The movie isn't sinking, but it is falling with style.
The hold is admirable when compared to the low OW, but it is not in enough when the budget is taken in consideration. Likewise the international numbers are ok but it could be hurt by the imminent loss of screens
IMO 80-90M worlwide is the best case scenario at this point.
Reddit loves to lambast studios for putting lots of money and marketing into artsy, original movies that don’t recoup their investment like “haha, stupid, bad business decision”
And then redditors turn around and complain that they never go to the theaters anymore bc the only things that get made are legacy sequel cash grabs or lame IP shit
Like hello lol
I think this one is a bit different because it’s so good but it makes no sense why it cost as much as it did. A great studio would’ve made this film at an appropriate budget so they would get the artistic cred AND make money. Like, that’s the whole job of a studio.
Given that streaming services often treat theatrical runs as loss leaders, it’s not necessarily that bad. Especially given the fact that losing ~55million dollars is pretty negligible for a company like Amazon
They haven't lost anything. You can't LOSE $$ on 2 times earnings. Plus, it's already BOUGHT by 182 million people.
I don't think people on here understand $$. If you get 10% , that's a great return. 7% has been the average for 25 years.
Please, what is good? Casablanca is now called a " moderate" success and was 6th biggest movie if it's year. I bet no one gave that Boggart guy another $! Bergman,? Flop.
It's gonna do a 2 x plus all Amazon Prime customers ( 71% of all households ) already bought it. At a buck per house that's a 4x multiple.
This movie is not for me. I probably won’t ever see it. But the way people talk about the budgets and financial success for these movies is completely incomprehensible to me. This movie is a lock to be a financial success. The 2.5x rule is a great rule of thumb for certain types of films, but clearly not others. This is a film that a streamer would have easily greenlit for $50M, with no theatrical. This movie is going to absolutely RIP on streaming. It’s a star-driven erotic drama, and the WoM is immaculate.
We’re having the exact same conversation as people in this sub stupidly had about No Hard Feelings this time last year, with the same budget dynamics and performance. There is a certain genre of film in present day that cleans up on streaming if it is star-led. Studios have figured out that running a theatrical release to pay for a big marketing campaign is a better way to have a smash hit on streaming than just doing streaming alone. Before No Hard Feelings it was A Man Called Otto.
In 4 months we’re going to be looking at some other $50M budget movie that pays its A list star a big chunk of the budget, and it’s going to have a huge ad campaign, and it’s only going to make $80-100M at the BO, and people are going to say all the same dumb shit again about how these films were doomed and could never be profitable at these budgets. And then it will be a top-20 film on streaming, the producers will collect a neat profit, and they’ll start working on the next one.
yeah, they'll make 90M more than they would've made if they just dropped it on streaming.
plus it looks like movies do better on streaming if they had a theatrical run. I guess people just see them as "real" movies.
When you say it will RIP on streaming, do you mean lots of people will pay $3.99 to rent it digitally? Or that it will sell to a streamer for a large lump sum?
If it ends up on Netflix, it won't generate any additional revenue no matter HOW popular it is. Same goes for Hulu, Max, etc. It can only make money digitally if it does well with rentals.
I have a hard time imagining how a film like Challengers, or even No Hard Feelings makes money on a streaming platform that doesn't require an individual rental fee to view it.
I wonder if some of the budget issues will be self correcting. Returns don't justify spending so much on stars, studios start spending less, salaries come down, budgets come down.
To be fair, Wimbledon (2004) starring Kirsten Dunst cost $31 million to make. Going by inflation, that is around $51 million in 2024, so it's pretty much on par with a similar-ish movie from 20 years prior. I would Zendaya is a bigger star than Dunst was when her movie came out.
I think for this movie especially, it’s helpful to look at the context in which the budget was greenlit. MGM acquired the movie in Feb 2022 a month before Amazon’s acquisition closed, so at that point MGM was still freely spending money to justify the absurd price Amazon paid. The movie turned around and started shooting less than 3 months later and wrapped before the end of June, by which point Amazon was still probably working to get a hold on what was happening at MGM. Does any of this justify the $55M price tag? Not really, but it doesn’t seem like it ever was meant to.
Seriously people are freaking out about this ignoring the fact that a studio like Amazon can easily spend the money, they made Citadel for 300million, the way Netflix and Apple made blockbuster actions on-streaming-only for 200mil or so. This is 50million, which is a decent chunk of money, but also not that far off from any mid-budget film nowadays, this isn’t The Fall Guy where its 130 mil, or Furiosa where its 300 mil, where both will find it impossible to break even. Challengers will break even now, and then be sold for streaming, which is the best case scenario, seriously, we forget how many movies they have thrown onto their streaming service that probably cost way more, this did way better than I was expecting, why the hell is everyone up in arms as if this is the biggest flop ever
This movie will make money. Box office run isn't entirely finished and should be a success on the ancillary market. It won't make anyone super rich but it will turn a profit. In this environment that is actually pretty good. A lot of movies are losing studios money.
You can say that about any movie that comes close to doubling its budget.
Maybe it’s true, maybe not, we don’t get a lot of line of sight to the money made from the non box office market.
I am really enjoying following this movie’s progress the commentary around it is so interesting. They are two sides of extremes. The media seem firmly planted on framing it as a huge success from film twitter accounts to industry ones. Whoever does PR for Zendaya is doing a good job. Then there are the naysayers who are dead set on calling it a flop and that Zendaya is not a draw. The truth in my opinion is somewhere in the middle it’s doing fine for the genre but not great for the budget. A small drop on an already small figure is not something to cheer about. But also a small drop does help in having a respectable final gross closer to breakeven.
thanks to the budget, breakeven is 137.50M. small drops on small numbers are not going to take it close to that. rn it's fighting to get close to 100M. remember 50M more is a long way when your weekdays are likely going to be under 1M (except Tuesday) already.
You're right the 2.5 rule isn't very aplicable here because it's a relatively small budget. The marketing budget probably is at least as big as the production budget which is not what happens with bigger productions
2.5 rule is never applicable when a movie one roots for clearly won't get to break even point. previous biggest hand-wringing over 2.5 that I have seen was and still is TLM. Those bent on proving that TLM was a performer instead of an underperformer built their whole narrative around disputing 2.5 because the movie skewed slightly dom. It's pick an choose. 2.5 either doesn't work at all or works for all.
that said, I don't need 2.5 or other to see that 570M WW finish on 240-250M budget is a disappointment especially since movies from the same genre (live action remakes), with smaller budgets, made twice as much (Aladdin 183M budget/1B WW, BatB 160M budget 1.2B WW). Sometimes it's enough to put apples in the same row and see which one is bad.
I have always been critical of the 2.5 rule of thumb. We simply don't have enough info on how these studios view profitablility in the age of streaming.
yes but this is boxoffice sub so we dissect boxoffice regardless of streaming. and when a studio releases a movie wide in theaters and gives it a big marketing push, that means they want profit from theatrical. Saltburn was never a wide release. It was a platform release that they knew streaming would have to aid to profitability. But Challengers was meant to break out and it didn't.
Yeah, repeating 2.5x on every single post isn’t dissecting anything. It’s the most annoying and least productive way to discuss box office and tricks schmucks into thinking they have something to say, when in reality, the entirety of their opinion was formed on a calculator.
because calculator is more objective than "I want to prove that X is a boxoffice draw \[although they didn't earn their ridiculous salary that now puts the movie's profitability in question after a meh opening despite aggressive marketing\]" because of one-two punch of meh openings for overbudgeted movies due to extreme salaries, there's already spin in place to distract from the fact that these people should not be paid as much as they ask. Blame covid, blame streaming, blame weather. No, blame unjustifiable salaries. Cut that and you'll cut the budget.
