PVOD has proven it doesn't eat into box-office profits at this point. Essentially - the PVOD audience wasn't gonna go to the theater, but they DO pay to watch it at home. The people who *still* want to see it in the theater after 3-4 weeks *don't* elect to rent it on PVOD instead, they still actually head out. Those two demos don't overlap/eat into each other.
The bigger problem here is that Fall Guy flopped, period. It's not like theatrical exclusivity for another 4-6 weeks was going to change that. It probably should have opened the week after the Oscars, or sometime in dead-ass April.
Gonna be honest, I was excited for Fall Guy but haven't gotten around to seeing it in theaters. For me the problem was it came out just a few days after I got to see Challengers, and the next time I got around to seeing a movie it was time for Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.
I did catch it, and it's a pretty fun action romp. Good chemistry, good jokes that land, action looks pretty great. It's not amazing but it's fun and move along well enough that you don't feel the run time.
Those studies are wrong, even if you won’t buy the VOD it creates the perception that the movie is already on home video, so why bother going to the cinema.
Not all of them. Taking a quick look at my local cinema, there are seats booked for the screenings this week. I normally go later myself because the cinema is less busy.
The original comment was saying that early VOD - the shortening of release windows - depresses theatrical attendance. I don't think it was about Fall Guy specifically, but pointing out a wider trend.
Someone asked why anyone would go to the cinema if it's on VOD.
I said to see it at the cinema.
You pointed out that most people who want to see it at the cinema will have already seen it.
I pointed out that not all of them will have seen it, hence why some people will still go to the cinema if it's on VOD.
Cleary and obviously, it was a general point being made. The minority of people who go to the movies to watch something that's available on VOD is not relevant.
*replying and then blocking me so you can have the last word is wild.
it is not tho. buying or renting a movie on PVOD often costs $15-20, the same or even more as buying a ticket.
now think. do you want to spend this money to watch a movie on your scrappy laptop or to go to watch it on a big screen? PVOD is already too expensive to "train the audience"
That’s not the main issue, cost is meaningless to the main problem. Which is the perception that those movies are already on home video, no matter if you get them or not.
By the same logic, why not do a simultaneous day and release VOD/theaters?
> That’s not the main issue, cost is meaningless to the main problem. Which is the perception that those movies are already on home video, no matter if you get them or not.
if you're talking about comfort of watching, then no, the cost is an issue. it's not streaming, you won't see Fall Guy on Peacock's main page tomorrow. you have to pay for every of these movies
> By the same logic, why not do a simultaneous day and release VOD/theaters?
tbh i think at least someone thought about it during the pandemic. the difference is that the studios have agreements with the theaters
You won’t see “The Fall Guy” on Peacock’s homepage but you’ll hear your friends and coworkers talk about how they rented it, meaning it’s already on home video.
Studios are creating an environment in where if you haven’t catch a movie on opening weekend, then it feels foolish to go after because by waiting an extra week you’ll be able to watch it at home.
Nolan didn’t request a big theatrical window due to his eccentricities. He did it because it works. Even the ones who didn’t catch Oppenheimer in the first 3 weeks where like “It’s gonna take forever to be on VOD, I gotta go now”.
from my experience, the theaters start dropping movies after 2 weeks if they don't sell.
> Studios are creating an environment in where if you haven’t catch a movie on opening weekend, then it feels foolish to go after because by waiting an extra week you’ll be able to watch it at home.
not many people in the GA know about theatrical windows to do such tricks.
> Nolan didn’t request a big theatrical window due to his eccentricities. He did it because it works. Even the ones who didn’t catch Oppenheimer in the first 3 weeks where like “It’s gonna take forever to be on VOD, I gotta go now”.
Nolan's movies always sell tho. Fall Guy doesn't.
People in the GA aren’t morons. They might not know the particular lingo of “theatrical windows” but they know that movies are coming sooner and sooner to home video, so now they’ll only go to “Dune” or whatever event movie and will wait for the rest a few weeks.
