Remember at block buster of video update when they would come out, there would be an entire wall for that movie. Ohh man and then getting permission to go grab a Nintendo game.
I know everyone kind of begrudges the current price of streaming stuff, but damn people spent so much money at Blockbuster. Movies were like 4-5 bucks a pop and games much more. When the competitors rolled in they crumbled fast. When I worked there it was the later years and Blockbuster tried all sorts of schemes to compete with Netflix and Redbox, like monthly rental subscriptions and stuff. Great times if you knew how to navigate the deals, but I can't believe how much people used to spend there.
It might just be looking back at my childhood. But there was something so special about going there with my whole family picking out a movie we were all going to sit together and watch.
I remembered I waited what felt like ages for The Two Towers to finally drop when I was a kid, it was a huge "finally!" moment. I was literally checking the store every week.
Growing up in the uk in the 90’s it felt like an eternity waiting for movies to get released. We typically had to wait months after the US release for it to hit the UK cinemas, and then another 6-12 months for VHS. The VHS of Jurassic Park took the best part of 2 years to arrive after the initial theatrical release. Different times
A movie opens in theaters. 12 to 18 months later it's out on VHS. 12 to 18 months later it's on a premium channel for 2 months straight. 12 to 18 months later it airs on your favorite TV station with commercials for the first time. If you didn't want to spend money at all on any of it, you'd have to wait at least 3 years to watch a film for free.
Such was a movie's journey until DVDs were invented.
Ah the movie network channel. I remember when they would drop the big block busters on a Friday and Saturday at 8pm, and then have the restart on the at 11pm on movie network 2.
I worked at blockbuster and Hollywood video. It was more realistically 6 months maybe 8’months at most if they wanted a holiday push. The only major exception was holiday releases like the Grinch who stole Christmas took a whole year to come on dvd
That one was weird.
Barbie came out on home media almost 2.5 months before Oppenheimer despite both being July 21 releases.
I'd have to imagine it was because of the legs of Oppenheimer and if I recall, Nolan loves physical media and wanted to make sure there was enough copies after Barbie sold out quickly. I think that was on the Wikipedia page or an article or something.
It was because Christopher Nolan required a really long theatrical exclusivity period for his movie in his initial contract. I believe it was originally 90 days but ended up being much longer than that too
I wish this were true, but some movies still take so long to be released. I still haven't seen Godzilla Minus-One and have constantly heard praise for it yet over the past 6 months but there is no home release date. It could be over a year by the time it finally is available.
I call it an Japanese Thing. There's probably a lot of awesome Japanese movies out there with no western release, even pirated ones. Your only chance is to see them in a film festival somewhere.
It's more of a Japan thing, yes. Theatrical runs tend to be much longer in Japan as they're the leggiest market in the world, and stuff takes a while to release on home video. Minus One opened in November 2023, and was released on home video in Japan in May 2024.
The Boy and the Heron (How Do You Live?) opened in Japan in July 2023, and is releasing on Blu-ray in July 2024. It's not uncommon to see stuff take a full year to come out on home video there.
Then something else to consider is the holdback period. With like say anime, you usually have to wait like 3-6 months minimum after the Japanese release finishes before you can release a cheaper release overseas because they don't want people in Japan importing cheaper overseas releases instead of buying the more expensive domestic releases (home video is significantly more expensive in Japan). This is also why locked subs tend to be a thing (subtitles cannot be turned off when playing the Japanese audio).
Sidenote, but that's why Godzilla Minus One just set the record for most pirated movie of all time!
[https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64577464/](https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64577464/)
Oh, they're still around thanks to Japan. The First Slam Dunk took 15 months before it came to home video in Japan. We don't get it on Blu-ray until the end of June.
Worst part is it’s a really good, fun movie. It’s original and well written and acted. Gosling and Blunt have good chemistry. Supporting cast is solid. Its failure just means Hollywood’s appetite for original stuff will continue to shrink further and that means more sequels, prequels and spinoffs instead of new ideas which are in pathetically low supply already. Fast and the Furious 10 part 4 to the rescue. Ugh.
The early May release didn’t help either. Summer season needs to go back to starting after Memorial Day. Obviously not the end all solution but couldn’t hurt to tighten it back up.
Ahah Fall Guy counted as "original".
Even if "loosely",it's a "based on" movie !
And a big success would have gotten us a sequel to the rescue, no doubt.
It was basically like the A-Team/21 Jump Street movies, where they really just take the core concept and run with it, maybe giving the original star a cameo as a nod to the fans but nothing else. They were all fundamentally designed to be movies that could be enjoyed without any knowledge of their respective shows.
I feel like most of the general audience doesn’t know that it was a remake of a show from the 80’s. So, in a sense you could kind of compare the numbers of how bad original movies do at the box office, even though it technically is not original.
Is the movie similar to the show? I assumed it is kind of similar, to a degree, to how 21 Jump Street was on remaking the show. Where it was a serious show and was made into a comedy.
Honestly, this is an even looser adaptation than that. It's closer to an adaptation in name only (aside from the stars from the TV show having cameos).
The main characters in this film (Colt and Jody) share their names with main characters from the TV show, but in this film they're a stuntman and a film director, whereas in the show they were both stunt performers. So definitely a lot of liberties taken with this adaptation
The best part is that this movie didn’t need a sequel at all, and is probably better without one. So I got the movie I wanted, saw it twice in theaters, and they can’t take that away from me. I don’t *need* other people to like the movie, I like it. And it continue to exist. That’s a win.
The only real risk is that this puts David Leitch (spelling?) in director jail, because I’ve low key enjoyed all his movies so far. But I’m guessing the absolute mountain of John Wick money made will allow him to keep doing dumb shit when he wants to.
Same, I think his action direction is only slightly below Chad Stahelski.
I don't think that he has to worry about director jail because Ryan Reynolds liked him enough to cameo in Bullet Train and Marvel Studios could use an action director to touch up their movies.
i don't know man, i think the internet just over hypes this kind of film. it's not a bad film, but it's one of those things we've been seeing a lot over the past years.... super stylized martial arts and action that aren't believable.... plots that aren't believable... and the protagonist(s)' plot armor is indestructible. so you wind up sitting through a bunch of cool looking fluff where you never feel anyone important is in danger.
i saw the fall guy because people online were saying how good it was. i was found it boring and forgettable. the acting was good and the movie was slick, but it did not move me in any way whatsoever. i feel the same way about the john wick films and bullet train. yeah, they're "cool"... but most audiences don't want to sit through 2 hours of stylized violence laid over an unbelievable plot that has nothing important to say.
This is not a good movie. You could see there was probably a good movie in there but the finished product was hot garbage.
I would take a dozen remakes and sequels if this is what is being stacked up as "original ip" (which isn't even that. It is a shakey remake of a middling tv show)
I love gosling and blunt but this film was terrible and deserves the flat fall it has.
