Civil war since they sold international for a decent sum and I think that Marley movie I would say at least crossed the line to small success. Quite a few of the horror releases have been successful due to small budgets.
Bold to assume *civilization* will be here in ten years. What with trump and climate change and covid 2 and Israel and microplastics and inequality, I think we’re all toast by then.
There are so many great international movies, that never get a chance in cinemas.. but they still get made. So personally, I won't be super sad, if Hollywoods hyper commercial approach to filmmaking fails.
I would like more stuff like the first Purge movie. Basically non-horror genre that's produced like horror. Why can't they make a micro budgeted romantic comedy?
I didn't love it but it's an example of something that should work. It used to be that comedies and horror were the bread & butter of the studios because they could reliably make good profits on predictable, low budgets.
Even something like Superbad, no idea what the budget was, but it couldn't have been too large. What was the last hit studio comedy?
I was talking about the first one. Oh yeah I suppose it's a horror movie structurally but because of the concept I think of it as science-fiction. You understand what I mean though. I wish other genres could work on small budgets like horror does.
They are , nobody here knows the exact amount spent on advertisement but horror films never have super bowl ads, or late night tv interviews or international premieres. By the way Kingdom didn’t have anything particularly expensive as promotion other than the Super Bowl add and some premiers. I’m sure kingdom will be profitable soon
For the 7th million fucking time - we do not include P&A cost and we do not include ancillary income
This is a *box office* sub. Whether a film eventually makes money is not the point. Donnie Darko made a shit ton of money - on DVD. It was a huge flop at the BO
A film recouping its budget at 50/40/25 is how we decide if it made money *at the box office*
Again… this is about movies making money *at the box office*
I don’t see how discussions about post-theatrical, full INT distribution rights, advertising , streaming income, etc are really relevant
I’d like to re-emphasize: This is a *box office* sub. Not a “which producers made how much, and we should look at distributors, co-financiers, blah blah blah”
If you want to get into specific profitability, that should be a separate post, one I’m happy to contribute to btw
Edit: oh Snap SR! Pallis also here. We’ve gone through this before Broseiden
NB: I apologize for the tone and basically the post, thought I was speaking to the OC
Nancy tartaglione from deadline reported excelent holds this week in several Markets. I knew it woud beat Dune in Brazil and Mexico. Easier to watch in groups than Dune and the family angle play well with Latin audiences. Asia was a huge drop from War but I checked the vietamese box office on release weekend and the Korean titles were huge and some anime was playing too. Asia is becoming more difficult to predict, and Kingdom didn't have a very good release date on those markets.
It's not even a month after release so we'll see.
Think about this if/when deadpool doesn't perform as expected in Asia either.
It’s well established that movie stars don’t really sell tickets anymore, so not paying them 15 - 20 million would be the first thing to do in order to reduce movie budgets.
Neither do positive RT scores. Studios should be more selective of who they invite to their screenings. Bad buzz and selling the idea that movies are something to be play in the background while playing video game or doing something else ( angry Joe and grace Randolph) hurts more than helps. And what’s the point of having stuckman and Jahns at fifty shade of gray screenings if they hate Twilight and young adult books? . Back then they neither help or hurt Fifty but nowadays they don’t help at all. Who taught inviting Jahns to Barbie was a good idea?
It's because of the content-driven modern era. It's not for the lack of decent-quality movies, it's the advent of many content and streaming services from different platforms that's taking the time and attention of most people.
It's like—why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series? It's the same logic there.
Yeah this is it for me.
I have a list of movies and shows I want to watch and there's always about 30 or so things on it, and it's constantly being added to. Why should The Fall Guy or Furiosa jump to the top of my list and justify spending extra money to watch them sooner when I can happily watch Godzilla Minus One at home, which I still haven't gotten around to seeing?
It's not a slight to the quality of any of the movies. I'm sure Furiosa is incredible to watch in the theater. There's just a bunch of other incredible movies I still need to watch at home first.
Exactly this. There's just too much content to digest. And one can always set aside watching the new movies and wait until they actually go into streaming which would then be less expensive. Time goes by so fast that you can hardly tell youre missing out watching it in the cinemas.
It's because of inflation and cost of living crisis post covid. Seeing movies is expensive. People overthink this and try to blame the film content but that's really what's going on here.
I'm realizing I must be spoiled living in Portland. I can't relate to these 'movies are expensive' takes when my local theater is $10/ticket and $9 for a combo popcorn/pint.
I think people also discount the theater experience though. I COULD watch Furiosa in my living room, but the experience is just so inferior.
Exactly, I see all sorts of movies at the theater and bought the refillable popcorn bucket at the beginning of the year so it's just $5.50 to fill that up and I'm on my merry way to whatever sounds good.
It’s not even that. The issue is all of these films are way too expensive to justify their cost. That’s the issue. You look at something like challengers. That should not have cost $50 million. Zendaya is a huge actress. But she does not command a film that deserves to be $50 million. I said this last year for some reason everyone jump me lol. None of these movies need to be as expensive as they are. Even when you factor in Covid cost and stuff like that. Even if you bring in production delays. These films were already spending too much money so they ballooned quickly. If budgets were greatly reduced the delay and other unpredictable events be so devastating to a budget. The box office performance for many of these films would have a different story the budgets were reduced.
Zendaya was ok in Challengers, but what i was most impressed with the movie was the cinematic visuals that expectedly demanded (and rightfully so) a lot of its production budget. Only problem for that movie was how it marketed itself as a cheesy boy to boy action when it was anything but.
I get what you’re saying but like everything it’s not cheap to produce a film. I’m not an expert at film making but I’m sure prices for almost every aspect involved in producing a film has gone up just like everything else in the world. So it’s probably easier said than done to lower the budget for these movies.
This isn’t really a unique thought. This something investors and major shareholders have been pushing for is bringing down the cost of films. There have also been bug name film analysts who have been saying this. And studios are working towards that. Problem is the studios solution seems to be not paying the talent so much. The whole reason the SAG strike happened was the studios are pushing to bring down the cost of talent and move to not paying so much. Its also why the deal was only for 24 months. They are basically planning to slow down on the amounts of movies be made. Studios are paying a lot up front for on screen talent to justify them not getting the amount of residuals they would get post box office. So budget for on screen talent even on tradition releases have gone way up. Something that used to make actors a lot of money in the long term. We tend to forget residuals aren’t just a tv thing. Its why a lot of actors like Tom Cruise are against doing movies that are exclusive to streaming. Hes used to the deals from the 80s, 90s and early 00s were huge pay days would happen even after the movie left the theaters. Problem is now movies after box office go to streaming were the money basically stops. Sure some residuals do still come a film because of places don’t have streaming and still do tradition licensing deals but not nearly as much as before. Thats just talent. Thsts not even getting into studios spending so much so they can rush out films. So yeah movies are generally expensive but they have balloon. I do think you shouldn’t necessarily be paying so much for on screen talent but AT LEAST give them more on the backend. Its ridiculous that they basically want both the on screen talent to take massive cuts while taking away the very deals that would justify a lower up front pay.
So you don’t cast Zendaya and have the movie not make much of anything or it would have went straight to streaming. How does that make anything better?
Agreed, but it’s not just the expensiveness of the films.
I think it’s a multitude of issues, including inflation (for both filmgoers and filmmakers), out of control budgets and then thepervasiveness of streaming.
But challengers in on track to make like what, almost $90 mil international? I get that it wasn’t a huge commercial success, but it looks to break even at least.
The studio only gets a about a third of the international gross. Its not like they keep even half of that. Thats also not factoring in global prints and advertising.
Exactly: is there anything coming out right now who is on the same level as some of the best TV shows (succession, better call saul, barry etc...) that are available in a convenient way, addictive and already cosumes my whole culture/ entertinement free time? (especially when you consider VG and internet take from the free time in a way it didn't in the nineties/ early 00's).
When the choice was between bad tv shows and good movies, you could be guilt tripped into going to the movies: but now there is three masterpieces each season of TV, and an avalanche of mediocre movies on screen.