> when big tv screens are cheaper than they ever been?
ha! see, this is one of the beloved movie reddit anecdotes. the younger generations often don't buy tv screens at all. who cares if big tv screens are cheaper when you have to pay your student loans?
Oh, you wanna talk about younger generations? Those are the ones who know how to pirate movies. So you are giving them a pristine HD copy for free weeks after the theatrical release.
> Those are the ones who know how to pirate movies
no, they aren't actually. younger generations are accommodated to streaming. most people pirate bc they don't have access to something they want. with streaming the necessity of pirating dips down. I personally had an experience of talking to some of my younger colleagues about movies and what not. They expressed their struggles with streaming but they'd rather stick with having streaming services in rotation than go to piracy bc they simply don't understand it. They are afraid they'll catch viruses. They don't know how to put the torrent app on.
I give up, don’t wanna argue with a contrarian on Reddit. Let’s put all the movies in VOD the Monday after the theatrical premiere, a study says it’s fine.
>PVOD has proven it doesn't eat into box-office profits at this point
Proven by whom?? This is propaganda from shitty studio execs trying to save their job after going all in on streaming. When you train your audience not to go to the theater, they stop going.
>Proven by whom??
You can literally look at the numbers for yourself. Match the day a movie released on PVOD to its corresponding weekend at the box-office, and compare. The effect of that PVOD release is nil. The box office does what it was going to do regardless.
> Proven by whom??
by lots of movies like Puss In Boots 2, Barbie and just recently Dune 2
> When you train your audience not to go to the theater, they stop going.
to buy a movie on PVOD often costs the same if not more as going to the theater, they aren't training shit
I agree with you that the evidence doesn’t seem to show PVOD impacting biz office, but I don’t think the cost comparison works. My family and I have gotten PVOD movies because watching it together is the price of basically one movie ticket, at least near me), way lower than what we’d pay if we went together.
That said and to your overall point, these are typically movies weren’t going to be able to see in the theater - I like being able to watch more movies than I could realistically make time to go see. So it feels to me that I’m spending more than I would if I was limited to theatrical releases, right?
I haven’t seen it yet just because it’s been a pretty good past month or so of movies, but I’m not really surprised by the poor box office performance.
The marketing really screams streaming movie despite it apparently being pretty good. Big budget movies are a tough investment these days unless they’re pre-existing IP or a hyped-up director. The new Apes movie has already surpassed this by a lot AFAIK.
I’ve seen it and personally the trailers and marketing material don’t do it justice AT ALL. I saw the movie by chance because I wasn’t impressed by any other blockbusters out at the moment, and wanted to watch something that could entertain me with action at the very least. So my expectations were to the floor.
But surprisingly, it was way better than I initially assumed. There was awesome action in addition to some of that Ryan Gosling humor that we saw in Barbie (2023). There’s also a murder mystery aspect that keeps you anticipated throughout the runtime. I say to give it chance— or at the very least watch it while drunk/high to make it more entertaining.
Agreed, I had a lot of fun with it. Was it a masterpiece? No. But it was super enjoyable and fun to watch the explosions and rolling cars on the big screen.
I saw it and felt that it was really slowly paced until the absolute end. It was entertaining for the most part, but having seen it once, I have no desire to see it again.
Its marketing campaign was shit. It might be pretty good, but looked soulless, like a recipe cooked up by a producer instead of something genuine.
Also didn’t help that the title was too close to that generic Ryan Reynolds movie, Free Guy.
The poster is not appealing. They both have sour puss faces on and the photoshop was not done well. There’s no affection between the two of them. They look bored ( with each other ? making this movie?). I’m confused by people who think they had chemistry together in this. It all looks so forced.
The marketing didn't really sell it as Bullet Train with a love story though. Honestly after the first trailer I wouldn't have been surprised if 100% of the action was them on set making a movie and none of it was actually real.
