reddevil19

This looks REALLY bad. Forget about anything regarding the plot, tone, whatever - it just looks incredibly cheap. Netflix CG animated show, NOT a theatrical release. Skip.

So Swift with 50 dollar tickets doesn't hit 200 million domestic, but she's gonna somehow add 500+ million to the box office of an r rated superhero comedy by virtue of her cameo? What a take...

Jesus Christ. You're rewriting history to somehow suggest it underperformed domestically???

I mean, whether it's good or bad, whether people love it or hate it, whether the musical elements are only in support of the movie or the whole thing, whether it collapsed after its OW... Those are all valid questions. But undoubtedly the buzz is there. This is gonna open much higher than the first.

Oh, God...we're on the runtime discussion, huh? Personally, I only ever get worried about runtimes if they seem excessively short and there's also some barely disguised issues with the production. Like, 90-100 minute movies that are meant to have wide-ranging consequences and cover huge canvases are going to be red flags. But just over 2 hours is obviously not inherently an issue. I felt the second Deadpool had some major pacing issues. It just didn't flow well. Runtime had nothing to do with that.

To be fair, in line with my thinking that cinemas are being reserved for event, proper PLF experience movies, this year is sorely lacking in that respect, especially in the April-Sep period. March had a few, May has three potentials, but one of them is a veeeeeeery old franchise, with the newest iteration ending on a low note box office wise, one is very much dependent on last push marketing and word of mouth building. and the final one is also a very old franchise that - despite being very beloved and the last one being hailed as a MASTERPIECE, it never was a huge box office sensation (and it being a prequel won't help). Bad Boys 4 and Inside Out 2 should help in June. I'm on the fence regarding Bad Boys 4. Obviously the third was quite unexpectedly big, so the lack of buzz right now for it isn't really telling me much. It could just be one of those quiet breakouts, where the fans simply didn't shout about it online and simply went to see it. Inside Out 2 still has to battle the mindset instilled by Disney in its core audience that the movie will be on D+ soon. Elemental showed signs that it's possible and this being a sequel to a beloved movie should help. As much as I hate the idea that Pixar is now basically a sequel machine, you have to admit it's the only way they ca retrain their audience to going back to theatrical exhibition. Pump out sequels to their biggest hits and have a huge theatrical window. Obviously DM4 is gonna be huge, but that mid-July window seems weak AF. Twisters really should open a week earlier than it is (and even then I'm not quite optimistic about its domestic prospects). August and September seem like a disaster to me. If Deadpool and Wolverine doesn't hit well and it's dead by its third weekend, then that's gonna be painful. Alien seems like it might be good, but even then I think the ceiling for the franchise is now Prometheus, and with this being a seemingly smaller production and far less buzz around it, I'd think somewhere between Covenant and Prometheus is more likely. Kraven...I mean, I guess it should be better than Madame Web and do better than that?! Maybe it surprises and becomes a new Venom, but...ugh. Really not feeling it. Beetlejuice 2 is the big question mark. If that does an Alice in Wonderland it could very much keep the entire month afloat. I've got my fingers crossed for it. Transformers One...no idea what that's about right now, so based on the diminishing returns, I'll just go with flop for now. Being animated should help, so once we start seeing more of it, maybe I'll think better of its prospects. Oct-Dec I'm not that worried about. Oct has two good anchors at each end, November has a strong backend leading into December. The one big asterisk for Christmas is Mufasa being the big dog (cat). I mean, it's Lion King related, but that was so badly received despite the box office. I have serious doubts it's going to be an Aquaman 1 level performer, let alone Star Wars or Avatar. I'd be happy with a Wonka-style result for it, but I would like another big movie in that period... Damn, how I'd love a third RDJ Sherlock movie at Christmas. Sigh... I dunno, obviously it's not ideal... I still think that we're probably heading back to an age where distributors again start taking up exhibition, now that the legal aspect isn't a problem anymore.

