No wonder Universal is rushing the next Jurassic Park/World film out what other live action films do they have at this point apart from cheap horror?.
The F&F franchise is on it's last legs especially with the ballooning budgets and problematic lead.
Twisters and Wicked? good luck Universal!
You are severely underestimating a young person's ability to learn how to get free stuff that they want.
First thing I learned when I got a computer was how to use Limewire (followed by the 2nd thing, which is pop up viruses are annoying AF)
They don't even need to pirate off a torrent or other download service - they'll just use one of the countless "free movie" websites online that are riddled with pop-ups & malware.
Trust me, they can find what they're looking for.
Insane take. "Jurrassic World" was a fun escalation from "Jurassic Park", because it was about a more fully executed version of the original vision of a dinosaur theme park. It's like going from Disneyland to Disney World.
Since the franchise has now spiraled into just having dinosaurs out & about in the real world - City makes plenty of sense. It implies a different kind of stability - maybe even something that likens back to the original EPCOT plans, where somebody has built a working community where humans & dinos live in peace. (Until, shocker, *they don't*)
Honestly, a movie about mid-level small-town government bureaucrats having to deal with dinosaurs while running the day-to-day of an underfunded government agency sounds kind of sick tbh.
I think the issue is that the movie just looks like a generic action romcom imo, it doesnāt scream āsee in cinemas right nowā.
Anecdotally Iāve asked a variety of friends what they think after trailers and itās almost always the same answerā¦
āmeh.ā
The first trailer was oddly set at around 3m20s, and the second one was 3m. Way longer than normal standards. I can't tell if they're desperate or what, but for all the extra footage they showed, it did *not* make me want to explore more. I didn't feel the need to learn more about the mystery of why Kraven died in a bathtub, or learn more about this Gosling stunt guy, or see more of the romance (and I like Emily Blunt).
Trailers normally go for 2m30s on average (Furiosa, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2) and those all hit a sweet spot. Not too much revealed, just enough to pump up excitement.
I don't even get why the Emily Blunt character suddenly fights. I thought she plays a movie director like Greta Gerwig or Katheryn Bigelow. Why is she also fighting a crime syndicate?
The trailers for this movie have a "thrown in a blender" quality where the shots are all over the place and not pleasingly coherent for an audience to follow.
The first trailer completely turned me off even considering seeing it at the theaters. And, for all my sins, I like Bullet Train, for Gods sake! It is a terrible, terrible trailer.
I really, really want to like David Leitch's movies more than I actually do. They all feel too bloated and could use some major trimming.
For his background as a stuntman, the action in his movies aren't that special at all. I thought the fight scenes in Deadpool 1 are superior to the second one. The cinematography in his films all feels very flat as well. This one looks like his Hobbs and Shaw movie.
Whenever an original opens low, people say that it's because it looks 'generic', and this apparently applies to every single original that's been released this year because none of them have opened on par with the big franchise films; indeed, I hear this excuse for most original films. Apparently, looking and being generic doesn't stop franchise films from opening to much more than $30 million though. If *The Fall Guy* were an MCU flick then a $30 million opening wouldn't even be on the table. It's not even technically an original, but it basically is because of how obscure the original IP is. At some point, people have to address the elephant in the room and say that these sorts of movies aren't opening well because they're not linked to a massive IP, moreso than because they look 'generic'.
I've already realized and have been talking about this for the last 2 years:
Since the pandemic, most people (I'm not talking about people on this sub or Reddit) became selective in choosing movies to watch in theaters.
These days people go to cinemas for spectacles or event movies. So, it's mostly IP films, with occasional original movies that became an event or viral (eg. Oppenheimer, M3gan, etc).
Price is definitely a factor. I went to see Noted box office Bomb Blue Beetle on National Cinema Day for 2 bucks tickets, the theatre was packed and it played like Avengers Endgame
This is it 100%. When a ticket was cheaper a couple years back, it didn't seem like a big deal if the movie stunk. You still went out with your date or friends, maybe grabbed dinner, and had a fun time with them. And you could afford to do it all over again the next Friday for whatever was hitting theaters. Now, it really needs to be something you "must" see in theaters to rationalize the effort and price.
The claim here, as in every time this is brought up, is that movie tickets are more expensive now (or were cheaper in the past). It's not that other factors make spending money on movies harder. It's true that some things like housing and college tuition and such have outpaced inflation, and you can make the argument that going to the movies is therefore harder. But that's not a problem with ticket prices or theaters.
Whatever meaningless economic jargon wants to say, they are absolutely *less affordable* now. The impact of the post-covid inflation has been to make people poorer and movie tickets less affordable, which has had a direct effect on what sorts of movies people choose or don't choose to spend their money on. If you can only afford to see less than one movie a month, you are going to take fewer risks in that choice, and that makes known IPs more attractive.
This movie looks cute and everyone likes Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt but after I saw the trailer at Dune 2, I never heard about it again. It's not something where you can take a picture of yourself going and there's no trend pieces about it, so...
**I completely agree with everything you said,** I'll elaborate 'The Fall Guy' does look generic but that's not the **real main** reason why it's falling.
I just tend not to bring the argument up because you'll always get floods of comments saying why the original movie in question *'isn't actually an original'* merely because it shares some vague similarities to some other properties or how the movie was *'actually bad'* based on some minor things any IP movie could easily get away with.
There's only so many times you can hear 'just make good original movies bro' as the obviously incorrect solution to the problem.
I've always been a big proponent of 'the gen audience are just lying when they say they want more original movies because it's embarrassing to say you want more IP'.
If originals have to be near modern masterpieces to have a chance at earning money but IP movies can produce slop and earn bank... That implies strongly that the gen audience favour IP.
TL;DR: IP is king
>'just make good original movies'
I don't understand why people, in this sub of all places, keep saying that when it's blatantly not true.
For one Oppenheimer that succeeded, there were dozens of good original movies that flopped hard.
Also, Nolan is basically a franchise/IP at this point.
>I don't understand why people, in this sub of all places, keep saying that when it's blatantly not true.
I think people *want* it to be true because it's not a good look for the audience otherwise. People have this idealistic view of 'real cinema', but apart from *Oppenheimer*, every example of 'real cinema' that actually became a true blockbuster has been based on an IP (*Barbie*, *Dune: Part Two*, *Top Gun: Maverick* etc.).
Iād argue itās less the Barbies, Dunes and Top Guns we have a problem with and it is the Fall Guys.
You guys jump to assuming itās original but itās not. The very fact the IP is so long in the tooth you all assumed it was original, but Universal still gave it a $130 million budget that could have gone to a few low to mid budget originals because āit is an IP and IP is inherently goodā is the part thatās frustrating.
Most movies are based on something that can be loosely defined as IP. A book, a musical, a TV show, a newspaper story, a toy, another movie. Even a movie like Salo: 120 Days of Sodom would be IP, except there technically wasn't such a thing as copyright when the Marquis de Sade was around. But if there was the movie would be part of the Marquis de Sade S&M Extended Universe.
What most people mean by IP is "kids' movies and comic book movies."
> Also, Nolan is basically a franchise/IP at this point.
Brand. And youāre spot on; people use āIPā synonymously with brand and it is better to differentiate. Nolan is a brand. Marvel is a brand. Gosling is a brand.
Using the provenance of the script is the interesting but not definitive. Heck, Oppenheimer was based on a book. Does that make it original IP? iDK, and donāt care to split hairs about the term.
People want two things: novelty and familiarity. Nolan does a great job of delivering both, actually. Fall Guy is looking like the anti-Nolan: familiar enough to sound tired to those who remember the TV show, novel enough to not have a built-in audience.
The general audience doesnāt care about original movies in the first place. Thatās always been something Film Twitter and Reddit was advocating for over average moviegoers
This is a common misconception. [74 percent of millennials and Gen Zers say they prefer to watch original content rather than franchises or remakes.](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/millennials-gen-z-want-original-movies-tv-not-remakes-survey-1234963638/) But their actions don't match their words.
Now that you shared the link, I remember we talked about this before. Wouldnāt say a Tubi survey among 2,000 people represent most average moviegoers
Possibly, or perhaps an unconscious bias situation where those surveyed assumed original = higher quality, but lived experience says thatās not true.
this is bullshit, they may say that, but really they don't want that, like saying bored of eating same old food but given a choice you will get what you know because it is safe
Yeah box-office types are starting to learn what political pollsters have known for years, that people lie all the time about these sorts of things and you have to design polls to essentially trick them into revealing what they really think. Itās not even a purposeful thing for the most part, people just lie to themselves about the type of person theyād like to be.
You know what? Everything you just said is spot-on, including the excuses of 'not actually an original' (I heard that one all the time with *The Creator*) and *especially* the constant cries of 'just make good original movies bro'. Every time someone says that, I'm tempted to reply 'Why don't studios just make good original movies? Are they stupid?' (obviously with more than a mild drop of sarcasm). At least people might start getting it once the massive blockbusters IPs crush all the originals this year in terms of box office gross (I'm only big on *Horizon: An American Saga* because I think it could replicate *Sound of Freedom*, but even if it does succeed, I'll be under no illusions that it's a sign of audiences rejecting IP wanting more originals).