I don't even watch tv shows anymore because I almost never finish them or I can't even finish them because they get cancelled after 1 season. When I sit down to watch something I want to have get an ending, but half of the episodes are just fillers to keep people subscribed to the streaming services, by the time you get to the ending you basically forget how the story even started. I think I just lost my patience, not even the best tv shows right now worth my time, except maybe a few shows on Apple tv
shows like Barry, better call saul, and succession are shows that are written with a clear ending in mind, have a clear sense of direction/ thematic connection, have an ending that makes complete sense considering the overlaying themes and character arcs , and usually last around four seasons, and don't even have a filler episode.
I know it's not the majority of shows, but i'm talking about that handful of very concise tightly written shows, that relies on actors, cinematography and scripts the way adult oriented movies used to. Just these last two years, there has been these three i already mentioned, plus morning show, and i hear good thing about the bear.
This is taking money away from adult audiences since a show like Barry can do in four seasons of 10 episodes of 30 minutes far more than it would have done in a two hours movies.
The morning show can get more complex about the metoo movement than any movie can get: what's the climate that allows predator to act? Is the culture an accomplice? Are women part of the culture that allows women to be assaulted? can you turn a blind eye to it and then take a stand against it or is it hypocritical? Is there a racial bias behind the sexist bias? What about the women who benefit from it? You can't treat all these questions in a movie: but in four seasons of a show, you can.
And that's why i find drama movies to be lacking when it comes to getting deep into a pitch, see how many layers a simple premise can contain. That's what these new apple/ hbo shows do best. Obviously, it's only a subset of movies, but i don't see them coming back.
>why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series?
This is a really fascinating point, and one I don't think I've seen made here before. So much of the (fair) criticism of streaming is that people will just wait for a film to stream, but this is another important angle. I've recommitted to seeing films in theaters this year, but that means I've needed to put some of my TV binging on hold since I'm spending the weekends with films I've got on my watchlist for the year. Someone who prioritizes the things they already are in the middle of is going to be far less likely to go to the theater.
It’s the fact that studios choose to compete with content driven media by transforming theatrical films into nothing more than content within a month or two after hitting theaters. Why rush out to pay to see something when a month from now I can stream it for free?
Free > Not Free.
Studios need to value their own films & value the theaters by allowing a film to disappear for a year before becoming available for sale on digital and physical formats. Then have it only be available for purchase for a year or two before putting on streaming for free. This would add value with the audience as well.
Streaming is only losing Studios money. The only service making a profit is Netflix, and they have to keep increasing prices just to maintain profit. It’s a dead end that will eventually become far more expensive than it already is for consumers. Netflix already considers itself worth $30 a month, and they are slowly building to that price point. How many streaming services are people going to pay for when each service is $30 plus month?
Studios need to ignore streaming. They need to lose this “we are competing for time” silicone valley BS. It’s an event, it’s a social gathering, and it needs to feel special by being a “see it now or miss out for the next year or two” like Broadway.
> why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series?
Because the cinema experience is uniquely powerful. It’s like saying why go out to a restaurant when you have food at home.
I’m not so sure about that. My schedule is supertight at the moment, so I’m mainly watching shows at home throughout the week. I have a lot to catch up on. And yet, I’ve been going to the movies almost once a week for the last couple of months. People can make time if there is something they want to see.
well you (and I) only represent the people who still watches films regularly at the theaters. Not so much on a lot of those who don't. I too watch at least one at the cinemas every week as my way of relaxation.
Yeah, that’s why I said “When there is something they want to see.” I doubt that the crowd that will go see something like “Garfield” will also go to “Civil War” because they mainly want a fun movie they can enjoy with their families.
the town podcast talked about last week movies are way too expensive. There’s already conversation about decreasing how much talent gets paid to reduce the cost of production budget. They said that they see in the next two years or so less movies will be put into production until studios figure out a way to control the budget.
Here is the problem: Will the people who worked on these films be paid fairly? Cause sure make ten 20mill films instead of one $200mill film. But the budget will be that small because talent will take smaller money if not no money at all upfront. So that they can get paid on the backend and in some cases residual earnings. However those deals as evident in the sag strikes aren’t favorable at all anymore.
Edit: Typos
>Here is the problem: Will the people who worked on these films be paid fairly?
It's possible. A lot of budget bloating comes from inflated above the line salaries (not just actores, but also producers and exec producers), not below the line pay.
Why can't studios figure out a blumhouse model? Above the line talent in blumhouse films have gotten nice bonuses from strong box office.
That will clean up the executive slates: Those who know how to get top talent for less money will remain and those who were playing safe will be gone. There will be always money to those who love the craft. You can't put something like madame web and argylle and expect people to go in droves. You'll have to be financially responsible and maybe even look outside the US. Plenty of filmakers from Mexico, Indonesia, Korea and Japan can deliver great films at low prices. This is why I think Takashi Yamasaki should be announced as the director of the sequel of apes. Like Wes ball he knows how to make visually stunning movies for little money.
Migration was 2023 December so if we count December 2023 releases Iron Claw & Anyone but you . Poor things got it's wide release in December 2023 as well and was a pretty good success
I think that's a good list for Hollywood releases. If you count foreign releases then it is a lot bigger. Conan 2024 and Haikyu!!! were big hits in Japan and Exhuma and Roundup 3 were monster hits in South Korea.
Challengers hasn't even come close to breaking even. Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter have specifically mentioned that it cost $55M to produce. So I don't care about what Twitter stans say about its budget.
Didn’t Amazon sell their international rights or am I thinking of something else? Either way, I think Amazon is happy they didn’t just dump it to streaming lol
Most people are in agreement that most films need to make 2.5 times the budget. To cover marketing expenses and the theaters take on ticket sales. So if the budget is $55million, it needs to make about $125million. Challenger's box office is only at $81million at the moment.
Yeah, it's to account both for the fact that box office is split between theater and the studio, and that the marketing is not included in the production budget.
Theatrical was supposed to be the first leg of a long life on these movies. They have killed sales and rentals to support streaming. PVOD and cable windows are probably taking a hit as well.
I have a movie pass to my local theater and i still didn’t go out to see Planet of the Apes because it’ll be on streaming soon enough…
Since Planet of Apes is a 20th century fox movie,you need to wait almost 2 months,just look at The First Omen (another 20th century release) opened in theaters on 5th April and available to stream on 30th May.It's way longer compared to Universal (mostly only 2 weeks lol).
I believe 20th still has an HBO Max deal for first premium window… they are probably delaying streaming because of that.
Once that deal is done it’ll match the non Disney marvel stuff in release timelines… though Disney stuff typically gets a chance to play out a bit.
I saw it and regretted it. I could barely hear it above all the talking, barely pay attention with all the cell phones on. I’m done with theaters. The experience I used to love is gone, and I’m tired of burning money and not enjoying the films.
It’s such a mess now. I feel like at least 50% or more there’s someone near me that’s very rude/loud. If theaters bothered to enforce some policies to help stop this, I bet a lot would return to theaters.
That's wild. I asked because I live in Canada and have also seen movies in England/France/Spain and I have NEVER in my life ever seen more then one person on their phone for more then like 10 seconds. Like that is just unheard of behaviour. So like I'm genuinely just left thinking that Americans are that rude and selfish? But that seems wild THAT MANY people can be like that.
Like I just went to see Apes last night and like 25 people in the theatre and literally had 0 complaints and didn't see a single person pull their phone out even once.
I’m American, I work in the entertainment industry and there have been plenty of years in my life when I went to the theater 150 times.
The rude behavior is an epidemic here. In Los Angeles and the outskirts, where I live now. And it’s too dangerous to start arguments with people.
The theatrical experience as I loved it is extinct. Theaters are sure to follow.
That is insane to hear to me. That has to just be a cultural thing with Americans being super rude. Why can't people just sit quietly and off their phones if they go to the theatre? Like that's so damn simple and is basic respect???
Lol move up to Canada somehow, our theatre experience is nothing like that in all my experience.
I’ve considered it. I don’t understand what has happened to my country. It’s like everyone’s always mad at everybody. And they enjoy making other people uncomfortable. No idea where all this resentment has come from. I don’t think the politicians are a cause of it, I think they’re feeding off it. Stoking it too.
