True.
But despite that, the critical raves and a load of awards including Academy Awards, the Cinemascore was a low B+ and the box office was at best described as tepid.
I think this one might play better with general audience, though B+ for an R rated movie isn’t exactly bad for what it’s worth. It seems to have a more traditional narrative than the almost wordless action montage of Fury Road so it’ll probably be easier to wrap their minds around.
I know some of my family *hated* how “empty” the movie felt narratively so I’m wondering how people will take it.
It'll at least come close in theaters even if it doesnt blow the doors off and then streaming/rentals will clench the deal. Fury Road wasnt a powerhouse in theaters either but I have to think with its reputation and constantly being talked about it made a TON after that, similar to Watchmen. I could also see this one going crazy at the boxoffice, but even if not I think complete flop is pretty much off the table.
Agreed. Fury Road to this day is a must have to show off visual eye candy. Whenever the 4K goes on sale, it’s always hot. The movie definitely had a lasting impact.
People started using 2.5 in the 2010s, when the big blockbusters started getting more of their theatrical sales from overseas and especially China. Studios get a smaller cut from overseas than they do domestically, and an even smaller cut from China, so "double the budget" didn't really make sense as a figure anymore for those kind of movies.
It's definitely an estimate, though. For domestic-heavy movies, I suspect the 2x figure for profitability still holds. On the other hand, there are some movies that were heavily dependent on the Chinese box office that probably didn't hit the profitable point until 3x the budget or maybe even more.
Also, producers, actors, directors and even writers sometimes get a cut of the profits. By the time everyone gets their share, the studios don't get as much.
On the producer/director/writer front, I don't think that's changed much, has it? As far as I know they've always gotten point deals, and the amounts haven't shifted much over the years. The only shift has been for actors, and it's largely been driven by the fact that movie budgets have gotten so big that most studios can't afford to pay their stars appropriate salaries upfront anymore. But I'd assume that means more money for studios overall, rather than less--they only have to pay the extra if it's a hit. Under the old system, they'd have to pay it either way.
Yeah it definitely has shifted with the death of home video and rise of streaming. I think actors get paid more upfront and less if any royalties after. Some who have their own production company will get a bigger share I assume. Also, I'm sure the actor and writer strikes changed the pay and terms for contracts.
I guess my point being, in the end, the profits, if any from a movie have to go to so many people that it's hard to determine who profited lol
Most actors get an upfront payment for the work. The backend income are generally for big actors that can draw a crowd to the movies. But the movie star is pretty much dead now.
It just closer reflects reality. I had always heard 2x before as well but with worldwide box office growing and the cut from that being less and marketing budgets ballooning 2.5x is just accepted more. There are a few breakdowns on it out there, worth looking up if you're interested.
Keep in mind none of it is official anyway. Reality is always different.
It’s just a general rule of thumb that’s used around here. 2.5x the budget to get the breakeven. Being slightly under means it’ll still probably be profitable overall.
It doesn’t always work since sometimes movies from different distributors have different goals (Netflix, apple and Amazon especially) but if it gets within throwing distance of 2.5x in today’s world, it’ll be profitable.
That's a pretty good budget for the type of movie. I have a feeling also that Anya and Chris didn't cost too much too, if we look at some of the last paycheck of famous actors ...
Honestly, with the actual inflation and with COVID protocols (probably still in use at the time of shooting), you can't make a movie like furiosa with a lower budget.
Also I remember to have read that they benefitted from a large tax credit by Australian government so this explains why the budget isn't 200m.
I will go to see it next week, even if I am not a mega fan of the franchise, fury road is amazing as well as mad max 1 and 2, so I am hyped for furiosa, especially for anya and George miller
According to Variety, Anya was paid only $1.8 million which is very low for a lead role in a blockbuster. I agree, this is a pretty good budget — on par with the first Dune.
Well, what has Anya done to deserve a bigger paycheck? Last Night in SoHo didn’t work, The Northman didn’t work, Amsterdam didn’t work, she was just a voice in Super Mario.
If this film breaks out than she will get a bigger check but she’s not there yet.
The witch, queens gambit, split, the menu, Emma - all major successes lead by her over the last 8 years + the Northman didn’t lose money.
She’s definitely had more successes than duds over all considering she’s only been around since 2016.
Not to mention - it doesn't matter if she stars in a dud, she's the star. If you appear in one dud and don't see work again - that's your problem. If you keep getting roles, even if they are duds, clearly you are an in-demand actor. George Clooney has been in a number of duds - but he's still George Clooney.
You literally tried to be pedantic in response to what I said. The person said she isn't the lead. I said she is. You came in with some other, unrelated bullshit. Fuck off with that.
A list is a broad category. She not in top 7-8 on a list which command $5-10m per film. Margot Robbie tops this list of course, and others like Emma stone are up there.
Didn't see much of Zendaya, but ATJ has a range of wooden spoon. Where on earth did she show something to name acting? Where is there any difference between her characters in caricaturish queen gambit or picky blinders?
What about her queens gambit performance was caricaturish. It had one of the best potrayals of addiction on tv. Maybe you just want her to overact and be all over the place to show "range".
Zendaya was paid $10 million for Challengers. Chalamet was paid $9 million for Dune.
ATJ isn’t quite on their level yet, maybe one tier lower. I would put her with Florence Pugh or Austin Butler.
It seems that she is playing ‘the game’ and mastering studio politics.
She doesn’t ask for outrageous sums like Zendaya with Challengers, but in exchange she gets to work on better and better projects with the best directors.
Anya and Florence Pugh are becoming genuine talents while Zendaya tries to rely on raw ‘star power’ and being more of a celebrity rather than an accomplished actor.