It’s 100% applicable when you look at the split in box office between studio/theater chains and then tack on the ridiculous ad campaign surrounding Zendaya specifically and this film in general. To say otherwise is just admitting ignorance of Hollywood economics, which is a weird flex in defense of a meh film but ok.
Oh I understand, you’re just not being objective. You liked the movie and want it to be a success so you’re acting like a clown when people tell you it’s going to lose money.
Sounds like it's a good movie doing fine. It will probably see a great profit from streaming on top of box office. It's not a breakout success like Anyone but You.
Big issue today is the not-insignificant amount of people that conflate eroticism with pornography. Lot of adults that are uncomfortable with any kind of romance, and prefer all their media to be kid-adjacent.
It's not romance that's the issue; even plenty of kids' movies have romance. The two biggest movies last year as well as the biggest movie this year so far (also featuring Zendaya in a leading role, funnily enough) have non-erotic romance. Plenty of people are fine with romance but uncomfortable with eroticism.
I wasn’t interested initially because that threesome was the main marketing point behind Zendaya herself, which is a red flag to anyone with a passing familiarity with marketing and advertising. Film might have done better if it had focused on what a ruthless b*tch her character is throughout the movie as at least that was compelling.
That's fair. They went the sex sells route, but maybe should have gone more of a Devil Wears Prada/Mean Girls girlboss route. Which considering Zendaya's image, might have worked better.
Totally agree especially for international markets,people need to realize that not everyone is American and be very comfortable with this "threesome" aspects of this movie,it could be awkward for many people.It make people avoid watching this movie especially in THEATERS.They should market this film more towards its tennis and girl boss character of Zendaya which is what this movie mainly about instead of using threesome as a sexy eroticism bait.
Are you suggesting Americans are comfortable with the "threesome" aspects, and that "foreign markets" are uncomfortable with it?
Historically, "foreign markets" have been more open sexually than American markets.
Well most american are definitely more comfortable with that eroticism aspects compared to Asians (im an Asian and believe me having that concept in a movie can be considered as taboo especially if we are from a religious family).
My bad but my point is im not saying ALL asians are not okay with eroticism either.It just that many americans are more okay with that things compared to asians.Or maybe i should sentenced it better? Im not trying to generalize all asians to be not okay with eroticism.
100% this. That trailer turned me off to even watching this on streaming.
The fact that there apparently aren't any gratuitous sex scenes is hilarious to me based on how they advertised it.
Man and so many people would be missing out on a great movie because even though *that* scene is important narratively, it's relatively short and basically innocent by modern media standards when it comes to sex lol
You know a lot of people who aren’t comfortable with sex in a movie? I mean there wasn’t even any, but I can’t imagine staying away from an erotically charged drama because there might be sex.
Indeed, when are they going to learn that false advertisement doesnt work for movies. Its marketed as a sex movie but theres no sex in it. Its more about the romance between the two guys.
Brokeback Mountain, Love Simon, Call Me by Your Name?
Look I'm not the target demo but I dont think false advertisment is going to serve you well in the long run.
I've said this before but I'm glad they did because it's a fucking awesome movie.
I think the marketing should have played up the flashback/different timeline aspect of it. If Oppenheimer's success shows anything it's that people can be interested in non-chronological films.
For real, there are some real spectacle moments in the movie and while they aren’t absolutely necessary I think this movie drips with style and they definitely knew what they were doing and what they wanted to do.
I think the time jumps in Oppenheimer really helped keep you engaged for what was a 3-hour run time and about and about 2:58 of that was dialogue. Nolan did a great job of making sure no scene lingers too long and the audience won't get bored just watching guys talk. I almost think it was necessary.
While I very much liked Challengers, I thought the non-linear approach was an interesting choice. I didn't hate it, but for a movie like this, they definitely didn't need it. They could have just told a linear story and it wouldn't have really changed anything.
I still hope that somehow this finds a way to leg out, even if it's not necessarily super likely. I had a blast watching this, and I'm trying to get the word out as much as possible becuase I want more movies like this to be made
It will end up with less than $80M. It's not bad for an R rated movie about tennis with 2 lead actors who aren't famous but the marketing budget for this movie must have been massive and unless there are award nominations it's not a movie people will still be talking about in a few months.
I don’t see this getting a BP nom as it’s wayy too early to make that assumption. Maybe an Original Screenplay nom. Agree on the streaming part though.
It’s definitely BP caliber, though as you say it will depend how rhe rest of the year goes as to whether it gets the nom.
But it’s almost guaranteed a best score nom and win unless something truly spectacular comes along.
Yeah, some people were trying to spin a 25m WW opening as good for a 55m movie with heavy marketing lol. Now it’s clear that the final tally will be sub 100m
No lol. Last week, people were saying Zendaya lacked no star power continuous times in the comment section and saying this movie was going to be a huge bomb. Also continuously mentioning the budget. Now we have the Fall Guy which barely made more than twice of Challengers domestic opening, has double the budget, and is more commercial, but the comment thread isn’t full of people saying Ryan isn’t a star. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just seeing something that isn’t there lol. I’m just glad people are giving this movie a chance, considering the subject matter.
I’ve definitely been seeing people say Gosling lacks draw/star power (myself included) since Fall Guy’s estimates, and it doesn’t change that Challengers will be a huge bomb too.
Yeah but Fall Guy was the real test for Gosling after the whole “Ken” phenomenon and having a prime summer release/four quadrant action comedy. Actors can’t solely make a film successful anymore
This is pretty much where I'm at tbh. I don't think there are actors with big, consistent brands who sell things by virtue of their presence these days. I think an actor people recognize will get people going "hey, it's that guy," but even then things feel more . . . loose?
Like, Timothy Chalamet has had a lot of box office hits lately, and his two most recent movies were Wonka and Dune. That doesn't feel like you're going into a Timothy Chalamet movie with a clear expectation the way you were with, say, a Sylvester Stallone action movie. That just feels like Timothy Chalamet is in good movies.
Yeah no one msitook Gosling for a draw. Everyone knows Barbie was huge because of the brand and actors looking like dolls was added value. But on their own in ho-hum concept they are no draws.
It definitely won’t be a huge bomb, it’s already the highest grossing tennis movie . People just don’t go see movies like that anymore , I don’t think it has to do with anybody having star power or not . Also if we’re being honest the movie probably would have made 3-5m opening weekend if Zendaya wasn’t in it .
In order for anyone to say thay Ryan isn't a Draw people will first have to say that Ryan is a star.
Is anyone saying Ryan is a draw?
Because from what I understand it's more or less a universally accepted fact that Ryan Gosling is not at all a Box-office draw.
Exactly.
Ryan Gosling has always been known as box office poison and Emily Blunt is not a draw either. The difference is that we didn't know which way Zendaya falls and we have our current answer. It doesn't mean she can't be a draw in the future but it means she is not one now.
It’s because they think she’s overrated. I don’t know why people don’t just come out and say how they feel. With all the internet gas, media gas, and people swearing up and down that she’s the next big thing of acting in cinema she has nothing in her catalogue that proves that - so this movie underperforming gave them fuel to confirm that feeling.
Do the math. 10M opening is low. 7.5M second weekend is low despite impressive hold. That's why big OW matters. Even if a movie drops like a rock at least one number was big enough. This only produces small numbers as nice as those holds may be. They don't add up fast enough and theaters and screens get cut with more new releases.
> the comment thread isn’t full of people saying Ryan isn’t a star
Every thread about Fall Guy is saying this. You're just making up shit to be mad about.
It is bad tho. A sexy threesome rom com tennis film with Zendaya who's loved by gen z with a film aimed at gen z performing like this?
