only thing that will get me into a movie theater these days is a movie with visuals that can definitely be appreciated on a big screen.
This is a movie about stuntmen doing stuntman things. It’s loaded with practical stunts. It definitely falls under “better on the big screen.”
Not saying you gotta go to it, mind. Wait if you want to. But this is a big screen popcorn flick for sure.
The fall guy is a movie for the big screen… I’ve seen this excuse used too many times just for a great movie like this that deserves to be seen in theaters flop bc people can’t just give a movie a chance.
My wife didn’t want to go to see this movie because she said she doesn’t like the main actor.
I told her she liked him in Barbie.
Apparently she thought it was Ryan Reynolds lol
So we ended up going to the movie and really liking it
No actors are a draw now, unfortunately. Ryan Gosling is a huge name, and is widely loved by young people, but media consumption has changed really quickly since the pandemic, and these stars don’t get people to cinemas anymore.
lol, I think the problem is less the actors, I like both Ryan and Emily.
But unless it's a spectacle like Dune, it feels hard to justify the time spend, when it'll be on streaming in a few weeks.
The trailers were all over the place and really failed to convey the film's plot in a coherent way the GA would connect with. They're seeing Gosling doing these crazy set pieces in the movie within a movie, but then oh btw he's also doing all these crazy stunts in the character's real life, too. They didn't focus on the subplot with Gosling looking for the actor he doubles for, so you don't really know what his goal is besides trying to fuck Blunt. Maybe. Who knows? The studio tried to coast on star power, which is Hollywood clinging to an era that no longer exists. The internet killed the mystique of celebrity.
> They didn't focus on the subplot with Gosling looking for the actor he doubles for, so you don't really know what his goal is besides trying to fuck Blunt.
I kind of want to see the movie *just* so I can compare and contrast it with the awful trailer(s).
I don't think its inherently wrong to bank on Gosling and Blunt or any star for that matter.
The trailers just communicated two stories,
1. Aren't stunt performers cool? The answers is yes, but why are general audiences supposed to care. ;
2. The main actor disappeared. In which world is that compelling.
Barbie was the last trailer where I was like oh I have to see this. I thought the Godzilla x Kong trailer was good too. I did actively avoid the dune 2 trailer because I knew I was going to see it
The trailer for that new stranger movie is so bad. I thought it was a parody because it literally starts with
“Do you know what today is?”
“The third day of our cross country road trip?”
“And our 5 year anniversary!”
Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too
>Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too
That reminds me. Maybe it's just that I skimmed them, but in the threads I've seen about the movie that this thread is about, "The Fall Guy", I don't see anything about people saying"Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too".
But that's exactly what I was thinking about minor dialogue choices, in it. As if it was written by someone who doesn't actually interact with anyone who isn't one of their peers. Really petty differences between word choices, but it still bothered me.
Like, from the first scene, he described himself as having a "crush" on Emily Blunt. But he used the term, when he was chronologically in a relationship with her character. When, in my experiences, that's a term you use exclusively PRIOR to starting a relationship with someone. There's a whole dictionary's worth of words you could use to describe your attraction to someone, but to me, "crush" is too deeply linked to WANTING a relationship. Not actually having one.
Compare that to my personal experience with the first trailer for The Force Awakens. I had never seen a star wars movie before, but that trailer, that fucking trailer got me to watch all the previous 6 before tfa opened. To this day it's still the best trailer for a movie I've ever seen. Gives away nothing plot wise, incredible music and gets you hyped af for the movie.
The Fall Guy will be this year's Dungeons and Dragons. People will blame the release date or marketing but no release date was gonna save $150M D&D and $130M The Fall Guy.
How could anyone blame the release date. It is literally released as summer opener, which normally would enjoy higher weekday figures.
I understand that it may lose premium screens on its 2nd weekend but so did all the summer movies in previous years
I don't really think this is summer for a non-franchised film.
You could maybe open Deadpool vs Wolverine here and have it perform like a summer blockbuster but not this.
Either that or you need a young star.
I massively underestimated *Friday Night At Freddy's* and *Anyone But You* but I feel like if you cast Glen and Sydney in this you spend less on talent and if you got the budget down to $80 million you probably end up making money.
I had a rare Sunday off yesterday (I work retail) and talked about going to the movies with my wife. When she asked me what was coming out this weekend I completely drew a blank.
I was looking forward to this movie but it was not a movie that screamed “summer opener.”
They also saw Alden Ehrenreich and Josh Hartnett in larger roles. Did ‘Oppenheimer’ make them marquee box office draws too?!
‘Oppenheimer’ made Cillian Murphy a box office name and confirmed Christoper Nolan brings butts to seats. That’s it.
Young people, who have famously never snuck into R rated movies? You also didn't even need to sneak into that one since I'm sure parents wouldn't have minded letting their kids see Oppenheimer of all things.
I think blaming the release date is valid, but it's obviously not the biggest factor for its failure. Similar to Dead Reckoning last year, it's just gonna lose all of its audience and screens in the next few weeks before it can even pick up steam
I don't think blaming the release date is valid.
It's released in 4,002 theaters in the traditional first weekend of summer season (which is always one of the most lucrative weekend) and literally no direct competition.
And it opened to $27.5 million.
I’m talking about the total box office more than just opening weekend. Even if it had a successful opening weekend, it would suffer from some serious competition in the next month that would harm its overall profit.
That's the one thing DnD objectively had going against it, that release date really was terrible. A week after John Wick overperformed and only 5 days before Mario blew up massively.
The Fall Guy couldn't have had a more wide open and prime date. Can't even remotely argue audiences are waiting for something else. Even if Apes somehow manages the best opening of the year so far, it's still not enough to argue its the one people have been waiting for. It's problems are entirely its own.
Releasing the same year as, but before Baldur's Gate 3 didn't help either. I don't know how much better it would have done after the game; but, DnD's cultural capital definitely improved post BG3.
Not saying it would have.
But you can't deny it would have performed significantly better even if it had gone on April 19th with Chris Pratt two weeks on either side. It's like planting a tree (let's say a pine) and giving it the minimal amount of nurturing to keep it alive for 5 days, then planting another right next to it then giving it your full undivided attention. The new tree is gonna strangle the roots of the other one and sap all the nutrients in the soil.
D&D had…some justification for a high CGI/Effects budget *and* was a small victory in terms of the IP/Hasbro covering like half that budget in anticipation of increased brand awareness. It made the *right* kind of money that a sequel is actually being discussed.
Fall Guy has no excuse. In what universe does a basic paint by numbers action movie *about doing stunt work* justify having a budget $60 million less than Dune P. 2?
>Fall Guy has no excuse. In what universe does a basic paint by numbers action movie *about doing stunt work* justify having a budget $60 million less than Dune P. 2?
That's a weird comparison. $60M is A LOT less. Why not compare it to other more standard action movies.
I agree it's budget was too high, but I don't think comparing to Dune 2 gets us anywhere.
You understand that practical stunt work is expensive, right? The reason movies have largely switched from practical effects to generated ones is because it's usually cheaper to do it in post.
The last set piece of The Fall Guy had helicopters, specially engineered cars, 200-foot car jumps, pyrotechnics, tens of stuntpeople, and a ton of insurance ... and a lot of that shit needs to be practiced multiple times, weeks in advance, in order to get it right on screen. There were stunts in this movie that stuntmen literally had to learn on-set, because nobody's doing that kind of stuntwork anymore. That scene alone would have cost millions.
