Weekend Numbers [05.24 - 05.27, 2024] | 4-day actuals | 32.3M FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA | 31.3M THE GARFIELD MOVIE | 22.3M IF | 17.6M KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

[Ledmonkey96]

4 hours ago, filmnerdjamie said:

 

Not really sure how it's going to make 13.5mil on Sunday/Monday after making 15mil True Friday/Saturday

[vale9001]

3 hours ago, Speedorito said:

I think people are exaggerating the “cult” status. No, it’s not Fast and Furious, but it was still an R-rated film that made 380M dollars in 2015. And one of the main narratives around the film is that it found a second life after theaters. Furiosa making less than Fury Road isn’t terrible, but this low is bad.

 

What Is more cult than blade runner? And people didn't show up for the sequel.

Not everything deserves a sequel, let alone a prequel. 

 

And with this i'm not saying you can't make a good sequel or prequel but just more people, even if they liked the original, don't need or ask for something more.

[vale9001]

i mean 2001 has a sequel (cause it's actually a book series) but how is popular the sequel in comparison with the original? Like the 5% of it or even less?. So people watch 2001 (most of them i would say like it 😅) they read there is a sequel but they just don't care to watch a sequel. 

 

This seems particular true anyways with sci fi as genre. Blade runner, now mad max, even the last Matrix was a big flop after a long hiatus. If minority report would became like viral-cult or whatever i guess people just don't care to watch a sequel after 20 years. That's all.

[Ryan Reynolds]

‘Garfield’ In Dead Heat With ‘Furiosa’ At Weakened Memorial Day Weekend Box Office – Sunday AM Update

EARLY SUNDAY AM UPDATE: The 4-day fight between Warner Bros‘ Furiosa and Alcon/Sony‘s The Garfield Movie will drag out into Monday, both titles currently in a dead heat eyeing $31M over 4-days, $25M over 3 days.

There are those showing the 48-year old comic strip feline eating the one-armed desert renegade’s lunch with $31M to $30.96M, but it’s too close to call right now. In regards, to Garfield upsetting Furiosa, we told you this was in the cards.

Whether Garfield or Furiosa wins, it will be the lowest opening for a Memorial Day weekend No. 1 title in 29 years, the last being 1995’s Casper at $22M.

Edited May 26 by Ryan Reynolds

[Noctis]

Horrible numbers all around. Disappointing to say the least. 

 

The lockdown has had enormous, arguably permanent effects on movie-viewing habits worldwide. The sheer plethora of film and television selection coupled with films in theaters subsequently being released on digital far sooner than they did pre-COVID, with the high prices for concessions...has made people far more comfortable staying at home.

 

Even for films like Dune Part 2 which are meant to be seen on the biggest screen possible...would have done over $900m+ WW in a pre-Covid environment.

[Landon1195]

Will Apes break even?

[PatrickvD]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think this was rejected by audiences because it didn’t star Charlize Theron. That was a career defining role for her and loved by both critics and audiences. 
 

ATJ is a Netflix actress. She’s not putting butts in seats. Especially not for a franchise that appeals to an older crowd, who don’t really know who she is.

 

And on top of that Chris Hemsworth was never going to attract anyone to anything that isn’t Thor. And even that is over. 

[vale9001]

26 minutes ago, Noctis said:

Horrible numbers all around. Disappointing to say the least. 

 

The lockdown has had enormous, arguably permanent effects on movie-viewing habits worldwide. The sheer plethora of film and television selection coupled with films in theaters subsequently being released on digital far sooner than they did pre-COVID, with the high prices for concessions...has made people far more comfortable staying at home.

 

Even for films like Dune Part 2 which are meant to be seen on the biggest screen possible...would have done over $900m+ WW in a pre-Covid environment.

 

 

This. I don't think "people want to see only big movies on theaters, not dramas" etc . is true. After all Scorsese opened (during a strike and with no promotion) near to the fall guy or Furiosa and with a 4 hours movie vs 2 hours movie. It's not about genres.

 

I think what's ruining most than everything It's these new windows.

I think you can spend 12 dollars of a ticket to see that movie on a big screen and with people around you but It's annoying you have to spend that and then just 40 days after the movie is on some platform you probably spend another 12 at month to use It.

 

In France movie can't be in any platform for 14 months after the theater release (14 months!).

Basically or you Watch It on a big screen or you have to wait (legally at least) 14 months to see It. This definitely helps a lot to convince you to go to the cinema. 

Policies like these are needed with laws like in France and other countries but Usa Is the land of the liberalism so i guess can't happen. 

 

 

[thedast]

5 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

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 think some people are in denial because unlike blaming it on the genre, or ticket prices, there's not much you can do to fix 'people preferring other forms of entertainment now'. It's such a gamble nowadays for possibly just meh rewards: getting up, driving to a theatre, buying pricey snacks and sitting with an audience you don't care for/watching a less than great projection of something you might not love, for 2 hrs when you could find instant entertainment on social media ( a lot with good production quality) or streaming. The pandemic and then the strikes just enforced people realizing they would be fine if they don't rush to a theatre. Youtube reactors now skip the cinema so they can react to movies on their channel and get paid to watch things. Hollywood played itself for sure but the internet was always going to win, just like it won for music sales. 

 

On the upside I guess, I'm sure the same thing happened to Broadway and it's still standing, just more of a niche thing now. Theatrical won't die but we were already in an era where gamers and influencers were becoming more popular/aspirational than actors. Doesn't help much that film guys spent the past few years shitting on the few properties that were consistently doing well. I guess they hoped that if people stopped watching CBMs they would watch their critical darlings but that was delusional.  