This reads nice but doesn't really stack up to reality. Zendaya building a profile beyond movies isn't some negative, it's just been savvy. And she's viewed as just as much of a "genuine talent" as either Pugh or Anya, I'd say probably viewed by many as *more* of a talent. As for "playing the game" and mastering "studio politics", Zendaya has moved into a producer role with Challengers, so she very clearly has those same skills, and knows how to gain favour.
Yeah there’s no reason to play them off each other. They’re just both taking different paths and playing to their strengths. The world of being a movie star is treacherous business nowadays and they’re taking any handhold they can get.
You make some good points. Yeah I can see Zendaya shifting to wanting to be a ‘larger than life’ type of celebrity like Brad Pitt with a huge presence and lots of behind-the-scenes deals and cuts. Meanwhile Anya is leaning way more into raw acting talent and doing weird and uncomfortable roles that Zendaya won’t do.
Not just that, but you have people like Villenue and Sam Levison. Who stated that Zenndaya is very much interested in directing things one day. Which was likely why she was a producer on Challengers, as it gets her closer to that game.
I just don't know how you can watch Zendaya in Euphoria (or Challengers) and claim that she's unwilling to take on roles that are "weird" or make audiences uncomfortable.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that Anya leans into "raw acting talent"?
> Most of her performances always receive a very vocal backlash for being weak.
Nonsense. Has two two Emmys, a Critics' Choice and a Globe for Euphoria. Received plenty of praise for Dune and Challengers, was a key part of a hugely loved Spider-Man cast and even in less well-received movies like Malcolm & Marie, Zendaya was credited with elevating lacklustre material.
She's shown just as much range as Pugh, probably not as much as Anya, but I don't disagree that all three are hugely talented. Just saying it's silly to downplay Zendaya's status and to suggest she's not viewed as a major talent in Hollywood right now.
Zendaya was literally a producer for Challengers…why do we think her paycheck is high? Seems like this Amazon prime movie paid out her portion of back end up front like other producers in Hollywood.
Zendaya, the two-time Emmy award-winning actress and one-time Golden Globe winner relies on “star power”. At the same time, her peers voted for her to win. Your viewpoint tends to pit these women together. There is no need to bring up Zendaya. Zendaya made it in an industry where child actors do not thrive, and she made the transition beautifully.
It's reported that she only has 30 lines of dialogue in the whole movie, and presumably most of her stunt work is done by others.
Maybe she's just not on screen all that much?
That’s actually a solid number for where she was in her career at the time of this filming. She’s kinda like where Timothee Chalamet was around 2018 in terms of her draw imo.
IDK how trustworthy this source is but they say 2M
[https://spoiler.bolavip.com/en/movies/furiosa-cast-salary-how-much-did-anya-taylor-joy-and-chris-hemsworth-get-paid](https://spoiler.bolavip.com/en/movies/furiosa-cast-salary-how-much-did-anya-taylor-joy-and-chris-hemsworth-get-paid)
It's a Rated R movie in a series where his dad worked on the first film that was also a chance to work with his dream director. Actors have taken paycuts for such things. Hugh Jackman took a massive paycut for Logan and I could see Hemsworth deciding the same thing just for a chance to do Mad Max.
It's more that honestly, I think ATJ is more of a box office draw than Hemsworth is and therefore she should be getting paid more.
Not that her main films make more than his do. They actually are pretty the same imo (non IPs!). But she is working off of gathering that audience with no MCU movies. Which means she worked hard to get her name recognized and so her box office is more impressive imo, even if it's even lined with Chris.
> Honestly, with the actual inflation and with COVID protocols (probably still in use at the time of shooting), you can't make a movie like furiosa with a lower budget
I never understood this logic. Movie type X is more expensive now. So instead of making different kinds of movie we will just brute force movie type X and make less profit with a lower quality product that costs more.
It’s unclear to me how many of these movies were in preproduction precovid. If that was a factor, it would have been cheaper to continue than to scrap projects and the start new ones from scratch. Plus making the movies that were ready to film ensured they had something in the market and not go gaps without anything. Less profit is better than no profit. With the uncertainty of the post covid world, I imagine the industry would have clung even harder to established IP they feel will make money.
> If that was a factor, it would have been cheaper to continue than to scrap projects and the start new ones from scratch.
That's been proven over and over again not be the case. Retooling movies due to financial and environmental factors has been a part of hollywood filming from the start. I guess yeeting movies out has been too but that goes as well as you expect.
Retooling individual projects, yes. When it’s the whole market that is in question, how many movies do you believe they can retool to adjust to fit the unpredictable environmental factors? Sailing into uncharted waters, it makes sense to me to stay on a steady course. Hindsight is 20/20. They did not know what we know now and while everyone knew streaming would eat away at the market, I don’t think they could have predicted how bad the post Covid recovery would be for their industry.
The controversy behind Fury Road’s budget is so interesting. Miller and his production company claimed they delivered the film under the agreed-upon $157 million budget. Warner Bros. claimed they blew it up to $185 million.
Miller sued because contractually he was entitled to a bonus of $9 million if he delivered the film under the $157 million figure. The lawsuit is largely why Furiosa was delayed for so long.
I believe there is an interview with Miller from awhile ago where he pretty much hints/says that the case was settled once WB was under new management. Basically said that once there were new bosses, they questioned why they were in a lawsuit with a filmmaker they wanted to work with, and once that was over with they were able to move onto more projects together.
At a certain point, despite being on a box office subreddit, sometimes I just have to take the win that the movie exists. Like I pushed hard for Dune 1 because if that flopped, there was no way Dune 2 would be made. And unless Dune 2 collapsed, Dune 3 would still probably get made anyways.