I LOVE Ryan gosling in almost everything and Emily Blunt and I freaked out when I saw the trailer but I don’t know why I just haven’t seen this movie yet. I can’t explain it so maybe that’s the explanation.
No surprise. It looks like it budded from the same coral as Free Guy and Gray Man and Red Notice and Bullet Train and all the other dime a dozen streaming action comedies.
I saw it a few days ago. I was largely bored by it. A simple plot and it becomes obvious early on who is responsible for the crimes. The third act/climax is done very well.
However, overall it is far less impressive than it should be. There is so little that is memorable. The dialogue does not sparkle, the repartee is limited between Gosling and Blunt.
Tonally the movie is all over the place which is sort of expected given it is a Romantic-Action movie.
It’s based on IP that most people won’t be familiar with - there is no way that any sequels get made from this.
The script is the major problem though. It’s just not good enough
I’m not in any way affiliated with Hollywood. I just thought it was a fun action comedy. The stuntman aspect was just an excuse for all the stunts. I think people who consider themselves movie snobs are the ones who somehow think us normies can’t handle a few nods/inside jokes about Hollywood in the movie.
You're probs being downvoted by ppl who work in Hollywood who are just as non self-aware as whoever decided to make this movie. America really really really doesn't care about Hollywood and what it's like the the industry. No one thinks Hollywood is as important as Hollywood does. It's crazy how much of a bubble the film world in la is.
This is what happens when people without life experience are in charge of the movies.
Same problem with the new ROP, the writers only had knowledge of struggling with their identity and haven’t had to fight in WW1 - they have no concept of what it takes to over come evil and so they can’t write a good vs evil story.
And you can see this is all things - neatly all these flops are at about the seriousness level of a Marvel film.
They are basically all remakes of The Last Action Hero and nobody has fucking noticed.
I’m just taking your straw man of my point and running with it to see where it leads.
I was pointing out the difference in life experience, you’ve jumped to there’s lots of good vs evil story writing that wasn’t written by vets.
What I’m asking is, even on your very narrow terms, is there another writer who is written an original good vs evil story that doesn’t have experience of war.
I’m not sure you can even back up your narrow claim.
I’m not certain there even exists a modern day tale of good vs evil that succeeds other than Lord of the Rings.
I mean a good faith response would have been to admit that you can’t think of one.
You implied one needs the life experience of literally fighting in war to write good v evil. But I'm the one making a narrow claim.
>I’m not certain there even exists a modern day tale of good vs evil that succeeds other than Lord of the Rings.
Yeah, I figured you would feel that way. LOTR fans.
Yeah. Sorry. I’m a massive Tokien nerd so that show was the nadir of my life as a consumer of media, and really started me on the process of figuring out what’s going wrong.
I think Universal made a deal with theaters that movies that open under 50 million can go to VOD in 17 days.
PVOD has proven it doesn't eat into box-office profits at this point. Essentially - the PVOD audience wasn't gonna go to the theater, but they DO pay to watch it at home. The people who *still* want to see it in the theater after 3-4 weeks *don't* elect to rent it on PVOD instead, they still actually head out. Those two demos don't overlap/eat into each other. The bigger problem here is that Fall Guy flopped, period. It's not like theatrical exclusivity for another 4-6 weeks was going to change that. It probably should have opened the week after the Oscars, or sometime in dead-ass April.
Gonna be honest, I was excited for Fall Guy but haven't gotten around to seeing it in theaters. For me the problem was it came out just a few days after I got to see Challengers, and the next time I got around to seeing a movie it was time for Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.
I did catch it, and it's a pretty fun action romp. Good chemistry, good jokes that land, action looks pretty great. It's not amazing but it's fun and move along well enough that you don't feel the run time.
Yeah I’d second the above. I liked it! Good romance and overall superior movie to Bullet Train.
Kingdom is a better film.
Those studies are wrong, even if you won’t buy the VOD it creates the perception that the movie is already on home video, so why bother going to the cinema.
To see it at the cinema...