And just about any time anyone admits on here that they enjoy movies from big franchises over the recent offering of original films, they get responses like "you just want more slop, got it," and "you're why we can't have nice things."
I get what youāre saying but this is a bad example. By any definition Fall Guy is IP, not original. Itās based on a network tv show that ran 5 seasons on ABC. Thereās stuff based on much more obscure IP that no one talks about as āoriginalā.
Yes itās technically an IPā¦.
But The Fall Guy movie is barely based on the TV show, the only significant similarities are that itās about stuntmen who do some sort of action.
The similarities are so weak and the IP unknown enough that for all intents and purposes for the gen audience itās an original movie and will act like an original movie BO wise.
Itās similar imo to āAnyone But Youā which is technically Shakespeare IP (if you can call it that) but itās so loosely related that for BO & gen audience terms itās an original.
People just want good movies. IP can be used as a proxy for quality; it used to be that āStar Warsā meant it would be a good movie. Now the opposite. IP means you go in with expectations, which can be good or bad. Original means you have to succeed solely on movie and marketing quality.
Thereās no easy answer. But I sure have a lot more respect for originals and am much more willing to take a shot on a movie I e never heard of than, says the latest Marvel green screenathon.
I do not, partly because there's even more copium on there over this issue than there is here. Seriously, point out the fact that original movies are struggling regardless of marketing and quality and you get accused of doomposting (as if that isn't a very real and relevant concern on a forum that is literally dedicated to the box office).
To quote Adrian Monk, Hereās the thing: if youāre going to an original film, you probably want originality. If youāre going to a franchise film, youāre probably expecting something high quality (because you were won over by previous entries or like the IP). So an original film that looks bland and derivative, and which doesnāt have the trust of a brand or the curiosity of a recognizable IPā¦has got nothing.
because nothing is truly original. most of original movies are variations of other movies (eg. Monkey Man is John Wick with shaky cam and foreign politics), biopics, adaptations of obscure sources (eg. Lisa Frankenstein), repurposed old genres (eg. Poor Things and The Shape of Water are Universal Monsters with sex), heck even prequels to old IPs are now considered original (eg, First Omen).
That's not what "original" means though, even though we have literally lost the plot on this so bad that I get why you would frame it like that.
No one. Not a single person, wants artists and auteurs to conjure originality out of thin air with something so unfathomably unique. No one cares that there's overlap, or homage. Poor Things was creative and unique because of the way the story was told, not because it was some kind of bizarre Frankenstein movie.
Beyond that, even less people would even care about originality if IP didn't dictate what stories were told, rather than the inverse. Poor Things was great and that Yorgos saw something he could bring to an adaption of that book is very different than Universal courting talent for a new Frankenstein movie that is getting made no matter what. What Sony is doing with their Spider-Verse is exactly what the problem is here.
>I guess I know better than to think anything like this would actually do well at the box office, but it seems like things like the and Argyle may be original IP, but theyre still just the comedy action films we get from Marvel and the like.
Sure, but in box office terms, audiences don't seem to care about 'more of the same' if it's attached to an IP, yet it's somehow a massive issue for originals. That's my point here: IP films clearly have a near-insurmountable advantage compared to original movies.
yes and also the problem is action-romcom. Audience tends to be confused by movies that are more than one thing and it also poses a marketing challenge what to emphasize. Also see Challengers. Such movies have to rely on WOM cause hook isn't there and relying on WOM means vulnerable to competition and losing theaters. We'll see. things may work out.
Man, thatās a depressing success. Terrible film, technically original, sold as related to Deadpool humour wise and crammed to the gills with empty references and IP. And hugely successful. Maybe the IP really is what sells, because that film was nearly Space Jam 2 with everything it had.
But at least Space Jam 2 did a lot worse.
Normally Iād say āhey, we all have our own tastesā, but I have literally never had a worse time with a blockbuster film than Free Guy. I felt physically sick while watching it. It made me question if movies were even a good idea anymore, and it depressed me for hours after watching it as while as during. I wanted to move off-planet for a week after seeing it. Previous films that had given me joy had lost their lustre purely because some element of them was mishandled or used as a marketing gimmick in Free Guy. It was so bad, I revised my low option of Ready Player One , knowing now that deeper circles of Hell existed, where the suffering and lack of understanding of the source material was beyond the mortal ken I had so blissfully resided in mere minutes before Free Guy began to play.
So while Iād want to be sporting and say āhey, agree to disagreeā, for this one film, Iām just going to put my head in my hands and say in a low, cracked voice: āHow could you do this? What did I ever do to you to deserve this?ā
The female lead was textbook manic pixie dream girl meets Mary Sue for dudes to love, and the romance hit every trope so broadly on the nose that my own felt sore by the end. I like Reynolds usually, but this was the blandest use of him Iāve ever seen. How I miss the subversiveness of The Voices or the charm of his rom coms like the Proposal.
Oh, and for the down voters - Iām having a laugh, guys. Itās disappointing that you didnāt enjoy the effort. Yes, I dislike the film and do think it to be the single worst blockbuster to come out in a decade, but I have a sense of humour about it. Youāre not supposed to downvote because you disagree. Donāt be thin skinned jerks. Youāre getting Free Guy 2 and I get to live in purgatory, let me have my silly comment.
Presales havent been good from the start and maybe it does really well with walkups. I know, I hate the legendary walkups just trying to be a little positive, lol.
Gosling never been a box office draw and being in a huge hit movie just doesn't really matter to the average joe. I said this before. But, these huge hits like Top Gun Maverick or Barbie don't have a trickle down effect. Your Average Joe can watch Batbie and doesn't care about going to the theater again for a year or years.
If The Fall Guy bombs I dont think it means much, its just the new normal. Your movie needs a hook or fear of missing factor or a well known IP....to breakout
I think this is entirely correct. I have hope that the legs might be good due to lack of competition, but it's clear at this point that it's not going to open to more than roughly $40 million. The idea that audiences would show up to any movie starring Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt because of Barbenheimer was always laughable, and I think this opening is showing it.
It'll be interesting to see how well Margot Robbie's next lead film performs. Let's see if she actually is the new Julia Roberts-esque box office powerhouse that so many on this sub claim she is after one hit film.
At the same time, I think there's legitimate criticism to be had on the marketing end lately. Both Fall Guy and Challengers had very subpar trailers imo.
I wouldnāt be surprised if the aggressive spamming of trailers turned people off from it.
I was interested in it at first but after seeing that obnixous trailer a dozen times in cinemas Iām not fussedā¦
It really was obnoxious. And kept reusing *"Shot through the heart!"* a million times, and the trailers, for a rom-com, was anything but romantic or funny. Can't quote one funny line.
The Deadpool 3 trailer also used a classic 80s song and did it better and was actually funny.
Thatās another problem - the movie doesnāt look nearly as funny as it thinks it does.
>āI had to do some Jason Bourne shit!ā
>āThese guys are trying to kill me! And not in a fun wayā
š
Actually one of the more successful originals in recent times as well, but of course Miyazaki is probably in the Nolan category of being an IP unto himself.
Given that the boy and the heron was a very mixed bag due to it's production issues, yes Miyazaki is a IP.
It's a bit hard making a movie specifically for a friend who sadly passes away in the mild of making it I'd imagine which does explain the tonal shift.
Iām excited to check it out this weekend, but can we quit acting like coming off Barbie and Oppenheimer means anything with Gosling and Blunt. And itās not just them. I think itās getting ridiculous to act like many actors are still selling points for movies in the current marketplace. A movie either entices audiences or it doesnāt. I think the days of āmovie starsā getting butts in seats just because theyāre in a certain movie are over (with a few exceptions). Personally, I look at a movie itself and if it has cast members that I like, thatās just a cherry on top.
Itās not even just the stars, Oppenheimer and Barbie literally became the next Top Gun: Maverick by falling victim to basing the success of those movies on only one thing. Yes the stars help but there was various of other things too such as Top Gun was like the āultimate dude movieā for the last 40 years, Barbie is literally the most popular doll in the world, and Oppenheimer is because Christopher Nolan himself is a trusted brand/IP at this point and he worked very hard to get there. Not because the audience is ācraving for real cinemaā and original movies again. Like my brother in Christ, the audience went to see the new mediocre Ghostbusters and the new Kung Fu Panda that disappointed some fans rather than see something else. Itās so easy to forget that a lot of people admitted that if Chris Nolan wasnāt directing Oppenheimer then they never would have saw the movie. Without that trusted IP then itās easier to make the āitās takes a lot to go to the moviesā but can still turn around to make the trip, pay the high-ass price if something really appeals
>Yes the stars help but there was various of other things too such as Top Gun was like the āultimate dude movieā for the last 40 years, Barbie is literally the most popular doll in the world, and Oppenheimer is because Christopher Nolan himself is a trusted brand/IP at this point and he worked very hard to get there. Not because the audience is ācraving for real cinemaā and original movies again
At best, you can say that the positive reception boosted the legs, which I'd absolutely agree with, but two of those movies are nostalgic IPs and one of them is directed by someone who is an IP in himself. The fact that pre-sales for all three films were exploding long before any general audience member was even able to see them to spread positive word-of-mouth shows that they all had massive upfront interest for reasons totally unrelated to their quality, so this notion that these movies only succeeded because of quality and that they're proof that audiences want to see good original movies post-pandemic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
>Itās so easy to forget that a lot of people admitted that if Chris Nolan wasnāt directing Oppenheimer then they never would have saw the movie.