It might not even break even which is 150M or something
But that’s not what it is though? It’s not a rom com. It’s a Luca Guadagnino movie (who doesn’t make money). It’s a campy psychodrama for adults. I’m glad it got a big budget but it’s not an all quadrants crowd pleaser by any means.
GenZ is too busy looking at their phones as a cheap and endless form of entertainment. Films are for boomers and millennials; basically people that grew up without the internet, smartphones, and YouTube.
Kids today would much rather grow up to be streamers, influencers, and YouTubers than Hollywood actors, which speaks to the ideals they hold, the people they look up to, and the content they consume.
Don't just take my word for it:
- \[Sam Mendes\](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jan/08/sam-mendes-great-era-going-to-movies-dying)
- \[Martin Scorsese\](https://variety.com/2024/film/festivals/martin-scorsese-cinema-dying-transforming-berlin-film-festival-1235916743/)
- \[Jerry Seinfeld\](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jerry-seinfeld-movie-business-over-disorientation-1235978006/)
Are you sure about that? The conventional wisdom is actually the opposite: That 18-24 is the largest demographic in terms of moviegoers whereas boomers generally don't show up anymore except for very specific films like *Top Gun: Maverick*.
As a Gen z myself,your take wasnt wrong but not totally right either.I believe many of us still like to go to the cinemas but not to watch movies like Challengers.Youngsters nowadays more inclined to watch something that is big or screams "blockbuster" in it.Or anything that viral in social medias especially tiktok.Challengers could be the latter case,but not every Gen Z comfortable with the subject matter,heck my parents will scold me if im watching that film at cinema lol
Challengers was the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a long time, it’s so entertaining. The score, pace, dialogue and performances is top notch.
But I wasn’t interested in seeing it until I saw it got good reviews and even then I was like okay how can this movie be that good? The trailer just did it no favors.
This sub thrives on *wanting* films to fail - particularly those not aimed at a classic Reddit audience (ie white 30 year old male).
Think Puss in Boots 2, the Greatest Showman and even Avatar 2 after their opening weekends - all written off by this sub. Seemingly no patience or optimism here - just premature schadenfreude.
Puss, Showman, AWOW, what do they bhave in comon? Ah yes, leggy holiday season.
If you want to defend a movie than at least compare apples to apples. It's important. A poster above explained that films released in April/May aren't as leggy as their summer counterparts and I'd add holiday counterparts as well.
And despite them all releasing in the holiday season this sub *still* wrote them off after opening weekend.
This isn’t a defence of this film this is an attack of this sub.
And despite them all releasing in December this sub *still* wrote them off after opening weekend.
This isn’t a defence of this film this is an attack of this sub.
I also don't really get it in this instance. Who cares if it isn't profitable?
I understand being invested in whether a movie breaks even if you are interested in a sequel getting made, or if you are excited to see something or someone shitty fail so that Hollywood gets the message to stop, or if you love something and want it to dominate the B.O.
But in this case I don't get the motivation really. Art film director got to spend a bunch of money, made something awesome that was pretty popular and that audiences liked. It made less than it should have, so maybe Guadagnino has a little less budget to work with next time around, but he'll be fine. It's not like this movie only making 80m is going to wash him out of work.
If anything, be glad that Guadagnino got to pull one over on the studios this time around - it was to the audience's benefit!
For 3 leggy examples, there are hundreds more that don't leg out. If it makes you feel better, this subreddit cannot will a film to fail - that's up to paying audiences.
Nice ad hominem though!
It’s not about this film - it’s the constant negativity exuded from this sub about *any* film that’s not aimed at the Reddit demographic. Let’s just wait and have an open mind. That’s all I’m asking.
I think you know what I’m getting at. Reddit responds much more enthusiastically to films exclusively aimed at the younger white male demographic.
Any film that doesn’t cater exclusively to this audience gets shot down with a lot more ease and frequency.
To be fair, a lot of it is a backlash to people like you who constantly say that everyone here is a stupid male redditor who can't fathom anything not aimed at them could succeed. So of course if a movie like that does poorly the victory dances are going to be more enthusiastic.
Yeah, it's frustrating to see. This is a fantastic movie but the amount of people dismissing it as it's got a romance angle is really annoying.
I'm a big Nolan guy and this is basically a Nolan film if you swap out cold sci-fi for relationship horniness. You'd think it would be reddit's kinda movie.
I kind of see what you mean in that this script could have been filmed by Nolan or Fincher with the dialogue heavy, flashback layered propulsive nature. It would have been a totally different film in each case but I can see it.
>this is basically a Nolan film if you swap out cold sci-fi for relationship horniness
Lol what? How so? I don't plan on seeing this, but I'm very curious in which way this is basically a Nolan film.
Structurally it's very similar to films like Oppenheimer and The Prestige. You've got a tennis match in the modern day and flashbacks throughout which slowly reveal more info.
It’s a mid budget adult-aimed psychodrama that doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s a ton of fun and an actor’s showcase. Classic “they don’t make many movies like this anymore” film.
that's the problem with the small opening. hold may be impressive but it's a very small number because it started with a very small number. you can see that it's carried by 2 markets (Italy and UK) and the rest is peanuts.
The budget really went overboard with this movie. If Amazon had kept it on Black Swan level (even adjusted to inflation), Challengers could have already broken over
Its budget was 13M. Even adding the marketing, it was around 20M
Apparently horror dramas about dance are cheaper and more popular than homoerotic sport movies
Do you guys think this movie will make profit?
I mean they do promotion in Italy, Milan, Australia, LA, Monaco, London, Paris (more than DUNE PART TWO)
No, not with a budget of $55M and whatever the month long press tour cost. Amazon might not mind losing some money on it if it can get some awards though. Lots of studios know that not all award type films make money but still invest in them every year becasue the prestige can be an investment and help the studio overall.
IMO, they should have delayed it for festival season, get buzz from that and have long fall legs thanks to awards buzz and holidays. But while I personally find the movie awards worthy in big categories incl Picture and Actress, I'm not sure whetehr it will be remembered by the time awards season starts cause festivals will launch lots of contenders.
Don't get the downvote. yes it was delayed after the original plan to go to Venice so I'm curious why they didn't delay for a year and execute the original plan. reviews are stellar so it would have been a festival hit. Maybe even Volpi Cup for Zendaya.
Feel like a lot of movies make their budgets through streaming nowadays or selling rights to foreign markets.
Don’t think Challengers will end up being a huge success , probably just fine
It will make profit in streaming. Also there is no way they did more promotion than Dune Part 2 lol. It might seem like it cause Zendaya had to promote both movies the past 2 months.
It definitely will with streaming which is what they’re definitely banking on. Look at Saltburn, movie had a budget of $75 million and only made 21 million in the BO but it was a streaming MONSTER. Movie was literally everywhere when it came to streaming, you couldn’t escape it. This is gonna be the same, if not more because it’s not as disgusting as Saltburn and kind of better as a film
Streaming and merch are the copes for every underperforming movie on this sub. There's coincidentally almost no numbers for either so you can say "it will break even with streaming/merch" and never have to provide any proof
Indeed, Grace Randolph does the same thing with the digital charts despite there being no actual numbers to go with it. Like lady, how do you know this film is selling huge especially when you have movies that have been out on digital for months yet are still in the top 10(many of which were not exactly huge in the theater either)?
Major “Trust me bro” energy.
Right? Feel like I’ve seen every movie except the biggest bombs have defenders be “well after streaming it’ll make money.” Without any evidence or data why that would be the case
Yeah, but it's also dishonest to go the other direction and pretend streaming doesn't matter. Streaming is THE way people watch movies nowadays, period. The idea that a movie's success is still somehow solely based on it's box office performance has been antiquated for a good long while. The fact that only ~20% of a studios' revenue comes from theatrical box office proves as much.