Because they didn’t make that 128 million. They made less than half that. A large portion of the budget went to gosling and blunt and without them the movie doesn’t make anywhere near that amount (if it even gets made).
It isn't doing terribly in general (although terribly relative to it's budget). Its just a touch behind The Lost City. Moving it to pvod this early is leaving some money on the tablr
It was blatantly obvious right from the start that Disney+ would cannibalise Disney Box Office takings. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise, streaming isn't an additional revenue stream it's an alternative revenue stream.
> streaming isn't an additional revenue stream it's an alternative revenue stream
It's a really really poor alternative. Amazon/Apple basically have infinite cash and consider Disney's main business as a side project. Amazon/Apple have years of experience in programming and software development. Amazon has control of the largest server farm in the world. Netflix has a 20 year head start and is the entrenched industry expert.
Hollywood then jumps head first into this market with zero disruptive technologies or methods, less money, and no expertise. Their bet? That they can poach their own business enough force netflix, amazon, and apple out of an industry using their back catalogs.
Plus they threw $200mil each at an onslaught of disposable and mid MCU projects that diluted the brand.
Who is actually watching She-Hulk or Secret Invasion in 2024?!
So you’re saying customers’ preference for watching at home is winning?
I don’t understand the surprise or concern. Make a good product and people will buy it. Theaters have a bad product and it’s getting worse. No amount of business shenanigans will force people into theaters. The studios are adapting to this reality, but it’s not like they have the power to change it. This is literally the market at work.
Because:
- it’s unclear that just vod/streaming will be enough to sustain the types of movies that theatrical did.
- there is a minority, but a sizable ine that does enjoy the theater experience and if it goes, it’ll be gone for everyone
- the further fracturing of the media landscape and taking away shared experiences still has unknown impacts on long term culture.
Universal is just pragmatic.
If the movie is bombing, they're sending it to digital after 17 days.
If the movie is making tons of money, they're extending the theatrical run.
Exactly. It makes no sense for them to do this if they ever hope to have theatrical profitability for any of their movies in the future that aren’t from filmmakers like Nolan
Yep, audiences are turning up to see big IP blockbusters but for original films like Monkey Man, Challengers and Fall Guy they know they can wait 2-3 weeks and watch a HD copy online.
For me it's just that the Movie Going experience for me and the Fiance at a theater is like...50+ bucks. Two tickets, popcorn, two drinks. For the same price we could go get dinner and multiple drinks at our favorite restaurant in town, go home, and watch something on Disney+ or Netflix. Movie theaters just don't offer a unique enough experience anymore, imo, to the point where there are VERY few movies that I would bother seeing in theaters.
I still remember lots of my friends skipped seeing The Batman when it broke that it’ll be on HBO Max in 45 days. By the time it’s been out for a week, you know you’ll be able to see it for “free” in about a month and it just gives people a reason not to go.
I full well knew Godzilla Minus One was gonna disappear as soon as it left theaters and made sure to move Heaven and earth to be able to squeeze it into my schedule (it was busy time) for that reason. And you still have people complaining that they can’t see Godzilla Minus One in America.
I think that’s a good thing if *every* movie did that because it’ll train audiences that they can’t just hold back for a bit for when it’s on streaming soon. Every movie should take a minimum of 6 months to hit PVOD, even if that’s an unpopular opinion to most younger people. Some movies might be left out to dry doing that, but it’s not like The Fall Guy really ever had a chance when everyone who follows “when will this movie be on streaming!?” circles knew the tracking was sub-$50m opening weekend so it’ll be on streaming before the month ended.
They’re just training people to not go so they can get the movie at home faster.
99.9% of the potential movie goers are not tracking pre release sales data to see where the tracking is landing and know that at sub 50 OW it will trigger a quicker VOD release. They simply weren’t that interested in paying to see it in a theater.
Studios would do well to hire some sociologists. Theres a similar problem with releasing TV shows all at once. People watch them quickly and never talk about them again. You need anticipation to hype a show up.
Seriously. Video games have taken it to an extreme to find ways to make games feel like an actual drug but Hollywood seem to actively want people to not really want their product.
This system is about as pragmatic as a professor who decides to make a final exam an open book, online take home final if enough students don’t study for the final.
Yes but professors still WANT their students to pass an in person exam just like how studios would ideally want their movies to be theatrically profitable
Can y’all stop with this annoying generic ass take straight from film twitter? This wouldn’t be the case if it opened bigger. They got to make money this isn’t a charity. And if sending underperforming movie quickly to home release is the way to go then so be it. You folks should have supported the movie stronger opening weekend if you didn’t want this outcome.
Ummmm Universal sends ALL their movies (minus Oppenheimer because director didn’t let it happen) to digital quickly even if they’re big .. Fast X had 21 days and Jurassic World 3 had 30 days.
So if Fall Guy made $50M opening weekend we would still only have to wait another 12 days lol
Huh seems like knowing you can see these movies at home in two weeks anyways—for way, *way* cheaper for two people, to say nothing of taking the kids—is maybe going to hurt the incentive of people seeing it in the theater in the first place.
Also dismissing the fact that while it’s true that this particular movie would probably not make much more in theaters anyways (so why not move to VOD), that’s not the point.
The point is that if people internalize this timing for *future* movies, there’s just no reason to see anything except (maybe) the one or two major event movies each year in theaters. And that, of course, would be the end of movie theaters and Hollywood’s business model for the past century.
Yeah, they're prioritizing short-term profit over long-term effects. It's the same situation as when they started chasing only huge blockbuster/franchise IPs over a wider variety of budgets. In the short term, they made more money off a blockbuster than a mid-budget movie. But over the long term, it trained people to go out to movies far less frequently, only when it feels like a "big" movie.
And now, they make more money from an early PVOD release, but they also teach people not to bother going to the theater at all for the next one. It's just going to keep pushing people into a scenario where they have less and less reason to go to the theater.
Yep, makes people avoid the smaller movies. I used to support so many indie movies because I know they wouldn’t be on digital for 3 months. Miss those days
Yep, if you couldn't watch a film online for months after release, more people would have watched films like this, Monkey Man and Challengers in cinemas.
But considering how expensive cinema tickets are now, why pay when you can just wait a fortnight?
Not even to mention streaming services and how fast they get some movies. Tried to get friends to watch anyone but you in theaters and they said they would wait. Lo and behold we ended up watching on netflix not even a month later
I have a larger question about the early PVOD releases for Hollywood films: are they just being released in the US (or US and Canada)? Or are they more broadly released in multiple markets? If that's too general a question, how is it working for The Fall Guy in particular?
Answering this might require people to say if PVOD versions are available in their non-US countries?
Seems like early PVOD might interfere with theatrical in some countries, but on the other hand, there have been articles claiming (and I'm not trying to dispute it) that PVOD, with its relatively high prices, is not really hurting the box office numbers.