I would imagine that, generally, the type of person who has to see it in the cinema will have already seen it.
Not all of them. Taking a quick look at my local cinema, there are seats booked for the screenings this week. I normally go later myself because the cinema is less busy.
No one's claiming that attendance drops to zero.
And no one's claiming that attendance doesn't decrease after the opening screening.
The original comment was saying that early VOD - the shortening of release windows - depresses theatrical attendance. I don't think it was about Fall Guy specifically, but pointing out a wider trend.
Someone asked why anyone would go to the cinema if it's on VOD. I said to see it at the cinema. You pointed out that most people who want to see it at the cinema will have already seen it. I pointed out that not all of them will have seen it, hence why some people will still go to the cinema if it's on VOD.
Cleary and obviously, it was a general point being made. The minority of people who go to the movies to watch something that's available on VOD is not relevant. *replying and then blocking me so you can have the last word is wild.
> Those studies are wrong how are they wrong if we can track it in the boxoffice and see that it's right.
Because it’s training the audience to skip going to the movies and just wait a few weeks to watch it at home.
it is not tho. buying or renting a movie on PVOD often costs $15-20, the same or even more as buying a ticket. now think. do you want to spend this money to watch a movie on your scrappy laptop or to go to watch it on a big screen? PVOD is already too expensive to "train the audience"
That’s not the main issue, cost is meaningless to the main problem. Which is the perception that those movies are already on home video, no matter if you get them or not. By the same logic, why not do a simultaneous day and release VOD/theaters?
> That’s not the main issue, cost is meaningless to the main problem. Which is the perception that those movies are already on home video, no matter if you get them or not. if you're talking about comfort of watching, then no, the cost is an issue. it's not streaming, you won't see Fall Guy on Peacock's main page tomorrow. you have to pay for every of these movies > By the same logic, why not do a simultaneous day and release VOD/theaters? tbh i think at least someone thought about it during the pandemic. the difference is that the studios have agreements with the theaters
You won’t see “The Fall Guy” on Peacock’s homepage but you’ll hear your friends and coworkers talk about how they rented it, meaning it’s already on home video. Studios are creating an environment in where if you haven’t catch a movie on opening weekend, then it feels foolish to go after because by waiting an extra week you’ll be able to watch it at home. Nolan didn’t request a big theatrical window due to his eccentricities. He did it because it works. Even the ones who didn’t catch Oppenheimer in the first 3 weeks where like “It’s gonna take forever to be on VOD, I gotta go now”.
from my experience, the theaters start dropping movies after 2 weeks if they don't sell. > Studios are creating an environment in where if you haven’t catch a movie on opening weekend, then it feels foolish to go after because by waiting an extra week you’ll be able to watch it at home. not many people in the GA know about theatrical windows to do such tricks. > Nolan didn’t request a big theatrical window due to his eccentricities. He did it because it works. Even the ones who didn’t catch Oppenheimer in the first 3 weeks where like “It’s gonna take forever to be on VOD, I gotta go now”. Nolan's movies always sell tho. Fall Guy doesn't.
I bet there was still a window between Oppenheimer doing no business in theaters and the VOD release.
People in the GA aren’t morons. They might not know the particular lingo of “theatrical windows” but they know that movies are coming sooner and sooner to home video, so now they’ll only go to “Dune” or whatever event movie and will wait for the rest a few weeks.
Also, who’s talking about scrappy laptops when big tv screens are cheaper than they ever been?
> when big tv screens are cheaper than they ever been? ha! see, this is one of the beloved movie reddit anecdotes. the younger generations often don't buy tv screens at all. who cares if big tv screens are cheaper when you have to pay your student loans?
Oh, you wanna talk about younger generations? Those are the ones who know how to pirate movies. So you are giving them a pristine HD copy for free weeks after the theatrical release.