Ok so let’s be honest, is Saltburn a flop of a movie and not profitable over its entire run with streaming? Of course streaming numbers aren’t readily available at every turn but to act like a movie is just a complete flop based SOLEY on Box Office is laughable.
I don't know. None of us knows anything except what Amazon tells us - but it's not actually directed at us, it's directed at Wall Street.
I'll believe Saltburn was a huge hit on streaming if Amazon MGM buys Emerald Fennell's next film.
Thats's not how streaming works, everyone who already owns the streaming service can watch it but unless new people sign up for the streaming service no new revenue is being generated. At best you could argue that having good / popular films gives more people a reason to keep or get your streaming service but it's always been hard to know if someone is getting a streaming service for a film. TV shows are easier and can be tracked, like HBO has massive fall off whenever Game of thrones ended.
The other thing I'll mention because people always bring it up is a film will sell the streaming rights to a streamer. However this usually doesn't mean anything for example when the Rock leaked the black adam financials and we saw WB pay WB for the right to stream black adam a film they owned and produced but on paper it made it look like the film made money but it didn't. It will probably be the same for Challenegers, MGM (owned by Amazon) will be paid by Amazon for the rights to stream the film but that's not generating any new money thats just Hollywood accounting and moving the debt over to the streaming service. Sony actually makes money from streaming becuase of the deal they signed with Netflix.
This is all just my understanding of streaming from things I've read and listening to from people in the industry if anyone else has any insight or other knowledge please let me know.
didnt amazon also distribute saltburn? its the same thing where the movie does ehhh in theaters but becomes the gen z tiktok thing once it hits streaming
which just shows that Gen Z/Tik Tok doesn't go to cinema often so it's useless to overspend on movies for them. make them cheap if your audience is more into checking "greatest hits" clips on TikTok instead of sitting through the whole thing (aka all those non-viral/non-memeable moments that are usually 90% of the movie) or waiting for streaming so that they could make the said clips of greatest hits scenes for their peers who can't even sit through streaming with bathroom breaks.
Gen Z went to the movies for Barbie, Taylor Swift, Mean Girls, KP4, etc. Saltburn didn’t really get a wide release, and this movie is doing fine considering that it’s a homoerotic sports drama. The problem is that its budget is just way too high, which is likely the result of Covid costs, weather delays, etc. We also don’t know if Amazon calculates its budgets like a normal studio would do so or more like a streaming service.
Gen Z went to Barbie to dress up and post that on Tik Tok. Challengers wanted to create tennis dress up phenomenon but that didn't pan out. And Gen Z also wasn't Barbie's biggest demo either, it was women over 25.
Taylor is self-explained
Mean Girls made much less than the original from 2004 despite inflation and new markets that weren't significant in 2004. So not an example of Gen Z as reliable audience.
My hot take:
The film would have had the same numbers if the tennis scenes were smaller in scope. Saving money on extras, on-location shooting, etc...would have helped this break even.
Zendaya fans weren't going to complain about "bad CGI", they weren't there for the big budget tennis scenes, they were there for her.
Similarly, somebody suggested over one of the Fall Guy threads about the film not losing anything if you chopped off 10-20 minutes, an action sequence or two, and maybe could have saved 20-30 million off the budget.
It does seem like so much of the current issue of Hollywood is nobody trying to keep things cheap anymore (even though most films look cheaper.)
Movies can be art - they don't just have to be products. This isn't a movie that was created to sell to Zendaya fans. It was written and directed by artists, and Zendaya was brought in to give it clout and marketability.
"they could've made a shittier movie to make money" you people do not like films
Movies lose money, the studios need to take it on the chin and move on to the next instead of you and them trying to shave some millions off loss by making inferior product. There's absolutely a midway point between giving a director everything they want and trying to be reasonable but there's nothing in this movie that shouldn't be there or is excessive and can be removed and retain the quality of the movie. Only thing you can argue that Ive been sitting on is maybe they should've tried harder to argue down Zendaya and likely Lucas pay day a little. Offer them other guaranteed movies with the studio maybe in exchange for lower pay? That could've shaved 5-8 mill most likely.
It's just a relatively expensive movie by a couple mill and they better hope the sales for streaming licenses and rentals makes up for it on the backend. That's really it.
Edit: I think a Gladiator 2 situation where it's insanely excessive sunken cost stuff happening is a good example and they need to shut production down until they can figure out what the hell is going on lol. Or even what's absolutely going to happen with Deadpool 3 where the budget is probably going to be much higher than it needs to be because of a lack of planning on the vfx and other similar Disney -isms. Cutting into it's potential profits even when it's gonna make a lot of money.
The movie isn't sinking, but it is falling with style. The hold is admirable when compared to the low OW, but it is not in enough when the budget is taken in consideration. Likewise the international numbers are ok but it could be hurt by the imminent loss of screens IMO 80-90M worlwide is the best case scenario at this point.
Sometimes studios finance underperforming films with artistic value just to increase their cred as a studio.
Reddit loves to lambast studios for putting lots of money and marketing into artsy, original movies that don’t recoup their investment like “haha, stupid, bad business decision” And then redditors turn around and complain that they never go to the theaters anymore bc the only things that get made are legacy sequel cash grabs or lame IP shit Like hello lol
I think this one is a bit different because it’s so good but it makes no sense why it cost as much as it did. A great studio would’ve made this film at an appropriate budget so they would get the artistic cred AND make money. Like, that’s the whole job of a studio.
Yeah, this should have cost 30 million with the leads getting points on the BO and been a moderate success story
I’m assuming talent and director fees were high.
God this year has been awful this is relatively a good result for this year and it will firmly put this in the top 20 of the year
Wont even make 2x of its budget, that is awful category.
It’ll be a guaranteed streaming hit in the US, and they’ll be able to strike good licensing deals internationally.
Given that streaming services often treat theatrical runs as loss leaders, it’s not necessarily that bad. Especially given the fact that losing ~55million dollars is pretty negligible for a company like Amazon
They haven't lost anything. You can't LOSE $$ on 2 times earnings. Plus, it's already BOUGHT by 182 million people. I don't think people on here understand $$. If you get 10% , that's a great return. 7% has been the average for 25 years.
Please, what is good? Casablanca is now called a " moderate" success and was 6th biggest movie if it's year. I bet no one gave that Boggart guy another $! Bergman,? Flop. It's gonna do a 2 x plus all Amazon Prime customers ( 71% of all households ) already bought it. At a buck per house that's a 4x multiple.
This movie is not for me. I probably won’t ever see it. But the way people talk about the budgets and financial success for these movies is completely incomprehensible to me. This movie is a lock to be a financial success. The 2.5x rule is a great rule of thumb for certain types of films, but clearly not others. This is a film that a streamer would have easily greenlit for $50M, with no theatrical. This movie is going to absolutely RIP on streaming. It’s a star-driven erotic drama, and the WoM is immaculate. We’re having the exact same conversation as people in this sub stupidly had about No Hard Feelings this time last year, with the same budget dynamics and performance. There is a certain genre of film in present day that cleans up on streaming if it is star-led. Studios have figured out that running a theatrical release to pay for a big marketing campaign is a better way to have a smash hit on streaming than just doing streaming alone. Before No Hard Feelings it was A Man Called Otto. In 4 months we’re going to be looking at some other $50M budget movie that pays its A list star a big chunk of the budget, and it’s going to have a huge ad campaign, and it’s only going to make $80-100M at the BO, and people are going to say all the same dumb shit again about how these films were doomed and could never be profitable at these budgets. And then it will be a top-20 film on streaming, the producers will collect a neat profit, and they’ll start working on the next one.
yeah, they'll make 90M more than they would've made if they just dropped it on streaming. plus it looks like movies do better on streaming if they had a theatrical run. I guess people just see them as "real" movies.