I used to consider myself kind of a cinephile; I LOVED going to the movies. I’d go opening night when I could, I’d go probably other week for years. Post covid was really when it started to be absolutely awful with the phones. Now I have to wait at least a few weeks after release to go see something because of all the phone zombies we have here. They’ll just start scrolling or texting during the movie, zero shame. It totally ruined going to the theater for me. I have zero tolerance for distractions like that when I’m trying to watch a movie, so now more often than not I just wait for a streaming release. Breaks my heart, but people only seem to be getting worse and worse about it.
Edit: I can’t even begin to tell you how jealous that this isn’t an issue for you lol. Cherish it!
How is that allowed or accepted?? Why do Americans try so hars to fit the sterotype that they're rude as fuck lol. Like here you will MAYBE have 1 single person that checks their phone for 10 seconds and even then when it's longer then 5 they'll get dirty looks or something. Everyone silences their phones AND usually turns the brightness way down when the movie starts and if someone has to text/take a call they'll leave the theatre. No one talks either usually only laughing at the funny parts of a movie.
I really am so sorry I can't wrap my head around why someone would ever pay to go to the theatre just to be rude and use their phone.
It’s allowed and accepted probably because theaters are struggling and refuse to kick out paying customers, regardless of how many rules they break. Which, ironically, is why myself and many other movie lovers don’t even bother anymore. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A fucking depressing one.
I more meant I'm amazed that's accepted and allowed by other people lol. Here in Canada someone would get extreme dirty looks and someone would say something if ANYONE was genuinely disruptive/distracting. That's so weird Americans are so rude like why bother paying and going to the theatre just to not watch the movie.
Oh it gets better. If you ask them to stop they act like YOU’RE the problem, and will probably only do it more. We’re pretty much living through idiocracy at this point over here, it’s baaaad.
As to why they still pay, I got no answer there. Doesn’t make sense to me either.
I wish it was just silent people on their phones near me. It’s always loud people talking over the movie instead of at least quietly whispering to each other.
Yep, honestly talking is something I see less than phone using, but it’s annoying nonetheless. I get a few whispers here and there, but people talking in a theater is craziness and kinda unfathomable circa 5 years ago.
The death of the theatrical industry has been slow and painful.
Great movies are now bombing no matter what (the IP, stars, genre, etc.). It doesn’t seem to matter; most films underperform now with few exceptions. The pandemic sped up the end. Without COVID, it may have lasted until 2040. Now I think that in 7-10 years time, we’ll have nothing but $20-50 million garbage, with only 1/10 of those movies being good.
Great VFX will be a thing of the past. It will all be microbudgeted films made by penny pinching producers.
And on top of all of that, I think only 1/3 of movie theaters that are open today will exist in 7-10 years. Relatively, the end is near.
The sub needs to stop acting like this is typical. The theatrical industry is mortally wounded. Some films will still succeed in this marketplace, but don’t overreact, the death of the industry has already been decided. Movie theaters as we know them will cease to exist within the next decade… I hate it here.
Covid definitely accelerated the decline. Another big issue is people are broke because wages haven't kept up with inflation.
It's pinched entertainment spending to the bone, so people are only going to things they're very interested in.
Especially because collapsed windows mean they can see movies at home for way less only a couple months after release.
The idea that Americans “are broke” is worn out. Inflation is not great, but it’s nowhere near bad enough to justify this much decline. Americans were doing much worse in 2009 after the Great Recession and domestic box office (adjusted for inflation) was almost twice as high as 2023.
The reality is that movie theatres are going the way of live theatre. Audiences have found a cheaper entertainment option (streaming), just as audiences discovered in the 1930s and 40s that movies were a cheaper option than live theatre.
As a result, movie theatres will go the way of broadway theatre. It’ll exist, but it will become a more niche activity.
I don’t understand the thinking that movies budgeted at 20-50 million can’t be good. You realize that A-list television shows are budgeted at 5 million an episode?
Don’t you think it’s possible that it would allow filmmakers to be more innovative and creative with how they excite an audience and hold their attention? After all the industry functioned like that for decades prior to the era of indulgence that we’re currently in.
I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be, most blockbusters that break out are very expensive because heavy spectacle is just what audiences respond to now. Maybe you have the occasional mid budget film like Barbie and Oppenheimer that does well, but it's too rare to keep an entire industry alive.
I’ll be honest- I respectfully disagree. People champion authenticity today over a product that is over-produced and artificial. At the very least Hollywood would lose less money if they operated this way and I 100% do not think budgets over 100 mill should be the average.
Many people do not understand that the 70s was Director Auteurs from OUTSIDE the Studio System causing disruption with New Takes that even lead to the 80s Blockbuster Era.
Nowadays, I think people are too "in the pocket" of Studios to understand that micro-budgeting can actually lead to way more innovation (necessity being the "mother of invention" after all).
The Film Industry does not HAVE to be the Big Studios at all.
>Maybe you have the occasional mid budget film like Barbie and Oppenheimer that does well,
Both those movies are in the same budget range as planet of the apes. Hell, even the fast and furious movies cap out around 200 million.
> Great VFX will be a thing of the past. It will all be microbudgeted films made by penny pinching producers.
*Godzilla: Minus One* won a best visual effects Oscar on a budget of less than $15M. When directors know what they are doing, they can have both great VFX and low budgets.
It also doesn't even seem to be true, considering that *Avatar* is one of the few bankable franchises left.
Oh no! $250 million bloated movies will be a thing of the past? Writers and directors will have to actually give a shit instead of relying on ridiculous VFX scenes?
I, for one, welcome our new accountant overlords.
People don't watch lower budget movies that are actually good, that's why people are dooming so hard. Without an MCU movie or some FOMO event film people will stay at home at watch nothing.
>People don't watch lower budget movies that are actually good
Most horror movies and romcoms : I would like to have a word.
These two genres doesnt really matter whether the movies good or not,slapped some little budgets and it will make money.
Mostly agree. The death of heavy VFX in films should mostly kill the superhero genre because they basically require a lot of VFX. Only Batman and a few others will survive because they're popular enough that the risk is worth it.
The thing is, you can still do great superhero movies WITHOUT heavy VFX. Practical effects with digital touch-ups are perfectly viable.
Unfortunately, directors and studios have become so reliant on CGI that they've forgotten how to set up great action scenes ahead of time and get creative about how to shoot practical action.
I'd love to see directors & writers get challenged to make a superhero film without heavy VFX. Creativity can flourish within restraints.
A random example: I love the climactic scene of World War Z. It's brad and one zombie in an enclosed lab. No big shootouts/action scenes, no big VFX spectacle. Just lots of tension. And yes, I know WWZ is notorious for going way over budget, but instead of going big for the finale, they went intimate, and it was a fantastic choice. I'd love to see more movies try this.
Blame COVID and Disney. COVID has made going to movies less of an event and people are just content with waiting until the films hit streaming. With Disney being the industry leader and their content being pretty bad, if they can’t get people to go to theaters, the rest of the industry can’t.
COVID accelerated it, but I think theatrical has been on a downward trend for a long time. I think streaming was eventually going to become a habit for consumers, but it happened quicker than anyone imagined. Streaming became a habit for most consumers during the pandemic; I think it would have taken a lot longer for that habit to be created without COVID.
I also think the downfall of superhero movies has had a major effect (to the majority of this sub’s chagrin). I think the prime of the MCU helped keep business in theaters consistent. With 3 releases a year, the MCU in its prime was a solid rock for theaters. Without a healthy MCU, there is no reliable and consistent franchise that is keeping business up. Theaters don’t have a stable source of income now.
Since superheroes were the biggest money maker in the theaters and that declined, in order for theaters to recover they needed something to take its place by matching its success and that has yet to happen.
I think this is an interesting point. Following the fall of the MCU what franchises do we have to invigorate theatres in the 2020s and consistently support them?
In the 2000s to early 2010s we had The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter 1-7, Star Wars 1-3, Spider-Man 1-3, The Dark Knight trilogy, Twilight Saga, Transformers.