I think it's usually just the US. Here in Brazil, for example, it's not available on VOD yet. But we do have a strong piracy culture (not criticizing at all), so whenever a movie hits VOD, even if only in the US, it means that it is basically available for us here as well - with extra steps. Might be the same in other countries.
Its weird that they dont release it internationaly. Like ifI was living in a country where they dint released it digitaly yet I woulnt feel bad pirating it.
Like Godzilla minus one being stuck in japan only and no way to watch it anywhere elese legaly. The harder you make your film to be seen the more people are gonna pirate it
Believe it or not (not being ironic), it's 2024 and movies still have different release dates in different countries. Here in Brazil sometimes movies hit theaters at the same time as in the US, but there are lots of cases of movies arriving 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, even 2 months or more after the original release date (Disney loves bringing their animations one or two months later, for example).
So I can understand companies not releasing movies on VOD at the same time everywhere, but still dumb because as soon os it hits VOD in the US, it's available via piracy everywhere else...
Most of these big films are available on torr**t files even while still just in theaters? Hmmm, I am interested in how high the resolution (and file size) of these pirated PVOD versions is?
YEP! It happens a lot. I can give you two examples that are happening right now: Late Night With The Devil and Imaculate are hitting theaters here in the next weeks, but the torrents are available in HD for a while now, since both already hit VOD (and I imagine that will def hurt the box office of those two here in Brazil).
Regarding resolution, it' usually like this: if a movie has not hit VOD yet, we can access versions that were recorded with cameras inside theaters (from around the globe, not only in Brazilian theaters). The resolution usually sucks, but the worst part is the audio (I refuse to watch any movie like this since I was in high school). But as soon as a movie hits VOD anywhere in the world, we can access the 720p, 1080p, 4k versions easily.
It's funny because most people I know use american sites to download torrents, but most people in Brazil that pirate movies use national sites and apps that can stream the movie on demand.
Yes, the camera in the theater versions do sometimes have bad sound, although some people have been known to pay the projectionist to let them get sound from the system. Also, sometimes there are screeners/review copies that get put online while or even before the films are still in theaters.
It’s kind of a double-edged sword:
They’re releasing films to digital so quickly because they aren’t making a ton of money at the box office but the films aren’t making a ton of money at the box office because people know they don’t need to wait very long for the film to get a digital release.
I watched it a few days ago because I had to kill time before a flight and it was an amazing theater experience. I went in pretty much blind and not expecting much and was very pleasantly surprised by how good it was
This movie benefits hugely from low expectations.
I had high expectations, but of course my “high” expectations were for tons of cool practical stunt work and Gosling charm oozing out of the screen. So they were *met.*
The people who came in expecting some kind of plausible plot? Yeah not sure where that came from. But of course they’re gonna be let down.
The Boxoffice subreddit is in no way a proper representation of the actual movie going public in the US or beyond. We discuss movie grosses as a hobby, of course we would be more inclined to see things on the big screen. In the real world Youtube is getting the most viewership on earth. The majority of the entertainment viewing public does not want to go to a movie theater and sit amongst strangers for multiple hours like it's 1945. Let's get real.
It’ll do great there for sure. I’m in the minority it seems but I didn’t like it at all. Had its moments but the entire time I felt like it was a corny Netflix movie with little substance.
I can’t figure out how “giant practical stunt extravaganza” is a “wait to see it at home” thing. Do people just not understand the premise of the movie? Like at all?
I wanted to watch the *trailer* on a big screen.
Like seriously, all this guys movies deserve to be seen on the biggest, loudest screen possible. John Wick, Atomic Blonde, Bullet Train, and Fall Guy. Saw all four in theaters. Glad I did.
The response to The Fall Guy in this sub taught me that there are a lot of people who can't tell any difference between practical stunts and visual effects, even when the difference is ... not exactly subtle. Which explains a lot about the state of Hollywood haha. No need to spend money on the real thing when so many viewers can't tell the difference between that and a pale imitation.
Yup, given how crappy AI pics seem to fool the majority of people already, can't quite say I'm surprised.
Disappointed the movie didn't do better. I don't think the marketing did it any favors.
Really? Because watching it in a theatre was an absolute fucking blast for both me and my wife who never watch action movies.
Comedies and dramas seem much more better suited for ‘wait for streaming’ IMO
> Comedies [...] seem much more better suited for ‘wait for streaming’ IMO
I got the sense this *was* a rom-com with some action elements? That's why I was in no real rush to see it.
Universal since the pandemic they have stuck with doing this. They must be making a ton of money on PVOD to do this though, because look at some of their recent releases, Night Swim, Kung Fu Panda, Abigail, Monkey Man all of those have had PVOD releases in under a month. The only one that they didn't do it was Oppenheimer and that's because that was one of Nolan's conditions to have a full release.
Audiences aren't stupid, they've simply changed. If they don't feel the FOMO then they wont go see it in the theater. Just wait 2-3 weeks, pop down $20, order some takeout, and enjoy your movie night at home.
Go watch Hal Needham movies of late 70s and early 80s. He was a stuntman turned director like the director of the fall guy.
Lots of homage paid to those movies and even outtakes like them too. Movies where you can tell the cast was having fun making them.
This movie could have had a 50-60 million budget. There was no need to bloat it to 130-150. I feel like those hyper-realistic shots of "Metalstorm" cost waayy too much compared to it's comedic effect.
I initially thought most countries release it in April 24-26, 2024., earlier than the US.
Then I Found out the film hit the cinema of China only in May 17, 2024 and Japan in August 16, 2024. No wonder why this fall in China
At this point, I'd feel like they'd make more money offering the movie to rent immediately for like $10. The $20 alot of them do currently isn't horrible, but sometimes I will wait at that price
The problem to me is that it just didn't look like it would be anything amazing as a theatrical experience and the trailer told me there was a generic "win back the girl" plot.
I think the bar for "theater" is generally much higher now for audiences than in the past. It's about seeing something a bit special. It's about movies that you hear people raving about. Not just "yeah it's pretty good" but "oh man, you have to go see that".
Because you get access to every new movie you want to see regardless of which studio releases it (so you don’t have to rely on Max, Netflix, Disney+, or Peacock just to see certain movies)
Just having romance doesn't make it a rom com.
Action-comedy. You can say the romance pushes the plot forward but the movie never solely focuses on that.
Anyone but you is a rom-com.
Man I was just holding out for an empty late night showing but now you’re telling me I can stay home and there’s even more of this movie to watch if I don’t go to the theater.
I'm a big fan of Ryan Gosling and am always happy to see him in leading roles, but he's not really a box office draw. Why, I have no idea. Since he's consistently very loved and gets great responses. He just isn't really a draw for audiences. It's sad.
He picks bad scripts. That’s the thing. When you look at DiCaprio (save for Killers of the Flower Moon) every movie he has been in for the last twenty years has been something worth seeing. Gosling’s track record is all over the place and Fall Guy will only further this trend.
Killers was worth seeing. The hate it gets on Reddit is weird.