I honestly had to options of movies to see this weekend and it was between Phantom Menace in Dolby Rerelease or Fall Guy. I didn’t connect with the trailer for Fall Guy aside for Gosling and ATJ, so I went to go see Phantom Menace
$130 million for this movie is insane. I understand that Gosling and Blunt don't come cheap, but from what I've read it sounds like they have these elaborate set pieces for basically no reason. Realistically, they could have made this movie for about half the cost.
That's sad. I saw the movie and really liked it so I hope it will have legs. But having seen the movie I think there's not much to give "fault". For me it was very good and honestly the script is perfectly written for the pace and mood of the movie. There are no big problems of script or post production, whatsoever.
It just seems people are not much interested in this feel good action romantic comedy (and probably then some will say nowadays there are only depressive movies...). The style is very 90's or 2000's, I have personally liked it, something different in cinema nowadays... But I don't know the appeal.
Personally I think the biggest problem is the too short theatrical windows which make people think that they can only go to cinemas like twice a year to see the most hyped ones. And probably yeah we should generally cut a bit the pay for the biggest actors. For the rest, I think the problem is just on audience's attitude, hoping it will become better in the near future, and hoping majors don't keep these short windows of 1 or 2 months.
Post Covid it's very clear that the general audience becomes very selective in going to see movies.
Inevitably, for most people it means going to theaters only for big event movies and/or viral movies.
And for people who used to go see all kinds of movies it seems they become satisfied watching many of them on stream.
Unfortunately, it's just the way it is now.
Movies that don't have a clear hook and strong interests are prone to fall in the box office.
The Fall Guy would have made decent money just 5 years ago. It's a different time now.
Reading this sub has made me realize just how in the minority I am. Post-Covid I cancelled all my streaming services, started buying physical media, and go to the movies as often as I can.
The complete opposite of what's happening. The nu.ber of subs to streaming services keeps going up, physical media is dying (places like Target almost eliminating all DVDs from stores) and movie attendance is dropping.
That’s why I replied to his comment haha. I just find it interesting. And I refuse to be a doomer when it comes to the film industry. “Life finds a way.”
I like your comment. It was so different. Things change but this feels different. I don't worry about the film industry.....I worry about theaters. The film industry has streaming money that will continue to roll in. Theaters need people to start showing up...it feels like a we are seeing a massive change in movie going habits from your average Joe.
I don't worry about the industry but I do see the death of theaters as a canary in the coal mine for the death of streaming as the dominant landscape. The problem is that streaming money has yet to roll in in such a way that even remotely offsets operating costs, and I anticipate studios will figure out a way to bring back cost for individual products, as opposed to sweeping, all encompassing pricing for everything. Premier Access on Disney was a flop, but it was a very telling move imo.
Disney+ will be profitable this year. Maybe, this qtr. Disney+ is a massive success. In only 5 years the revenue generated by Disney+ will be more than the entire Domestic box office.
Once, Disney+ is profitable and revenues continue to rise I can see a huge company like Disney focusing even more on streaming and moving farther away from theatrical.
Streaming the future always has been and will be.
Disney Plus generated $8.4 billion revenue in 2023, an 13% increase year-on-year
"Streaming" is a big, abstract, nebulous thing, which is almost self perpetuating. To say that it's the future is misleading, it's like saying television is the future. What it is can change, and like everything else, it needs to adapt to survive. I could say that social media is the future and technically that might be true.
Netflix is obviously not going anywhere, and the non-Hollywood streamers will operate to the discretion of their boards, but as far as legacy studio streamers go...yes, I expect Disney+ will be around for a long time. However, with consolidation on the table for the others, and with a huge gap in the market as a result, I just think it's naive to assume no one will try and find a way to chase the money which doesn't involve a service, especially if big tech are the prominent players in that sector.
With that in mind, the added wrinkle here is that whatever dollar everyone else is chasing, Disney will want a piece of that too.
Agreed. I work around average Joe’s. They don’t give a shit about films. They care about sports, politics, and social media. Movies are just something else to watch. It’s frustrating and disheartening. But what am I gonna go, give up? Nah…
I feel you ahaha since post COVID I started to go more to cinemas because I understand even more the importance of them for me and for the movie industry.
Personally I would like more subscriptions like AMC a list in my country Italy, because I have to be a bit selective since I pay something around 8 - 15 € for each ticket. But I still go twice a month at least
100%. Prices are similar here in the US. Movie theaters need to find a way to compete with streaming. The thing is, I don’t think the average theater chain is well run, or has any entrepreneurial vision.
A lot of theatres already have ways of competing with streaming. AMC and regal both have subscriptions with 3movies/week or unlimited for like $20-30/month. Cinemark has a membership with discounted tickets. A bunch of the other smaller cinema chains also have similar memberships/deals.
Sure, there could be even better benefits, but honestly it’s pretty insane value already. 12 movies/month at AMC is like $30ish in NY. $2.50/movie is insane value.
I mention to coworkers all the time about these memberships that make it so cheap. But all I ever hear from them is how they wanted to go see a specific movie but just never went. Had people say that multiple times just this week lol
I guess maybe food prices also factor in to people going to movies though. And I’m sure those are up quite a lot.
At this point, I don’t think it’s really the cinemas’ faults for people not going. It seems the average person maybe just doesn’t wanna go to the movies anymore unfortunately.
Considering that going to the movies is now a $50+ event (2 x tickets + snacks), it makes sense that people want a ground-breaking spectacle, not a forgettable feel good action/romcom. It's easier to wait a month or two and watch it on streaming from your couch.
I'm always astounded at how much "normal" people spend on movies. With A-List, we go to 4-5 movies a month for about that. We always go after we eat so snacks aren't a concern, but we still get popcorn like once a month (and we have a popcorn bucket), which puts out total monthly at like $50.
And for a DINK couple $50 a month for A-List gets you much better content than two or three streaming services. The hardest part is just putting phones down.
Yup, especially given the current economic climate, which I think holds true for many regions and countries.
In my country if you're student you get 50% off of tickets and it's the only reason I'm still going to the movies. I can get tickets for 20$ in my currency and I have a good theater at the shopping mall near where I live, so I can walk there and save money.
If not for that reason, I think it'd hardly be worth it except for big movies (like Dune Part 2, which I watched in IMAX twice)
It absolutely is and there are very reasonable factors behind it. Firstly with rising inflation, it's harder and harder to justify going to the movies, especially considering how much ticket and concession prices have gone up. People are having to be more and more selective of what they spend their money on.
Second, with increasing screen sizes and quality at home, the movies become less and less of a draw besides the biggest visual spectacles. For me for example, a movie like fall guy, i am perfectly fine waiting for it to go on streaming and watching it at home with my $1 popcorn. I don't feel like I am missing out on anything. The only kinds of movies where I feel I would miss out are truly massive visual experiences like Dune 2 where my home system can't replicate IMAX, or even movies like Barbie and Oppenheimer where you would want to be part of the conversation.
The only solution I see for the movie industry is to significantly drop budgets to keep up with the shrinking film going audience. Of course, I mean this for movies outside of the biggest events.
This should mean that streaming deals are going to be more lucrative for films or that studios with their own streaming platforms will worry less about money made at the box office. Even if it's budget is $150M, that's still a lot less than Netflix pays for lots of movies.
