MysteryMovieMogul

I don't know. I'm becoming a bit more cynical that the online discussions surrounding The Fall Guy and Furiosa aren't as organic as they may seem. Mostly because, for as "viral" as some social media posts are getting lamenting how badly both films are doing, it's not like Furiosa is getting a bump from this weekend of folks defending the film.

It's interesting reading the "Quotes" for this Tweet or whatever they call them these days. I don't know what any of this actually means in the big scheme of things, though.

Thing is, I can get 3D showings if I travel 30 minutes north or south to a chain theater. Not only is it more of a hassle, but ticket prices are about a $1 more expensive. Personally, the local theater I have access to kinda blows. And that's the thing. I don't live in a major city (My location isn't actually Hollywood). But if I want a better theater experience, I now have to plan my day around it to account for the extra hour of travel, if there's no traffic.

Well, then, I don't owe theaters my time for depriving me of an experience I can't get at home. I guess that's my frustration with theaters. You have to see a film on their terms, and over the years, those terms have gotten worse and worse. No enforcement of phone rules, they don't hire projectionists, concession prices have gotten crazy so if I choose to buy popcorn, I actually feel more disappointed of the film I choose to watch isn't good, etc. Watching a film in theaters will always be better than watching it at home from a visual standpoint. But being able to pee when I want, grab a snack when I want, pause and look at the details when I want, etc. That's more valuable to me than the modern theatrical experience. Although, as I said, 3D showings are my ultimate weakness.

Oh, I didn't see that they actually called people who see films in theaters lunatics. I know I'm going against the grain by saying this, but bring me back my 3D showings. I want to see films in 3D. It's literally an experience I can't get at home. I get it, it's a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that brought me into the theater more often than not!

Damn, what an overreactive reply to something that's unabashedly true. In 2014, 67 films made over $50 million domestically. In 2019, 56 films made over $50 million domestically. Last year, only 50 films made over $50 million domestically. This year, only 11 films have crossed that same $50 million mark domestically. Will there be 39 more films this year that cross the $50 million threshold? I'd like to hope so. There are 31 more weekends left in 2024. It's certainly possible. But will be get to 2019's total? OR even 2014's? Ehh...

I get that this is a box office forum, and that's great for discussing how likely we are to get a sequel, but when it comes to theatrical viewership, all that matters is "bigger number good." Garfield may make money for the studio. Great. But if it doesn't make money for theaters, when the Garfield sequel comes out, there will be less screens for it to play on.

I don't know why so many folks want to ignore patterns. Even films overperforming this year seen to be doing so in comparison to these new patterns. Also, there's an overabundance in other entertainment options compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago. Video games, television shows, YouTubers, TikTok/Instagram/Social Media, etc.

... I guess? Is argue neither Challengers or Atlas have cultural impact. Unless 'a week or two of memes and then no one ever talks about the film again' is what you consider cultural impact.

Dune 2 did do really well, but saying it had great growth is really misleading considering the state of the world when Dune was released.

Three month waits are easier than ever in this culture. If you can last the couple of weeks it takes for people to stop actively talking about the film, then there's an overabundance of television shows on streaming, video game backlogs, and things that come up in real life to make the wait easy in the meantime.

https://www.threads.net/@chelsea.edmundson/post/C7SE2DUPtpD/?xmt=AQGzGPVr8CJtiLRTxGgzV1hO4oaffSuKpfcjhBTcgpdMLg I'm what world was this film going to find an audience of the audience was starting to reject it by week two?

All openings have been really bad compared to what they would be pre-2020. That's kinda been the common thread for the year so far.

Theater culture. Not, like, political culture war. There's more than one type of culture.

I'll never understand cheering for any movie to do bad. Sure, I can see why there's some surface-level catharsis when a DC film fails or a Disney live-action remake crumbles, but that's always followed by the realization that folks won't just suddenly decide to make Civil War a $50 million opening weekend hit. And I use that film as an example because it did great for the budget/studio, but those types of films/openings aren't going to help movie theaters en masse.

I'm sorry to those who don't live in the United States, but I just don't care about any totals besides domestic. How well Garfield plays in Germany or Furiosa in Mexico doesn't alter how much shittier my local theater gets because they can't afford to replace broken lounge chairs or fix small rips in the projection screen or have a proper amount of staff.

It isn't impressive. At all. But it's the new normal. People are quick to throw IF under the bus without going the extra step and realizing if this is what's considered a success for original filmmaking, theaters have bigger problems.

I'm extremely fascinated by IF. I haven't seen the film yet, but based on how polarizing the film is, I really want to. Also, I keep seeing people use the underperformance of the film as proof no one really likes it, but isn't it also the second highest original opening since the pandemic? I'm genuinely confused why both IF and The Fall Guy are part of some weird culture war on films.

Is it? I've been trying to Google this, but can't find anything...?

Also, the film is open about it being a 'Part 1' and even more open that 'Part 2' comes out a couple months later. So you're asking people to be interested so much in this film that they see both parts, only months apart, when most folks only go to a couple films per year already.

Why would/should someone see the second movie if they don't like the first set-up film?

I'm actually more interested in seeing the film in 3D, so I am who this is for.

It's so strange to wish for the Katzenberg days, because DreamWorks Animation's output with him in charge was very hit or miss.

There's a chance my prediction can still be correct!