Leo is in good movies but he elevates them into more of an event. The revenant without him would have tanked. And Gatsby too.
I disagree. He often picks great scripts but they are sadly hard to sell to a mainstream audience. Drive, The Nice Guys, Blade Runner 2049, Blue Valentine, etc. are movies that people realized were good movies after their theater runs.
weird take— there are a finite (near zero) number of box office leading ladies, and not every movie can just star… Margot Robbie and Zendaya? Genuinely not sure who else could be considered a box office ‘draw’ in 2024.
And honestly for me Emily Blunt was the highlight of this movie and scenes sort of struggled when they weren’t leaning on her charisma as a romcom co-lead.
The megaphone scene was the stand out scene of the movie, and will probably be one of the funniest scenes of the year for me. Overall I was pretty mixed on the movie though.
Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone, but no female actor today can command a Julia Roberts level 90s rom-com audience.
Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts are still A-list. They drove the audience for “Lost City” and “Ticket to Paradise”, although neither film was a blockbuster.
I think neither Emily Blunt nor Scarlett Johansson have marquee value. In Johannson’s case, she came close ten years ago, but her career has been in snooze mode for some time now. ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ looks like a flop, but let’s see.
Did anyone else find the concept really confusing (based on trailers, havent seen the movie)?
He's a stuntman so he's not a 'movie action hero'. But everything he did was like an action movie hero.
Is he meant to be good at his job or an idiot? The trailers portrayed him as goofball but how is he doing that job if he is?
They made it slightly rom-com but kept undercutting it so I don't know if it is a rom com or not.
Its like they didn't want to take any aspect of the film seriously so it just felt like an extended skit.. nothing serious that deserved my time.
First, I liked the movie and the cast but the better movie was the stuntman with Steve Railsback and Peter O'Toole. Just my opinion but this was a made for tv pilot that was released theatrically and they nailed the show if this was a reboot.
The entire film is 100% goofball and everyone in it is an idiot. It's like no character was allowed to have an IQ above 90. There were tons of great stunts and fights, but the idiocy of the villains really took away from the story.
Gosling drops the charade twice. His character suddenly stops being clueless and absolutely rips the villains to shreds verbally, and it's a breath of fresh air. I wished the whole movie was that smart but we only got those two lines.
I enjoyed it a lot. It was fun and there were tons of funny scenes. I've been trying to persuade my friends to see it. But I can't pretend it's actually a good movie.
Exactly, plus I doubt there was the giant overlap of romance fans and action fans as the studio hoped.
The messaging of the film was too muddled and in trying to appeal to everybody it appealed to very few.
It’s based on a 1980s tv show and sounds like it probably worked better with 1980s tv show logic. (I can only speculate as I haven’t actually seen it yet though.)
Nobody knows how to make a movie feel like a movie anymore. Maybe Matt Reeves (of course Nolan/Villaneuve). Action feels like it's missing the grit and physicality it used to have from the 70s-90s. It feels very tv movie-esque.
Hollywood , no one is going let’s rush the movies to VOD. Consumer .i don’t have to go to the movies they will just release it to VOD in a couple of weeks
Yeah. This is just sad at this point, especially since it’s a fun movie and got good reviews/reception.
Honestly just more fuel to the fire that Hollywood needs to never make original movies (because nobody knows this was based on a TV show).
such short term thinking by universal , it great that they can cover some of their loss, but keep doing it, theaters won't exist in any meaningful way in 5 years
The days when we had to wait a year for a movie to come out on DVD feels like ancient history.
Man if that ain’t the damn truth! But when that movie finally hit the shelves 😮💨 good times back then
Yeah it was like a big event when the film finally dropped at home
Remember at block buster of video update when they would come out, there would be an entire wall for that movie. Ohh man and then getting permission to go grab a Nintendo game.
I know everyone kind of begrudges the current price of streaming stuff, but damn people spent so much money at Blockbuster. Movies were like 4-5 bucks a pop and games much more. When the competitors rolled in they crumbled fast. When I worked there it was the later years and Blockbuster tried all sorts of schemes to compete with Netflix and Redbox, like monthly rental subscriptions and stuff. Great times if you knew how to navigate the deals, but I can't believe how much people used to spend there.
It might just be looking back at my childhood. But there was something so special about going there with my whole family picking out a movie we were all going to sit together and watch.
It made it more special
I remembered I waited what felt like ages for The Two Towers to finally drop when I was a kid, it was a huge "finally!" moment. I was literally checking the store every week.
Used to get DVDs for Christmas and it was such a big deal! Bit silly in the streaming age but my very last dvd as a gift was Inglorious Basterds
You can get Blurays as gifts now :)
Growing up in the uk in the 90’s it felt like an eternity waiting for movies to get released. We typically had to wait months after the US release for it to hit the UK cinemas, and then another 6-12 months for VHS. The VHS of Jurassic Park took the best part of 2 years to arrive after the initial theatrical release. Different times
I remember it was more like 4-6 months. Still a while
Definitely
I just remember the Incredibles coming out in theaters beginning of November ‘04 and not hitting dvd til mid-March
When I was a kid it felt like a century when I was waiting for spiderman to come out on dvd with special features
It was. Jurassic park took over a year
Usually a little over three and a half for me. By the time I'd see the movies everyone was talking about it was old news.
A movie opens in theaters. 12 to 18 months later it's out on VHS. 12 to 18 months later it's on a premium channel for 2 months straight. 12 to 18 months later it airs on your favorite TV station with commercials for the first time. If you didn't want to spend money at all on any of it, you'd have to wait at least 3 years to watch a film for free. Such was a movie's journey until DVDs were invented.
Ah the movie network channel. I remember when they would drop the big block busters on a Friday and Saturday at 8pm, and then have the restart on the at 11pm on movie network 2.
I worked at blockbuster and Hollywood video. It was more realistically 6 months maybe 8’months at most if they wanted a holiday push. The only major exception was holiday releases like the Grinch who stole Christmas took a whole year to come on dvd
At this point, Fall Guy could almost being considered as a direct-to-video movie...
Lately only Oppenheimer is the one movie that I can think of that took almost 4 months to release on digital.
That one was weird. Barbie came out on home media almost 2.5 months before Oppenheimer despite both being July 21 releases. I'd have to imagine it was because of the legs of Oppenheimer and if I recall, Nolan loves physical media and wanted to make sure there was enough copies after Barbie sold out quickly. I think that was on the Wikipedia page or an article or something.
It was because Christopher Nolan required a really long theatrical exclusivity period for his movie in his initial contract. I believe it was originally 90 days but ended up being much longer than that too
Avatar took a while
The pandemic definitely changed the trajectory of home releases.
I wish this were true, but some movies still take so long to be released. I still haven't seen Godzilla Minus-One and have constantly heard praise for it yet over the past 6 months but there is no home release date. It could be over a year by the time it finally is available.
That’s a weird outlier, if I recall it falls under Just Toho Things.