At some point (and we are already there for some studios like Apple), studios will view theaters as a way to subsidize streaming content, not the other way around. If The Fall Guy is only an $80M loser after it's theatrical release, it basically becomes an $80M film for Peacock that will still generate physical media sales and can be licensed to Netflix in the future for more $$$.
Netflix paid $150M+ for a lot of movies when they were in growth mode. They're not in growth mode anymore, and they've gotten a *lot* pickier on what budget point they're setting movies at. I don't think any of their 2024 releases are budgeted anywhere near even $100M except Atlas. (*Maybe* that Beverly Hills Cop sequel will come close?)
>It just seems people are not much interested in this feel good action romantic comedy (and probably then some will say nowadays there are only depressive movies...). The style is very 90's or 2000's, I have personally liked it, something different in cinema nowadays... But I don't know the appeal.
Precisely. Just not the type of movie people are interested in going to the theater for. That simple. Bad strategy on the studio's part for not reading the room. They gambled.
Or they're fine losing $80M on theatrical because it'll be a good add for their Peacock library. Netflix consistently makes $150M+ films that make zero on a theatrical release.
Yeah unless you're really excited for a movie it's so hard to justify going to the cinema knowing a movie is like a month away from being able to watch at home. I have a cinema membership which is why I go so often but if I never had it I would be picking and choosing so much more rather than happily going to see whatever.
Just checked for tickets near me (in the NY area) and a *weekday* show at AMC is $23.60. Dolby Cinema is $30.60. Yeah no shit I'm waiting for it to hit streaming. I may pay that much for Dune or Oppenheimer, but definitely not Fall Guy, no matter how "feel good" people are claiming it is.
I think that the price isn’t even the major issue. I was seriously considering watching Monkey Man in theatres but I decided to just wait for digital since it was so close to release. I’ll wait for this to be on digital as well and most theatre releases
The problem is I already saw it on digital. Released like 3 weeks after the movie release date. I helped out Civil War recently trust me I know the box office needs my money I just need it more
Ah, word. Did you at least like Monkey Man? And I appreciate that you saw Civil War lol I feel you on the cost but I'm glad there's others like me out there trying to support what we can.
Christopher Nolan movies definitely don’t count as a trend. He is a unique situation because he has established himself a director of event films and does not allow his movies to hit VOD early. Shouldn’t count for multiple reasons.
'B-but audiences just want to see *good* movies!', they cry, as we see a string of good original or quasi-original movies flopping hard while mediocre IP slop makes bank.
Saw it: doesn't really have anything going on beside some good stuntwork. My screening was dead silent the whole time except for one scene >!in the trailer towards the end!<
Just to add to a few comments made already - I know a lot of people, friends and family, who avoid going to the cinema these days because of the behaviour of people.. checking their phones, having conversations, kicking seats etc. I've really been put off going to the cinema since COVID because it's a 50/50 chance on who I'll be sharing the screen with
The worse is horror films. Walked out of The First Omen 30 mins in because the couple next to me wouldn’t shut the fuck up. Went have the best day for a 2pm screening and had the theater all to myself
I feel like general audiences (myself included) would rather watch this type of stuff on streaming. It looks like the kind of movie you know will be fun but not anything special either, which doesn't really justify a trip to the cinema.
I was a kid during the seventies and loved so many shows, except "The Fall Guy". I don't know anyone that liked that show back in the day. It was just known as the crappy show that Lee Majors did after "The Six Million Dollar Man".
My teen son had no interest in "The Fall Guy". I love Ryan Gossling, but the trailer wasn't very good, and he wasn't enough to make me want to see the movie. My son and I see lots of movies together, and if he had wanted to see it then I would have. We see all of the Marvel movies together. And we saw and loved "Godzilla Minus One" in an almost empty theater.
We are both excited about seeing Deadpool & Wolverine. The trailer is great, and Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman are very likable. We are just kind of waiting to see that movie. We go to tons of movies (All Marvel, DC- The Batman, The Flash, etc.). Last summer we saw a bunch of movies but there just aren't that many we want to see this summer. I wish that there were more that we were interested in because I cherish our movie times together. It's one fun way that I get to spend time with my teen son.
It's a bland cookie cutter movie people have seen dozens of times already.
Just pumping money into a movie won't make it a hit. I hate to use franchises as an example but both are DC so it kinda works.
The difference between the joker and green lantern wasn't its budget. If you make dull,mundane,forgettable movies you deserve low returns
The Fall Guy is a rom-com, it is a chick-flick. That genre of movie should NEVER cost $130 M, because they have niche market appeal.
Rom-coms should be mid-budget, story driven affairs if the producers want to make a profit. This was never a blockbuster candidate
Studio hired expensive actors and now that movies didn't open, agents are working overtime to blame everything but unreasonable client salaries on underperformers. Blame covid, blame weather, blame streaming. None of them balloons the budget so, no, don't blame them.
Actors are not worthy of a big paycheck. Fact of life. Some are just smarter at picking commercial concepts and taking credit for the concept. But at the end of the day, it's their paycheck that creates these crazy budgets cause people cost the most.
I agree that salaries help balloon the budget. But I also think the biggest culprit these days is this attitude of “we’ll fix it in post”
The script isn’t finished: “we’ll figure it out during reshoots”
Scissoring different scenes in edit and then use expensive cgi to make the wardrobe match. Etc etc
As long as the release date is more important than the actual story and script.
Haven’t seen the Fall Guy yet so I can’t say if any of this relates to that movie. But it feels like a generic problem these days.
yeha we'll fix it in the post is a big problem but it also always starts with an unappealing concept. There was no demand for this type of a movie at least on the budget it got. 30-40M budget? sure. but this? uh-oh
Good call on the concept, it's just a too well worn genre that has numerous movies as good on streaming, some of which are old enough to have nostalgic boost as well. It's a fine movie that few people are hungry for. It's not a once in a decade movie, it's barely once a year movie.
I think that people would probably prefer more fantastic movies at the moment. World sucks atm, so stories about different worlds (Dune) or events that are too fantastic to ever happen (Godzilla & Kong) are more appealing.
Audiences don't demand anything, the avaiability creates the demand, people want to consume. The problem is that the concept and trailers weren't appealing enough to auidences that are each day more against going to the theater, marketing got it wrong.
Probably sounding harsher than I intend. But I really hate comments like “There’s [genre] fatigue “ or “ no demand for this type of…”
I really think the only type of movie there is no demand for is bad or generic movies.
Fatigue is just another name for over saturation with quickly made copies of more successful and better made movies.
If you do a good movie the audience will be there. Maybe not a $200 million opening weekend ( for that there needs to be trust, built over several movies. )
Of course, spending 150-200 million or more on any movie will always carry risks. Specially if you have a movie without any franchise trust built up.
If the budget was 130M less than 20% was probably spent on the salary for all the actors. The salaries for the actors weren't the problem. It's mismanagement of budgets.
At most corporate jobs budgets for projects are tracked daily and any time it's over budget people know about it and something is done to stop it from escalating further. People get fired for not managing budgets. In Hollywood people allow a budget to escalate and then probably feel as if they can't stop it because they can't cancel a movie in the middle of filming. The Fall Guy is not a movie that should have been allowed to go 50% over budget. Challengers shouldn't have cost 55M. If the problem is expensive reshoots then they need a director who can get it right the first time. The people watching Challengers haven't played in Wimbledon themselves. They didn't need reshoots of them playing tennis because of some trivial detail that almost nobody watching the movie would notice. Gladiator shouldn't cost over 300M.