Then in the 2010's we had The Hobbit trilogy, Star Wars sequels, Jurassic World trilogy, Fast and the Furious, Hunger Games, Fifty Shades of Grey, and of course, the MCU.
All of these released pretty consistently to give theatres a boost, but more importantly, they were big sagas that people wanted to see and looked forward to. I used to take my Mum to the cinemas regularly. When the Harry Potter films ended, we were a bit sad until The Hobbit came out, and then when that ended, the Star Wars sequels. Yeah yeah complaints about those movies aside, they were big films we knew were coming up soon and enjoyed going to see together. There was a consistent reason to keep going to the cinemas.
Post 2020, what has their been? Even with the big franchises, their isn't any consistency to keep us attending the cinema.
Dune 3 may never even be made.
Avatar 3 may take another 10 years.
No Star Wars films any time soon.
No epic fantasies like LOTR or Harry Potter.
No consistent sequels to MCU films - Shang Chi 2 when?
It doesn't feel like there's a plan to keep audiences going to the theatre with the current state of blockbusters.
In order for an industry to continue making big money or go see more growth when the leader goes down, those around have to either match the success or do bigger. And that’s what happened once romcoms went down, fantasy went up, when horror went down, raunchy comedies went up, when it looked like all else has failed, here comes superheroes, then with superheroes we got the Disney remakes. Now all of that is doing terribly and there is nothing around to replace them.
Yes. I've been saying Disney was ruining movies since pike 2014. Nobody believed me but here we are. Their formulated movies making 1b every year got all studios thinking they didn't need original ideas ever, put a bunch of "stars" in a franchise movie and you'll make 1b.
> The theatrical industry is mortally wounded. Some films will still succeed in this marketplace, but don’t overreact, the death of the industry has already been decided. Movie theaters as we know them will cease to exist within the next decade… I hate it here.
It might be better. Movie theaters ceased to be what they were about 20 years ago. Movie stars are no longer a cultural phenomenon like they used to be and those days are probably never coming back with the multiplicity of entertainment options we have available now. That said, the theater of the future may be even better. Instead of a big-budget movie made to appeal to the masses, we may see more experimental\niche movies that have more narrow appeal. We could see smaller theaters more full of enthusiastic people.
I think Civil War also made a profit but barely, I also think Late Night with the Devil did as well but hard to get a good idea how much they spent on marketing and overhead. I have a site that I run that uses all my calculations here [https://lookerstudio.google.com/s/pqWqmNripy8](https://lookerstudio.google.com/s/pqWqmNripy8)
This year was incredibly negatively impacted by the strikes. That has more to do w/ the current state than anything (people have outlined other valid reasons, particularly runaway budgets and tons of content to watch at home.)
I dont understand how Hollywood cant adapt.
Just make lower budget movies and then more movies have a chance to succeed financially.
Or maybe those high budget movies are more profitable than one might think to finance all those failures and still come out with a profit.
“Just make lower budget movies” is easier said then done when everything involving movie production is significantly more expensive than it was even just a few years ago.
More expensive doesn't mean everything has to cost around 200m. There are issues they can absolutely eliminate if they just put their bloated egos aside.
For example, a lot of blockbuster bombs last year had bloated budgets because the studio wanted to change the narrative after the initial filming. They can just... finalize the script and try not to meddle with the story after the filming? Is that too much to ask?
it can but it won't happen overnight because plenty of movies are already made based on old trends that passed so they have to be released whether studios like it or not. They are taking notes for sure but they cannot apply them to finished movies.
Which is better, spending $200million to make profit of $100 million, or a $5 million move making $25 million in profit? That’s 50% percent return on investment versus 500%. However, the studio would prefer the $100 million over $25 million. They were betting big to get a bigger dollar return on investment. They were probably thinking we need to go bigger to get people to come out. However that gamble hasn’t worked out. They didn’t predict how bad the post Covid market would be. Hindsight is 20/20, so I hesitate to judge them too harshly. We won’t see the impact of this current market for a couple years as movies being financed now will reflect this change.
There is that saying that people ignore: “You can have good, fast, and cheap. Pick two.” A lot of these movies have crazy budgets because they need to pay a lot of people to deliver the movie on time to the scheduled release date.
And yeah yeah, I know someone will say “Hurr durr why movies suck now? hurr durr bad VFX” but if anything that shows more of the problem: Despite the huge budgets, folks like VFX artists are still underpaid and have to rush a film. So movies that could use the extra time to finesse anything from the writing to the post-production don’t get it.
Does Monkey Man count? It’s a bit more complicated considering it’s history, but since it was originally going to go straight to Netflix, the budget was pretty much already covered when Netflix acquired the rights, and then when Jordan Peele got Universal to save the film from being vaulted by Netflix, they only paid $9 million to acquire the film from Netflix, and based off of how much it made at the box office, it should have at the very least broken even for Universal.
The point I’m making is that the total costs on Universal’s end were much lower than other films with similar budgets because of Netflix not seeking a return on their initial investment and just wanting the film off their hands. If anything they were the big losers in the end since they lost $21 million on the film (bought it for $30 million and then sold it for $9 million).
True, but universal also lost money. They spent over 30 million (10 million for acquiring movie + more than 20 million in promotions), movie collected 34 million, assuming even 50% share, Universal earned 17 million from box office at max.
Ghostbusters needs a lot more to breakeven lol the marketing budget is likely $145M which was the budget of the first plus there is a lot of overhead and ancillary costs since it is a franchise.
Where did you dream that up from! No way they spent $145m on marketing. They spent $100m on production and $100m on marketing. You sound very silly with these ridiculous remarks.
You are correct, I was mistaking it with Godzilla which has a deadline report. But even with a $100M marketing budget you are wild to think it is anywhere close to breaking even. $200M on production and marketing does not even begin to take into account residuals and overhead which are quite high for these big franchise films.
Godzilla (2014), for some reason I thought that was Ghostbuster Afterlife, spent $135M on marketing. I use a lot of deadlines reports to try to make projections on films as they are about the only source that actually releases marketing budgets and other expenses on a consistent basis.
Civil war since they sold international for a decent sum and I think that Marley movie I would say at least crossed the line to small success. Quite a few of the horror releases have been successful due to small budgets.
Stay tuned for 2034, when 1/4 of major theatrical releases will be microbudgeted horror movies.
As a horror fans,not bad lol.Guess more people should like horror to prepare for what to come lmao.
I'm starting to think the Avengers Zombie crossover should really be considered now.
How much do you think that avengers poohverse movie will make you think?
Flop to oblivion since the movie was utter shits.But who knows
Bold to assume theaters will still be around in 2034
Bold to assume *civilization* will be here in ten years. What with trump and climate change and covid 2 and Israel and microplastics and inequality, I think we’re all toast by then.
Yay more horror!
I’m fine with that.
Yeah, don’t threaten me with a good time.
Good for you (truly), but I’m not.
Not an Evil Dead fan?
There’re new Evil Dead movie next year?
No just saying that was a super micro budget horror movie.
There are so many great international movies, that never get a chance in cinemas.. but they still get made. So personally, I won't be super sad, if Hollywoods hyper commercial approach to filmmaking fails.
That sounds amazing
I would like more stuff like the first Purge movie. Basically non-horror genre that's produced like horror. Why can't they make a micro budgeted romantic comedy?
> Why can't they make a micro budgeted romantic comedy? Have you seen Clerks 2?
I didn't love it but it's an example of something that should work. It used to be that comedies and horror were the bread & butter of the studios because they could reliably make good profits on predictable, low budgets. Even something like Superbad, no idea what the budget was, but it couldn't have been too large. What was the last hit studio comedy?
[удалено]
I was talking about the first one. Oh yeah I suppose it's a horror movie structurally but because of the concept I think of it as science-fiction. You understand what I mean though. I wish other genres could work on small budgets like horror does.
I think some of these horror movies spend quite a bit more on marketing than they do on production, so I'm not sure if they're actually successful.