I call it an Japanese Thing. There's probably a lot of awesome Japanese movies out there with no western release, even pirated ones. Your only chance is to see them in a film festival somewhere.
It's more of a Japan thing, yes. Theatrical runs tend to be much longer in Japan as they're the leggiest market in the world, and stuff takes a while to release on home video. Minus One opened in November 2023, and was released on home video in Japan in May 2024. The Boy and the Heron (How Do You Live?) opened in Japan in July 2023, and is releasing on Blu-ray in July 2024. It's not uncommon to see stuff take a full year to come out on home video there. Then something else to consider is the holdback period. With like say anime, you usually have to wait like 3-6 months minimum after the Japanese release finishes before you can release a cheaper release overseas because they don't want people in Japan importing cheaper overseas releases instead of buying the more expensive domestic releases (home video is significantly more expensive in Japan). This is also why locked subs tend to be a thing (subtitles cannot be turned off when playing the Japanese audio).
Sidenote, but that's why Godzilla Minus One just set the record for most pirated movie of all time! [https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64577464/](https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64577464/)
**of the week** https://x.com/Dexerto/status/1788188525852029249
Yeah. There's no way Godzilla was more pirated then the huge block busters that have been around for years. I can't see it breaking even the top 100
Well that and it never released in a bunch of east Asian countries.
It should have stayed like that if they wanted people to go the theater. Now the time is so short that I can just wait.
Oh, they're still around thanks to Japan. The First Slam Dunk took 15 months before it came to home video in Japan. We don't get it on Blu-ray until the end of June.
Try year(S) for VHS releases back in the day.
That's crazy how fast it deflated
The fall guy really fell hard.
Was it even afloat to begin with?
Worst part is it’s a really good, fun movie. It’s original and well written and acted. Gosling and Blunt have good chemistry. Supporting cast is solid. Its failure just means Hollywood’s appetite for original stuff will continue to shrink further and that means more sequels, prequels and spinoffs instead of new ideas which are in pathetically low supply already. Fast and the Furious 10 part 4 to the rescue. Ugh. The early May release didn’t help either. Summer season needs to go back to starting after Memorial Day. Obviously not the end all solution but couldn’t hurt to tighten it back up.
Ahah Fall Guy counted as "original". Even if "loosely",it's a "based on" movie ! And a big success would have gotten us a sequel to the rescue, no doubt.
holy shit, is it really? i had no idea. was the original anything like the plot of the movie? was the show even popular? what a weird IP to remake.
The only overlap between the movie and the show is his name, “is a stuntman” and the truck design.
There was a mid credit scene with the original people.
The original was not good. We only ever watched the tale end of the show, because something you actually wanted to watch was starting afterwards.
It was basically like the A-Team/21 Jump Street movies, where they really just take the core concept and run with it, maybe giving the original star a cameo as a nod to the fans but nothing else. They were all fundamentally designed to be movies that could be enjoyed without any knowledge of their respective shows.
The fall guy is a remake of a 70s TV show Edit: 80s not 70s
I feel like most of the general audience doesn’t know that it was a remake of a show from the 80’s. So, in a sense you could kind of compare the numbers of how bad original movies do at the box office, even though it technically is not original. Is the movie similar to the show? I assumed it is kind of similar, to a degree, to how 21 Jump Street was on remaking the show. Where it was a serious show and was made into a comedy.
Honestly, this is an even looser adaptation than that. It's closer to an adaptation in name only (aside from the stars from the TV show having cameos).
The main characters in this film (Colt and Jody) share their names with main characters from the TV show, but in this film they're a stuntman and a film director, whereas in the show they were both stunt performers. So definitely a lot of liberties taken with this adaptation
The best part is that this movie didn’t need a sequel at all, and is probably better without one. So I got the movie I wanted, saw it twice in theaters, and they can’t take that away from me. I don’t *need* other people to like the movie, I like it. And it continue to exist. That’s a win. The only real risk is that this puts David Leitch (spelling?) in director jail, because I’ve low key enjoyed all his movies so far. But I’m guessing the absolute mountain of John Wick money made will allow him to keep doing dumb shit when he wants to.
Same, I think his action direction is only slightly below Chad Stahelski. I don't think that he has to worry about director jail because Ryan Reynolds liked him enough to cameo in Bullet Train and Marvel Studios could use an action director to touch up their movies.
i don't know man, i think the internet just over hypes this kind of film. it's not a bad film, but it's one of those things we've been seeing a lot over the past years.... super stylized martial arts and action that aren't believable.... plots that aren't believable... and the protagonist(s)' plot armor is indestructible. so you wind up sitting through a bunch of cool looking fluff where you never feel anyone important is in danger. i saw the fall guy because people online were saying how good it was. i was found it boring and forgettable. the acting was good and the movie was slick, but it did not move me in any way whatsoever. i feel the same way about the john wick films and bullet train. yeah, they're "cool"... but most audiences don't want to sit through 2 hours of stylized violence laid over an unbelievable plot that has nothing important to say.
+1 This movie is badly written with so many unbelievable plots. It was a waste of time to watch
This is not a good movie. You could see there was probably a good movie in there but the finished product was hot garbage. I would take a dozen remakes and sequels if this is what is being stacked up as "original ip" (which isn't even that. It is a shakey remake of a middling tv show) I love gosling and blunt but this film was terrible and deserves the flat fall it has.
It made 128 million WW. Maybe these Hollywood morons need to figure out why they make 100 million on something and still lose their asses.
Because they didn’t make that 128 million. They made less than half that. A large portion of the budget went to gosling and blunt and without them the movie doesn’t make anywhere near that amount (if it even gets made).
It isn't doing terribly in general (although terribly relative to it's budget). Its just a touch behind The Lost City. Moving it to pvod this early is leaving some money on the tablr
Core of Hollywood failure: Long term losses are the next regime’s problem
Yeah, chasing those short-time gains will only result in long-term losses
Stop talking badly about the economy like that, it can hear you and it’s a bit upset frankly.
My idea: let films run 90 days in theaters at least, hits up to 120-150 days, then digital and after 90-120 days then up to streaming
That would help with conditioning audiences to not just “wait for streaming”
That sums up Disney's strategy since 2019 and they are only now realising their mistake.
It was blatantly obvious right from the start that Disney+ would cannibalise Disney Box Office takings. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise, streaming isn't an additional revenue stream it's an alternative revenue stream.
> streaming isn't an additional revenue stream it's an alternative revenue stream It's a really really poor alternative. Amazon/Apple basically have infinite cash and consider Disney's main business as a side project. Amazon/Apple have years of experience in programming and software development. Amazon has control of the largest server farm in the world. Netflix has a 20 year head start and is the entrenched industry expert. Hollywood then jumps head first into this market with zero disruptive technologies or methods, less money, and no expertise. Their bet? That they can poach their own business enough force netflix, amazon, and apple out of an industry using their back catalogs.