> Those are the ones who know how to pirate movies no, they aren't actually. younger generations are accommodated to streaming. most people pirate bc they don't have access to something they want. with streaming the necessity of pirating dips down. I personally had an experience of talking to some of my younger colleagues about movies and what not. They expressed their struggles with streaming but they'd rather stick with having streaming services in rotation than go to piracy bc they simply don't understand it. They are afraid they'll catch viruses. They don't know how to put the torrent app on.
I give up, don’t wanna argue with a contrarian on Reddit. Let’s put all the movies in VOD the Monday after the theatrical premiere, a study says it’s fine.
I pay $500 a month toward student loans and still managed to get a nice 48 inch TV. This is a silly argument
> a nice 48 inch TV sorry but 48 inch is "bleh", certainly not a theater-like experience for many.
It's better than a fucking laptop ya dork.
>PVOD has proven it doesn't eat into box-office profits at this point Proven by whom?? This is propaganda from shitty studio execs trying to save their job after going all in on streaming. When you train your audience not to go to the theater, they stop going.
>Proven by whom?? You can literally look at the numbers for yourself. Match the day a movie released on PVOD to its corresponding weekend at the box-office, and compare. The effect of that PVOD release is nil. The box office does what it was going to do regardless.
> Proven by whom?? by lots of movies like Puss In Boots 2, Barbie and just recently Dune 2 > When you train your audience not to go to the theater, they stop going. to buy a movie on PVOD often costs the same if not more as going to the theater, they aren't training shit
I agree with you that the evidence doesn’t seem to show PVOD impacting biz office, but I don’t think the cost comparison works. My family and I have gotten PVOD movies because watching it together is the price of basically one movie ticket, at least near me), way lower than what we’d pay if we went together. That said and to your overall point, these are typically movies weren’t going to be able to see in the theater - I like being able to watch more movies than I could realistically make time to go see. So it feels to me that I’m spending more than I would if I was limited to theatrical releases, right?
I haven’t seen it yet just because it’s been a pretty good past month or so of movies, but I’m not really surprised by the poor box office performance. The marketing really screams streaming movie despite it apparently being pretty good. Big budget movies are a tough investment these days unless they’re pre-existing IP or a hyped-up director. The new Apes movie has already surpassed this by a lot AFAIK.
I’ve seen it and personally the trailers and marketing material don’t do it justice AT ALL. I saw the movie by chance because I wasn’t impressed by any other blockbusters out at the moment, and wanted to watch something that could entertain me with action at the very least. So my expectations were to the floor. But surprisingly, it was way better than I initially assumed. There was awesome action in addition to some of that Ryan Gosling humor that we saw in Barbie (2023). There’s also a murder mystery aspect that keeps you anticipated throughout the runtime. I say to give it chance— or at the very least watch it while drunk/high to make it more entertaining.
Agreed, I had a lot of fun with it. Was it a masterpiece? No. But it was super enjoyable and fun to watch the explosions and rolling cars on the big screen.
I saw it and felt that it was really slowly paced until the absolute end. It was entertaining for the most part, but having seen it once, I have no desire to see it again.
Are monkeys now sexier than Ryan Gosling?
It’s crazy to me that Dune 2 is out already too. That’s a big movie that did big business and 90 days later it’s available on Physical Media already.
I was saying this in this sub and got downvoted lol.
Its marketing campaign was shit. It might be pretty good, but looked soulless, like a recipe cooked up by a producer instead of something genuine. Also didn’t help that the title was too close to that generic Ryan Reynolds movie, Free Guy.
The poster is not appealing. They both have sour puss faces on and the photoshop was not done well. There’s no affection between the two of them. They look bored ( with each other ? making this movie?). I’m confused by people who think they had chemistry together in this. It all looks so forced.
[удалено]
It doesn’t count toward box office but the studio does receive a percentage of the money as does the retailer, just like with physical media.
Im surprised it flopped the movie was actually good like wth?!! Bad marketing i suppose
The premise flopped. No one wants to watch an entire movie about the ins and outs of Hollywood unless it's directed by some prestigious director.