I'll be honest... I'm one of the people tripped up by this, though not quite necessarily in the way you say. I think that, yes, in the context of real world politics of 2024, it's difficult not to read more into it. It's also difficult for a lot of people to get past the whole "both sides" take that Garland's been throwing out. HOWEVER, that aside, my actual issue is in general with alternate history/parallel universe stuff, I NEED an explanation for why things are why they are if the movie is otherwise trying to be realistic, hard-hitting, gritty, etc. ESPECIALLY when it resembles the real world. So I need an explanation of why things are the way they are in the film and the filmmakers have said "Just because..". That simply isn't good enough for me. Not due to any political issues, but simply the way my brain refuses to engage with the premise. Once the movie is out, if feedback I hear is different, meaning I can get over that, then I'll watch it. I don't know if there's anyone else out there that feels like that, but that's how my brain works.

Rugby World Cup

Sure, 100% - but audiences back then (Jeez, sounds like an age ago) were also far more willing to give that kind of a movie a go and streaming wasn't a threat (or a promise, depending on your point of view) within 30 days... I am a proponent for theatrical runs even for smaller movies because it gives them the chance to build a bit of buzz before hitting streaming and developing from there (as with John Wick). But the window of opportunity in theatrical for such releases is smaller and smaller imo.

Fair enough, haha. I still can't believe that movie is real - theatrical or streaming, the fact that it starts with phone scammers and goes to the places it goes is insane. But I suppose that in a way goes to my point as well: the insanity of the plot, coupled with decently-shot and edited action scenes, with Statham in the lead, do present enough of a hook for it to do well in January. Mind you, I only saw it on streaming a few weeks back. Think it was on NOW TV here in the UK in like late Feb or something?

Something tells me that "projection" is just the prediction form before the previews came out...

Oh, I want that to BE good and DO well, but I am having such Man From UNCLE flashbacks. That was also a movie I loved, but Jeez what a flop. And this has every chance of doing even worse (internationally, at least).

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that for me the verdict has long been in. Just looking at a movie like Challengers as a potential benchmark is not fair towards it, is all I'm saying... As I stated before in the thread - I totally think post-COVID movies need a hook for people to watch them in cinemas: it could be brand, it could be a huge director, right star in the right vehicle with the right marketing, just the visual spectacle for a PLF experience or any combination of that. I think cinemas will continue to exist, but more geared towards the experience that can't be replicated at home. That means proper PLF, with huge screen size, quality projection and sound. And yes, occasionally that will be the "movies are now theme park rides" line that RLM have used in the past, but theme park rides are fucking fun and we all need some fun once in a while. As much as you put "see it in IMAX" across Challengers posters, it won't change the fact that there is no hook for it to be seen in IMAX. There's no insane visuals like Dune, no dumb spectacle of giant monsters like GxK, no proper zeitgeist-breaking, cultural phenom like Barbie, no insane Nolan fanbase (along with him being synonymous with IMAX and so on). In my mind, as I said, the verdict has bene reached - we will still have occasional surprise hits, but by and large the cinema experience seems reserved for movies that NEED TO BE SEEN IN CINEMAS. Either as part of a group experience to not miss out or because the visuals and sound can't be matched at home. It doesn't mean all of them will be 200 million budget movies (hell, look at the budgets for Barbie, Oppenheimer and Mario), but the small-mid budget movies that turn into hits just because people go out and watch movies as part of their usual social life are pretty much dead, since that consumer behaviour is dead... A movie like Challengers doing 80 million is plausible in a world where people go to the movies a couple times a week, with friends, their other half, followed by or preceded by dinner, or maybe they're out in a mall and decide they have a couple of hours and catch whatever's on. That world doesn't exist anymore - going to the cinema has become far more of an actual planned, special activity. You need something to make you make that effort. I have an Unlimited Card. My closest cinema is 5 minutes away. In theory I should be the kind of person that sees and helps these movies out. But I sure as shit ain't going to see Challengers in cinemas and by the time I can go see Monkey Man (due to the screening times), it will be off screen altogether. But I will damn well watch Dune twice, or GxK twice, or Maverick, or Avatar 2 or any number of movies that will feel like the aforementioned thrill rides, with a bucket of popcorn. That's my two cents, at least.

I don't think Challengers is AT ALL a good benchmark. Tennis is one of - if not THE - least successful sports for movie adaptations, the director has never had a genuine big hit and the people that will see it probably will not be getting what they expect out of it either. If that opens to double digits it will be a HUGE success. Let's not go to the opposite end of the spectrum and just claiming potential for movies that does not and never did exist.

This is why I don't have much hope for its legs. It very much seems to be the critics' ideal of a revenge flick, with audiences potentially not quite getting what they were expecting. But we'll see. As always, I want my pessimism to be proven wrong, as I want cinemas to thrive.