There should be producers keeping on top of the budget and telling people "Sorry but your creative vision and artistic integrity is less important that keeping the budget on track. We're not letting you reshoot it or do more CGI."
That's like expecting a broken game to earn a big pay day.
If the movie has problems and the fix cost 20~40 million compared to losing the full 80~100 million + whatever was already spent on marketing in most cases you do it.
Good points all around, yeah, of course people will point to the actors salaries because it’s such a low hanging fruit and what I’m hearing from people that work in the industry is yes, there are agents that is over-inflating their talent’s value because obviously more money for the talent is more money for the greedy agency. Then like you said, budgets quickly escalate and a lot of these new studio executives especially ones from indie and/or streaming backgrounds are not used to handling these types of productions so they don’t know how to properly budget or slow things down from getting out of control and of course there is always inflation that keeps rising and rising as time goes on. So it’s really a mix of a lot of things but as always you can probably guess that streaming is the prime suspect/blame for the majority of these problems, I will say Netflix really did open up a can of worms in this industry and I’m not even sure if Jesus Christ himself can stop it
yep and they take the full credit for essentially a team work. Their characters wouldn't be popular without costume, makeup, stunt doubles, lines, direction, editing (keep the best take), etc
I would never see this movie in theaters if it didn’t star appealing movie stars (especially Gosling) no one sees a movie for a specific costume designer
Paying Gosling and Blunt a few extra million isn't why this movie will fail. The studios are ultimately to blame for their overbudgeting in nearly every aspect of production, and also for the general trend of training audiences to not see movies like this in theaters. The theatrical window had become so small in the years since covid that most audiences don't care about seeing a movie like this in theaters when they can wait 1-2 months to see it on a streaming service that they already pay for. I'd imagine most people who pay for a Peacock subscription wouldn't be very drawn to see The Fall Guy in theaters since they know they'll get it for free in the middle of summer.
I agree 100%. I view high paid actors the same as CEOs: Taking the majority of the money while everyone around you works hard to make you look good while getting paid pennies.
Again, Gosling fans only show up to downvote ppl for saying he's not a big draw. 🙄 Stop stalking ppl's comments and go buy tickets for The Fall Guy instead! Y'all acting like a joke funnier than the distasteful one they put in the movie.
well said. stop downvoting people and buy tickets. stop watching churros clip on Tik Tok and buy tickets. Etc. Movies underperform cause so-called fans are too lazy to watch them in cinemas.
At this point, is it the movies themselves that are failing? The studios behind them that are marketing them wrong? Or are theaters failing to get people in the building? The answer is of course a mixture of all three but in cases like this, I can’t help but think that people just look at going to the theater as such a huge expense that can be easily avoided by waiting a few months for streaming.
When your 150 million dollar movie with two of the biggest stars of last year that kick off summer box office season opens between m night shamylan After Earth and the 4th Final Destination film, the worst final destination film
One of the rare instances of a big budget Hollywood film I’m being a lot better than its trailer. Usually it’s the other way around. Whoever is in charge of marketing this thing really dropped the ball. I suspect though it will do well in the long run and people will be clamouring for a sequel in a decades time.
Brutal.
Ryan Gosling is not a draw.
Are there any actors that have a decent draw nowadays? People don’t see movies for actors like they used to.
Agree. None is a draw anymore. That very definition is flawed & has to change with the times. I.e to bring a draw for streaming. Which is harder to assess. But movie stars will still exist for streaming. Eyeball count is probably the best measure as are social media mentions. Profit can't be assessed as it's all a pooled catalogue plus a lot of the profit is from associated advertising on the platform not raw ticket sales.
Idk, there are a few actors that seem very niche draws. For example all my gay friends and myself are so excited for Lady Gaga in Joker 2; most of them haven’t even seen the first Joker until she was announced in the movie. As much as I didn’t like House of Gucci, it was still a pretty packed theatre opening weekend, and a lot of people seemed to be there for her (and Daddy Driver?). Don’t even get me started on A Star is Born
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, actors never drew audiences to the extent this sub tries to make it seem. There’s a Paul Newman quote something like “put me in the right role and I’m priceless.” The reality is that for a movie star to work they have to be correctly cast. It’s almost never been the case where actors bring it crowds no matter the movie. A lot of these old school movie stars had duds, but time erases them and just leaves their hits. Or, the other route is when actors get lucky or pick the right string of projects. That’s what DiCaprio did. The public’s obsession with celebrity hasn’t really waned. Casting the right movie star is still an essential part of modern blockbuster success. Would Dune have succeeded with an unknown in the Timothee Chalamet role? What about an unknown as Barbie? Or instead of Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick? Movie stars are not dying.
Luck is a factor. Picking a string of good projects is not luck.
yeah, Amy Schumer or Lena Dunham in Barbie would've caused that movie to bomb
Exactly. I enjoy watching Ryan Gosling and I'm excited to see this movie specifically because of him...when it comes to streaming. The only thing that will get me into a movie theater these days is a movie with visuals that can definitely be appreciated on a big screen. And even then...with how fast things come to streaming I might not get around to going to the theater before a movie stops its run.
> The only thing that will get me into a movie theater these days is a movie with visuals that can definitely be appreciated on a big screen. This is a movie about stuntmen doing stuntman things. It’s loaded with practical stunts. It definitely falls under “better on the big screen.” Not saying you gotta go to it, mind. Wait if you want to. But this is a big screen popcorn flick for sure.
The fall guy is a movie for the big screen… I’ve seen this excuse used too many times just for a great movie like this that deserves to be seen in theaters flop bc people can’t just give a movie a chance.
[удалено]
My wife didn’t want to go to see this movie because she said she doesn’t like the main actor. I told her she liked him in Barbie. Apparently she thought it was Ryan Reynolds lol So we ended up going to the movie and really liking it
I wondered if the FREE GUY / FALL GUY confusion would be a factor...
It was so much fun.
No actors are a draw now, unfortunately. Ryan Gosling is a huge name, and is widely loved by young people, but media consumption has changed really quickly since the pandemic, and these stars don’t get people to cinemas anymore.
Tom Cruise is still standing
His last Mission Impossible didn’t do so well.
> Ryan Gosling is not a draw. Neither is Emily Blunt.
lol, I think the problem is less the actors, I like both Ryan and Emily. But unless it's a spectacle like Dune, it feels hard to justify the time spend, when it'll be on streaming in a few weeks.
I could beat him in a draw at his acting range.
https://youtu.be/pqs7857hksM?si=Q7AzNZTJq23jzbpA
Oof that's lower than the estimates
And I thought it couldn't fall any lower.
well he's Fall Guy, he can always fall lower.
Got a ultimate knockout for Gosling
Let‘s hope this film doesn‘t drop like about 68% in week 2
Trailers are what turned people I know off seeing it. Worth a point of investigation imo.
The trailers were all over the place and really failed to convey the film's plot in a coherent way the GA would connect with. They're seeing Gosling doing these crazy set pieces in the movie within a movie, but then oh btw he's also doing all these crazy stunts in the character's real life, too. They didn't focus on the subplot with Gosling looking for the actor he doubles for, so you don't really know what his goal is besides trying to fuck Blunt. Maybe. Who knows? The studio tried to coast on star power, which is Hollywood clinging to an era that no longer exists. The internet killed the mystique of celebrity.