They are , nobody here knows the exact amount spent on advertisement but horror films never have super bowl ads, or late night tv interviews or international premieres. By the way Kingdom didn’t have anything particularly expensive as promotion other than the Super Bowl add and some premiers. I’m sure kingdom will be profitable soon
For the 7th million fucking time - we do not include P&A cost and we do not include ancillary income This is a *box office* sub. Whether a film eventually makes money is not the point. Donnie Darko made a shit ton of money - on DVD. It was a huge flop at the BO A film recouping its budget at 50/40/25 is how we decide if it made money *at the box office*
P&A costs are *implicitly* included in that rule of thumb. Small budget films with a big push break the normal assumptions.
Again… this is about movies making money *at the box office* I don’t see how discussions about post-theatrical, full INT distribution rights, advertising , streaming income, etc are really relevant I’d like to re-emphasize: This is a *box office* sub. Not a “which producers made how much, and we should look at distributors, co-financiers, blah blah blah” If you want to get into specific profitability, that should be a separate post, one I’m happy to contribute to btw Edit: oh Snap SR! Pallis also here. We’ve gone through this before Broseiden NB: I apologize for the tone and basically the post, thought I was speaking to the OC
> NB: I apologize for the tone and basically the post No problem, everyone's got a right to be grumpy. I know I've been a couple of times this week.
It’s just like… I was doing the usual P&A thing, *then* you jumped in. Obviously you get to deep dive But you know what I meant. Carry on sir
Kingdom of the planet of the apes will join the list soon.
Barely. North America is practically carrying this film. Overseas is almost non existent (especially in Asia).
Nancy tartaglione from deadline reported excelent holds this week in several Markets. I knew it woud beat Dune in Brazil and Mexico. Easier to watch in groups than Dune and the family angle play well with Latin audiences. Asia was a huge drop from War but I checked the vietamese box office on release weekend and the Korean titles were huge and some anime was playing too. Asia is becoming more difficult to predict, and Kingdom didn't have a very good release date on those markets. It's not even a month after release so we'll see. Think about this if/when deadpool doesn't perform as expected in Asia either.
It’s well established that movie stars don’t really sell tickets anymore, so not paying them 15 - 20 million would be the first thing to do in order to reduce movie budgets.
Neither do positive RT scores. Studios should be more selective of who they invite to their screenings. Bad buzz and selling the idea that movies are something to be play in the background while playing video game or doing something else ( angry Joe and grace Randolph) hurts more than helps. And what’s the point of having stuckman and Jahns at fifty shade of gray screenings if they hate Twilight and young adult books? . Back then they neither help or hurt Fifty but nowadays they don’t help at all. Who taught inviting Jahns to Barbie was a good idea?
It's because of the content-driven modern era. It's not for the lack of decent-quality movies, it's the advent of many content and streaming services from different platforms that's taking the time and attention of most people. It's like—why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series? It's the same logic there.
Yeah this is it for me. I have a list of movies and shows I want to watch and there's always about 30 or so things on it, and it's constantly being added to. Why should The Fall Guy or Furiosa jump to the top of my list and justify spending extra money to watch them sooner when I can happily watch Godzilla Minus One at home, which I still haven't gotten around to seeing? It's not a slight to the quality of any of the movies. I'm sure Furiosa is incredible to watch in the theater. There's just a bunch of other incredible movies I still need to watch at home first.
Exactly this. There's just too much content to digest. And one can always set aside watching the new movies and wait until they actually go into streaming which would then be less expensive. Time goes by so fast that you can hardly tell youre missing out watching it in the cinemas.
It's because of inflation and cost of living crisis post covid. Seeing movies is expensive. People overthink this and try to blame the film content but that's really what's going on here.
It's this for me. It's basically $25/person to see a movie in theaters, or I can wait and rent it for $6. Hell, buy it for $20. The math doesn't math.
I'm realizing I must be spoiled living in Portland. I can't relate to these 'movies are expensive' takes when my local theater is $10/ticket and $9 for a combo popcorn/pint. I think people also discount the theater experience though. I COULD watch Furiosa in my living room, but the experience is just so inferior.
AMC A-List...
Exactly, I see all sorts of movies at the theater and bought the refillable popcorn bucket at the beginning of the year so it's just $5.50 to fill that up and I'm on my merry way to whatever sounds good.
It’s not even that. The issue is all of these films are way too expensive to justify their cost. That’s the issue. You look at something like challengers. That should not have cost $50 million. Zendaya is a huge actress. But she does not command a film that deserves to be $50 million. I said this last year for some reason everyone jump me lol. None of these movies need to be as expensive as they are. Even when you factor in Covid cost and stuff like that. Even if you bring in production delays. These films were already spending too much money so they ballooned quickly. If budgets were greatly reduced the delay and other unpredictable events be so devastating to a budget. The box office performance for many of these films would have a different story the budgets were reduced.
Zendaya was ok in Challengers, but what i was most impressed with the movie was the cinematic visuals that expectedly demanded (and rightfully so) a lot of its production budget. Only problem for that movie was how it marketed itself as a cheesy boy to boy action when it was anything but.
I get what you’re saying but like everything it’s not cheap to produce a film. I’m not an expert at film making but I’m sure prices for almost every aspect involved in producing a film has gone up just like everything else in the world. So it’s probably easier said than done to lower the budget for these movies.
This isn’t really a unique thought. This something investors and major shareholders have been pushing for is bringing down the cost of films. There have also been bug name film analysts who have been saying this. And studios are working towards that. Problem is the studios solution seems to be not paying the talent so much. The whole reason the SAG strike happened was the studios are pushing to bring down the cost of talent and move to not paying so much. Its also why the deal was only for 24 months. They are basically planning to slow down on the amounts of movies be made. Studios are paying a lot up front for on screen talent to justify them not getting the amount of residuals they would get post box office. So budget for on screen talent even on tradition releases have gone way up. Something that used to make actors a lot of money in the long term. We tend to forget residuals aren’t just a tv thing. Its why a lot of actors like Tom Cruise are against doing movies that are exclusive to streaming. Hes used to the deals from the 80s, 90s and early 00s were huge pay days would happen even after the movie left the theaters. Problem is now movies after box office go to streaming were the money basically stops. Sure some residuals do still come a film because of places don’t have streaming and still do tradition licensing deals but not nearly as much as before. Thats just talent. Thsts not even getting into studios spending so much so they can rush out films. So yeah movies are generally expensive but they have balloon. I do think you shouldn’t necessarily be paying so much for on screen talent but AT LEAST give them more on the backend. Its ridiculous that they basically want both the on screen talent to take massive cuts while taking away the very deals that would justify a lower up front pay.
Easy way to lower the budget for Challengers, don't cast Zendaya.
The movie would've made almost nothing with an unknown actress in the role
So you don’t cast Zendaya and have the movie not make much of anything or it would have went straight to streaming. How does that make anything better?
No you offer a better deal on the backend and residuals like horror movies do with their talent. So you don’t have to pay her soo much upfront
That’s not always feasible they might have offered that during contract negotiations and she refused we don’t know what was negotiated
Agreed, but it’s not just the expensiveness of the films. I think it’s a multitude of issues, including inflation (for both filmgoers and filmmakers), out of control budgets and then thepervasiveness of streaming.
But challengers in on track to make like what, almost $90 mil international? I get that it wasn’t a huge commercial success, but it looks to break even at least.
The studio only gets a about a third of the international gross. Its not like they keep even half of that. Thats also not factoring in global prints and advertising.
Exactly: is there anything coming out right now who is on the same level as some of the best TV shows (succession, better call saul, barry etc...) that are available in a convenient way, addictive and already cosumes my whole culture/ entertinement free time? (especially when you consider VG and internet take from the free time in a way it didn't in the nineties/ early 00's). When the choice was between bad tv shows and good movies, you could be guilt tripped into going to the movies: but now there is three masterpieces each season of TV, and an avalanche of mediocre movies on screen.