I really don't see how it reaches 50 million off a 12 million opening even in a barren April. If there was a chance of a break out, it would have been OW. The reception doesn't seem to be that enthusiastic - to put it another way, it would need to play like the first John Wick. I don't see that happening. Dev is not Keanu and with consumer behaviour being what it is, audiences are less likely to give this kind a movie a try in cinemas. This is the very definition of a streaming movie in a post-pandemic world. There just isn't a hook, a "must-see in cinemas" angle with it. And post-COVID, movies need that hook to succeed theatrically. I still think theatrical is 100% the way to go, as any box office is better than nothing, with streaming just adding to it rather than being the end goal, but we have to accept that in 2023/2024, the first John Wick would also have been a streaming movie...

We have no idea what the timeline even is for his next movie. You're talking about obstacles that are impossible to imagine right now. Maybe his next movie will be a Uni-WB coproduction releasing end of Oct, and they'll lay claim to a date in the next 6 months to the slot, and discussions with IMAX will ensure a free runway leading up to it as well. Or maybe it will be another July release and no other movie will want to go through the Dead Reckoning issue of a short window in PLF, so they won't have any other big movies for a good 2+ weeks before, allowing IMAX to throw screens at Oppenheimer for a couple of screenings a day in every location. You make it sound like it's impossible, when the likelihood is IMAX will bend over backwards for Nolan and will find a solution if something along those lines is required. The big question will be whether Nolan or Uni (depending on whether Nolan stays with them or not) will actually want to push for a big re-release at that point. In short - stop being contrarian for the sake of it.

Yeah, it made way too much money in the original run in PLFs for re-releases to then bring in those numbers anytime soon. If they do a major re-release every couple years, it can eventually get there, but they can't do anymore anytime soon - certainly not before his next film is ready to go. A proper 2 week worldwide PLF run immediately leading up to his next movie COULD get it there...

82.505 million, WB. I dare ya.

Ya, but I was hoping it would actually hit 80. Still, nothing to complain about in the end. Hopefully the legs are good from here.

Ouch. That's a hell of a drop.

I guess it comes down to us having very different points if view. You have the Mandalorian as a positive example but I think that series is absolutely atrocious, but even then the voice acting offers something you won't have with Godzilla. Crucially, you had the stupid little muppet for everyone to ooh and aah over. Which, obviously you can do here as well, with various side characters but that juts goes to my point that Godzilla works as either a destructive God-like force or part of a very large ensamble of characters. And there is zero evidence that this series can deliver on the character work to compensate for the lack of sad ape faces and big simian eyes. But make no mistake, I am pulling for them and hope they find a way to make it work.

Here's the thing...that's probably going to be a disaster. There's a reason Kong works as a protagonist - it's an ape. Giant, yes, but especially within the context of huge chunks of the runtime without any humans, that size is almost irrelevant. It's a very human performance. It's the same reason the new Planet of the Apes movies work so well. You can do a lot of actual emotion and non-verbal communication and expression with such a character. With Godzilla, it's not going to work. Which means that "by delving deeper into the character", they're gonna end up having to rely a lot on some human characters doing the heavy-lifting. And they've clearly been unable to do good human characters in this series. I think that's a direction that might end up putting the breaks on the series again. It's Kong, not Godzilla that's carrying this franchise.

I think Dune's international performance compared to domestic says it all. Yes, part 2 has increased internationally, but it's not a huge jump overall, from an already great result for part 1. Domestically, meanwhile, it's night and day. MAX was not a thing internationally in 2021, so it's very clear what happened there. Obviously I'm not arguing part 1 would have made 250+ domestically without MAX, but it's evident just how much it impacted the domestic numbers when you look at and compare the international results for the two films. And GxK is probably going to end up in a similar situation...

It's not the looks, because he is conventionally attractive. But there's just something about him that's currently missing in terms of romantic charm, charisma and confidence. He's ok for a late 90's - early 00's teen rom com type of role, but the Spidey movie scratch that itch. Beyond that, I don't see it and I guess a lot of people in Hollywood feel the same way otherwise he WOULD be pushed out there more for such roles. Personally, I remain completely unconvinced by Holland as a lead outside Spidey, but as he matures maybe that will change.