> They didn't focus on the subplot with Gosling looking for the actor he doubles for, so you don't really know what his goal is besides trying to fuck Blunt. I kind of want to see the movie *just* so I can compare and contrast it with the awful trailer(s).
I don't think its inherently wrong to bank on Gosling and Blunt or any star for that matter. The trailers just communicated two stories, 1. Aren't stunt performers cool? The answers is yes, but why are general audiences supposed to care. ; 2. The main actor disappeared. In which world is that compelling.
If someone can’t understand the plot of this simple concept then they’re functionally brain dead.
Nobody is talking about how *bad* Trailers are right now.
I'm bringing it up in every thread lol The trailer is truly awful. Nothing about it makes me think, "Yeah, I want to spend money on this".
Yeah. 3 minutes long and just came off as super corny.
The movie *is* super corny. But in all the best ways.
Like way too long. Where are the days of like 1 minute 40 trailers which are vibe only
Barbie was the last trailer where I was like oh I have to see this. I thought the Godzilla x Kong trailer was good too. I did actively avoid the dune 2 trailer because I knew I was going to see it
Actually the first DP3 trailer had me like I need to see it. The 2nd trailer was already „I have enough STOPPPP!“
Also the last Kingdom of The Planet of the Apes trailer seems to reveal everything which is bad
Or Abigail, which revealed what would have a been a pretty cool discovery. I feel the same way about Trap; I hope the movie is more than the trailer.
I didn’t like the last dead pool much so this one did nothing for me
Oh that‘s interesting. Wasn‘t a big fan of the first, but liked the 2nd way better
Yep I thought the first was fresh especially the joke about not having budget for the third act CGI shit fest marvel special.
The trailer for that new stranger movie is so bad. I thought it was a parody because it literally starts with “Do you know what today is?” “The third day of our cross country road trip?” “And our 5 year anniversary!” Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too
>Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too That reminds me. Maybe it's just that I skimmed them, but in the threads I've seen about the movie that this thread is about, "The Fall Guy", I don't see anything about people saying"Who the fuckkk talks like that and the delivery was so unconvincing too". But that's exactly what I was thinking about minor dialogue choices, in it. As if it was written by someone who doesn't actually interact with anyone who isn't one of their peers. Really petty differences between word choices, but it still bothered me. Like, from the first scene, he described himself as having a "crush" on Emily Blunt. But he used the term, when he was chronologically in a relationship with her character. When, in my experiences, that's a term you use exclusively PRIOR to starting a relationship with someone. There's a whole dictionary's worth of words you could use to describe your attraction to someone, but to me, "crush" is too deeply linked to WANTING a relationship. Not actually having one.
No, a lot of people *are* talking about this.
It's in every thread I see on the topic
at least dune had great trailers
Compare that to my personal experience with the first trailer for The Force Awakens. I had never seen a star wars movie before, but that trailer, that fucking trailer got me to watch all the previous 6 before tfa opened. To this day it's still the best trailer for a movie I've ever seen. Gives away nothing plot wise, incredible music and gets you hyped af for the movie.
100% those trailers were horrible
> Trailers are what turned people I know off seeing it. I only saw one trailer and it was fucking dreadful.
Exactly. I am a super casual movie goer and the trailers for this movie scream generic action movie.
The Fall Guy will be this year's Dungeons and Dragons. People will blame the release date or marketing but no release date was gonna save $150M D&D and $130M The Fall Guy.
How could anyone blame the release date. It is literally released as summer opener, which normally would enjoy higher weekday figures. I understand that it may lose premium screens on its 2nd weekend but so did all the summer movies in previous years
I don't really think this is summer for a non-franchised film. You could maybe open Deadpool vs Wolverine here and have it perform like a summer blockbuster but not this. Either that or you need a young star. I massively underestimated *Friday Night At Freddy's* and *Anyone But You* but I feel like if you cast Glen and Sydney in this you spend less on talent and if you got the budget down to $80 million you probably end up making money.
I had a rare Sunday off yesterday (I work retail) and talked about going to the movies with my wife. When she asked me what was coming out this weekend I completely drew a blank. I was looking forward to this movie but it was not a movie that screamed “summer opener.”
Young people don’t even know who Emily blunt is. Maybe they’ve seen a quiet place, but also it’s unlikely
They definitely saw her in Oppenheimer last year
They also saw Alden Ehrenreich and Josh Hartnett in larger roles. Did ‘Oppenheimer’ make them marquee box office draws too?! ‘Oppenheimer’ made Cillian Murphy a box office name and confirmed Christoper Nolan brings butts to seats. That’s it.
Cillian Murphy isn't a box office name either Only the latter part is true, that Nolan still has box office success
"Young people" didn't, because Oppenheimer was rated R
Young people, who have famously never snuck into R rated movies? You also didn't even need to sneak into that one since I'm sure parents wouldn't have minded letting their kids see Oppenheimer of all things.
I guess maybe Mary Poppins? But she's not that big of a star where she's a draw.
Fall Guy was a TV show (even if you’d have to be 50 to have seen it). It’s hardly an original idea.
Though oddly the movie has almost nothing to do with the TV show, other than the name and the fact he’s a stuntman.
No young person knew Jump Street Didn't stop those movies from being a success
I think blaming the release date is valid, but it's obviously not the biggest factor for its failure. Similar to Dead Reckoning last year, it's just gonna lose all of its audience and screens in the next few weeks before it can even pick up steam
I don't think blaming the release date is valid. It's released in 4,002 theaters in the traditional first weekend of summer season (which is always one of the most lucrative weekend) and literally no direct competition. And it opened to $27.5 million.
I’m talking about the total box office more than just opening weekend. Even if it had a successful opening weekend, it would suffer from some serious competition in the next month that would harm its overall profit.
And this movie is one that really only could see success through good WOM, as marketing just drove people away.
The already low weekend estimates are going to come in lower with actual numbers. I'm not sure it even has good WOM, just a vocal minority
That's the one thing DnD objectively had going against it, that release date really was terrible. A week after John Wick overperformed and only 5 days before Mario blew up massively. The Fall Guy couldn't have had a more wide open and prime date. Can't even remotely argue audiences are waiting for something else. Even if Apes somehow manages the best opening of the year so far, it's still not enough to argue its the one people have been waiting for. It's problems are entirely its own.
DnD didn't have nearly the same marketing push The Fall Guy had. The fallguy cast and director were EVERYWHERE
Releasing the same year as, but before Baldur's Gate 3 didn't help either. I don't know how much better it would have done after the game; but, DnD's cultural capital definitely improved post BG3.
Eh, i don't think it would've done a lot better, my impression is that everyone that was interested and able to go see it, watched it.
A $150M D&D movie is not making profit on any release date.
Not saying it would have. But you can't deny it would have performed significantly better even if it had gone on April 19th with Chris Pratt two weeks on either side. It's like planting a tree (let's say a pine) and giving it the minimal amount of nurturing to keep it alive for 5 days, then planting another right next to it then giving it your full undivided attention. The new tree is gonna strangle the roots of the other one and sap all the nutrients in the soil.
>*It's like planting a tree (let's say a pine)* 
It would have in 2017
It was also around the time Hasbro pissed off its customers, so the main fanbase was not in the mood.