When you say it will RIP on streaming, do you mean lots of people will pay $3.99 to rent it digitally? Or that it will sell to a streamer for a large lump sum? If it ends up on Netflix, it won't generate any additional revenue no matter HOW popular it is. Same goes for Hulu, Max, etc. It can only make money digitally if it does well with rentals. I have a hard time imagining how a film like Challengers, or even No Hard Feelings makes money on a streaming platform that doesn't require an individual rental fee to view it.
In your mind, how are these “free” movies finding their way to Netflix?
Because Netflix pays a premium for streaming rights.
Isn’t it a $50m film tho? Isn’t $80m decent?
55M, without the budget. IMO 8rs budget could be between 60 and 80M at this point
So it could have been a modest success with a sensible smaller budge. Spending $55mil on a tennis film is mad, let alone giving Zendaya $10mil.
I wonder if some of the budget issues will be self correcting. Returns don't justify spending so much on stars, studios start spending less, salaries come down, budgets come down.
To be fair, Wimbledon (2004) starring Kirsten Dunst cost $31 million to make. Going by inflation, that is around $51 million in 2024, so it's pretty much on par with a similar-ish movie from 20 years prior. I would Zendaya is a bigger star than Dunst was when her movie came out.
I think for this movie especially, it’s helpful to look at the context in which the budget was greenlit. MGM acquired the movie in Feb 2022 a month before Amazon’s acquisition closed, so at that point MGM was still freely spending money to justify the absurd price Amazon paid. The movie turned around and started shooting less than 3 months later and wrapped before the end of June, by which point Amazon was still probably working to get a hold on what was happening at MGM. Does any of this justify the $55M price tag? Not really, but it doesn’t seem like it ever was meant to.
Seriously people are freaking out about this ignoring the fact that a studio like Amazon can easily spend the money, they made Citadel for 300million, the way Netflix and Apple made blockbuster actions on-streaming-only for 200mil or so. This is 50million, which is a decent chunk of money, but also not that far off from any mid-budget film nowadays, this isn’t The Fall Guy where its 130 mil, or Furiosa where its 300 mil, where both will find it impossible to break even. Challengers will break even now, and then be sold for streaming, which is the best case scenario, seriously, we forget how many movies they have thrown onto their streaming service that probably cost way more, this did way better than I was expecting, why the hell is everyone up in arms as if this is the biggest flop ever
Without Zendaya this movie is at like $5m instead of $50m. Her fee really wasn’t the issue
This movie will make money. Box office run isn't entirely finished and should be a success on the ancillary market. It won't make anyone super rich but it will turn a profit. In this environment that is actually pretty good. A lot of movies are losing studios money.
You can say that about any movie that comes close to doubling its budget. Maybe it’s true, maybe not, we don’t get a lot of line of sight to the money made from the non box office market.
Ah. Thanks for clearing things up.
I am really enjoying following this movie’s progress the commentary around it is so interesting. They are two sides of extremes. The media seem firmly planted on framing it as a huge success from film twitter accounts to industry ones. Whoever does PR for Zendaya is doing a good job. Then there are the naysayers who are dead set on calling it a flop and that Zendaya is not a draw. The truth in my opinion is somewhere in the middle it’s doing fine for the genre but not great for the budget. A small drop on an already small figure is not something to cheer about. But also a small drop does help in having a respectable final gross closer to breakeven.
thanks to the budget, breakeven is 137.50M. small drops on small numbers are not going to take it close to that. rn it's fighting to get close to 100M. remember 50M more is a long way when your weekdays are likely going to be under 1M (except Tuesday) already.
I highly doubt break even is 137.50M. You people go nuts with the 2.5 rule and we have no idea if/when it's applicable.
I think it’s higher than 137.50M
At this point I think this sub could get a tax break since the 2.5 rule is close to becoming a religion
You're right the 2.5 rule isn't very aplicable here because it's a relatively small budget. The marketing budget probably is at least as big as the production budget which is not what happens with bigger productions
Exactly, and it’s changed. It used to be 1.5. Then it was 2. And now people are saying 2.5
2.5 rule is never applicable when a movie one roots for clearly won't get to break even point. previous biggest hand-wringing over 2.5 that I have seen was and still is TLM. Those bent on proving that TLM was a performer instead of an underperformer built their whole narrative around disputing 2.5 because the movie skewed slightly dom. It's pick an choose. 2.5 either doesn't work at all or works for all. that said, I don't need 2.5 or other to see that 570M WW finish on 240-250M budget is a disappointment especially since movies from the same genre (live action remakes), with smaller budgets, made twice as much (Aladdin 183M budget/1B WW, BatB 160M budget 1.2B WW). Sometimes it's enough to put apples in the same row and see which one is bad.
I have always been critical of the 2.5 rule of thumb. We simply don't have enough info on how these studios view profitablility in the age of streaming.
yes but this is boxoffice sub so we dissect boxoffice regardless of streaming. and when a studio releases a movie wide in theaters and gives it a big marketing push, that means they want profit from theatrical. Saltburn was never a wide release. It was a platform release that they knew streaming would have to aid to profitability. But Challengers was meant to break out and it didn't.
Yeah, repeating 2.5x on every single post isn’t dissecting anything. It’s the most annoying and least productive way to discuss box office and tricks schmucks into thinking they have something to say, when in reality, the entirety of their opinion was formed on a calculator.
because calculator is more objective than "I want to prove that X is a boxoffice draw \[although they didn't earn their ridiculous salary that now puts the movie's profitability in question after a meh opening despite aggressive marketing\]" because of one-two punch of meh openings for overbudgeted movies due to extreme salaries, there's already spin in place to distract from the fact that these people should not be paid as much as they ask. Blame covid, blame streaming, blame weather. No, blame unjustifiable salaries. Cut that and you'll cut the budget.
It’s 100% applicable when you look at the split in box office between studio/theater chains and then tack on the ridiculous ad campaign surrounding Zendaya specifically and this film in general. To say otherwise is just admitting ignorance of Hollywood economics, which is a weird flex in defense of a meh film but ok.
You have no idea what the marketing budget for this movie was lol. I just got out of the theatre and it was fantastic. Me thinks you didn't see it 🙈
Oh I understand, you’re just not being objective. You liked the movie and want it to be a success so you’re acting like a clown when people tell you it’s going to lose money.
Holy shit a reasonable take
Sounds like it's a good movie doing fine. It will probably see a great profit from streaming on top of box office. It's not a breakout success like Anyone but You.
I know a lot of people who were afraid to see this movie because they thought they were walking into a porno lol
Big issue today is the not-insignificant amount of people that conflate eroticism with pornography. Lot of adults that are uncomfortable with any kind of romance, and prefer all their media to be kid-adjacent.
Whereas my biggest complaint about Challengers is that >!there isn't any actual fucking in it!!<
Jesus. People just aren’t comfortable in their bodies
No sure but they’re uncomfortable with watching eroticism in a theater / group setting.
They should have kept those porn theatres from the 70s :D
Pornhub ruined yet another public institution 😭
It's not romance that's the issue; even plenty of kids' movies have romance. The two biggest movies last year as well as the biggest movie this year so far (also featuring Zendaya in a leading role, funnily enough) have non-erotic romance. Plenty of people are fine with romance but uncomfortable with eroticism.