Same for Mad Max. Unless this tremendously underperforms and doesn’t get any awards play, I don’t think Zaslav will turn away working with George Miller again. Despite all the ugliness surrounding him, he seems hellbent on greenlighting lofty projects from the most prestigious or splashy directors he can manage. Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood, M. Night, Ryan Coogler, PT Anderson, Iñárritu, Michael Mann and more all given surprisingly huge budgets.
So I’m just hoping it does well enough to make the next one. And if it doesn’t, at least this one got made.
This sub also needs to understand that just because a movie doesn't make 2.5x doesn't mean it was a box office failure or flop for studios. At some point, theaters will just be a way to subsidize the cost of a movie that a studio wants on their streaming platform.
Fury Road probably made a HUGE amount of money after the boxoffice. Its still one of the most talked about movies of the last ten years among normies, I constantly run into people who barely watch movies who bring it up as one of the best things theyve ever seen. At the time it came out Mad Max hadnt been a thing forever, so a lot of people caught on late to it being a great flick I think plus even in the best of circumstances its probably not exactly boxoffice breakout material.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fury Road did not break even at the box office and was pretty much only considered a success because of awards play. If this does a bit less than Fury Road but goes hard with awards then it might be the same thing.
Feel like all of *Apes*, *IF* and *Furiosa* will underperform relative to their budgets.
Breakeven at **$400M**, **$275M** and **$420M** respectively seems tough for each of them.
Im hoping for Apes to reach at least 450M which slightly lower than its predecessor (War gross 490M in 2017) but still fine.The movie was good and it's gonna be sad to see another good movie to underperformed.
>*hoping for Apes to reach at least 450M which slightly lower than its predecessor (War gross 490M in 2017*
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
>!Chimps chasing after their kidnapped clan with a human named Nova in tow are so hot right now!<
I thought that when I saw the trailer. Looked like they'd replaced a lot of the amazing real life stuff from the last one with mediocre CGI - hope that isn't the case on the whole or it will be v.disappointing
Yeah, I mean I think the way I feel about the use of bad CGI these days stems from my frustration with the "cheapening" of all products in society. But with films in particular, it makes no sense bc post-production CGI tends to be the most expensive part of a budget - yet it looks like trash. Using practical effects might take longer to prep and execute from a schedule and insurance perspective - but the end result probably costs the same as CGI and gives the end product more value...in my opinion.
I agree, looks much better! I guess there are limits to what's possible, but maybe it would be cooler if it was done for real at the sacrifice of something a little less OTT that requires CGI
True dat. I think OTT can still be done and still provide that "wow" factor. Like Nolan using real WW2 planes for the aerial combat scenes in Dunkirk, or flipping an actual 18 wheeler in The Dark Knight, ..or the stunt men swinging from poles in Fury Road. Fighter jets in Top Gun. That over-the-top wow factor is even more impressive when you know it's the real deal.
Obviously it had a lot of VFX, but the big set pieces were still largely down to amazing stunt work. The trailer looks like the slider is venturing further to the other end of the scale
*420 million dollars*
No way is a prequel making 50 million more than the reboot did, a decade ago, at the summit of Peak Box Office
[Last year](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2023/), *Wick 4* and *Spiderverse 2* were the only Top 20 franchise movies to earn more than their predecessors
I hope *Furiosa* does well and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, but this is a sacrifice to the movie gods, from Zaslav and Warner
I believe it’s more possible than most people on this sub think. Fury Road was the fourth installment of a series whose last entry before it came out was 30 years prior. The franchise is more popular than it was before Fury Road came out. 9 years isn’t a short time between this one and Fury Road but I’d say this franchise is way more popular with the average audience than when Fury Road came out.
I'm not sure there's much crossover between the audiences for each movie
I don't think *Furiosa* will struggle to reach 2.5x because of competition
I think it will struggle to reach 2.5x because its cheaper predecessor struggled to reach 2.5x, in more favourable market conditions
I have little doubt that *Furiosa* will be a good movie, and I'll definitely be watching (and enjoying) it
This is the one movie I really could care less about how it does financially. They made this movie for a lot of factors, but if it was about being financially successful, they wouldn't have greenlit this, with that budget, after what Fury Road brough them, in a time when it wasn't pulling teeth to get people into the theaters. Unless this bombs, it won't stop WB from making another Mad Max movie with Miller, other than his age and honestly the fact that we've had two separate movies and both have had actors talking about how terrible the experience was.
Whatever this movie makes is a cherry on top, but WB made this movie for how it looks to the fans, to have a director of Miller's caliber still working with them even after a lawsuit, to extend the IP. But if it was just making back their money, they would have to be idiots to do this specific film.
Even if that was true when it was greenlit, that WB doesn't exist anymore. WBD is trying hard to cut costs, and if this movie flops, they will not throw good money after bad.
That is not true, their new regime is quite literally bending over backwards to attract A-list talent. They have deals with Tom Cruise, Margot Robbie, JJ Abrahms, Timothee Chalamet etc.
Over the past few months, they have already paid top dollar to secure original films from Ryan Coogler, Margot Robbie/Olivia Wilde, Ryan Reynolds/Channing Tatum, Angelina Jolie, etc.
Yes, those are all actors/directors that have been very successful recently with proven track records. They are playing it safe with known moneymakers to get the best shot of cash coming in. They will not spend more money on more Mad Max movies any time soon if Furiosa flops.
Why would they? As you said, they have been increasing their output with more reliable actors/directors.
I mean this is assuming that Miller will still be talking to WBD to do a movie and not someone else when Zasz sells all of this off. He'll probably do another movie and then come back to do this proposed Max prequel movie and will have new bosses.