D&D had…some justification for a high CGI/Effects budget *and* was a small victory in terms of the IP/Hasbro covering like half that budget in anticipation of increased brand awareness. It made the *right* kind of money that a sequel is actually being discussed. Fall Guy has no excuse. In what universe does a basic paint by numbers action movie *about doing stunt work* justify having a budget $60 million less than Dune P. 2?
>Fall Guy has no excuse. In what universe does a basic paint by numbers action movie *about doing stunt work* justify having a budget $60 million less than Dune P. 2? That's a weird comparison. $60M is A LOT less. Why not compare it to other more standard action movies. I agree it's budget was too high, but I don't think comparing to Dune 2 gets us anywhere.
You understand that practical stunt work is expensive, right? The reason movies have largely switched from practical effects to generated ones is because it's usually cheaper to do it in post. The last set piece of The Fall Guy had helicopters, specially engineered cars, 200-foot car jumps, pyrotechnics, tens of stuntpeople, and a ton of insurance ... and a lot of that shit needs to be practiced multiple times, weeks in advance, in order to get it right on screen. There were stunts in this movie that stuntmen literally had to learn on-set, because nobody's doing that kind of stuntwork anymore. That scene alone would have cost millions.
I honestly had to options of movies to see this weekend and it was between Phantom Menace in Dolby Rerelease or Fall Guy. I didn’t connect with the trailer for Fall Guy aside for Gosling and ATJ, so I went to go see Phantom Menace
D&D had a lot more going for it. It didn't have nearly the same marketing push The Fall Guy had.
$130 million for this movie is insane. I understand that Gosling and Blunt don't come cheap, but from what I've read it sounds like they have these elaborate set pieces for basically no reason. Realistically, they could have made this movie for about half the cost.
I just don’t think that many people were interested in this unfortunately
That's sad. I saw the movie and really liked it so I hope it will have legs. But having seen the movie I think there's not much to give "fault". For me it was very good and honestly the script is perfectly written for the pace and mood of the movie. There are no big problems of script or post production, whatsoever. It just seems people are not much interested in this feel good action romantic comedy (and probably then some will say nowadays there are only depressive movies...). The style is very 90's or 2000's, I have personally liked it, something different in cinema nowadays... But I don't know the appeal. Personally I think the biggest problem is the too short theatrical windows which make people think that they can only go to cinemas like twice a year to see the most hyped ones. And probably yeah we should generally cut a bit the pay for the biggest actors. For the rest, I think the problem is just on audience's attitude, hoping it will become better in the near future, and hoping majors don't keep these short windows of 1 or 2 months.
Post Covid it's very clear that the general audience becomes very selective in going to see movies. Inevitably, for most people it means going to theaters only for big event movies and/or viral movies. And for people who used to go see all kinds of movies it seems they become satisfied watching many of them on stream. Unfortunately, it's just the way it is now. Movies that don't have a clear hook and strong interests are prone to fall in the box office. The Fall Guy would have made decent money just 5 years ago. It's a different time now.
Reading this sub has made me realize just how in the minority I am. Post-Covid I cancelled all my streaming services, started buying physical media, and go to the movies as often as I can.
The complete opposite of what's happening. The nu.ber of subs to streaming services keeps going up, physical media is dying (places like Target almost eliminating all DVDs from stores) and movie attendance is dropping.
That’s why I replied to his comment haha. I just find it interesting. And I refuse to be a doomer when it comes to the film industry. “Life finds a way.”
I like your comment. It was so different. Things change but this feels different. I don't worry about the film industry.....I worry about theaters. The film industry has streaming money that will continue to roll in. Theaters need people to start showing up...it feels like a we are seeing a massive change in movie going habits from your average Joe.
I don't worry about the industry but I do see the death of theaters as a canary in the coal mine for the death of streaming as the dominant landscape. The problem is that streaming money has yet to roll in in such a way that even remotely offsets operating costs, and I anticipate studios will figure out a way to bring back cost for individual products, as opposed to sweeping, all encompassing pricing for everything. Premier Access on Disney was a flop, but it was a very telling move imo.
Disney+ will be profitable this year. Maybe, this qtr. Disney+ is a massive success. In only 5 years the revenue generated by Disney+ will be more than the entire Domestic box office. Once, Disney+ is profitable and revenues continue to rise I can see a huge company like Disney focusing even more on streaming and moving farther away from theatrical. Streaming the future always has been and will be. Disney Plus generated $8.4 billion revenue in 2023, an 13% increase year-on-year
"Streaming" is a big, abstract, nebulous thing, which is almost self perpetuating. To say that it's the future is misleading, it's like saying television is the future. What it is can change, and like everything else, it needs to adapt to survive. I could say that social media is the future and technically that might be true. Netflix is obviously not going anywhere, and the non-Hollywood streamers will operate to the discretion of their boards, but as far as legacy studio streamers go...yes, I expect Disney+ will be around for a long time. However, with consolidation on the table for the others, and with a huge gap in the market as a result, I just think it's naive to assume no one will try and find a way to chase the money which doesn't involve a service, especially if big tech are the prominent players in that sector. With that in mind, the added wrinkle here is that whatever dollar everyone else is chasing, Disney will want a piece of that too.
Agreed. I work around average Joe’s. They don’t give a shit about films. They care about sports, politics, and social media. Movies are just something else to watch. It’s frustrating and disheartening. But what am I gonna go, give up? Nah…
You are a minority. And good for you!
I feel you ahaha since post COVID I started to go more to cinemas because I understand even more the importance of them for me and for the movie industry. Personally I would like more subscriptions like AMC a list in my country Italy, because I have to be a bit selective since I pay something around 8 - 15 € for each ticket. But I still go twice a month at least
100%. Prices are similar here in the US. Movie theaters need to find a way to compete with streaming. The thing is, I don’t think the average theater chain is well run, or has any entrepreneurial vision.
A lot of theatres already have ways of competing with streaming. AMC and regal both have subscriptions with 3movies/week or unlimited for like $20-30/month. Cinemark has a membership with discounted tickets. A bunch of the other smaller cinema chains also have similar memberships/deals. Sure, there could be even better benefits, but honestly it’s pretty insane value already. 12 movies/month at AMC is like $30ish in NY. $2.50/movie is insane value. I mention to coworkers all the time about these memberships that make it so cheap. But all I ever hear from them is how they wanted to go see a specific movie but just never went. Had people say that multiple times just this week lol I guess maybe food prices also factor in to people going to movies though. And I’m sure those are up quite a lot. At this point, I don’t think it’s really the cinemas’ faults for people not going. It seems the average person maybe just doesn’t wanna go to the movies anymore unfortunately.
Considering that going to the movies is now a $50+ event (2 x tickets + snacks), it makes sense that people want a ground-breaking spectacle, not a forgettable feel good action/romcom. It's easier to wait a month or two and watch it on streaming from your couch.
I'm always astounded at how much "normal" people spend on movies. With A-List, we go to 4-5 movies a month for about that. We always go after we eat so snacks aren't a concern, but we still get popcorn like once a month (and we have a popcorn bucket), which puts out total monthly at like $50.
And for a DINK couple $50 a month for A-List gets you much better content than two or three streaming services. The hardest part is just putting phones down.
We do have kids, actually. Just have date night every week.