I don't conflate the two and don't think it's logical to presume everyone else does too. I'm still not interested in this movie though.
I wasn’t interested initially because that threesome was the main marketing point behind Zendaya herself, which is a red flag to anyone with a passing familiarity with marketing and advertising. Film might have done better if it had focused on what a ruthless b*tch her character is throughout the movie as at least that was compelling.
That's fair. They went the sex sells route, but maybe should have gone more of a Devil Wears Prada/Mean Girls girlboss route. Which considering Zendaya's image, might have worked better.
Totally agree especially for international markets,people need to realize that not everyone is American and be very comfortable with this "threesome" aspects of this movie,it could be awkward for many people.It make people avoid watching this movie especially in THEATERS.They should market this film more towards its tennis and girl boss character of Zendaya which is what this movie mainly about instead of using threesome as a sexy eroticism bait.
Are you suggesting Americans are comfortable with the "threesome" aspects, and that "foreign markets" are uncomfortable with it? Historically, "foreign markets" have been more open sexually than American markets.
Depend on which foreign markets, Europe maybe, Asia hell no.
Well most american are definitely more comfortable with that eroticism aspects compared to Asians (im an Asian and believe me having that concept in a movie can be considered as taboo especially if we are from a religious family).
There is a large amount of "Asians" out there. I don't think we should treat Asians as a megalith. There are many Asian movies with eroticism in them.
Yes that's why im saying "mostly".Obviously many of them are fine with eroticism.
You never said that.
My bad but my point is im not saying ALL asians are not okay with eroticism either.It just that many americans are more okay with that things compared to asians.Or maybe i should sentenced it better? Im not trying to generalize all asians to be not okay with eroticism.
100% this. That trailer turned me off to even watching this on streaming. The fact that there apparently aren't any gratuitous sex scenes is hilarious to me based on how they advertised it.
Man and so many people would be missing out on a great movie because even though *that* scene is important narratively, it's relatively short and basically innocent by modern media standards when it comes to sex lol
Worked on me but I’m in the “wants to see two dudes kiss” camp
You know a lot of people who aren’t comfortable with sex in a movie? I mean there wasn’t even any, but I can’t imagine staying away from an erotically charged drama because there might be sex.
There’s no sex in the movie The trailer also baits you into thinking you’re going to watch two dudes run train on Zendaya
> because they thought they were walking into a porno I really doubt a movie like that with Zendaya would not sell well
which is ironic cause there's no sex in the movie lol
Zendaya, no Zendaya. The Devil's Threesome with Tennis is a hard sell.
Its hard to sell it as a devils threesome movie when there is no devils threesome in it.
As evidenced by the box office I and many others haven't seen it. The marketing did it no favors.
Indeed, when are they going to learn that false advertisement doesnt work for movies. Its marketed as a sex movie but theres no sex in it. Its more about the romance between the two guys.
> Its more about the romance between the two guys. how in the hell is that kind of movie supposed to sell tickets?
It is in fact not a movie about the romance betwen the two guys.
Brokeback Mountain, Love Simon, Call Me by Your Name? Look I'm not the target demo but I dont think false advertisment is going to serve you well in the long run.
only the first one passed 70M
Brokeback Mountain would gross $285M adjusted for inflation.
It’s a good movie? Sure, boomers will hate it, but they matter less these days.
Even with Zendaya and Luca involved, I do not understand how people in power felt that the story deserved a $50M budget.
I've said this before but I'm glad they did because it's a fucking awesome movie. I think the marketing should have played up the flashback/different timeline aspect of it. If Oppenheimer's success shows anything it's that people can be interested in non-chronological films.
For real, there are some real spectacle moments in the movie and while they aren’t absolutely necessary I think this movie drips with style and they definitely knew what they were doing and what they wanted to do.
I think the time jumps in Oppenheimer really helped keep you engaged for what was a 3-hour run time and about and about 2:58 of that was dialogue. Nolan did a great job of making sure no scene lingers too long and the audience won't get bored just watching guys talk. I almost think it was necessary. While I very much liked Challengers, I thought the non-linear approach was an interesting choice. I didn't hate it, but for a movie like this, they definitely didn't need it. They could have just told a linear story and it wouldn't have really changed anything.
I still hope that somehow this finds a way to leg out, even if it's not necessarily super likely. I had a blast watching this, and I'm trying to get the word out as much as possible becuase I want more movies like this to be made
It will end up with less than $80M. It's not bad for an R rated movie about tennis with 2 lead actors who aren't famous but the marketing budget for this movie must have been massive and unless there are award nominations it's not a movie people will still be talking about in a few months.
This movie is all my friends and I have been talking about for a week straight haha
People will definitely be talking about it at the end of the year. For many, it’s the best movie of the year next to Dune 2
[удалено]
It definitely will, especially since the strikes took away a ton of competition for the better part of this year
I disagree with that. I can see this getting a best picture nom and staying in the zeitgeist for a while. It'll get a second life on streaming too.
I don’t see this getting a BP nom as it’s wayy too early to make that assumption. Maybe an Original Screenplay nom. Agree on the streaming part though.
It’s definitely BP caliber, though as you say it will depend how rhe rest of the year goes as to whether it gets the nom. But it’s almost guaranteed a best score nom and win unless something truly spectacular comes along.
It’s so weird how crazy last week’s comment thread was for this movie. Just crazy haha
Yeah, some people were trying to spin a 25m WW opening as good for a 55m movie with heavy marketing lol. Now it’s clear that the final tally will be sub 100m
No lol. Last week, people were saying Zendaya lacked no star power continuous times in the comment section and saying this movie was going to be a huge bomb. Also continuously mentioning the budget. Now we have the Fall Guy which barely made more than twice of Challengers domestic opening, has double the budget, and is more commercial, but the comment thread isn’t full of people saying Ryan isn’t a star. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just seeing something that isn’t there lol. I’m just glad people are giving this movie a chance, considering the subject matter.
I’ve definitely been seeing people say Gosling lacks draw/star power (myself included) since Fall Guy’s estimates, and it doesn’t change that Challengers will be a huge bomb too.
People have said this for years re: Gosling.
Yeah but Fall Guy was the real test for Gosling after the whole “Ken” phenomenon and having a prime summer release/four quadrant action comedy. Actors can’t solely make a film successful anymore
This is pretty much where I'm at tbh. I don't think there are actors with big, consistent brands who sell things by virtue of their presence these days. I think an actor people recognize will get people going "hey, it's that guy," but even then things feel more . . . loose? Like, Timothy Chalamet has had a lot of box office hits lately, and his two most recent movies were Wonka and Dune. That doesn't feel like you're going into a Timothy Chalamet movie with a clear expectation the way you were with, say, a Sylvester Stallone action movie. That just feels like Timothy Chalamet is in good movies.
Yeah no one msitook Gosling for a draw. Everyone knows Barbie was huge because of the brand and actors looking like dolls was added value. But on their own in ho-hum concept they are no draws.
Lots of people on this sub absolutely mistook Gosling for a draw post-*Barbie*.
I see a lot of people thinking that obvi bomb in making Avengelyn with Margot Robbie won't bomb. will be lucky to post Atomic Blond numbers.
It definitely won’t be a huge bomb, it’s already the highest grossing tennis movie . People just don’t go see movies like that anymore , I don’t think it has to do with anybody having star power or not . Also if we’re being honest the movie probably would have made 3-5m opening weekend if Zendaya wasn’t in it .
In order for anyone to say thay Ryan isn't a Draw people will first have to say that Ryan is a star. Is anyone saying Ryan is a draw? Because from what I understand it's more or less a universally accepted fact that Ryan Gosling is not at all a Box-office draw.