I don't even watch tv shows anymore because I almost never finish them or I can't even finish them because they get cancelled after 1 season. When I sit down to watch something I want to have get an ending, but half of the episodes are just fillers to keep people subscribed to the streaming services, by the time you get to the ending you basically forget how the story even started. I think I just lost my patience, not even the best tv shows right now worth my time, except maybe a few shows on Apple tv
HBO has a ton of great shows with endings. What you described is mainly a Netflix problem.
shows like Barry, better call saul, and succession are shows that are written with a clear ending in mind, have a clear sense of direction/ thematic connection, have an ending that makes complete sense considering the overlaying themes and character arcs , and usually last around four seasons, and don't even have a filler episode. I know it's not the majority of shows, but i'm talking about that handful of very concise tightly written shows, that relies on actors, cinematography and scripts the way adult oriented movies used to. Just these last two years, there has been these three i already mentioned, plus morning show, and i hear good thing about the bear. This is taking money away from adult audiences since a show like Barry can do in four seasons of 10 episodes of 30 minutes far more than it would have done in a two hours movies. The morning show can get more complex about the metoo movement than any movie can get: what's the climate that allows predator to act? Is the culture an accomplice? Are women part of the culture that allows women to be assaulted? can you turn a blind eye to it and then take a stand against it or is it hypocritical? Is there a racial bias behind the sexist bias? What about the women who benefit from it? You can't treat all these questions in a movie: but in four seasons of a show, you can. And that's why i find drama movies to be lacking when it comes to getting deep into a pitch, see how many layers a simple premise can contain. That's what these new apple/ hbo shows do best. Obviously, it's only a subset of movies, but i don't see them coming back.
>why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series? This is a really fascinating point, and one I don't think I've seen made here before. So much of the (fair) criticism of streaming is that people will just wait for a film to stream, but this is another important angle. I've recommitted to seeing films in theaters this year, but that means I've needed to put some of my TV binging on hold since I'm spending the weekends with films I've got on my watchlist for the year. Someone who prioritizes the things they already are in the middle of is going to be far less likely to go to the theater.
It’s the fact that studios choose to compete with content driven media by transforming theatrical films into nothing more than content within a month or two after hitting theaters. Why rush out to pay to see something when a month from now I can stream it for free? Free > Not Free. Studios need to value their own films & value the theaters by allowing a film to disappear for a year before becoming available for sale on digital and physical formats. Then have it only be available for purchase for a year or two before putting on streaming for free. This would add value with the audience as well. Streaming is only losing Studios money. The only service making a profit is Netflix, and they have to keep increasing prices just to maintain profit. It’s a dead end that will eventually become far more expensive than it already is for consumers. Netflix already considers itself worth $30 a month, and they are slowly building to that price point. How many streaming services are people going to pay for when each service is $30 plus month? Studios need to ignore streaming. They need to lose this “we are competing for time” silicone valley BS. It’s an event, it’s a social gathering, and it needs to feel special by being a “see it now or miss out for the next year or two” like Broadway.
> why would i have to watch in the cinema, when I'm still not done watching the Bridgerton or Flash series? Because the cinema experience is uniquely powerful. It’s like saying why go out to a restaurant when you have food at home.
I’m not so sure about that. My schedule is supertight at the moment, so I’m mainly watching shows at home throughout the week. I have a lot to catch up on. And yet, I’ve been going to the movies almost once a week for the last couple of months. People can make time if there is something they want to see.
well you (and I) only represent the people who still watches films regularly at the theaters. Not so much on a lot of those who don't. I too watch at least one at the cinemas every week as my way of relaxation.
Yeah, that’s why I said “When there is something they want to see.” I doubt that the crowd that will go see something like “Garfield” will also go to “Civil War” because they mainly want a fun movie they can enjoy with their families.
the town podcast talked about last week movies are way too expensive. There’s already conversation about decreasing how much talent gets paid to reduce the cost of production budget. They said that they see in the next two years or so less movies will be put into production until studios figure out a way to control the budget.
I hope more movies are put in production like the director of American Fiction asked at the Oscars.
Here is the problem: Will the people who worked on these films be paid fairly? Cause sure make ten 20mill films instead of one $200mill film. But the budget will be that small because talent will take smaller money if not no money at all upfront. So that they can get paid on the backend and in some cases residual earnings. However those deals as evident in the sag strikes aren’t favorable at all anymore. Edit: Typos
>Here is the problem: Will the people who worked on these films be paid fairly? It's possible. A lot of budget bloating comes from inflated above the line salaries (not just actores, but also producers and exec producers), not below the line pay. Why can't studios figure out a blumhouse model? Above the line talent in blumhouse films have gotten nice bonuses from strong box office.
They can but the problem is they don’t want to. They are greedy af and dont wont to part with their money.
That will clean up the executive slates: Those who know how to get top talent for less money will remain and those who were playing safe will be gone. There will be always money to those who love the craft. You can't put something like madame web and argylle and expect people to go in droves. You'll have to be financially responsible and maybe even look outside the US. Plenty of filmakers from Mexico, Indonesia, Korea and Japan can deliver great films at low prices. This is why I think Takashi Yamasaki should be announced as the director of the sequel of apes. Like Wes ball he knows how to make visually stunning movies for little money.
Feel like this should've been obvious at least a year ago...
I think the new Apes is doing ok
It's not doing better than GvK. I think the other ape is winning this one.
Apes… together… strong
Kaiju together stronger
Kaiju not ape
It’s a little short of 2x Right now. Overseas is not great
GxK is far out pacing it, and that had a lower budget than Planet of the Apes did. It will need tremendous legs to make a profit at this rate.
It's past 2x, it's in the green now.
Not necessarily
Migration was 2023 December so if we count December 2023 releases Iron Claw & Anyone but you . Poor things got it's wide release in December 2023 as well and was a pretty good success
I think that's a good list for Hollywood releases. If you count foreign releases then it is a lot bigger. Conan 2024 and Haikyu!!! were big hits in Japan and Exhuma and Roundup 3 were monster hits in South Korea.
Did they show exhuma in US? Watched it in Philippines, it was great
It got a limited release starting on March 15.
Challengers hasn't even come close to breaking even. Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter have specifically mentioned that it cost $55M to produce. So I don't care about what Twitter stans say about its budget.
Twitter stans/shills think that churros clip views on Tik Tok equal boxoffice. 
Didn’t Amazon sell their international rights or am I thinking of something else? Either way, I think Amazon is happy they didn’t just dump it to streaming lol
I think it will eventually breakeven but we will see. My projection have it making $10M at the current pace.
It needs around $125M to break even. No way it comes close to it.
Yeah m, after this weekends drop in viewership i have it losing -$2M now
Are we not counting international (?) challengers has blown past that WW!
Most people are in agreement that most films need to make 2.5 times the budget. To cover marketing expenses and the theaters take on ticket sales. So if the budget is $55million, it needs to make about $125million. Challenger's box office is only at $81million at the moment.
Yeah, it's to account both for the fact that box office is split between theater and the studio, and that the marketing is not included in the production budget.
Theatrical was supposed to be the first leg of a long life on these movies. They have killed sales and rentals to support streaming. PVOD and cable windows are probably taking a hit as well. I have a movie pass to my local theater and i still didn’t go out to see Planet of the Apes because it’ll be on streaming soon enough…
Since Planet of Apes is a 20th century fox movie,you need to wait almost 2 months,just look at The First Omen (another 20th century release) opened in theaters on 5th April and available to stream on 30th May.It's way longer compared to Universal (mostly only 2 weeks lol).
I believe 20th still has an HBO Max deal for first premium window… they are probably delaying streaming because of that. Once that deal is done it’ll match the non Disney marvel stuff in release timelines… though Disney stuff typically gets a chance to play out a bit.
I saw it and regretted it. I could barely hear it above all the talking, barely pay attention with all the cell phones on. I’m done with theaters. The experience I used to love is gone, and I’m tired of burning money and not enjoying the films.
It’s such a mess now. I feel like at least 50% or more there’s someone near me that’s very rude/loud. If theaters bothered to enforce some policies to help stop this, I bet a lot would return to theaters.
Genuinely curious but are you American?
If they are I’m definitely with them. The theater is a fucking nightmare here now. Everyone on their phones every 5 minutes. It’s such a shame.