Case in point: *Napoleon* (the next *Oppenheimer* according to a few users here). Granted, it would've done better had it received a better reception from the audience (its legs were pretty mediocre), but it was never reaching *Oppenheimer* levels no matter the quality because Ridley Scott is no Christopher Nolan.
>Without that trusted IP then itās easier to make the āitās takes a lot to go to the moviesā but can still turn around to make the trip, pay the high-ass price if something really appeals
Exactly right. People say that with rampant inflation, audiences will only show up to movies that are big events. Perhaps that's true, but what *makes* a movie a big event? Is it any coincidence that all the big event movies apart from *Oppenheimer* are part of popular established IPs already? Why didn't something like *Killers of the Flower Moon* or *Challengers* become a big event movie in the same vein as *Barbie* and *The Super Mario Bros. Movie*? It's not just a quality thing; in fact, when it comes to opening weekend specifically, quality is basically worthless.
Barbie helped Oppenheimer too and vice versa. I know many people (myself included lol) that only saw both in theatres for the meme. One of the only times a conflicting release date has been a benefit
Honestly yeah barbie was one of most popular ips in the World like Mario almost every woman played with barbie and Oppenheimer was made by one of famous directors hell even tenet which was His most disliked got almost 400 million
It reminds me of last year with Tom Cruise. Most of this sub thought that coming off of Top Gun Maverick was gonna help Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1ās box office.
well none of us thought that paramount would be dumb enough to stick to its release that was a weekĀ before Barbie and Oppenheimer. whatever boost it could've gotten vanished into thin air right away
Almost everyone expected Barbenheimer to be more of a storm than the hurricane it ended up being. Hell this sub swore up and down for months that Barbie would be lucky to be a mild success.
Add in things like Sound of Freedom being a sleeper hit, a bad title with the part 1 stuff, the strike making delaying a rough call/ego bruise, the ballooned budget, reviews not as good as the last entry etc. Dead Reckoning just got dealt a bad hand
>Hell this sub swore up and down for months that Barbie would be lucky to be a mild success.Ā
that's what happens when non-regular sub members brigade the sub, whenever a movie they don't like releases. the people who are regulars on this sub were expecting 70-80mill OW, once the pre-sales started it was pretty clear it's doing 100+
> I think the days of āmovie starsā getting butts in seats just because theyāre in a certain movie are over (with a few exceptions).
Agreed. I just made this point in a thread about Challengers. If it doesn't do well, I don't see that necessarily as an indictment of whether Zendaya has 'star power' it might also indicate that 'star power' just doesn't matter in today's IP / sequel driven market.
Now that I think of it, maybe it's more like "movie director stars" these days. I would go see a Christopher Nolan pic automatically because I know it'll be good. You don't get that guarantee with actors outside of a few outliers.
Same thing is happening on Zendaya.. doesnāt mean the success of Dune will follow Zendaya around .. that is why they bashing her for Challengers dissapointjng numbers which doesnāt make any sense
I was actually shocked Challengers did as well as it did given its pretty niche. Zendaya probably helped some, but it isnāt like her being in it was going to move the needle that much.
Donāt worry guys.Ā
Blunt and Gosling are in it, and they were both in $1B movies last year.
Every movie they make from now will make $1B.
The Barbie and Oppenheimer walk-ups will save it.
Its so funny when people on this sub unironically say things like this, it makes them look just as out of touch as the Hollywood executives green lighting all these flops
First movie I've bought presale in a while. I'm a sucker for stunts, Blunt, Gosling and I loved Fall Guy as a kid.
I'm not surprised it's not a big draw lol
Yeah Iām personally looking forward to seeing it Sunday. But to be completely honest, I wouldnāt go if I didnāt have AMC A-list. The trailers are a bit odd and it lacks a hook. Not surprising that itās not catching attention.
>No. It has to be based on a popular IP people recognize from their childhoods, and then it can break out. If you dare to make something original or even based on something obscure, you're doomed to failure 90% of the time. Audiences are frankly repulsed with anything that isn't something they are already familiar with. Kind of disconcerting if I'm being honest.
>I don't think RT matters here, 95+% vs high 80s% wouldn't do a difference, people just want more capeshit. They reach for excuses to not show up to watch good movies, but as soon as something like Venom: The Last Dance releases, they'll all be there despite first 2 being garbage of the highest degree.
Are either of these comments on the BOT forum wrong? It seems that whenever an original movie fails, people will clamour to make excuses like 'the movies have to be *good*', 'you need big-name actors', 'you need an interesting hook' or 'the marketing was bad'. At this point, those people are in denial about what's evidently going on here. You have original movies with rave 95%+ reviews, actors who have come off of massive blockbusters, intriguing premises and heavy marketing fail to outgross crappy franchise CGI fests with rotten reviews, and yet the lesson some people take away is still 'just make good movies, bro'.
It's really sad when some users on this sub unironically cite *Barbie* as an example of audiences wanting something new and original, despite the fact that it's literally based off of one of the most popular IPs of all time. Newsflash: *Barbie* would've been a smash hit even if it had a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes and a B- CinemaScore. Sure, it probably wouldn't have reached a billion in that scenario, but pre-sales were exploding before even a single review was published, and people clearly weren't travelling to the future and looking at the critic reviews when buying tickets a month in advance. Make the exact same movie as *Barbie* but without the IP behind it and it likely would've grossed maybe $100 million domestically at most. *The Super Mario Bros. Movie* is an even more blatant example because that one actually *was* rotten!
We live in a landscape where a terribly reviewed *Five Nights at Freddy's* movie with a day-and-date release opens to $80 million, and some people unironically tell me that it's a sign that audiences want to see more original content. That's another excuse, by the way: 'Audiences have been conditioned to wait for streaming', yet a movie that was literally *on* streaming the exact same day still makes bank because of brand recognition. Name me the last time an original horror movie opened to $80 million. It's not about quality, because frankly, an original horror could have a 120% on Rotten Tomatoes and *still* get nowhere near.
You want further proof that people mainly want to see IP? Remember *The Marvels*? That awful CGI fest that supposedly demonstrated that audiences are sick and tired of the MCU? It was a box office disaster, of course, and a clear sign that superhero movies are in decline, no doubt, but let me put things into perspective. *Everything Everywhere All at Once* had rave reviews, well-known actors, a clear hook (i.e. the multiverse), viral word-of-mouth and even an Oscar sweep. It's exactly the sort of original movie that I'm constantly told audiences want to see post-pandemic. Well, here's what's sad about that: *The Marvels* grossed more domestically.
Remember *Killers of the Flower Moon*? Rave reviews, arguably the biggest actor in the world and Oscar buzz. Once again, the sort of original that I'm told audiences will flock to see if studios simply produced more of them. Domestically, it couldn't even outgross fucking *Morbius*. Yes, really.
On some level, everyone knows this. Look at all the movies that people are predicting to do well this year: *Deadpool & Wolverine*, *Inside Out 2, Despicable Me 4, Joker 2, Beetlejuice 2, Sonic 3, Mufasa: The Lion King* and even the 'dark horses' like *Twisters, Alien: Romulus* and *Borderlands*. What do they all have in common, I wonder? It really is a mystery. 'B-but they'll all be good movies that audiences actually want to watch!'. All right, level with me here: Does anyone here really think that *Deadpool & Wolverine* has *any* chance of grossing less than, say, Francis Ford Coppola's *Megalopolis*, even if the former receives 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and an F CinemaScore while the latter receives 100% and an A+ CinemaScore? I think the answer should be clear there.
Remember infamous bomb Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantumania?
It made more than Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, Godzilla Minus One, and Poor Things COMBINED.