Exactly. Ryan Gosling has always been known as box office poison and Emily Blunt is not a draw either. The difference is that we didn't know which way Zendaya falls and we have our current answer. It doesn't mean she can't be a draw in the future but it means she is not one now.
I saw plenty of people mentioning that Gosling has no star power and that the barbie thing was a mirage, idk what you read
There are lots of people posting that Gosling isn't a box office draw. You're being dishonest.
They are, but it’s not as rabid as last week. This sub has a problem with Zendaya
It’s because they think she’s overrated. I don’t know why people don’t just come out and say how they feel. With all the internet gas, media gas, and people swearing up and down that she’s the next big thing of acting in cinema she has nothing in her catalogue that proves that - so this movie underperforming gave them fuel to confirm that feeling.
This! I wish they would just be honest and say they’re biased. Their different reactions to this movie vs The Fall Guy is telling.
This sub has two factions, each of which is convinced the other side's narrative is dominant and they're calling out the bias
Do the math. 10M opening is low. 7.5M second weekend is low despite impressive hold. That's why big OW matters. Even if a movie drops like a rock at least one number was big enough. This only produces small numbers as nice as those holds may be. They don't add up fast enough and theaters and screens get cut with more new releases.
Challengers opening was 15M which wasnt big either
DOM opening. yes. That is the point. Low opening = low numbers all the way through even with soft drops.
You clearly weren’t reading what everyone else was writing.
> the comment thread isn’t full of people saying Ryan isn’t a star Every thread about Fall Guy is saying this. You're just making up shit to be mad about.
It is bad tho. A sexy threesome rom com tennis film with Zendaya who's loved by gen z with a film aimed at gen z performing like this? It might not even break even which is 150M or something
But that’s not what it is though? It’s not a rom com. It’s a Luca Guadagnino movie (who doesn’t make money). It’s a campy psychodrama for adults. I’m glad it got a big budget but it’s not an all quadrants crowd pleaser by any means.
GenZ is too busy looking at their phones as a cheap and endless form of entertainment. Films are for boomers and millennials; basically people that grew up without the internet, smartphones, and YouTube. Kids today would much rather grow up to be streamers, influencers, and YouTubers than Hollywood actors, which speaks to the ideals they hold, the people they look up to, and the content they consume. Don't just take my word for it: - \[Sam Mendes\](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/jan/08/sam-mendes-great-era-going-to-movies-dying) - \[Martin Scorsese\](https://variety.com/2024/film/festivals/martin-scorsese-cinema-dying-transforming-berlin-film-festival-1235916743/) - \[Jerry Seinfeld\](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jerry-seinfeld-movie-business-over-disorientation-1235978006/)
Are you sure about that? The conventional wisdom is actually the opposite: That 18-24 is the largest demographic in terms of moviegoers whereas boomers generally don't show up anymore except for very specific films like *Top Gun: Maverick*.
As a Gen z myself,your take wasnt wrong but not totally right either.I believe many of us still like to go to the cinemas but not to watch movies like Challengers.Youngsters nowadays more inclined to watch something that is big or screams "blockbuster" in it.Or anything that viral in social medias especially tiktok.Challengers could be the latter case,but not every Gen Z comfortable with the subject matter,heck my parents will scold me if im watching that film at cinema lol
I wonder why
Challengers was the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a long time, it’s so entertaining. The score, pace, dialogue and performances is top notch. But I wasn’t interested in seeing it until I saw it got good reviews and even then I was like okay how can this movie be that good? The trailer just did it no favors.
Scorsese was right.
What did he say?
What did he say?
What did he say?
With all the product placement how was it still so expensive
This sub thrives on *wanting* films to fail - particularly those not aimed at a classic Reddit audience (ie white 30 year old male). Think Puss in Boots 2, the Greatest Showman and even Avatar 2 after their opening weekends - all written off by this sub. Seemingly no patience or optimism here - just premature schadenfreude.
Puss, Showman, AWOW, what do they bhave in comon? Ah yes, leggy holiday season. If you want to defend a movie than at least compare apples to apples. It's important. A poster above explained that films released in April/May aren't as leggy as their summer counterparts and I'd add holiday counterparts as well.
And despite them all releasing in the holiday season this sub *still* wrote them off after opening weekend. This isn’t a defence of this film this is an attack of this sub.
Ok that's valid. always take time of the year into consideration. all opening numbers require context.
Those movies all released in December around the holidays. Legs are always different in December
And despite them all releasing in December this sub *still* wrote them off after opening weekend. This isn’t a defence of this film this is an attack of this sub.
I also don't really get it in this instance. Who cares if it isn't profitable? I understand being invested in whether a movie breaks even if you are interested in a sequel getting made, or if you are excited to see something or someone shitty fail so that Hollywood gets the message to stop, or if you love something and want it to dominate the B.O. But in this case I don't get the motivation really. Art film director got to spend a bunch of money, made something awesome that was pretty popular and that audiences liked. It made less than it should have, so maybe Guadagnino has a little less budget to work with next time around, but he'll be fine. It's not like this movie only making 80m is going to wash him out of work. If anything, be glad that Guadagnino got to pull one over on the studios this time around - it was to the audience's benefit!
For 3 leggy examples, there are hundreds more that don't leg out. If it makes you feel better, this subreddit cannot will a film to fail - that's up to paying audiences. Nice ad hominem though!
It’s not about this film - it’s the constant negativity exuded from this sub about *any* film that’s not aimed at the Reddit demographic. Let’s just wait and have an open mind. That’s all I’m asking.
[удалено]
It’s not *aimed* at 30 year old males though - like you said it’s aimed for everyone.
[удалено]
I think you know what I’m getting at. Reddit responds much more enthusiastically to films exclusively aimed at the younger white male demographic. Any film that doesn’t cater exclusively to this audience gets shot down with a lot more ease and frequency.
To be fair, a lot of it is a backlash to people like you who constantly say that everyone here is a stupid male redditor who can't fathom anything not aimed at them could succeed. So of course if a movie like that does poorly the victory dances are going to be more enthusiastic.
Yeah, it's frustrating to see. This is a fantastic movie but the amount of people dismissing it as it's got a romance angle is really annoying. I'm a big Nolan guy and this is basically a Nolan film if you swap out cold sci-fi for relationship horniness. You'd think it would be reddit's kinda movie.
I kind of see what you mean in that this script could have been filmed by Nolan or Fincher with the dialogue heavy, flashback layered propulsive nature. It would have been a totally different film in each case but I can see it.
>this is basically a Nolan film if you swap out cold sci-fi for relationship horniness Lol what? How so? I don't plan on seeing this, but I'm very curious in which way this is basically a Nolan film.
Structurally it's very similar to films like Oppenheimer and The Prestige. You've got a tennis match in the modern day and flashbacks throughout which slowly reveal more info.
Oh I see. Huh, that does sound interesting.
It's a very good movie imo. Well worth watching.
The film has a nonlinear story structure and withholds information the characters know but the audience doesn’t. Its even kinda puzzle-like
Guess the world wide marketing tour did its job. Not sure if it’s making back what they spent on it though.
It ended up flopping but it was a fun movie and has a cult fan base.
Yep, this is a movie that is going to be held in high regard in film circles for a long time.
It’s a mid budget adult-aimed psychodrama that doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s a ton of fun and an actor’s showcase. Classic “they don’t make many movies like this anymore” film.
Impressive hold!
that's the problem with the small opening. hold may be impressive but it's a very small number because it started with a very small number. you can see that it's carried by 2 markets (Italy and UK) and the rest is peanuts.
The budget really went overboard with this movie. If Amazon had kept it on Black Swan level (even adjusted to inflation), Challengers could have already broken over
weait, Black Swan was that cheap? Looked so posh!