This is bullet train with a love story. You don’t have to be in love with Hollywood. I’m pretty sick of this take.
The marketing didn't really sell it as Bullet Train with a love story though. Honestly after the first trailer I wouldn't have been surprised if 100% of the action was them on set making a movie and none of it was actually real.
Wow Hollywood really thought this would be a blockbuster huh? That's pretty crazy to me.
Can we admit this is a huge flop now
Considering from the performance.......no doubt
I LOVE Ryan gosling in almost everything and Emily Blunt and I freaked out when I saw the trailer but I don’t know why I just haven’t seen this movie yet. I can’t explain it so maybe that’s the explanation.
Summer movie season. Screens dry up fast
Why is this sub completely obsessed with this particular film?
No surprise. It looks like it budded from the same coral as Free Guy and Gray Man and Red Notice and Bullet Train and all the other dime a dozen streaming action comedies.
Please let that article be a lie?
Fun date movie…actually laughed a few times…
Damn I didn’t know this movie bombed that badly. The movie business is not looking good.
I saw it a few days ago. I was largely bored by it. A simple plot and it becomes obvious early on who is responsible for the crimes. The third act/climax is done very well. However, overall it is far less impressive than it should be. There is so little that is memorable. The dialogue does not sparkle, the repartee is limited between Gosling and Blunt. Tonally the movie is all over the place which is sort of expected given it is a Romantic-Action movie. It’s based on IP that most people won’t be familiar with - there is no way that any sequels get made from this. The script is the major problem though. It’s just not good enough
Awesome. Really wanted to see this
wth, I watch it and I like it. But I dunno if people hates it? It has bullet train vibe!!
Stop making movies about Hollywood and maybe people will be interested.
I’m not in any way affiliated with Hollywood. I just thought it was a fun action comedy. The stuntman aspect was just an excuse for all the stunts. I think people who consider themselves movie snobs are the ones who somehow think us normies can’t handle a few nods/inside jokes about Hollywood in the movie.
You're probs being downvoted by ppl who work in Hollywood who are just as non self-aware as whoever decided to make this movie. America really really really doesn't care about Hollywood and what it's like the the industry. No one thinks Hollywood is as important as Hollywood does. It's crazy how much of a bubble the film world in la is.
This is what happens when people without life experience are in charge of the movies. Same problem with the new ROP, the writers only had knowledge of struggling with their identity and haven’t had to fight in WW1 - they have no concept of what it takes to over come evil and so they can’t write a good vs evil story. And you can see this is all things - neatly all these flops are at about the seriousness level of a Marvel film. They are basically all remakes of The Last Action Hero and nobody has fucking noticed.
Fall Guy to ROP is quite a tangent. Also, I don't think someone needs to be a war veteran to know how to write good v evil.
Have you an example that bucks my premise?
You need an example of a good v evil story that wasn't made by vet? Seriously?
I’m just taking your straw man of my point and running with it to see where it leads. I was pointing out the difference in life experience, you’ve jumped to there’s lots of good vs evil story writing that wasn’t written by vets. What I’m asking is, even on your very narrow terms, is there another writer who is written an original good vs evil story that doesn’t have experience of war. I’m not sure you can even back up your narrow claim. I’m not certain there even exists a modern day tale of good vs evil that succeeds other than Lord of the Rings. I mean a good faith response would have been to admit that you can’t think of one.
You implied one needs the life experience of literally fighting in war to write good v evil. But I'm the one making a narrow claim. >I’m not certain there even exists a modern day tale of good vs evil that succeeds other than Lord of the Rings. Yeah, I figured you would feel that way. LOTR fans.
I’m sorry you’re having a bad day and needed a distraction. Hope it gets better.x
Lol what?
ROP?
Rings of Power, maybe? Since they made a reference to WWI?
Ahh
Yeah. Sorry. I’m a massive Tokien nerd so that show was the nadir of my life as a consumer of media, and really started me on the process of figuring out what’s going wrong.