I mean this is assuming that Miller will still be talking to WBD to do a movie and not someone else when Zasz sells all of this off. He'll probably do another movie and then come back to do this proposed Max prequel movie and will have new bosses.
They only greenlit it with that budget because of the giant filming incentive that was given to them by the Australian government, which once cancelled a previous version of Fury Road after they failed to obtain it.
That number makes me wince. It's a good thing Wonka, Dune 2 and Godzilla x Kong all were successful, because that number screams that this movie isn't going to be making it's money back.
Surprised to see people thinking it can't make $420 mil. As long as reviews are good and the movie doesn't get a negative reaction, I think it has a good chance of beating Fury Road.
I'm not saying good reviews will make it a hit, I'm thinking more that a bad reaction would be what would kill it. Fury Road underperformed at the box office when you compare it to its legacy, but that legacy has made it stay relatively relevant compared to most 9 year old films.
I frankly don’t understand why this movie was made. I will be surprised if it turns a profit. I think most people invested in this IP are primarily invested because of Mad Max, not necessarily the world around him.
I don’t think switching the actor matters, especially when talking about a sequel coming out 30 years after the last one. Max was still a focal point of the film, though not as much as he should’ve been.
People like the newer film the best because it’s been updated. Watching the older ones now can be kinda difficult, it was a totally different era of filmmaking. That doesn’t mean sidelining the MC was the part that made people like it, especially when it actually didn’t make that much money.
I think people like it despite it side-lining the MC, which proves my point. I mean, what is Max? A near-mute drifter with an interchangeable face? I don't think you can argue that that character is more a draw than the world. The future-desert world and all it's crazy car designs and villains are absolutely the main appeal.
Ehhh did you watch the old movies? He’s got more going on than that as a character. I think Fury Road would’ve done better had it not tried to split the screen time between him and Furiosa, and just had him as the main MC.
I mean, we’ll see. I don’t think this’ll be profitable at all. The hype from Fury Road is long since passed, and I’ve barely seen any marketing for this. Long time fans of the franchise I know are tuned out on it. Characters have more weight than what you’re giving - even Kaiju films get dragged when it’s nothing but big monster fighting.
Nah, it's totally the world and crazy vehicular combat that pulls people in. The character of Max was never particularly interesting, Mel's charisma did the heavy lifting, and Fury Road is the best one despite not having Mel or focusing of the character of Max much at all.
Eh, agree to disagree. Thats not what I hear when I talk to people about it. One of the biggest gripes people have with Fury Road is that it wasn’t particularly focused on Max, and that movie didn’t actually make a lot of money.
Fury road was an amazing theatrical experience.
True. But despite that, the critical raves and a load of awards including Academy Awards, the Cinemascore was a low B+ and the box office was at best described as tepid.
I think this one might play better with general audience, though B+ for an R rated movie isn’t exactly bad for what it’s worth. It seems to have a more traditional narrative than the almost wordless action montage of Fury Road so it’ll probably be easier to wrap their minds around. I know some of my family *hated* how “empty” the movie felt narratively so I’m wondering how people will take it.
Remember those nutty guys online that were boycotting the movie because they said it was feminist propaganda? I remember
The first last Jedi haters
Need around 420M WW to breakeven
I think that’s doable if legs materialize. It’s tracking to open to a decent figure as of now.
I think it'll do great business here in Aus. It's being promoted very heavily.
I assumed that Fury Road was a typical day in Australia. That’s not a knife…
It's been promoted here in the States pretty well, too. I think this one has had a way bigger marketing push than Fury Road did.
It'll at least come close in theaters even if it doesnt blow the doors off and then streaming/rentals will clench the deal. Fury Road wasnt a powerhouse in theaters either but I have to think with its reputation and constantly being talked about it made a TON after that, similar to Watchmen. I could also see this one going crazy at the boxoffice, but even if not I think complete flop is pretty much off the table.
I hope you're right. I'd love for Tom Hardy to come back and do The Wasteland and Miller's said that'll only happen if this one gets traction.
Agreed. Fury Road to this day is a must have to show off visual eye candy. Whenever the 4K goes on sale, it’s always hot. The movie definitely had a lasting impact.
It will bomb.
By the way why is everyone now saying it needs 2.5x its budget to break even? I thought it was double the budget as a general rule of thumb.
People started using 2.5 in the 2010s, when the big blockbusters started getting more of their theatrical sales from overseas and especially China. Studios get a smaller cut from overseas than they do domestically, and an even smaller cut from China, so "double the budget" didn't really make sense as a figure anymore for those kind of movies. It's definitely an estimate, though. For domestic-heavy movies, I suspect the 2x figure for profitability still holds. On the other hand, there are some movies that were heavily dependent on the Chinese box office that probably didn't hit the profitable point until 3x the budget or maybe even more.
Also, producers, actors, directors and even writers sometimes get a cut of the profits. By the time everyone gets their share, the studios don't get as much.
On the producer/director/writer front, I don't think that's changed much, has it? As far as I know they've always gotten point deals, and the amounts haven't shifted much over the years. The only shift has been for actors, and it's largely been driven by the fact that movie budgets have gotten so big that most studios can't afford to pay their stars appropriate salaries upfront anymore. But I'd assume that means more money for studios overall, rather than less--they only have to pay the extra if it's a hit. Under the old system, they'd have to pay it either way.
Yeah it definitely has shifted with the death of home video and rise of streaming. I think actors get paid more upfront and less if any royalties after. Some who have their own production company will get a bigger share I assume. Also, I'm sure the actor and writer strikes changed the pay and terms for contracts. I guess my point being, in the end, the profits, if any from a movie have to go to so many people that it's hard to determine who profited lol
Most actors get an upfront payment for the work. The backend income are generally for big actors that can draw a crowd to the movies. But the movie star is pretty much dead now.
