Weekend estimates | 31.70M GODZILLA × KONG: TNE | 10.10M MONKEY MAN | 9.00M GHOSTBUSTERS: FE | 8.36M THE FIRST OMEN | 7.85M KFP IV | 7.20M DUNE II

[AniNate]

Mainly just hurts to have such a weak looking April at the box office now when the year's already $150mil plus in the hole compared to last. The deficit looks like it's gonna grow significantly. Gonna be a long wait for the blockbusters to come back and they really need to hit hard.

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

The First Omen was always in a weird position given how that was a franchise that never should have been and had the prequelitis syndrome. Disney seemingly having no confidence in it despite being apparently good didn’t help either.

 

as for Monkey Man, having seen the film last night, it’s good but it’s very much not your typical action revenge film. There’s a lot of swings taken by Patel thematically and stylistically, some of which work and some don’t. Since it’s low budget enough it won’t flop and probably will be set as a decent success, but not much beyond that.

[el sid]

1 hour ago, stripe said:

What would be a good result for both openers?

 

Anyways...

Jat's number is not official, so there's still hope

&

Cocaine Bear managed to open to 23M after 2M previews. So there will be still hope after previews are official
 

 

You're right, 10M+ OW seems very pessimistic. Expendables 4 with bad WOM and reviews got 750k from previews and opened to 8M.

At least in my theaters (of course that's only 7 theaters) its Friday and also Saturday presales were quite solid. Maybe it can at least reach 15M or something.

[reddevil19]

22 minutes ago, AMC Theaters Enjoyer said:

as for Monkey Man, having seen the film last night, it’s good but it’s very much not your typical action revenge film. There’s a lot of swings taken by Patel thematically and stylistically, some of which work and some don’t. Since it’s low budget enough it won’t flop and probably will be set as a decent success, but not much beyond that.

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.

[Cmasterclay]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

I'm not sure how much potential there ever really was for The First Omen even with the good reviews. The original movie is probably remembered more as a concept (what if a small child was the Antichrist?) than an actual film these days, and its status as a horror IP has always been lacking compared to other franchises, with the most recent attempt to revive it in the past couple of decades being a remake that's completely forgotten aside from its gimmicky opening day (and barely even that). Not to mention even if you weren't aware of its earlier connection, horror movies of the sort really are a dime a dozen and it probably looked too similar on the surface to Immaculate (also not posting big numbers). At least it should enjoy a longer shelf life on streaming than if it had been dumped directly to Hulu.

 

Same with Monkey Man and its original Netflix destination. A double digits opening would be fine considering Dev Patel is a solid actor but has never been a draw and it wasn't even on the schedule a dozen weeks ago. In short, these movies shouldn't be used for any arguments for why theaters are dying and whatnot because they were never going to be The Industry's Last Hope, even if an overperformance from either would've been nice.

As usual with these debates, these are totally fair points in a vacuum, but when this kind of explanation for why this was "never going to be a hit actually after all!" is used every time a mid-sized movie disappoints for three consecutive years, it starts to feel like maybe there's a simpler explanation. How many weekends can we come up for justifications while nothing breaks out? Is there any midsized film that WON'T get these excuses?

 

Also, Monkey Man had massive trailer views and online buzz when it dropped, not gonna act like there wasn't anything there.

Edited April 5 by Cmasterclay

[DAJK]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

As usual with these debates, these are totally fair points in a vacuum, but when this kind of explanation for why this was "never going to be a hit actually after all!" is used every time a mid-sized movie disappoints for three consecutive years, it starts to feel like maybe there's a simpler explanation. How many weekends can we come up for justifications while nothing breaks out? Is there any midsized film that WON'T get these excuses?

 

Also, Monkey Man had massive trailer views and online buzz when it dropped, not gonna act like there wasn't anything there.

I can sort of understand Monkey Man not breaking out. It had online buzz, but at the same time nobody I know outside of the “online film / Letterboxd” community had ever heard of it. 
 

Now, if Civil War and Challengers both flop, I won’t really have any excuses. They’ve been pretty big online, and I’ve also heard real-world buzz about both. Monkey Man rather just felt like an online tentpole that never really crossed over. It sucks, but it’s also not incredibly shocking, and goes to show that studios need to figure out how to hit that sweet spot when trying to cross their marketing over from internet hype to real world ticket sales.