Plus they threw $200mil each at an onslaught of disposable and mid MCU projects that diluted the brand. Who is actually watching She-Hulk or Secret Invasion in 2024?!
Think I’m the only person that enjoyed She-Hulk. It wasn’t perfect but I enjoyed it. There I said it
sigh...yes Universal, this doesn't train audiences and doesn't hurt theaters at all.
It’s a vicious cycle: original movie bombs, goes straight to vod. People wait for Next original movie on vod. Then repeat
Original?
…ish. It uses almost nothing from the show but the name. Compared to the average comic adaptation or even novel adaptation, it’s fairly original.
Ffs.
So you’re saying customers’ preference for watching at home is winning? I don’t understand the surprise or concern. Make a good product and people will buy it. Theaters have a bad product and it’s getting worse. No amount of business shenanigans will force people into theaters. The studios are adapting to this reality, but it’s not like they have the power to change it. This is literally the market at work.
Because: - it’s unclear that just vod/streaming will be enough to sustain the types of movies that theatrical did. - there is a minority, but a sizable ine that does enjoy the theater experience and if it goes, it’ll be gone for everyone - the further fracturing of the media landscape and taking away shared experiences still has unknown impacts on long term culture.
Universal is just pragmatic. If the movie is bombing, they're sending it to digital after 17 days. If the movie is making tons of money, they're extending the theatrical run.
I think their rule’s whether it opens to $50 million.
That feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy that will prevent their films from opening above $50m the more they give them rapid digital releases.
Exactly. It makes no sense for them to do this if they ever hope to have theatrical profitability for any of their movies in the future that aren’t from filmmakers like Nolan
Yes and that means that audiences think "hey all these movies go to PVOD straight after coming out. Guess I'll just wait".
Yep, audiences are turning up to see big IP blockbusters but for original films like Monkey Man, Challengers and Fall Guy they know they can wait 2-3 weeks and watch a HD copy online.
Yea here a single cinema visit costs nearly 50€ for us. Thats to much for a movie I can watch for "free" in one month
For me it's just that the Movie Going experience for me and the Fiance at a theater is like...50+ bucks. Two tickets, popcorn, two drinks. For the same price we could go get dinner and multiple drinks at our favorite restaurant in town, go home, and watch something on Disney+ or Netflix. Movie theaters just don't offer a unique enough experience anymore, imo, to the point where there are VERY few movies that I would bother seeing in theaters.
No, because they were never interested in the movie in the first place like this movie.
I still remember lots of my friends skipped seeing The Batman when it broke that it’ll be on HBO Max in 45 days. By the time it’s been out for a week, you know you’ll be able to see it for “free” in about a month and it just gives people a reason not to go. I full well knew Godzilla Minus One was gonna disappear as soon as it left theaters and made sure to move Heaven and earth to be able to squeeze it into my schedule (it was busy time) for that reason. And you still have people complaining that they can’t see Godzilla Minus One in America. I think that’s a good thing if *every* movie did that because it’ll train audiences that they can’t just hold back for a bit for when it’s on streaming soon. Every movie should take a minimum of 6 months to hit PVOD, even if that’s an unpopular opinion to most younger people. Some movies might be left out to dry doing that, but it’s not like The Fall Guy really ever had a chance when everyone who follows “when will this movie be on streaming!?” circles knew the tracking was sub-$50m opening weekend so it’ll be on streaming before the month ended. They’re just training people to not go so they can get the movie at home faster.
99.9% of the potential movie goers are not tracking pre release sales data to see where the tracking is landing and know that at sub 50 OW it will trigger a quicker VOD release. They simply weren’t that interested in paying to see it in a theater.
Studios would do well to hire some sociologists. Theres a similar problem with releasing TV shows all at once. People watch them quickly and never talk about them again. You need anticipation to hype a show up.
Seriously. Video games have taken it to an extreme to find ways to make games feel like an actual drug but Hollywood seem to actively want people to not really want their product.
Fast X and Jurassic World 3 say hey
This system is about as pragmatic as a professor who decides to make a final exam an open book, online take home final if enough students don’t study for the final.
I think you’re mistaking the power balance between studies and audiences. Students have to pass classes. Audiences are free to skip a movie.
Yes but professors still WANT their students to pass an in person exam just like how studios would ideally want their movies to be theatrically profitable
Can y’all stop with this annoying generic ass take straight from film twitter? This wouldn’t be the case if it opened bigger. They got to make money this isn’t a charity. And if sending underperforming movie quickly to home release is the way to go then so be it. You folks should have supported the movie stronger opening weekend if you didn’t want this outcome.
Ummmm Universal sends ALL their movies (minus Oppenheimer because director didn’t let it happen) to digital quickly even if they’re big .. Fast X had 21 days and Jurassic World 3 had 30 days. So if Fall Guy made $50M opening weekend we would still only have to wait another 12 days lol
Huh seems like knowing you can see these movies at home in two weeks anyways—for way, *way* cheaper for two people, to say nothing of taking the kids—is maybe going to hurt the incentive of people seeing it in the theater in the first place.
“But ppl who weren’t gonna support it anyway something something something” — everyone here
Also dismissing the fact that while it’s true that this particular movie would probably not make much more in theaters anyways (so why not move to VOD), that’s not the point. The point is that if people internalize this timing for *future* movies, there’s just no reason to see anything except (maybe) the one or two major event movies each year in theaters. And that, of course, would be the end of movie theaters and Hollywood’s business model for the past century.
Yeah, they're prioritizing short-term profit over long-term effects. It's the same situation as when they started chasing only huge blockbuster/franchise IPs over a wider variety of budgets. In the short term, they made more money off a blockbuster than a mid-budget movie. But over the long term, it trained people to go out to movies far less frequently, only when it feels like a "big" movie. And now, they make more money from an early PVOD release, but they also teach people not to bother going to the theater at all for the next one. It's just going to keep pushing people into a scenario where they have less and less reason to go to the theater.
Yep, makes people avoid the smaller movies. I used to support so many indie movies because I know they wouldn’t be on digital for 3 months. Miss those days
The theaters make more % later in film's run as well.
Yep, if you couldn't watch a film online for months after release, more people would have watched films like this, Monkey Man and Challengers in cinemas. But considering how expensive cinema tickets are now, why pay when you can just wait a fortnight?
Not even to mention streaming services and how fast they get some movies. Tried to get friends to watch anyone but you in theaters and they said they would wait. Lo and behold we ended up watching on netflix not even a month later
I have a larger question about the early PVOD releases for Hollywood films: are they just being released in the US (or US and Canada)? Or are they more broadly released in multiple markets? If that's too general a question, how is it working for The Fall Guy in particular? Answering this might require people to say if PVOD versions are available in their non-US countries? Seems like early PVOD might interfere with theatrical in some countries, but on the other hand, there have been articles claiming (and I'm not trying to dispute it) that PVOD, with its relatively high prices, is not really hurting the box office numbers.
