Weekend Numbers | estimates | 15.01M CHALLENGERS | 7.73M UNSUNG HERO | 7.22M GODZILLA×KONG: TNE

[JimmyB]

I think the Fall Guy opening to 30m in March or May would be seen as a failure either way because of the budget.

 

The two most commonly used comps for this are The Lost City (68-74m budget) and Bullet Train (85-90m budget).  Once, Variety reported the budget for Fall Guy was 125m it immediately raises expectations.

 

From Variety - Chill factor: Leitch, whose credits include “Deadpool 2” and “Bullet Train,” has a solid track record of blending gonzo with goofy. But big-budget action films have mostly fallen out of favor at the box office. At the same time, all of those practical effects are pricey. “The Fall Guy cost $125 million and requires outsized global ticket sales to justify its existence.

Verdict: Early buzz indicates a fun and funny action-adventure, but it’s hard to make these movies stick, even with two likable stars.

[emoviefan]

6 minutes ago, Maggie said:

I'm not surprised The Fall Guy is not breaking out. As i've already said, to me the concept looks dated. The action=romance=comedy genre reminds of flops like Killers (with Katherine Heigl), Knight and Day. It's just not a genre that's hip/cool these days imo.

Once again maybe the much stronger reviews for this should mean something.  Although  I personally like Knight and Day, It is underrated IMO. I know it is Tom Cruise doing the same old stuff he should get away from. 😃 

[AniNate]

I know why they need to be but I really wish budget numbers weren't public. People interpret that as like the "success/failure" line, and just because a studio spends that much on a specific movie doesn't necessarily mean they expect to earn that back directly through the box office performance. 

 

 

Edited April 27 by AniNate

[AJG]

A thing I’ve seen with films like Challengers and Civil War are that they’re advertised like they’re these Oscar-bait, intellectual, avant-garde cinematic experiences. I feel like I have to put in effort just to sit through them, and I think people might find it off-putting or exhausting. 
 

I wonder how people would take to the movie if they advertised it like fun romantic drama. I think people would appreciate being shocked if the product is good.

[John Marston]

Ok I found this article talking about DVD sales in 2004  and some of these numbers are insane. Movies like Shrek 2 and ROTK making over 300M in DVD sale make sense  but some of these other numbers are wild and random. Master and Commander made 134M on DVD sales? I guess that's why they talked about a sequel. Man on Fire made $123M? No wonder Denzel still kept commanding large paychecks. Open Range made $129M? Haunted Mansion 2003 made 125M? American Wedding made $166m? Maybe studios should dump streaming and go back to making people have to buy or rent a phsyical copy

 

Year End 2004 Top Money Makers (variety.com)

Edited April 27 by John Marston

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

44 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Agreed tbh. It's a rom com - saying it's a tennis movie is like saying Notting Hill is the biggest film in the actor biopic genre - and I don't know if I can recall a rom-com working when the star power was this imbalanced between leads. Sometimes you get a megastar and a more moderate up and coming star, but it's never quite this big of a gulf. Definitely Challengers should be compared in terms of box office and marketing to other rom coms IMO, it's not a sports movie or some small Luca indie film either, it's pretty clearly a well-marketed romance film like a million others we can compare it to.

IMO Challengers could only be considered a "comedy" in the Golden Globes sense, where the definitions are notoriously loose. But the movie isn't selling itself that way (for now), and IMDb lists the genres as "Drama/Romance/Sport", which seems right to me. There are extended match sequences and it got an IMAX poster. It's not 100 percent tennis onscreen but even tennis documentaries don't meet that standard.

 

If I told family/friends that "Challengers is a romcom in the tennis world," they'd probably go in expecting something like Wimbledon and feel extremely misled. If I were telling someone what it's actually like, I'd say "Cruel Intentions with sports and a pinch of The Dreamers thrown in".

[John Marston]

23 minutes ago, AniNate said:

I know why they need to be but I really wish budget numbers weren't public. People interpret that as like the "success/failure" line, and just because a studio spends that much on a specific movie doesn't necessarily mean they expect to earn that back directly through the box office performance. 

 

 

 

 

so basically, you want box office discussion places to die? 