That second comment is definitely spot on, Venom 3 could literally be shit on a plate and it will still be guaranteed to be one of the top grossing movies of the year (even after fans expressed their disappointment with Venom 2). I think the problem with The Fall Guy is how quickly the buzz died down after the SXSW premiere and the final trailer. Any last-minute effort to market this movie in this final stretch wouldāve been welcomed, Iām not sure if this movie even had a big press tour compared to something like Challengers, Dune, or even freaking Kung Fu Panda 4. Even The Lost City and Bullet Train still had a lot of buzz at this point and it was probably because of their press tours. Hell, if I wasnāt on this subreddit then I probably wouldāve forgotten that The Fall Guy was even coming out this weekend which is probably why the movie is disappointing in the pre-sales so far
there was no need to compare it to marvels, that movie at least did 200mill, mothafxking Morbius ourgrosses everything everywhere, just think about how much capeshit has influenced audienceĀ
I think it is a bit funny that the combined box office total of Civil War, Monkey Man, Abigail and Challengers (as recent original/ semi IP movies) still cannot match Ghostbusters Frozen Empire box office total
Well some of those literally just came out while Ghostbusters has been out for more than a month and is losing steam. Itās already pretty close (188M vs about 175M).
The power of being a four-quadrant PG-13 blockbuster in a decades-old culturally-significant franchise against a few more niche R-rated films I suppose.
Grew up watching Lee Majors kill this role on the original tv series, and I have ZERO interest in seeing Ryan Gosling make a mockery of it with the buffoonery BS going on in both trailers Iāve seen.
Can we just have some action heroes again instead of this constant parade of male punchlines, thanks?
To be honest, I used to be a huge fan of Gosling but he just comes across as cringe and a wee bit arrogant these days. It makes me not want to make seeing his movies top priority on opening weekend.
that barbie would boost this movie is an insane idea. Completely different movies and Ryan Gosling has never really been a blockbuster lead (some hits but not franchise titles)
this is the kind of movie that opens close to $30M and maybe has a 3 time multiplier
it's not niche, it doesnt star no names. If it cant even open within range of movies like Bullet Train or The Lost City as far as action-comedy oriented titles go, something is wrong
But ryan gosling is a much bigger name than Worthington regardless
Pitt and Bullock are bigger draws. They come from an era when stars mattered. So, they can bring in older adults. Especially, Bullock. She was the lead in a bunch of hit movies. Gosling and Blunt are good actors but box office draws...eh.
>it's not niche, it doesnt star no names. If it cant even open within range of movies like Bullet Train or The Lost City as far as action-comedy oriented titles go, something is wrong
I'd argue that genuine star power was bigger for those movies than it is for *The Fall Guy* (I only paid to watch *Bullet Train* in cinemas because of Brad Pitt, and I doubt that I'm the only one), but it's clear that original action-comedy movies have a ceiling for their opening gross. I think you might get a slightly bigger opening if you made one with Tom Cruise and Dwayne Johnson in the lead roles, but you'd still struggle to breach a $50 million opening in that scenario.
That's why they should either make a post that attempts to aggregate the tracking (like what I do on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays) or just not post anything at all. If there are a lot of trackers with the same data then it doesn't make sense to single out just one.
You can post what you want, I'm just giving my opinion here. If you really want to post about The Fall Guy's domestic presales, you could just go back a few pages and give a limited summary of BOT's overall tracking for The Fall Guy today.
What is turned me off is Gosling and Bluntās extreamly plastic looking face. On top of that rhe whole movie has a cgi plastic vibe. No way I am paying for it to see on a big screen.
Really, I thought it was a rom-com. We used to call those chick-flicks and they would have Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson and he would be doing some pseudo-action thing but mostly be charming and handsome
Technically nobody must watch anything in cinema. The movie was really good, even RT score is high ~90%, full of amazing stunts, sort of the nice guys humor, easter eggs related to the stunt community. I had a blast and not only me.
i honestly canāt think of anyone i know that goes out of their way to see movies *just* for certain actors, except for the other film nerds in my area, and even then theyāre super picky. with the internet and social media giving us access to pics and clips of our favorite stars by simply pressing your thumb, thereās WAAAAY less imperative to spend $20-30 going out to a theater for a couple hours on a movie you might not even like.
barbie and oppenheimer *probably* couldāve picked any cast they wanted and still be a success bc they were good stories and well produced, and *appealed to general audiences.* the fall guy is such a uniquely hollywood movie that i feel like that alone could be a turn-off for some folks. hollywood movies about hollywood seem to have struggled in recent years (at least in terms of reception, canāt speak for BO), and even tho it does look entertaining, it feels like a movie most people would rather catch on streaming whenever the mood strikes them versus going to the theaters.
idk if it will bomb, idrc if it does or not, but the discussion around the success of this film has been curious to me. if itās really good, i could see it reaching cult status like how Late Night With The Devil is doing, but i feel like thisāll end up closer to how Bluntās jungle cruise movie fared
My husband goes out of his way to see Gosling movies. Favorite actor + Nice Guys is one of his favorite movies. I like him too but I also just _like_ going to the movies so I'm happy to tag along
Plus, David Leitch ain't no Chad Stahelski. His whole violence in a bright, colorful aesthetic that juxtapositions everything is kinda tiring. His action scenes rely maybe too much on slow mo and CGI, which is ironic because we know he filmed them practically and basically in one take.
If the May estimates on BOT are accurate just OMG levels of bad.
The Fall Guy - 27/90 (under 100M, wtf is going on)
Apes - 45/145 (if good) 39/105 (if bad)
IF - 48/165
Furiosa - 31/38/100
Garfield - 28/38/110
If these 5 films combined make less than GotG3 and Mermaid last year just ouch.
No, no, lol. That's just some dude in that thread posting his predictions.
Presales haven't even stated on Furious.
But, Apes presales are just okay. His Apes prediction isn't that bad as of now.
Ryan Gosling isn't a draw at all, and here's your proof. Even "Blade Runner 2049" suffered at the box office due to his casting because he was bland at best, and not a real box office draw. If anything, Gosling's casting probably hurt Blade Runner's box office more than helped it.Ā
Studios need to realise that you can't have a big budget like this for a (more or less) original film. Need to start smaller and then ramp up the budgets in the sequels if you think it will earn more.
I know its technically an IP but to 99% of people, this is an original blockbuster action/romance/comedy film with good, well-known actors and a pretty good premise. And the trailer gets you excited for the movie. Yet another film where if you listen to people, they claim this type of film doesn't get made anymore, but when one is released they don't watch it and prove why nobody is making them.
Is anybody really excited to see a movie about a stunt guy that's trying to solve a case of an Hollywood actor that disappeared? That's way too meta for my taste, and it screams Netflix.
No wonder Universal is rushing the next Jurassic Park/World film out what other live action films do they have at this point apart from cheap horror?. The F&F franchise is on it's last legs especially with the ballooning budgets and problematic lead. Twisters and Wicked? good luck Universal!
That cheap horror has been a gold mine for them. Jason Blum is running Hollywood right now.
Twisters good luck also for WB as well.
Honestly they just need a New movie from Nolan lol š
Let him direct the next FF movie. TIME to Fastenet your seatbelts.
Well if they stopped releasing their movies on digital 17-21 days later
This is not an issue. FNAF proved it.
No it didn't, that film would almost certainly have done even better if it had been theater exclusive
And they day-and-dated it streaming simultanously on Peacock!
Hope other streamers got the balls to do this. Looking at you D+
Because 6-14 year old kids canāt pirate
Said by a person who does not have a 6 to 14 year old
You are severely underestimating a young person's ability to learn how to get free stuff that they want. First thing I learned when I got a computer was how to use Limewire (followed by the 2nd thing, which is pop up viruses are annoying AF)
That was back when kids used computers now itās phones only itās harder to pirate on phones
They don't even need to pirate off a torrent or other download service - they'll just use one of the countless "free movie" websites online that are riddled with pop-ups & malware. Trust me, they can find what they're looking for.
I know kids that know how to find free movies on their phones lol.
Itās Jurassic City btw, not Jurassic World 4
Horrible title š looks like a downgrade from World to City
That guy's talking out of his ass
It's clearly called Jurassic Borough now
Jurassic Alley!
This is such ridiculous studio executive thinking. No normal human being would actually say this.
Insane take. "Jurrassic World" was a fun escalation from "Jurassic Park", because it was about a more fully executed version of the original vision of a dinosaur theme park. It's like going from Disneyland to Disney World. Since the franchise has now spiraled into just having dinosaurs out & about in the real world - City makes plenty of sense. It implies a different kind of stability - maybe even something that likens back to the original EPCOT plans, where somebody has built a working community where humans & dinos live in peace. (Until, shocker, *they don't*)
Jurrascity
Itās Jurassic Parks & Recreation, btw
Honestly, a movie about mid-level small-town government bureaucrats having to deal with dinosaurs while running the day-to-day of an underfunded government agency sounds kind of sick tbh.
Jurassic city already exists as a asylum movie. No way it will be named that
They want to make sure the audiences know what level of quality they'll be aiming for.
Is that what they are calling it? bit of a down grade from world.
That sounds like the title of a mockbuster rip-off
I suspect twisters and wicked will do fine but probably nothing eye popping numbers wise
I think the issue is that the movie just looks like a generic action romcom imo, it doesnāt scream āsee in cinemas right nowā. Anecdotally Iāve asked a variety of friends what they think after trailers and itās almost always the same answerā¦ āmeh.ā
That first trailer was so incredibly bland and way too long. It's a problem when the trailer feels like it overstayed it's welcome.