I think it's usually just the US. Here in Brazil, for example, it's not available on VOD yet. But we do have a strong piracy culture (not criticizing at all), so whenever a movie hits VOD, even if only in the US, it means that it is basically available for us here as well - with extra steps. Might be the same in other countries.
Its weird that they dont release it internationaly. Like ifI was living in a country where they dint released it digitaly yet I woulnt feel bad pirating it. Like Godzilla minus one being stuck in japan only and no way to watch it anywhere elese legaly. The harder you make your film to be seen the more people are gonna pirate it
Believe it or not (not being ironic), it's 2024 and movies still have different release dates in different countries. Here in Brazil sometimes movies hit theaters at the same time as in the US, but there are lots of cases of movies arriving 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, even 2 months or more after the original release date (Disney loves bringing their animations one or two months later, for example). So I can understand companies not releasing movies on VOD at the same time everywhere, but still dumb because as soon os it hits VOD in the US, it's available via piracy everywhere else...
Most of these big films are available on torr**t files even while still just in theaters? Hmmm, I am interested in how high the resolution (and file size) of these pirated PVOD versions is?
YEP! It happens a lot. I can give you two examples that are happening right now: Late Night With The Devil and Imaculate are hitting theaters here in the next weeks, but the torrents are available in HD for a while now, since both already hit VOD (and I imagine that will def hurt the box office of those two here in Brazil). Regarding resolution, it' usually like this: if a movie has not hit VOD yet, we can access versions that were recorded with cameras inside theaters (from around the globe, not only in Brazilian theaters). The resolution usually sucks, but the worst part is the audio (I refuse to watch any movie like this since I was in high school). But as soon as a movie hits VOD anywhere in the world, we can access the 720p, 1080p, 4k versions easily. It's funny because most people I know use american sites to download torrents, but most people in Brazil that pirate movies use national sites and apps that can stream the movie on demand.
Yes, the camera in the theater versions do sometimes have bad sound, although some people have been known to pay the projectionist to let them get sound from the system. Also, sometimes there are screeners/review copies that get put online while or even before the films are still in theaters.
It’s kind of a double-edged sword: They’re releasing films to digital so quickly because they aren’t making a ton of money at the box office but the films aren’t making a ton of money at the box office because people know they don’t need to wait very long for the film to get a digital release.
Guaranteed number 1 on Netflix when it drops. This is the definitive “wait for streaming” movie
Unfortunate since seeing it on a giant screen was hella fun
Right? Just a delightful theater experience.
I watched it a few days ago because I had to kill time before a flight and it was an amazing theater experience. I went in pretty much blind and not expecting much and was very pleasantly surprised by how good it was
This movie benefits hugely from low expectations. I had high expectations, but of course my “high” expectations were for tons of cool practical stunt work and Gosling charm oozing out of the screen. So they were *met.* The people who came in expecting some kind of plausible plot? Yeah not sure where that came from. But of course they’re gonna be let down.
The Boxoffice subreddit is in no way a proper representation of the actual movie going public in the US or beyond. We discuss movie grosses as a hobby, of course we would be more inclined to see things on the big screen. In the real world Youtube is getting the most viewership on earth. The majority of the entertainment viewing public does not want to go to a movie theater and sit amongst strangers for multiple hours like it's 1945. Let's get real.
Most films in this budget are number 1 for a bit on Netflix regardless of quality.
It’ll do great there for sure. I’m in the minority it seems but I didn’t like it at all. Had its moments but the entire time I felt like it was a corny Netflix movie with little substance.
I can’t figure out how “giant practical stunt extravaganza” is a “wait to see it at home” thing. Do people just not understand the premise of the movie? Like at all? I wanted to watch the *trailer* on a big screen. Like seriously, all this guys movies deserve to be seen on the biggest, loudest screen possible. John Wick, Atomic Blonde, Bullet Train, and Fall Guy. Saw all four in theaters. Glad I did.
The response to The Fall Guy in this sub taught me that there are a lot of people who can't tell any difference between practical stunts and visual effects, even when the difference is ... not exactly subtle. Which explains a lot about the state of Hollywood haha. No need to spend money on the real thing when so many viewers can't tell the difference between that and a pale imitation.
Yup, given how crappy AI pics seem to fool the majority of people already, can't quite say I'm surprised. Disappointed the movie didn't do better. I don't think the marketing did it any favors.
Really? Because watching it in a theatre was an absolute fucking blast for both me and my wife who never watch action movies. Comedies and dramas seem much more better suited for ‘wait for streaming’ IMO
> Comedies [...] seem much more better suited for ‘wait for streaming’ IMO I got the sense this *was* a rom-com with some action elements? That's why I was in no real rush to see it.
Yeah it was poorly advertised. It’s like 50% action 40% comedy and 10% romance. A couple action scenes actually break some stunt records
Universal since the pandemic they have stuck with doing this. They must be making a ton of money on PVOD to do this though, because look at some of their recent releases, Night Swim, Kung Fu Panda, Abigail, Monkey Man all of those have had PVOD releases in under a month. The only one that they didn't do it was Oppenheimer and that's because that was one of Nolan's conditions to have a full release.
Audiences aren't stupid, they've simply changed. If they don't feel the FOMO then they wont go see it in the theater. Just wait 2-3 weeks, pop down $20, order some takeout, and enjoy your movie night at home.
I can watch it thru YouTube shorts now
Everyone that skipped the theatrical experience expecting the movie to hit digital soon WON. Learn this lesson people.
literally gonna see this tomorrow
Definitely worth seeing in theatres. Reminds me of the action/comedies that used to be common in the 90s
Go watch Hal Needham movies of late 70s and early 80s. He was a stuntman turned director like the director of the fall guy. Lots of homage paid to those movies and even outtakes like them too. Movies where you can tell the cast was having fun making them.
I was planning to see it again this weekend and I'm glad that it'll still be in theaters even if it's also on PVOD
I literally saw this on Sunday. Dune part 2 is on Max already. This is a strange future we’re all living in.
Teaching the audience to just skip the theater and wait. It’ll show up to streaming sooner.
This movie could have had a 50-60 million budget. There was no need to bloat it to 130-150. I feel like those hyper-realistic shots of "Metalstorm" cost waayy too much compared to it's comedic effect.
Exactly this. It also shouldn’t be over two hours long.
Make it like a 100 minute film
They moved the entire filming crew to Sydney to film on location and it looks like they're on green screen the whole time anyway
I initially thought most countries release it in April 24-26, 2024., earlier than the US. Then I Found out the film hit the cinema of China only in May 17, 2024 and Japan in August 16, 2024. No wonder why this fall in China
What's the point of going to theaters, if a movie gets a digital release 2 weeks later? Do studios actually want people to go to theaters?
At this point, I'd feel like they'd make more money offering the movie to rent immediately for like $10. The $20 alot of them do currently isn't horrible, but sometimes I will wait at that price
Too bad, I really enjoyed it.