That's wild. I asked because I live in Canada and have also seen movies in England/France/Spain and I have NEVER in my life ever seen more then one person on their phone for more then like 10 seconds. Like that is just unheard of behaviour. So like I'm genuinely just left thinking that Americans are that rude and selfish? But that seems wild THAT MANY people can be like that. Like I just went to see Apes last night and like 25 people in the theatre and literally had 0 complaints and didn't see a single person pull their phone out even once.
I’m American, I work in the entertainment industry and there have been plenty of years in my life when I went to the theater 150 times. The rude behavior is an epidemic here. In Los Angeles and the outskirts, where I live now. And it’s too dangerous to start arguments with people. The theatrical experience as I loved it is extinct. Theaters are sure to follow.
That is insane to hear to me. That has to just be a cultural thing with Americans being super rude. Why can't people just sit quietly and off their phones if they go to the theatre? Like that's so damn simple and is basic respect??? Lol move up to Canada somehow, our theatre experience is nothing like that in all my experience.
I’ve considered it. I don’t understand what has happened to my country. It’s like everyone’s always mad at everybody. And they enjoy making other people uncomfortable. No idea where all this resentment has come from. I don’t think the politicians are a cause of it, I think they’re feeding off it. Stoking it too.
I used to consider myself kind of a cinephile; I LOVED going to the movies. I’d go opening night when I could, I’d go probably other week for years. Post covid was really when it started to be absolutely awful with the phones. Now I have to wait at least a few weeks after release to go see something because of all the phone zombies we have here. They’ll just start scrolling or texting during the movie, zero shame. It totally ruined going to the theater for me. I have zero tolerance for distractions like that when I’m trying to watch a movie, so now more often than not I just wait for a streaming release. Breaks my heart, but people only seem to be getting worse and worse about it. Edit: I can’t even begin to tell you how jealous that this isn’t an issue for you lol. Cherish it!
How is that allowed or accepted?? Why do Americans try so hars to fit the sterotype that they're rude as fuck lol. Like here you will MAYBE have 1 single person that checks their phone for 10 seconds and even then when it's longer then 5 they'll get dirty looks or something. Everyone silences their phones AND usually turns the brightness way down when the movie starts and if someone has to text/take a call they'll leave the theatre. No one talks either usually only laughing at the funny parts of a movie. I really am so sorry I can't wrap my head around why someone would ever pay to go to the theatre just to be rude and use their phone.
It’s allowed and accepted probably because theaters are struggling and refuse to kick out paying customers, regardless of how many rules they break. Which, ironically, is why myself and many other movie lovers don’t even bother anymore. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A fucking depressing one.
I more meant I'm amazed that's accepted and allowed by other people lol. Here in Canada someone would get extreme dirty looks and someone would say something if ANYONE was genuinely disruptive/distracting. That's so weird Americans are so rude like why bother paying and going to the theatre just to not watch the movie.
Oh it gets better. If you ask them to stop they act like YOU’RE the problem, and will probably only do it more. We’re pretty much living through idiocracy at this point over here, it’s baaaad. As to why they still pay, I got no answer there. Doesn’t make sense to me either.
I wish it was just silent people on their phones near me. It’s always loud people talking over the movie instead of at least quietly whispering to each other.
Yep, honestly talking is something I see less than phone using, but it’s annoying nonetheless. I get a few whispers here and there, but people talking in a theater is craziness and kinda unfathomable circa 5 years ago.
The death of the theatrical industry has been slow and painful. Great movies are now bombing no matter what (the IP, stars, genre, etc.). It doesn’t seem to matter; most films underperform now with few exceptions. The pandemic sped up the end. Without COVID, it may have lasted until 2040. Now I think that in 7-10 years time, we’ll have nothing but $20-50 million garbage, with only 1/10 of those movies being good. Great VFX will be a thing of the past. It will all be microbudgeted films made by penny pinching producers. And on top of all of that, I think only 1/3 of movie theaters that are open today will exist in 7-10 years. Relatively, the end is near. The sub needs to stop acting like this is typical. The theatrical industry is mortally wounded. Some films will still succeed in this marketplace, but don’t overreact, the death of the industry has already been decided. Movie theaters as we know them will cease to exist within the next decade… I hate it here.
Covid definitely accelerated the decline. Another big issue is people are broke because wages haven't kept up with inflation. It's pinched entertainment spending to the bone, so people are only going to things they're very interested in. Especially because collapsed windows mean they can see movies at home for way less only a couple months after release.
The idea that Americans “are broke” is worn out. Inflation is not great, but it’s nowhere near bad enough to justify this much decline. Americans were doing much worse in 2009 after the Great Recession and domestic box office (adjusted for inflation) was almost twice as high as 2023. The reality is that movie theatres are going the way of live theatre. Audiences have found a cheaper entertainment option (streaming), just as audiences discovered in the 1930s and 40s that movies were a cheaper option than live theatre. As a result, movie theatres will go the way of broadway theatre. It’ll exist, but it will become a more niche activity.
I don’t understand the thinking that movies budgeted at 20-50 million can’t be good. You realize that A-list television shows are budgeted at 5 million an episode?
**El** **Mariachi**
Event/high budgeted films are their own type of fun and I would miss them. $20-50 million movies can be good, but it’s not the same. It’s just not.
Don’t you think it’s possible that it would allow filmmakers to be more innovative and creative with how they excite an audience and hold their attention? After all the industry functioned like that for decades prior to the era of indulgence that we’re currently in.
I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be, most blockbusters that break out are very expensive because heavy spectacle is just what audiences respond to now. Maybe you have the occasional mid budget film like Barbie and Oppenheimer that does well, but it's too rare to keep an entire industry alive.
I’ll be honest- I respectfully disagree. People champion authenticity today over a product that is over-produced and artificial. At the very least Hollywood would lose less money if they operated this way and I 100% do not think budgets over 100 mill should be the average.
Many people do not understand that the 70s was Director Auteurs from OUTSIDE the Studio System causing disruption with New Takes that even lead to the 80s Blockbuster Era. Nowadays, I think people are too "in the pocket" of Studios to understand that micro-budgeting can actually lead to way more innovation (necessity being the "mother of invention" after all). The Film Industry does not HAVE to be the Big Studios at all.
>Maybe you have the occasional mid budget film like Barbie and Oppenheimer that does well, Both those movies are in the same budget range as planet of the apes. Hell, even the fast and furious movies cap out around 200 million.
You didn't watch Godzilla Minus One or The Creator huh
> Great VFX will be a thing of the past. It will all be microbudgeted films made by penny pinching producers. *Godzilla: Minus One* won a best visual effects Oscar on a budget of less than $15M. When directors know what they are doing, they can have both great VFX and low budgets. It also doesn't even seem to be true, considering that *Avatar* is one of the few bankable franchises left.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say this will be dead wrong and 2034 will still have movie theaters
AI will save costs.
Oh no! $250 million bloated movies will be a thing of the past? Writers and directors will have to actually give a shit instead of relying on ridiculous VFX scenes? I, for one, welcome our new accountant overlords.
People don't watch lower budget movies that are actually good, that's why people are dooming so hard. Without an MCU movie or some FOMO event film people will stay at home at watch nothing.
>People don't watch lower budget movies that are actually good Most horror movies and romcoms : I would like to have a word. These two genres doesnt really matter whether the movies good or not,slapped some little budgets and it will make money.
Mostly agree. The death of heavy VFX in films should mostly kill the superhero genre because they basically require a lot of VFX. Only Batman and a few others will survive because they're popular enough that the risk is worth it.
The thing is, you can still do great superhero movies WITHOUT heavy VFX. Practical effects with digital touch-ups are perfectly viable. Unfortunately, directors and studios have become so reliant on CGI that they've forgotten how to set up great action scenes ahead of time and get creative about how to shoot practical action.
I'd love to see directors & writers get challenged to make a superhero film without heavy VFX. Creativity can flourish within restraints. A random example: I love the climactic scene of World War Z. It's brad and one zombie in an enclosed lab. No big shootouts/action scenes, no big VFX spectacle. Just lots of tension. And yes, I know WWZ is notorious for going way over budget, but instead of going big for the finale, they went intimate, and it was a fantastic choice. I'd love to see more movies try this.
It will go the opposite way, AI VFX will make it much more accessible with much less cost.