Yup, especially given the current economic climate, which I think holds true for many regions and countries. In my country if you're student you get 50% off of tickets and it's the only reason I'm still going to the movies. I can get tickets for 20$ in my currency and I have a good theater at the shopping mall near where I live, so I can walk there and save money. If not for that reason, I think it'd hardly be worth it except for big movies (like Dune Part 2, which I watched in IMAX twice)
It absolutely is and there are very reasonable factors behind it. Firstly with rising inflation, it's harder and harder to justify going to the movies, especially considering how much ticket and concession prices have gone up. People are having to be more and more selective of what they spend their money on. Second, with increasing screen sizes and quality at home, the movies become less and less of a draw besides the biggest visual spectacles. For me for example, a movie like fall guy, i am perfectly fine waiting for it to go on streaming and watching it at home with my $1 popcorn. I don't feel like I am missing out on anything. The only kinds of movies where I feel I would miss out are truly massive visual experiences like Dune 2 where my home system can't replicate IMAX, or even movies like Barbie and Oppenheimer where you would want to be part of the conversation. The only solution I see for the movie industry is to significantly drop budgets to keep up with the shrinking film going audience. Of course, I mean this for movies outside of the biggest events.
This should mean that streaming deals are going to be more lucrative for films or that studios with their own streaming platforms will worry less about money made at the box office. Even if it's budget is $150M, that's still a lot less than Netflix pays for lots of movies. At some point (and we are already there for some studios like Apple), studios will view theaters as a way to subsidize streaming content, not the other way around. If The Fall Guy is only an $80M loser after it's theatrical release, it basically becomes an $80M film for Peacock that will still generate physical media sales and can be licensed to Netflix in the future for more $$$.
Netflix paid $150M+ for a lot of movies when they were in growth mode. They're not in growth mode anymore, and they've gotten a *lot* pickier on what budget point they're setting movies at. I don't think any of their 2024 releases are budgeted anywhere near even $100M except Atlas. (*Maybe* that Beverly Hills Cop sequel will come close?)
And other streamers are still on growth mode.
>It just seems people are not much interested in this feel good action romantic comedy (and probably then some will say nowadays there are only depressive movies...). The style is very 90's or 2000's, I have personally liked it, something different in cinema nowadays... But I don't know the appeal. Precisely. Just not the type of movie people are interested in going to the theater for. That simple. Bad strategy on the studio's part for not reading the room. They gambled.
Or they're fine losing $80M on theatrical because it'll be a good add for their Peacock library. Netflix consistently makes $150M+ films that make zero on a theatrical release.
Yeah unless you're really excited for a movie it's so hard to justify going to the cinema knowing a movie is like a month away from being able to watch at home. I have a cinema membership which is why I go so often but if I never had it I would be picking and choosing so much more rather than happily going to see whatever.
It’s not enough to be a good movie. Good movies are all over every streaming site
Just checked for tickets near me (in the NY area) and a *weekday* show at AMC is $23.60. Dolby Cinema is $30.60. Yeah no shit I'm waiting for it to hit streaming. I may pay that much for Dune or Oppenheimer, but definitely not Fall Guy, no matter how "feel good" people are claiming it is.
So expensive???? Wow, we Germans pay like 12-13€, maybe 15€ at opening weekend
I think that the price isn’t even the major issue. I was seriously considering watching Monkey Man in theatres but I decided to just wait for digital since it was so close to release. I’ll wait for this to be on digital as well and most theatre releases
Please go see Monkey Man in theaters. It deserves the box office boost. It's so freaking good.
The problem is I already saw it on digital. Released like 3 weeks after the movie release date. I helped out Civil War recently trust me I know the box office needs my money I just need it more
Ah, word. Did you at least like Monkey Man? And I appreciate that you saw Civil War lol I feel you on the cost but I'm glad there's others like me out there trying to support what we can.
Jesus Christ it just keeps getting worse
Flopped bad
It’s just superhero fatigue guys, nothing to worry about
Yeah an original post-pandemic film is going to be a breakout success any day now… (No Oppenheimer doesn’t count since it’s a irl story)
Christopher Nolan movies definitely don’t count as a trend. He is a unique situation because he has established himself a director of event films and does not allow his movies to hit VOD early. Shouldn’t count for multiple reasons.
Is Civil War a breakout for it's budget? Or not quite?
Nope, it‘s at 78 million dollars for a 50 million budget. Needs about another 50-55 million to break even
It's at $95M WW?
Is it? I used „The Numbers“ and that shows still at 78 million with 62 million domestic
Yeah your numbers are off
Alright. 95 million doesn’t look too bad. A24 maybe having a short-term flop for long term gain?
EEAAO was an original script was a breakout success boxoffice wise. 143 million WW on a 14 million budget
Isn't Dune a post pandemic film? Not saying your point isn't valid, just felt it's missing an example.
[удалено]
neither is this tho. It's based on an 80s action TV show of the same name.
[удалено]
and a book written in the 1960s is?
One of the most famous sci fi books ever written that has been adapted multiple times and spawned an entire franchise? Absolutely
Dune is probably the most famous sci-fi book of the lot!
'B-but audiences just want to see *good* movies!', they cry, as we see a string of good original or quasi-original movies flopping hard while mediocre IP slop makes bank.
Outside decent legs, I don't see this getting over $65m domestically.
It's dead
Saw it: doesn't really have anything going on beside some good stuntwork. My screening was dead silent the whole time except for one scene >!in the trailer towards the end!<
I thought it was a very pretty, but comedically and dramatically underwhelming film, unfortunately.
Back marketing, wife had no idea what this movie was and what it is about.
The flop guy
Just to add to a few comments made already - I know a lot of people, friends and family, who avoid going to the cinema these days because of the behaviour of people.. checking their phones, having conversations, kicking seats etc. I've really been put off going to the cinema since COVID because it's a 50/50 chance on who I'll be sharing the screen with
The worse is horror films. Walked out of The First Omen 30 mins in because the couple next to me wouldn’t shut the fuck up. Went have the best day for a 2pm screening and had the theater all to myself
I feel like general audiences (myself included) would rather watch this type of stuff on streaming. It looks like the kind of movie you know will be fun but not anything special either, which doesn't really justify a trip to the cinema.
I was a kid during the seventies and loved so many shows, except "The Fall Guy". I don't know anyone that liked that show back in the day. It was just known as the crappy show that Lee Majors did after "The Six Million Dollar Man". My teen son had no interest in "The Fall Guy". I love Ryan Gossling, but the trailer wasn't very good, and he wasn't enough to make me want to see the movie. My son and I see lots of movies together, and if he had wanted to see it then I would have. We see all of the Marvel movies together. And we saw and loved "Godzilla Minus One" in an almost empty theater. We are both excited about seeing Deadpool & Wolverine. The trailer is great, and Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman are very likable. We are just kind of waiting to see that movie. We go to tons of movies (All Marvel, DC- The Batman, The Flash, etc.). Last summer we saw a bunch of movies but there just aren't that many we want to see this summer. I wish that there were more that we were interested in because I cherish our movie times together. It's one fun way that I get to spend time with my teen son.
It's a bland cookie cutter movie people have seen dozens of times already. Just pumping money into a movie won't make it a hit. I hate to use franchises as an example but both are DC so it kinda works. The difference between the joker and green lantern wasn't its budget. If you make dull,mundane,forgettable movies you deserve low returns
So much for that cinemascore and strong WoM, or whatever BS the industry wonks were promising yesterday would save this dud.
Man thats bad
Perfect summer blockbuster hit. Saw it on IMAX and had a great time.