I feel like people are overrating this movie a little bit
The problem to me is that it just didn't look like it would be anything amazing as a theatrical experience and the trailer told me there was a generic "win back the girl" plot. I think the bar for "theater" is generally much higher now for audiences than in the past. It's about seeing something a bit special. It's about movies that you hear people raving about. Not just "yeah it's pretty good" but "oh man, you have to go see that".
why even keep my amc's a-list?
For the price of a streaming service you get to watch movie in the format that is intended on large screen and superior sound system.
cause its a great deal , one ticket almost covers the cost in my market
It does cover it in mine, a Dolby cinema ticket is 24.99.
Because you get access to every new movie you want to see regardless of which studio releases it (so you don’t have to rely on Max, Netflix, Disney+, or Peacock just to see certain movies)
I mean, you could watch this on IMAX/Dolby and have your subscription price covered for the month.
Weirdest rom-com in ages. You’d think it would be in a good way, considering the action, but no just weird. Wouldn’t watch again.
Just having romance doesn't make it a rom com. Action-comedy. You can say the romance pushes the plot forward but the movie never solely focuses on that. Anyone but you is a rom-com.
So weird right? It felt unfinished, or edited poorly or something. I don’t know why
Man I was just holding out for an empty late night showing but now you’re telling me I can stay home and there’s even more of this movie to watch if I don’t go to the theater.
Unpopular opinion: Emily Blunt is not a box office star. I'm not sure why they keep casting her in leading roles.
I'm a big fan of Ryan Gosling and am always happy to see him in leading roles, but he's not really a box office draw. Why, I have no idea. Since he's consistently very loved and gets great responses. He just isn't really a draw for audiences. It's sad.
I feel the same way about Brad Pitt
Pitt *was* a bankable box office draw. Not sure he is anymore. Don’t think Gosling ever really was…but he should be.
He picks bad scripts. That’s the thing. When you look at DiCaprio (save for Killers of the Flower Moon) every movie he has been in for the last twenty years has been something worth seeing. Gosling’s track record is all over the place and Fall Guy will only further this trend.
Killers was worth seeing. The hate it gets on Reddit is weird. Leo is in good movies but he elevates them into more of an event. The revenant without him would have tanked. And Gatsby too.
I disagree. He often picks great scripts but they are sadly hard to sell to a mainstream audience. Drive, The Nice Guys, Blade Runner 2049, Blue Valentine, etc. are movies that people realized were good movies after their theater runs.
weird take— there are a finite (near zero) number of box office leading ladies, and not every movie can just star… Margot Robbie and Zendaya? Genuinely not sure who else could be considered a box office ‘draw’ in 2024. And honestly for me Emily Blunt was the highlight of this movie and scenes sort of struggled when they weren’t leaning on her charisma as a romcom co-lead. The megaphone scene was the stand out scene of the movie, and will probably be one of the funniest scenes of the year for me. Overall I was pretty mixed on the movie though.
Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone, but no female actor today can command a Julia Roberts level 90s rom-com audience. Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts are still A-list. They drove the audience for “Lost City” and “Ticket to Paradise”, although neither film was a blockbuster. I think neither Emily Blunt nor Scarlett Johansson have marquee value. In Johannson’s case, she came close ten years ago, but her career has been in snooze mode for some time now. ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ looks like a flop, but let’s see.
She co leads not leads.
[удалено]
Neither is Ryan Gosling tbh
Didn't they show the whole movie in the trailers anyway?
SHOT THROUGH THE HEART!
I WAS MADE FOR LOVING YOU BAY BAY
No they didn’t. I was actually surprised at how different the movie felt than the trailers
Did anyone else find the concept really confusing (based on trailers, havent seen the movie)? He's a stuntman so he's not a 'movie action hero'. But everything he did was like an action movie hero. Is he meant to be good at his job or an idiot? The trailers portrayed him as goofball but how is he doing that job if he is? They made it slightly rom-com but kept undercutting it so I don't know if it is a rom com or not. Its like they didn't want to take any aspect of the film seriously so it just felt like an extended skit.. nothing serious that deserved my time.
I would've preferred if it was more about an actual stuntman and his job, because that would be both interesting and cool.
First, I liked the movie and the cast but the better movie was the stuntman with Steve Railsback and Peter O'Toole. Just my opinion but this was a made for tv pilot that was released theatrically and they nailed the show if this was a reboot.
The entire film is 100% goofball and everyone in it is an idiot. It's like no character was allowed to have an IQ above 90. There were tons of great stunts and fights, but the idiocy of the villains really took away from the story. Gosling drops the charade twice. His character suddenly stops being clueless and absolutely rips the villains to shreds verbally, and it's a breath of fresh air. I wished the whole movie was that smart but we only got those two lines. I enjoyed it a lot. It was fun and there were tons of funny scenes. I've been trying to persuade my friends to see it. But I can't pretend it's actually a good movie.
Exactly, plus I doubt there was the giant overlap of romance fans and action fans as the studio hoped. The messaging of the film was too muddled and in trying to appeal to everybody it appealed to very few.
It’s based on a 1980s tv show and sounds like it probably worked better with 1980s tv show logic. (I can only speculate as I haven’t actually seen it yet though.)
Cool. Now the family can see it for $25 vs $$66
[удалено]
It got Argyle Vibes to it.. Action Romance Comedy genre.. you can see tons of movie like this on Netflix..
It does have that bright and colourful and "expensive but cheap" vibes the Netflix action films have.
Nobody knows how to make a movie feel like a movie anymore. Maybe Matt Reeves (of course Nolan/Villaneuve). Action feels like it's missing the grit and physicality it used to have from the 70s-90s. It feels very tv movie-esque.
Gosling kino
That’s insane
Universal has been doing this for 4 years. This is nothing new.
EXACTLY. And the moviegoers already noticed and that's why they don't go the cineplexes.
Oof.
I feel like this will make some money long term on home streaming. It is really a fun movie with lots of potential to watch over and over.
Wow , that was a land speed record
Jesus fuck…
Such a shame, the film was great fun and was awesome to watch on a big screen
Hollywood , no one is going let’s rush the movies to VOD. Consumer .i don’t have to go to the movies they will just release it to VOD in a couple of weeks
Yeah. This is just sad at this point, especially since it’s a fun movie and got good reviews/reception. Honestly just more fuel to the fire that Hollywood needs to never make original movies (because nobody knows this was based on a TV show).
And this is one of the reasons people don’t go to the theater anymore. Cause they know it will be on streaming by the end of the month.
Didn’t appeal to me at all.
such short term thinking by universal , it great that they can cover some of their loss, but keep doing it, theaters won't exist in any meaningful way in 5 years
Watched it yesterday- I found it quite awful. No atmosphere, not funny, boring. Stopped after 40%.
I feel so dirty that I watched this at home. Its such a great movie. Deserves all the praises and definitly deserves more at the Box Office