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, DAJK said:

I can sort of understand Monkey Man not breaking out. It had online buzz, but at the same time nobody I know outside of the “online film / Letterboxd” community had ever heard of it. 
 

Now, if Civil War and Challengers both flop, I won’t really have any excuses. They’ve been pretty big online, and I’ve also heard real-world buzz about both. Monkey Man rather just felt like an online tentpole that never really crossed over. It sucks, but it’s also not incredibly shocking, and goes to show that studios need to figure out how to hit that sweet spot when trying to cross their marketing over from internet hype to real world ticket sales.

Fair enough! For what it's worth, I totally agree with this. I just want the folks who critique people like me for being "negative" to give me a red line of when it is reasonable for me to be so. Civil War and Challengers a good benchmark in my opinion too, but I'm sure if they fail the usual crowd will just tell me they would have failed no matter what as usual.

[JWR]

I hope Monkey Man has decent WOM. 

[M37]

40 minutes ago, Flopped said:

Is April really that barren? Civil War, Abigail, Challengers, etc. Not saying any of these movies will break out and smash but there's competition on the horizon. 

January had Mean Girls (Civil War), Beekeeper (Monkey Man) and Night Swim (Omen/Abigail). Challengers is the only one that doesn’t have a direct analog, but not expected to do all that much either, and January was absolutely considered barren, coasting off previous month leftovers 

[reddevil19]

1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:

Fair enough! For what it's worth, I totally agree with this. I just want the folks who critique people like me for being "negative" to give me a red line of when it is reasonable for me to be so. Civil War and Challengers a good benchmark in my opinion too, but I'm sure if they fail the usual crowd will just tell me they would have failed no matter what as usual.

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.

 

 

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, reddevil19 said:

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.

 

 

Again, totally fair enough. But I think we all want some mid-sized adult hits. Which ones am I allowed to be down on if they flop, then? Civil War? Horizon? The ScarJo/Channing space movie? Wolfs? I just want to know whether everything is going to have an excuse or we are just gonna admit these movies don't have it anymore.

[babz06]

Yeah I would not put all my eggs in the Civil War or Challengers baskets. Both of those films have drawbacks and honestly any money they make would be a success considering the subject matter.  

The Fall Guy is going to be more of a real litmus test. It’s the first time in several years that the May opening isn’t going to be a Marvel property. 

Edited April 5 by babz06

[TwoMisfits]

2 hours ago, Eric Atreides said:

Civil War is the only one I can see being a breakout. A lot is riding on it. Otherwise, I’ll have to rant about n*stalgic t*y c*mmercials again. I’m out here looking like this rn.

 

 

While I think April will underperform, if I had to throw my marker down on "what movie breaks $20M OW", it would be the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.  Seems like a movie that the movie subscriber base will see even if they really aren't that interested or invested...and that helps give a movie a certain floor.

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

Challengers is one I’m feeling quite good about. Tennis may not be exciting but everyone loves watching hot people play mind games with each other. 
 

Civil War I think will have a good opening weekend based off of interest in the topic but I see WOM not being too great and the legs reflecting that.

[reddevil19]

7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Again, totally fair enough. But I think we all want some mid-sized adult hits. Which ones am I allowed to be down on if they flop, then? Civil War? Horizon? The ScarJo/Channing space movie? Wolfs? I just want to know whether everything is going to have an excuse or we are just gonna admit these movies don't have it anymore.

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.

[JonathanMB]

 

Monkey Man - $1.4 million

First Omen - $725,000

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, reddevil19 said:

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.

This is a good post. And you're absolutely right. I couldn't agree more with every word, right down to me myself skipping movies like Monkey Man that in 2018 I would have obviously been at tomorrow without blinking. But alot of people on these boards, when they call me crazy negative, they aren't saying it's time for me just to accept this new reality (which I do, in fact, need to do) - they're saying this ISN'T the new reality, somehow, and that's crazier than any negative thing I say.

[reddevil19]

5 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

While I think April will underperform, if I had to throw my marker down on "what movie breaks $20M OW", it would be the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.  Seems like a movie that the movie subscriber base will see even if they really aren't that interested or invested...and that helps give a movie a certain floor.

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).

[charlie Jatinder]

Challengers is my pick for April winner.

[Claire of Themyscira]

 

Don't test me! I hope y'all have a good weekend. Wanna see both Monkey Man & The First Omen myself, so Imma try to.