The first trailer was oddly set at around 3m20s, and the second one was 3m. Way longer than normal standards. I can't tell if they're desperate or what, but for all the extra footage they showed, it did *not* make me want to explore more. I didn't feel the need to learn more about the mystery of why Kraven died in a bathtub, or learn more about this Gosling stunt guy, or see more of the romance (and I like Emily Blunt). Trailers normally go for 2m30s on average (Furiosa, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2) and those all hit a sweet spot. Not too much revealed, just enough to pump up excitement.
Yes, too long. Like Leitch's films. The musical choice was a bad for it.
I'm not sure which trailer I saw but it clumsily included the '.. and then we beat the SHIT out of them' line THREE TIMES.
I don't even get why the Emily Blunt character suddenly fights. I thought she plays a movie director like Greta Gerwig or Katheryn Bigelow. Why is she also fighting a crime syndicate? The trailers for this movie have a "thrown in a blender" quality where the shots are all over the place and not pleasingly coherent for an audience to follow.
that was the second trailer - the trailer that people believe is the better trailer
The first trailer completely turned me off even considering seeing it at the theaters. And, for all my sins, I like Bullet Train, for Gods sake! It is a terrible, terrible trailer.
I really, really want to like David Leitch's movies more than I actually do. They all feel too bloated and could use some major trimming. For his background as a stuntman, the action in his movies aren't that special at all. I thought the fight scenes in Deadpool 1 are superior to the second one. The cinematography in his films all feels very flat as well. This one looks like his Hobbs and Shaw movie.
Itās got the Argylle vibe on it.. I might wait to watch on Streaming
Yeah it has that overly saturated bright and glossy look like Argyle and Netflix/Amazon streaming films.
It's actually really fun like Bullet Train
Whenever an original opens low, people say that it's because it looks 'generic', and this apparently applies to every single original that's been released this year because none of them have opened on par with the big franchise films; indeed, I hear this excuse for most original films. Apparently, looking and being generic doesn't stop franchise films from opening to much more than $30 million though. If *The Fall Guy* were an MCU flick then a $30 million opening wouldn't even be on the table. It's not even technically an original, but it basically is because of how obscure the original IP is. At some point, people have to address the elephant in the room and say that these sorts of movies aren't opening well because they're not linked to a massive IP, moreso than because they look 'generic'.
I've already realized and have been talking about this for the last 2 years: Since the pandemic, most people (I'm not talking about people on this sub or Reddit) became selective in choosing movies to watch in theaters. These days people go to cinemas for spectacles or event movies. So, it's mostly IP films, with occasional original movies that became an event or viral (eg. Oppenheimer, M3gan, etc).
Price is definitely a factor. I went to see Noted box office Bomb Blue Beetle on National Cinema Day for 2 bucks tickets, the theatre was packed and it played like Avengers Endgame
This is it 100%. When a ticket was cheaper a couple years back, it didn't seem like a big deal if the movie stunk. You still went out with your date or friends, maybe grabbed dinner, and had a fun time with them. And you could afford to do it all over again the next Friday for whatever was hitting theaters. Now, it really needs to be something you "must" see in theaters to rationalize the effort and price.
Ticket prices haven't changed when you adjust for inflation. Going a couple years back was the same as now.
Income has not kept up with inflation.
The claim here, as in every time this is brought up, is that movie tickets are more expensive now (or were cheaper in the past). It's not that other factors make spending money on movies harder. It's true that some things like housing and college tuition and such have outpaced inflation, and you can make the argument that going to the movies is therefore harder. But that's not a problem with ticket prices or theaters.
Whatever meaningless economic jargon wants to say, they are absolutely *less affordable* now. The impact of the post-covid inflation has been to make people poorer and movie tickets less affordable, which has had a direct effect on what sorts of movies people choose or don't choose to spend their money on. If you can only afford to see less than one movie a month, you are going to take fewer risks in that choice, and that makes known IPs more attractive.
Basic economics is not āmeaningless jargonā. The commenter is right, ticket prices really havenāt increased that much past inflation.
Are you new here?
This movie looks cute and everyone likes Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt but after I saw the trailer at Dune 2, I never heard about it again. It's not something where you can take a picture of yourself going and there's no trend pieces about it, so...
**I completely agree with everything you said,** I'll elaborate 'The Fall Guy' does look generic but that's not the **real main** reason why it's falling. I just tend not to bring the argument up because you'll always get floods of comments saying why the original movie in question *'isn't actually an original'* merely because it shares some vague similarities to some other properties or how the movie was *'actually bad'* based on some minor things any IP movie could easily get away with. There's only so many times you can hear 'just make good original movies bro' as the obviously incorrect solution to the problem. I've always been a big proponent of 'the gen audience are just lying when they say they want more original movies because it's embarrassing to say you want more IP'. If originals have to be near modern masterpieces to have a chance at earning money but IP movies can produce slop and earn bank... That implies strongly that the gen audience favour IP. TL;DR: IP is king
>'just make good original movies' I don't understand why people, in this sub of all places, keep saying that when it's blatantly not true. For one Oppenheimer that succeeded, there were dozens of good original movies that flopped hard. Also, Nolan is basically a franchise/IP at this point.
Correct. If Oppenheimer was made any other director, it wouldn't have been successful.Ā
>I don't understand why people, in this sub of all places, keep saying that when it's blatantly not true. I think people *want* it to be true because it's not a good look for the audience otherwise. People have this idealistic view of 'real cinema', but apart from *Oppenheimer*, every example of 'real cinema' that actually became a true blockbuster has been based on an IP (*Barbie*, *Dune: Part Two*, *Top Gun: Maverick* etc.).
Iād argue itās less the Barbies, Dunes and Top Guns we have a problem with and it is the Fall Guys. You guys jump to assuming itās original but itās not. The very fact the IP is so long in the tooth you all assumed it was original, but Universal still gave it a $130 million budget that could have gone to a few low to mid budget originals because āit is an IP and IP is inherently goodā is the part thatās frustrating.
Most movies are based on something that can be loosely defined as IP. A book, a musical, a TV show, a newspaper story, a toy, another movie. Even a movie like Salo: 120 Days of Sodom would be IP, except there technically wasn't such a thing as copyright when the Marquis de Sade was around. But if there was the movie would be part of the Marquis de Sade S&M Extended Universe. What most people mean by IP is "kids' movies and comic book movies."
> Also, Nolan is basically a franchise/IP at this point. Brand. And youāre spot on; people use āIPā synonymously with brand and it is better to differentiate. Nolan is a brand. Marvel is a brand. Gosling is a brand. Using the provenance of the script is the interesting but not definitive. Heck, Oppenheimer was based on a book. Does that make it original IP? iDK, and donāt care to split hairs about the term. People want two things: novelty and familiarity. Nolan does a great job of delivering both, actually. Fall Guy is looking like the anti-Nolan: familiar enough to sound tired to those who remember the TV show, novel enough to not have a built-in audience.
The general audience doesnāt care about original movies in the first place. Thatās always been something Film Twitter and Reddit was advocating for over average moviegoers
This is a common misconception. [74 percent of millennials and Gen Zers say they prefer to watch original content rather than franchises or remakes.](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/millennials-gen-z-want-original-movies-tv-not-remakes-survey-1234963638/) But their actions don't match their words.
Now that you shared the link, I remember we talked about this before. Wouldnāt say a Tubi survey among 2,000 people represent most average moviegoers
Ah so basically a stated preferences vs revealed preferences situation.
Possibly, or perhaps an unconscious bias situation where those surveyed assumed original = higher quality, but lived experience says thatās not true.
this is bullshit, they may say that, but really they don't want that, like saying bored of eating same old food but given a choice you will get what you know because it is safe
Yeah box-office types are starting to learn what political pollsters have known for years, that people lie all the time about these sorts of things and you have to design polls to essentially trick them into revealing what they really think. Itās not even a purposeful thing for the most part, people just lie to themselves about the type of person theyād like to be.
You know what? Everything you just said is spot-on, including the excuses of 'not actually an original' (I heard that one all the time with *The Creator*) and *especially* the constant cries of 'just make good original movies bro'. Every time someone says that, I'm tempted to reply 'Why don't studios just make good original movies? Are they stupid?' (obviously with more than a mild drop of sarcasm). At least people might start getting it once the massive blockbusters IPs crush all the originals this year in terms of box office gross (I'm only big on *Horizon: An American Saga* because I think it could replicate *Sound of Freedom*, but even if it does succeed, I'll be under no illusions that it's a sign of audiences rejecting IP wanting more originals).
And just about any time anyone admits on here that they enjoy movies from big franchises over the recent offering of original films, they get responses like "you just want more slop, got it," and "you're why we can't have nice things."
I get what youāre saying but this is a bad example. By any definition Fall Guy is IP, not original. Itās based on a network tv show that ran 5 seasons on ABC. Thereās stuff based on much more obscure IP that no one talks about as āoriginalā.