 

Also, it's kind of weird this is the movie that now has caused people to go "why are we even talking about the budget?!". I mean you could easily make that argument for John Carter saying "Well 285M is pretty damn good for a movie based on a book from the early 1900s and with no stars. Who cares if the budget was 300M?"

[thajdikt]

Zendaya can act.

[AJG]

6 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Ok I found this article talking about DVD sales in 2004  and some of these numbers are insane. Movies like Shrek 2 and ROTK making over 300M in DVD sale make sense  but some of these other numbers are wild and random. Master and Commander made 134M on DVD sales? I guess that's why they talked about a sequel. Man on Fire made $123M? No wonder Denzel still kept commanding large paychecks. Open Range made $129M? Haunted Mansion 2003 made 125M? American Wedding made $166m? Maybe studios should dump streaming and go back to making people have to buy or rent a phsyical copy

 

Year End 2004 Top Money Makers (variety.com)

 

 

Michael Mann’s Heat is a top ten all time DVD seller for WB.

[TomThomas]

3 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Zendaya can act.

When she acts herself, agree.

[JimmyB]

The trades have been reporting on movies budgets for over a 100 years.  Which movies are seen as financial winners and losers have been a part of Hollywood forever.  It's always been a dick measuring contest....from RKO Pictures to MGM to WB to Disney. 

[ringedmortality]

7 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

The trades have been reporting on movies budgets for over a 100 years.  Which movies are seen as financial winners and losers have been a part of Hollywood forever.  It's always been a dick measuring contest....from RKO Pictures to MGM to WB to Disney. 

 

It's almost like the movie business is a business or something

[emoviefan]

I think the problem with the budget reporting is that studios lie all the time so you never know if what you are hearing is accurate in the first place.

[Jake Gittes]

53 minutes ago, AJG said:

A thing I’ve seen with films like Challengers and Civil War are that they’re advertised like they’re these Oscar-bait, intellectual, avant-garde cinematic experiences. I feel like I have to put in effort just to sit through them, and I think people might find it off-putting or exhausting.

 

I think you're just trying to say that they're films for adults.

[filmlover]

Just got out of Challengers. Quick thoughts: a solid but far from perfect movie, but I do think Zendaya is clearly a commanding screen presence between this and everything else I've seen her in. Heck, even in Euphoria (count me among those who hate-watch it), she's easily the best thing it has going for it.

[Brainbug]

36 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Ok I found this article talking about DVD sales in 2004  and some of these numbers are insane. Movies like Shrek 2 and ROTK making over 300M in DVD sale make sense  but some of these other numbers are wild and random. Master and Commander made 134M on DVD sales? I guess that's why they talked about a sequel. Man on Fire made $123M? No wonder Denzel still kept commanding large paychecks. Open Range made $129M? Haunted Mansion 2003 made 125M? American Wedding made $166m? Maybe studios should dump streaming and go back to making people have to buy or rent a phsyical copy

 

Year End 2004 Top Money Makers (variety.com)

 

Streaming made everything worse for all partys involved except most customers: The extremely lucrative DVD/Blu-Ray market was destroyed with only collectors now buying them and streaming is still (as far as i know) a moneyloser for all studios.

 

So they ditched a golden moneymaker to have a moneyloser instead. Peak capitalism right there (yes thats irony).

[MysteryMovieMogul]

6 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

I think you're just trying to say that they're films for adults.

Completely agree. 

 

That said, I wonder if now would be a good return to the Movie Trailer Guy voiceover years...

[AJG]

14 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

I think you're just trying to say that they're films for adults.

They’re both movies for adults the same way Frasier was a sitcom for “smart” people.
I’m saying they should be sold like something that actually looks appealing rather than Letterboxd approved critic bait.

Edited April 27 by AJG

[AniNate]

I do think Netflix has regrettably figured out a way to make it work for them, but we are seeing a pivot by other studios away from an assumption that it's the dominant medium of the future. There is clearly a market still for the big screen experience even if it does have more competition. 

 

Maybe dvds will come back someday as a nostalgic fad the way vinyl has for music.

[poweranimals]

I'm surprised Unsung Hero has a 100% audience score with 250+ reviews.