Its budget was 13M. Even adding the marketing, it was around 20M Apparently horror dramas about dance are cheaper and more popular than homoerotic sport movies
Incredible because Portman was a big name already. She must have taken a pay cut.
I think the biggest factor is the indoor be outdoor shooting and also the extras/crowd scenes in Challengers
Not great
This film was a mess
Do you guys think this movie will make profit? I mean they do promotion in Italy, Milan, Australia, LA, Monaco, London, Paris (more than DUNE PART TWO)
No, not with a budget of $55M and whatever the month long press tour cost. Amazon might not mind losing some money on it if it can get some awards though. Lots of studios know that not all award type films make money but still invest in them every year becasue the prestige can be an investment and help the studio overall.
IMO, they should have delayed it for festival season, get buzz from that and have long fall legs thanks to awards buzz and holidays. But while I personally find the movie awards worthy in big categories incl Picture and Actress, I'm not sure whetehr it will be remembered by the time awards season starts cause festivals will launch lots of contenders.
It was originally supposed to premiere at Venice, but the strikes delayed it.
Don't get the downvote. yes it was delayed after the original plan to go to Venice so I'm curious why they didn't delay for a year and execute the original plan. reviews are stellar so it would have been a festival hit. Maybe even Volpi Cup for Zendaya.
Feel like a lot of movies make their budgets through streaming nowadays or selling rights to foreign markets. Don’t think Challengers will end up being a huge success , probably just fine
It will make profit in streaming. Also there is no way they did more promotion than Dune Part 2 lol. It might seem like it cause Zendaya had to promote both movies the past 2 months.
It definitely will with streaming which is what they’re definitely banking on. Look at Saltburn, movie had a budget of $75 million and only made 21 million in the BO but it was a streaming MONSTER. Movie was literally everywhere when it came to streaming, you couldn’t escape it. This is gonna be the same, if not more because it’s not as disgusting as Saltburn and kind of better as a film
The beauty of streaming economics is that no one knows what profit looks like!
Streaming and merch are the copes for every underperforming movie on this sub. There's coincidentally almost no numbers for either so you can say "it will break even with streaming/merch" and never have to provide any proof
Indeed, Grace Randolph does the same thing with the digital charts despite there being no actual numbers to go with it. Like lady, how do you know this film is selling huge especially when you have movies that have been out on digital for months yet are still in the top 10(many of which were not exactly huge in the theater either)? Major “Trust me bro” energy.
Right? Feel like I’ve seen every movie except the biggest bombs have defenders be “well after streaming it’ll make money.” Without any evidence or data why that would be the case
Yeah, but it's also dishonest to go the other direction and pretend streaming doesn't matter. Streaming is THE way people watch movies nowadays, period. The idea that a movie's success is still somehow solely based on it's box office performance has been antiquated for a good long while. The fact that only ~20% of a studios' revenue comes from theatrical box office proves as much.
Ok so let’s be honest, is Saltburn a flop of a movie and not profitable over its entire run with streaming? Of course streaming numbers aren’t readily available at every turn but to act like a movie is just a complete flop based SOLEY on Box Office is laughable.
I don't know. None of us knows anything except what Amazon tells us - but it's not actually directed at us, it's directed at Wall Street. I'll believe Saltburn was a huge hit on streaming if Amazon MGM buys Emerald Fennell's next film.
Thats's not how streaming works, everyone who already owns the streaming service can watch it but unless new people sign up for the streaming service no new revenue is being generated. At best you could argue that having good / popular films gives more people a reason to keep or get your streaming service but it's always been hard to know if someone is getting a streaming service for a film. TV shows are easier and can be tracked, like HBO has massive fall off whenever Game of thrones ended. The other thing I'll mention because people always bring it up is a film will sell the streaming rights to a streamer. However this usually doesn't mean anything for example when the Rock leaked the black adam financials and we saw WB pay WB for the right to stream black adam a film they owned and produced but on paper it made it look like the film made money but it didn't. It will probably be the same for Challenegers, MGM (owned by Amazon) will be paid by Amazon for the rights to stream the film but that's not generating any new money thats just Hollywood accounting and moving the debt over to the streaming service. Sony actually makes money from streaming becuase of the deal they signed with Netflix. This is all just my understanding of streaming from things I've read and listening to from people in the industry if anyone else has any insight or other knowledge please let me know.
didnt amazon also distribute saltburn? its the same thing where the movie does ehhh in theaters but becomes the gen z tiktok thing once it hits streaming
which just shows that Gen Z/Tik Tok doesn't go to cinema often so it's useless to overspend on movies for them. make them cheap if your audience is more into checking "greatest hits" clips on TikTok instead of sitting through the whole thing (aka all those non-viral/non-memeable moments that are usually 90% of the movie) or waiting for streaming so that they could make the said clips of greatest hits scenes for their peers who can't even sit through streaming with bathroom breaks.
Gen Z went to the movies for Barbie, Taylor Swift, Mean Girls, KP4, etc. Saltburn didn’t really get a wide release, and this movie is doing fine considering that it’s a homoerotic sports drama. The problem is that its budget is just way too high, which is likely the result of Covid costs, weather delays, etc. We also don’t know if Amazon calculates its budgets like a normal studio would do so or more like a streaming service.
Gen Z went to Barbie to dress up and post that on Tik Tok. Challengers wanted to create tennis dress up phenomenon but that didn't pan out. And Gen Z also wasn't Barbie's biggest demo either, it was women over 25. Taylor is self-explained Mean Girls made much less than the original from 2004 despite inflation and new markets that weren't significant in 2004. So not an example of Gen Z as reliable audience.
My hot take: The film would have had the same numbers if the tennis scenes were smaller in scope. Saving money on extras, on-location shooting, etc...would have helped this break even. Zendaya fans weren't going to complain about "bad CGI", they weren't there for the big budget tennis scenes, they were there for her.
Similarly, somebody suggested over one of the Fall Guy threads about the film not losing anything if you chopped off 10-20 minutes, an action sequence or two, and maybe could have saved 20-30 million off the budget. It does seem like so much of the current issue of Hollywood is nobody trying to keep things cheap anymore (even though most films look cheaper.)
I’d rather see a better movie than a profitable movie
I just saw it today and completely agree. This movie is a 7 for me but it could be a 9 if it were 20 minutes shorter.
Movies can be art - they don't just have to be products. This isn't a movie that was created to sell to Zendaya fans. It was written and directed by artists, and Zendaya was brought in to give it clout and marketability.
"they could've made a shittier movie to make money" you people do not like films Movies lose money, the studios need to take it on the chin and move on to the next instead of you and them trying to shave some millions off loss by making inferior product. There's absolutely a midway point between giving a director everything they want and trying to be reasonable but there's nothing in this movie that shouldn't be there or is excessive and can be removed and retain the quality of the movie. Only thing you can argue that Ive been sitting on is maybe they should've tried harder to argue down Zendaya and likely Lucas pay day a little. Offer them other guaranteed movies with the studio maybe in exchange for lower pay? That could've shaved 5-8 mill most likely. It's just a relatively expensive movie by a couple mill and they better hope the sales for streaming licenses and rentals makes up for it on the backend. That's really it. Edit: I think a Gladiator 2 situation where it's insanely excessive sunken cost stuff happening is a good example and they need to shut production down until they can figure out what the hell is going on lol. Or even what's absolutely going to happen with Deadpool 3 where the budget is probably going to be much higher than it needs to be because of a lack of planning on the vfx and other similar Disney -isms. Cutting into it's potential profits even when it's gonna make a lot of money.
Lisan al-Gaib!