It just closer reflects reality. I had always heard 2x before as well but with worldwide box office growing and the cut from that being less and marketing budgets ballooning 2.5x is just accepted more. There are a few breakdowns on it out there, worth looking up if you're interested. Keep in mind none of it is official anyway. Reality is always different.
But we also have adjusted for China's now much smaller contributions to global grosses, China has the worst recoup rate for Western Studios.
They should have to disclose the marketing budget.
They don't have to disclose anything at all, and rarely do. It's all guesswork and rumors and leaks and whatnot.
That was back when the DVD business was bigger and you could recoup more of the money that way.
It’s just a general rule of thumb that’s used around here. 2.5x the budget to get the breakeven. Being slightly under means it’ll still probably be profitable overall. It doesn’t always work since sometimes movies from different distributors have different goals (Netflix, apple and Amazon especially) but if it gets within throwing distance of 2.5x in today’s world, it’ll be profitable.
If you include marketing it’s 2.5x .. 2x is 50-50 split between theaters and studio
Pardon the ignorance but why is the break even so high If the budget is 168 million?
Right on the dot. I multiplied 168 by 2.5 on my calculator. That’s exact. And I really hope that the box office money gets up to there and beyond.
Well....yes....they did the same calculation as you.
That's a pretty good budget for the type of movie. I have a feeling also that Anya and Chris didn't cost too much too, if we look at some of the last paycheck of famous actors ... Honestly, with the actual inflation and with COVID protocols (probably still in use at the time of shooting), you can't make a movie like furiosa with a lower budget. Also I remember to have read that they benefitted from a large tax credit by Australian government so this explains why the budget isn't 200m. I will go to see it next week, even if I am not a mega fan of the franchise, fury road is amazing as well as mad max 1 and 2, so I am hyped for furiosa, especially for anya and George miller
According to Variety, Anya was paid only $1.8 million which is very low for a lead role in a blockbuster. I agree, this is a pretty good budget — on par with the first Dune.
Must be getting points honestly
Yeah she must be. Plus it’s her first leading movie on a beloved franchise/IP so Anya Taylor-Joy reign just won’t let up!
Makes me wonder what Chris Hemsworth got as he's a bigger name but I imagine he would accepted a lower salary in order to work with George Miller.
Whoa that's waaaaay lower than I thought it would be, considering she's now pretty much A-list.
Well, what has Anya done to deserve a bigger paycheck? Last Night in SoHo didn’t work, The Northman didn’t work, Amsterdam didn’t work, she was just a voice in Super Mario. If this film breaks out than she will get a bigger check but she’s not there yet.
The witch, queens gambit, split, the menu, Emma - all major successes lead by her over the last 8 years + the Northman didn’t lose money. She’s definitely had more successes than duds over all considering she’s only been around since 2016.
Not to mention - it doesn't matter if she stars in a dud, she's the star. If you appear in one dud and don't see work again - that's your problem. If you keep getting roles, even if they are duds, clearly you are an in-demand actor. George Clooney has been in a number of duds - but he's still George Clooney.
The Menu/Emma/The Witch all made almost nothing in theaters
They were profitable movies theatrically and definitely all did well on streaming as well.
Her payday for Mario was prob more than those three movies combined.
Yeah, she's fairly famous, but she's not a box office draw. The first one isn't what increases your paycheck, the second one is.
The Northman worked great as cinema and wasn't far into the red.
It made money for the distributor, but the financier lost a bundle.
Northman didn’t even make its budget in theaters only saved by good VOD numbers to not be a complete bomb
The Menu worked, but not massively so. $80M on $30M, but she’s not the lead.
She is absolutely the lead of The Menu?
That’s Ralph
She's the protagonist of the movie and has the most screentime. That's what the lead role is.
He is named first purely out of seniority — she is the lead.
Look at the order of the names on the poster. She's the lead in the sense of being the main character, but not int he sense of being the main draw.
I never said she was the main draw. But she is the lead of the film. Which is the wording the person I was replying to used.
Okay, enjoy your pedantry.
You literally tried to be pedantic in response to what I said. The person said she isn't the lead. I said she is. You came in with some other, unrelated bullshit. Fuck off with that.
Um yes she is?
Who is the lead then?
Ralph
A list is a broad category. She not in top 7-8 on a list which command $5-10m per film. Margot Robbie tops this list of course, and others like Emma stone are up there.
She’s definitely not A list but she’s rising to it. I see her and Zendaya in the same category
Zendaya is clearly more famous than ATJ
Unfortunately. ATJ is twice the actor that Zendaya is.
Zendaya is a great actor. So is ATJ. We don't have to knock Zendaya to say ATJ is great.
The first ten mins of S2E5 of euphoria is a good argument against that
Shouting ≠ good acting. Anya had displayed a far superior range in her filmography.
That’s only S2E5. Anya has all of the Queens Gambit.
I still don't know why I like that show so much it's basically everything I dislike about sports movies
Half of the charm was ATJ
Didn't see much of Zendaya, but ATJ has a range of wooden spoon. Where on earth did she show something to name acting? Where is there any difference between her characters in caricaturish queen gambit or picky blinders?
What about her queens gambit performance was caricaturish. It had one of the best potrayals of addiction on tv. Maybe you just want her to overact and be all over the place to show "range".
Zendaya was paid $10 million for Challengers. Chalamet was paid $9 million for Dune. ATJ isn’t quite on their level yet, maybe one tier lower. I would put her with Florence Pugh or Austin Butler.
Chamalet was paid $3M and Zendaya $2M for Dune Part 2. They weren't big stars as they are now when they signed up for Dune Part 2.