Edited May 26 by thedast

[CJohn]

Pretty crappy Saturday for both main openers.

[grim22]

1 minute ago, CJohn said:

Pretty crappy Saturday for both main openers.

Theaters are dead? Movies are dead? Long live streaming?

[Krissykins]

I’ve seen 30 theatrical films and only 1 streaming film this year. 
 

Streaming is more for TV shows IMO, and that’s reflected most weeks in the Neilsen numbers. A film usually struggles to make it into the top 10 overall chart. Maybe they’re doing better on digital. 

[CJohn]

10 minutes ago, grim22 said:

Theaters are dead? Movies are dead? Long live streaming?

Too far gone into adult life to care.

[JustLurking]

1 hour ago, PatrickvD said:

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think this was rejected by audiences because it didn’t star Charlize Theron. That was a career defining role for her and loved by both critics and audiences. 
 

ATJ is a Netflix actress. She’s not putting butts in seats. Especially not for a franchise that appeals to an older crowd, who don’t really know who she is.

 

And on top of that Chris Hemsworth was never going to attract anyone to anything that isn’t Thor. And even that is over. 

Calling ATJ a Netflix actress just because she starred in one popular Netflix series is quite weird, and demeaning to be honest?

 

Not to take anything away from Theron, but I don't see how her reprising her role would have changed much of anything for the film.

Edited May 26 by JustLurking

[charlie Jatinder]

5 hours ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Surprised that bad theater experience is losing. 

The real reason is missing

"Not interested".
 

[Potiki]

30 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

I’ve seen 30 theatrical films and only 1 streaming film this year. 
 

Streaming is more for TV shows IMO, and that’s reflected most weeks in the Neilsen numbers. A film usually struggles to make it into the top 10 overall chart. Maybe they’re doing better on digital. 

A 90-180 minute film is obviously going to be outperformed by a season (or multiple seasons) of 20-60 minute episodes on a metric that looks at total minutes viewed. 

 

Netflix just released their most watched TV seasons and Movies from July to December 2023, for a breakdown. 

 

Films had 2 100m+ views titles, TV none. Film had 13 between 50-100m views, TV had 3. Film had 23 titles between 30-50m, TV had 14. Films generally garner more views but due to their runtime don't appear as high on lists that measure minutes/hours viewed. 

 

As far as Nielsen goes if you averaged for runtimes and look at views most of the top 10 movies would easily outperform the series (both original and acquired) 

 

Edit: link to Netflix data for anyone interested https://about.netflix.com/en/news/what-we-watched-the-second-half-of-2023

Edited May 26 by Potiki

[MrHardapple]

Time for Kevin Costner to save the box office!

[Krissykins]

38 minutes ago, Potiki said:

A 90-180 minute film is obviously going to be outperformed by a season (or multiple seasons) of 20-60 minute episodes on a metric that looks at total minutes viewed. 

 

Netflix just released their most watched TV seasons and Movies from July to December 2023, for a breakdown. 

 

Films had 2 100m+ views titles, TV none. Film had 13 between 50-100m views, TV had 3. Film had 23 titles between 30-50m, TV had 14. Films generally garner more views but due to their runtime don't appear as high on lists that measure minutes/hours viewed. 

 

As far as Nielsen goes if you averaged for runtimes and look at views most of the top 10 movies would easily outperform the series (both original and acquired) 

 

Edit: link to Netflix data for anyone interested https://about.netflix.com/en/news/what-we-watched-the-second-half-of-2023

Hmm that’s from Netflix though, so it’s always a pinch of salt. Nielsen is flawed too, because it only covers one country. 

 

Why do their films have little staying power or cultural impact though. But their TV shows can be phenomenons: Stranger Things, Baby Reindeer, Wednesday. 
 

but yay 21.2m views of Scream 5 (according to Netflix) 

Edited May 26 by Krissykins

[AJG]

2 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

The real reason is missing

"Not interested".
 

 

My personal reason is my TV is too nice to not watch movies on, and that none of the movies being released give me the impression that I'd be missing out on any conversation by not seeing them. There's no must-see factor anymore.

 

I'd argue that Netflix's binge release model really hurt the water-cooler aspect of content promotion. Nobody talks about the new Netflix show because we don't know which episode everyone has seen. Now that mentality has spread to film, in my opinion.

[wildphantom]

1 hour ago, vale9001 said:

 

 

This. I don't think "people want to see only big movies on theaters, not dramas" etc . is true. After all Scorsese opened (during a strike and with no promotion) near to the fall guy or Furiosa and with a 4 hours movie vs 2 hours movie. It's not about genres.

 

I think what's ruining most than everything It's these new windows.

I think you can spend 12 dollars of a ticket to see that movie on a big screen and with people around you but It's annoying you have to spend that and then just 40 days after the movie is on some platform you probably spend another 12 at month to use It.

 

In France movie can't be in any platform for 14 months after the theater release (14 months!).

Basically or you Watch It on a big screen or you have to wait (legally at least) 14 months to see It. This definitely helps a lot to convince you to go to the cinema. 

Policies like these are needed with laws like in France and other countries but Usa Is the land of the liberalism so i guess can't happen. 

 

 

Yes. Another windows believer! Witness us! 
 

totally agree. I know some people think the genie can’t be put back in the bottle but I think it can.  A platform decision/agreement by all the studios that they won’t go digital for minimum 45 days, although I’d prefer at least 60.
 

I don’t buy that this can’t be done. They’ll take a hit for a while as people then realise what’s happening, but I think it’ll have an effect in the long run.

 

Hell, they could come up with a way to tell audiences how long it’ll be exclusive to cinemas, I don’t know. But they could!