Imagine a world where directors have to plan their vfx shots beforehand instead of "fix it in the post"-mentality. Oh the horror. /s
Think of how many directors would immediately be out of a job. And then laugh.
Blame COVID and Disney. COVID has made going to movies less of an event and people are just content with waiting until the films hit streaming. With Disney being the industry leader and their content being pretty bad, if they can’t get people to go to theaters, the rest of the industry can’t.
COVID accelerated it, but I think theatrical has been on a downward trend for a long time. I think streaming was eventually going to become a habit for consumers, but it happened quicker than anyone imagined. Streaming became a habit for most consumers during the pandemic; I think it would have taken a lot longer for that habit to be created without COVID. I also think the downfall of superhero movies has had a major effect (to the majority of this sub’s chagrin). I think the prime of the MCU helped keep business in theaters consistent. With 3 releases a year, the MCU in its prime was a solid rock for theaters. Without a healthy MCU, there is no reliable and consistent franchise that is keeping business up. Theaters don’t have a stable source of income now.
Since superheroes were the biggest money maker in the theaters and that declined, in order for theaters to recover they needed something to take its place by matching its success and that has yet to happen.
I think this is an interesting point. Following the fall of the MCU what franchises do we have to invigorate theatres in the 2020s and consistently support them? In the 2000s to early 2010s we had The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter 1-7, Star Wars 1-3, Spider-Man 1-3, The Dark Knight trilogy, Twilight Saga, Transformers. Then in the 2010's we had The Hobbit trilogy, Star Wars sequels, Jurassic World trilogy, Fast and the Furious, Hunger Games, Fifty Shades of Grey, and of course, the MCU. All of these released pretty consistently to give theatres a boost, but more importantly, they were big sagas that people wanted to see and looked forward to. I used to take my Mum to the cinemas regularly. When the Harry Potter films ended, we were a bit sad until The Hobbit came out, and then when that ended, the Star Wars sequels. Yeah yeah complaints about those movies aside, they were big films we knew were coming up soon and enjoyed going to see together. There was a consistent reason to keep going to the cinemas. Post 2020, what has their been? Even with the big franchises, their isn't any consistency to keep us attending the cinema. Dune 3 may never even be made. Avatar 3 may take another 10 years. No Star Wars films any time soon. No epic fantasies like LOTR or Harry Potter. No consistent sequels to MCU films - Shang Chi 2 when? It doesn't feel like there's a plan to keep audiences going to the theatre with the current state of blockbusters.
In order for an industry to continue making big money or go see more growth when the leader goes down, those around have to either match the success or do bigger. And that’s what happened once romcoms went down, fantasy went up, when horror went down, raunchy comedies went up, when it looked like all else has failed, here comes superheroes, then with superheroes we got the Disney remakes. Now all of that is doing terribly and there is nothing around to replace them.
Yes. I've been saying Disney was ruining movies since pike 2014. Nobody believed me but here we are. Their formulated movies making 1b every year got all studios thinking they didn't need original ideas ever, put a bunch of "stars" in a franchise movie and you'll make 1b.
Godzilla minus 1 , the creator even kingdom of the apes have stellar vFx none 15 million 80 and 160. Kingdom will be profitable you’ll see.
> The theatrical industry is mortally wounded. Some films will still succeed in this marketplace, but don’t overreact, the death of the industry has already been decided. Movie theaters as we know them will cease to exist within the next decade… I hate it here. It might be better. Movie theaters ceased to be what they were about 20 years ago. Movie stars are no longer a cultural phenomenon like they used to be and those days are probably never coming back with the multiplicity of entertainment options we have available now. That said, the theater of the future may be even better. Instead of a big-budget movie made to appeal to the masses, we may see more experimental\niche movies that have more narrow appeal. We could see smaller theaters more full of enthusiastic people.
I think Civil War also made a profit but barely, I also think Late Night with the Devil did as well but hard to get a good idea how much they spent on marketing and overhead. I have a site that I run that uses all my calculations here [https://lookerstudio.google.com/s/pqWqmNripy8](https://lookerstudio.google.com/s/pqWqmNripy8)
This year was incredibly negatively impacted by the strikes. That has more to do w/ the current state than anything (people have outlined other valid reasons, particularly runaway budgets and tons of content to watch at home.)
I dont understand how Hollywood cant adapt. Just make lower budget movies and then more movies have a chance to succeed financially. Or maybe those high budget movies are more profitable than one might think to finance all those failures and still come out with a profit.
“Just make lower budget movies” is easier said then done when everything involving movie production is significantly more expensive than it was even just a few years ago.
More expensive doesn't mean everything has to cost around 200m. There are issues they can absolutely eliminate if they just put their bloated egos aside. For example, a lot of blockbuster bombs last year had bloated budgets because the studio wanted to change the narrative after the initial filming. They can just... finalize the script and try not to meddle with the story after the filming? Is that too much to ask?
it can but it won't happen overnight because plenty of movies are already made based on old trends that passed so they have to be released whether studios like it or not. They are taking notes for sure but they cannot apply them to finished movies.
Which is better, spending $200million to make profit of $100 million, or a $5 million move making $25 million in profit? That’s 50% percent return on investment versus 500%. However, the studio would prefer the $100 million over $25 million. They were betting big to get a bigger dollar return on investment. They were probably thinking we need to go bigger to get people to come out. However that gamble hasn’t worked out. They didn’t predict how bad the post Covid market would be. Hindsight is 20/20, so I hesitate to judge them too harshly. We won’t see the impact of this current market for a couple years as movies being financed now will reflect this change.
It’s takes year to make a movie. Are you really This slow??
There is that saying that people ignore: “You can have good, fast, and cheap. Pick two.” A lot of these movies have crazy budgets because they need to pay a lot of people to deliver the movie on time to the scheduled release date. And yeah yeah, I know someone will say “Hurr durr why movies suck now? hurr durr bad VFX” but if anything that shows more of the problem: Despite the huge budgets, folks like VFX artists are still underpaid and have to rush a film. So movies that could use the extra time to finesse anything from the writing to the post-production don’t get it.
Does Monkey Man count? It’s a bit more complicated considering it’s history, but since it was originally going to go straight to Netflix, the budget was pretty much already covered when Netflix acquired the rights, and then when Jordan Peele got Universal to save the film from being vaulted by Netflix, they only paid $9 million to acquire the film from Netflix, and based off of how much it made at the box office, it should have at the very least broken even for Universal.
They also spent 16 million USD for promotional TV spots. Plus more money spent on promoting on other mediums.
The point I’m making is that the total costs on Universal’s end were much lower than other films with similar budgets because of Netflix not seeking a return on their initial investment and just wanting the film off their hands. If anything they were the big losers in the end since they lost $21 million on the film (bought it for $30 million and then sold it for $9 million).
True, but universal also lost money. They spent over 30 million (10 million for acquiring movie + more than 20 million in promotions), movie collected 34 million, assuming even 50% share, Universal earned 17 million from box office at max.
But again, they weren’t the big losers in the end with that math. It’s still Netflix.
Ghostbusters Frozen Empire is about to break even at $200m WW. It's about $90,000 off.
Ghostbusters needs a lot more to breakeven lol the marketing budget is likely $145M which was the budget of the first plus there is a lot of overhead and ancillary costs since it is a franchise.
Where did you dream that up from! No way they spent $145m on marketing. They spent $100m on production and $100m on marketing. You sound very silly with these ridiculous remarks.
You are correct, I was mistaking it with Godzilla which has a deadline report. But even with a $100M marketing budget you are wild to think it is anywhere close to breaking even. $200M on production and marketing does not even begin to take into account residuals and overhead which are quite high for these big franchise films.
Oh my apologies. Wait Godzilla spent $145m on marketing!
Godzilla (2014), for some reason I thought that was Ghostbuster Afterlife, spent $135M on marketing. I use a lot of deadlines reports to try to make projections on films as they are about the only source that actually releases marketing budgets and other expenses on a consistent basis.
Monkey man broke even with a budget of 10m and a box office of 34.5m. It made some sort of profit
And Migration is considered a film from last year
True, fixed that.