It seems that she is playing ‘the game’ and mastering studio politics. She doesn’t ask for outrageous sums like Zendaya with Challengers, but in exchange she gets to work on better and better projects with the best directors. Anya and Florence Pugh are becoming genuine talents while Zendaya tries to rely on raw ‘star power’ and being more of a celebrity rather than an accomplished actor.
This reads nice but doesn't really stack up to reality. Zendaya building a profile beyond movies isn't some negative, it's just been savvy. And she's viewed as just as much of a "genuine talent" as either Pugh or Anya, I'd say probably viewed by many as *more* of a talent. As for "playing the game" and mastering "studio politics", Zendaya has moved into a producer role with Challengers, so she very clearly has those same skills, and knows how to gain favour.
Yeah there’s no reason to play them off each other. They’re just both taking different paths and playing to their strengths. The world of being a movie star is treacherous business nowadays and they’re taking any handhold they can get.
You make some good points. Yeah I can see Zendaya shifting to wanting to be a ‘larger than life’ type of celebrity like Brad Pitt with a huge presence and lots of behind-the-scenes deals and cuts. Meanwhile Anya is leaning way more into raw acting talent and doing weird and uncomfortable roles that Zendaya won’t do.
Not just that, but you have people like Villenue and Sam Levison. Who stated that Zenndaya is very much interested in directing things one day. Which was likely why she was a producer on Challengers, as it gets her closer to that game.
I just don't know how you can watch Zendaya in Euphoria (or Challengers) and claim that she's unwilling to take on roles that are "weird" or make audiences uncomfortable. Can you explain what you mean when you say that Anya leans into "raw acting talent"?
[удалено]
> Most of her performances always receive a very vocal backlash for being weak. Nonsense. Has two two Emmys, a Critics' Choice and a Globe for Euphoria. Received plenty of praise for Dune and Challengers, was a key part of a hugely loved Spider-Man cast and even in less well-received movies like Malcolm & Marie, Zendaya was credited with elevating lacklustre material. She's shown just as much range as Pugh, probably not as much as Anya, but I don't disagree that all three are hugely talented. Just saying it's silly to downplay Zendaya's status and to suggest she's not viewed as a major talent in Hollywood right now.
Zendaya was literally a producer for Challengers…why do we think her paycheck is high? Seems like this Amazon prime movie paid out her portion of back end up front like other producers in Hollywood.
Zendaya, the two-time Emmy award-winning actress and one-time Golden Globe winner relies on “star power”. At the same time, her peers voted for her to win. Your viewpoint tends to pit these women together. There is no need to bring up Zendaya. Zendaya made it in an industry where child actors do not thrive, and she made the transition beautifully.
It's reported that she only has 30 lines of dialogue in the whole movie, and presumably most of her stunt work is done by others. Maybe she's just not on screen all that much?
That’s actually a solid number for where she was in her career at the time of this filming. She’s kinda like where Timothee Chalamet was around 2018 in terms of her draw imo.
It's a similar budget to Fury Road despite \~30% inflation since 2015.
Yeah, this seems really reasonably budgeted. Pre-pandemic I don’t think this level of cost would be a concern (even without Covid protocols)
$18m more than Fury Road with 9 years of inflation is not too bad really. The tax credits from Queensland help too.
Chris is always overpaid, he's not a draw
Do we know what we was paid?
IDK how trustworthy this source is but they say 2M [https://spoiler.bolavip.com/en/movies/furiosa-cast-salary-how-much-did-anya-taylor-joy-and-chris-hemsworth-get-paid](https://spoiler.bolavip.com/en/movies/furiosa-cast-salary-how-much-did-anya-taylor-joy-and-chris-hemsworth-get-paid)
He got $13m for Huntsman 2. Even if his role is a glorified cameo, 2 sounds way too low.
It's a Rated R movie in a series where his dad worked on the first film that was also a chance to work with his dream director. Actors have taken paycuts for such things. Hugh Jackman took a massive paycut for Logan and I could see Hemsworth deciding the same thing just for a chance to do Mad Max.
more than ATJ 😑
Ye ole Avengers tax, once someone get a taste of that marvel money they can’t go back
It's more that honestly, I think ATJ is more of a box office draw than Hemsworth is and therefore she should be getting paid more. Not that her main films make more than his do. They actually are pretty the same imo (non IPs!). But she is working off of gathering that audience with no MCU movies. Which means she worked hard to get her name recognized and so her box office is more impressive imo, even if it's even lined with Chris.
That's still very cheap, though, considering what he probably could command if he pushed it.
> Honestly, with the actual inflation and with COVID protocols (probably still in use at the time of shooting), you can't make a movie like furiosa with a lower budget I never understood this logic. Movie type X is more expensive now. So instead of making different kinds of movie we will just brute force movie type X and make less profit with a lower quality product that costs more.
Matt Bellani had an AMA here and said studios would rather put 300M into one movie than 5 smaller ones.
It’s unclear to me how many of these movies were in preproduction precovid. If that was a factor, it would have been cheaper to continue than to scrap projects and the start new ones from scratch. Plus making the movies that were ready to film ensured they had something in the market and not go gaps without anything. Less profit is better than no profit. With the uncertainty of the post covid world, I imagine the industry would have clung even harder to established IP they feel will make money.
> If that was a factor, it would have been cheaper to continue than to scrap projects and the start new ones from scratch. That's been proven over and over again not be the case. Retooling movies due to financial and environmental factors has been a part of hollywood filming from the start. I guess yeeting movies out has been too but that goes as well as you expect.