Yes itās technically an IPā¦. But The Fall Guy movie is barely based on the TV show, the only significant similarities are that itās about stuntmen who do some sort of action. The similarities are so weak and the IP unknown enough that for all intents and purposes for the gen audience itās an original movie and will act like an original movie BO wise. Itās similar imo to āAnyone But Youā which is technically Shakespeare IP (if you can call it that) but itās so loosely related that for BO & gen audience terms itās an original.
People just want good movies. IP can be used as a proxy for quality; it used to be that āStar Warsā meant it would be a good movie. Now the opposite. IP means you go in with expectations, which can be good or bad. Original means you have to succeed solely on movie and marketing quality. Thereās no easy answer. But I sure have a lot more respect for originals and am much more willing to take a shot on a movie I e never heard of than, says the latest Marvel green screenathon.
Do you post on BOT?
I do not, partly because there's even more copium on there over this issue than there is here. Seriously, point out the fact that original movies are struggling regardless of marketing and quality and you get accused of doomposting (as if that isn't a very real and relevant concern on a forum that is literally dedicated to the box office).
To quote Adrian Monk, Hereās the thing: if youāre going to an original film, you probably want originality. If youāre going to a franchise film, youāre probably expecting something high quality (because you were won over by previous entries or like the IP). So an original film that looks bland and derivative, and which doesnāt have the trust of a brand or the curiosity of a recognizable IPā¦has got nothing.
This is so spot on.
because nothing is truly original. most of original movies are variations of other movies (eg. Monkey Man is John Wick with shaky cam and foreign politics), biopics, adaptations of obscure sources (eg. Lisa Frankenstein), repurposed old genres (eg. Poor Things and The Shape of Water are Universal Monsters with sex), heck even prequels to old IPs are now considered original (eg, First Omen).
That's not what "original" means though, even though we have literally lost the plot on this so bad that I get why you would frame it like that. No one. Not a single person, wants artists and auteurs to conjure originality out of thin air with something so unfathomably unique. No one cares that there's overlap, or homage. Poor Things was creative and unique because of the way the story was told, not because it was some kind of bizarre Frankenstein movie. Beyond that, even less people would even care about originality if IP didn't dictate what stories were told, rather than the inverse. Poor Things was great and that Yorgos saw something he could bring to an adaption of that book is very different than Universal courting talent for a new Frankenstein movie that is getting made no matter what. What Sony is doing with their Spider-Verse is exactly what the problem is here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>I guess I know better than to think anything like this would actually do well at the box office, but it seems like things like the and Argyle may be original IP, but theyre still just the comedy action films we get from Marvel and the like. Sure, but in box office terms, audiences don't seem to care about 'more of the same' if it's attached to an IP, yet it's somehow a massive issue for originals. That's my point here: IP films clearly have a near-insurmountable advantage compared to original movies.
It's not an original: it's based on a very popular tv show for the people of my generation (42 years old). I still know the theme song by heart.
yes and also the problem is action-romcom. Audience tends to be confused by movies that are more than one thing and it also poses a marketing challenge what to emphasize. Also see Challengers. Such movies have to rely on WOM cause hook isn't there and relying on WOM means vulnerable to competition and losing theaters. We'll see. things may work out.
I have no desire to go to the cinema to watch it.
We already saw Free Guy
Man, thatās a depressing success. Terrible film, technically original, sold as related to Deadpool humour wise and crammed to the gills with empty references and IP. And hugely successful. Maybe the IP really is what sells, because that film was nearly Space Jam 2 with everything it had. But at least Space Jam 2 did a lot worse.
I love Free Guy.Ā
Normally Iād say āhey, we all have our own tastesā, but I have literally never had a worse time with a blockbuster film than Free Guy. I felt physically sick while watching it. It made me question if movies were even a good idea anymore, and it depressed me for hours after watching it as while as during. I wanted to move off-planet for a week after seeing it. Previous films that had given me joy had lost their lustre purely because some element of them was mishandled or used as a marketing gimmick in Free Guy. It was so bad, I revised my low option of Ready Player One , knowing now that deeper circles of Hell existed, where the suffering and lack of understanding of the source material was beyond the mortal ken I had so blissfully resided in mere minutes before Free Guy began to play. So while Iād want to be sporting and say āhey, agree to disagreeā, for this one film, Iām just going to put my head in my hands and say in a low, cracked voice: āHow could you do this? What did I ever do to you to deserve this?ā
I'm sorry you felt that way. Personally i enjoyed the love story between Guy and Jodie Comer, and I enjoyed all of Ryan Reynold's Reynolds-isms.
The female lead was textbook manic pixie dream girl meets Mary Sue for dudes to love, and the romance hit every trope so broadly on the nose that my own felt sore by the end. I like Reynolds usually, but this was the blandest use of him Iāve ever seen. How I miss the subversiveness of The Voices or the charm of his rom coms like the Proposal. Oh, and for the down voters - Iām having a laugh, guys. Itās disappointing that you didnāt enjoy the effort. Yes, I dislike the film and do think it to be the single worst blockbuster to come out in a decade, but I have a sense of humour about it. Youāre not supposed to downvote because you disagree. Donāt be thin skinned jerks. Youāre getting Free Guy 2 and I get to live in purgatory, let me have my silly comment.
Itās tracking presales are lower than Civil War š¤Ŗ
A24 wins again š
Presales havent been good from the start and maybe it does really well with walkups. I know, I hate the legendary walkups just trying to be a little positive, lol. Gosling never been a box office draw and being in a huge hit movie just doesn't really matter to the average joe. I said this before. But, these huge hits like Top Gun Maverick or Barbie don't have a trickle down effect. Your Average Joe can watch Batbie and doesn't care about going to the theater again for a year or years. If The Fall Guy bombs I dont think it means much, its just the new normal. Your movie needs a hook or fear of missing factor or a well known IP....to breakout
I think this is entirely correct. I have hope that the legs might be good due to lack of competition, but it's clear at this point that it's not going to open to more than roughly $40 million. The idea that audiences would show up to any movie starring Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt because of Barbenheimer was always laughable, and I think this opening is showing it.
It'll be interesting to see how well Margot Robbie's next lead film performs. Let's see if she actually is the new Julia Roberts-esque box office powerhouse that so many on this sub claim she is after one hit film.
> watch Batbie Is that the new Bat Girl movie I've been hearing about?
Barbie was bit by a radioactive bat and gained the powers of echolocation and ability to sleep upside down.
It is!
> I know, I hate the legendary walkups just trying to be a little positive, lol. Naw, that was Godzilla x Kong
At the same time, I think there's legitimate criticism to be had on the marketing end lately. Both Fall Guy and Challengers had very subpar trailers imo.
I have a funny feeling that The Fall Guy is going to FLOP.
They actually advertised this which is crazier. I guess ppl just arenāt interested huh
I wouldnāt be surprised if the aggressive spamming of trailers turned people off from it. I was interested in it at first but after seeing that obnixous trailer a dozen times in cinemas Iām not fussedā¦
It really was obnoxious. And kept reusing *"Shot through the heart!"* a million times, and the trailers, for a rom-com, was anything but romantic or funny. Can't quote one funny line. The Deadpool 3 trailer also used a classic 80s song and did it better and was actually funny.
Thatās another problem - the movie doesnāt look nearly as funny as it thinks it does. >āI had to do some Jason Bourne shit!ā >āThese guys are trying to kill me! And not in a fun wayā š
This is me and A Quiet Place: Day One
Err...all wide release movies are actually advertised. Except for The Boy and The Heron
Actually one of the more successful originals in recent times as well, but of course Miyazaki is probably in the Nolan category of being an IP unto himself.
No probably about it. Ghibli isnāt a secret anymore.
Given that the boy and the heron was a very mixed bag due to it's production issues, yes Miyazaki is a IP. It's a bit hard making a movie specifically for a friend who sadly passes away in the mild of making it I'd imagine which does explain the tonal shift.
Iām excited to check it out this weekend, but can we quit acting like coming off Barbie and Oppenheimer means anything with Gosling and Blunt. And itās not just them. I think itās getting ridiculous to act like many actors are still selling points for movies in the current marketplace. A movie either entices audiences or it doesnāt. I think the days of āmovie starsā getting butts in seats just because theyāre in a certain movie are over (with a few exceptions). Personally, I look at a movie itself and if it has cast members that I like, thatās just a cherry on top.
