Weekend Numbers | actuals | 27.75M THE FALL GUY | 8.72M SW: EP I - TPM | 7.59M CHALLENGERS | 6.50M TAROT

[ringedmortality]

1 minute ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

They used to put upcoming summer movies on the map but the time has probably passed. A Super Bowl ad only makes sense now for movies coming out within a month, or it's like that surprise Cloverfield thing that dropped on Netflix right after the game.

 

I feel like that's mostly a post-pandemic thing now isn't it? Cause I remember a lot of hype surrounding the Jurassic World spot.

[KGPatt2]

1 hour ago, MightyDargon said:

Oh, so the joke just requires me to be an oblivious moron and ignore the fact that Rowling and Radcliffe/Watson have diametrically opposed views on a social issue that's literally gotten people killed. Got it.

You are blowing my comment way out of proportion. The only and obvious point was to say it's an easy money maker, and not a risk at all to studio decision makers. It was a comment about the discussion over the "risk" of Spider-Man: No Way Home, which obviously wasn't a risk at all, just like a legacy Harry Potter sequel with those 3 actors involved wouldn't be a risk.

 

You have turned this into something it wasn't in any way, shape, or form.

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, MightyDargon said:

Its Metacritic is 73. Lots of movies have a "good not great" score on Metacritic like that. People on here talked it up like it had Fury Road level raves, so SXSW must have had a very different reaction that the critics who watched it elsewhere.

 

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-fall-guy/

 

Maybe I miscalculated what the "raves" were but I don't get the sense paying audiences treated this film as some kind of Barbenheimer level thingy.

Yeah, it's hard to fully describe it but I really got the sense people were "willing" this film to being an "80 metacritic" film with a similar audience score prior to release and it's just very clearly not what reviews said (even 73 is a hair higher than I'd have expected). That's not an attempt to damn the film, it's a good, fun spring/summer blockbuster but it's just not getting the true superlatives. It's not going to be on anyone's "top x films of the year" lists.

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, MightyDargon said:

I hope this doesn't sound trollish. But I don't get this. Is this saying the movie will somehow get better scores if it's shown at a festival? Or that reviews at a festival are more "valid" than others? I'm really confused.

I take him to be saying the opposite: reviews at a festival are in some ways less valid than others because the environment leads to higher grades for the films than they would have gotten in a vacuum.  It's not that it's better that a film gets an A- instead of a B+ because it's at a festival, it's that A- is a better grade than B+ and the festival environment leads reviews to be nudged upwards. 

 

[Flopped]

Fail Guy had a SuperBowl spot? Yikes, the money poured into it...

[AniNate]

Not to say that festivals don't have their use, it is nice to get that reassurance that a movie you're hyped for isn't terrible. Do think it helped put a damper on Civil War arguments.

[PlatnumRoyce]

6 hours ago, excel1 said:

Nobody was out there asking for a Wonka origin film. 

 

Eh, it's been almost 15 years since 2005's Wonka. "No one was asking for it" but kids still read and like Wonka/Dahl and no one wasn't asking for it (premature reboot penalty). No one was actively asking for a Narnia film in the early 21st century but it was a safe bet. 

Edited May 5 by PlatnumRoyce

[AniNate]

I think film twitter at least would've followed the Paddington man wherever he went

[Travod]

i'm gonna die historic on the furiosa road 

[MightyDargon]

Dear Hollywood,

STOP BUYING SUPER BOWL TRAILERS

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

39 minutes ago, ringedmortality said:

 

I feel like that's mostly a post-pandemic thing now isn't it? Cause I remember a lot of hype surrounding the Jurassic World spot.

It's hard to say some hit movies have still advertised during the Super Bowl but someone will argue they would have been hits anyway. Can a Super Bowl ad still put something that's not already a big franchise or well known property on the map?

 

[MightyDargon]

Just now, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

It's hard to say some hit movies have still advertised during the Super Bowl but someone will argue they would have been hits anyway. Can a Super Bowl ad still put something that's not already a big franchise or well known property on the map?

 

At some point prior to 2010 maybe. But it's been long enough that the tactic has failed that it should be abandoned. 

[excel1]

5 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

 

X-Men: Days of Future Past had Patrick Stewart & James McAvoy both playing Professor Xavier along with Ian McKellen & Michael Fassbender both playing Magneto. X:DOFP had a crazy multiverse type of plot. This type of multiverse stuff was all done in the comic books through the decades, so there is nothing original about what happened with Spidey: No Way Home. It's just aping on what had already been done in comics and other movies like X:DOFP or Avengers: Endgame and whatever else. 

 

No, bad comparison. Average audience saw McAvoy playing young Xavier and Stewart playing old Xavier. It's very straight forward.  

 

There continues to be no precedent of 3 different versions of the same character showing up on the screen at the same time. Any normal movie goer is going to go "wtf?".

 

31 minutes ago, KGPatt2 said:

You are blowing my comment way out of proportion. The only and obvious point was to say it's an easy money maker, and not a risk at all to studio decision makers. It was a comment about the discussion over the "risk" of Spider-Man: No Way Home, which obviously wasn't a risk at all, just like a legacy Harry Potter sequel with those 3 actors involved wouldn't be a risk.

 

You have turned this into something it wasn't in any way, shape, or form.

 

lol he clearly missed the sarcasm of your posts. That said, the Potter 9 or TDK4 comparisons are apples to oranges. You bring up 2 examples off continuing a story, which is very straight forward and understandable to a movie goer.

 

Spider-man NWH took 3 completely different, unrelated versions of the same character and put them on the screen at the same time. It isn't continuing an existing story, it was merging 3 completely unrelated ones. There was a giant risk that the general public would go ".....wtf?". It was noted repeatedly in threads both here and over at world of kj. 

[excel1]

Super bowl spots are great for mass appeal concepts. They're not going to move the needle much for something without much inherent demand.

 

This movie is doing solid for what it is, not sure why people are acting as if Gosling is suddenly prime Leo and Blunt is prime Julia Roberts. 

[Cmasterclay]

The Fall Guy was the most mid movie I have ever seen in my entire life. If you laid out all the films ever released in cinemas since Workers Leaving The Lumiere Factory in 1895 by quality, it would be the exact geometric median of all films ever released. It is the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of mid. 

[AniNate]

Universal just threw an obscene amount of money at the Super Bowl this year. Even bought a spot for a fall movie.

I trust they have since learned their lesson that Taylor Swift can only do so much.

[Flopped]

https://twitter.com/meJat32/status/1786921380421734631

[ReturnOfTheBoxOffice]

They should absolutely do a wide rerelease of the Lord of the Rings. No doubt in my mind Fellowship of the Ring makes double what TPM is doing.

[MattW]

Dang, I really thought Phantom Menace would have a bigger Sat bump. Still very impressive.

[AniNate]

15 minutes ago, ReturnOfTheBoxOffice said:

They should absolutely do a wide rerelease of the Lord of the Rings. No doubt in my mind Fellowship of the Ring makes double what TPM is doing.

 

They are. Next month.