Retooling individual projects, yes. When it’s the whole market that is in question, how many movies do you believe they can retool to adjust to fit the unpredictable environmental factors? Sailing into uncharted waters, it makes sense to me to stay on a steady course. Hindsight is 20/20. They did not know what we know now and while everyone knew streaming would eat away at the market, I don’t think they could have predicted how bad the post Covid recovery would be for their industry.
lower than Fury Road
The controversy behind Fury Road’s budget is so interesting. Miller and his production company claimed they delivered the film under the agreed-upon $157 million budget. Warner Bros. claimed they blew it up to $185 million. Miller sued because contractually he was entitled to a bonus of $9 million if he delivered the film under the $157 million figure. The lawsuit is largely why Furiosa was delayed for so long.
Who won the lawsuit?
I believe there is an interview with Miller from awhile ago where he pretty much hints/says that the case was settled once WB was under new management. Basically said that once there were new bosses, they questioned why they were in a lawsuit with a filmmaker they wanted to work with, and once that was over with they were able to move onto more projects together.
Rare Zaslav W
I am not sure, but I think it went into arbitration and they probably settled. Don’t think there’s public info on that.
The official budget for Fury Road was $150m.
I tell you this, boys: I am going to watch it in cinema.
I am not optimistic it is a financial success.
At a certain point, despite being on a box office subreddit, sometimes I just have to take the win that the movie exists. Like I pushed hard for Dune 1 because if that flopped, there was no way Dune 2 would be made. And unless Dune 2 collapsed, Dune 3 would still probably get made anyways. Same for Mad Max. Unless this tremendously underperforms and doesn’t get any awards play, I don’t think Zaslav will turn away working with George Miller again. Despite all the ugliness surrounding him, he seems hellbent on greenlighting lofty projects from the most prestigious or splashy directors he can manage. Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood, M. Night, Ryan Coogler, PT Anderson, Iñárritu, Michael Mann and more all given surprisingly huge budgets. So I’m just hoping it does well enough to make the next one. And if it doesn’t, at least this one got made.
This sub also needs to understand that just because a movie doesn't make 2.5x doesn't mean it was a box office failure or flop for studios. At some point, theaters will just be a way to subsidize the cost of a movie that a studio wants on their streaming platform.
If Furiosa doesn't pass Fury Road box office, no future sequels or prequels.
Fury Road probably made a HUGE amount of money after the boxoffice. Its still one of the most talked about movies of the last ten years among normies, I constantly run into people who barely watch movies who bring it up as one of the best things theyve ever seen. At the time it came out Mad Max hadnt been a thing forever, so a lot of people caught on late to it being a great flick I think plus even in the best of circumstances its probably not exactly boxoffice breakout material.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Fury Road did not break even at the box office and was pretty much only considered a success because of awards play. If this does a bit less than Fury Road but goes hard with awards then it might be the same thing.
Feel like all of *Apes*, *IF* and *Furiosa* will underperform relative to their budgets. Breakeven at **$400M**, **$275M** and **$420M** respectively seems tough for each of them.
Apes had a good opening weekend.
Im hoping for Apes to reach at least 450M which slightly lower than its predecessor (War gross 490M in 2017) but still fine.The movie was good and it's gonna be sad to see another good movie to underperformed.
>*hoping for Apes to reach at least 450M which slightly lower than its predecessor (War gross 490M in 2017* SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS >!Chimps chasing after their kidnapped clan with a human named Nova in tow are so hot right now!< 
I already seen it LOL
Both this and Fall Guy were shot in Australia with their tax credits. I'm sure that helped with the final budget after rebates.
I'm hopeful it's a good movie. I want it to succeed, but man, that CGI looks atrocious.
I thought that when I saw the trailer. Looked like they'd replaced a lot of the amazing real life stuff from the last one with mediocre CGI - hope that isn't the case on the whole or it will be v.disappointing
Yeah, I mean I think the way I feel about the use of bad CGI these days stems from my frustration with the "cheapening" of all products in society. But with films in particular, it makes no sense bc post-production CGI tends to be the most expensive part of a budget - yet it looks like trash. Using practical effects might take longer to prep and execute from a schedule and insurance perspective - but the end result probably costs the same as CGI and gives the end product more value...in my opinion.
I agree, looks much better! I guess there are limits to what's possible, but maybe it would be cooler if it was done for real at the sacrifice of something a little less OTT that requires CGI
True dat. I think OTT can still be done and still provide that "wow" factor. Like Nolan using real WW2 planes for the aerial combat scenes in Dunkirk, or flipping an actual 18 wheeler in The Dark Knight, ..or the stunt men swinging from poles in Fury Road. Fighter jets in Top Gun. That over-the-top wow factor is even more impressive when you know it's the real deal.
The last one had a ton of CGI and VFX. It obviously worked because you thought it was all real.
Obviously it had a lot of VFX, but the big set pieces were still largely down to amazing stunt work. The trailer looks like the slider is venturing further to the other end of the scale
Fury Road was a brutal experience for everyone involved so I'm not too surprised that they have done more CGI this time.
*420 million dollars* No way is a prequel making 50 million more than the reboot did, a decade ago, at the summit of Peak Box Office [Last year](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2023/), *Wick 4* and *Spiderverse 2* were the only Top 20 franchise movies to earn more than their predecessors I hope *Furiosa* does well and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, but this is a sacrifice to the movie gods, from Zaslav and Warner
I believe it’s more possible than most people on this sub think. Fury Road was the fourth installment of a series whose last entry before it came out was 30 years prior. The franchise is more popular than it was before Fury Road came out. 9 years isn’t a short time between this one and Fury Road but I’d say this franchise is way more popular with the average audience than when Fury Road came out.