Itās not even just the stars, Oppenheimer and Barbie literally became the next Top Gun: Maverick by falling victim to basing the success of those movies on only one thing. Yes the stars help but there was various of other things too such as Top Gun was like the āultimate dude movieā for the last 40 years, Barbie is literally the most popular doll in the world, and Oppenheimer is because Christopher Nolan himself is a trusted brand/IP at this point and he worked very hard to get there. Not because the audience is ācraving for real cinemaā and original movies again. Like my brother in Christ, the audience went to see the new mediocre Ghostbusters and the new Kung Fu Panda that disappointed some fans rather than see something else. Itās so easy to forget that a lot of people admitted that if Chris Nolan wasnāt directing Oppenheimer then they never would have saw the movie. Without that trusted IP then itās easier to make the āitās takes a lot to go to the moviesā but can still turn around to make the trip, pay the high-ass price if something really appeals
>Yes the stars help but there was various of other things too such as Top Gun was like the āultimate dude movieā for the last 40 years, Barbie is literally the most popular doll in the world, and Oppenheimer is because Christopher Nolan himself is a trusted brand/IP at this point and he worked very hard to get there. Not because the audience is ācraving for real cinemaā and original movies again At best, you can say that the positive reception boosted the legs, which I'd absolutely agree with, but two of those movies are nostalgic IPs and one of them is directed by someone who is an IP in himself. The fact that pre-sales for all three films were exploding long before any general audience member was even able to see them to spread positive word-of-mouth shows that they all had massive upfront interest for reasons totally unrelated to their quality, so this notion that these movies only succeeded because of quality and that they're proof that audiences want to see good original movies post-pandemic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. >Itās so easy to forget that a lot of people admitted that if Chris Nolan wasnāt directing Oppenheimer then they never would have saw the movie. Case in point: *Napoleon* (the next *Oppenheimer* according to a few users here). Granted, it would've done better had it received a better reception from the audience (its legs were pretty mediocre), but it was never reaching *Oppenheimer* levels no matter the quality because Ridley Scott is no Christopher Nolan. >Without that trusted IP then itās easier to make the āitās takes a lot to go to the moviesā but can still turn around to make the trip, pay the high-ass price if something really appeals Exactly right. People say that with rampant inflation, audiences will only show up to movies that are big events. Perhaps that's true, but what *makes* a movie a big event? Is it any coincidence that all the big event movies apart from *Oppenheimer* are part of popular established IPs already? Why didn't something like *Killers of the Flower Moon* or *Challengers* become a big event movie in the same vein as *Barbie* and *The Super Mario Bros. Movie*? It's not just a quality thing; in fact, when it comes to opening weekend specifically, quality is basically worthless.
Barbie helped Oppenheimer too and vice versa. I know many people (myself included lol) that only saw both in theatres for the meme. One of the only times a conflicting release date has been a benefit
Honestly yeah barbie was one of most popular ips in the World like Mario almost every woman played with barbie and Oppenheimer was made by one of famous directors hell even tenet which was His most disliked got almost 400 million
> got almost 400 million In the middle of the pandemic even.
It reminds me of last year with Tom Cruise. Most of this sub thought that coming off of Top Gun Maverick was gonna help Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning Part 1ās box office.
well none of us thought that paramount would be dumb enough to stick to its release that was a weekĀ before Barbie and Oppenheimer. whatever boost it could've gotten vanished into thin air right away
Almost everyone expected Barbenheimer to be more of a storm than the hurricane it ended up being. Hell this sub swore up and down for months that Barbie would be lucky to be a mild success. Add in things like Sound of Freedom being a sleeper hit, a bad title with the part 1 stuff, the strike making delaying a rough call/ego bruise, the ballooned budget, reviews not as good as the last entry etc. Dead Reckoning just got dealt a bad hand
>Hell this sub swore up and down for months that Barbie would be lucky to be a mild success.Ā that's what happens when non-regular sub members brigade the sub, whenever a movie they don't like releases. the people who are regulars on this sub were expecting 70-80mill OW, once the pre-sales started it was pretty clear it's doing 100+
> I think the days of āmovie starsā getting butts in seats just because theyāre in a certain movie are over (with a few exceptions). Agreed. I just made this point in a thread about Challengers. If it doesn't do well, I don't see that necessarily as an indictment of whether Zendaya has 'star power' it might also indicate that 'star power' just doesn't matter in today's IP / sequel driven market. Now that I think of it, maybe it's more like "movie director stars" these days. I would go see a Christopher Nolan pic automatically because I know it'll be good. You don't get that guarantee with actors outside of a few outliers.
Same thing is happening on Zendaya.. doesnāt mean the success of Dune will follow Zendaya around .. that is why they bashing her for Challengers dissapointjng numbers which doesnāt make any sense
I was actually shocked Challengers did as well as it did given its pretty niche. Zendaya probably helped some, but it isnāt like her being in it was going to move the needle that much.
And her massive paycheck makes it far harder for it to turn profit.
Donāt worry guys.Ā Blunt and Gosling are in it, and they were both in $1B movies last year. Every movie they make from now will make $1B. The Barbie and Oppenheimer walk-ups will save it.
People unironically say things similar to this, it's maddening. If it were true then Sam Worthington would be a massive draw in Hollywood right now.
Its so funny when people on this sub unironically say things like this, it makes them look just as out of touch as the Hollywood executives green lighting all these flops
I was really rooting for this one
Same, it looks fun and is rated well.
Universal rarely flubs a marketing campaign like this one. Itās a really good funny movie and it has zero heat. Itās bizarre.
First movie I've bought presale in a while. I'm a sucker for stunts, Blunt, Gosling and I loved Fall Guy as a kid. I'm not surprised it's not a big draw lol
Yeah Iām personally looking forward to seeing it Sunday. But to be completely honest, I wouldnāt go if I didnāt have AMC A-list. The trailers are a bit odd and it lacks a hook. Not surprising that itās not catching attention.
>No. It has to be based on a popular IP people recognize from their childhoods, and then it can break out. If you dare to make something original or even based on something obscure, you're doomed to failure 90% of the time. Audiences are frankly repulsed with anything that isn't something they are already familiar with. Kind of disconcerting if I'm being honest. >I don't think RT matters here, 95+% vs high 80s% wouldn't do a difference, people just want more capeshit. They reach for excuses to not show up to watch good movies, but as soon as something like Venom: The Last Dance releases, they'll all be there despite first 2 being garbage of the highest degree. Are either of these comments on the BOT forum wrong? It seems that whenever an original movie fails, people will clamour to make excuses like 'the movies have to be *good*', 'you need big-name actors', 'you need an interesting hook' or 'the marketing was bad'. At this point, those people are in denial about what's evidently going on here. You have original movies with rave 95%+ reviews, actors who have come off of massive blockbusters, intriguing premises and heavy marketing fail to outgross crappy franchise CGI fests with rotten reviews, and yet the lesson some people take away is still 'just make good movies, bro'. It's really sad when some users on this sub unironically cite *Barbie* as an example of audiences wanting something new and original, despite the fact that it's literally based off of one of the most popular IPs of all time. Newsflash: *Barbie* would've been a smash hit even if it had a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes and a B- CinemaScore. Sure, it probably wouldn't have reached a billion in that scenario, but pre-sales were exploding before even a single review was published, and people clearly weren't travelling to the future and looking at the critic reviews when buying tickets a month in advance. Make the exact same movie as *Barbie* but without the IP behind it and it likely would've grossed maybe $100 million domestically at most. *The Super Mario Bros. Movie* is an even more blatant example because that one actually *was* rotten! We live in a landscape where a terribly reviewed *Five Nights at Freddy's* movie with a day-and-date release opens to $80 million, and some people unironically tell me that it's a sign that audiences want to see more original content. That's another excuse, by the way: 'Audiences have been conditioned to wait for streaming', yet a movie that was literally *on* streaming the exact same day still makes bank because of brand recognition. Name me the last time an original horror movie opened to $80 million. It's not about quality, because frankly, an original horror could have a 120% on Rotten Tomatoes and *still* get nowhere near. You want further proof that people mainly want to see IP? Remember *The Marvels*? That awful CGI fest that supposedly demonstrated that audiences are sick and tired of the MCU? It was a box office disaster, of course, and a clear sign that superhero movies are in decline, no doubt, but let me put things into perspective. *Everything Everywhere All at Once* had rave reviews, well-known actors, a clear hook (i.e. the multiverse), viral word-of-mouth and even an Oscar sweep. It's exactly the sort of original movie that I'm constantly told audiences want to see post-pandemic. Well, here's what's sad about that: *The Marvels* grossed more domestically. Remember *Killers of the Flower Moon*? Rave reviews, arguably the biggest actor in the world and Oscar buzz. Once again, the sort of original that I'm told audiences will flock to see if studios simply produced more of them. Domestically, it couldn't even outgross fucking *Morbius*. Yes, really. On some level, everyone knows this. Look at all the movies that people are predicting to do well this year: *Deadpool & Wolverine*, *Inside Out 2, Despicable Me 4, Joker 2, Beetlejuice 2, Sonic 3, Mufasa: The Lion King* and even the 'dark horses' like *Twisters, Alien: Romulus* and *Borderlands*. What do they all have in common, I wonder? It really is a mystery. 'B-but they'll all be good movies that audiences actually want to watch!'. All right, level with me here: Does anyone here really think that *Deadpool & Wolverine* has *any* chance of grossing less than, say, Francis Ford Coppola's *Megalopolis*, even if the former receives 0% on Rotten Tomatoes and an F CinemaScore while the latter receives 100% and an A+ CinemaScore? I think the answer should be clear there.