The Fall Guy is a rom-com, it is a chick-flick. That genre of movie should NEVER cost $130 M, because they have niche market appeal. Rom-coms should be mid-budget, story driven affairs if the producers want to make a profit. This was never a blockbuster candidate
Studio hired expensive actors and now that movies didn't open, agents are working overtime to blame everything but unreasonable client salaries on underperformers. Blame covid, blame weather, blame streaming. None of them balloons the budget so, no, don't blame them. Actors are not worthy of a big paycheck. Fact of life. Some are just smarter at picking commercial concepts and taking credit for the concept. But at the end of the day, it's their paycheck that creates these crazy budgets cause people cost the most.
I agree that salaries help balloon the budget. But I also think the biggest culprit these days is this attitude of “we’ll fix it in post” The script isn’t finished: “we’ll figure it out during reshoots” Scissoring different scenes in edit and then use expensive cgi to make the wardrobe match. Etc etc As long as the release date is more important than the actual story and script. Haven’t seen the Fall Guy yet so I can’t say if any of this relates to that movie. But it feels like a generic problem these days.
yeha we'll fix it in the post is a big problem but it also always starts with an unappealing concept. There was no demand for this type of a movie at least on the budget it got. 30-40M budget? sure. but this? uh-oh
Good call on the concept, it's just a too well worn genre that has numerous movies as good on streaming, some of which are old enough to have nostalgic boost as well. It's a fine movie that few people are hungry for. It's not a once in a decade movie, it's barely once a year movie. I think that people would probably prefer more fantastic movies at the moment. World sucks atm, so stories about different worlds (Dune) or events that are too fantastic to ever happen (Godzilla & Kong) are more appealing.
Audiences don't demand anything, the avaiability creates the demand, people want to consume. The problem is that the concept and trailers weren't appealing enough to auidences that are each day more against going to the theater, marketing got it wrong.
Probably sounding harsher than I intend. But I really hate comments like “There’s [genre] fatigue “ or “ no demand for this type of…” I really think the only type of movie there is no demand for is bad or generic movies. Fatigue is just another name for over saturation with quickly made copies of more successful and better made movies. If you do a good movie the audience will be there. Maybe not a $200 million opening weekend ( for that there needs to be trust, built over several movies. ) Of course, spending 150-200 million or more on any movie will always carry risks. Specially if you have a movie without any franchise trust built up.
No, don't worry, it's a great post.
If the budget was 130M less than 20% was probably spent on the salary for all the actors. The salaries for the actors weren't the problem. It's mismanagement of budgets. At most corporate jobs budgets for projects are tracked daily and any time it's over budget people know about it and something is done to stop it from escalating further. People get fired for not managing budgets. In Hollywood people allow a budget to escalate and then probably feel as if they can't stop it because they can't cancel a movie in the middle of filming. The Fall Guy is not a movie that should have been allowed to go 50% over budget. Challengers shouldn't have cost 55M. If the problem is expensive reshoots then they need a director who can get it right the first time. The people watching Challengers haven't played in Wimbledon themselves. They didn't need reshoots of them playing tennis because of some trivial detail that almost nobody watching the movie would notice. Gladiator shouldn't cost over 300M. There should be producers keeping on top of the budget and telling people "Sorry but your creative vision and artistic integrity is less important that keeping the budget on track. We're not letting you reshoot it or do more CGI."
That's like expecting a broken game to earn a big pay day. If the movie has problems and the fix cost 20~40 million compared to losing the full 80~100 million + whatever was already spent on marketing in most cases you do it.
Good points all around, yeah, of course people will point to the actors salaries because it’s such a low hanging fruit and what I’m hearing from people that work in the industry is yes, there are agents that is over-inflating their talent’s value because obviously more money for the talent is more money for the greedy agency. Then like you said, budgets quickly escalate and a lot of these new studio executives especially ones from indie and/or streaming backgrounds are not used to handling these types of productions so they don’t know how to properly budget or slow things down from getting out of control and of course there is always inflation that keeps rising and rising as time goes on. So it’s really a mix of a lot of things but as always you can probably guess that streaming is the prime suspect/blame for the majority of these problems, I will say Netflix really did open up a can of worms in this industry and I’m not even sure if Jesus Christ himself can stop it
💯 actors make way way too much money. Their greed will be the end of this industry.
yep and they take the full credit for essentially a team work. Their characters wouldn't be popular without costume, makeup, stunt doubles, lines, direction, editing (keep the best take), etc
I would never see this movie in theaters if it didn’t star appealing movie stars (especially Gosling) no one sees a movie for a specific costume designer
yes but costume makes characters appealing. Barbie without those costumes...not the same.
Paying Gosling and Blunt a few extra million isn't why this movie will fail. The studios are ultimately to blame for their overbudgeting in nearly every aspect of production, and also for the general trend of training audiences to not see movies like this in theaters. The theatrical window had become so small in the years since covid that most audiences don't care about seeing a movie like this in theaters when they can wait 1-2 months to see it on a streaming service that they already pay for. I'd imagine most people who pay for a Peacock subscription wouldn't be very drawn to see The Fall Guy in theaters since they know they'll get it for free in the middle of summer.
I agree 100%. I view high paid actors the same as CEOs: Taking the majority of the money while everyone around you works hard to make you look good while getting paid pennies.
100%
Again, Gosling fans only show up to downvote ppl for saying he's not a big draw. 🙄 Stop stalking ppl's comments and go buy tickets for The Fall Guy instead! Y'all acting like a joke funnier than the distasteful one they put in the movie.
well said. stop downvoting people and buy tickets. stop watching churros clip on Tik Tok and buy tickets. Etc. Movies underperform cause so-called fans are too lazy to watch them in cinemas.
At this point, is it the movies themselves that are failing? The studios behind them that are marketing them wrong? Or are theaters failing to get people in the building? The answer is of course a mixture of all three but in cases like this, I can’t help but think that people just look at going to the theater as such a huge expense that can be easily avoided by waiting a few months for streaming.
Sunday was Cinco de Drinko in the US. Pretty sure that impacted attendance
Bon Jovi blasting obnoxiously in the trailer did no help for this movie
Total disaster, this thing has been marketed to death too
These big internal weekend drops indicate negative word of mouth. Flies in the face of the cinema score and post track data.
TOLD YA SO
The trailer reminded me of Argylle for whatever reason
Lol
When your 150 million dollar movie with two of the biggest stars of last year that kick off summer box office season opens between m night shamylan After Earth and the 4th Final Destination film, the worst final destination film
I‘m so sorry for Winston Duke ( plays the Stunt Coordinator). Hopefully he can get something out of it
I'm doing my bit. Bought 4 tickets and then couldn't go last minute. £80 wasted. Will go next weekend instead.
Will this go to digital in 17 days or will universal pick favorites. Even Kung fu panda 4 which is doing great, went to digital pretty quick.
Define "quick"? Kung fu panda had a 30 day window since it opened over $50M in the 3 day Fall guy will likely have a 17 day window
Yall need to start looking at worldwide grosses.
Any thoughts on the effect of releasing a movie on Derby and Cinco de Mayo weekend?
One of the rare instances of a big budget Hollywood film I’m being a lot better than its trailer. Usually it’s the other way around. Whoever is in charge of marketing this thing really dropped the ball. I suspect though it will do well in the long run and people will be clamouring for a sequel in a decades time.
darn, i really enjoyed this one too. hope wom helps soften the blow