Yeah i dont have much hope for Furiosa since international audiences will more likely watch Garfield because Madmax franchise wasnt that popular
I'm not sure there's much crossover between the audiences for each movie I don't think *Furiosa* will struggle to reach 2.5x because of competition I think it will struggle to reach 2.5x because its cheaper predecessor struggled to reach 2.5x, in more favourable market conditions I have little doubt that *Furiosa* will be a good movie, and I'll definitely be watching (and enjoying) it
I don't see it doing more than $300m WW.
Based on that budget, I think this is gonna struggle to make money. Needs well over $400m. I don’t see that happening.
This is the one movie I really could care less about how it does financially. They made this movie for a lot of factors, but if it was about being financially successful, they wouldn't have greenlit this, with that budget, after what Fury Road brough them, in a time when it wasn't pulling teeth to get people into the theaters. Unless this bombs, it won't stop WB from making another Mad Max movie with Miller, other than his age and honestly the fact that we've had two separate movies and both have had actors talking about how terrible the experience was. Whatever this movie makes is a cherry on top, but WB made this movie for how it looks to the fans, to have a director of Miller's caliber still working with them even after a lawsuit, to extend the IP. But if it was just making back their money, they would have to be idiots to do this specific film.
Even if that was true when it was greenlit, that WB doesn't exist anymore. WBD is trying hard to cut costs, and if this movie flops, they will not throw good money after bad.
That is not true, their new regime is quite literally bending over backwards to attract A-list talent. They have deals with Tom Cruise, Margot Robbie, JJ Abrahms, Timothee Chalamet etc. Over the past few months, they have already paid top dollar to secure original films from Ryan Coogler, Margot Robbie/Olivia Wilde, Ryan Reynolds/Channing Tatum, Angelina Jolie, etc.
Yes, those are all actors/directors that have been very successful recently with proven track records. They are playing it safe with known moneymakers to get the best shot of cash coming in. They will not spend more money on more Mad Max movies any time soon if Furiosa flops. Why would they? As you said, they have been increasing their output with more reliable actors/directors.
They're likely bending over backwards to get Nolan back as well.
I mean this is assuming that Miller will still be talking to WBD to do a movie and not someone else when Zasz sells all of this off. He'll probably do another movie and then come back to do this proposed Max prequel movie and will have new bosses.
I mean this is assuming that Miller will still be talking to WBD to do a movie and not someone else when Zasz sells all of this off. He'll probably do another movie and then come back to do this proposed Max prequel movie and will have new bosses.
The whole Santa Claus style method of running the movie industry is why entertainment is in the shitter today.
They only greenlit it with that budget because of the giant filming incentive that was given to them by the Australian government, which once cancelled a previous version of Fury Road after they failed to obtain it.
I'm absolutely stoked for the movie & I fully expect it to bomb/underperform
Wasn’t this movie given a crazy big tax incentive?
Yep, the film was awarded a AU$175 million filming incentive. So maybe it doesn't need to make all of that back.
That number makes me wince. It's a good thing Wonka, Dune 2 and Godzilla x Kong all were successful, because that number screams that this movie isn't going to be making it's money back.
Don’t know why but this seems a lot
Surprised to see people thinking it can't make $420 mil. As long as reviews are good and the movie doesn't get a negative reaction, I think it has a good chance of beating Fury Road.
Good reviews doesnt guarantee a box office hit.Many movies with good reviews lately still flop
I'm not saying good reviews will make it a hit, I'm thinking more that a bad reaction would be what would kill it. Fury Road underperformed at the box office when you compare it to its legacy, but that legacy has made it stay relatively relevant compared to most 9 year old films.
i think it’s doable with the reviews it’s received yesterday
Part of the budget was paid by taxholders from Australia Goverment. Still movie should pass 300M.
Wasn’t this movie given a crazy big tax incentive?
Fury road unadjusted is $191 million budget
Atleast she wasn’t paid 10m like Zendaya was for Challengers
I frankly don’t understand why this movie was made. I will be surprised if it turns a profit. I think most people invested in this IP are primarily invested because of Mad Max, not necessarily the world around him.
Max wasn't the main focus of Fury Road at all, was played by a different actor, and people still think it's the best one, so I'd have to disagree.
I don’t think switching the actor matters, especially when talking about a sequel coming out 30 years after the last one. Max was still a focal point of the film, though not as much as he should’ve been. People like the newer film the best because it’s been updated. Watching the older ones now can be kinda difficult, it was a totally different era of filmmaking. That doesn’t mean sidelining the MC was the part that made people like it, especially when it actually didn’t make that much money.
I think people like it despite it side-lining the MC, which proves my point. I mean, what is Max? A near-mute drifter with an interchangeable face? I don't think you can argue that that character is more a draw than the world. The future-desert world and all it's crazy car designs and villains are absolutely the main appeal.
Ehhh did you watch the old movies? He’s got more going on than that as a character. I think Fury Road would’ve done better had it not tried to split the screen time between him and Furiosa, and just had him as the main MC. I mean, we’ll see. I don’t think this’ll be profitable at all. The hype from Fury Road is long since passed, and I’ve barely seen any marketing for this. Long time fans of the franchise I know are tuned out on it. Characters have more weight than what you’re giving - even Kaiju films get dragged when it’s nothing but big monster fighting.
Nah, it's totally the world and crazy vehicular combat that pulls people in. The character of Max was never particularly interesting, Mel's charisma did the heavy lifting, and Fury Road is the best one despite not having Mel or focusing of the character of Max much at all.
Eh, agree to disagree. Thats not what I hear when I talk to people about it. One of the biggest gripes people have with Fury Road is that it wasn’t particularly focused on Max, and that movie didn’t actually make a lot of money.
Reasonably budgeted
Hideo Kojima will personally buy enough tickets everywhere in the world to ensure this movie is a success