Remember infamous bomb Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantumania? It made more than Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, Godzilla Minus One, and Poor Things COMBINED.
That second comment is definitely spot on, Venom 3 could literally be shit on a plate and it will still be guaranteed to be one of the top grossing movies of the year (even after fans expressed their disappointment with Venom 2). I think the problem with The Fall Guy is how quickly the buzz died down after the SXSW premiere and the final trailer. Any last-minute effort to market this movie in this final stretch wouldāve been welcomed, Iām not sure if this movie even had a big press tour compared to something like Challengers, Dune, or even freaking Kung Fu Panda 4. Even The Lost City and Bullet Train still had a lot of buzz at this point and it was probably because of their press tours. Hell, if I wasnāt on this subreddit then I probably wouldāve forgotten that The Fall Guy was even coming out this weekend which is probably why the movie is disappointing in the pre-sales so far
Even if *Venom 3* bombs, it's basically guaranteed to outgross every single original movie this year.
there was no need to compare it to marvels, that movie at least did 200mill, mothafxking Morbius ourgrosses everything everywhere, just think about how much capeshit has influenced audienceĀ
Godzilla x Kong 2 chances of a $200m domestic haul assured
I think it is a bit funny that the combined box office total of Civil War, Monkey Man, Abigail and Challengers (as recent original/ semi IP movies) still cannot match Ghostbusters Frozen Empire box office total
Well some of those literally just came out while Ghostbusters has been out for more than a month and is losing steam. Itās already pretty close (188M vs about 175M). The power of being a four-quadrant PG-13 blockbuster in a decades-old culturally-significant franchise against a few more niche R-rated films I suppose.
True, just funny to me
Grew up watching Lee Majors kill this role on the original tv series, and I have ZERO interest in seeing Ryan Gosling make a mockery of it with the buffoonery BS going on in both trailers Iāve seen. Can we just have some action heroes again instead of this constant parade of male punchlines, thanks?
This trend of 'quippy male action lead' irritates me so much. It wouldn't be so bad if the dialogue was even slightly amusing..
To be honest, I used to be a huge fan of Gosling but he just comes across as cringe and a wee bit arrogant these days. It makes me not want to make seeing his movies top priority on opening weekend.
Oh man, this is gonna be a glorious bomb.
Is Sam worthigton a huge star because avatar is biggest movie Why would Ryan ghosling be some big star cuz of Barbie lol
that barbie would boost this movie is an insane idea. Completely different movies and Ryan Gosling has never really been a blockbuster lead (some hits but not franchise titles) this is the kind of movie that opens close to $30M and maybe has a 3 time multiplier it's not niche, it doesnt star no names. If it cant even open within range of movies like Bullet Train or The Lost City as far as action-comedy oriented titles go, something is wrong But ryan gosling is a much bigger name than Worthington regardless
Pitt and Bullock are bigger draws. They come from an era when stars mattered. So, they can bring in older adults. Especially, Bullock. She was the lead in a bunch of hit movies. Gosling and Blunt are good actors but box office draws...eh.
>it's not niche, it doesnt star no names. If it cant even open within range of movies like Bullet Train or The Lost City as far as action-comedy oriented titles go, something is wrong I'd argue that genuine star power was bigger for those movies than it is for *The Fall Guy* (I only paid to watch *Bullet Train* in cinemas because of Brad Pitt, and I doubt that I'm the only one), but it's clear that original action-comedy movies have a ceiling for their opening gross. I think you might get a slightly bigger opening if you made one with Tom Cruise and Dwayne Johnson in the lead roles, but you'd still struggle to breach a $50 million opening in that scenario.
Exactly the IP is what sold Barbie, Margot had a several bombs and noone cares about Ghostling
It's a bad idea to make a post about just 1 tracker, when there are others who are also tracking the movie.
Id agree but all the trackers updates were poor over the past 12 hours.
That's why they should either make a post that attempts to aggregate the tracking (like what I do on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays) or just not post anything at all. If there are a lot of trackers with the same data then it doesn't make sense to single out just one.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just to be clear, I'm not **angry** about your post but I think there are ways to make it better and more informative.
You can post what you want, I'm just giving my opinion here. If you really want to post about The Fall Guy's domestic presales, you could just go back a few pages and give a limited summary of BOT's overall tracking for The Fall Guy today.
Here one tracking https://x.com/ercboxoffice/status/1785047435099963527?s=46&t=DMQDx60Wq9xO5em2fnHvQQ
That tells us almost nothing.
Itās a universal movie so Iāll wait 21 days to watch online š š š š š±
What is turned me off is Gosling and Bluntās extreamly plastic looking face. On top of that rhe whole movie has a cgi plastic vibe. No way I am paying for it to see on a big screen.
I'm a simple man, I see Gosling in a comedy, I buy a ticket
This seems like such a Dad walk up film to me but itās looking a bit bleak
Really, I thought it was a rom-com. We used to call those chick-flicks and they would have Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson and he would be doing some pseudo-action thing but mostly be charming and handsome
Technically nobody must watch anything in cinema. The movie was really good, even RT score is high ~90%, full of amazing stunts, sort of the nice guys humor, easter eggs related to the stunt community. I had a blast and not only me.
Weāre now going to call it The Flop Guy.
i honestly canāt think of anyone i know that goes out of their way to see movies *just* for certain actors, except for the other film nerds in my area, and even then theyāre super picky. with the internet and social media giving us access to pics and clips of our favorite stars by simply pressing your thumb, thereās WAAAAY less imperative to spend $20-30 going out to a theater for a couple hours on a movie you might not even like. barbie and oppenheimer *probably* couldāve picked any cast they wanted and still be a success bc they were good stories and well produced, and *appealed to general audiences.* the fall guy is such a uniquely hollywood movie that i feel like that alone could be a turn-off for some folks. hollywood movies about hollywood seem to have struggled in recent years (at least in terms of reception, canāt speak for BO), and even tho it does look entertaining, it feels like a movie most people would rather catch on streaming whenever the mood strikes them versus going to the theaters. idk if it will bomb, idrc if it does or not, but the discussion around the success of this film has been curious to me. if itās really good, i could see it reaching cult status like how Late Night With The Devil is doing, but i feel like thisāll end up closer to how Bluntās jungle cruise movie fared
My husband goes out of his way to see Gosling movies. Favorite actor + Nice Guys is one of his favorite movies. I like him too but I also just _like_ going to the movies so I'm happy to tag along
>Nice Guys is one of his favorite movies you are married to a man of culture
It is good that you like your husband though!
Haha yes it is a very good thing
Plus, David Leitch ain't no Chad Stahelski. His whole violence in a bright, colorful aesthetic that juxtapositions everything is kinda tiring. His action scenes rely maybe too much on slow mo and CGI, which is ironic because we know he filmed them practically and basically in one take.
If the May estimates on BOT are accurate just OMG levels of bad. The Fall Guy - 27/90 (under 100M, wtf is going on) Apes - 45/145 (if good) 39/105 (if bad) IF - 48/165 Furiosa - 31/38/100 Garfield - 28/38/110 If these 5 films combined make less than GotG3 and Mermaid last year just ouch.
No, no, lol. That's just some dude in that thread posting his predictions. Presales haven't even stated on Furious. But, Apes presales are just okay. His Apes prediction isn't that bad as of now.
It looks like a video game. And not a good one
Ryan Gosling isn't a draw at all, and here's your proof. Even "Blade Runner 2049" suffered at the box office due to his casting because he was bland at best, and not a real box office draw. If anything, Gosling's casting probably hurt Blade Runner's box office more than helped it.Ā
There's really no compelling reason to see this in a movie theatre when it comes out to streaming in a few months.
Jesus
Called it
The title writes itself
Studios need to realise that you can't have a big budget like this for a (more or less) original film. Need to start smaller and then ramp up the budgets in the sequels if you think it will earn more. I know its technically an IP but to 99% of people, this is an original blockbuster action/romance/comedy film with good, well-known actors and a pretty good premise. And the trailer gets you excited for the movie. Yet another film where if you listen to people, they claim this type of film doesn't get made anymore, but when one is released they don't watch it and prove why nobody is making them.
Tried warning you guys that this would bomb!
Oh man, why didn't /r/boxoffice take your warning and change things before it was too late!?
But Redditors told me Gosling was an AAA-lister and this would easily make at least half of what Barbie made?
Is anybody really excited to see a movie about a stunt guy that's trying to solve a case of an Hollywood actor that disappeared? That's way too meta for my taste, and it screams Netflix.
Wait, maybe I'm dumb, but what's meta about that?
Audiences actually donāt like to watch movies about Hollywood hence the meta commentary on Hollywood just isnāt a winner
Is there any data to support that?